Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Who are the angriest politicians on Twitter?

Ronna McDaniel

Republican National Committee Chairman is the angriest political figure on Twitter, according to one study.

Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Are Republicans angrier than Democrats? Such a broad question cannot be answered at this time, but when it comes to Twitter the angriest Republicans are angrier than the angriest Democrats, according to a new study.

Preply, an online tool for learning languages, studied the Twitter accounts of the 85 political figures with the most followers to determine who is the angriest tweeter. And the “winner” is ... Republican National Committee Chairman Ronna McDaniel.


More than half (52.3 percent) of McDaniel’s September tweets were deemed to be angry by Preply’s machine learning model.

Of the 25 politicians who issue angriest tweets the most often, 19 are Republicans (including the top 15) and five are Democrats. The remaining person is former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, who ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 but recently became an independent. Rounding out the top five are four other Republican allies of former President Donald Trump: Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

The highest ranked Democrat is Rep. Eric Swalwell of California, a vocal opponent of Trump. He placed 16th in September, with 44.3 percent of his tweets tagged as angry.

In addition to measuring who tweeted angry messages the most often, Preply also measured the intensity of that anger. The same five Republicans landed in the top five on that list as well. While McDaniel again had the highest score, the order of the five was shuffled.

All of this anger comes as the threat of violence against politicians is on the rise. Just days ago, Paul Pelosi, the husband of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was attacked in their San Francisco home by a man searching for the speaker. That man, Paul DePape, has been linked to far-right conspiracy theories, including unfounded claims about the 2020 election.

The same day as that attack, federal security agencies issued a warning about potential threats against political candidates.

“Angry tweets only make the difficult work of engaging the real differences in our country more challenging. Neither side can wish the other away,” said Keith Allred, executive director of the National Institute for Civil Discourse. “The only option is to address our differences constructively and on the merits.”

The Preply study also examined the difference in tone between politicians' official Twitter accounts and their personal handles. Many were noticeably angrier in their personal accounts.

While Rep. Steve Scalise, the second-ranking Republican in the House of Representatives had the biggest difference between his official and personal “anger” scores, he was followed immediately by three of the most outspoken House Democrats: Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Read the full report.


Read More

An illustration of a block with the words, "AI," on it, surrounded by slightly smaller caution signs.

The future of AI should be measured by its impact on ordinary Americans—not just tech executives and investors. Exploring AI inequality, labor concerns, and responsible innovation.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Kayla Test: Exploring How AI Impacts Everyday Americans

We’re failing the Kayla Test and running out of time to pass it. Whether AI goes “well” for the country is not a question anyone in SF or DC can answer. To assess whether AI is truly advancing the interests of Americans, AI stakeholders must engage with more than power users, tokenmaxxers, and Fortune 500 CEOs. A better evaluation is to talk to folks like Kayla, my Lyft driver in Morgantown, WV, and find out what they think about AI. It's a test I stumbled upon while traveling from an AI event at the West Virginia University College of Law to one at Stanford Law.

Kayla asked me what I do for a living. I told her that I’m a law professor focused on AI policy. Those were the last words I said for the remainder of the ride to the airport.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close up of a person on their phone at night.

From “Patriot Games” to The Hunger Games, how spectacle, social media, and political culture risk normalizing violence and eroding empathy.

Getty Images, Westend61

The Capitol Is Counting on Us to Laugh

When the Trump administration announced the Patriot Games, many people laughed. Selecting two children per state for a nationally televised sports competition looked too much like Suzanne Collins’ Hunger Games to take seriously. But that instinct, to laugh rather than look closer, is one the Capitol is counting on. It has always been easier to normalize violence when it arrives dressed as entertainment or patriotism.

Here’s what I mean: The Hunger Games starts with the reaping, the moment when a Capitol official selects two children, one boy and one girl, to fight to the death against tributes from every other district. The games were created as an annual reminder of a failed rebellion, to remind the districts that dissent has consequences. At first, many Capitol residents saw the games as a just punishment. But sentiments shifted as the spectacle grew—when citizens could bet on winners, when a death march transformed into a beauty pageant, when murder became a pathway to celebrity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Technology and Presidential Election

Anthropic’s Mythos AI raises alarms about surveillance, deepfakes, and democracy. Why urgent AI regulation is needed as U.S. policy struggles to keep pace.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

How the Latest in AI Threatens Democracy

On April 24, America got a wake-up call from Anthropic, one of the nation’s leading artificial intelligence companies. It announced a new AI tool, called Mythos, that can identify flaws in computer networks and software systems that, as Politico puts it, “Even the brightest human minds have been unable to identify.”

A machine smarter than the “brightest human minds” sounds like a line from a dystopian science fiction movie. And if that weren’t scary enough, we now have a government populated by people who seem oblivious to the risks AI poses to democracy and humanity itself.

Keep ReadingShow less
Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate
the letters are made up of different colors

Who’s Responsible When AI Causes Harm?: Unpacking the Federal AI Liability Framework Debate

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key takeaways

  • The U.S. has no national AI liability law. Instead, a patchwork of state laws has emerged which has resulted in legal protections being dependent on where an individual resides.
  • It’s often unclear who is legally responsible when AI causes harm. This gap leaves many people with no clear path to seek help.
  • In March 2026, the White House and Congress introduced major proposals to establish a federal standard, but there is significant disagreement about whether that standard should prioritize protecting innovation or protecting people harmed by AI systems.

Background: A Patchwork of State Laws

Without a national AI law, states have been filling in the gaps on their own. The result is an uneven landscape where a person’s legal protections depend entirely on which state they live in.

Keep ReadingShow less