For most Americans, the start of Donald Trump’s presidential career can be traced to those golden escalators, a 2015 Trump Tower spectacle that previewed much of the racism, lying, and vitriol that would come to define the political era ahead.

It was a campaign kickoff unlike anything that had been witnessed before, still referenced today to deride Trump’s ugly beginnings. “Here’s a 78-year-old billionaire who has not stopped whining about his problems since he rode down his golden escalator nine years ago,” former President Barack Obama said in his speech at the Democratic National Convention.

But what if you were 9 when that happened? What if incessant presidential whining was not only familiar, but perhaps all you’ve seen about America’s political landscape? What if, contrary to the popular slogan of 2016, this is normal?

For first-time voters in the 2024 election—11 by the time the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, rattled the country—that’s overwhelmingly the case. Yet, for all the familiarity with the politically absurd, it’s precisely this group’s relative youth during some of the most shocking and surreal moments of Trump’s first term that lends itself to the natural question: What parts struck a preteen at the time? Did the terms that rattled in adult brains for years—covfefe, Robert Mueller, Sharpie-gate, deep state—mean anything to a Trump-era kid?

Because a large chunk of my paycheck is earned by paying close attention to these shitstorm news cycles, I was curious what someone whose brain was developing instead of melting made of the 45th president’s time in office.

Put simply: What does an average teen think, remember, and make of Trump? And what would their knowledge, or lack of it, reveal about what the typical adult might miss about the last decade?

We caught up with three teen voters to find out what it means to grow up in the Trump era:

Eve, 18, Hawaii

In a few words, give me a sense of what you know about Donald Trump and how you, as a first-time voter, perceive him.

I was in the fifth grade when the 2016 election happened. I remember our teachers talking to us about the election, usually adding that it was a controversial topic, but none of us really understood why. My teachers would ask us questions like: “How do you feel about this? How do you feel about that?” But I felt like many of those conversations were a copy-and-paste job of what most of our parents were saying at the time.

I’d wonder, “Why did we freak out so much about that if I still go to school, I still do whatever?” I was too young to really see the changes and the effects of it.

For a long time, my political views—if I even had any as a kid—were based on my parents. I wanted to believe the opposite of what they believed. My dad is a Republican; he voted for Trump and will probably do so again this year.

That was a very confusing thing for me, because I would see crazy things about Trump supporters online. But as a kid, I’d look at my dad and know that he was such a nice person.

Like, I love my dad; I’m having dinner with him right now, and he’s, you know, a pretty kind guy. That was pretty confusing. My mom is pretty moderate and wanted to vote for [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. this election.

How do you think she’ll vote now that RFK Jr. is out of the race?

I think she is going to vote for Trump. I’m pretty upset that Kennedy is out because I wanted to vote for him. I literally have a shirt that says, “Surfers for Kennedy,” on it. I was so excited to vote for someone who wasn’t Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. But now that he’s dropped out, I’m going to vote for Kamala.

Growing up in the age of Trump, how did adults around you speak of the former president? 

It depended on where I was at the time. For example, if I went and hung out with my Aunt Jamie and Uncle C.J. in LA for the day, I would hear a very different perspective from what I had normally been around: the Megyn Kelly Show, Dan Bongino, super right-wing podcasts that my parents would listen to.

And then I would hang out with my aunt and uncle, and then they’d be like, those people are crazy. It opened my horizons a lot. My Aunt Jamie and Uncle C.J. have since shaped a lot of my political opinions now because they’re very good at talking to my family about politics without making it into a huge argument.

Now being in Hawaii, that’s also shaped my views a bit. I wouldn’t call Hawaiians anti-America, but you hear a lot of “I’m not voting in this election. I don’t care what happens on the mainland.”

As a kid, what was your typical reaction to this discourse?

It was crazy. It was so confusing. Everyone was talking about how things would be really bad if Trump won or how things would be really bad if Hillary (Clinton) won. I didn’t understand how someone who hadn’t even won yet could have so much influence on what was going on.

But once Trump did win, I saw no difference in my life. At the time, I was a kid growing up in Malibu, [California;] I had a pretty privileged life, right? I saw no difference in anything. And I’d wonder, “Why did we freak out so much about that if I still go to school, I still do whatever?” I was too young to really see the changes and the effects of it.

The only difference I noticed was that people were posting way more on social media.

What were some of your first memories of Trump’s White House?

This is going to be very niche, but when I was in fifth grade, I watched a lot of BuzzFeed videos. And I remember there was this one under their subcategory Ladylike that featured women wearing suits every day for a week. It was some kind of empowerment challenge. I had no clue it was going to feature anything on the election. But I’m watching it and halfway through the video, Trump wins the election at the time, and they did a whole section of these women crying.

I still remember sitting on my bed watching that and being like, “Oh, this might be bad. Like, if all these girls I watch all the time are upset, this might be bad.”

Did you know that Trump was impeached twice?

No, I didn’t know he was twice impeached, but I knew he was impeached. I’d heard about it.

“This is not normal” was a popular phrase during the 2016 election. I’m just curious: If you could choose to live in that supposedly pre-Trump era, do you think you’d want to?

That’s a good question. Honestly, I think anything before Trump would be pretty similar to now. At the end of the day, it’s still a question of whether you’re going to vote Republican or Democratic. There’s typically no real third-party choice. That’s how I kind of feel about this election. Like, I’m definitely going to vote for Kamala, but I’m not necessarily doing a ton of research on her, nor am I going to buy her merch or anything. I just know that it’s a situation where I definitely don’t want Trump to win.

When olds talk about a time in politics before Trump and what was “good” and “decent,” do we sound ancient?

I think maybe a little naive, because what are they really referring to? The time when the president was sleeping with Monica Lewinsky?

Do you think January 6 is one of the events where most people a generation from now will remember where they were when it happened?

Wait, January 6, like the riot, or January 6, when he became president?

The storming of the Capitol.

I actually do remember exactly where I was. I was sitting on a couch watching TV and wondering, “What is going on?” I remember it so vividly, because my dad, a Trump supporter, was even so upset about it. He’s also a police officer, and he’s, like, the No. 1 rule follower ever. I think it’s something people will remember for a long time.

When someone calls Trump dangerous, what does that mean to you, as someone who grew up during the era of Trump?

As I said before, I didn’t notice anything different about Trump in my daily life because I was so young. It’s not like I was paying taxes or anything.

I mean, I wouldn’t want to be alone in a room with him. But I don’t know if I would want to be alone with any male politician.

Are you alluding to the long list of sexual assault allegations against Trump?

Yes.

Are you familiar with any of the Trump kids? And if you are, who do you identify with the most?

I would say his granddaughter who recently spoke at the [Republican National Convention]? Because she’s around my age. Or maybe Barron? He seems more like a fly-under-the-radar type of guy. I remember there was some funny rumor about how he was on Roblox, the online gaming app, but then Melania took it away from him.

---

Mia, 19, California

In a few words, give me a sense of what you know about Donald Trump and how you, as a first-time voter, perceive him.

I know that he is a convicted felon and he is not a good person, right? Or at least in my opinion. He has said some very blatantly racist things; he has something of a cult following.

Growing up in the age of Trump, how did adults around you speak of the former president?

Oh, my parents were very anti-Trump. It was a lot of turning on the news and they’d say things like, “Oh dang, it’s Trump again.” There was never any praise, more concern that a real leader shouldn’t be acting this way.

I think I was too young to really understand what was so dangerous about Donald Trump.

What was your typical reaction to that discourse? Cringe?

I thought it was actually interesting, and I wanted to learn more about it. Especially because my parents would insist to me that they don’t usually react so strongly. It was a good learning experience, for sure.

What were some of your first memories of Trump’s White House?

Earliest? Well, I remember watching the election between him and Hillary. I woke up the morning Trump was elected and my dad was pissed—like, he was so angry. And I remember thinking, “Oh, this is not a good environment for us.”

When olds talk about a time in politics before Trump and what was “good” and “decent,” do we sound ancient? Naive?

It’s hard to imagine. Maybe not naive, but it does sound like a simpler, more civilized time when you didn’t have to worry about voting for a felon.

We’ve been raised to have certain ideas of what a democracy should be like, rather than, like, just voting for someone who’s not a terrible person. So it’s jarring going from that to this being our first election—and you don’t really have the option to explore the two choices.

Do you think January 6 is one of the events where most people a generation from now will remember where they were when it happened?

I was at home on the couch, and my dad turned on the TV and was like, “You have to watch this.” I definitely think it’ll be remembered years on. Even today, my friends will make jokes, “Where were you on January 6?” It’s such an iconic date.

When someone calls Trump dangerous, what did that mean to you, as someone who grew up during the era of Trump?

I think I was too young to really understand what was so dangerous about Donald Trump. I had heard and known that he was a threat to women’s rights and general equality overall. But I couldn’t have told you why.

Is there anything Trump did as president that you think was good?

I don’t think I could name a single thing. I have family in Ohio who’d say different.

Are you familiar with any of the Trump kids? And if you are, who do you identify with the most?

I’m trying to remember. He has a son, right? And the daughter is older? This is so bad. I don’t know.

---

Miles, 19, California

In a few words, give me a sense of what you know about Donald Trump and how you, as a first-time voter, perceive him.

I mean, Donald Trump has a reputation that speaks for itself. I view him as sort of the [former NBA player] Patrick Beverley of the political world. He always seems to butt his head in and isn’t afraid to mix it up with anyone. This alone wouldn’t be that bad, except for the fact that he doesn’t have the bite to back up the bark. Historically, he’s said some pretty wild things, but almost never fully backs them up.

Growing up in the age of Trump, how did adults around you speak of the former president?

I always heard mixed words of Trump. I mostly grew up in Livermore, which is one of the most conservative cities in the [San Francisco] Bay Area, although still not the majority. Most adults I knew spoke poorly of him, but there were always the few who were very excited when he did anything.

What was your typical reaction to that discourse? Cringe?

I never liked hearing political discussions growing up, so yes, cringe is a great way to describe my reaction to people talking about him. I never liked hearing about him or anything he did.

What were some of your first memories of Trump’s White House?

I don’t really remember much, but one thing I do remember a lot of was the online reactions and memes. It was so laughable that Trump even made it to the White House that people would make edits of him.

Did you know that Trump was impeached twice?

Yes, I did know that. He is the only president to have that happen, I believe.

“This is not normal” was a popular phrase during the 2016 election. I’m just curious: If you could choose to live in that supposedly pre-Trump era, do you think you’d want to?

If we define pre-Trump as pre-2016, then no, I would not like to live in it. Those were some pretty good years regarding music and early YouTube, but having to deal with 2008 would be pretty bad as an adult, I assume. While those years were fun, what came after has been a lot better for me and more fun.

When olds talk about a time in politics before Trump and what was “good” and “decent,” do we sound ancient? Naive?

I think they’re probably right. Today, there is a much bigger social media base in campaigns and it is so much easier to spread misinformation. Obviously, politics have always been dirty, but I feel as if it’s just gotten worse since Trump has been involved.

Do you think January 6 is one of the events where most people a generation from now will remember where they were when it happened?

Absolutely. I remember I was on a Zoom call for AP World History when I heard that news. It was just so unfathomable that something like that could even happen and is a huge historical moment in Trump’s legacy.

When someone calls Trump dangerous, what did that mean to you, as someone who grew up during the era of Trump?

As a white middle-class male, I never felt Trump was dangerous directly to me. I can’t speak for others on this matter, though; I know I’m not a group he would want to target.

Is there anything Trump did as president that you think was good?

I cannot think of anything off the top of my head that Trump did exceptionally.

Are you familiar with any of the Trump kids? And if you are, who do you identify with the most?

I can’t even name any of his kids off the top of my head.

During his acceptance speech at the Republican convention last week, Sen. J.D. Vance, the GOP vice presidential candidate, praised Donald Trump’s call for “unity.” But this year, Vance endorsed a new book co-written by a far-right conspiracy-monger that calls progressives “unhumans” and claims they are waging an “Irregular Communist Revolution” against American civilization.

The book, Unhumans: The Secret History of Communist Revolutions (and How to Crush Them), was written by Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec. Posobiec is a well-known alt-right agitator and conservative media personality who promoted the bonkers Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Lisec is a professional ghostwriter. And their book professes to be a history of communist and leftist revolutionary abuses over the decades—but with a twist. They claim, “For as long as there have been beauty and truth, love and life, there have also been the ugly liars who hate and kill.” And these “people of anti-civilization” have always gone by different names: communists, socialists, leftists, and progressives. The pair contend these folks—be they the Bolsheviks of Russia or the BLM activists of this decade—are better called “unhumans.”

The book is a far-right declaration of war that accuses conservatives of not understanding that the left cares only about one thing: revolution.

“With power, unhumans undo civilization itself,” Posobiec and Lisec write. “They undo order. They undo the basic bonds of society that make communities and nations possible. They destroy the human rights of life, liberty, and property—and undo their own humanity in the process by fully embracing nihilism, cynicism, and envy.”

It’s a hard-edged message. The foes of conservatism are not merely misguided souls pushing the wrong policies but people who seek to annihilate civilization. They “rob” and “kill,” Posobiec and Lisec maintain: “They don’t believe what they say. They don’t care about winning debates. They don’t even want equality. They just want an excuse to destroy everything. They want an excuse to destroy you.”

Vance apparently found this Manichean view worthy of his endorsement, and he provided a blurb that Posobiec and Lisec have used to peddle their volume:

In the past, communists marched in the streets waving red flags. Today, they march through HR [Human Resources], college campuses, and courtrooms to wage lawfare against good, honest people. In Unhumans, Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec reveal their plans and show us what to do to fight back.

The book (with a foreword written by Steve Bannon) is a far-right declaration of war that accuses conservatives of not understanding that the left cares only about one thing: revolution to achieve total control. The unhumans aim to “kill the people who have more” than they do. As they put it, “On a base level, unhumans seek the death of the successful and the desecration of the beautiful.” They decry the far left atrocities of the past (the French Revolution and the communist revolutions in Russia, China, and elsewhere) and claim the same malignant force is shaping the present, noting that the “chief institutions of consensus-making” in today’s society “are controlled by radicals and infiltrated by unhumans.” The book comes across as modern-day McCarthyism: This dark menace has infiltrated nooks and crannies across America, from the boardroom to the classroom to even churches. No surprise, Posobiec and Lisec have plenty of praise for Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

In their view, the dangerous unhumans are everywhere. The Civil Rights movement? Mounted by unhumans. Critics of hate speech? Unhumans. The Black Lives Matter protests? Organized by unhumans. In fact, they compare the BLM protests of 2020 to the terror of the French Revolution, noting, “There is no way to reason with those who manipulate the have-nots en masse to loot and to shoot. They simply hate those who are good-looking and successful.” (Yes, they wrote that.)

Vance’s thumbs-up to Unhumans is an indicator of how deep his roots are within the conspiratorial alt-right.

Vance’s thumbs-up to Unhumans is an indicator of how deep his roots are within the conspiratorial alt-right. The book features the conservative movement’s paranoid allegations about Big Tech being in league with leftists to help pave the way for a fundamental reshaping of society. “The terrible truth is that there is a distinct revolutionary movement we are witnessing in the modern-day West,” the pair assert. And they have a fancy name for it: “The Irregular Communist Revolution.” Wokeness, of course, is a major element of this.

And this bring us to the noble counterrevolution: January 6, 2021. Posobiec, who was part of the fraudulent Stop the Steal movement, and Lisec insist that the riot at the US Capitol was a “lawfare trap” sprung to “destroy” Trump’s followers and “make them an example to any other Republicans who want to get uppity in the future.” They contend all was calm on Capitol Hill until guards “fired on the peaceful crowd with nonlethal munitions and flash-bangs.” They write, “It was all a trap,” and the “insurrection hoax was used to begin a purge of Trump supporters from the military and from public life.” The rioters were “well-meaning patriots.”

Posobiec and Lisec repeat many of the falsehoods of the tin-foil right, including the claim that Trump had pre-authorized 10,000 National Guard troops and that assistance had been rejected. “There was indeed an insurrection on January 6, 2021—against President Trump and his supporters,” they proclaim.

Finally, the pair argue that the right must adopt extreme and underhanded measures to defeat the unhumans: “Our study of history has brought us to this conclusion: Democracy has never worked to protect innocents from the unhumans. It is time to stop playing by rules they won’t.” This means state governors, county sheriffs, and district attorneys must wage crusades against the unhumans. Elon Musk’s war on political correctness must be supported. Unhumans in education and media must be publicly named and shamed. Law enforcement in red areas should target antifa, BLM, and NGOs affiliated with billionaire George Soros.

Does Vance believe that Democrats and progressives are part of a centuries-long march of unhumans looking to destroy civilization? Does he believe an “Irregular Communist Revolution” is currently being waged in America?

Vance has echoed Trump’s insistence that the 2020 election was rigged and that the January 6 insurrectionists were unjustly prosecuted. He has also said that had he been vice president that day he would have recognized the phony Trump electors from states where Trump lost. But does he also believe that Democrats and progressives are part of a centuries-long march of unhumans looking to destroy civilization? Does he believe that an “Irregular Communist Revolution” is currently being waged in America and that conservatives ought to not follow the rules in combatting this supposed threat?

I asked the Trump-Vance campaign these questions and whether Vance read the book before giving it a thumb’s up. It did not respond.

Nevertheless, Vance opted to boost Unhumans. Considering Posobiec’s notoriety, Vance could have guessed that this book contained extreme notions.

The book has also been extolled by Donald Trump Jr. (“teaches us how…to save the West”), Michael Flynn (“exposes their battle plans and offers a fifth-generation warfare system to fight back and win”), and Tucker Carlson (“Jack Posobiec sees the big picture and isn’t afraid to describe it”). A publicist for Lisec has used Vance’s endorsement of the work to whip up media interest in the book and secure interviews for Lisec.

With Unhumans, Posobiec and Lisec are attempting to dress up the right’s long-running demonization of liberals and progressives with warped history and a heaping of fancy jargon, lumping all left-of-center action into a paranoid brew that depicts the right’s political foes as diabolical monsters seeking to obliterate all that is good within the civilized world. Vance’s approval of this dreck is yet another indicator of how this politician who once compared Trump to Hitler has come to embrace the extremism of the Trumpian far right.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that presidents have broad criminal immunity for official acts, effectively placing the presidency beyond the reach of criminal law for the first time in the country’s history. The 6-3 decision along ideological lines sends the federal case over Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election back to the district court to determine whether Trump’s actions fall outside the court’s sweeping new grant of immunity—but the effects will stretch far beyond Trump’s possible trial by fundamentally changing the nature of the presidency and, by extension, American democracy.

In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Republican-appointed justices held that presidents have immunity for official acts. The opinion left to another day whether that immunity is absolute, or whether it can be pierced in some circumstances. Despite the possibility for exceptions, the decision is sweeping and radical.

“The ruling is a bigger win for Trump than many of us had been expecting.”

“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, which was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

The case arose out of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s criminal charges against Trump for trying to subvert the election. As a defense, Trump argued that he is immune from prosecution for official acts made while in the White House—a sweeping theory without a basis in the Constitution. The framers, who were adamant that the presidency not resemble the monarchy they had just fought a revolutionary war to escape, purposefully left presidential immunity out of the Constitution. They were explicit that presidents would not be above the law, an assumption that had continued until today: Indeed, President Gerald Ford famously pardoned former President Richard Nixon—a result of the understanding that without doing so, Nixon might face criminal charges.

Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the district court and court of appeals had both rebuffed Trump’s claims. But at oral argument before the high court, several Republican-appointed justices were preoccupied with the idea that ex-presidents would be under siege from prosecutors waging backward-looking, politically motivated cases unless the court granted presidents new levels of immunity. Monday’s decision relies on a related idea that presidents need immunity in order to effectively govern: the framers, the majority argued, envisioned a vigorous executive and immunity would ensure the office’s strength.

“Immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution,” Roberts wrote.

In her dissent, Sotomayor argued that majority goes so far as to create not a robust executive but, essentially, a monarch. “In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” she wrote. In a separate dissent, Jackson warned that the gift of immunity would not engender benevolence: “The seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted,” she wrote. “And, without a doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The decision will not only significantly delay the special counsel’s trial against Trump for election subversion but likely result in most charges being dropped. Because the decision leaves the door open for prosecution for unofficial acts, the question is whether any of Smith’s charges relate to unprotected conduct. In a concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that she believed at least one charge relating to the scheme to create fake slates of electors should proceed to trial. As to other charges, Roberts ruled that immunity applies “unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'” That is a high bar—and it’s unclear what criminal prosecution, if any, might clear it.

“Just so everyone understands the radical import of the decision: The Court holds that even when the POTUS clearly—or even *concededly*—abuses his or her office to violate a valid federal law, that POTUS cannot be tried, even after leaving office,” constitutional law expert Marty Lederman wrote online.

The opinion further insulates the president by finding that a president’s official and protected conduct, even when criminal, cannot be introduced as evidence at a trial taking place for prosecutable conduct. The result is that even where this sweeping immunity does not touch, a finding of guilt will be made more difficult. (Barrett did not join this part of the majority’s opinion, writing that “The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable.”)

“This is a big part of why the ruling is a bigger win for Trump than many of us had been expecting,” Georgetown Law professor Steve Vladeck explained. “It’s not just which acts will be immune; it’s how this will hamstring efforts to prosecute even those acts for which there *isn’t* immunity.”

The justices could have decided this matter quickly and narrowly, or declined to take it up all together, and allowed a trial to proceed. Instead, at every stage of the case, the justices indulged Trump’s attempts to slow-walk proceedings. His immunity defense was always as much about pushing the trial date after the election—which would help him win the election and eliminate the case entirely—as it was about mounting a sound legal defense. But the biggest gift to Trump was to give him a nearly complete victory.

The GOP-appointed justices have now helped Trump in two ways. First, he will escape trial for the foreseeable future, as lower courts wrestle with applying Monday’s decision. Second, they have granted the presidency new powers that Trump can take advantage of if he returns to power.

Trump has already made his intentions clear: He will weaponize the Justice Department to prosecute his political enemies. “I will appoint a real special prosecutor to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the United States of America, Joe Biden, and the entire Biden crime family,” Trump promised last year. Ironically, Trump is promising to bring about the very destruction of DOJ independence that several justices claimed they were worried about during oral argument.

Instead of protecting the president from bogus prosecution, they created more incentives for the president himself to launch such prosecutions—and to ignore virtually every other law as well.

“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor warned. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”