Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Could Trump’s campaign against the media come back to bite conservatives?

Opinion

Could Trump’s campaign against the media come back to bite conservatives?

US President Donald Trump reacts next to Erika Kirk, widow of Charlie Kirk, after speaking at the public memorial service for right-wing activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, on September 21, 2025.

(Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

In the wake of Jimmy Kimmel’sapparently temporary— suspension from late-night TV, a (tragically small) number of prominent conservatives and Republicans have taken exception to the Trump administration’s comfort with “jawboning” critics into submission.

Sen. Ted Cruz condemned the administration’s “mafioso behavior.” He warned that “going down this road, there will come a time when a Democrat wins again — wins the White House … they will silence us.” Cruz added during his Friday podcast. “They will use this power, and they will use it ruthlessly. And that is dangerous.”


Ben Shapiro, the MAGA-adjacent media mogul, concurred. While he offered little sympathy for Kimmel, he too warned against the moral hazard problem. “I do not want the FCC in the business of telling local affiliates that their licenses will be removed if they broadcast material that the FCC deems to be informationally false,” Shapiro said. “Why? Because one day the shoe will be on the other foot.”

There were others, including Sen. Rand Paul. But not many. They should be congratulated for offering any pushback against the new right’s strange mix of bullying and moral panic in the wake of the heinous murder of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.

Indeed, it’s remarkable that the dual response to Kirk’s killing has been for his admirers to simultaneously praise Kirk’s commitment to free speech while showing very little such commitment themselves.

The cognitive dissonance has been remarkable. Kirk — rightlyridiculed the concept of “hate speech” as a legal category. “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free,” Kirk posted last year.

Yet, in response to the at times ugly, gross and evil speech that followed Kirk’s murder, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi promised that “especially after what happened to Charlie,” Trump’s Justice Department “will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

The president, as is so often the case, made the issue about himself, saying that if news coverage about him is too lopsidedly negative “that’s no longer free speech.” When network news casts a good story in a bad light, Trump said, “See, I think that’s really illegal.”

But there’s a problem with the primary argument offered by Cruz, Shapiro and others on the right in response to the administration’s heel turn on the 1st Amendment. And the problem is not that they’re wrong. Cruz and Shapiro are obviously correct to worry that a future Democratic administration could exploit the precedents Trump is laying down to target right-wing media. Indeed, many argue — correctly — that Trump is exploiting precedents laid down by the last Democratic administration. This is oft-repeated argument for retribution: “They did it to us first.”

Again, the problem with the “they did it to us first” and the “they could do this to us later” arguments — about censorship but also “lawfare,” congressional redistricting, etc. — is not that they’re wrong. It’s that they sidestep the wrongness of the deeds themselves.

Just for purposes of illustration, consider that Kirk’s murder was wrong, regardless of anything he said or anything you might believe he said. Murder is wrong independent of any other considerations (if there are mitigating factors for taking a life, we stop calling it murder). If a right-winger kills some prominent left-wing influencer as “payback,” that would be wrong too. As a matter of moral logic, bad acts cannot be justified by other bad acts. We are all taught this from childhood: Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Unfortunately, because of the tribal logic of our time, this ancient moral precept has been supplanted by the “Chicago way” — any transgression that they visit upon us must be repaid with interest.

I don’t condemn the argument that conservatives should be wary of reaping later what they are sowing now. Warning that they might be on the receiving end of the Chicago way the next time Democrats are in power just may be the only argument that many on the right are willing to buy right now. But I do lament how tribalism causes each tribe to forgo arguments based on objective standards. Using the government to punish critical speech is wrong, regardless of who is in power and regardless of whether the criticism is right or fair.

When you argue that you have to fight fire with fire, not only does everything get burned, you let your opponents’ indefensible behavior become your new standard for defensible behavior.

Oh, just for the record, you don’t fight fire with fire. You fight it with water. And a lot of people could use a splash of cold water right about now.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Read More

On Live Facial Recognition in the City: We Are Not Guinea Pigs, and We Are Not Disposable

New Orleans fights a facial recognition ordinance as residents warn of privacy risks, mass surveillance, and threats to immigrant communities.

Getty Images, PhanuwatNandee

On Live Facial Recognition in the City: We Are Not Guinea Pigs, and We Are Not Disposable

Every day, I ride my bike down my block in Milan, a tight-knit residential neighborhood in central New Orleans. And every day, a surveillance camera follows me down the block.

Despite the rosy rhetoric of pro-surveillance politicians and facial recognition vendors, that camera doesn’t make me safer. In fact, it puts everyone in New Orleans at risk.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Manosphere Is Bad for Boys and Worse for Democracy
a skeleton sitting at a desk with a laptop and keyboard
Photo by Growtika on Unsplash

The Manosphere Is Bad for Boys and Worse for Democracy

15-year-old Owen Cooper made history to become the youngest male to win an Emmy Award. In the Netflix series Adolescence, Owen plays the role of a 13-year-old schoolboy who is arrested after the murder of a girl in his school. As we follow the events leading up to the crime, the award-winning series forces us to confront legitimate insecurities that many teenage boys face, from lack of physical prowess to emotional disconnection from their fathers. It also exposes how easily young men, seeking comfort in their computers, can be pulled into online spaces that normalize misogyny and rage; a pipeline enabled by a failure of tech policy.

At the center of this danger lies the manosphere: a global network of influencers whose words can radicalize young men and channel their frustrations into violence. But this is more than a social crisis affecting some young men. It is a growing threat to the democratic values of equality and tolerance that keep us all safe.

Keep ReadingShow less
Your Data Isn’t Yours: How Social Media Platforms Profit From Your Digital Identity

Discover how your personal data is tracked, sold, and used to control your online experience—and how to reclaim your digital rights.

Getty Images, Sorapop

Your Data Isn’t Yours: How Social Media Platforms Profit From Your Digital Identity

Social media users and digital consumers willingly present a detailed trail of personal data in the pursuit of searching, watching, and engaging on as many platforms as possible. Signing up and signing on is made to be as easy as possible. Most people know on some level that they are giving up more data than they should , but with hopes that it won’t be used surreptitiously by scammers, and certainly not for surveillance of any sort.

However, in his book, "Means of Control," Byron Tau shockingly reveals how much of our digital data is tracked, packaged, and sold—not by scammers but by the brands and organizations we know and trust. As technology has deeply permeated our lives, we have willingly handed over our entire digital identity. Every app we download, every document we create, every social media site we join, there are terms and conditions that none of us ever bother to read.

That means our behaviors, content, and assets are given up to corporations that profit from them in more ways than the average person realizes. The very data and the reuse of it are controlling our lives, our freedom, and our well-being.

Let’s think about all this in the context of a social media site. It is a place where you interact with friends, post family photos, and highlight your art and videos. You may even share a perspective on current events. These very social media platforms don’t just own your content. They can use your behavior and your content to target you. They also sell your data to others, and profit massively off of YOU, their customer.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel next to a computer chip with the words "AI" on it.

Often, AI policy debates focus on speculative risks rather than real-world impacts. Kevin Frazier argues that lawmakers and academics must shift their focus from sci-fi scenarios to practical challenges.

Getty Images, Just_Super

Why Academic Debates About AI Mislead Lawmakers—and the Public

Picture this: A congressional hearing on “AI policy” makes the evening news. A senator gravely asks whether artificial intelligence might one day “wake up” and take over the world. Cameras flash. Headlines declare: “Lawmakers Confront the Coming Robot Threat.” Meanwhile, outside the Beltway on main streets across the country, everyday Americans worry about whether AI tools will replace them on factory floors, in call centers, or even in classrooms. Those bread-and-butter concerns—job displacement, worker retraining, and community instability—deserve placement at the top of the agenda for policymakers. Yet legislatures too often get distracted, following academic debates that may intrigue scholars but fail to address the challenges that most directly affect people’s lives.

That misalignment is no coincidence. Academic discourse does not merely fill journals; it actively shapes the policy agenda and popular conceptions of AI. Too many scholars dwell on speculative, even trivial, hypotheticals. They debate whether large language models should be treated as co-authors on scientific papers or whether AI could ever develop consciousness. These conversations filter into the media, morph into lawmaker talking points, and eventually dominate legislative hearings. The result is a political environment where sci-fi scenarios crowd out the issues most relevant to ordinary people—like how to safeguard workers, encourage innovation, and ensure fairness in critical industries. When lawmakers turn to scholars for guidance, they often encounter lofty speculation rather than clear-eyed analysis of how AI is already reshaping specific sectors.

Keep ReadingShow less