Ayana Elizabeth Johnson has a tenuous relationship with the word “hope.” The marine biologist, policy expert, teacher, and author is too much of a pragmatist to rely on something so passive. Hope as a noun is defined as having an expectation of a positive outcome. To Johnson, that’s not in line with reality. In a chapter near the end of her new book, What If We Get It Right?: Visions of Climate Futures, she writes, “Fuck hope. Where’s the strategy? What are we going to do so that we don’t need hope?”

“Fuck hope. Where’s the strategy? What are we going to do so that we don’t need hope?”

Later in the chapter she concedes that active hope—“catalytic hope” as she calls it—is the type of thing she could get down with. A hope that allows people to exist on auto-pilot could be disastrous. But a hope that inspires people to act could be revolutionary.

What If We Get It Right?, which hit shelves Tuesday, offers some of this inspiration. The book features Johnson’s interviews with a wide swath of people about how we as a society are going to get ourselves out of the climate mess. She talked to the likes of Indigenous rights activist Jade Begay, screenwriter Adam McKay, film executive Franklin Leonard, climate justice advocate Ayisha Siddiqa, and writer and activist Bill McKibben, among others, on topics ranging from how to facilitate a truly just transition to how to design neighborhoods for a warmer, more dangerous world. 

Standing apart from the technocratic and economic-oriented solutions literature, What If We Get It Right? focuses on nature-based and justice-oriented strategies. For instance, Johnson interviewed farmer and author Leah Penniman about the role of reparations in regenerative agriculture. While regenerative agriculture has become increasingly buzzy—the USDA is even making massive investments to support it—Penniman highlights that giving farmland back to its rightful owners, including dispossessed Indigenous and Black communities, is just as important as eliminating industrial methods of farming because regenerative practices are derived from those communities.

In fact, the book seems to say, much of the wisdom about how to conquer climate change is already at our fingertips—we just need to do a better job of actually putting those solutions into practice, whether by strengthening our disaster recovery systems, finding new ways of building cities, or covering climate change better in the news. Everyone has gifts to help in the fight. A mass movement to tackle climate change through art, design, science, policy, and justice is our best bet.

Ahead of the book’s release, I spoke with Johnson about her writing process, the plethora of climate solutions out there, and what to do to avoid spiraling about climate change. Our conversation has been edited and condensed.

Why did you want to write this book?

I actually don’t know that I wanted to write this book, but it was like the book that I wanted to read and I couldn’t find it. I was feeling like there was a gap in the literature of books helping us see the way forward, or more broadly than books, I guess just culture. 

“We have so much media about climate apocalypse—but not a lot about how we have the climate solutions we need, and what would happen if we just did them?”

We have so much media about climate apocalypse, so many films, so much news about disasters—but not a lot about how we have the climate solutions we need, and what would happen if we just did them? I was wishing for that to be the climate conversation, to shift more to a solutions focus, and not in a techno-utopian kind of way, but in a grounded in nature and justice sort of way.

How do you want a reader to approach this book? Do you want it to be a Project Drawdown thing, where they’re like, “Oh, let me just read one of these chapters, and then, like, go live my life and come back.” Or do you want people to read it completely from start to finish?

I don’t want it to feel like a textbook. I mean, that’s why it took me so long to write the book, because I couldn’t crack the code of how to structure this so that it would feel readable. And my editor had been coming to this event series that I curate and host at Pioneer Works, an arts institution in Brooklyn, and he was like, “This is the book. It’s you telling us who we should be listening to and helping us understand what they’re saying.”

Writing the book, did it make you feel better?

I don’t know that I felt bad when I started. I think the broad strokes of climate science and where we’re heading—unless we rapidly, dramatically change our ways—have been known for decades. That’s still the case. 

Everyone has some way they can contribute to climate solutions. I feel better now that this book exists, because it’s like the best I could do.

I’m wondering if you can talk a little bit about the writing process. Where did you write this book and what was helpful for you to get it across the finish line?

I started writing this book at my family farm, my mom’s, in my bedroom there and at the kitchen table that’s described in the introduction of the book. And I moved to Maine almost two years ago now, and the book was written almost entirely here. I moved here because I needed more green in my life, right? And the opening line of the last chapter is: If we get it right, the world is a lot more green. I just wanted to skip ahead to living in that world.

After the last debate, are you feeling hopeful about the future of climate action?

Hope is not really my jam. I’m not an optimist. As a scientist, I find that to be a sort of unscientific position, but I also, you know, just the assumption it’ll be okay in the end—I don’t harbor that, but I do know that there’s also a scientific fact that there are many different possible futures. And my job, as I’ve embraced it, is to help make sure we have the best possible one. 

“There are many different possible futures. And my job, as I’ve embraced it, is to help make sure we have the best possible one.” 

And that didn’t change after the debate. I mean, I’m still like, “Wow, we have a lot of work to do.” We clearly need a much stronger climate electorate so that politicians feel like they have to talk about their climate plan, so that the debate organizers and moderators feel like they need to ask those questions, not just one at the end, but acknowledge that climate is the context within which all of our other policies and challenges as a country are unfolding.

What’s a good first step for someone who wants to work toward climate solutions but doesn’t even know where to start because they’re so overwhelmed? 

I would just say, I get it: It’s the biggest thing humanity has ever faced. Feeling anxious, overwhelmed, depressed about it is a reasonable and very human response. So there’s nothing wrong with that, per se. 

But of course, I do hope that people will find a way to leverage that energy into finding a way to contribute to solutions, because we really do have the solutions we need. I think that’s sort of the open secret: We know what to do. We know how to shift to renewables. We know how to green buildings. We know how to improve public transit. We know how to improve agriculture. We know how to protect and restore ecosystems. None of this is a secret. You don’t need to wait for a magical new technology. It’s just a matter of building the cultural momentum, unlocking the political will, pressuring a shift in financing. 

Obviously, I know it’s not simple, but I do think it’s important for people to understand that we’re not lacking for solutions. We’re lacking for people working on them.

One year after its debut, Blinx – the Dubai-based digital startup that produces news and short form storytelling targeting Gen Z and Millennials across the Middle East and North Africa – is boasting big numbers. In the past 12 months, the pioneering content hub — which was launched from a high-tech Dubai Media City studio […]

The “Kevin & Sluggo Show” was noticeably missing Friday afternoon on Los Angeles’ KLOS-FM, as hosts Kevin Ryder and Doug “Sluggo” Roberts were given their walking papers. The decision to eliminate the afternoon drivetime slot at KLOS comes as owner Meruelo Media has made drastic cuts at several of its local radio stations, which also […]

A federal indictment unsealed on Wednesday alleges that a Tennessee-based media company which played home to several prominent right-leaning online commentators was secretly a Russian government-backed influence operation. The company is accused of receiving nearly $10 million from employees of Russia Today (RT), a Russian state-backed media company, as part of “a scheme to create and distribute content to U.S. audiences with hidden Russian government messaging,” according to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The allegations were part of a broader effort against Russian influence sites seeking to subvert the elections.

Tenet Media worked with American conservative or heterodox media figures, including Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, Tim Pool, and Lauren Southern, who variously present themselves as independent journalists, documentarians, and political commentators. Not all of them immediately commented on having been publicly linked to a foreign propaganda site, but Johnson soon tweeted that he and other influencers had been “victims in this alleged scheme.” In his own tweet, Pool echoed that line, writing, in part, “Should these allegations prove true, I as well as the other personalities and commentators were deceived and are victims.” Rubin, too, described himself as a victim, adding, “I knew absolutely nothing about any of this fraudulent activity. Period.”

The indictment, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges that RT and two specific employees, Kostiantyn “Kostya” Kalashnikov and Elena “Lena” Afanasyeva, worked to funnel money to Tenet Media as part of a series of “covert projects” to shape the opinions of Western audiences. RT has faced cancellations and sanctions in the United States, Europe, Canada, and the UK after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; federal authorities allege those travails led the company to instead create more covert means of influencing public perception.

While Tenet is only referred to in the indictment as “U.S. Company 1,” details made it readily identifiable. The indictment alleges that Tenet’s coverage “contain[ed] commentary on events and issues in the United States, such as immigration, inflation, and other topics…consistent with the Government of Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions.”  

The indictment also alleges that not everyone affiliated with Tenet was unaware of the scheme, stating that “Founders 1 and 2” of the company knew the source of their funding. The founders of Tenet Media are Lauren Chen and her husband; Chen is a conservative influencer and YouTuber who’s hosted a show on Blaze TV and who’s affiliated with Turning Point USA. Her husband, Liam Donovan, identifies himself on Twitter as the president of Tenet Media. 

The indictment alleges that the RT officials and Founders 1 and 2 “also worked together to deceive two U.S. online commentators (“Commentator-I” and “Commentator-2″), who respectively have over 2.4 million and 1.3 million YouTube subscribers.” Dave Rubin has 2.4 million YouTube subscribers, while Tim Pool has 1.37 million.

The indictment indicates that even some of the people working at Tenet found their content heavy-handed. On February 15 of this year, Afanasyeva, using the name Helena Shudra, shared a video in a company Discord channel of what the indictment calls “a well-known U.S. political commentator visiting a grocery store in Russia.” While he’s not named in the indictment, it clearly matches Tucker Carlson, who toured such a grocery store, declaring himself slackjawed in wonder at how nice it was.

“Later that day,” the indictment adds, “Producer-I privately messaged Founder-2 on Discord: ‘They want me to post this’—referencing the video that Afanasyeva posted—but ‘it just feels like overt shilling.’ Founder-2 replied that Founder-I ‘thinks we should put it out there.’ Producer-I acquiesced, responding, ‘alright I’ll put it out tomorrow.'”

Tenet’s recent content on sites like YouTube, Twitter, and TikTok has been heavily larded with critical commentary about Kamala Harris. Conservative political commentator and documented plagiarist Benny Johnson, for instance, recently starred in a video about her “empty words.”

The allegations against Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva, who are charged with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and conspiracy to commit money laundering, were part of a broader effort against what US authorities allege were Russian influence sites seeking to subvert the elections. Earlier on Wednesday, the Justice Department announced it had seized 32 internet domains used in what they called “Russian government-directed foreign malign influence campaigns.” 

At an Aspen Institute event on Wednesday afternoon, a DOJ official, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, said the Russians charged in the case “used American-based individuals and entities to exploit, frankly, our free society to try to undermine our election,” including by deploying “unwitting influencers to push Russian propaganda and pro-Russian messaging.” 

One of the last things Tenet posted on their social media sites before the indictment was unsealed concerned—ironically enough—a government employee accused of secretly acting as a foreign agent. Tenet posted a video of Linda Sun, a former aide to New York governors Andrew Cuomo and Kathy Hochul who has been charged with using her position to benefit the Chinese government. Tenet seemed to suggest that a few words Sun offered on a video call endorsing diversity, equity, and inclusion measures were part of an alleged foreign-backed messaging plot.

“Why would the Chinese government want to push DEI in America?” a tweet from Tenet read.

Abby Vesoulis contributed reporting.

Update, September 4: This story has been updated to include Johnson, Rubin and Pool’s comments.

Larry Ellison, the megabillionaire founder of Oracle, will be the majority shareholder of National Amusements Inc., the company that controls Paramount Global, after the expected closing of the deal with Skydance Media — led by his son, David Ellison — next year, according to a regulatory filing. Larry Ellison will own 77.5% of National Amusements […]

A federal indictment unsealed on Wednesday alleges that a Tennessee-based media company which played home to several prominent right-leaning online commentators was secretly a Russian government-backed influence operation. The company is accused of receiving nearly $10 million from employees of Russia Today (RT), a Russian state-backed media company, as part of “a scheme to create and distribute content to U.S. audiences with hidden Russian government messaging,” according to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

The allegations were part of a broader effort against Russian influence sites seeking to subvert the elections.

Tenet Media worked with American conservative or heterodox media figures, including Dave Rubin, Benny Johnson, Tim Pool, and Lauren Southern, who variously present themselves as independent journalists, documentarians, and political commentators. Not all of them immediately commented on having been publicly linked to a foreign propaganda site, but Johnson soon tweeted that he and other influencers had been “victims in this alleged scheme.” In his own tweet, Pool echoed that line, writing, in part, “Should these allegations prove true, I as well as the other personalities and commentators were deceived and are victims.” Rubin, too, described himself as a victim, adding, “I knew absolutely nothing about any of this fraudulent activity. Period.”

The indictment, filed in the Southern District of New York, alleges that RT and two specific employees, Kostiantyn “Kostya” Kalashnikov and Elena “Lena” Afanasyeva, worked to funnel money to Tenet Media as part of a series of “covert projects” to shape the opinions of Western audiences. RT has faced cancellations and sanctions in the United States, Europe, Canada, and the UK after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine; federal authorities allege those travails led the company to instead create more covert means of influencing public perception.

While Tenet is only referred to in the indictment as “U.S. Company 1,” details made it readily identifiable. The indictment alleges that Tenet’s coverage “contain[ed] commentary on events and issues in the United States, such as immigration, inflation, and other topics…consistent with the Government of Russia’s interest in amplifying U.S. domestic divisions.”  

The indictment also alleges that not everyone affiliated with Tenet was unaware of the scheme, stating that “Founders 1 and 2” of the company knew the source of their funding. The founders of Tenet Media are Lauren Chen and her husband; Chen is a conservative influencer and YouTuber who’s hosted a show on Blaze TV and who’s affiliated with Turning Point USA. Her husband, Liam Donovan, identifies himself on Twitter as the president of Tenet Media. 

The indictment alleges that the RT officials and Founders 1 and 2 “also worked together to deceive two U.S. online commentators (“Commentator-I” and “Commentator-2″), who respectively have over 2.4 million and 1.3 million YouTube subscribers.” Dave Rubin has 2.4 million YouTube subscribers, while Tim Pool has 1.37 million.

The indictment indicates that even some of the people working at Tenet found their content heavy-handed. On February 15 of this year, Afanasyeva, using the name Helena Shudra, shared a video in a company Discord channel of what the indictment calls “a well-known U.S. political commentator visiting a grocery store in Russia.” While he’s not named in the indictment, it clearly matches Tucker Carlson, who toured such a grocery store, declaring himself slackjawed in wonder at how nice it was.

“Later that day,” the indictment adds, “Producer-I privately messaged Founder-2 on Discord: ‘They want me to post this’—referencing the video that Afanasyeva posted—but ‘it just feels like overt shilling.’ Founder-2 replied that Founder-I ‘thinks we should put it out there.’ Producer-I acquiesced, responding, ‘alright I’ll put it out tomorrow.'”

Tenet’s recent content on sites like YouTube, Twitter, and TikTok has been heavily larded with critical commentary about Kamala Harris. Conservative political commentator and documented plagiarist Benny Johnson, for instance, recently starred in a video about her “empty words.”

The allegations against Kalashnikov and Afanasyeva, who are charged with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and conspiracy to commit money laundering, were part of a broader effort against what US authorities allege were Russian influence sites seeking to subvert the elections. Earlier on Wednesday, the Justice Department announced it had seized 32 internet domains used in what they called “Russian government-directed foreign malign influence campaigns.” 

At an Aspen Institute event on Wednesday afternoon, a DOJ official, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, said the Russians charged in the case “used American-based individuals and entities to exploit, frankly, our free society to try to undermine our election,” including by deploying “unwitting influencers to push Russian propaganda and pro-Russian messaging.” 

One of the last things Tenet posted on their social media sites before the indictment was unsealed concerned—ironically enough—a government employee accused of secretly acting as a foreign agent. Tenet posted a video of Linda Sun, a former aide to New York governors Andrew Cuomo and Kathy Hochul who has been charged with using her position to benefit the Chinese government. Tenet seemed to suggest that a few words Sun offered on a video call endorsing diversity, equity, and inclusion measures were part of an alleged foreign-backed messaging plot.

“Why would the Chinese government want to push DEI in America?” a tweet from Tenet read.

Abby Vesoulis contributed reporting.

Update, September 4: This story has been updated to include Johnson, Rubin and Pool’s comments.

“Hijack” creator George Kay is set to form his own label as part of an exclusive partnership deal with New Pictures and All3Media. The multi-year agreement will see Kay, who is responsible for hits including Idris Elba starrer “Hijack” on Apple TV+, Netflix’s “Lupin” and ITV series “The Long Shadow,” launch Observatory Pictures, which will […]

Two of the biggest TV companies in Europe, Germany’s ZDF and France Televisions, both public broadcasters, have boarded CGI animated comedy drama “20 Dance Street,” which has been greenlit for production.  France Televisions has acquired the series as a pre-sale. In another deal, Belgium public broadcaster RTBF has picked up the series for Belgium. The […]

Pop-culture collections have become a personal signifier unlike ever before, and physical media — especially Blu-rays and 4K discs — is no exception. Whether your library is meticulously curated or a clearinghouse for every title no matter how big or small, it tells a story about your interests, appetites, and general passion for entertainment. Moreover, […]

Lawyers representing Elon Musk and X, previously known as Twitter, have quietly begun sending subpoenas to a host of public interest groups, Mother Jones has learned. Most of the targeted organizations have signed open letters to X’s advertisers expressing concerns about the platform’s direction under Musk’s leadership.

The groups include the Center for Countering Digital Hate, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the digital rights organization Access Now, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). The subpoenas represent a new chapter in the legal war Musk launched after advertisers fled X, and are part of a lawsuit Musk and X first filed about a year ago against Media Matters over a report it published documenting that ads appeared alongside extremist content. The subpoenas demand any correspondence the organizations have had with that progressive media watchdog group. Several targets told Mother Jones they’ve had no or limited interaction with Media Matters, and that the subpoenas feel, in the words of more than one person, like “a fishing expedition.”

“It’s really cynical, actually: Mr. Free Speech going after anyone who’s criticized him.”

“We were sent a subpoena,” confirms Jim Naureckas, the editor of FAIR, which has been documenting corporate media bias since 1986. In his 34 years there, Naureckas adds, this is their first subpoena.

While “it was very exciting,” he jokes, he says it is not something for which they can provide any responsive materials. “It’s a long convoluted subpoena looking for a bunch of stuff we don’t have. If we were enthusiastic Elon Musk fans who wanted to help him with his lawsuit against Media Matters, I don’t know what we’d give him.”

Representatives for the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Countering Digital Hate also confirmed they had received subpoenas; other signatories on the open letters did not respond to requests for comment.

One of the letters was sent in May 2022 to express concern about Musk’s plan to take over Twitter, and was spearheaded by Media Matters alongside the big tech watchdog group Accountable Tech and the women’s rights nonprofit Ultraviolet. The other, from a coalition calling itself Stop Toxic Twitter, was sent to the platform’s top ad-buyers in November 2022; Media Matters was one of its lead signatories. Media Matters and their legal counsel declined to comment. Twitter, which no longer responds to requests for comment, could not be reached.

FAIR, for the record, had not signed either letter, but had written about X’s lawsuit targeting Media Matters, calling it an attack on free speech. “If a blog post is evidence of collaboration, that’s a stance that’s somewhat hostile to the First Amendment,” Naureckas dryly says.

With advertisers marching away from his site, Musk, a self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist,” launched what he called a “thermonuclear” lawsuit against Media Matters in November 2023 over its report warning that paid content from major companies like Apple and Oracle was being placed along bigoted material on X. Musk and X contend that Media Matters “manipulated” the algorithm to make the ads appear alongside such content.

The company filed in the Northern District of Texas, where it will appear before Judge Reed O’Connor, who holds $15,000 of stock in Tesla, Musk’s other company. (Earlier this week, Media Matters lost its bid to have O’Connor recuse himself.) Media Matters has also filed to dismiss the case, which O’Connor has not yet ruled on; in the meantime, he has ordered that Media Matters must comply with an expansive discovery request from X’s lawyers. Musk is also taking legal action against ad industry trade groups, accusing the organizations of engaging in an illegal group boycott against X. Seemingly in response to the suit, one of the groups, the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, said it would discontinue its work. 

Similarly, the new subpoenas from X’s lawyers will have “a chilling effect on advocacy and on freedom of expression,” says Jessica González, a co-CEO of the media policy organization Free Press. “It’s really cynical, actually: Mr. Free Speech going after anyone who’s criticized him.”

While Free Press, despite being an original convenor of Stop Toxic Twitter, has not received a subpoena, González worries about the effects on organizations that have. Advocacy groups coming together to speak up for the rights of their communities, she says, “are what free speech is all about.”

“By going on a lawsuit spree and issuing subpoenas to a number of organizations who signed a letter,” she explains, “folks have to think twice about whether they’re going to speak up on behalf of their communities. It’s threatening to smaller organizations with smaller budgets.”

“There’s a grim rationality to his legal activities,” says Imran Ahmed, the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s founder and CEO, of Musk. “They’re the desperate actions of a man trying to avoid accountability for what he knows is atrocious behavior.” Ahmed believes Musk knows the behavior is bad, he added, because he himself said in 2022 that Twitter could not be allowed to become “a free-for-all hellscape,” which critics argue it has.

In February, Musk lost a lawsuit that targeted the Center for Countering Digital Hate, when a federal judge in California ruled that the suit represented a clear effort to “punish” the group for criticizing Twitter. “He’s officially someone who’s tried to use strategic litigation to silence an organization, for all his First Amendment purity,” explains Ahmed.

Ahmed says his group’s lawyers have already raised that loss in pushing back against X’s latest subpoena, objecting that it is not only “vague, ambiguous and unintelligible,” but that it “clearly seeks information that X had sought to obtain in another, completely separate case that X brought against CCDH that has been dismissed with prejudice.”

“He’s revealing the extent to which this has never been about free speech,” says Ahmed. “It’s always been about protecting revenue.”

There’s nothing like being told to shut up to ignite some political fire in the belly.

Republicans tried to silence @VoteGloriaJ on guns.

But calls for gun reforms will dominate a truly massive nationaal audience tonight at #DNCConvention2024.@garrison_hayes sat down for this exclusive chat with one member of the famous #TennesseeThree.

And she also addresses… pic.twitter.com/QimwNmK02H

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) August 22, 2024

In April 2023, three opposition lawmakers were thrust into the national spotlight after the Republican-led Tennessee House of Representatives moved to strip them of office for staging gun reform protests. State Rep. Gloria Johnson was one of them, and along with State Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, she joined students and families in the aftermath of Nashville’s Covenant School shooting to call for change, loudly and defiantly, in the state capitol. “Eighty percent of Tennesseans want something done about guns,” Johnson told me. “They want some gun-sense legislation.”

“No other country lives like this.”

The first time I met Johnson was on the eve of that unprecedented vote. She remained in office; the other two did not, but they were swiftly reappointed to their seats until a special election, at which they were reelected. Their trailblazing stand left them with a large following and a media-friendly nickname: The Tennessee Three.

Since then, Johnson has launched a campaign for the US Senate to unseat Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a close ally of Donald Trump, in November. “Tennessee deserves someone working for them,” she said. “Somebody who cares about everybody having access to affordable healthcare.”

The profile the three gained last year has given them the opportunity to bring their message to perhaps the biggest stage of their political careers so far: The Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Georgia Rep. Lucy McBath will join several other members of Congress and former Arizona Rep. and activist Gabrielle Giffords for a conversation centered on the devastating impacts of gun violence. “We don’t have to live like this,” Johnson told me. “No other country lives like this.”

Just a few (long) weeks ago, President Joe Biden was still running for reelection, grappling with persistently negative polling. One major concern for Democrats—and a source of surprise and delight for Republicans—was the apparent shift of young Black male voters towards former President Donald Trump. This will-they-won’t-they question dominated the summer, culminating at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee in mid-July: Could Trump make significant inroads into a voting bloc that traditionally supported Democrats?

That narrative shifted dramatically with the entry of Vice President Kamala Harris into the race. Suddenly, a much higher percentage of Black voters told pollsters of their intent to vote, a big increase from July when Biden was still on the ticket. “I seem to be doing very well with Black males,” Trump mused during a televised press conference at Mar-a-Lago last week, without citing evidence. “And I still am.” But he also seemed spooked: “It could be that I’ll be affected somewhat with Black females.”

When the Mother Jones team reported from the RNC last month, I went on a mission to unravel these complex cross-currents of identity, policy, and political strategy. “I learned a lot about Black Republicans during these conversations—their motivations, their stories, their goals,” I recall, in a new, in-depth video showcasing several substantive interviews with Black convention attendees. “I wanted to know what draws a Black person to identify with this Republican Party.”

I uncovered old-school appeals to rugged individualism (with elements of historical revisionism), traditional anti-abortion viewpoints, and a rejection of government interventions. Ultimately, I discovered that—for a party that so openly courts racists and racism enablers—having more Black people in the ranks could be, surprisingly, beneficial: “The only way the Republican Party becomes this ideologically conservative but racially inclusive big tent party,” I conclude, “is if there is a fundamental rejection of the people, policies, and practices they currently hold as sacred in their political vision.”

The story was produced in partnership with Important Context.

Last summer, Ava Chen appeared on the right-wing news outlet Real America’s Voice to rail against the RICO charges that had just been filed against Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants in Georgia. The indictment “reminds me a lot of China and the CCP,” Chen told host John Fredericks, a former Trump campaign aide who now anchors one of the fledgling TV network’s marquee shows.

Chen was identified during the August 2023 segment as a spokesperson for the New Federal State of China, a MAGA-aligned group founded by Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui—a dissident Chinese émigré who last month was convicted on RICO and fraud charges for stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from his own followers. Prosecutors named the NFSC as part of Guo’s fraud scheme, arguing that the group’s ostensible opposition to the Chinese Communist Party was part of Guo’s scam.

In recent years, members of the NFSC have made frequent appearances across Real America’s Voice, as well as on Fredericks’ radio show. But what viewers didn’t know was that at the time of these interviews, a firm tied to the NFSC was paying tens of thousands of dollars to have Guo’s representatives appear on Fredericks’ radio and TV shows, as well as on another show that aired on RAV. The firm was also attempting to purchase airtime for the NFSC elsewhere on the network.

These payments for appearances on Fredericks’ shows are detailed in a draft contract, court records, and bank statements reviewed by Mother Jones and Important Context. They were also described by three sources. Bank records show the payments went to Common Sense Media, a company tied to Fredericks’ radio show, which is independently produced and selects its own guests. Records we reviewed and the same sources indicated that Guo’s supporters also discussed a contract that would have allowed his followers to secure airtime elsewhere on RAV, but those talks fell through. 

The transactions involving the Fredericks broadcasts were one piece of a well-financed effort by Guo backers to push messaging supporting Guo. As part of their broader outreach campaign, Guo followers also arranged extravagantly pro-Guo op-eds written under the bylines of prominent far-right figures, including New York Young Republican Club chief Gavin Wax and Karoline Leavitt, who has since become a spokesperson for the Trump campaign. Guo supporters reportedly paid $75,000 for two booths at the influential Conservative Political Action Conference, and they showered campaign contributions on members of Congress who expressed sympathy for Guo’s cause. In their outreach to the MAGA world, Guo followers argued that, just like Trump, Guo was the victim of a politicized prosecution.

“This is the fourth indictment [against Trump] in the short span of four and a half months,” Chen said during her August 21, 2023, interview on the Fredericks show on RAV. “And this speaks a lot to the rule of law and to the weaponization of the entire justice system, as we have observed in…Guo’s case.”

Such arguments have received support from Bannon on his War Room broadcast, which is among the most popular shows aired by RAV. A company that federal prosecutors have said Guo controlled made large monthly payments to the Bannon-controlled company that produces War Room. These payments totaled at least $270,000, according to a filing in federal bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Guo. Guo has also paid Bannon millions of dollars since 2017, court documents show. And Bannon has enthusiastically repeated claims made by Guo about Guo’s business ventures and political movement. 

But in arranging to appear on RAV shows, the Guo backers appear to have tapped more deeply than was previously known into the growing and unruly ecosystem of far-right broadcasts. RAV is owned by Colorado media mogul Robert Sigg, whose previous success came through WeatherNation, an alternative to the Weather Channel that reportedly made a point of not mentioning climate change. RAV, which began broadcasting in 2018 as America’s Voice News, started distributing War Room shortly after the show’s 2019 launch. Bannon has credited Sigg with helping the show after Bannon was kicked off YouTube in the aftermath of the January 6 insurrection. 

With War Room as its anchor, RAV also broadcasts shows hosted by other MAGA celebrities, including Charlie Kirk, Eric Greitens, and John Solomon—a lineup that has allowed the upstart outlet to position itself as a competitor to Fox News, Newsmax, and OAN. Fredericks, a conservative radio veteran, hosts Outside the Beltway on RAV. Grant Stinchfield, whose show regularly features Guo backers, also broadcasts on the network. RAV has said it reaches viewers through “DISH, Pluto TV, Roku, Amazon Fire, Apple TV, Google Play,” and social media. Some of the shows RAV distributes, including Fredericks’ and Bannon’s broadcasts, are produced independently. Other RAV shows are produced in-house.

In interviews, four people familiar with booking practices for shows that have run on RAV said that they considered it unexceptional for guests to pay to appear on broadcasts, without any disclosure on the air that they have paid to appear. Usually these guests pay a booker or PR firm, which makes payments to the shows, the sources we spoke to said. The sources said they believed these types of arrangements are not limited to right-leaning media, though these people had limited experience with mainstream and left-leaning media.

“All channels do this,” said one person familiar with NFSC arrangements. “This happens all day long. You can call it ‘pay to play’ but this is not unusual.”

However common such arrangements may be, they are not transparent to RAV’s viewers. Neither Fredericks nor his NFSC guests made any reference in the segments we reviewed to the group paying to appear on this show.

The payments made by the New Federal State of China followers became public in part because of a bitter legal and public relations fight among former colleagues at a Georgia-based firm called L-Strategies. The firm acted as an intermediary, accepting payments from a Guo-linked company and, in turn, making payments for Guo followers to appear on Fredericks’ shows. A federal lawsuit filed by executives at L-Strategies against Angie Wong, a former partner there, alleges that Wong’s actions caused them “a loss of potential income [of] $120,000 per year” that they had hoped to earn brokering airtime for NFSC content on RAV. 

Jared Craig, a partner at L-Strategies who filed the complaint, said in an interview last year that he did not believe that paying broadcasters to interview clients as guests was unusual. Craig declined to detail the specifics of the payments, which he said were arranged by Wong, and he did not respond to more recent inquiries. Wong declined to comment.

According to that lawsuit, a Canada-based company called NewNoah signed a deal with L-Strategies in April 2023. NewNoah, which was acting on behalf of the New Federal State of China, was incorporated in November 2022 in Ontario at an address also used to register the NFSC’s website.

Under a draft media-buy agreement between NewNoah and L-Strategies that we obtained, L-Strategies agreed to pay $12,500-a-month “for media appearances to be sponsored by the John Fredericks Media Network.” The draft contract stated that the media package would include “at least one (1) television media hit and at least one (1) radio hit per week” to promote its client, Guo’s New Federal State of China. The draft contract also noted that “said media services shall be sponsored by the John Frederick’s Media Network” and that “host shall not mention Miles Guo at any time and for any purpose during media hits.” (Miles Guo is one of several names Guo uses.)

The draft contract, which was unsigned and undated, contains some confusing and seemingly inaccurate language. But bank statements posted online as part of L-Strategies’ dispute with Wong reveal that NewNoah began making monthly payments of $13,400 to L-Strategies in April 2023. L-Strategies in turn began making $12,500 monthly payments to Common Sense Media, a Virginia-based LLC tied to Fredericks’ show. Fredericks’ wife, Anita Fredericks, is the registered agent for Common Sense Media. The monthly bank statements, which run through May 2024, show regular $12,500 payments from L-Strategies to Common Sense Media up to that time. The bank statements indicate Common Sense Media had received at least $175,000 as of May as part of the arrangement. (In an interview, Stan Fitzgerald, an L-Strategies founding partner, confirmed that the bank statements were accurate but said he had not personally posted them.) 

On July 10, 2023, Fredericks’ radio show was guest-hosted by Nicole Tsai, a Guo supporter who had appeared on the program at least once a week up to that month as a representative of the NFSC. She appeared on his Real America’s Voice show nearly as frequently. When the New Federal State of China held a gala event last June celebrating the third anniversary of its founding, Fredericks was on hand hosting a panel. As of July 1, 2024, Fredericks had hosted a member of the NFSC on either his television or radio show nearly every week since April 3, 2023. 

The NFSC guests used these appearances to attribute all manner of US problems to CCP machinations.

In an August 2023 segment on Fredericks’ Outside the Beltway RAV show, discussing Donald Trump’s arraignment in Georgia, a Guo follower named Roy Guo (no apparent relation) suggested the charges against the former president were the result of infiltration by the Chinese Communist Party. In an appearance the following month on the same program, he claimed Chinese President Xi Jingping was facing stiff political pressure at home because he had “released the CCP virus at the end of 2019,” triggering the Covid pandemic. A month later, following the deadly October 7 terror attack by Hamas on Israel, Roy Guo asserted that the CCP was secretly aiding Hamas behind the scenes in order to bring other nations into the conflict in Gaza.

“CCP wants to get as many countries as possible involved in this, and also eventually they want to get [the] UK and US involved in this conflict so that they can divert the attention to, like, focus on the Middle East and deplete US resources and also to alleviate pressure for Russia in Ukraine,” he said. “And then, they will ultimately make [an] opportunity for themselves to attack Taiwan.”

Mark Serrano, a spokesperson for RAV, disputed the import of the deal between NewNoah and L-Strategies related to payments to Common Sense Media for appearances on Fredericks’ show. “Real America’s Voice is not a party to the contractual agreement you mention,” he wrote. “Any ancillary reference in the agreement to us is not our concern.”

Fredericks has previously faced scrutiny for selling access to his radio show. In 2020, the Justice Department forced a US institute funded by the Qatari government to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, resulting in the organization revealing it had paid Fredericks’ show $180,000 in 2018 for “access to key guests”; “regular show appearances by highly ranking Qatar officials”; broadcasts of “live shows every other month” and “regular discussions with US based and overseas Qatar officials for background and education.” Fredericks also broadcast live from Doha, Qatar’s capital, in March 2018.

Fredericks at the time claimed the payments were standard advertising. He told the Daily Beast: “They were paying me to promote their various events, which I did in my libraries when I was on the show.”

John and Anita Fredericks and the John Fredericks Show did not respond to requests for comment or to lists of specific questions. Ava Chen and Roy Guo declined to comment.

According to the L-Strategies’ lawsuit, NewNoah also paid for Guo fans to appear on another independently produced show that briefly aired on RAV, the David Brody Show. And the L-Strategies bank statements posted online show a payment of about $8,000 to the Brody show in April 2023. Brody declined to comment.

NewNoah and L-Strategies also attempted to negotiate a separate, $40,000-per-month contract under which L-Strategies would purchase airtime on RAV for a weekly one-hour “show” hosted by the NFSC, according to the complaint L-Strategies filed.

“Real America’s Voice package includes a one-hour program (approximately 48 minutes run time) on the Real America’s Voice network once per week, time to be determined,” the contract, attached to the complaint, reads. “The show will be self-produced by NewNoah, with final edit approvals by Real America’s Voice prior to airing.”  

According to the L-Strategies complaint and a source involved in the negotiations for the hour-long show, talks over that deal eventually broke down.

The L-Strategies complaint states that NewNoah did pay $40,000 to L-Strategies on April 28, 2023, and the bank statements posted online show L-Strategies received a $39,977.50 wire transfer, from an unidentified sender, on that date. In the “description” field, the statement says, “RAV 1 hour.” But the bank statements do not show any corresponding payment from L-Strategies to RAV. And Serrano, the RAV spokesperson, said that money was never paid to Real America’s Voice. Serrano did not respond to other questions about this proposed arrangement.

According to the RAV website, the outlet “demands the highest ethical standards from management and staff, and the company maintains a strict ethics policy.” The site notes that “staff members are prohibited from engaging in any conflicts of interest, including reporting on any enterprise in which the staff member has a financial stake.”

Have you seen any of those clips from Donald Trump’s rambling press conference this past Thursday? If not, count yourself lucky. Standing at a Mar-a-Lago podium, Trump did what he always does: equivocated, meandered among subjects, spoke in half-sentences full of non sequiturs, and lied relentlessly. Challenging questions were in short supply—a media fail. Then again, maybe just showing up was the bigger fail, given Trump’s inability to engage honestly.

But one has to try. Calling Trump out is our professional responsibility. The women who grilled him onstage at the National Association of Black Journalists conference—Harris Faulkner, Kadia Goba, and Rachel Scott—set a good example.

Apparently not enough of the Mar-a-Lago journalists got the memo.

Their questions weren’t mic’d, so they were barely audible in the video. But I cranked up the volume and listened carefully, transcribing as accurately as I could. Trump took roughly 40 questions. Most were uncritical softballs. Here’s a sampling, paraphrased:

• Does he consider Kamala Harris more talented than Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton?

• Does he think Harris is worse than Biden?

• What does he think about Harris not picking Josh Shapiro for her VP?

• Is he worried about the size of Harris’ crowds?

• Has he followed this whole thing about Harris dating Willie Brown?

• Is his ear fully recovered? Is there a scar?
• Could he talk about his upcoming interview with Elon Musk?

• Was Steve Bannon’s imprisonment politically motivated?

• Would he consider pardoning Hunter Biden?

There was a smattering of policy questions—which is fine, but lightweight. Some examples (these are semi-verbatim; watch the video for Trump’s full answers):

• “Harris supports rescheduling marijuana and says no one should go to prison for marijuana. Do you agree with that?” (“As we legalize it, I start to agree a lot more.”)

• “Do you support continuation of tax credits for EVs?” (“They want everybody to have an electric car. We don’t have enough electricity.”)

• “What do you make of reports that Harris said she might consider an arms embargo on Israel?” (“I’d be against that.”)

• “Did the use of an AR-15 gun by your would-be assassin change your view on people’s access to that weapon?” (“No.”)

• “How will you vote on the Florida amendment [that would codify abortion rights in the state constitution?]” (“I don’t want to tell you now.”)   
• “There are other things the federal government can do, not just a ban [on abortion]. Would you direct your FDA, for example, to revoke access to mifepristone?” (“You could do things that would supplement, absolutely…But you have to be able to have a vote.”)

Only a handful of questions were at all confrontational:

• “Kamala Harris’ father is Jamaican. She went to a historically Black college. How has she only recently decided to be Black?” (Trump equivocated and doubled down—again.)

• “What is your response to President Biden when he says he fears there wouldn’t be a peaceful transfer of power if you lose?”

In his response, Trump misleadingly claimed there had been a peaceful transfer of power “last time.” Another reporter, I believe it was Maggie Haberman of the New York Times, came back to that:

• “You think the last time was a peaceful transfer of power?” (No, Trump replied, because the January 6 protesters “were treated very unfairly.”)

• Also Haberman: “When you were president, you pardoned [inaudible] drug dealers and violent felons, including one man who told a rabbi, “I am going to make you bleed.” How is that different from [inaudible]? (“We had commissions…They would recommend to me certain pardons for certain people.” In fact, as Mother Jones has reported, Trump threw the standard clemency process out the window.)

Here are 22 questions—I could easily come up with 22 more—that journalists should be asking this candidate, or at least asking of him. Granted, it might be the last time Trump ever took a question from you, but it’d be worth it.

Partisan divisions
A Pew analysis shows voters are about evenly split in favor of Democrats and Republicans. Yet you’ve called Democrats “treasonous,” “un-American,” “crazy,” “loco,” “rage-filled,” and “the party of crime.” You retweeted a video in which a supporter said, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.” You regularly use “us vs. them” rhetoric. Why should voters support a candidate who seeks to divide Americans?

Migrant crime
You’ve gone around claiming that nations are emptying out their jails, prisons, and, in your words, “insane asylums,” sending “millions” of criminals and mental patients across our southern border. That’s a pretty outrageous lie, and your claim that undocumented migrants are driving a crime wave is demonstrably false. Why do you insist on repeating these falsehoods?

School vaccinations
You’ve said that you will defund any school with a vaccine mandate. Are you only talking about Covid vaccines, or also the routine childhood immunizations that prevent catastrophic illnesses such as polio and measles?

Stochastic terrorism
The FBI says it has found no evidence that the man who shot you and others in Pennsylvania was politically motivated. He was, in fact, a registered Republican voter. But you and your campaign surrogates, including your sons, keep saying the Democrats tried to kill you in Pennsylvania—a baseless claim that experts have told Mother Jones will fuel political violence. Why do you and your surrogates keep making this false claim?

January 6
You’ve said you would pardon people who participated in the US Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, using words like “patriots” to describe members of a mob that beat police officers with hockey sticks, flagpoles, and fire extinguishers; crushed cops in doors; and sprayed them with bear spray. How can you then say you are pro-police and pro-law-and-order?

Taxing tips
You’ve proposed to eliminate income tax on tips. How is that fair to untipped low-wage workers like grocery store clerks and delivery drivers? Would you also support raising the federal minimum wage, which has been stalled at $7.25 an hour since 2009? (Harris, who embraced Trump’s proposal on Saturday, favors raising the minimum wage.)

Dehumanization of immigrants
Your own businesses have knowingly employed undocumented workers over the years for everything from landscaping and maintenance to modeling and hospitality services. Why must you now go around claiming these people you depended upon are “poisoning the blood of our country”?

Mass deportations
Economists question your plan to deport 11 million undocumented people, including otherwise law-abiding families who have been in the US for decades, working, owning homes, and paying taxes. They say mass deportations would shrink the US economy 6 percent over 20 years and cost US workers about 968,000 jobs. We’d lose almost $100 billion a year that those families pay in taxes. The agriculture, construction, and hospitality industries rely on their labor, and migrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. Why do you think uprooting established families is a good policy?

Border policy
Congress recently put forth a bipartisan border bill that gave Republicans much of what they’d long been asking for. It was a huge policy victory for your party, but you put the kibosh on it because, as you admitted, you wanted to use the border issue against Biden. How do you justify putting your campaign ahead of your party’s hard-fought goals?

Family separations
Illegal immigration has bedeviled presidents of both parties. Yet on your watch, migrant parents were forcibly separated from babies and young children, an astonishingly cruel policy with lasting effects on good families. How does showing up on the border, or even crossing illegally, justify such a heartless response—and why does its architect, Stephen Miller, remain in your circle of advisors?

Clean energy
You have vowed to claw back clean energy funding passed under the Biden administration. But that funding has sparked a domestic manufacturing boom in red states. The southern “battery belt” is booming. Shouldn’t a Republican candidate celebrate that?

Dirty energy
You approached oil executives asking for $1 billion in campaign contributions, saying, if elected, you would lower barriers to drilling and make them tons of money. Americans are not blind. Climate change is real and causing increasingly worse storms, fires, droughts, and floods like the ones in the Southeast this week. It’s driving home insurance prices through the roof. How can encouraging more oil extraction be a sensible policy given the disastrous result of burning fossil fuels?

Corruption
The mantra during your 2016 campaign was “drain the swamp.” But your cabinet picks—people like EPA administrator Scott Pruitt, a man openly hostile to environmental protections—were objectively swampy. You and an unprecedented number of your associates have been investigated, charged with crimes, and in many cases convicted. How can you speak of draining the swamp when your administration embodied it?

Project 2025
You flew on a private jet with Kevin Roberts, the architect of Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, and praised him—and the project—at a Heritage conference. Some 140 people from your administration, including six of your cabinet chiefs, worked on Project 2025. How could you claim you knew nothing about it and that it won’t affect your presidential agenda?

Abortion
By saying abortion should be left to the states, you are in effect supporting the harshest restrictions any state imposes. Some don’t allow exceptions for rape and incest, and even in states with exceptions for a mother’s health, doctors are delaying emergency abortions until their patients are near death. How do you propose to protect these women?

Race
Following up on the earlier race question, Kamala Harris has always identified both as Black and South Asian. You asked, well, “Is she Indian or is she Black?” Don’t you think this “either or” language might be insulting to the 9 percent of American adults who identify as multiracial?

Pandering to Christian voters
At a recent conference, you urged Christians to get out and vote, saying they wouldn’t have to vote anymore after that. “It’ll be fixed,” you said. What will be fixed? Abortion? Elections? Please explain your meaning.

Nicknames
You’ve called your opponent “Laughin’ Kamala,” but it seems like many people appreciate her joyfulness. Do you see laugher as negative? Separately, I’d like to know why you think it’s okay to call her “Kamabla.”

Military service
JD Vance and others in your inner circle have targeted Tim Walz over his military service, but Walz volunteered and served for 24 years. You took multiple deferments from the Vietnam draft, claiming bone spurs based on a diagnosis the doctor’s daughters now say was phony—a favor for your father. You dodged your duty, so how can you justify going after Walz?

Economy
The Biden administration has bested yours on several key economic measures: He’s overseen lower unemployment, more robust wage growth, more new jobs, more domestic manufacturing, higher household incomes, lower child poverty, and fewer uninsured Americans. His big problem has been inflation, but that was also a global problem triggered by the pandemic, supply chain disruptions, price-gouging, and soaring energy prices from Russia’s war on Ukraine. Economic growth was about the same during your two administrations. So how can you say yours was the “greatest economy” while Biden has done a “poor job”?

Foreign influence
How can voters expect you to deal even-handedly with the Saudis when they provided $2 billion in financing to your son-in-law?

Mendacity
Voters are not naïve. Every politician bends the truth and some lie on occasion. But the nation’s fact-checkers can barely keep up with you. You’ve been lying this entire press conference. Why are we even here?

Two weeks before he became Kamala Harris’ running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz went on MSNBC and called Trump and the Republican Party “weird”—a tactic that seemed to genuinely embarrass Republicans and is now being considered one of the “most effective” strategies the Democrats have tried.

Maybe, without even knowing it, Walz tapped into the internet’s obsession with cringe.

Perhaps it began when 34-year-old Rachel Parris, now known as the Green Dress Lady, went viral on TikTok in a pleather dress and Michael Kors heels to scold Gen Z for wearing sneakers to the club, only to start backlash so strong that many began to worry about getting bullied for wearing their own orthopedic heels to the club. Perhaps it began when people began swapping out their blue razz lemonade icy grape vapes for straight cigarettes after flavored vapes became equated with decorumless children smoking Oompa Loompa ejaculate from a candy USB port. Eyebrow blindness, blush blindness, outfit blindness. The fear of cringe has swallowed our nation whole.

As the presidential election steamrolls on, fear of appearing cringe has set the public mood. Look at Amber Rose’s appearance at the Republican National Convention, rapping to a truly godawful parody of “Ice Ice Baby” over a low-budget video. Or the fact that Elon Musk’s attempt to wrangle Twitter has been corny as fuck, from the name to the logo. Let’s also never forget the embarrassment of the Democratic Party kneeling on the ground in kente cloth stoles as though it was some kind of groundbreaking political statement. 

Anything is at risk of being diagnosed with cringe now. Skinny jeans are cringe. Being 25 years old is cringe. Enjoying talk shows is cringe. Sending someone a superlike on a dating app is cringe. The laughing-crying emoji is cringe. Nothing shuts a trend down faster than making it embarrassing. “Early cringe culture was about empathy and secondhand embarrassment,” Kaitlyn Tiffany wrote in the Atlantic. “Today, being ‘cringe’ is a serious infraction.”

It only makes sense. Shame is an emotion that’s already deeply ingrained in the human experience, particularly after the lockdown. Covid-19 has directly affected the rise of depression and anxiety diagnoses, particularly among women and low-income earners, according to the National Institutes of Health. Not to mention, we live in a world of increasing panopticontent, where everyone is always peripherally on display, poised to be captured on someone’s camera and shared with the world at any given moment. Constantly being perceived opens up many more opportunities to worry about what you project to the world. 

The fight with cringe is one that solely exists with the chronically anxious, the terminally online, the ones who spin out after replying to the ticket taker’s wishes to enjoy the movie with “You too!”

Millennials ask if it’s okay to wear ankle socks still, despite the fact that some have labeled it as cringe (it’s fine). Gen Xers ask if it’s fine to still send a reaction GIF as a reply to a text (it is not). There is an element of brain worminess to it, but I hesitate to say that it’s solely a problem of generational warfare ignited by Gen Z. The fight with cringe is one that solely exists with the chronically anxious, the terminally online, the ones who spin out after replying to the ticket taker’s wishes to enjoy the movie with “You too!”

And now: Republicans.

But just because it feels like heightened emotion doesn’t mean there aren’t real impacts. A report released by Hinge in February showed that more than half of Gen Z worries about cringe while dating, and is 50 percent more likely than millennials to delay responding so they don’t seem overeager. Products are peddled on social media addressing problems that haven’t appeared yet—anti-wrinkle straws, retinol serums, red light therapy masks. Microtrends like the House of Sunny green spotted dress cause more buildup in landfills when the item of clothing is deemed humiliating to wear.

Even in the White House, President Joe Biden’s inability and seeming disinclination to connect with voters on issues they care about—like reproductive rights, rent reform, and universal health care—made his presence as a leader completely cringe to both the right and left wings. The digital fight between Trump and Biden found its way in Dark Brandon memes and Freudian slips about Nazism on Trump’s end, as each one tried to make the other look more embarrassing. Meanwhile, former Republican Rep. George Santos, famously ousted from his House role because of his many campaign fund misappropriations, said he would be running as an independent this year because the GOP was “too embarrassing.”

Cringe reflects the most surface-level nihilism that we feel bubbling in our society—an existential dread and humiliation for everything that is happening.

Our world is so embarrassing right now, and the lexicon reflects that. Where “cool” or “dope” served earlier generations, cringe, mid, sus, glazed, and ick serve us now. The promising sheen of democracy is deeply in decline as government officials have failed time and time again to deliver, ignoring constituent cries for an end to their roles in conflicts like the war in Gaza and ballooning costs of living. The “uncommitted” movement earlier this year spoke volumes to the mood of young people, many of whom refused to vote for out-of-touch (and thereby cringe) candidates that didn’t reflect their values. It’s far more embarrassing to vote for someone because of some false premise of “lesser evils” when the evil was never rooted in one supposed “better” party. Many young people hesitate to have children for fear of global threats like climate change and rising inflation that loom so close to our futures. Everything is small and expensive and we are burning out thinking about ourselves. Cringe reflects the most surface-level nihilism that we feel bubbling in our society—an existential dread and humiliation for everything that is happening.

“10 days ago Tim Walz was more or less just some guy but then he called republicans weird on TV and all of us were like ‘put this queen in the Oval Office’ and it… worked,” one said.

But here’s the secret: Cringe is a goofy and ultimately unproductive feeling, and many are learning to break its shackles. “I am cringe, but I am free,” people caption photos of goats and cows staring into the ocean. Fear is exhausting, and and we need to lean into the ultimate reality that in an embarrassing world, we too will have to be embarrassing.

“Liking a tweet then unliking it bc it’s cringe then reliking it bc I remember no one can see it,” one wrote after X (formerly Twitter) removed the public likes feed.

Consider Vice President Kamala Harris, who, until this summer, didn’t have any notable public persona beyond being slightly cringe. It was only when her coconut-tree mantra began to make its rounds on TikTok that she entered the spotlight as a likable government official. Charli XCX only added fuel to the flames when she tweeted, “kamala IS brat,” spurring even more Brat-related Harris memes and pulling the vice president out from the prison of cringe and into the bright green limelight of camp. Her confusing platitudes like “What can be, unburdened by what has been” could have been considered pretentious if not made endearingly funny by an ironic social media standom.

This election is undoubtedly going to be embarrassing for all involved, and even more humiliating as politicians attempt to appeal to voters in ways akin to the horror of Hillary Clinton dabbing on The Ellen DeGeneres Show. But we must focus on what could be, unburdened by what has been. It is no good to squander in shame when we should really be in the club.

Two weeks before he became Kamala Harris’s running mate,  Minnesota Governor Tim Walz went on MSNBC and called Trump and the Republican Party weird—a tactic that seemed to genuinely embarrass Republicans and is now being considered one of the “most effective” strategies the Democrats have tried yet.

Maybe, without even knowing it, Walz tapped into the internet’s obsession with cringe.

Perhaps it began when 34-year-old Rachel Parris, now known as the Green Dress Lady, went viral on TikTok in a pleather dress and Michael Kors heels to scold Gen Z for wearing sneakers to the club, only to start backlash so strong that many began to worry about getting bullied for wearing their own orthopedic heels to the club. Perhaps it began when people began swapping out their blue razz lemonade icy grape vapes for straight cigarettes after flavored vapes became equated with decorumless children smoking Oompa Loompa ejaculate from a candy USB port. Eyebrow blindness, blush blindness, outfit blindness. The fear of cringe has swallowed our nation whole.

As the presidential election steamrolls on, fear of appearing cringe has set the public mood. Look at Amber Rose’s appearance at the Republican National Convention, rapping to a truly godawful parody of “Ice, Ice Baby” over a low-budget video. Or the fact that Elon Musk’s attempt to wrangle Twitter have  been corny as fuck, from the name to the logo. Let’s also never forget the embarrassment of the Democratic Party kneeling on the ground in kente cloth stoles as though it was some kind of groundbreaking political statement. 

Anything is at risk of being diagnosed with cringe now. Skinny jeans are cringe. Being 25 years old is cringe. Enjoying talk shows is cringe. Sending someone a super-like on a dating app is cringe. The laughing-crying emoji is cringe. Nothing shuts a trend down faster than making it embarrassing. “Early cringe culture was about empathy and secondhand embarrassment,” Kaitlyn Tiffany wrote in The Atlantic. “Today, being ‘cringe’ is a serious infraction.”

We live in a world of increasing panopticontent, where everyone is always peripherally on display, poised to be captured on someone’s camera and shared with the world at any given moment.

It only makes sense. Shame is an emotion that’s already deeply ingrained in the human experience, particularly after the lockdown. COVID-19 has directly impacted the rise of depression and anxiety diagnoses, particularly among women and low-income earners, according to the National Institutes of Health. Not to mention, we live in a world of increasing panopticontent, where everyone is always peripherally on display, poised to be captured on someone’s camera and shared with the world at any given moment. Constantly being perceived opens up many more opportunities to worry about what you project to the world. 

The fight with cringe is one that solely exists with the chronically anxious, the terminally online, the ones who spin out after replying to the ticket taker’s wishes to enjoy the movie with, “you too!”

Millennials ask if it’s okay to wear ankle socks still, despite the fact that some have labeled it as cringe (it’s fine). Gen Xers ask if it’s fine to still send a reaction GIF as a reply to a text (it is not). There is an element of brain worminess to it, but I hesitate to say that it’s solely a problem of generational warfare ignited by Gen Z. The fight with cringe is one that solely exists with the chronically anxious, the terminally online, the ones who spin out after replying to the ticket taker’s wishes to enjoy the movie with, “you too!”

And now: Republicans.

But just because it feels like heightened emotion doesn’t mean there aren’t real impacts. A report released by Hinge in February showed that over half of Gen Z worry about cringe while dating, and are 50 percent more likely than millennials to delay responding so they don’t seem overeager. Products are peddled on social media addressing problems that haven’t appeared yet—anti-wrinkle straws, retinol serums, red light therapy masks. Microtrends like the House of Sunny green spotted dress cause more buildup in landfills when the item of clothing is deemed  humiliating to wear.

Even in the White House, President Joe Biden’s inability and seeming disinclination to connect with voters on issues they care about—like reproductive rights, rent reform, and universal healthcare—made his presence as a leader completely cringe to both the right and left wings. The digital fight between Trump and Biden found its way in Dark Brandon memes and Freudian slips about Nazism on Trump’s end, as each one tried to make the other look like the more embarrassing choice. Meanwhile, former Republican Rep. George Santos, famously ousted from his House role because of his many campaign fund misappropriations, said he would be running as an independent this year because the GOP was “too embarrassing.”

Everything is small and expensive and we are burning out thinking about ourselves. Cringe reflects the most surface-level nihilism that we feel bubbling in our society—an existential dread and humiliation for everything that is happening.

Our world is so embarrassing right now, and the lexicon reflects that. Where “cool” or “dope” served earlier generations, cringe, mid, sus, glazed and ick serve us now. The promising sheen of democracy is deeply in decline as government officials have failed time and time again to deliver, ignoring constituent cries for an end to their roles in conflicts like the war in Gaza and ballooning costs of living. The “uncommitted” movement earlier this year spoke volumes to the mood of young people, who refused to vote for out-of-touch (and thereby cringe) candidates that didn’t reflect their values. It’s far more embarrassing to vote for someone because of some false premise of “lesser evils” when the evil was never rooted in one supposed “better” party. Many young people hesitate to have children for fear of the global threats like climate change and rising inflation that loom so close to our futures. Everything is small and expensive and we are burning out thinking about ourselves. Cringe reflects the most surface-level nihilism that we feel bubbling in our society—an existential dread and humiliation for everything that is happening.

“10 days ago Tim Walz was more or less just some guy but then he called republicans weird on TV and all of us were like ‘put this queen in the Oval Office’ and it… worked,” one said.

But here’s the secret: cringe is a goofy feeling and ultimately unproductive feeling, and many are learning to break free of its shackles. “I am cringe, but I am free,” people caption photos of goats and cows staring into the ocean. Fear is exhausting, and and we need to  lean into the ultimate reality that in an embarrassing world, we will too have to be embarrassing.

“liking a tweet then unliking it bc it’s cringe then reliking it bc I remember no one can see it,” one wrote after X (formerly Twitter) removed the public likes feed.

Consider Vice President Kamala Harris, who up until this summer, didn’t have any notable public persona beyond being slightly cringe. It was only when her coconut-tree mantra began to make its rounds on TikTok that Harris entered the spotlight as a likable government official. Charli XCX only added fuel to the flames when she tweeted, “kamala IS brat,” spurring even more Brat-related Harris memes and pulling the vice president out from the prison of cringe and into the bright green limelight of camp. Her confusing platitudes like “what can be, unburdened by what has been” could have been considered pretentious if not made endearingly funny by an ironic social media standom.

This election is undoubtedly going to be embarrassing for all involved, and even more humiliating as politicians attempt to appeal to voters in ways akin to the horror of Hillary Clinton dabbing on The Ellen Show. But we must focus on what could be, unburdened by what has been. It is no good to squander in shame when we should really be in the club.

In 1986, Oxford University Press published The Uncensored War. An analysis by Daniel C. Hallin of media consumed in the United States during fighting in Vietnam, the monograph remains an important account of America’s first televised war. But a small diagram on page 117 would become the work’s greatest legacy: an illustration now referred to as “Hallin’s spheres.”

To visualize the model, imagine a target made of two concentric circles, surrounded by a vast hinterland of empty space. The smaller circle at the center represents the sphere of consensus, the region of “motherhood and apple pie,” Hallin writes. There, you can find all that is beyond question in US thought: democracy, American exceptionalism, American honor. The larger circle, the sphere of legitimate controversy, is where debates tend to take place: immigration, the economy, taxes. In the outermost region, the sphere of deviance, you find “actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of the society reject as unworthy of being heard.” 

The spheres helped Hallin explain why some ideas about Vietnam were naturalized, others were vigorously discussed, and many were dismissed as fringe. During the entire coverage of the war—thousands of TV hours—Hallin never found a single talking head utter the word “imperialism.” The idea lived only in the diagram’s outer layer, unallowable in discussions.

Today, most people know Hallin’s work through an heir: the Overton Window.

In recent years, the Window has become, as Politico argued, a “shorthand for the state of American politics”—a way to address the loss of a common middle ground during the Trump era. But its roots in conservative thought cannot help poking through.

In the 1990s, Joseph Overton, an executive at the free market think tank the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, built a cardboard-cutout window. In a popular version of the model, ideas were placed on a linear axis that ranged from the “unthinkable” on the far left, to the “popular” (and “actual policy”) on the right. Overton’s cutout could slide between these. This visualized how ideas had to move through several steps (“radical,” “acceptable,” “sensible”) before they reached their embodiment as laws. Ideas achieved political viability only when they fit inside the window frame.

---

Hallin’s spheres

---

In this way, the Window assumes a sequential public discourse, where the status quo is always at risk from the radical. Hallin’s spheres, by contrast, offer an X-ray of how discourse takes place. Hallin’s model does not ask how a new idea becomes normalized. Instead, it ponders why so many topics are considered outside allowable discussion.

The two frameworks have distinct visions. Hallin’s is descriptive. It reveals how radical ideas are pushed outside of public discourse. Overton’s is prescriptive. It serves as a model for changing the country’s laws.

As the more prominent, Overton’s model has saddled our views of what’s desirable with the weight of what’s politically viable. Using it, we begin to all think a bit like politicians. This limits our imaginations and directs our political creativity toward “sensible” objectives.

Within Hallin’s model, discussions do not become blandly about whether or not a once-radical notion was normalized, as they do within Overton’s.

“With Black Lives Matter we were moving toward a consensus on anti-­racism” in certain parts of the country, especially following George Floyd’s murder, Hallin, now a professor emeritus at the University of California, San Diego, explained to me. “Then, the right started a big campaign to re-politicize race and focus on critical race theory.” Suddenly, calls for racial equality—a radical discussion worth having—drifted back out toward the realm of unacceptable in common discourse.

Hallin cites the January 6 attack on Congress as an example of the opposite. At first, the insurrection was considered deviant. “Then,” he said, “the Republicans made a big effort to push it back into the sphere of legitimate controversy.”

Fitting public discourse along a line that stretches between the unthinkable and the reasonable affects our perception differently than imagining public conversations as shifting across zones of consensus, controversy, and deviance, and wondering why that is. After 30 years of use and abuse, it may be time to set the Overton frame aside and give the spheres another spin.

For the second time in less than two weeks, a doctored video of Vice President Kamala Harris has spread widely on Elon Musk’s social media platform X.

A video known as a “deepfake” that was posted on X on Saturday appears to show Harris repeating herself over and over again, using a crude audio rendering made to seem like Harris is struggling to finish a complete sentence. The altered video uses footage from an appearance by Harris and President Joe Biden following Friday’s historic prisoner swap that freed Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich and others. The video is obviously manipulated and easily debunked by viewing the unaltered footage (you can watch that here at about the 1:30 mark), which shows Harris speaking smoothly, without repeating the same words and phrases as portrayed in the doctored video.

The video, whose origin is unclear, was posted by Trump himself on Truth Social on Saturday, accompanied by a rant in which he calls Harris “DUMB!” and “extremely Low IQ.” The video was soon re-shared on X by an account that posts content verbatim from Trump’s feed on Truth Social. That account on X has more than 800,000 followers, and, as of late Sunday, the post containing the Harris deepfake had drawn more than 620,000 views.

The video appears to be in violation of X’s terms of service, which prohibit the sharing of “synthetic, manipulated, or out-of-context media that may deceive or confuse people and lead to harm.” (It also appears to violate Truth Social’s terms of service, which requires that posts “are not false, inaccurate, or misleading”—a tall order, perhaps, given that platform’s owner.)

This latest deepfake comes after one shared by Musk himself eight days earlier, which doctored a high-profile Harris political ad titled “Freedom.” In that one, the fake audio using Harris’s voice depicted her calling herself “the ultimate diversity hire” and degrading President Biden. “This is amazing,” Musk wrote in his post sharing the video, accompanied by a laughing emoji. Musk’s post, still online, has received more than 134 million views.

When asked for comment about the latest video falsely showing Harris garbling her words, Trump spokesman Steven Cheung doubled down on the content, claiming that the obviously phony video was authentic. (“Your phone or computer must be fucked up,” he said.) Cheung did not respond to questions about who may have doctored the video and whether Trump’s post on Truth Social violates that platform’s terms of service.

Spokespeople for X did not respond to emailed questions about these videos violating the site’s terms of service, whether X is taking any steps to crack down on deepfakes, or why the one posted by Musk on July 26 remains online.

Other forms of disinformation targeting Harris, including racist and misogynistic content, have proliferated across social media. But the reach personally enjoyed by Musk and Trump through the platforms they own is bigger than that of most.

As Harris has been steadily gaining on Trump in recent polls, the spread of deepfakes targeting her on X seems no coincidence alongside Musk’s evolving views about Trump. He once declared the ex-president too old to hold office again. Now Trump has Musk’s “full endorsement.”