Category: Politics

When Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem compared antifa to the transnational criminal group MS-13, Hamas and the Islamic State group in October 2025, she equated a nonhierarchical, loosely organized movement of antifascist activists with some of the world’s most violent and organized militant groups.

“Antifa is just as dangerous,” she said.

It’s a sweeping claim that ignores crucial distinctions in ideology, organization and scope. Comparing these groups is like comparing apples and bricks: They may both be organizations, but that’s where the resemblance stops.

Noem’s statement echoed the logic of a September 2025 Trump administration executive order that designated antifa as a “domestic terrorist organization.” The order directs all relevant federal agencies to investigate and dismantle any operations, including the funding sources, linked to antifa.

But there is no credible evidence from the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security that supports such a comparison. Independent terrorism experts don’t see the similarities either.

Data shows that the movement can be confrontational and occasionally violent. But antifa is neither a terrorist network nor a major source of organized lethal violence.

Antifa, as understood by scholars and law enforcement, is not an organization in any formal sense. It lacks membership rolls and leadership hierarchies. It doesn’t have centralized funding.

As a scholar of social movements, I know that antifa is a decentralized movement animated by opposition to fascism and far-right extremism. It’s an assortment of small groups that mobilize around specific protests or local issues. And its tactics range from peaceful counterdemonstrations to mutual aid projects.

For example, in Portland, Oregon, local antifa activists organized counterdemonstrations against far-right rallies in 2019.

Antifa groups active in Houston during Hurricane Harvey in 2017 coordinated food, supplies and rescue support for affected residents.

No evidence of terrorism

The FBI and DHS have classified certain anarchist or anti-fascist groups under the broad category of “domestic violent extremists.” But neither agency nor the State Department has ever previously designated antifa as a terrorist organization.

The data on political violence reinforces this point.

A 2022 report by the Counter Extremism Project found that the overwhelming majority of deadly domestic terrorist incidents in the United States in recent years were linked to right-wing extremists. These groups include white supremacists and anti-government militias that promote racist or authoritarian ideologies. They reject democratic authority and often seek to provoke social chaos or civil conflict to achieve their goals.

Left-wing or anarchist-affiliated violence, including acts attributed to antifa-aligned people, accounts for only a small fraction of domestic extremist incidents and almost none of the fatalities. Similarly, in 2021, the George Washington University Program on Extremism found that anarchist or anti-fascist attacks are typically localized, spontaneous and lacking coordination.

By contrast, the organizations Noem invoked – Hamas, the Islamic State group and MS-13 – share structural and operational characteristics that antifa lacks.

They operate across borders and are hierarchically organized. They are also capable of sustained military or paramilitary operations. They possess training pipelines, funding networks, propaganda infrastructure and territorial control. And they have orchestrated mass casualties such as the 2015 Paris attacks and the 2016 Brussels bombings.

In short, they are military or criminal organizations with strategic intent. Noem’s claim that antifa is “just as dangerous” as these groups is not only empirically indefensible but rhetorically reckless.

Turning dissent into ‘terrorism’

So why make such a claim?

Noem’s statement fits squarely within the Trump administration’s broader political strategy that has sought to inflate the perceived threat of left-wing activism.

Casting antifa as a domestic terrorist equivalent of the Islamic State nation or Hamas serves several functions.

It stokes fear among conservative audiences by linking street protests and progressive dissent to global terror networks. It also provides political cover for expanded domestic surveillance and harsher policing of protests.

Additionally, it discredits protest movements critical of the right. In a polarized media environment, such rhetoric performs a symbolic purpose. It divides the moral universe into heroes and enemies, order and chaos, patriots and radicals.

Noem’s comparison reflects a broader pattern in populist politics, where complex social movements are reduced to simple, threatening caricatures. In recent years, some Republican leaders have used antifa as a shorthand for all forms of left-wing unrest or criticism of authority.

Antifa’s decentralized structure makes it a convenient target for blame. That’s because it lacks clear boundaries, leadership and accountability. So any act by someone identifying with antifa can be framed as representing the whole movement, whether or not it does. And by linking antifa to terrorist groups, Noem, the top anti-terror official in the country, turns a political talking point into a claim that appears to carry the weight of national security expertise.

The problem with this kind of rhetoric is not just that it’s inaccurate. Equating protest movements with terrorist organizations blurs important distinctions that allow democratic societies to tolerate dissent. It also risks misdirecting attention and resources away from more serious threats — including organized, ideologically driven groups that remain the primary source of domestic terrorism in the U.S.

As I see it, Noem’s claim reveals less about antifa and more about the political uses of fear.

By invoking the language of terrorism to describe an anti-fascist movement, she taps into a potent emotional current in American politics: the desire for clear enemies, simple explanations and moral certainty in times of division.

But effective homeland security depends on evidence, not ideology. To equate street-level confrontation with organized terror is not only wrong — it undermines the credibility of the very institutions charged with protecting the public.

Art Jipson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

The U.S. housing market has been ensnared in a growing affordability crisis for decades.

The problem has gotten dramatically worse in recent years. Since 2019, home prices are up 60% nationwide. A record-high 22 million renters are “cost-burdened” – spending more than 30% of their income on housing.

Meanwhile, stagnant wages, limited housing supply and lagging federal assistance have helped leave more than 770,000 Americans homeless.

Despite these varied reasons, Vice President JD Vance has blamed the housing affordability crisis on undocumented immigrants. In August 2025, he attributed rising housing costs to immigration: “You cannot flood the United States of America with … people who have no legal right to be here, have them compete against young American families for homes, and not expect the price to skyrocket.”

Deportations, he argued, would lower housing prices. “Why has housing leveled off over the past six months? I really believe the main driver is … negative net migration.”

Despite Vance’s claims, research shows that immigration is not a substantial cause of unaffordable housing. In fact, studies have found that deportations exacerbate housing shortages through reductions in the construction workforce, which lead to lower production of housing units and higher prices.

From this perspective, its hard to see the administration’s deportation policy as a real effort to solve the housing crisis. Rather, it is using the housing crisis as a way to justify mass deportations to the public.

The current administration’s anti-immigrant housing policy reflects a long history of xenophobia in housing. As a sociologist of housing, I’ve traced the history of racial segregation in housing in Los Angeles County. I have found that the same far-right groups that sought to defeat public housing construction and maintain racially restrictive agreements in post-World War II Los Angeles also advocated to ban immigrants from U.S. housing programs.

Earlier anti-immigrant housing plans

Among the leaders of these efforts was the far-right politician and activist Gerald L.K. Smith. Described in 1976 by historian John Morton Blum as “the most infamous American fascist,” Smith helped bridge the American right’s 1940s conspiratorial and isolationist America First era and its 1960s anti-civil rights era.

Smith traveled the country advocating a Christian nationalist vision for American society, offering a religious justification for anti-communism and opposition to civil rights. He also ran for president unsuccessfully in 1944, 1948 and 1956.

After settling in Los Angeles in 1953, Smith led Red Scare campaigns – driven by hostility to communism – across the country.

In my research, I found that Smith was an early proponent of anti-immigrant housing policy. His 10 principles included a call to “Stop immigration in order that American jobs and American houses may be safeguarded for American citizens.” Elsewhere he called to “Release housing units occupied by aliens in order that they may be occupied by veterans and other American citizens.”

Smith wasn’t alone. His efforts were part of a broader environment in which public officials and local media worked to stop construction of public housing in Los Angeles in the 1950s, accusing its proponents of communism.

Recent anti-immigrant policy in housing

State and federal policymakers have also incorporated anti-immigrant stances into American housing policy over the past half-century.

The 1980 Housing and Community Development Act was the first federal legislation to specifically bar undocumented immigrants from public housing programs. Welfare reform in 1996 further restricted public housing assistance to only legal permanent residents and those with asylum or refugee status.

Echoing the alien land laws of the late 1800s that prohibited foreign property ownership, policymakers in the 2000s in states such as Pennsylvania and Texas passed laws forcing landlords to check immigration status as a condition of rental – though this was struck down by the courts.

Today, immigrant tenants experience fewer housing rights than citizens. These inequalities fall particularly hard on unauthorized immigrants who experience high rates of housing cost burden, crowding and poor housing conditions.

The Trump administration aims to expand restrictions on immigrants in public housing even further. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is in the process of adopting rules that will evict entire families if even one member is ineligible for assistance based on immigration status. Current law allows those families to live in public housing, while prorating their benefits to account for an ineligible member.

From Smith to Vance, anti-immigrant housing policies have been cast as a way for citizens to get more housing. But they fail to prevent or solve the housing shortage driving the crisis.

For example, the Trump administration’s effort to evict mixed status families from public housing will affect roughly 25,000 households. Setting aside the fact that those families may then be made homeless, that number is only one-tenth the amount of housing that the U.S. has lost due to the defunding and demolishing of public housing since 1990.

Indeed, many of the Trump administration’s immigration and economic policies are likely to exacerbate the housing crisis. The Trump administration has made deportation a priority and has significantly increased deportation rates compared to recent years, while instituting historically high tariffs on imports.

Deportations reduce the housing construction workforce, lowering the number of units built and increasing costs. And tariffs raise prices on building materials such as lumber, steel and aluminum. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that recent tariffs have raised building costs by US$10,900 per home.

In early 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency canceled or delayed a series of HUD grants for housing assistance programs. And the Trump administration has announced plans for more cuts to the nation’s already insufficient housing assistance budget.

Vance, like Smith before him, presents the issue like a pie, where citizens can get a larger slice only by deporting immigrants. But the reality is that the pie can be bigger: The government can fully fund the housing needs of all Americans for less than it has spent on its other priorities. The recently passed “big, beautiful bill,” for example, allocates more funding to border and interior enforcement per year than key rental assistance programs, public housing and Housing Choice Vouchers allocate for housing.

In Smith’s time, everyday Americans resisted this gambit, speaking out to protest his views. Today, as Smith’s anti-immigration housing ideas have ascended to the national stage, the housing justice community is speaking out against anti-immigrant housing policy and offering an alternative vision of how the U.S. can provide housing for all.

Rahim Kurwa does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Centrist Democrats have a plan for their party to win again: Talk more about the economy and less about democracy. Reject corporate interests and ideological purity tests. Keep the progressive policies that are popular — like expanding health care and raising the minimum wage — and moderate on issues like immigration and crime.

Those are among the takeaways laid out in an expansive report Monday from WelcomePAC, which supports center-left candidates, on how Democrats can rebound from last year’s electoral wipeout in 2026 and 2028.

The 58-page prescription comes as Democrats continue to war over the direction of their party nearly a year after their national shellacking. And it drops a week before a slate of gubernatorial and mayoral contests that will serve as the first major temperature check of the electorate since 2024 and President Donald Trump retaking the Oval Office.

It features input from a who’s who of top Democratic consultants — including David Axelrod; James Carville; David Plouffe, a top adviser to former Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign; Lis Smith; and former Biden White House spokesperson Andrew Bates — as well as analysts and strategists like Nate Silver, Sarah Longwell and former Rep. Cheri Bustos of Illinois.

The report is less an autopsy of the 2024 election — it spends a scant five pages on former President Joe Biden’s and Harris’ campaigns — and more so an indictment of the party’s leftward shift since the Obama administration and the donors, campaign operatives and progressive advocacy groups the authors blame for putting Democrats in an unwinnable position.

It largely echoes what moderate Democrats have been saying loudly for months — that the party should be running to the center and focusing on kitchen table issues.

It uses polling data to reinforce the message many centrist Democrats believe voters sent the party in 2024: that voters felt Democrats were prioritizing democracy, abortion and identity over top-of-mind issues like the economy, immigration and crime. It argues that moderate candidates tend to overperform progressive ones, citing centrist Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine) as models for how the party should message on border security and the economy.

And Democrats “should distance ourselves from the Biden administration,” the authors write, “particularly by critiquing the Biden administration’s approach to border security and the cost of living.” Harris, they posit, lost in part because of her failure to do so — and because voters couldn’t let go of her past progressive policies even as she ran a more moderate campaign.

The report doesn’t call for a wholesale rejection of progressive stances. Expanding access to public health care, making the wealthy “pay their fair share” in taxes and raising the minimum wage are all popular with voters, and WelcomePAC believes the party should continue to focus on them. Democrats, the authors say, should emulate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Democratic nominee for New York City mayor Zohran Mamdani’s “relentless focus” on affordability.

But they also say Democrats should focus less on “lower-salience issues where our views are unpopular,” such as transgender athletes. They insist that running against the establishment — as is en vogue these days — doesn’t have to mean running toward the left. And they contend that simply running younger candidates “is not a panacea.”

WelcomePAC made no mention of next week’s gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia. But their strategy will undergo an early test in both states, where the party has put forward a pair of moderate lawmakers with military and national security backgrounds who are running campaigns centered on affordability. Democrats are favored to win both races, though Rep. Mikie Sherrill’s contest in New Jersey is expected to be far closer than former Rep. Abigail Spanberger’s in Virginia.

WelcomePAC warned against drawing conclusions from the elections heading into 2028 in its report, insisting that “doing well in midterms and special elections does not guarantee Democrats anywhere close to the same results in a presidential race” because less-engaged voters tend to skip those intermediate contests.

But Democrats across the ideological spectrum will undoubtedly be scanning the results of next week’s elections in two states that stayed blue in 2024 but shifted toward Trump for signs of what is — and isn’t — working for the party heading into a high-stakes midterm election and the critical presidential contest to follow.

​Politics

Americans are sharply divided on the NFL’s decision to feature Puerto Rican-born artist Bad Bunny at the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show, according to a new survey by Quinnipiac University.

Overall, nearly half of respondents said they approve of the decision, with 29 percent disapproving and another 24 percent offering no opinion. While nearly 3 in 4 Democrats said they approve of the NFL’s decision, more than 3 in 5 Republicans oppose the move.

Opinions were also largely divided by race and age: Bad Bunny enjoyed significantly more support among Black and Hispanic adults than among white respondents, and his biggest contingent of support came from those aged 18-34.

The NFL, which has repeatedly drawn the ire of the MAGA movement in recent years, once again faced attacks from President Donald Trump and his supporters after announcing last month that Bad Bunny would take the stage at the most-watched live event in the country.

The artist, who was one of the top three most-streamed artists in the world on Spotify last year, has been vocal in his criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, declining to schedule dates in the mainland U.S. during his upcoming world tour due to concerns about heightened ICE presence. The music video for his song “NUEVAYoL” also features a parody of Trump’s voice purporting to “apologize to the immigrants of America.”

MAGA firebrands quickly seized on the announcement to call the singer a “Trump hater,” and Turning Point USA announced a counterprogram halftime show, although the conservative organizing group has yet to announce featured performers.

Trump called the decision “absolutely ridiculous” in an interview with Newsmax’s Greg Kelly earlier this month, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has warned that ICE agents would be “all over” the Super Bowl.

Still, the NFL has stood by its decision, with Commissioner Roger Goodell reiterating last week that the league would move forward with the show despite blowback from conservatives.

The Quinnipiac poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 16-20, with a random sample of 1,519 adults. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

​Politics

What the 2025 elections could tell us about 2026 | The Playbook Podcast

lead image

​Politics

From ancient Egypt to Washington, D.C., rulers have long used architecture and associated stories to project power, control memory and shape national identity. As 17th-century French statesman Jean-Baptiste Colbert observed:

“In the absence of brilliant deeds of war, nothing proclaims the greatness and spirit of princes more than building works.”

Today, the Trump administration is mobilizing heritage and architecture as tools of ideology and control. In U.S. historic preservation, “heritage” is the shared, living inheritance of places, objects, practices and stories – often plural and contested – that communities value and preserve. America’s architectural heritage is as diverse as the people who created, inhabited and continue to care for it.

As an archaeologist with three decades of practice, I read environments designed by humans. Enduring modifications to these places, especially to buildings and monuments, carry power and speak across generations.

In his first term as president, and even more so today, Donald Trump has pushed to an extreme legacy-building through architecture and heritage policy. He is remaking the White House physically and metaphorically in his image, consistent with his long record of putting his name on buildings as a developer.

In December 2020, Trump issued an executive order declaring classical and traditional architectural styles the “preferred” design for new federal buildings. The order derided Brutalist and modernist structures as inconsistent with national values.

Now, Trump is seeking to roll back inclusive historical narratives at U.S. parks and monuments. And he is reviving sanitized myths about America’s history of slavery, misogyny and Manifest Destiny, for use in museums, textbooks and public schools.

Yet artifacts don’t lie. And it is the archaeologist’s task to recover these legacies as truthfully as possible, since how the past is remembered shapes the choices a nation makes about its future.

Architecture as political power and legacy

Dictators, tyrants and kings build monumental architecture to buttress their own egos, which is called authoritarian monumentalism. They also seek to build the national ego – another word for nationalism.

Social psychologists have found that the awe we experience when we encounter something vast diminishes the “individual self,” making viewers feel respect and attachment to creators of awesome architecture. Authoritarian monumentalism often exploits this phenomenon. For example, in France, King Louis XIV expanded the Palace of Versailles and renovated its gardens in the mid-1600s to evoke perceptions of royal grandeur and territorial power in visitors.

Many leaders throughout history have built “temples to power” while erasing or overshadowing the memory of their predecessors – a practice known as damnatio memoriae, or condemnation to oblivion.

In the ancient world, the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Chinese dynasties, Mayans and Incas all left behind architecture that still commands awe in the form of monuments to gods, rulers and communities. These monuments conveyed power and often served as instruments of physical and psychological control.

In the 19th century, Napoleon fused conquest with heritage. Expeditions to Egypt and Rome, and the building of Parisian monuments – the Arc de Triomphe and the Vendôme Column, both modeled on Roman precedents – reinforced his legitimacy.

Albert Speer’s and Hermann Giesler’s monumental neoclassical designs in Nazi Germany, such as the party rally grounds in Nuremberg, were intended to overwhelm the individual and glorify the regime. And Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union suppressed avant-garde experimentation in favor of monumental “socialist realist” architecture, projecting permanence and centralized power.

Now, Trump has proposed building his own triumphal arch in Arlington, Virginia, just across the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial, as a symbol to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

An American alternative

Born of Enlightenment ideals of John Locke, Voltaire and Adam Smith, the American Revolution rejected the European idea of monarchs as semidivine rulers. Instead, leaders were expected to serve the citizenry.

That philosophy took architectural form in the Federal style, which was dominant from about 1785 to 1830. This clear, democratic architectural language was distinct from Europe’s ornate traditions, and recognizably American.

Its key features were Palladian proportions – measurements rooted in classical Roman architecture – and an emphasis on balance, simplicity and patriotic motifs.

James Hoban’s White House and Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello embodied this style. Interiors featured lighter construction, symmetrical lines, and motifs such as eagles, urns and bellflowers. They rejected the opulent rococo styles associated with monarchy.

Americans also recognized preservation’s political force. In 1816, the city of Philadelphia bought Independence Hall, which was constructed in 1753 and was where the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were debated and signed, to keep it from being demolished. Today the building is a U.S. National Park and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Early preservationists saved George Washington’s home, Mount Vernon, Jefferson’s Monticello, and other landmarks, tying democracy’s endurance to the built environment.

Architecture, memory and Trump

In remaking the White House and prescribing the style and content of many federal sites, Trump is targeting not just buildings but the stories they tell.

By challenging narratives that depart from white, Anglo-Saxon origin myths, Trump is using his power to roll back decades of work toward creating a more inclusive national history.

These actions ignore the fact that America’s strength lies in its identity as a nation of immigrants. The Trump administration has singled out the Smithsonian Institution – the world’s largest museum, founded “for the increase and diffusion of knowledge – for ideological reshaping. Trump also is pushing to restore recently removed Confederate monuments, helping to revive “Lost Cause” mythology about the Civil War.

Trump’s 2020 order declaring classical and traditional architectural styles the preferred design for government buildings echoed authoritarian leaders like Adolf Hitler and Stalin, whose governments sought to dictate aesthetics as expressions of ideology. The American Institute of Architects publicly opposed the order, warning that it imposed ideological restrictions on design.

Trump’s second administration has advanced this agenda by adopting many recommendations in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 blueprint. Notably, Project 2025 calls for repealing the 1906 Antiquities Act – which empowers presidents to quickly designate national monuments on federal land – and for shrinking many existing monuments. Such rollbacks would undercut the framework that has safeguarded places like Devils Tower in Wyoming and Muir Woods in California for over a century.

Trump’s new ballroom is a distinct departure from the core values embodied in the White House’s Federal style. Although many commentators have described it as rococo, it is more aligned with the overwrought and opulent styles of the Gilded Age – a time in American history, from about 1875 through 1895, with many parallels to the present.

In ordering its construction, Trump has ignored long-standing consultation and review procedures that are central to historic preservation. The demolition of the East Wing may have ignored processes required by law at one of the most important U.S. historic sites. It’s the latest illustration of his unilateral and unaccountable methods for getting what he wants.

Instruments of memory and identity

When leaders push selective histories and undercut inclusive ones, they turn heritage into a tool for controlling public memory. This collective understanding and interpretation of the past underpins a healthy democracy. It sustains a shared civic identity, ensures accountability for past wrongs and supports rights and participation.

Heritage politics in the Trump era seeks to redefine America’s story and determine who gets to speak. Attacks on so-called “woke” history seek to erase complex truths about slavery, inequality and exclusion that are essential to democratic accountability.

Architecture and heritage are never just bricks and mortar. They are instruments of memory, identity and power.

R. Grant Gilmore III does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Online influencers, through their postings on Instagram, Threads, TikTok and elsewhere, have created an exuberant universe of news and commentary that often outruns mainstream media in reach and even impact. They work the same waterfront as journalism and public relations, but their relationship with those mainstay practices built around fact and advocacy is an uneasy one.

And when it comes to the rules that are supposed to keep communicators honest, they have been slow to step up, as a raging controversy over undisclosed payments to freelance influencers shows.

For the past month, social media has been ablaze with postings about a provocative story alleging improper political influence among left-leaning online commentators. Headlined “A Dark Money Group is Secretly Funding High-Profile Democratic Influencers,” it ran in Wired, the San Francisco-based magazine that specializes in tech, and was written by Taylor Lorenz, a high-profile reporter who has built a stormy career of tech coverage for outlets including The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Atlantic.

The 3,600-word article focused on Chorus, described as a secretive arm of the Sixteen Thirty Fund, whose wide-ranging support for progressive causes totals more than US$100 million a year. Starting in spring 2025, Lorenz reported, Chorus quietly recruited and supported a coterie of liberal political influencers, with monthly stipends of anywhere from $250 to $8,000.

Just how tightly Chorus sought to control what the 90-some freelancers actually produce is somewhat unclear, and was sharply disputed in the reaction to the article.

But what is clear to me, as a journalist and student of media ethics, is that any creators who conceal financial support while weighing in on matters of interest to their funders are, by implication, falsely presenting themselves as independent voices. They are no less deceitful than the business journalist who covers a company they secretly invest in.

Furious response misses the point

The Wired story declared that the program supporting influencers, called the Chorus Creator Incubator Program, “was aimed at bolstering Democratic messaging on the internet.” Funded commentators got regular briefings with lawmakers and others, organized by Chorus, on newsworthy issues.

The paid influencers also allegedly agreed to forewarn Chorus about interviews with prominent sources, Lorenz wrote, saying “creators in the program must funnel all bookings with lawmakers and political leaders through Chorus. Creators also have to loop Chorus in on any independently organized engagements with government officials or political leaders.”

And, a big red flag for anyone concerned with ethical communications practices: Participating influencers were also prohibited from telling anybody about the money they were getting.

The Wired story plainly hit a nerve and triggered a spasm of angry postings on Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, YouTube, X, Facebook and other social media sites. But for all their passion, the comments brought to light the disheveled state of online ethics.

Ad hominem attacks predominated. Posts denounced Lorenz as a liar and a hypocrite who had no business exposing the program because she herself admittedly receives similar funding. Some said her real motive was sabotaging the left. Others praised the Chorus program as a valuable attempt to sharpen the skills of participants and enrich their reporting. Still others asserted that Chorus is not hands-on, never assigns or edits anybody’s stories and is an overdue corrective that gives left-leaning influencers just the kind of support the political right has had for years.

Only rarely did the commentary touch on what should have been the white-hot core of the problem: The absence of a shared understanding of the basic responsibilities that online influencers have to the people they serve. Those responsibilities are no different from those of journalists or professional advocates – to come clean.

As Don Heider, head of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, told Lorenz with admirable clarity: “If the contract for getting money from a particular interest group says you can’t disclose it, then it’s pretty simple, you can’t take the money.” Or, said the influencer Overopinionatedbrit3 on TikTok: “If you are getting paid disclose or you are an influencer being influenced.”

An obligation to disclose

The principle of disclosure is one that is widely accepted by professional communicators.

From their earliest iterations a century ago, journalism codes have recognized that conflict of interest is perhaps the most toxic threat to the credibility of reporters and the trust they seek from audiences.

The Public Relations Society of America has based its efforts to professionalize advocacy in part on an insistence that practitioners not conceal support or withhold information about whose message they are conveying – prohibitions that, sadly, are not universally observed. One notorious breach was the use of on-air “military analysts” by CNN and other networks during the Iraqi invasion. They were typically former high-ranking officers now employed by arms contractors whose paychecks depended on cordial relations with the Pentagon, but who nevertheless proffered supposedly independent expert appraisals of the U.S. military campaign to CNN viewers. None of that was disclosed to the public.

Femi Redwood, who chairs the National Association of Black Journalists LGBTQ+ task force, was one of the few respondents among the flood of comments on the Wired story who zeroed in on the absence of online standards. Redwood defined the problem as “the intersection of news and influencing without the ethics of journalism,” and called for a code that would make the ethical obligations of influencers explicit.

The world of influencers is, admittedly, a bit of a Wild West. How universally ethical guidelines would be embraced and whether platforms might find the stomach to consider enforcement remain open – but pivotal – questions.

The lure of the high road

But the social media commentariat may be receptive.

Online practitioners have long claimed greater intellectual independence and cleaner hands than the legacy newspeople they challenge, who they say are trapped in the cobwebs of institutional bias and material thralldom. Much of their claim to the high road has rested on their greater candor – renamed transparency and hailed as the “new objectivity” – which calls for influencers to fess up about their predispositions and biases rather than go the traditional mainstream route and imply they have none. Secrecy over funding, plainly, is incompatible with such transparency.

Indeed, in the current moment, when colossal news organizations have been brought to heel by an administration in Washington that uses their owners’ financial ambitions to enforce ideological discipline, the influencers’ potential ability to claim moral superiority seems even stronger.

But the freelance model doesn’t ensure independence. It may only create a shifting roster of dependencies and allegiances that are wholly invisible to the audience being served and a potent source of corruption.

Disclosure is an imperfect remedy. But failing to adopt it as a minimum expectation leaves the robust online universe with a moral taint that is lethal to trust.

Edward Wasserman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Republicans’ redistricting push is on ice in New Hampshire, in a blow to the White House’s aggressive effort to protect the GOP’s House majority in the midterms.

State Sen. Dan Innis has yanked his own bill that would have kicked off a mid-decade redraw of the state’s two congressional districts in the face of resistance from GOP Gov. Kelly Ayotte.

“The governor wasn’t that supportive of it since it’s in the middle of the normal redistricting cycle,” Innis, a Republican who recently ended his U.S. Senate campaign, told POLITICO. “Rather than create a difficult situation in my own house, the New Hampshire State House, I thought it made sense to save this for another time.”

Innis’ decision to withdraw his bill deals the White House another setback in its pressure campaign to strong-arm GOP-led states into redistricting. Indiana Senate Republican leadership said this week that they lack the votes to pass a mid-cycle redraw in the Hoosier State, though Gov. Mike Braun is still eyeing a special session to redo the state’s maps. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about New Hampshire.

The White House had been ratcheting up pressure on New Hampshire Republicans to put forward a new map for months, threatening a take-no-prisoners approach that included weighing a primary challenge to Ayotte. Trump ally and longtime New Hampshire resident Corey Lewandowski, who is serving as a Department of Homeland Security senior adviser, said days later he was considering running for governor against Ayotte.

There is some interest among Granite State Republican lawmakers in remapping, because New Hampshire has been using a court-approved congressional map since then-Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, vetoed plans the Legislature sent him in 2022. Democrats need to net three seats in next year’s midterms in order to win back control of the House, and the Trump team was hoping to secure one seat in a New Hampshire redraw.

Both of the districts are currently represented by Democrats, although the state’s open 1st District will likely be a battleground next November even without new lines.

State lawmakers say they would want buy-in from Ayotte, who isn’t budging.

The first-term governor has repeatedly rejected the idea of a mid-decade redraw, saying the “timing is off” and insisting the Trump team’s pressure tactics wouldn’t change her mind.

“We’re in the middle of the census, I don’t think the timing is right for redistricting,” Ayotte recently told local television station WMUR, adding that “the thing [Granite Staters are] talking to me about is not redistricting.”

​Politics

Soon after President Donald Trump demanded in a social media post that the Department of Justice prosecute his perceived enemy, former FBI director James Comey, Comey was indicted on Sept. 25, 2025, for lying to a Congressional committee in 2020.

Comey’s lawyers have responded, filing a motion on Oct. 20, 2025, to dismiss the charges against him with prejudice – the “prejudice” being legal jargon for barring a refiling of the charges. Comey’s lawyers allege that the Justice Department’s prosecution is both selective and vindictive.

Despite the existence of a long string of Trump attacks specifically urging that Comey be prosecuted, getting the case dismissed as a prosecution that is selective, vindictive or both will require Comey to overcome a very strong presumption that the charging decision was lawful.

Selective prosecution

For a court to find that there is a selective prosecution, Comey has two hurdles.

First, he has to demonstrate that he was singled out for prosecution for something others have done without being prosecuted.

Second, Comey will have to prove that the government discriminated against him for his constitutionally protected speech of criticizing Trump.

Clearing both of these hurdles seems unlikely. Others, including former Trump fixer Michael Cohen and former Reagan administration Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, have been prosecuted for the same type of crimes – allegedly making false statements to Congress or unlawfully seeking to influence or obstruct a Senate investigation.

Vindictive prosecution

Due to Trump’s repeated statements and social media posts that Comey should be charged, proving a vindictive prosecution may be easier.

Indeed, the motion to dismiss starts by laying out the argument for a vindictive prosecution, signaling that Comey’s lawyers think this is the stronger argument by leading with it.

Still, if Comey’s lawyers are to convince the judge, they will have to overcome a heavy burden that the prosecution has exceeded the broad discretion of the prosecutor.

The legal standard requires a court to first find that the prosecutor had animus, hostility, toward Comey, and second, that the charges would not have been brought if there was no animus.

The motion to dismiss based on vindictive prosecution makes a very strong showing of animus, relying on Trump’s several statements and social media posts that Comey should be prosecuted and that Comey was a “Dirty Cop” and “a total SLIMEBALL!”

Further evidence involves the fact that no other prosecutor other than Trump’s former personal lawyer, Lindsey Halligan, would seek charges against Comey.

Still, the grand jury found probable cause for the two charges against Comey and issued the indictment. The government will likely argue that demonstrates that the charges could have been brought even if there was animus.

Fallback position

Comey’s lawyers are leaning heavily on arguments for a dismissal of the charges with prejudice, but they also have a fallback position.

If the judge determines that they have not proved a selective or vindictive prosecution, they are asking for the opportunity to obtain discovery – the record – of the government’s decision to seek charges from the grand jury, and a hearing on their motion to dismiss the indictment.

Given Trump’s public statements and social media posts, and the legal authority on this issue, as a longtime practitioner and teacher of criminal law, I believe the judge is very likely to choose this course of action.

No matter how the trial judge rules on the motion to dismiss, the losing side is certain to appeal. No matter how the federal appeals court rules, the losing side is likely to seek Supreme Court review. Whether the court would take such a case is impossible to predict with any certainty.

Peter A. Joy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation