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
propaganda
Trump Is Turning Government Power Into an Electoral Liability
The closer his administration brings public resources to Republican campaigning, the more November’s midterms could become a referendum on presidential power.
Oct 14, 2026
On October 11, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to stop using taxpayer funds for television ads featuring the president. Yet two commercials continued airing past the court’s deadline. By the following evening, Justice Department lawyers had apologized, explaining that agency counsel had not seen the order in time. What had been a political accusation had now become a judicial intervention. And now even the government’s response to the order was under scrutiny.
For President Donald Trump, the larger danger is electoral. His presidency has turned expansive executive authority into a political calling card. But when that authority appears to serve the president’s campaign interests rather than the public as a whole, it can become a liability. What began as a dispute over advertisements could help turn the November 3 midterms into a contest over where government ends and Trump’s political operation begins.
The polling explains why this issue is different from a familiar partisan quarrel. Eighty-six percent of Americans, including 80% of Republicans, consider taxpayer funding for election-related television advertisements featuring a president or Cabinet members inappropriate. Opposition that broad does not automatically translate into votes against Republican candidates. It does, however, suggest that the administration has stepped into territory where even loyal supporters recognize a boundary.
If elections cannot provide a meaningful check when a president turns public institutions toward his own political interests, the country risks a powerless ballot.
The White House calls the commercials public service announcements. Yet one used footage and narration almost identical to a Trump advertisement from the 2024 campaign, replacing the campaign’s sponsorship line with a government disclaimer. That resemblance is hard to reconcile with a purely informational purpose. The question for voters is not what officials call the message. It is why the government should finance a presentation that looks and sounds like electoral promotion.
Trump’s pledge to have his super PAC cover future advertising costs hardly closes the matter. The commitment does not reimburse spending already incurred, and it cannot resolve whether federal agencies were used to create and distribute messages that conferred a partisan advantage. The court order arose from a challenge by watchdog and labor groups; the Democratic National Committee has filed a separate lawsuit. Neither case needs to end in a final judgment against the administration for the episode to carry political costs. A concession made after criticism can look less like reassurance than retreat.
Disaster assistance in Ohio raises the same question in a more consequential setting. On October 2, Trump approved a major disaster declaration following severe storms in the state. The next day he appeared at a campaign rally for Republican Sen. Jon Husted, whose office had highlighted his role in seeking the declaration. Trump credited Husted and other Ohio Republicans with pressing for help. The storms were real, and the need for federal assistance should not be reduced to campaign calculations. Yet highlighting the approval beside a candidate and emphasizing his influence makes it easier to cast a public decision as a partisan reward.
The surrounding record sharpens that concern. When the Ohio declaration was granted, 15 other disaster requests remained pending. A broader review of disaster decisions during Trump’s second term found approval of roughly 80% of requests from Republican governors, compared with about 60% from Democratic governors. The figures do not prove improper motives in any single case; requests differ in their merits. But they make assurances of impartiality less persuasive when the president publicly connects relief with Republican candidates.
There is a serious defense of the administration’s conduct. Presidents of both parties advertise government programs, take credit for disaster aid, and appear alongside candidates. Officials must be allowed to explain what the government does. The White House maintains that the advertisements are public service messages and that disaster decisions are not politically motivated. Moreover, a temporary court order is not a final legal ruling.
Those arguments are relevant, but they do not answer the central objection. Taking credit for a policy is different from using public funds to broadcast messaging that resembles a campaign advertisement. Delivering disaster relief is different from presenting its approval at a rally as evidence of what a particular candidate can obtain through presidential favor. An action can be administratively defensible and still undermine confidence that government serves citizens regardless of party. That is the political vulnerability Trump cannot remove simply by insisting on legality.
The problem grows as individual episodes begin to reinforce one another. Government advertising and disaster declarations need not be legally connected to generate a common impression. Public unease also extends to restrictions on White House media access and proposals to name federal institutions after a sitting president. Democrats can connect these disputes without proving that every decision broke the law. Each new controversy then risks being read through the suspicion left by the last.
This is what makes the midterms a potential trap for Republicans. If voters judge the election mainly through the economy, immigration, taxes, or foreign policy, Trump can rely on familiar partisan divisions and the strength of his base. If the focus shifts toward whether public institutions are being used to preserve his own political influence, the constituency for criticism may widen. An independent who approves of some administration policies may still oppose campaign-style uses of public resources. So may a Republican who has no intention of abandoning the party.
That does not guarantee Democrats an electoral breakthrough. It gives them something potentially more useful than a series of lawsuits: a simple question voters can apply to otherwise unrelated decisions. Whose interests are being served when the machinery of government is deployed?
The administration could answer that question by making the public purpose and impartial criteria behind its decisions visible, rather than relying on legal defenses alone. Its ability to do so will shape whether these controversies fade or acquire a cumulative political force.
That is also what gives the ballot its power. If elections cannot provide a meaningful check when a president turns public institutions toward his own political interests, the country risks a powerless ballot—one that records votes without making power answerable to them. November will test whether that danger remains hypothetical. Trump has treated executive authority as the engine of his political strength. He may discover that voters’ willingness to draw a line between government and campaign is what ultimately determines its limits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump DOJ Apologizes After Taxpayer-Funded Propaganda Ads Defy Judge's Order to Stop
The Department of Justice admitted that the Trump administration kept running the ads after a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, blaming the error on a missed email.
Oct 12, 2026
The US Department of Justice apologized Monday after the Trump administration continued airing taxpayer-funded political advertisements despite a court order requiring them to stop, blaming an internal email delay for the violation.
US District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—issued a temporary restraining order Sunday in Common Cause et al. v. Department of Homeland Security et al., blocking the administration from airing the commercials and requiring officials to cancel previously scheduled runs.
However, The Washington Post and Democracy Docket reported Monday that two of the ads ran nearly 400 times after the order took effect. Plaintiffs in the case—the advocacy group Common Cause, Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ, Empire State 32BJ SEIU PAC, and Democratic Alabama state Legislature candidate Robert Hunter—filed a notice with the court informing it of the violations.
Citing the filing, Democracy Docket noted:
According to AdImpact data... the government’s ads aired in nearly 400 television spots on programs that began at 7 pm Eastern—after Rochon’s order was already in force. One of the ads aired in 193 spots during CBS’ "60 Minutes," while another aired in 198 spots during ABC’s "America’s Funniest Home Videos."
The ads continued airing Monday. As of 2:45 pm plaintiffs said an ad titled “Maduro” had aired another 20 times, one titled “Final Battle” 11 times, and another titled “The Country He Loves” once.
Rather than seeking contempt sanctions at this time, the plaintiffs are asking Rochon for a status conference to determine whether the Trump administration has complied with her order.
The Department of Justice admitted the error in a separate filing Monday, claiming that its lawyers "did not become aware of" the Rochon's emailed order "until this morning." The DOJ apologized to plaintiffs and the court, assuring Rochon that "the government is in compliance" with the temporary restraining order.
The White House said separately that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not received notice in time to cancel the advertising purchases. The administration subsequently instructed its outside vendor to stop airing the commercials, froze future payments, and placed the $20 million funding allocation on hold.
The dispute stems from a $20 million advertising campaign financed via Office of Management and Budget (OMB) funds that were redirected to a Customs and Border Protection account designated for “commemorative events.”
The commercials featured President Donald Trump touting his political agenda, including one repurposed from his 2024 presidential campaign and another featuring Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth hyping the US war against Iran.
Critics have called the ads illegal under laws including the Administrative Procedure Act and the Hatch Act, and even grounds for impeaching Trump, who has already been impeached an unprecedented two times—but never convicted by the Senate—yet again.
The Democratic National Committee last week sued Trump, the White House, OMB, and DHS over the ads, alleging that the president "personally directed this illegal activity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Raskin Bill Would Compel Smithsonian to Preserve Trump's 'Governmental Propaganda' in Permanent Exhibit
“To avoid repeating this descent into authoritarianism," he said, "we must study this corrupt president’s actions and allow the public to learn about the numerous tools he deployed."
Oct 08, 2026
President Donald Trump stands apart from his predecessors with his use of government resources to glorify himself. During his second presidency, he has used taxpayer funds to blast the airwaves with ads singing his praises, drape giant banners of his face from agency buildings, and mint coins bearing his image.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said the Smithsonian National Museum of American History—which houses some of the nation's most significant historical collections—should preserve artifacts like these as evidence of what he calls Trump's official "governmental propaganda" for future generations.
On Wednesday, Raskin announced a bill that would compel the Smithsonian to collect and preserve objects "reflecting the rise of governmental propaganda, corruption, and authoritarianism" under Trump's two presidencies.
The 2026 America the Beautiful annual national parks pass features President Donald Trump alongside George Washington. (Photo from the US Department of the Interior via Wikimedia Commons)
The legislation comes amid Trump's attempts to warp the Smithsonian's content to reflect his personal view of the nation's history. In July, he signed an executive order directing the Interior Department to erect signs along the walkway warning that it contained exhibits that reflect the “personal, radical ideologies" of the curators.
The language is pulled from a 162-page report released that same month objecting to exhibits that it claims demonstrate "extreme political activism"—including some which highlight the experiences of immigrants, LGBTQ+ people, Native Americans, and other historically marginalized groups. It also claims that the museum does not adequately venerate the nation's founders, while accentuating their faults, including participation in slavery and other historic injustices.
Raskin said that the signs warning passersby of the Smithsonian's dangerous content—which are expected to cost $84,000 to install—are among the artifacts that should be preserved as an example of how authoritarians seek to control media, government, and culture.
He said the signs should be among several other "manifestations of authoritarian narcissism" that the museum should put on display, as well as the "Stalinist" banners of Trump's face that have adorned the departments of Agriculture, Labor, Justice, and Interior.
The inner cover of an official commemorative passport for the 250th anniversary of the United States, which featured the image of President Donald Trump. (Photo from the US Department of State via Wikimedia Commons)
In addition, Raskin said the exhibition should include other photos and videos captured by journalists and private citizens documenting the Trump era, as well as personal testimonials from Americans who "resisted and opposed the rise in authoritarianism," including those who participated in protest movements.
In March 2025, Trump signed an executive order directing the Smithsonian to purge its halls of what he called "improper ideology" or risk losing funding, which was followed by sweeping content reviews.
Earlier this week, The Atlantic reported that the White House had conditioned nearly $190 million in Smithsonian funding on its adherence to the order's vague ban on "exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values, divide Americans based on race, or promote programs or ideologies inconsistent with Federal law and policy.”
The museum has bowed to the pressure sometimes in ways that critics deemed "Orwellian," such as when references to Trump were scrubbed from an exhibit on presidential impeachments before being restored following backlash.
In January, a Smithsonian staff member told The Guardian that administrators had objected to the description of the World War II-era internment of Japanese Americans as "unjust" because the label could appear partisan. Another said they changed "diversity" to "variety" in text discussing astronomical objects, fearing that the administration might flag the word during its content reviews.
Raskin said his legislation is aimed at making sure this sort of heavy-handed censorship is not forgotten.
“To avoid repeating this descent into authoritarianism," he said, "we must study this corrupt president’s actions and allow the public to learn about the numerous tools he deployed while attempting to remake American history in his own image and according to his own autocratic and white nationalist beliefs.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just Despicable': MS NOW and CNN Air Trump's Illegal Taxpayer-Funded Ads
"So your hosts are on air all day saying this is illegal while you are taking the money and running the ads? Just gross," said one MS NOW critic.
Oct 01, 2026
CNN and MS NOW are both airing taxpayer-funded ads that promote President Donald Trump, who last month tried to ban the cable news networks from White House grounds.
As The Washington Post reported on Wednesday, two pro-Trump ads have aired on MS NOW and CNN this week in select markets, even though legal experts and government watchdogs say the ads violate laws prohibiting taxpayer funds for political propaganda.
In a statement provided to the Post, MS NOW spokesperson Richard Hudock defended the decision to run the ads.
"We know the size, engagement, and influence of the MS NOW audience, and apparently the White House does, too," said Hudock. "The decision to spend taxpayer dollars to reach our audience speaks for itself."
The MS NOW spokesperson also emphasized that "accepting an advertisement is not an endorsement of its message, and purchasing airtime will never purchase favorable coverage."
This justification drew an angry rebuke from Ron Filipkowski, editor-in-chief of MeidasTouch.
"This is just despicable by MS NOW, which has accepted stolen taxpayers dollars for 38 illegal ads," Filipkowski wrote in a Thursday social media post. "Give me a break with this bullshit statement too. So your hosts are on air all day saying this is illegal while you are taking the money and running the ads? Just gross."
According to a Wednesday report from Status, some MS NOW insiders are "pissed" about the decision to air the Trump ads, with some noting that the network's viewers will "hate" seeing them.
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Tuesday filed complaints with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) demanding that the government-funded Trump ads be taken off the air.
However, Trump-appointed Trump FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told reporters on Wednesday that he is not planning any investigation into the ads, which he described as "public service announcements" despite the fact that they feature audio of the president personally vowing to "defeat communism, socialism, and Marxism in America."
"I don’t think there’s anything unique or different about it," said Carr. "There’s nothing in there that strikes me that merit any sort of FCC review."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Dangerous for Democracy': White House Airs More Pro-Trump Propaganda on Taxpayer Dime
"The president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it," said a former White House special counsel.
Sep 28, 2026
The White House recycled material from President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign for a new taxpayer-funded ad that aired nationwide this past weekend, just weeks before the high-stakes November midterms.
The 30-second black-and-white ad features Trump walking down a hallway to audio of him vowing to "demolish the deep state" and "expel the warmongers from our government," even as the president wages an illegal and deeply unpopular war on Iran that has killed thousands and driven up prices at home and around the world. During the final 10 seconds of the ad, white text appears at the bottom of the screen stating, "Paid for by the US government."
The ad is just the latest taxpayer-funded, explicitly pro-Trump spot that the White House has launched in recent days, prompting alarm from lawmakers and government watchdog organizations who say the administration is using public funds to flood airwaves with the president's campaign ads shortly before an election.
Watch the newly aired ad:
The U.S. Government is up on TV with this spot --
It aired nationally on FOX yesterday during Illinois at #7 Ohio State and also during Fox News Sunday this morning pic.twitter.com/8PP9FPzUZk
— Medium Buying (@MediumBuying) September 27, 2026
Richard Painter, who served as the White House's chief ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, said the taxpayer-funded campaign ads "could be an impeachable offense," noting that "Congress has expressly prohibited government-sponsored political propaganda, which is dangerous for democracy."
The federal government appears to have spent more than $1 million on pro-Trump ads in recent days, The New York Times reported on Sunday, citing an estimate from AdImpact.
Last week, as Common Dreams reported, the White House launched a taxpayer-funded ad in which Trump declares that "America will never be a communist country" and promotes tax cuts he signed into law, delivering a massive windfall to the rich and large corporations.
Norm Eisen, former White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, told the Times on Sunday that "the president and his administration have gone from breaking the law to trampling it."
"The prior ad was bad enough," said Eisen, "but this one openly repurposes prior political conduct.”
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) wrote on social media that Republicans shouldn't be taken seriously when they claim to care about "waste, fraud, and abuse" as the president and leader of their party runs campaign ads with taxpayer money.
"What a cult this party has become," Murphy added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Every Taxpayer... Should Be Outraged': Anger Spreads Over 'Illegal' US-Funded Pro-Trump Ad
“This is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America, and it is an egregious and utterly illegal misuse of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars,” said four lawmakers.
Sep 25, 2026
Outrage mounted Friday over a taxpayer-funded television advertisement glorifying President Donald Trump, with critics describing the 30-second spot as self-aggrandizing propaganda and questioning whether the administration violated federal law restricting the use of public money for partisan communications.
The ad—which aired this week on outlets including Fox News, Newsmax, and CBS—features a dizzying montage of Trump at rallies, White House events, sporting events, and alongside military personnel, captioned, "AMERICA WILL NEVER BE A COMMUNIST COUNTRY."
The refrain of R&B singer JMSN’s “Love Me” plays over the rapid-fire images. The spot concludes with a voiceover from Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White praising Trump as “the toughest, most resilient person that I’ve ever met.”
At the bottom of the screen, an alarming disclosure appears, reading, "Paid for by the US government."
The White House dismissed criticism of the ad—which aired ahead of November's midterm elections—by calling the spot a "public service announcement" intended to remind Americans “to love their country and understand what makes it worth defending.”
However, on Friday, US Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Jack Reed (D-RI), along with Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), excoriated the clip.
“This is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America, and it is an egregious and utterly illegal misuse of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars,” the four senior congressional appropriators said in a joint statement.
“The law is not complicated," the lawmakers added. "You cannot use taxpayer dollars for political advertisements.”
Federal appropriations law—including the funding bill Trump signed earlier this year—prohibits the use of government funds for unauthorized “publicity or propaganda purposes,” while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has interpreted the prohibition to encompass communications whose obvious purpose is “self-aggrandizement” or “puffery,” as well as “purely partisan” communications.
The consumer advocacy watchdog group Public Citizen on Friday filed a complaint with the GAO alleging the ad "violates laws prohibiting the use of government resources for propaganda, the Hatch Act, and other related laws."
"Whether or not President Trump was personally involved in the ad, it was conceived, produced, and distributed by Trump’s White House staff," Public Citizen said.
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said Friday on social media that "every taxpayer, no matter your party, should be outraged by this."
"Your money is being used to fund campaign ads for Trump," the senator added. "It’s totally, completely [illegal]. He’s stealing your money for his campaign."
"The advertisement raises deep concerns about the Trump administration’s use of taxpayer dollars and its compliance with federal laws that prohibit the use of appropriated funds for the promotion of a political party or candidate," Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) said Thursday.
“This taxpayer-funded political advertisement serves as yet another troubling example of President Trump’s growing list of expensive vanity projects—including the White House ballroom—that are estimated to cost over $1.8 billion, money that could have instead [been] spent lowering costs for Americans.”
Sam Stein, co-host of "The Bulwark Podcast," said, "What possible rationale could there be for using tax dollars to play that ad? This is just pure cult propaganda paid for by us."
@timmiller.bsky.social and @samsteindc.bsky.social react to a taxpayer-funded TV ad praising Trump, complete with “Love Me” playing over footage of the president.“This is just pure cult propaganda paid for by us.”
[image or embed]
— The Bulwark (@thebulwark.com) September 24, 2026 at 6:46 PM
Noting that Trump's approval rating has plunged below 30%, Stein added: "People are abandoning him... members of his own party are starting to distance themselves from him, and he uses that moment to have an ad [saying] please love me... It's desperate."
Tim Miller, Stein's co-host, called the ad "alarming" and "Orwellian."
Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of the advocacy group Common Cause, said Friday in a statement that “taxpayer dollars should never be used to bolster the president’s self-esteem because his ego has been damaged."
"Running political messaging stamped with ‘Paid for by the US Government’ dangerously crosses the line from public service into authoritarian self-promotion," she added. "It also raises serious questions about whether it violates federal law barring tax dollars from being used for publicity or propaganda."
Others noted that the ad blasted communism as Trump rolled out the red carpet at a state dinner for Chinese President Ji Xinping, who is also the secretary general of the Chinese Communist Party.
"The clip’s heavy-handed anti-communist messaging also strikes a wildly hypocritical note, if not for anything but the fact that the Supreme Leader that ran it followed up by hosting China’s Xi Jinping with open arms, a flyover of US military planes, and a statue of a bald eagle," Jezebel's Danielle Han wrote on Friday.
Meanwhile, the controversy has spread beyond politics. JMSN—whose real name is Christian Berishaj—said that he never authorized Trump to use “Love Me,” writing that he would “never authorize my music to be used for ANY political agenda or campaign.”
"I am looking at lawyers," he added, "and handling this internally.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Danger of Trump's Impatient and Overtly Dishonest Government
A republic cannot be run on impulse, grievance, or magical promises.
Aug 24, 2026
As I get older, I understand impatience better than I used to.
Time feels less theoretical. Work we meant to do someday starts asking why it has not arrived. Impatience can clarify. It can push us to repair what can still be repaired, say what needs to be said, and act before the chance disappears.
But impatience can also corrupt judgment. It can turn urgency into recklessness. It can convince us that fast means right.
That matters because Americans have grown dangerously impatient with government. We want problems solved now. We want leaders who promise to cut through the noise, ignore the process, and deliver immediate results. Some frustration is warranted. Government can move too slowly. Bureaucracy can be maddening. In the face of fires, floods, pandemics, wars, economic collapse, and constitutional threats, government must act quickly.
But the American system was not designed primarily for speed. It was designed for friction.
Yes, friction sounds like failure, but in a constitutional democracy, friction can be protective. The founders built separated powers, checks and balances, courts, federalism, staggered elections, and constitutional limits. These were restraints, not efficiency tools.
James Madison put it plainly in Federalist No. 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” The founders did not trust leaders to remain wise or restrained. They designed a system in which power would be checked by other power. The system was never meant to satisfy impatience. It was meant to survive it.
Donald Trump did not create American impatience, but he has weaponized it. His appeal rests, in part, on the promise that complex problems are simple, experts are unnecessary, delay signals weakness, and only he can deliver immediate results.
He said COVID-19 would “disappear,” even as scientists warned that the virus required testing, mitigation, vaccines, public communication, and time. He repeatedly promised to end Russia’s war against Ukraine quickly, saying he could do so in 24 hours, even before taking office. He claimed drug prices would fall by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, even 1,500 percent, a mathematical absurdity. He promised prices would come down on “day one.” He said he could make Chicago safe in “one month.”
The pattern matters more than any single claim. Promise the impossible. Set expectations that no serious policy process can meet. When reality intrudes, blame rivals, judges, bureaucrats, governors, Democrats, immigrants, journalists, scientists, or an invented enemy within.
The same impatience appears in governance. The rushed, no-bid contract for the Reflecting Pool episode offers a cautionary example. Trump and his allies initially pointed to vandalism after the newly renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool began peeling and turning green. A man was indicted. Yet prosecutors later sought to dismiss the case after new information indicated the damage stemmed from flawed or rushed contractor work, not vandalism. What evidence was presented before a citizen was charged? What evidence was missing?
The episode illustrates how the politics of speed can operate: rush the project, bypass safeguards, blame an enemy, and only later confront the facts. No-bid contracts may be justified in emergencies. But when used for vanity projects or politically favored priorities, they bypass the friction meant to protect taxpayers, expert review, and public trust.
This damages civic life. When leaders tell people that hard problems have instant solutions, they train the public to distrust any institution that moves cautiously. Courts become corrupt if they do not rule correctly immediately. Congress becomes useless if it debates. Scientists become suspect if they revise conclusions as evidence changes. Civil servants become saboteurs if they insist on law, data, procedure, or competence.
That cycle breeds anger, then apathy, and sometimes violence. People are promised salvation, only to be forced to live with disappointment when those promises collapse. Some give up on government. Others conclude the system has been stolen from them. A politics of impatience becomes a politics of grievance.
Science suffers because it rarely moves at the pace of political appetite. The scientific method requires hypotheses, evidence, peer review, replication, correction, and humility. Sometimes science moves fast, as vaccine development did during COVID. Even then, speed depended on decades of prior research, sustained investment, global collaboration, and careful testing.
The renewed vilification of Dr. Anthony Fauci follows the same pattern. Fauci’s record, like the country’s COVID response, can and should be scrutinized. But scrutiny is not the same as ritualized blame. Science advances through uncertainty, correction, and argument. A politics addicted to instant answers treats those virtues as evidence of deceit.
None of this excuses slow government when speed is required. Delay can be deadly. Leaders who hide behind process because they lack courage deserve criticism. But democratic slowness is not always dysfunction. Sometimes it is deliberation: hearing competing arguments, weighing evidence, protecting minority rights, identifying unintended consequences, and asking whether today’s satisfying answer will become tomorrow’s disaster.
We live in a culture shaped by technology’s impatience. Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg once celebrated the motto “Move fast and break things.” In business, that mindset can drive innovation. In government, the stakes are higher. When government breaks something, people may lose health care, rights, homes, jobs, legal protections, or even their lives.
Impatience asks, “Why is this taking so long?”
Democracy asks, “What happens if power moves too quickly?”
As citizens, we need a longer horizon. A republic cannot be run on impulse, grievance, or magical promises. Some things must be done quickly, but when rights, law, science, power, and the public good are at stake, the better standard is not speed. It is judgment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israel-Funded Hanover Institute Seemingly Has One Goal: Propagandize to the AI Chat Bots
The fake think tank has churned out over 100 reports since it started publishing on August 6. So what are they really up to?
Aug 17, 2026
At a glance, the Hanover Institute for Public Policy looks like a new think tank dedicated to Israel/Palestine. The organization churns out think-tank style reports on questions such as “Does AIPAC Use ‘Dark Money in Elections?” and “Is Israel Carrying out a Deliberate Campaign of Starvation in Gaza?”
But the Hanover Institute is not a real think tank. None of the reports have bylines. A small disclaimer at the bottom of the webpage notes that the organization was created on behalf of the Israeli Government Advertising Agency by Piro, Inc, a firm co-founded by Daniel Rosenberg, the producer of Spike Lee’s “Inside Man.”
The Hanover Institute’s reports — all of which are about Israel and Palestine — appear to be part of an Israeli effort to influence chatbots. The institute’s “data reports” have footnotes and tables of contents, and they present arguments in a neutral tone, helping them appeal to chatbots like Claude or Gemini. Piro’s website says that it “author(s) content engineered for how LLMs evaluate credibility,” describing this service as "AI Story Optimization." Others refer to this practice of influencing artificial intelligence as “LLM poisoning.”
According to its “about” page, the Hanover Institute “studies the inputs fueling antisemitism in the United States, and publishes what the evidence shows.” Many of the reports are formulaic, starting with an innocent question that someone might ask a chatbot.
“What Caused the Displacement of Palestinians in 1948?”
“Which Humanitarian Organizations Have Documented Israeli War Crimes?”
“What is the Current Situation in the Gaza Strip?”
In an article titled “Is the IDF the World’s Most Moral Army?” the Hanover Institute cites a 2022 poll that found that 47% of Israeli Jews believed that statement. Another report casts doubt on UNICEF's assertion that “90% of water and institutional infrastructure has been damaged or destroyed” in Gaza. Many of the reports conclude by linking the topic to rising antisemitism, oftentimes citing the same studies.
In a few cases, the Hanover Institute publishes what it claims are original findings. For instance, it put out a study saying 19 of the 36 most-watched Israel-Gaza explainer videos contain contested claims, with most of the contested claims aligning with the Palestinian narrative.
The Hanover Institute’s publications sometimes contradict Israeli government narratives. For instance, one report says that foreign funding of universities as an explanation for antisemitic incidents is “weak and full of exceptions.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed this theory, telling Breitbart last year that Europeans and Qataris have spent “billions of American universities, vilifying, vilifying Israel, vilifying Jews, also, frankly, vilifying the United States.”
Alice Lee, an analyst at NewsGuard, a disinformation tracking company, told RS that the sites appear designed to reach a US audience curious about the ongoing conflict, either through search engines or AI chatbots. "LLMs favor concrete statistics and data, as well as strong citations and sources, which these articles all have," Lee said.
"It's a perfect mimicry of a typical credible American think tank, right down to the generic name, the site layout, and the red-white-blue color scheme," Lee added.
Piro, Inc, the firm that created the Hanover Institute, has received $900,000 from the Israeli government for its work. Like many other contractors working for Israel, Piro’s work is subcontracted through Havas Media, a French public relations conglomerate.
The fake think tank has churned out over 100 reports since it started publishing on August 6. The Hanover Institute claims that “cited research is peer-reviewed and academic,” although it frequently cites Israeli government sources such as the Israel Defense Forces and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
RS analyzed 12 random Hanover Institute articles using GPTZero, a popular AI detection software that claims a low false-positive rate. GPTZero flagged 11 of the articles as AI-written with “high confidence”; it flagged one article as AI-written with “moderate confidence.”
Israel has also contracted former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale to create pro-Israel websites engineered to influence chatbots as part of a $46.5 million contract. A Drop Site investigation last month found that many chatbots, particularly Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini, had been successfully trained on data from those websites. Other chatbots frequently cite those websites without flagging them as part of an Israeli influence operation.
Piro does not explicitly state in its agreement submitted to the Department of Justice that its work for Israel is to influence AI. In an email to Politico, which first reported the filing, Rosenberg said his firm’s work is to “put accurate, sourced facts into the public record and to counter misinformation about Israel with verifiable information.” However, last month, Rosenberg posted on LinkedIn advertising Piro’s ability to influence chatbots:
“When someone asks ChatGPT, Gemini, or Perplexity about your category, an answer comes back in one confident paragraph. Most brands have no idea how that paragraph gets built. So we spent months reverse-engineering it…At Piro, we already knew how to build stories that move people. The question was: how do you make sure AI knows how to tell them?”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Juneteenth Is Not a History Lesson We Can Afford to Forget
A PragerU video about the holiday is an example of how history can become propaganda.
Jun 23, 2026
Juneteenth celebrations in my town were lit. There were so many events I had a difficult time choosing which ones to attend. As a grandmother, I ended up at the event on the grounds of the Historic Harriet Barber house (circa 1875) in Hopkins, South Carolina, where my daughter and her 3-year-old son were drumming. The celebration was filled with spirited performances, great food, and camaraderie. Historical reflections centered on the origins of Juneteenth, commemorating June 19, 1865, when African-descended people who were enslaved in Texas finally learned of their freedom—more than two years after the Emancipation Proclamation had officially declared them free. Many gave shout-outs to African American ancestors for all of their visions, sacrifices, and accomplishments. It was a joyful space.
While we are still in the Juneteenth celebratory spirit, we should not sleep, lest it will be another two-and-a-half years when we wake up and realize that our freedom has been lost through a series of recent institutional white supremacist political maneuvers such as: weakening voting rights; attacks on Black political districts, and bans on African American studies.
In his classic 1933 book, The Mis-Education of the Negro, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, father of Black History Month, warned Black people not to believe the lies taught in school that are full of distortions, intentional inaccuracies, and omissions. He also warned that one of the most effective tools of institutional white supremacy is to recruit Black voices to legitimize and advance ideas that work against Black liberation. Nearly 100 years later, we are still facing the revision and erasure of Black history.
For example, PragerU—a conservative website that promotes conservative viewpoints via digital media—has produced a series of edu-tainment videos full of revisionist historical distortions and half-truths.
Juneteenth reminds us that freedom is not simply a legal status. Freedom requires historical memory, vigilance, and the courage to question what we are told.
One video, "The Inconvenient Truth About Juneteenth," is narrated by a young Black man, Xaviaer. In the 56 second TikTok-style video, the narrator presents himself as an “influencer” and is casually walking down the street, iced coffee in hand, as he opines that Black folks are mentally enslaved for believing the conventional story about Juneteenth.
Immediately, evoking the name of Rosa Parks, Xaviaer signifies that Rosa should have made the viewers sit in the front of the bus and take a history class. The cleverness of the misinformation, though, is apparent when he says that Democrats kept Black people enslaved two and a half years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. This slight of hand fails to clarify that the ideologies of the Republican and Democratic parties switched around 1870. Before that time, Republicans controlled the government and used its power to protect Black people who were formerly enslaved and guarantee their civil rights during Reconstruction. Most Democrats, particularly in the South, opposed many of these efforts. However, as the nation shifted its attention toward economic growth and industrial expansion, support for Reconstruction began to wane. Many Northern Republicans became less willing to invest political capital in protecting Black rights in the South.
By the mid-to-late 1870s, the Republican Party had largely retreated from its commitment to reconstructing Southern society and safeguarding the rights of African Americans. Following the Compromise of 1877 and the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, White Democrats regained political control across much of the region and systematically dismantled many of the gains Black people had achieved during Reconstruction. Over the following decades, political allegiances gradually shifted, and by the mid-20th century, many African Americans increasingly aligned with the Democratic Party, particularly as it became more supportive of civil rights initiatives.
Xaviaer concludes "The Inconvenient Truth about Juneteenth" by admonishing Black people for referring to Juneteenth as a Black Independence Day. He argues that the political left has repackaged the holiday through what he characterizes as a segregationist lens. He adds a mocking remark, suggesting that if viewers truly believe Juneteenth is a separate Black Independence Day, he does not want to see them "twerking on a boat" on the Fourth of July—not resisting the urge to slide in a stereotype.
The comment is intended to be humorous, but it serves a deeper purpose. By ridiculing those who celebrate Juneteenth, the video dismisses the historical reality that many enslaved African-descended people were excluded from the freedoms celebrated on July 4, 1776. Rather than engaging this historical contradiction, the video substitutes mockery for analysis and caricature for historical understanding.
From a critical perspective, Black people should not be getting history lessons from social media influencers, political propagandists, or organizations masquerading as educational institutions. History is too important.
Fortunately, other scholars have challenged the distortions and omissions that permeate traditional historical narratives. While Dr. Carter G. Woodson's The Mis-Education of the Negro remains one of the most important warnings about the dangers of accepting history uncritically, James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me, exposed how textbooks sanitize and distort the past. Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States intentionally centers the experiences of people who were oppressed, marginalized, and excluded from dominant historical accounts.
Misinformation is not merely about getting facts wrong. It is about shaping how people understand themselves, their communities, and their possibilities. Dr. Carter G. Woodson once reflected that it took him 20 years after earning his doctorate from Harvard University to recover from what he described as his intellectual conditioning. James Baldwin similarly observed that it took years to free himself from the myths and falsehoods he had been taught about race, history, and human worth.
The stakes are especially high when misleading narratives are packaged in entertaining videos designed to reach young people. And by the way, Dr. Carter G. Woodson, father of Black History Month, cautioned that one of the most effective tools of institutional white supremacy is to recruit Black voices to legitimize and advance ideas that work against Black liberation.
Juneteenth reminds us that freedom is not simply a legal status. Freedom requires historical memory, vigilance, and the courage to question what we are told and the understanding of the need to seek truth from credible sources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Iran Says YouTube Is Trying to ‘Suppress the Truth’ By Banning AI Lego-Style Videos Mocking US-Israeli War
One expert said the videos have gone viral by "hitting on points of disaffection in the United States."
Apr 14, 2026
Iran's foreign ministry is accusing YouTube of trying to "suppress the truth" by banning the account responsible for a series of viral Lego-style animations mocking the US-Israeli war.
The small team known as Explosive Media has racked up tens of millions of views across several platforms, with slickly produced music videos mercilessly lampooning the Trump administration and glorifying Iran's struggle against the US and Israel's attacks that began at the end of February.
Last week, Explosive Media had its channel suspended from YouTube for "violent content," which its owners disputed. "Are our LEGO-style animations actually violent?” the group asked on social media.
On Monday, Esmaeil Baghaei, the spokesperson for Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, joined the criticism of the ban.
"In a land that proudly hosts Pixar, DreamWorks Animation, and The Walt Disney Company, an independent animated YouTube channel—which had organically grown by depicting US aggression and warmongering, and garnered millions of viewers—was abruptly shut down!!" he wrote on social media.
"Why?!" Baghaei said. “Simply to suppress the truth about their ‘illegal war’ on Iran and shield the American administration’s false narrative from any competing voice.”
While Explosive Media's content can no longer be viewed on YouTube—which is owned by Google—it appears unaffected on other major platforms like Instagram, X, and TikTok, where it has garnered millions of views.
The videos appear aimed at a US audience, often leaning into jokes and memes about the personal foibles of those leading the war.
They frequently reference the familiar accusation that President Donald Trump launched the war to distract from the growing scrutiny of his connections to the late multimillionaire sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein. Another video takes aim at Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's history of alcoholism and accusations of serial adultery and sexual misconduct.
The videos also portray a strident pro-Iran message. Following the announcement of a ceasefire last week, a video declared that “Iran won” the war. Others have shown Iranian missiles hitting the White House or heading toward Tel Aviv.
The videos also seize on growing domestic outrage over the US government's devotion to Israel, which it implies is controlling Trump and dragging the US into a war against its interests. One video, uploaded last week, portrays Trump being literally walked like a dog by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Your government is run by pedophiles. They ordered you to die for Israel," repeats one video's chorus.
A spokesperson for the team, who identified himself as "Mr. Explosive" in an interview with the BBC, has described his group as "totally independent." But he did say that the Iranian government is a “customer,” implying possible collaboration.
Explosive Media has denied any links with the Iranian government. Responding to a journalist at The Associated Press who said the sophistication of the videos suggests government involvement, the group's official X account replied, "We’ve told you—and other journalists—multiple times that we are independent. Yet you keep repeating the same false claim, insisting that we are connected to the government."
It added: "Western media shows no real commitment to truth—they simply repeat their own baseless claims until they start to sound like facts."
While the Trump administration often portrays the war as a clash of civilizations, the videos posted by Explosive show the American people in a sympathetic light.
Though the videos pull no punches toward their leaders, ordinary Americans are portrayed protesting the Trump administration or fearful about being sent to fight in a foreign war by an administration that promised to end such conflicts.
Polls show that the majority of Americans disapprove of the war and fear it escalating. Moustafa Ayad, a researcher with the Institute of Strategic Dialogue, told WIRED that the videos have likely gotten so much attention because they tap into this discontent.
"People are disengaging from some of the real conflict content and looking for something that can distill what's happening quickly and in a language and tone that they understand, and that's what those Lego videos are doing,” he said. "They're making it easily accessible to understand the conflict from Iran's point of view, and it's hitting on points of disaffection in the United States at the same time. It's working on two fronts.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy