SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nick fuentes
Why Are America’s Far-Right Leaders So Young?
How social media turned a handful of young provocateurs into the far right’s national vanguard.
Sep 16, 2025
Through the late 2010s, pundits hailed Gen Z as America’s most progressive young cohort. Yet, the truth is more complicated: While many young voters voice support for climate action, racial justice, and reproductive rights, their overall partisan tilt is far less lopsided than early headlines implied. Support for Democrats among under-30 voters has softened since 2020, and young men in particular are drifting rightward on issues like gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights.
That gap between reputation and reality is, in part, due to a rising cadre of young conservatives who are more radical, more visible, and better organized than their progressive peers. From Nick Fuentes to Laura Loomer to the late Charlie Kirk, the figures shaping the far-right agenda have been startlingly young. Why, then, are some of the movement’s most prominent figures in their late 20s and early 30s? How did a political current once defined by veteran politicians and talk-radio personalities come to be led by live-streamers and college-circuit activists?
Consider Fuentes. Only 28, yet he commands a national audience of more than 700,000 followers. He has a dedicated fanbase, connections to GOP congressmen, and once had a private dinner with US President Donald Trump. And Fuentes is not an outlier. From political candidates to campus organizers, the far-right’s most prominent figures are getting younger—and more extreme.
The explanation lies in the internet’s ecosystem. Figures like Mike Cernovich and Jack Posobiec were among the first to show how provocation and relentless online promotion could transform fringe ideas into mass influence. In the years since, news has gone largely digital, with about 86% of Americans getting at least some of their news on phones or computers. The overwhelming bulk of political information now flows through a dense lattice of live-streams, podcasts, and Discord servers, all spaces young people navigate with native ease.
For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
In this landscape, digital platforms have dismantled traditional barriers to political power. Two decades ago, a young ideologue needed gatekeepers—local radio, party donors, sympathetic editors—to build a following. Today, a ring light and an algorithm are enough. YouTube, Twitch, TikTok, and X provide inexpensive infrastructure and frictionless amplification, allowing individuals to raise money, mobilize supporters, and establish a brand long before institutions can react.
Why is this dynamic propelling the far-right in particular? Without much formal representation in elected office, these ideas circulate almost entirely online, where scarcity makes them more alluring. And algorithms reward outrage, propelling the sharpest sound bites and most incendiary claims to the top of every feed. For ambitious young people, each viral provocation can bring a surge of followers and donations, turning radicalism into a fast track to high-profile visibility.
Conservative legacy media compounds the effect. Figures who achieve algorithmic virality are quickly booked on cable programs and high-profile podcasts, which confer legitimacy and feed the next surge of online attention. The result is a self-reinforcing loop: Digital notoriety leads to mainstream exposure, which drives further radical content.
The American left lacks a parallel generation of online, movement-building leaders. Progressive lawmakers such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have national profiles, but their influence depends on elected office and formal party structures rather than on a grassroots, youth-led network. Yes, young progressives such as Dean Withers and Matt Bernstein have built impressive reputations as digital advocates for progressive causes. But they operate largely as individual voices, not as architects of a nationwide, highly-branded youth movement comparable to Kirk's Turning Point USA or Fuentes' America First movement. Comparable grassroots movements on the left, like the emerging 50501, lack visible leaders capable of unifying and sustaining a broad, youth-driven base.
This distinction matters. Without a cohesive, youth-led movement, progressives struggle to match the visibility and narrative power of their far-right counterparts. Every far-right provocation arrives with a spokesperson and a polished national platform, while the left relies on a handful of elected officials and scattered digital voices. The absence of equally prominent, institutionally supported young progressives cedes narrative ground, and gives rising alt-right leaders disproportionate space to break out online.
Addressing this imbalance will not turn on deplatforming extremist voices alone; the internet’s architecture makes that a game of whac-a-mole. Nor will it come solely from established progressive leaders. It requires cultivating and sustaining a cohort of young progressives who can operate effectively online and build movements without succumbing to social media's darkest ideologies. It also requires a cultural shift on the left: valuing charismatic leadership as a complement—not a substitute—for collective action.
Gen Z was supposed to guarantee a progressive future. Instead, many of its most visible political entrepreneurs are on the far-right. Unless progressives move beyond supporting individual creators and intentionally develop their own social movements, the loudest young voices shaping America’s political future will continue to belong to its most far-right fringes.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Taps 'Comically Unfit' Election Denier to Head Key Legal Ethics Office
"Leading the Office of Special Counsel requires independence and experience," said one watchdog. "Paul Ingrassia seemingly has neither of these things."
May 30, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday nominated a far-right former podcast host with white supremacist views who called for martial law to keep Trump in power after his 2020 election loss to lead a key legal ethics office.
Trump tapped 30-year-old Paul Ingrassia—who is currently serving as the White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security—to head the Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency tasked with enforcing ethics laws and protecting federal whistleblowers.
"Paul is a highly respected attorney, writer, and Constitutional Scholar, who has done a tremendous job serving as my White House Liaison for Homeland Security," Trump wrote Thursday on his Truth Social network. "Paul holds degrees from both Cornell Law School and Fordham University, where he majored in Mathematics and Economics, graduating near the top of his class."
Critics, however, had a different assessment of Ingrassia's qualifications.
Hampton Dellinger, the previous OSC chief, was initially fired by Trump in February but was temporarily reinstated via court order before being fired again after he began investigating the administration's mass layoffs of federal workers under the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. Dellinger dropped his legal challenge in March and announced that "my time as special counsel... is now over."
The OSC enforces the Hatch Act, which restricts the political activity of civilian executive branch employees. In 2021, the agency found that 13 senior Trump aides violated the law by campaigning for the president's failed 2020 reelection bid.
At that time, Ingrassia and his sister Olivia Ingrassia were hosting the "Right on Point" podcast. As Trump stoked the conspiracy theory that Democrats stole the election, Ingrassia amplified the president's "Big Lie" and called for authoritarian measures to keep him in the White House.
On December 12, 2020, the podcast's handle on its Twitter page was renamed "Stop the Steal HQ." The account reposted a tweet from prolific white supremacist and antisemite Nick Fuentes with the added message, "Time for @realDonaldTrump to declare martial law and secure his re-election!"
Ingrassia has expressed his own white supremacist views, including the assertion that "exceptional white men are not only the builders of Western civilization, but are the ones most capable of appreciating the fruits of our heritage." He also replied to a call for slavery reparations by demanding that the descendants of slaves "pay reparations to the descendants of slave owners" and advocated replacing the "treasonous" Ukrainian flag with the Confederate battle flag under penalty of "serious fines."
During the 2024 Republican presidential primaries, Trump boosted a false birther smear by Ingrassia that Nikki Haley—the former South Carolina governor and United Nations ambassador during the first Trump administration—was ineligible to run for president because her parents were not American citizens when she was born. Ingrassia posted several racist aspersions of Haley's Americanness, which have been archived by freelance journalist Jason Hart.
In March, Daily Dot's Amanda Moore revealed that Ingrassia misrepresented himself as an attorney for more than a year prior to his admission to the bar. During this time, he represented former professional kickboxer, self-described misogynist, and alleged rapist, sex trafficker, and money launderer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan Tate in a civil suit. The Tates deny the charges.
As Moore reported:
As early as May 16, 2023, months before he took the bar exam, Ingrassia referred to himself as "an Associate Attorney at The McBride Law Firm, PLLC" on his personal Substack. But his bio on the site frequently changed. In a July 2023 piece on Tate, he described himself simply as an "associate" at the firm. In August, he referred to himself as a "law clerk." New York state records show that Ingrassia, a 2022 graduate of Cornell Law, took the bar on July 25-26, 2023, under his given name, Paolo Ingrassia. While Ingrassia received his results in October 2023, he was not admitted to the New York State Bar until July 30, 2024.
Responding to his nomination, Ingrassia wrote Thursday on X that "it's the highest honor to have been nominated to lead the Office of Special Counsel under President Trump!"
"As special counsel, my team and I will make every effort to restore competence and integrity to the Executive Branch—with priority on eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal workforce, and revitalize the rule of law and fairness in Hatch Act enforcement," he added.
"This is a pattern with the president's picks for watchdogs: partisan yeasayers whose willingness to stand up to the administration is questionable at best."
However, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a nonpartisan watchdog, said Friday: "Leading the Office of Special Counsel requires independence and experience. Paul Ingrassia seemingly has neither of these things."
"This is a pattern with the president's picks for watchdogs: partisan yeasayers whose willingness to stand up to the administration is questionable at best," POGO added.
Conservative writer Bobby Miller said on X that "the most insane thing about the Paul Ingrassia appointment is that he's been tapped to lead the Office of Special Counsel, an ethics watchdog tasked with enforcing laws that protect federal employees from abuse and safeguard the government from politicization."
"No one's even pretending that this Andrew Tate fanboy, Putin stooge, and martial law enthusiast would do anything even close to the job description," Miller added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
An Adjudicated Rapist in the White House
Not only are women and girls getting the message, but so are the men and boys.
Nov 17, 2024
As a trauma-informed psychotherapist, for decades I’ve had the privilege of working with countless sexual assault survivors while consulting at a rape crisis center and more recently in my private practice. During Trump’s defamation and sexual assault trial (E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump), I was contacted by former and current patient-survivors who were understandably shaken by how Carroll was treated. She was disbelieved, her motives were questioned, and she was mocked or ignored.* This is precisely why many survivors never come forward. Such ill-treatment precisely when someone needs support the most compounds the trauma.
In the days since the election, I’ve had a similar spate of texts/calls/sessions with women who are devastated, disoriented, and scared. (All genders can be sexual assault victims. I just happen to have been in touch with women.)
“It’s mindboggling to me that the fact that [Trump] is an adjudicated rapist, all by itself isn’t enough to make voting for him out of the question,” one woman sobbed, as she buried her face in her hands.
“Why in the hell does the media treat a rapist like a “normal” candidate?” asked another.
Still another texted, “I thought this was the #MeToo era. How can this be?”
Deep-rooted sexism is how. Ask E. Jean Carroll. Ask Christine Blasey Ford. Ask Kamala Harris. Ask millions of women. If you’re someone who voted for Trump, regardless of your reason, there’s no escaping the fact that you participated in that sexism. And before you say it: yes, the 53% of white women who voted for Trump are accountable, as well. Sexism isn’t bound by gender. It can be internalized and championed by anyone. (Same with racism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, etc.) It’s not all that uncommon. To be clear, my goal isn’t to shame. But rather, I hope to invite an honest reckoning, just as I do with my patients as I support them on their journeys, and just as I do with myself. And in that reckoning, perhaps, there can come some awareness and a future dialogue.
Make no mistake, this is going to have a chilling effect on survivors to come forward to report sexual assault.
If you don’t see yourself as someone who could be sexist, remember that sexism isn’t always the “grab ‘em by the pussy” variety. Those who voted for Trump told their daughters and sisters and mothers and women friends tacitly, but unmistakably, that they don’t care enough that the president of the United States is an adjudicated rapist not to vote for him. What reason could make it okay to vote for an adjudicated rapist? It seems that would be a deal breaker for folks who respect and want to protect women. Perhaps it never occurred to some that many women will no longer feel psychologically and physically safe knowing a man with so much power over them has paternalistically and threateningly said he’d “protect [us], whether [we] like it or not.” If a patient reported a partner/spouse had a pattern of saying things like that to her, we’d be discussing safety plans and where she was going to stash her “go bag” in case she needed to quickly flee.
Not only are women and girls getting the message, but so are the men and boys. A Trump vote signaled to men and boys that sexual assault isn’t that big of a deal. In just a few short days since Trump was elected, we’ve already seen how emboldened and entitled men and boys have become. The sickening Nick Fuentes post, “Your body, my choice” has gone viral. Men and boys of all ages are repeating it, some as young as grammar school. Those words are the promise of a predator. The philosophy of a rapist.
A vote for Trump has also given the message to sexual assault survivors, specifically, and women who go through life hoping like hell not to become a sexual assault survivor, that being held legally accountable for rape/sexual assault doesn’t really mean all that much, particularly if you’re a rich, white guy. Despite a jury’s findings of liability, you can be unrepentant and take zero responsibility for your actions, mock your victim on an international platform, and then be voted in by millions of people to hold the most powerful position on Earth.
“All hail, the Rapist-in-Chief,” one of my patients said, saluting and trying to joke through her tears.
Make no mistake, this is going to have a chilling effect on survivors to come forward to report sexual assault. It’s going to discourage them from getting the care and support they need. And just as with the undoing of Roe v. Wade, which robs women of bodily autonomy and the right to fully decide their own futures, it demeans and demoralizes all women.
If you’re a sexual assault survivor and a person of color, and/or also in the LGBTQ+ community, or disabled, low income, or unhoused, I don’t have to tell you about the added challenges those intersections bring. And sexual assault survivor or not, all of these communities, and more, will surely be deeply threatened under a second Trump term. As a psychotherapist, I’ve had the privilege of holding space for innumerable women who’ve told stories of violence and deep pain. I know what horrors we can inflict on each other and I’m not naïve about the uncertainty ahead. But I’ve also heard myriad stories of breathtaking resilience and kick-ass strength and triumph. If during these fraught times each of us commits, however we’re able, to meaningfully stand not only with survivors, but all women and girls, as well as marginalized communities, those are the empowering stories we’ll be sharing one day because it will have been the truth we lived.
*During the trial, I wrote about some of the misperceptions people have about how one “should” respond after being sexual assaulted here.
If you’re a survivor and need support and/or resources, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 1.800.656.HOPE (4673); or go to www.rainn.org.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular