conservative

NEW YORK — With the Pentagon’s press room largely cleared of mainstream reporters, conservative activist and presidential ally Laura Loomer says she has been granted a credential to work there.

Loomer has an influential social media presence and the ear of President Trump, frequently campaigning for the firings of government officials she deems insufficiently loyal to his administration. Some targets have been in the field of national security, including Dan Driscoll, secretary of the Army.

Pentagon officials did not immediately return a message seeking comment on Tuesday. The Washington Post first reported the news of her attaining credentials.

Virtually all Pentagon reporters for legacy media outlets walked out last month rather than agree to a new policy they say would restrict their ability to report news not given approval for release by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Several right-wing outlets have taken their place, although the banned journalists are continuing to work on stories related to the Pentagon.

“I’m excited to announce that after a year of breaking the most impactful stories that pertain to our national security and rooting out deceptive and disloyal bad actors” from the Defense Department, she was ready to join the press corps, Loomer said on X, formerly Twitter. She did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

Earlier this year, she criticized Driscoll for publicly honoring a Medal of Honor recipient who had previously spoken at a Democratic National Convention. Separately, Driscoll rescinded the appointment of a former Biden administration official to teach at West Point after Loomer attacked him for it.

Although Trump later downplayed Loomer’s influence, the president last spring fired a handful of National Security Council officials after she had presented him with evidence of their supposed disloyalty.

Still, she’s been a polarizing force among some in the administration, wary of her influence, which has included riding on Air Force One with Trump. Although granted space in the Pentagon press room, Loomer has not received reporting credentials at the White House. Loomer has also been criticized for entertaining conspiracy theories and making anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim posts.

“There is no denying that my investigative reporting has had a massive impact on the landscape of personnel decisions within the Executive Branch, our intelligence agencies and the Pentagon,” Loomer wrote on X. “I look forward to covering the Pentagon and breaking more stories that impact our country and our national security.”

In her social media post, she also reached out to people to alert her to news through “the Loomered Tip Line, the most influential Tip Line in all of DC.”

Phil Stewart, a national security reporter for Reuters, noted on a social media post Tuesday that Hegseth’s new media policy would make reporters subject to having their access revoked for seeking out information from Defense Department personnel that had not been authorized for release.

However, Loomer’s appeal for tips did not explicitly target people who work at the Defense Department.

Bauder writes for the Associated Press.

South Asians have played a prominent role in President Trump’s universe, especially in his second term.

Second Lady Usha Vance is the daughter of Indian immigrants who came to California to study and never went back. Harmeet Dhillon, born in India and a devout Sikh, is currently his U.S. assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division. And the head of the FBI, Kash Patel, is (like potential New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani,) of Indian descent by way of Uganda.

Some Republicans have taken pride in this kind of diversity, citing it for the gains Trump made in 2024 with Black and Latino voters.

But these days, the MAGA big tent seems to be collapsing fast.

Last week, MAGA had a total anti-Indian meltdown on social media, revealing a deep, ugly racism toward South Asians.

It comes amid the first real rebellion about rampant and increasingly open antisemitism within the MAGAverse, creating a massive rift between traditional conservatives and a younger, rabidly anti-Jewish contingent called groypers whose leader, Nick Fuentes, recently posted that he is “team Hitler.”

Turns out, when you cultivate a political movement based on hate, at some point the hate is uncontrollable. In fact, that hate needs to be fed to maintain power — even if it means feasting on its own.

This monster of white-might ugliness is going to dominate policy and politics for the next election, and these now-public fights within the Republican party represent a new dynamic that will either force it to do some sort of soul searching, or purge it of anything but white Christian nationalism. My bet is on the latter. But if conservatives ever truly believed in their inclusive talk, then it’s time for Republicans to stand up and demand the big Trump tent they were hailing just a few months ago.

Ultra-conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who opposes much of Fuentes’ worldview, summed up this Republican split succinctly.

Fuentes’ followers “are white supremacists, hate women, Jews, Hindus, many types of Christians, brown people of a wide variety of backgrounds, Blacks, America’s foreign policy and America’s constitution,” Shapiro explained. “They admire Hitler and Stalin and that splinter faction is now being facilitated and normalized within the mainstream Republican Party.”

MAGA’s anti-Indian sentiment had an explosive moment a few days ago when a South Asian woman asked Vice President JD Vance a series of questions during a Turning Point USA event in Mississippi. The young immigrant wanted to know how Vance could preach for the removal of nearly 18 million immigrants? And how could he claim that the United States was a Christian nation, rather than one that valued pluralism?

“How can you stop us and tell us we don’t belong here anymore?” the woman asked. “Why do I have to be a Christian?”

Vance’s answer went viral, in part because he claimed his wife, although from a Hindu family, was “agnostic or atheist,” and that he hoped she would convert to Christianity.

“Do I hope eventually that she is somehow moved by the same thing that I was moved in by church? Yeah, I honestly do wish that,” he said.

Vance later tried to do some damage control on social media, calling Usha Vance a “blessing” and promising to continue to “support her and talk to her about faith and life and everything else, because she’s my wife.”

But many South Asians felt Vance was dissing his wife’s heritage and attempting to downplay her non-whiteness. They vented on social media, and got a lot of MAGA feelings back.

“How can you pretend to be a white nativist politician who will ‘bring america back to it’s golden age’ … when your wife is an indian immigrant?” wrote one poster.

Dhillon received similar feedback recently for urging calm and fairness after a Sikh truck driver allegedly caused a fatal crash.

“[N]o ma’am, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that sihks and hindus need to get the hell out of my country,” one reply stated. “You and your kind are no longer welcome here. Go the [expletive] home.”

Patel too, got it, after posting a message on Diwali, a religious holiday that celebrates the victory of light over darkness. He was dubbed a demon worshipper, a favorite anti-Indian trope.

Perhaps you’re thinking, “Duh, of course MAGA is racist.” But here’s the thing. The military has been scrubbed of many Black officers. The federal workforce, long a bastion for middle-class people of color, has been decimated. Minority cabinet members or top officials are few. Aside from another South Asian, Tulsi Gabbard, there’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Labor Secretary Lori Chavez‑DeRemer and HUD head Scott Turner.

South Asians are largely the last visible sign of pluralism in Republican power, an erstwhile proof that the charges of racism from the left are unfair. But now, like Latinos, they are increasingly targets of the base.

At the same time anti-Indian hate was surfacing last week, a whole load of MAGA antisemitism hit the fan. It started when Tucker Carlson, who in his post-network life has re-created himself as a hugely popular podcaster with more than 16 million followers on X, invited Fuentes on his show.

In addition to calling for the death of American Jews, Fuentes has also said women want him to rape them and should be burned alive, Black people belong in prison and LGBTQ+ people are an abomination.

Anyone who is not his kind of Christian “must be absolutely annihilated when we take power,” he said.

Turns out far-right Charlie Kirk was a bulwark against this straight-up American Nazi. Kirk’s popularity kept Fuentes — who often trolled Kirk — from achieving dominance as the spirit guide of young MAGA. Now, with Kirk slain, nothing appears to be stopping Fuentes from taking up that mantle.

After the Fuentes interview, sane conservatives (there are some left) were apoplectic that Carlson would support someone who so openly admits to being anti-Israel and seemingly pro-Nazi. They demanded the Heritage Foundation, historical backbone of the conservative movement, creators of Project 2025 and close allies of Tucker, do something. The head of Heritage, Kevin Roberts, offered what many considered a sorry-not-sorry. He condemned Fuentes, saying he was “fomenting Jew hatred, and his incitements are not only immoral and un-Christian, they risk violence.”

But also counseled that Fuentes shouldn’t be banished from the party.

“Join us — not to cancel — but to guide, challenge, and strengthen the conversation,” Roberts said.

Are Nazis really all bad? Discuss!

The response from ethical conservatives — Jewish and non-Jewish alike — has been that you don’t politely hear Nazis out, and if the Republican Party can’t clearly say that Nazis aren’t welcome, it’s got a problem.

Yes, the Republican Party has a problem.

The right rode to power by attacking what it denigrates at “wokeism” on the left. MAGA declared that to confront fascism or racism or misogyny — to tell its purveyors to sit down and shut up — was wrong. That “canceling,” or banishment from common discourse for spewing hate, was somehow an infringement on 1st Amendment rights or even terrorism.

They screamed loud and clear that speaking out against intolerance was the worst, most unacceptable form of intolerance itself — and would not be tolerated.

You know who heard them loud and clear? Fuentes. He has checkmated establishment Republicans with their own cowardice and hypocrisy.

So now his young Christian white supremacists are empowered, and intent on taking over as the leaders of the party. Fuentes is saying what old guard Republicans don’t want to hear, but secretly fear: He already is dangerously close to being the mainstream; just read the comments.

Roberts, the Heritage president, said it himself: “Diversity will never be our strength. Unity is our strength, and a lack of unity is a sign of weakness.”

Trying to shut Fuentes up or kick him out will likely anger that vocal and powerful part of the base that enjoys the freedom to be openly hateful, and really wouldn’t mind a male-dominated white Christian autocracy.

The far right has free-speeched their way into fascism, and Fuentes is loving every minute of it.

So now this remaining vestige of traditional conservatives — including senators such as Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell — is faced with a painful reckoning. Many mainstream Republicans for years ignored the racism and antisemitism creeping into the party. They can’t anymore. It has grown into a beast ready to consume its maker.

Will they let this takeover happen, call for conversation over condemnation to the glee of Fuentes and his followers?

Or will they find the courage to be not just true Republicans, but true Americans, and declare non-negotiable for their party that most basic of American ideals: We do not tolerate hate?

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

“IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

“This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

“Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

A son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly has publicly revealed that he is homosexual, while at the same time defending his mother’s political views and the Republican Party’s “family values” campaign theme.

“The family values movement is not anti-gay,” said John F. Schlafly, a 41-year-old attorney who lives with his parents in Alton, Ill., and counts among his clients the Eagle Forum, the conservative group founded by his mother.

“These people are not anti-gay. They’re not gay bashers,” John Schlafly said in a telephone interview Friday. “I hold my mother in very high esteem. She’s doing good work.”

He added that he “didn’t agree with everything” he heard at the GOP convention but insisted that “efforts to convey the (Republican) Convention and the platform and speakers as bigots and gay bashers is completely inaccurate. The concept of family values should not be threatening to gays and lesbians. Most gays and lesbians have good relations with their family, as I do.”

Schlafly was “outed,” or revealed to be gay, by QW, a magazine published in New York, two weeks ago. He confirmed his homosexuality in an interview published Friday by the San Francisco Examiner.

“I thought it best to set the record straight,” Schlafly explained. “The media was trying to push the angle that there was some sort of hypocrisy going on, which I felt was inaccurate.”

Phyllis Schlafly characterized the media’s interest in her son’s revelation as “obviously a political hit against me.” She declined to say when she learned her son is gay and added that homosexuality “is not a big subject around (the Schlafly family).”

As for her stand on gay rights, Phyllis Schlafly said: “There’s nothing about my position on gay rights that should be offensive to a gay unless he’s seeking some kind of preferential status.”

While John Schlafly said he did not think it was right for someone to be fired based on sexual orientation, he said he did “not support the so-called gay-rights agenda” and was not sure what he thought of the military’s ban on homosexuals.

In his remarks to the Examiner, he disagreed with one common contention of the religious right, that homosexuality is a choice. “You can say in some sense I choose to write with my right or left hand,” Schlafly said. “But the point is that it is such an automatic decision. That’s how I see homosexuality.”

He also objected “to anyone saying that being gay constitutes not having good moral character.”

WASHINGTON — The Republican snarled that his opponent was a big-spending liberal. The Democrat huffed about the Republican’s loyalty to an incumbent President. The Republican tried against the odds to attract black and Latino voters. The Democrat sought to lasso conservative Democrats tempted to stray over the political line.

This is not George Bush vs. Michael S. Dukakis, 1988. It was George Bush vs. Lloyd Bentsen, 1970, battling for a U.S. Senate seat in Texas, in a race that helps explain why Bentsen was tapped as Dukakis’ vice presidential nominee 18 years later.

For one thing, Bentsen won. For another, he fought off appeals by Republican Bush to curry favor with conservative swing Democrats, the same sort who are expected to make the difference this time around.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee

Those who look at the 1970 race as a key to the candidates’ likely behavior this year will find few surprises. It was, the wags said, a face-off between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The candidates themselves, neither a master of charisma, projected remarkably similar positions on the issues.

“They’re not too different,” said Robert Mosbacher, Bush’s current national finance chairman, who held the corresponding position in the Senate campaign.

Pressed as the 1970 race began to come up with one difference between him and Bush, Bentsen found one: “I am a Democrat and he’s a Republican.”

But there were some distinguishing quirks: Bentsen, worried that he would lose some conservatives to Bush, gained some ground by convincing voters that he was actually more conservative than the pre-Reaganite Bush.

And while the race was nominally between Bentsen and Bush, it seemed at times to be a battle of presidents. On Bentsen’s side was Texas native Lyndon B. Johnson, in the second year of his retirement. On Bush’s was Richard M. Nixon, in the middle of his first term, unspoiled as yet by the ravages of Watergate.

Not a Vitriolic Battle

Surprisingly, given the lack of discord on issues, the race did not degenerate into a sassy or vitriolic personal battle.

“It was really competitive, but there wasn’t any dirty politics or name-calling,” Mosbacher said.

That was reserved for the Democratic primary, a bitter, divisive affair in which Bentsen upset the incumbent, liberal Democrat Ralph W. Yarborough. The primary gave Bentsen a boost of publicity and was the beginning of the end for Bush, who had entered the race assuming he would battle an ideological opposite in the general election.

When he came face-to-face with Bentsen, “it was a whole new ballgame,” said Peter Roussell, Bush’s 1970 press spokesman.

Bush told voters that he, as a Republican senator under the Nixon Administration, could deliver more for Texas, and he accused Bentsen of being the “machine” candidate, groomed by Texas’ powerful Democratic hierarchy.

In a line that would be resurrected in 1988, Bush warned voters against the “big spenders” in Congress, who “recklessly spend the taxpayers’ hard-earned money.” He called for programs to battle air pollution and made forays into the traditionally Democratic Latino and black neighborhoods to corral votes.

Had Better Firepower

But Bentsen was armed with more piercing ammunition.

He criticized Bush’s support of a Nixon Administration welfare proposal, calling the package a “guaranteed annual income.” He also attacked Bush’s support of a 1968 gun-control measure that required dealers to keep records of the sale of guns and ammunition. He called the measure “the first step toward registration of law-abiding citizens’ guns,” a conscience-tweaking issue in Texas. Bush countered that he had voted against every floor amendment that dealt with gun registration.

Johnson entered the fray and told voters that he would vote for Bush for senator–if he lived in Connecticut, the state in which Bush was reared. Added former Texas Gov. John B. Connally–now a Republican–”Texas doesn’t need a Connecticut Yankee like Bush, just a good sound conservative boy like Lloyd.”

Even Bentsen’s campaign slogan–”A courageous Texan with fresh ideas”–reinforced the notion of carpetbagging, although Bush had by then lived in Texas for 22 years. Bush countered with the vague, “He can do more.”

Amid Bentsen’s criticism of the incumbent Administration, Bush stayed loyal to Nixon, calling him “stronger than horseradish in Texas.” The President paid back the favor by flying in for one campaign swing and sending then-Vice President Spiro T. Agnew in for another. But the trips only exaggerated the sense of Bush as an outsider.

GOP Heavily Outnumbered

Ultimately, according to a 1970 aide, Bush was simply unable to persuade Texas Democrats to switch. And a switch was mandatory–in the primaries those years, only 110,000 people voted Republican, while 1.5 million cast Democratic ballots.

The lawsuit comes amid growing concerns about how AI fuels the spread of misinformation.

Conservative activist Robby Starbuck sued Google, alleging that the tech giant’s artificial intelligence systems generated “outrageously false” information about him.

On Wednesday, Starbuck said in the lawsuit, filed in Delaware state court, that Google’s AI systems falsely called him a “child rapist,” “serial sexual abuser” and “shooter” in response to user queries and delivered defamatory statements to millions of users.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda said most of the claims were related to mistaken “hallucinations” from Google’s Bard large language model that the company worked to address in 2023.

“Hallucinations are a well-known issue for all LLMs, which we disclose and work hard to minimise,” Castaneda said. “But as everyone knows, if you’re creative enough, you can prompt a chatbot to say something misleading.”

Starbuck is best known for opposing diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

“No one — regardless of political beliefs — should ever experience this,” he said in a statement about the lawsuit. “Now is the time for all of us to demand transparent, unbiased AI that cannot be weaponized to harm people.”

Starbuck made similar allegations against Meta Platforms in a separate lawsuit in April. Starbuck and Meta settled their dispute in August, and Starbuck advised the company on AI issues under the settlement.

According to Wednesday’s complaint, Starbuck learned in December 2023 that Bard had falsely connected him with white nationalist Richard Spencer. The lawsuit said that Bard cited fabricated sources and that Google failed to address the statements after Starbuck contacted the company.

Starbuck’s lawsuit also said that Google’s Gemma chatbot disseminated false sexual assault allegations against him in August based on fictitious sources. Starbuck also alleged the chatbot said that he committed spousal abuse, attended the January 6 Capitol riots and appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein files, among other things.

Starbuck said he has been approached by people who believed some of the false accusations and that they could lead to increased threats on his life, noting the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Starbuck asked the court for at least $15m in damages.

Starbuck lawsuit comes amid growing concerns that AI-generated content has become easy to create and can facilitate the spread of misinformation. As Al Jazeera previously reported, Google’s VEO3 AI video maker allowed users to make deceptive videos of news events.

Alphabet — Google’s parent company’s stock is relatively flat on the news of the lawsuit. As of 2:30pm in New York (18:30 GMT), it is up by 0.06 percent.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

In the late 1990s and early aughts, the conservative Parents Television Council struck fear in the hearts of network TV executives for its high-profile campaigns against shows it deemed too raunchy.

The watchdog group, founded by conservative commentator L. Brent Bozell III, railed against Fox’s “Melrose Place” and “Family Guy”; NBC’s “Just Shoot Me”; and the CW’s “Gossip Girl.” It also singled out CBS following the infamous Janet Jackson-Justin Timberlake “nipplegate” controversy during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show when the singer’s breast was briefly exposed.

But the Parents Television Council Inc. — whose members lodged thousands of indecency complaints with the Federal Communications Commission — has folded. Earlier this month, the Burbank-based nonprofit filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in Delaware court, saying it had $284,823 in liabilities, which include staff member salaries, insurance payments and credit card debt. The filing lists $91,874 in assets.

The group’s demise reflects broad cultural changes, including a fractured media environment and consumers’ shift to streaming and social media apps such as TikTok for entertainment. Parents also have tools, including the ability to configure settings on streaming accounts to try to shield children from inappropriate content.

The PTC’s power came, in large part, from its ability to flood the FCC with indecency complaints. But the FCC, which licenses broadcasters, does not regulate streaming services, YouTube or TikTok.

The council had clout with advertisers, which put pressure on network programmers to minimize shows that would raise the group’s ire and threats of boycotts.

“I’m disappointed but I’m still very proud of what we did and what we achieved,” Tim Winter, former president of the group, said Friday. “We were able to raise awareness about so many important issues — issues that are still out there.”

“Like most businesses, it came down to money,” said Winter, who retired three years ago. “It’s just a slog out there to fundraise.”

Decades ago, the group hauled in millions of dollars in donations. The PTC boasted more than 653,000 members and supporters by 2000. However, in 2023, the most recent year of available tax reports, the Parents Television Council raised just $1.6 million, down from $4.7 million in 2007.

The group, which also went by Parents Television and Media Council, was formed in 1995 by Bozell as the Hollywood arm of his Virginia-based Media Research Center.

Bozell, long a booster of President Trump, now serves in his administration as ambassador to South Africa.

One of the PTC’s early efforts was to urge broadcasters to reserve the 8 p.m. hour for family-friendly fare. That was the custom of the networks in the 1970s; but two decades later, there was a rise in sexually suggestive content.

Over the years, the group hired analysts to monitor TV programming, published detailed reports and TV show rankings. Winter testified before a U.S. Senate committee hearing in 2007 on the impact of media violence on children.

Advertisers were sensitive to the PTC’s warnings.

“We were able to redirect tens of millions of dollars away from more explicit programming and into more family-friendly shows,” Winter said.

The PTC also spoke out against media consolidation, which accelerated in the 1990s, “the problem of having too few voices hold the microphone,” Winter said.

While it initially focused on broadcast shows, the group went after others, including Netflix when it offered the show “13 Reasons Why,” based on a book about a 17-year-old girl who died by suicide. The PTC, and other organizations, decried the series, fearing it would encourage more deaths.

Netflix responded by deleting a graphic suicide scene, and the show was later canceled.

“The media culture is no less toxic than it was years ago. And in some ways, it is more toxic,” Winter said, adding that other organizations will have to carry the mantle. “The mission is more important than ever.”

Conservatives like billionaire Elon Musk had criticised the Southern Poverty Law Center for its criticism of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States has announced that the bureau will end its partnership with the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), as it seeks to distance itself from organisations it accuses of political bias.

On Friday, FBI Director Kash Patel posted on social media that “all ties with the SPLC have officially been terminated”.

“The Southern Poverty Law Center long ago abandoned civil rights work and turned into a partisan smear machine,” Patel wrote.

He reserved criticism for the centre’s interactive “hate map”, which identifies groups associated with hate and antigovernment activity and maps their bases of operation.

“Their so-called ‘hate map’ has been used to defame mainstream Americans and even inspired violence. That disgraceful record makes them unfit for any FBI partnership,” Patel said.

Patel’s announcement marks the second time this week the FBI has severed ties with a group that seeks to track threats to civil rights.

On Thursday, the FBI also cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), accusing the Jewish advocacy group and anti-Semitism watchdog of spying on conservatives.

The announcements amount to a dramatic rethinking of longstanding FBI partnerships with prominent civil rights groups, at a time when Patel is moving rapidly to reshape the nation’s premier federal law enforcement agency.

Over the years, both organisations have provided research on hate crime and domestic extremism; law enforcement training; and other services. But they have also been criticised by some conservatives for what they claim is an unfair maligning of their viewpoints.

That criticism escalated after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. Outrage after Kirk’s shooting brought renewed attention to the SPLC’s characterisation of the group Kirk founded, Turning Point USA.

For instance, the SPLC included a section on Turning Point in a report titled “The Year in Hate and Extremism 2024” that described the group as a “case study in the hard right”.

Prominent figures including Elon Musk lambasted the SPLC this week about its descriptions of Kirk and the organisation.

“Incitement to violence by evil propaganda organisations like SPLC is unacceptable,” Musk wrote. He added, “This is getting innocent people killed,” without elaborating further.

A spokesperson for the SPLC, a legal and advocacy group founded in 1971, did not directly address Patel’s comments in a statement Friday.

But the spokesperson said the organisation has shared data with the public for decades and remains “committed to exposing hate and extremism as we work to equip communities with knowledge and defend the rights and safety of marginalised people”.

Criticism from the far-right of the SPLC stretches back well before Patel’s announcement.

Republican lawmakers have long accused the SPLC of unfairly targeting conservatives. In October 2023, Senators James Lankford and Chuck Grassley urged the FBI to cut ties with the group, calling it biased and unreliable for labelling faith-based and conservative organisations as “hate groups”.

They argued that the SPLC was not a neutral civil-rights watchdog, but a partisan actor whose data must be banned from official use.

PORTLAND, Ore. — Five years after protests roiled Portland, Oregon, the city known for its history of civil disobedience is again at the center of a political maelstrom as it braces for the arrival of federal troops being deployed by President Donald Trump.

Months of demonstrations outside Portland’s immigration detention facility have escalated after conservative influencer Nick Sortor was arrested late Thursday on a disorderly conduct charge by Portland Police.

On Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the agency would send additional federal agents. She also said the Justice Department was launching a civil rights investigation into the circumstances surrounding Sortor’s arrest, and whether Portland Police engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Meanwhile, a federal judge heard arguments Friday — but did not immediately rule — on whether to temporarily block Trump’s call-up of 200 Oregon National Guard members to protect the ICE facility and other federal buildings.

The escalation of federal law enforcement in Portland, population 636,000 and Oregon’s largest city, follows similar crackdowns to combat crime in other cities, including Chicago, Baltimore and Memphis. He deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles over the summer and as part of his law enforcement takeover in Washington, D.C.

A conservative influencer arrested in Portland

Sortor, 27, who’s a regular guest on Fox News and whose X profile has more than 1 million followers, was arrested Thursday night with two other people outside the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement building. He is set to be arraigned on Monday.

What exactly led up to the arrests was not immediately clear. Portland police said in a news release that officers observed two men fighting and one of the men was knocked to the ground. Neither of the men wanted to file a police report. Police moved in about three hours later, as fights continued to break out, and arrested Sorter and two others.

All three were charged with second-degree disorderly conduct. Sorter was released Friday on his own recognizance, according to Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office’s online records. An email seeking comment from Sortor sent Friday went unanswered and no one answered phone numbers listed for him.

In a post on X on Friday morning, Sortor said his arrest proved that Portland Police are corrupt and controlled by “vioIent Antifa thugs who terrorize the streets.”

“You thought arresting me would make me shut up and go away,” he wrote.

Sortor also said that Attorney General Pam Bondi had ordered an investigation into the circumstances of his arrest and of the Portland Police Bureau.

A history of Portland protests led to this moment

Portland famously erupted in more than 100 days of sustained, nightly protests in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter movement. In his first term, Trump sent federal law enforcement to the city to protect the U.S. District Courthouse in the heart of Portland after protests attracted thousands of people following George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police.

The presence of the federal agents further inflamed the situation, with federal officers repeatedly firing rubber bullets and teargassing protestors. Viral videos captured militarized federal officers, often unidentified, arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles.

At the same time, Portland police were unable to keep ahead of splinter groups of black-clad protesters who broke off and roamed the downtown area, at times breaking windows, spraying graffiti and setting small fires in moments that were also captured on video and shared widely on social media.

A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment needed to carry out the mission.

The tensions reached a peak in September 2020 when a self-identified member of the far-left anti-fascist movement fatally shot 39-year-old Aaron “Jay” Danielson in the chest. Danielson and a friend were seen heading downtown to protect a flag-waving caravan of Trump supporters shortly before the shooting.

The shooter, Michael Forest Reinoehl, was himself later shot and killed when he pulled a gun as a federal task force attempted to apprehend him near Lacey, Washington.

A different context for today’s protests

The situation in Portland is very different now.

There’s been a sustained and low-level protest outside the Portland ICE facility — far from the downtown clashes of 2020 — since Trump took office in January. Those protests flared in June, during the national protests surrounding Trump’s military parade, but have rarely attracted more than a few dozen people in the past two months.

Trump has once more turned his attention to the city, calling Portland “war ravaged,” and a “war zone” that is “burning down” and like “living in hell.” But local officials have suggested that many of his claims and social media posts appear to rely on images from 2020. Under a new mayor, the city has reduced crime, and the downtown has seen a decrease in homeless encampments and increased foot traffic.

Most violent crime around the country has actually declined in recent years, including in Portland, where a recent report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association found that homicides from January through June decreased by 51% this year compared to the same period in 2024.

City leaders have urged restraint and told residents not to “take the bait” this week after the announcement that the National Guard would be sent to Portland.

Oregon seeks to block National Guard deployment by Trump

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Karin J. Immergut heard arguments on whether to block the deployment of National Guard troops in Portland, where they would defend federal buildings such as the ICE facility from vandalism.

Oregon sued to stop the deployment on Sept. 28 after Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek failed to convince Trump to call off the deployment in a 10-minute phone call on Sept. 27.

Immergut did not immediately issue a ruling Friday after a short hearing and said she would issue an order later that day or over the weekend.

Meanwhile, the National Guard troops — from communities not too far from Portland — were training on the Oregon Coast in anticipation of deployment.

Thursday’s arrest of Sortor, however, likely means more federal law enforcement presence in Portland.

In an X post, which reposted a video from the protest and a photo of Sortor being detained, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said there would be an immediate increase in federal resources to the city with enhanced Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement resources.

“This violence will end under @POTUS Trump,” McLaughlin wrote.

Rush and Catalini write for the Associated Press.

FBI Director Kash Patel announces break with anti-Semitism watchdog amid outrage over description of Charlie Kirk.

The top law enforcement agency in the United States has cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), accusing the Jewish advocacy organisation and anti-Semitism watchdog of spying on conservatives.

FBI Director Kash Patel made the announcement on Wednesday after prominent conservative influencers, including Elon Musk, pounced on the ADL’s inclusion of the murdered right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in its “Glossary of Extremism and Hate”.

In a brief statement, Patel singled out the ADL’s associations with former FBI Director James Comey, a strident critic of President Donald Trump who was indicted last week on charges of obstruction and lying to the US Congress.

Patel said Comey had written “love letters” to the ADL and embedded agents within the group, which he accused of running “disgraceful ops spying on Americans”.

“This FBI won’t partner with political fronts masquerading as watchdogs,” Patel said in a social media post.

Patel did not elaborate on, or provide evidence for, his claims.

In a 2014 speech to the ADL’s National Leadership Summit, Comey said the FBI had made the advocacy group’s Law Enforcement and Society training mandatory for personnel and partnered with it to draft a “Hate Crimes Training Manual”.

Comey called the ADL’s experience in investigating hate crimes “essential” and its training “eye-opening and insightful”.

“If this sounds a bit like a love letter to the ADL, it is, and rightly so,” he said.

While Patel did not mention Kirk in his statement, his announcement came just a day after the ADL removed more than 1,000 entries about alleged extremism from its website amid right-wing outrage over references to the late activist.

The ADL said it made the decision as many of the terms were outdated and a number of entries had been “intentionally misrepresented and misused”.

In a since-deleted entry on Kirk and his youth organisation Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the ADL said Kirk promoted “Christian nationalism” and “numerous conspiracy theories about election fraud and Covid-19 and has demonised the transgender community”.

The entry also said TPUSA attracted racists, that its representatives had made “bigoted remarks” about minority groups and the LGBTQ community, and that white nationalists had attended its events, “even though the group says it rejects white supremacist ideology”.

Kirk himself strongly criticised the ADL while he was alive, once describing it as a “hate group that dons a religious mask to justify stoking hatred of the left’s enemies”.

In a statement responding to Patel’s remarks on Wednesday, the ADL said it had “deep respect” for the FBI and all law enforcement officers who work to protect Americans regardless of their ancestry, religion, ethnicity, faith and political affiliation.

“In light of an unprecedented surge of antisemitism, we remain more committed than ever to our core purpose to protect the Jewish people,” it said.

Oct. 1 (UPI) — A new Gallup Poll has suggested the popularity of the U.S. Supreme Court is pushing an all-time low, with more than 40% of Americans saying they believe the court is “too conservative” in its judicial leanings.

The new survey released Wednesday by Washington-based Gallup says the overall popularity of the nation’s high court remains at a near record-low approval rating of 43%. Just 36% in Gallup’s long-watched polling hold the court’s largely conservative rulings are “about right” while 17% say its “too liberal.”

The court saw a high 80% approval in 1999 and Gallup readings between 1972 and 2020 “usually” exceeded the 60% mark, according to Gallup.

But one primary reason the Supreme Court’s approval has been lower in the past 15 years is because “its ratings have become increasingly split along party lines,” officials said in a release.

On Wednesday, Gallup noted that “no more than 33% had ever” characterized the court as too conservative.

It added that was prior to the court’s 6-3 shift to a conservative majority after Justice Amy Coney Barrett was appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump to replace the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in October 2020.

Gallup’s public opinion survey data extends back decades in its effort to gauge American sentiment on critical topics and issues.

Wednesday’s polling by Gallup comes after its revelation last month that, in August, the court’s overall approval rating was for the first time below 40%.

“When Gallup first measured Supreme Court job approval in the early 2000s, ratings were typically near 60%,” it said on X.

The expression “stay woke” started out as an affirmation for African Americans.

In the last decade it has been used by some Republicans — and some Democrats — as a pejorative for people thought to be too “politically correct,” another term that took on negative connotations as it gained wider use.

“Woke” has come up in cultural and political firestorms. Eight months into his second term, President Trump pledged to review content at the Smithsonian Institution for being “WOKE” and where “everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was.” At the beginning of this year, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared in his State of the State address that government would keep “woke agendas” out of universities and K-12 schools, including “woke gender ideologies.”

On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he was ending the “woke” culture in the military, saying the service has been hamstrung by political correctness. He referenced diversity efforts, transgender troops, environmental policies and other disciplinary rules.

“America is no longer woke under President Trump’s leadership. The word ‘woke’ represents radical ideologies that are used [to] divide the American people and harm our country,” Liz Huston, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement.

Here’s where “woke” came from, and how its meaning has evolved:

The history of ‘woke’

“Wokeness” originated decades ago as African American cultural slang for having awareness and enlightenment around racism, injustice, privilege or threats of white supremacist violence.

Several historians trace the idea to a 1923 compilation of speeches and articles by Jamaican-born Black nationalist Marcus Garvey. In one essay, Garvey writes “Wake up Ethiopia! Wake up Africa!” Another reference appears in 1938 in the song “Scottsboro Boys,” by blues artist Lead Belly, whose real name was Huddie Ledbetter. The tune follows the true story of four Black youths unjustly convicted by an all-white jury of the rape of two white women (they were later freed). The lyrics warn Black listeners to be careful and “stay woke. Keep your eyes open.”

Gerald McWorter, a professor emeritus of African American studies and of information sciences at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, says “woke” was about having a voice after hundreds of years of Black suffering going back to the African slave trade.

The phrase also popped up in a 1962 essay by novelist William Melvin Kelley for the New York Times. The headline — “If You’re Woke, You Dig It.” Kelley’s widow and daughter believe he heard the term while walking around their Harlem neighborhood, said Elijah Watson, a pop culture writer and editor who has written about Kelley, who died in 2017.

‘Woke’ reawakening

In the 21st century, singer-songwriter Erykah Badu is often credited with reviving the term “woke.” Her song “Master Teacher” on her 2008 album, “New Amerykah: Part One,” includes the refrain “I stay woke.” Badu picked up the phrase from co-writer and producer Georgia Anne Muldrow, who heard it from a saxophone player she collaborated with — Lakecia Benjamin.

The 2014 fatal shooting by a white police officer of 18-year-old Michael Brown — who was Black and unarmed — in Ferguson, Mo., made “woke” and “stay woke” galvanizing pledges in the growing Black Lives Matter movement.

The movement drew support from other racial groups. “Woke” also became popularized by white liberals who wanted to show they were allies.

The war on woke

The backlash against “woke” and “wokeness” bubbled up in the 2010s, amid discussions about including more Black history in American history lessons. Many people said that bringing “critical race theory” to schools was meant to program children to feel guilty for being white.

This argument became front and center in 2022 when Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the “Stop W.O.K.E. Act” into law. It banned teaching or business practices on race and gender. (The law is now on hold after a federal judge deemed it unconstitutional).

For George Pearson, a former chair of the Illinois Black Republican Coalition, “woke” is a hollow word.

Democratic politicians who purport to be “champions” of wokeness and DEI have done little for Black people, he said. So, “woke” has no sway as a rallying cry. He also thinks it’s unfair that those who do not support “woke-ism” are told “’you’re racist. You’re a homophobe. You’re a bigot.”

Even among liberal Black Americans, there is a debate whether the intention of “woke” does more harm than good.

Who says woke now?

In Watson’s experience, “woke” is no longer part of Black vernacular. If he hears it from anyone in his social circles, it’s almost always said “in jest.”

Some progressives are trying to take the word back. Academy Award-winning actor and activist Jane Fonda brought up being “woke” while receiving the Screen Actors Guild lifetime achievement award in front of an A-list audience.

“Make no mistake, empathy is not weak or woke. By the way, woke just means you give a damn about other people,” Fonda said.

Seena Hodges started her own business as a DEI strategist for individuals and groups in 2018 and called it the Woke Coach. She and her team consult on everything from workplace interactions to best recruiting practices. She touches on inclusion for groups from people of color to breastfeeding mothers.

The “bastardization” of “woke” and DEI as words akin to slurs doesn’t bother her, she said. To her, at its core being “woke” is about awareness.

“What it really boils down to is helping people develop a more acute level of emotional intelligence,” she said.

Tang writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Christopher Megerian in Washington contributed to this report.

GLENDALE, Ariz. — President Trump and prominent members of his Make America Great Again movement paid tribute Sunday to Charlie Kirk, praising the slain political conservative activist as a singular force whose work they must now advance.

The memorial service for Kirk, whom the president credits with playing a pivotal role in his 2024 election victory, drew tens of thousands of mourners, including Trump and Vice President JD Vance, other senior administration officials and young conservatives shaped by the 31-year-old firebrand.

Speakers highlighted Kirk’s profound faith and his strong belief that young conservatives need to get married, build families and pass on their values to keep building their movement. Those close to Kirk prayed and the floors shook from the bass of Christian rock bands as the home of the NFL’s Arizona Cardinals took on the feel of a megachurch service.

“Charlie looked at politics as an onramp to Jesus,” said the Rev. Rob McCoy, Kirk’s pastor.

Kirk’s killing at a Sept. 10 appearance on a Utah college campus has become a singular moment for the modern-day conservative movement. It also has set off a fierce national debate about violence and free speech in an era of deepening political division.

The shooting has stirred concern among some Americans who say that Trump is harnessing outrage over the killing as justification to suppress the voices of his critics and target political opponents.

High security and a full stadium

People began lining up before dawn to secure a spot inside State Farm Stadium west of Phoenix, where Kirk’s Turning Point organization is based. Security was tight, similar to the Super Bowl and similar high-profile events.

The 63,400-seat stadium quickly filled with people dressed in red, white and blue, as organizers suggested.

“I think that this is going to change things, and I think he made such a difference,” said Crystal Herman, who traveled from Branson, Mo. “He deserves us to be here.”

Photos of Kirk at work or with his wife, Erika, were on easels throughout the concession areas of the main concourse level. Some people posed for photos next to them.

“We’re going to celebrate the life of a great man today,” Trump told reporters before heading to Arizona. He said he was bracing for a “tough day.”

Trump has blamed the “radical left” for Kirk’s death and threatened to go after liberal organizations and donors or others he deems to be maligning Kirk or celebrating his death.

Many people, including journalists, teachers and late-show host Jimmy Kimmel have faced suspensions or lost their jobs as prominent conservative activists and administration officials target comments about Kirk that they deem offensive. The retaliation has in turn ignited a debate over the 1st Amendment as the Republican administration promises retribution against those who air remarks to which it objects.

Kirk was a provocateur who at times made statements seen by many as racist, misogynistic, anti-immigrant and transphobic. That has drawn backlash from some conservatives who cast the criticism as cherry-picking a few select moments to insult the legacy of someone they see as an inspirational leader.

A 22-year-old Utah man, Tyler Robinson, has been charged with killing Kirk and faces the death penalty if convicted of the most serious charges. Authorities have not revealed a clear motive in the shooting, but prosecutors say Robinson wrote in a text to his partner after the shooting that he “had enough” of what he considered to be Kirk’s hatred.

Kirk’s legacy

Turning Point, the group Kirk founded to mobilize young Christian conservatives, became a multimillion-dollar operation under his leadership with enormous reach.

“Charlie’s having some serious heavenly FOMO right now,” Turning Point Chief Executive Tyler Bower said, likening the moment to bringing “the Holy Spirit into a Trump rally.”

The crowd was a testament to the massive influence Kirk accumulated in conservative America with his ability to mobilize young people.

“I think he spoke on more than just politics,” Michael Link, 29, said outside the stadium. “Now that he’s gone, it’s like, who’s gonna speak for us now?”

His impact on modern-day conservatism went beyond U.S. shores.

Kirk “was very effective because he was convinced of his views and knew how to argue them,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said at a political rally Sunday in Rome. “But he never stopped smiling, never stopped respecting his interlocutor and anyone who challenged him.”

Kirk was a MAGA celebrity with a loyal following that turned out to support or argue with him as he traveled the country for the events like the one at Utah Valley University, where he was shot. Kirk expanded the organization, in large part through the force of his personality and debating chops.

Arizona is the adopted home state of Kirk, who grew up outside Chicago and founded Turning Point there before moving the organization to Phoenix. Vance has said Kirk’s advocacy was a big reason Trump picked him as his vice presidential running mate last year.

Scheduled speakers at the service included Trump, Vance, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Donald Trump Jr., right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson and White House aides Stephen Miller and Sergio Gor also were set to speak.

Also scheduled to speak was Kirk’s widow, who has been named Turning Point’s new leader and has pledged that “the movement my husband built will not die.”

Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, whose official residence was set ablaze by a suspected arsonist in April while the governor was celebrating Passover with his family and friends inside, said in a television interview broadcast Sunday that Americans must now come together to find “our better angels.”

“We’ve got to universally condemn political violence no matter where it is,” Shapiro said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Cooper, Garcia and Madhani write for the Associated Press. Cooper and Garcia reported from Glendale, Madhani from Washington. AP writers Tiffany Stanley in Washington, Silvia Stellacci in Rome and Terry Tang contributed to this report.

In the days since Charlie Kirk’s killing, conservatives have embraced a phenomenon they previously called toxic: cancel culture.

The impulse to cancel some voices this past week is understandable: Celebrating murder is cruel. It’s gross. It’s wrong. But the irony is impossible to miss: Conservatives, who long treated cancel culture as an affront to the 1st Amendment spirit of open discourse, are now calling for people to lose their jobs and their livelihoods, all because of something stupid they said on the internet.

This is the same issue that drove numerous stand-up comedians, young men, podcasters and Silicon Valley tech bros into the arms of Donald Trump in 2024. But now, in an amazing turn of events, conservatives are now aping the progressive scolds and speech cops, only with red hats.

Actually, their version is worse. The left’s “accountability culture” mob might have been overbearing, but their agenda was (with a few notable exceptions) largely driven by hall monitors. Today’s “woke right” is executing things in a more overt, efficient and official manner — which for the record means it can violate not just the spirit of the 1st Amendment but the actual, you know … 1st Amendment.

As a case in point, JD Vance, the vice president of the United States of America, recently told Kirk’s radio audience: “When you see someone celebrating Charlie’s murder, call them out. And hell, call their employer.”

Which raises the question, what if their employer is the government? That would be awkward. But no problem! Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is reportedly telling staff to track down soldiers guilty of wrongspeak. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) is trying to get teachers terminated, tweeting: “We don’t fund hate. We fire it” — which feels like the sort of slogan Mao might have had printed on a T-shirt.

And speaking of printers, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi has warned that the government can “prosecute” any professional printer who refuses to “print posters with Charlie’s pictures on them for a vigil.” She also pledged to “absolutely target” anyone who targets anyone with “hate speech.”

Not long ago, progressives insisted bakers must bake cakes for gay weddings, and now a U.S. attorney general from a Republican administration is insisting that printers must print images for vigils. Funny how the tables turn.

Then, there’s the so-called Charlie Kirk Data Foundation, which claims to have a searchable list of tens of thousands of people who posted mean tweets after Kirk’s death. Collectively, this purge campaign seems to be working. A lot of scalps have already been claimed, including those of prominent pundits and late night host Jimmy Kimmel (who was suspended after making remarks about the motives of Kirk’s killer).

But — let’s be clear — opposition to cancel culture is merely the latest principle that Trump-era Republicans have conveniently abandoned. Indeed, almost every tenet that conservatives held dear a decade ago has been reversed.

And people are starting to notice. Oregon state Rep. Cyrus Javadi recently switched parties, citing the GOP’s abandonment of principles like “limited government, fiscal responsibility, free speech, free trade, and, above all, the rule of law.”

He has a point. Trump’s America now owns a chunk of U.S. chipmaker Intel (so much for small government), spends like a drunken sailor, slaps tariffs on everything that moves (bye-bye, free trade) and ignores laws he doesn’t like — most recently, the TikTok sell-off mandate that was passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court, which Trump decided to treat like a menu item he didn’t order — until he found a suitable buyer.

But it’s not just normie Republicans who are worried about Trump diverting from the Reagan-Bush playbook.

Comedian and podcaster Tim Dillon recently observed that the Trump agenda looks suspiciously like the dystopia that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones used to warn us about between colloidal silver ads: “Military in the street, the FEMA camp, the tech company that monitors everything, the surveillance. This is all of that.”

So why is this happening? Why the contortions? I’m reminded of an old story Rush Limbaugh used to tell about the late actor Ron Silver.

As the story goes, Silver went to Bill Clinton’s first inauguration as a bleeding-heart liberal and was horrified by the military flyover. And then he realized, “Those are our planes now.”

That’s where conservatives are when it comes to cancel culture. They’ve finally realized that this is their cancel culture now.

And maybe that’s the grubby little secret about politics in the Trump era. Almost nobody cares about values or morals — or “principles” — anymore. Free speech, limited government, fiscal restraint — these are all rules for thee, but not for me.

Cancel culture wasn’t rejected, it was just co-opted. So go ahead. Drop a dime. See something, say something. Big Brother is watching.

Irony, meet guillotine.

Matt K. Lewis is the author of “Filthy Rich Politicians” and “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Most of us associate Thurgood Marshall with the long struggle for rights for African-Americans–with his two decades of leadership of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, his victories against restrictive covenants in housing and school segregation, especially his great victory of advocacy in Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954. But it is a mistake to think of him, on or off the Supreme Court, in such a narrow framework.

Marshall’s focus has always been far more inclusive than African-Americans. His concern is with all people who do not enjoy the full benefits of a free society. His commitment has consistently been to the common man or woman; to the belief that government and society must permit each individual to achieve to the limits of his or her intellectual and creative ability; to the elimination of artificial barriers of bias, prejudice, arbitrary authority or paternalism; to the proposition that the ordinary person, whatever his or her color or sex, needs the protection of law.

History will remember Marshall more for his years of advocacy than his years as a Supreme Court justice. His is a career built more on passion than intellect, though intellect and eloquence he possesses in abundance. He will be thought of as a “liberal” by those who assign labels. Yet, fundamentally, he is in his passion for the individual a conservative, a democrat who cannot tolerate the arbitrary acts of governmental bureaucracy in its unconcern for individual rights. Most of all, he is and always has been, on and off the bench, the advocate of ordinary people.

Consider these words from a dissent and ask who else could have written them: “It may be easy for some people to think that weekly savings of less than $2 are no burden. But no one who has had close contact with poor people can fail to understand how close to the margin of survival many of them are. A sudden illness, for example, may destroy whatever savings they may have accumulated, and by eliminating a sense of security may destroy the incentive to save in the future. A pack or two of cigarettes may be, for them, not a routine purchase but a luxury indulged in only rarely. The desperately poor almost never go to see a movie, which the majority seems to believe is an almost weekly activity. They have more important things to do with what little money they have. . . .

“It is perfectly proper for judges to disagree about what the Constitution requires. But it is disgraceful for an interpretation of the Constitution to be premised upon unfounded assumptions about how people live.”

And consider, too, this view of the Constitution written in its bicentennial year: “The true miracle was not the birth of the Constitution, but its life, a life nurtured through two turbulent centuries of our own making, and a life embodying much good fortune that was not.”

Marshall’s era was marked by the removal of barriers unconstitutionally built on racial bias, of the expansion of fights for all individuals irrespective of race or sex. Now the pendulum swings away from individual rights toward more deference to governmental authority.

Whether writing for the court majority or in dissent, his is a voice that all of us, liberal or conservative, should miss.

BASKING RIDGE, N.J.  — After years of complaints from the right about “cancel culture” from the left, some conservatives are seeking to upend the lives and careers of those who they believe disparaged Charlie Kirk after his death. They’re going after companies, educators, news outlets, political rivals and others they judge as promoting hate speech.

Just days after the conservative activist’s death, a campaign by public officials and others on the right has led to the firing or other punishment of teachers, an Office Depot employee, government workers, a TV pundit and the expectation of more dismissals coming. A Florida reporter was suspended for a question posed to a Republican congressman.

This past weekend, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy posted that American Airlines had grounded pilots who he said were celebrating Kirk’s death.

“This behavior is disgusting and they should be fired,” Duffy said on the social media site X.

As elected officials and conservative influencers lionize Kirk as a warrior for free expression who championed provocative opinions, they’re also weaponizing the tactics they saw being used to malign their movement — the calls for firings, the ostracism, the pressure to watch what you say.

Such tactics raise a fundamental challenge for a nation that by many accounts appears to be dangerously splintered by politics and a sense of moral outrage that social media helps to fuel.

The aftermath of Kirk’s death has increasingly become a test of the public tolerance over political differences. Republicans are pushing not only to punish the alleged killer but those whose words they believe contributed to the death or dishonored it. At the same time, some liberals on social media have criticized those, such as actor Kristin Chenoweth, who expressed sympathy online over Kirk’s death.

“This pattern that we’ve seen for decades seems to be happening much more now and at this moment than it ever has before,” said Adam Goldstein of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. He dates the urge to persecute people for their private views on tragedies at least to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “If there was ever time to support the better angels of our nature, it’s now.”

Goldstein noted that it’s unpopular speech, such as people applauding Kirk’s shooting, that stands as the greatest test of acceptance of the 1st Amendment — especially when government officials get involved. “The only time you’re really supporting free speech is when it’s unpopular,” Goldstein said. “There’s no one out there trying to stop people from loving puppies and bunnies.”

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican, has cautioned that the motive for the slaying has not been confirmed. He said the suspect in custody clearly identifies with the political left and had expressed dislike of Kirk before the shooting. But he and other authorities also say the suspect was not known to have been politically engaged.

Kirk was seen as an architect of President Trump’s 2024 election win, helping to expand the Republican outreach to younger voters. That means many conservatives see the remarks by liberals as fomenting violence rather than acts of political expression.

“I think President Trump sees this as an attack on his political movement,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on NBC as he noted the two assassination attempts against Trump as well as Kirk’s killing. “This is unique and different. This is an attack on a movement by using violence. And that’s the way most Republicans see this.”

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who is running for governor, called on social media for the firings of an assistant dean at Middle Tennessee State University and professors at Austin Peay State University and Cumberland University.

All three lost their jobs for comments deemed inappropriate for expressing a lack of sympathy, or even for expressing pleasure, in the shooting of Kirk. One said that Kirk “spoke his fate into existence,” an apparent reference to the activist’s comments that some view as having fueled America’s current environment of political fury.

Because conservatives previously said they felt “canceled” by liberals for their views, Trump on his first day back in office signed an executive order prohibiting everyone in the federal government from engaging in conduct that would “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

In February at the Munich Security Conference, Vice President JD Vance criticized the preceding Biden administration for encouraging “private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth” regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. He assailed European countries as censoring political speech.

“Under Donald Trump’s leadership, we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer it in the public square, agree or disagree,” Vance said at the time.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has cracked down on immigrants and academics for their speech.

Goldstein noted that Trump’s State Department in the minutes after Kirk’s death warned it would revoke the visas of any foreigners who celebrated Kirk’s killing. “I can’t think of another moment where the United States has come out to warn people of their impending cancellation,” Goldstein said.

The glimmer of bipartisan agreement in the aftermath of Kirk’s shooting was in a sense that social media was fueling the violence and misinformation in dangerous ways.

“I can’t emphasize enough the damage that social media and the internet is doing to all of us,” Cox, the Utah governor, said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He added: “The most powerful companies in the history of the world have figured out how to hack our brains [to] get us addicted to outrage.”

But many Republican lawmakers have also targeted traditional news media that criticized Trump for contributing to a toxic political climate for his consistent rhetoric painting anyone against him as an enemy.

On Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) blamed news outlets for having guests on who called Trump a fascist or compared him to Hitler.

Such statements have been born out of Trump’s attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss, his pardoning of Jan. 6 rioters and a range of other actions, including deportations, deployment of the National Guard in American cities, mass firings of federal employees and his scorn for the historical limits on the power of the presidency.

But for Britt, those expressions were unfair, inaccurate and triggered violence.

“There must be consequences with regards to people spewing that type of hate and celebration in the face of this,” Britt said. “And I believe that there will be.”

Boak and Riccardi write for the Associated Press and reported from Basking Ridge and Denver, respectively. AP writer Jonathan Mattise in Nashville contributed to this report.

What happened?

What do we know about the suspect?

FBI

Who was Charlie Kirk?

What has the reaction been?

Getty Images

Is political violence in the US increasing?

Getty Images

Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist and commentator who became a household name in the United States as an outspoken ally of President Donald Trump, has been shot and killed at a Utah college event.

As the CEO and cofounder of the conservative youth organisation Turning Point USA, the 31-year-old Kirk attracted millions of viewers online for his outdoor debates on US college campuses.

Video of the shooting circulating on social media showed Kirk speaking to a large outdoor crowd and, moments later, falling off his chair with his hands on his neck after a loud crack that sounded like a gunshot.

He was pronounced dead after being brought to hospital in critical condition.

Utah authorities said Kirk was killed with a single shot that likely came from the rooftop of a nearby building in what is believed to be a targeted killing.

FBI director Kash Patel said a suspect in the shooting had been taken into custody but then released after interrogation.

The subject in custody has been released after an interrogation by law enforcement. Our investigation continues and we will continue to release information in interest of transparency https://t.co/YXsG6YpFR5

— FBI Director Kash Patel (@FBIDirectorKash) September 10, 2025

Kirk was known for his polarising debates on hot-button topics, including transgender identity and abortion.

An online petition calling on university administrators to prevent him from speaking on Wednesday had received nearly 1,000 signatures.

With the rise of political violence across the US in recent years, Kirk’s killing has brought condemnation from both sides of the political spectrum.

Here are reactions to the news of Kirk’s death:

US President Donald Trump

President Trump, who survived two assassination attempts last year, wrote on his Truth Social platform that “The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk, is dead”.

Playing the role of adviser and supporter in previous Trump election campaigns, Kirk developed a close relationship with Trump’s campaign team and his family.

“No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better than Charlie. He was loved and admired by ALL, especially me,” Trump wrote.

“In honour of Charlie Kirk, a truly Great American Patriot, I am ordering all American Flags throughout the United States lowered to Half Mast until Sunday evening at 6 PM,” he said.

Former US President Joe Biden

Joe Biden, who was running for president in 2020 when Kirk was a vocal ally of the Trump campaign, condemned the shooting on the X platform.

“There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones,” he wrote.

There is no place in our country for this kind of violence. It must end now. Jill and I are praying for Charlie Kirk’s family and loved ones.

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) September 10, 2025

Former US President Barack Obama

“We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.”

We don’t yet know what motivated the person who shot and killed Charlie Kirk, but this kind of despicable violence has no place in our democracy. Michelle and I will be praying for Charlie’s family tonight, especially his wife Erika and their two young children.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 10, 2025

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Kirk repeatedly professed his Christian Evangelical faith and was a staunch supporter of Israel during his on-air debates at college campuses. In a post on X, Israel’s Netanyahu regretted that the activist could not visit Israel as planned.

“Charlie Kirk was murdered for speaking truth and defending freedom. A lion-hearted friend of Israel, he fought the lies and stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization. I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel. Sadly, that visit will not take place. We lost an incredible human being. His boundless pride in America and his valiant belief in free speech will leave a lasting impact.”

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer

“My thoughts this evening are with the loved ones of Charlie Kirk. It is heartbreaking that a young family has been robbed of a father and a husband.

“We must all be free to debate openly and freely without fear – there can be no justification for political violence,” he wrote.

My thoughts this evening are with the loved ones of Charlie Kirk.

It is heartbreaking that a young family has been robbed of a father and a husband.

We must all be free to debate openly and freely without fear – there can be no justification for political violence.

— Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) September 10, 2025

Robert F Kennedy Jr, US Secretary of Health and Human Services

“Once again, a bullet has silenced the most eloquent truth teller of an era. My dear friend Charlie Kirk was our country’s relentless and courageous crusader for free speech. We pray for Erika and the children,” Kennedy wrote on X.

“Charlie is already in paradise with the angels. We ask his prayers for our country.”

Hollywood actor Mel Gibson

“The brutal murder of Charlie Kirk is nothing short of evil a cowardly attack on America’s very soul. Faith, family, freedom, the right to speak truth trampled by violence. My blood boils. Justice must be relentless and unforgiving,” he wrote.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

“If you knew him, you’d love him,” Hegseth told US troops, speaking of his admiration for and friendship with Kirk.

“Taken by an assassin’s bullet – unfathomable,” Hegseth said.

A prayer for Charlie Kirk and those who serve. pic.twitter.com/wWkEEvheRm

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) September 11, 2025

Dean Withers, American livestreamer and liberal political commentator

Withers, who was often seen on the opposite end of Kirk during debates on political YouTube channels, posted a video on TikTok, which now has more than 10 million views, saying: “I’m sad, distraught. In fact, I just cried in front of my livestream in front of 250,000 people.”

He continued, “[Gun violence] is always disgusting, always vile and always abhorrent.”

“My thoughts and prayers go out to Charlie Kirk’s friends, family, children, loved ones, as well as every single person in attendance at his event today in Utah.”

Eduardo Bolsonaro – son of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro

Bolsonaro said in a post on the X platform that he was “shocked” by Kirk’s killing, whom he described as a “young man with a good heart … who dedicated his life to mobilising conservative youth in the US”.

“I had the honour of accompanying him in his work and know the greatness of his mission. Another conservative victim of hate and intolerance,” Bolsonaro wrote.

Sept. 10 (UPI) — Conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot and killed while at an outdoor event at Utah Valley University in Orem.

Kirk, 31, initially was reported as being in critical condition after being removed by his security team while bleeding from his neck. But President Donald Trump announced he has died from his wounds. Other media has since reported the same.

“The great and legendary Charlie Kirk is dead,” Trump said in a Truth Social post.

“No one understood or had the heart of the youth in the United States better than Charlie,” the president continued. “He was loved and admired by all, especially me, and now he is no longer with us.”

Trump expressed sympathy on behalf of himself and first lady Melania to Kirk’s wife, Erika, and their family.

University officials initially had said a suspect was in custody, but no suspect has been detained, NBC News reported in an update.

“Today at about 12:10 p.m. [local time] a shot was fired at the visiting speaker, Charlie Kirk,” University officials said in a statement released to media.

“He was hit and taken from the location by his security. Campus police is investigating, [and] a suspect is in custody.”

The reported suspect was not the alleged shooter and since has been released from custody.

The shooter was positioned on top of one of the university’s buildings and about 200 yards from where Kirk was speaking when he suffered a single gunshot wound to the neck, the BBC reported.

Kirk was a co-founder of Turning Point USA, which is a conservative non-profit that promotes conservative causes and viewpoints at colleges, universities and elsewhere and supports Trump.

Trump in an earlier Truth Social post called Kirk a “great guy from top to bottom” and concluded his post with, “God bless him!”

Kirk was a father of two and spoke during the 2024 Republican Convention in Milwaukee shortly after a would-be assassin tried to shoot and kill Trump.

He was taken to Intermountain Health Utah Valley Hospital, which is located near the university.

Utah Valley University is located about 40 miles south of Salt Lake City and told students to shelter in place after the shooting occurred.

This is a breaking news story. Check back for more developments.