

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," said one critic.
Critics have weighed in on Amazon MGM Studios' documentary about first lady Melania Trump, and their verdicts are overwhelmingly negative.
According to review aggregation website Metacritic, Melania—which Amazon paid $40 million to acquire and $35 million to market—so far has received a collective score of just 6 out of 100 from critics, which indicates "overwhelming dislike."
Similarly, Melania scores a mere 6% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomameter," indicating that 94% of reviews for the movie so far have been negative.
One particularly brutal review came from Nick Hilton, film critic for the Independent, who said that the first lady came off in the film as "a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness" who leads a "vulgar, gilded lifestyle."
Hilton added that the film is so terrible that it fails even at being effective propaganda and is likely to be remembered as "a striking artifact... of a time when Americans willingly subordinated themselves to a political and economic oligopoly."
The Guardian's Xan Brooks delivered a similarly scathing assessment, declaring the film "dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," Brooks elaborated. "I’m not even sure it qualifies as a documentary, exactly, so much as an elaborate piece of designer taxidermy, horribly overpriced and ice-cold to the touch and proffered like a medieval tribute to placate the greedy king on his throne."
Donald Clarke of the Irish Times also discussed the film's failure as a piece of propaganda, and he compared it unfavorably to the work of Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.
"Melania... appears keener on inducing narcolepsy in its viewers than energizing them into massed marching," he wrote. "Triumph of the Dull, perhaps."
Variety's Owen Gleiberman argued that the Melania documentary is utterly devoid of anything approaching dramatic stakes, which results in the film suffering from "staggering inertia."
"Mostly it’s inert," Gleiberman wrote of the film. "It feels like it’s been stitched together out of the most innocuous outtakes from a reality show. There’s no drama to it. It should have been called 'Day of the Living Tradwife.'"
Frank Scheck of the Hollywood Reporter found that the movie mostly exposes Melania Trump is an empty vessel without a single original thought or insight, instead deploying "an endless number of inspirational phrases seemingly cribbed from self-help books."
Kevin Fallon of the Daily Beast described Melania as "an unbelievable abomination of filmmaking" that reaches "a level of insipid propaganda that almost resists review."
"It's so expected," Fallon added, "and utterly pointless."
"The right-wing bullshit machine is operating at full steam and across all cylinders today," said one critic.
President Donald Trump on Wednesday posted an account of the deadly shooting in Minneapolis by a federal immigration officer that was completely at odds with all evidence seen so far.
In a post on Truth Social, the president claimed that the woman killed in her car by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over" him, forcing him to fire his weapon at her in self-defense.
Trump further claimed that it "is hard to believe" that the ICE officer "is alive" after being supposedly run over.
Eyewitness videos taken at the scene of the incident, however, do not show the officer getting run over at all. In fact, the officer can be seen walking around after discharging his weapon, with no signs of any injury.
In fact, the video Trump posted on his Truth Social that he claims shows the officer being run over does not at all show the officer being run over, but rather stepping safely out of the way as the car starts moving forward.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent carefully examined the video posted by Trump and concluded that it "demonstrates nothing close to what" the president claimed it showed.
"This is a sick, malicious lie from Trump," Sargent commented.
Reporter Sam Stein of the Bulwark also provided a swift debunking of Trump's claims.
"Hard to believe the ICE officer is still alive, writes the president," Stein wrote on X, "of an ICE officer who was not hit at all and was well enough to go run down the street to check on the woman he had killed."
John Hopkins University economist Filipe Campante was struck by just how little effort the president feels he needs to exert to make his lies convincing.
"That he chooses the 'me or your lying eyes?' approach, in the full knowledge that there are multiple videos out there, is a striking commentary on the nature of propaganda in the modern information environment," Campante wrote on Bluesky. "Censorship is no longer viable, so the approach is to use your own content provision to drown out any negative facts/evidence."
Tour guide and author Ben Edwards marveled at the president's ability to make completely fact-free assertions.
"The country is slowly starting to come apart," Edwards observed. "Trump lives in an alternate reality. He cannot speak a word of truth."
Disinformation researcher Kate Starbird warned that Trump's low-effort propaganda was still likely to prove effective with his followers.
"The right-wing bullshit machine is operating at full steam and across all cylinders today," Starbird wrote, "strategically framing the horrific ICE killing of a Minnesota woman to defend/bolster their political aims. For example, Trump's message... will shape how his supporters (willfully mis)interpret the video evidence."
"It is past time for 25th Amendment remedies," said one critic.
To commemorate the fifth anniversary of the deadly riots incited by President Donald Trump at the US Capitol Building, the Trump White House on Tuesday unveiled a website loaded with false claims about the events that took place on January 6, 2021.
The official White House January 6 website features multiple falsehoods and distortions about the Trump-incited Capitol riots, including brazenly false claims about the Capitol Police "escalating" tensions with rioters by firing "tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions into crowds of peaceful protesters."
In reality, Trump supporters stormed past police barricades that had been set up at the Capitol and then smashed windows to enter the building and illegally disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump falsely claimed to have won.
The website also blames former Vice President Mike Pence for refusing to go along with Trump's unconstitutional scheme to unilaterally discard certified election results from key swing states, which would have put the election results in the hands of Republican-controlled state legislatures to falsely certify Trump as the winner.
The Trump White House's revisionist history of the riots falsely claims that rioter Ashli Babbitt was "murdered in cold blood" by Capitol Police, when in reality she was shot while trying to break into into the Speaker's Lobby after being warned multiple times by officers to stand back.
The Capitol rioters garner significant praise from the White House website, which falsely portrays them as peaceful demonstrators who fell victim to the actions of Capitol Police and overly zealous Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors.
"On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, President Trump issued sweeping blanket pardons and commutations for nearly 1,600 patriotic Americans prosecuted for their presence at the Capitol—many mere trespassers or peaceful protesters treated as insurrectionists by a weaponized Biden DOJ," the website says.
The blatantly false claims on the website drew a horrified reaction from many critics, including some journalists who were at the Capitol on that day and witnesses the riots firsthand.
"Never forget that Trump attempted a coup to stay in power after losing reelection, ending with the violent insurrection he incited that left 140 cops injured, five dead," wrote HuffPost White House correspondent SV Dáte on X.
"The White House's new January 6 page is filled with lies, misrepresentation, and reality denial," wrote Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins on Bluesky. "It's a clear attempt to rewrite history and frame Trump in heroic terms."
Author Mike Rothschild accused the White House of engaging in historical revisionism on par with the government depicted in George Orwell's classic novel 1984, arguing that Trump and his underlings of embracing "an alternate reality so hackneyed and obviously fake that it would make Orwell stick his head in a wood chipper."
Victor Ray, a sociologist at the University of Iowa, raised alarms about what the January 6 White House website says about Trump's mental health.
"This is batshit," he wrote. "The White House is doing alternate reality history. It is past time for 25th Amendment remedies."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters for America, reacted to the section of the website blaming Pence by describing it as an ominous sign that a future coup attempt by Trump to illegally remain in power might actually succeed.
"Trump replaced Pence on the ticket with someone he fully expects would carry out this deranged scheme if he has the opportunity, instead betraying the Constitution," he wrote, referring to Vice President JD Vance, who criticized Pence for fulfilling his constitutional duty and certifying the 2020 election results.