Culture

Trump targets the 60-year 'Star Trek' legacy that built modern NASA

“Star Trek” began as a television series but grew into a cultural phenomenon.

When it premiered in 1966, no one could have predicted that it would lead to more than a dozen spinoff shows, more than a dozen movies and one of the most enduring fandoms in popular culture.

“Star Trek” is also unusual for its close connections to NASA, both in its storylines and in the real world. Decades of “Star Trek” adventures have ignited a love of spaceflight across generations, inspiring many who now work as space professionals.

I’m a cultural anthropologist who studies why people work in space exploration. I’ve interviewed astronomers, engineers, flight surgeons and astronauts. Although I focus more on science fact than science fiction, I’ve noticed in my interviews how much the two threads intertwine.

Because of this, I found myself at a “Star Trek” convention in early August 2026, just ahead of the show’s 60th anniversary on Sept. 8. The convention participants included people of widely different ages, appearances and identities. I was struck by just how much those gathered reflected the series’ values.

When NASA met Star Trek

In the original series, the show’s creator, Gene Roddenberry, came up with a philosophy held by the Vulcan people. He called it IDIC: infinite diversity in infinite combinations. It suggests that an ideal society is made up of many different types, all working together.

It represented Roddenberry’s rejection of conformity. It also explained why the Enterprise crew included a Russian alongside Americans, and Black, Japanese and female characters all in positions of responsibility and authority. While many ordinary viewers absorbed “Star Trek’s” lessons of camaraderie and acceptance, those involved in real space exploration also took notice.

A black-and-white photo of four characters wearing Starfleet uniforms, including two white men, an Asian man and a Black woman. The cast of ‘Star Trek: The Original Series’ included a diverse crew of characters. Walters Art Museum

Roddenberry established relationships with NASA personnel in the early days of his series. NASA provided photographs of planetary bodies and advice about the realities of spaceflight, as well as stock footage and access to certain NASA facilities.

Leonard Nimoy, who played the popular character Mr. Spock, was even brought to the National Space Club’s Goddard Memorial Dinner in 1967 as a special guest. Then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey gave the keynote speech. Afterward, though, it was Nimoy, not Humphrey, who found himself surrounded by the club’s members, including NASA employees, aerospace engineers, members of the military and government officials, all eager to meet the actor portraying the starship Enterprise’s first officer.

The relationship between NASA and “Star Trek” benefited the show by legitimizing the series. It also helped NASA by publicizing its work and depicting a positive future where its efforts to land on the Moon would eventually lead to visits to distant worlds – and amazing scientific advances like the show’s transporter and warp drive.

The connection between the space show and space agency was reflected in NASA’s decision to name its first space shuttle Enterprise, after some encouragement from the “Star Trek” fan community.

Inspiring astronauts

In 1977, actress Nichelle Nichols, who portrayed communications officer Uhura, was hired to recruit for NASA. The space agency had expanded its pool of astronauts to include scientists and other “mission specialists.” For the first time, an astronaut no longer needed to be a pilot to participate in a space mission.

NASA selected its first Black astronaut candidates and its first female astronaut candidates in 1978. While this move toward inclusivity may not have been directly influenced by infinite diversity in infinite combinations, it was compatible with it. “Star Trek” inspired many of NASA’s future employees. In interviews for my book “The Ultraview Effect,” a quarter of the space professionals I spoke with mentioned “Star Trek” as an influence.

A woman wearing a blue jumpsuit sitting in the pilot's chair in a space shuttle cockpit simulator Nichelle Nichols sits in the space shuttle simulator at the Johnson Space Center in March 1977. NASA

An Apollo astronaut I interviewed, for instance, said he believed humans would eventually “be able to go anywhere in the universe, just like ‘Star Trek.’”

A young engineer who had grown up in the 1990s told me his motivation came from the “opening line of ‘Star Trek’… to explore strange new worlds.”

A space shuttle mission specialist emphasized Roddenberry’s decision to make the starship crew multicultural, explaining: “Today I look at the diversity of it … he was setting the stage back when it wasn’t acceptable [in order] to be acceptable!”

A changing future

That influence has accompanied a changing astronaut corps.

Both the 2025 astronaut class, which for the first time included more women than men, and the crew of Artemis II, which sent the first woman, first Black astronaut and first Canadian on a lunar mission, resemble the future that “Star Trek” imagined.

The “Star Trek” fans at the convention I attended were even more diverse. It was clear to me that Roddenberry’s “infinite diversity in infinite combinations” isn’t just a concept from the series, but something that has become a defining value of contemporary Trek fandom.

A photo of space, with some bright spots representing nebulae, including a bright spot that looks like the disc-shaped hull of the starship Enterprise from Star Trek NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope captured a region of the galaxy that looks a little like the USS Enterprise, which NASA highlighted in a news release in 2016. NASA/JPL-Caltech

One such fan, Bjo Trimble, holds special status. She is credited with “saving ‘Star Trek’” when the series was almost canceled in 1968 after two seasons. Wearing a rainbow “IDIC” pin, she signed autographs at the SyFy Sistas booth, where T-shirts featuring Black “Star Trek” icons such as Uhura and Benjamin Sisko were on display.

However, with the Trump administration’s recent orders to dismantle all of NASA’s diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs and policies, institutional support for “Star Trek’s” vision of acceptance and inclusivity, which flourishes in its fan base, is being undone. This rollback occurred just as NASA’s crews were reaching new milestones in representing the diverse future that “Star Trek” has encouraged for decades.

Sixty years later, some of the diverse future that “Star Trek” imagined has become part of everyday spaceflight. Other parts of that ideal remain unfinished.The Conversation

Deana L. Weibel, Professor of Anthropology, Grand Valley State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

CBS forced to deny wild accusations over new '60 Minutes' cast picture

The revamped CBS network is denying allegations from social media critics that it altered or AI generated a “60 Minutes” Season 59 cast photo with what looks like floating fingers and other image inconsistencies.

“Acclaimed photographer Mark Seliger captured the Season 59 cast posing in Grand Central Station’s Oyster Bar. In response, online users have pointed out several inconsistencies in the photograph, especially involving reporter Lesley Stahl leaning against what appears to be only air,” the Daily Beast reports.

“They took a picture of [Lesley Stahl] leaning back against a desk or table and just photoshopped her in,” one heckler on X complained.

“Nah. Hard pass on watching this far-right takeover of this legendary franchise,” complained another.

“There’s a table behind her,” Jeremy Adler, the SVP of Communications for CBS News, told the Daily Beast, in contrast to what online hecklers described as empty air. But other online comics did not hold back the heckling.

“I'm excited to see Ross Douthat's 0 years of journalistic experience be put to good use,” posted National Press Photographers Association journalist Alexander Heller.

Others described the alleged AI art-barf as characteristic of the network since it got commandeered by right-leaning editor-in-chief Bari Weiss.

“… just another propaganda arm for a corrupt regime,” complained one commenter.

“A fake ‘photo’ from fake news organization,” intoned another.

“I hope they’ll be telling the truth and not what doesn’t hurt the president’s feelings!” quipped another critic with snark.

“The acclaimed CBS show is about to premiere its first full season under Bari Weiss’ MAGA-curious leadership,” reports Daily Beast. “Since firing longtime executive producer Tanya Simon in May, Weiss has garnered accusations of censorship and of leveraging the platform to suck up to MAGA officials. CBS announced that the new season’s first big segment will include an interview with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.”

“The photoshoot’s location was meant as an homage to CBS veterans like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, and Douglas Edwards, who recorded in Grand Central when the terminal still housed CBS’ studios, from 1939 until 1964,” DB added. “According to CBS, the studio where Murrow recorded See It Now and Person to Person was right above the Oyster Bar.”

Other critics suggested Stahl was too liberal to pose with her new co-workers, that the philosophical differences made a group shot difficult.

“Now ask yourself; why couldn't they get together for an actual group photo?” said another critic.

Trump dirties up 8-bit classics with cringe revamp

Fox News reports The White House is “rolling out a new website Thursday that will feature classic arcade-style games with a MAGA twist.”

A promotional video for the game site obtained by Fox News Digital shows MAGA remakes of 8-bit favorites, including Flappy Bird, Snake, Duck Hunt and other classics originals, an even more classic touch of Trump.

The MAGA version of Snake, for instance, features Border Czar Tom Homan—in all his cash-grabbing pinkness—leading a line of brown people in orange jumpsuits while he chases other “illegal immigrants” on the grid

“In another game, reminiscent of Duck Hunt, the user employs a net to catch gold bars and money, illustrative of putting money into a Trump Account,” reports Fox. “The Washington Monument is depicted in the background of that game.”

Visitors to the site can endure a rip of classic SEGA intro music while playing Trump’s distorted version of “Flappy Bird,” which involves navigating a bald eagle through columns and obstacles on what looks vaguely like the National Mall on a sunny day. And they can use a Tetris-like pixel scheme to build Trump’s southern border wall to curtail the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S.

Fox reports the site is also a jab at Democrat policies, and what the White House describes as the political left's "dark" vision for the future of the country, which obviously does not involve leading brown people around in a train line.

"The President continues to rack up victory after victory on behalf of the American public, while opponents of his agenda are defending their record of raising taxes and empowering criminal illegal aliens," an official told Fox News Digital. "This is an effort to further contrast between a culture of fun and winning and the dark socialist vision Democrats have for America."

Us: Can you work to lower the price of gas and groceries, or at least work to slow the rate of inflation?" one heckler groused on X, in response to the Fox news post. “Them: Best I can do is this 👇..."

"There are NO WORDS to adequately describe how much I despise this incompetent administration," snapped another account claiming to be "ExGOP" on X.

In a fourth game, the user can play a boxker, punching candy and other unhealthy foods away. That game, according to Fox, features a graphic with the words "Seed Oils" with a red line through it “in a nod to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his Make America Healthy Again initiative.”

This conservative studio just accidentally made a movie slapping down Trump

Given that Angel Studios has a well-known conservative bent, I highly doubt that the filmmakers behind "The Brink of War" intended to make a movie that implicitly criticizes President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, merely by juxtaposing President Ronald Reagan's behavior during the famous Reykjavík Summit in 1986 with Trump's own transactional, belligerent and bullying approach to foreign policy, "The Brink of War" serves as a scathing critique.

It shows, if nothing else, how the Republican Party has evolved between the 1980s and the 2020s — and does so through a cinematic work of art that can best be described as beautiful, intelligent, moving... and flawed.

Analyzing "The Brink of War" as entertainment

From a strictly artistic standpoint, there is much to admire in "The Brink of War." It was filmed on location in Höfði, the actual location of the Reykjavík Summit and a reputed haunted house (locals claim to have seen the ghost of a young woman, stuck there after dying by either suicide or drowning). The on-set photography was performed by Pete Souza, a real-life White House photographer who actually photographed the summit captured in the movie. Much of the dialogue between Reagan and his counterpart, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, is authentic, as writer-director Michael Russell Gunn went out of his way to incorporate publicly-available transcripts from the event.

Importantly, everyone in the main cast manages to not so much impersonate their historical counterparts as embody their essential qualities through subtle performance techniques. The story centers around Reagan (Jeff Daniels), Gorbachev (Jared Harris), Secretary of State George Shultz (J. K. Simmons), First Lady Nancy Reagan (Hope Davis) and Spouse of the General Secretary Raisa Gorbacheva (Branka Katić). There is little narrative fat to bloat the running time or confuse audiences about the thrust of the plot. The Reykjavík Summit, which was held on October 11-12, 1986, involved Reagan and Gorbachev trying desperately to implement arms control at a time when the Cold War was dangerously heating up. The movie focuses on that issue, and all of the crucial geopolitical tensions surrounding it, with eagle-eyed clarity.

The result is a motion picture that is entertaining for anyone who enjoys history or politics. The cinematography is somber, saturated and moody, much like many of the protagonists. The directing and writing is brisk and confident, trusting audiences to be smart enough to be as riveted by ideological and strategic debates as they would by violence in an action flick or sex in a romance story. Despite the Reykjavík Summit eventually covering a wide range of issues, Gunn is adept at addressing all of them without feeling overwhelmed by any, something that could have easily happened in the hands of a lesser filmmaker. Finally, Gunn's passion for the material — which I witnessed firsthand when interviewing him — is evident in every frame here.

This is not to say that it's perfect. Liberal audiences will likely groan at its oft-hagiographic depiction of Reagan (who was far from perfect) and clear bias toward conservatism. Unlike "Young Washington," another Angel Studios film, "The Brink of War" is not comfortable showing Reagan's warts alongside his strengths. There are also a handful of moments, most notably at the beginning, when the score was so loud I had trouble hearing the dialogue. Even without that technical issue, in general I found the score to be intrusive, as if it was ordering me what to think or feel rather than allowing the film's directing, writing and acting to let me reach my own conclusions.

Yet these quibbles, though meaningful, are ultimately minor. For anyone seeking quality entertainment meant for thoughtful grown ups, "The Brink of War" is an excellent choice.

Analyzing "The Brink of War" as history

After watching "The Brink of War," I spoke with Jack Matlock, who served as Reagan's special assistant and senior director for European and Soviet affairs during the summit. In addition to writing an excellent book on his experiences working for Reagan as he interacted with Gorbachev, "Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended," Matlock was kind enough to illustrate for me what it was really like working for Reagan — not just Reagan the statesman, but Reagan the surprisingly chill boss.

"It was great working for him," Matlock told AlterNet about Reagan's relationship with employees as an employer. "I was called to the National Security Council with the task of developing and negotiating a strategy for the Soviet Union. Although he had been rhetorically very critical of communism, at the same time he was very worried about nuclear weapons and the possibility of nuclear war. He wanted a strategy for negotiation, so I was brought onto the NSC and tried to develop what became a four-part agenda. I've described that in detail. When we finally had an agreement for him to meet with Gorbachev, I was asked to develop a program so that he would better understand the various issues. I organized what was, in effect, a college course — we jokingly called it 'Soviet Union 101.' We produced over twenty papers; I wrote three or four of them, and I had the others written by specialists in the CIA and the State Department's intelligence bureau."

Characterizing Reagan as someone who was kind and supportive to those who worked for him, as well as engaged with the substance of issues, Matlock described how he had to set an agenda of topics and then asked agencies to select their most knowledgeable analysts to write classified papers about them. Reagan could call the authors directly with questions if he chose, and consistently showed a deep level of engagement with policy substance that belied his contemporary image as an "amiable dunce."

"He would give us sometimes two hours a day to discuss these issues — almost incredible," Matlock recalled. "I would say that, of everyone I've dealt with, he was, only half-jokingly, the best student I ever had. He had some ideas that weren't right, but if you corrected him, he would thank you instead of getting angry. Before his first meeting with Gorbachev at the Geneva summit, he wrote a four-and-a-half-page description of what he expected. This was handed to me — typed up by his secretary, with a few corrections in his own handwriting — and I was told: read this, and when we brief him in Geneva, if he's got something wrong, straighten him out. That was the attitude of that administration. I haven't found that attitude in any other administration I worked for."

Matlock then described a scene from Reykjavík that doesn't appear in "The Brink of War" but, frankly, should.

"When we got there, we actually did a rehearsal," Matlock told AlterNet. "I played Gorbachev, speaking Russian, and our interpreter would interpret. I used things I had observed of Gorbachev on television — he had visited London and Paris before we met him and had appeared on TV — so I knew what his arguments would be on issues like the Strategic Defense Initiative and others."

He continued, "In any event, the main thing people need to understand about Reagan is that he genuinely wanted peace. He wanted to end the nuclear arms race. When Gorbachev later proposed the abolition of nuclear weapons, almost no one in the government thought that was a good idea except George Shultz. At that point, Reagan told us: 'Although this proposal isn't completely acceptable, we're not going to knock it — because if he's serious about eliminating nuclear weapons, we've got to meet him halfway.'"

In addition to omitting the rehearsal scene, "The Brink of War" botches the history of the summit in another critical sense — namely, by conveying the ideas that (a) Reagan prioritized humanitarian issues and (b) Reagan believed emphasizing civil liberties could ultimately lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union.

When Matlock heard this was part of the movie's message, he emphatically said that it is "absolutely not true."

"He said in a statement — which I've quoted in my book, and which he wrote without any prompting — I'm paraphrasing now: 'I think we're much too public about human rights. We can hammer at them in public, but it will not help the victims; in fact, it could hurt them. We have got to deal with this privately,'" Matlock told AlterNet. "And he stopped the public rhetoric after that. As for bringing down the Soviet Union — he did not aspire to break up the Soviet Union, and neither did his successor [President George H. W. Bush]. His view was: communism is a bad system, but if that's what they want, that's their business. Our policy, as it was under the first Bush, was that the three Baltic countries should regain their independence, because we had never recognized that they were part of the Soviet Union — but we were not trying to break up the Soviet Union otherwise. One reason was that we didn't want to see a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and at that point there were nuclear weapons in many of the republics. So the idea that human rights was a strategy to bring down the Soviet Union gets it exactly backwards."

When I shared Matlock's criticism with Gunn, he gently pushed back against it.

"Well, that was something Secretary Shultz told me about in our first conversation — that he felt there were two leaps at Reykjavik," Gunn told AlterNet. "The first was a leap of faith on Gorbachev's side, to be willing to reach out and engage one-on-one with Reagan. There were a lot of hardliners in the Soviet Union who thought Reagan was dangerous, but Gorbachev sensed something in him he could work with — that was the leap of faith. On Reagan's side, it was a leap of imagination. Shultz told me that even he didn't fully believe the Soviet Union could end. So it was that leap of imagination I was trying to capture with Reagan."

Gunn concluded, "When I read the transcripts and the material about the refuseniks and human rights and those kinds of issues, I was really thinking about it through the lens of how Reagan would have worked with Gorbachev to get that message through. That's really how the script came to deal with it."

Analyzing "The Brink of War" in the Age of Trump

At this point I must disclose something personal: I've always felt hostile to Reagan in part because he rose to power by winning the 1980 election against my favorite American commander-in-chief, President Jimmy Carter.

I've previously explained why I believe the outcome of the 1980 contest was one of history's greatest tragedies. Under Carter, Americans had a president who did prioritize human rights in foreign policy and was similarly ahead of the curve on issues like environmental protection, supporting racial equality, backing women's rights, implementing ethics reforms (and being ethical himself), helping disabled people, achieving landmark geopolitical negotiations (particularly in the Middle East and Panama) and fighting inflation. When Reagan replaced him, America took major steps backward on every one of those issues, and for the most part we have never fully recovered; just as bad, Reagan's pro-business and anti-labor attitudes created the pervasive income inequality that trickled down from America to the rest of the world.

For all of these reasons, I am no fan of Reagan, to put it mildly. Yet as "The Brink of War" powerfully shows, Reagan was still an exponentially better president than Trump. Everything wrong with Reagan is far worse with Trump; everything good about Reagan is lacking in Trump. Or, as Carter himself told me when I interviewed him for Salon in 2018, “I think that under Trump the government is worse than it has been before."

Albeit probably without intending to, "The Brink of War" displays how this is the case. Reagan is shown to care deeply about respecting American alliances, from our relations with weaker Asian nations like Japan to supporting our involvement in NATO. Trump, by contrast, is deliberately blowing up America's multilateral relationships due to a mix of isolationist tendencies and a desire to personally financially profit from foreign policymaking. At various points in the film, Reagan expresses sympathy for immigrants and for persecuted peoples like the Soviet refuseniks; Trump, on the other hand, is infamously and chillingly indifferent to human rights. Whereas Reagan paid close attention to his expert advisers and tried to intimately familiarize himself with topics important to his job, Trump has a notoriously short attention span and has botched major policy areas — from his COVID-19 response to his war against Iran — because he is proud of his own ignorance.

Even as personalities, Trump falls short of Reagan's standard in every measurable way. In contrast to the friendly and loyal boss shown in "The Brink of War" and described in real life by countless former employees, Trump is widely despised by those who used to work for him — not just obscure names but including his own first term vice president (Mike Pence), attorneys general (Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr), Secretary of Defense (James Mattis), Secretary of State (Rex Tillerson), chief of staff (John Kelly) and countless others — and is happy to throw his subordinates under the bus to save his own skin. (One can never imagine Reagan doing what Trump recently did and use his own staffers, as well as many journalists, as decoys for a potential assassin.) Reagan was a loving and faithful husband to Nancy, while it's an open secret that Trump and Melania are at best extremely chilly and distant toward each other. Finally, while Reagan was respected even by critics for his humility and willingness to be corrected, Trump demands sycophants who praise him at every turn and spare him all criticism — and, most importantly, was literally willing to destroy American democracy rather than admit he lost the 2020 presidential election.

While I was not given time to ask Gunn about the full gamut of differences between Reagan and Trump, I did ask for his impressions by quoting part of my 2018 interview with Carter. Reagan's predecessor described Trump by telling me, "This is the first time I remember when the truth is ignored, allies are deliberately aggravated, China, Europe, Mexico and Canada are hurt economically and have to hurt us in response, Americans see the future worse than the present, and immigrants are treated cruelly." From there I asked Gunn, "Do you feel your film's message is relevant at a time when President Trump is ignoring human rights, both in this country and abroad, trying to pull America out of NATO, and abandoning longtime Asian allies like Taiwan?"

His response was telling and shows how "The Brink of War," despite showing how one right-wing president was far superior to another, was made by people as uncomfortable with this reality as the millions of people who still back Trump with cult-like devotion.

"Well, I think it's a very different world now," Gunn told AlterNet. "When Carter and Reagan were in office, it was a bipolar world — a world between two superpowers. We now live in a multipolar world, with the rise of China and the low-intensity conflicts that have emerged around the globe, in Myanmar, in Ukraine, and elsewhere. I think we're living in a much more complicated world." He then pivoted to a point about "The Brink of War" on which liberal and non-MAGA conservatives can most certainly agree.

"But if your question is really about what we can take away from the Reagan-Gorbachev era, I think it's that engaging with an adversary is always the first step toward peace," Gunn explained. "That's the takeaway I had while researching and working on this project, and it's what I hope audiences take away when they see it."

The bottom line

I hope they see this too. Like Gunn, I hope audiences walk away with that impression because Americans do indeed need to adopt more human rights-focused and more engagement-oriented approach to foreign policy. Art is a powerful medium for communicating ideas — after all, Reagan was familiar to Americans as a star of Western movies before becoming California governor and president, while Trump spent a decade as host of the reality TV show "The Apprentice" before his successful 2016 presidential campaign — and when it comes to its core ideas, "The Brink of War" will be entirely salutary if it transmits them en masse effectively.

Unlike Gunn, however, I also hope people will watch "The Brink of War" and appreciate the extent of the decline in American conservatism. Whereas Trump and his supporters clearly want to destroy America's two-party system (how else to describe characterizing all elections won by Democrats as illegitimate?), I don't want to live in a country where only one party is allowed to succeed. We need a robust two-party system, with Republicans of integrity working alongside Democrats of integrity. For all of Reagan's myriad shortcomings, he appreciated that too — and, by dint of his leadership style, embodied those ideals.

This is why, at the end of the day, Angel Studios' Reagan movie is also secretly a warning about Trump.

The 1980s pop culture phenomenon that explains the entire MAGA movement

The perfect way to fully grasp President Donald Trump and his movement is through professional wrestling, a new book by David Shoemaker says.

The Bullwark sifted through Why Hulk Hogan Matters in which the writer uses a "literary theory" to explain wrestling.

"What I want to do today is take Shoemaker’s work one step further and extrapolate it out to politics," wrote Jonathan V. Last.

The long-time journalist and author used 1980's wrestler Hulk Hogan as the perfect comparison to Trump by using the term "kayfabe." It's the acting piece of professional wrestling, which uses fake rivalries and staged events to keep the franchise propped up.

Shoemaker calls it an example of "not a fraud but a folk art." Last thinks this is the perfect explanation for how politics fell victim to kayfabe.

"Kayfabe is, it turns out, the mode of the demagogue. The demagogue always pretends to speak for the imagined true people. The authentic Volk. This is true in all times and places: In Germany in the 1930s (the Völkisch movement). In Myanmar in the 1960s (Burmanization). In America today ('heritage Americans')," Last described.

Trump is no different, using kayfabe in his 2016 campaign with perceived beefs on both sides of the political aisle. Trump even brought pal and former wrestling promoter Vince McMahon into his campaign.

"Where American politicians had previously felt the need to pantomime earnestness and consistency, Trump was openly playacting. He would insult an opponent’s wife and call the man a liar one day, and then embrace him the next day after the man submitted," recalled Last. "And the audience accepted this because they accepted that Trump was working in kayfabe. Trump realized that voters could behave like wrestling fans. They could know that the show was scripted and still care."

Watching the ordeal, Last said, was like watching Marines fight Roman legionaries. Yes, the two are fighters, but they're playing by different rules. In Trump's case, politics wasn't about the business of governing and building a better society. It was a show and voters were the audience.

"[W]restling is about narrative authority—who gets to embody the story a culture wants to tell itself," Shoemaker explained in the book.

In another Shoemaker book Last cited, the author described the "historic" battle between Hogan and Andre the Giant. The descriptions of the men included outlandish height and weight for both men. If it sounds familiar, it's the same kind of embellishments that Trump uses to boast his height is 6'3" and weight is 238 pounds. Several athletes who have their height and weight measured by the team also claim 6'3" and standing beside Trump, they're remarkably taller.

"Trump has understood this imperative in ways that never occurred to another American politician. It’s why he lies about the size of his inauguration crowds. Why he exaggerates everything to world-historical scale. Why he never appears without being covered in makeup. Why he wears his hair the way he does. Why, when he announced his intention to run for president, he paid actors to show up and make it look like a crowd of supporters," Last explained.

Shoemaker's description of Hogan's embellishments could easily be swapped out with Trump's.

"Hogan didn’t just lie the way wrestlers lie—inside the ring, for the sake of a story. He liked the way people lie when they’ve spent so long playing a character that the character starts freelancing in real life. His lies weren’t usually malicious or strategic. They were expansive. Improvisational. They sprawled," the book said.

Last went on to compare some of the photos of Hogan and Trump from the start vs. more recently. The perfect example is looking at Trump's official photos. The first photo appears softer; Trump has a big smile, capturing his desperation to be loved. The second photo shows him staring down the lens; a determined frown and increased sharpness give the image a harshness.

These are just a few examples. Last goes further into the ways in which the audience is part of the scheme too. Without enablers those who live a fake existance in and out of "real life," there is no audience. It's why Last thinks that "Trumpism is forever," even once Trump disappears. Millions of Americans joined the MAGA world and dedicated their lives to embracing the clothing, attitudes, catch phrases and any other pieces of identity.

I scream for 'Ice Cream Man'

"Ice Cream Man" is exactly what I want in a horror film: It's smart, energetic and includes some of the most memorable grotesque visuals this gore hound has ever seen.

Directed and co-written by Eli Roth (with help from Noah Belson), "Ice Cream Man" tells the story of a silent and evil purveyor of sweet treats whose colorful confections turn children into bloodthirsty and superhuman murderers. Set in the idyllic suburban town of Bayleen Bay, "Ice Cream Man" moves briskly — it clocks in at less than an hour-and-a-half — as protagonists Jared (Charlie Seltzer), Tommy (Shiloh O'Reilly) and Mia (Kiori Mirza Waldman) attempt to save the day from the titular villain and his new army of homicidal psychopaths. With caked ice cream stuck to their maws and a shocking combination of extreme strength and nigh-invincible resilience, the Ice Cream Man's child victims are a hybrid of the juvenile baddies from "Children of the Corn" and the zombified urchins from "Weapons."

Meanwhile, the unnamed Ice Cream Man himself (played by Ari Millen from "Orphan Black"), who we never hear speak, seems to infuse elements of iconic film characters like Conrad Veidt's Gwynplaine in "The Man Who Laughs" and David Howard Thornton's Art the Clown in the "Terrifier" series, with a dash of the Pied Piper thrown in for good measure. Unlike the evil ice cream man played by Clint Howard in the 1995 movie of the same name (with which this has no direct ties), Millen's Ice Cream Man is literally demonic, a fact that is made evident by the actor's unspoken mannerisms long before it is rendered explicit in the plot. He is among the more sympathetic gothic villains out there, mixing a sadistic glee in inciting brutal killings with a tragic backstory that reflects all-too-realistically on how corrupt institutions can railroad the most vulnerable among us.

Inside the mind of the Ice Cream Man

When I spoke to Millen after both watching the motion picture and writing the bulk of this review, I asked him if my read was on point, and he had an interesting observation about what makes the Ice Cream Man tick.

"When I read him, this is a man who was done wrong and his modus operandi has always been to bring joy to children," Millen explained. "And through what happened to him, the corruption of the minds of kids, he never wants that to happen again. We can argue whether how he goes about it is the right way to do it. But absolutely, his heart is very much in the place where he is here to maintain the innocence of kids and to not let adults or society sort of corrupt their innocence."

I also got a strong sense from that conversation, and from watching "Ice Cream Man," that this was a film in which everyone involved had a lot of fun. Shot in only 19 days with a cast and crew drawn heavily from Canada (a nation that Millen argues, and I agree, deserves more recognition for its tremendous talent pool of actors and filmmakers), you can feel the gusto for the material brimming from every macabre frame.

This is not to say that "Ice Cream Man" is for everyone. When I referred to myself as a "gore hound," it is because I am a longtime fan of the genre, and in particular of the type of blood-and-guts soaked fare that this filmmaker regularly serves to his audiences. If you are made squeamish by decapitations, mutilations, viscera and flying vital fluids, I urge you to stay away from "Ice Cream Man," as it will likely make you equal parts queasy and mentally scarred. For those with strong stomachs and a taste for this type of flick, however "Ice Cream Man" works for the same reason as Roth's best work: There is a brain beneath the exploitation aesthetic.

"Ice Cream Man" in context

Consider how "Ice Cream Man" stacks up against the other horror movies directed by Roth (each of which, as a Roth superfan, I have watched repeatedly). "Cabin Fever" was about how civilized behavior crumbles when humans face a crisis, with an infectious disease catalyst all too relevant after the COVID-19 pandemic; "Hostel" skewered Americans' ignorance of and false sense of superiority to the world around them; "Hostel: Part II" critiqued misogyny in ways that presciently predated the Me Too movement; "The Green Inferno" underscored the naïveté of political activists who act based on what is trendy online rather than what they have researched; and "Thanksgiving" satirized American consumerism and how powerful business leaders can dangerously skirt accountability. Even his non-horror movies, like his underrated "Death Wish" remake (which I reviewed for Salon), touched on issues like our gun-obsessed culture and how it can breed vigilantism.

With "Ice Cream Man," the intelligence comes from comprehending the innocence and cruelty that defines childhood, as well as how easily kids can be exploited by adults. "Ice Cream Man" captures all of that vividly, in no small part because a lot of the aforementioned fun seemed to come from the child actors who run wild. As Millen pointed out, kids get a "bad rap" as being "difficult to work with, but Charlie and Kiori and Shiloh are some of the most talented and dedicated actors, kids or adults, that I've ever worked with. They just have the benefit of still having a child's imagination." As such "they were in this world as soon as Eli called action. They were in that world. And that made my job that much easier because they just drew me in."

Much as the children pulled their weight, a large share of the credit must also go to Millen for his starring performance. Mute film baddies are hardly new, especially since the type was popularized by "Halloween"'s Michael Myers and "Friday the 13th: Part 2"'s Jason Voorhees, but usually the archetype wears a mask and seems literally inhuman. The Ice Cream Man, by contrast, has a constantly visible face and is terrifying in part because of his humanity. Like the best mimes (a comparison I use as a sincere compliment, not a backhanded one), he expresses a wide range of emotions — cruelty, a desire to be liked, even a twisted sort of kindness — without uttering a syllable. Like Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger in "A Nightmare on Elm Street," it is difficult to imagine anyone else in the Ice Cream Man role once you see Millen. As an asset to the film, he is irreplaceable.

Again, I must reiterate that "Ice Cream Man" is not for everyone. Like akutaq or black licorice ice cream, this is a genre picture for those with a very specific type of cinematic palate. If you oppose the use of Generative AI to create special effects, you may object to that aspect of the movie on principle. (Personally I didn't notice any moments that seemed AI-y; the animation and special effects seemed realistic.) Yet if you are a fan of Roth's best work like "Cabin Fever," "The Green Inferno" and "Thanksgiving," "Ice Cream Man" will not disappoint. Similarly, if you're in the mood for a scary movie that flies by fast and contains characters and images that stick with you, "Ice Cream Man" is two scoops of devious deliciousness that will go down smooth.

The twisted vile of Trump’s America exposed in Apple’s new 'Cape Fear'

It seems that every three decades, Americans are treated to another iteration of "Cape Fear." A classic thriller story about a deranged stalker based on the 1957 John D. MacDonald novel "The Executioners," each version tells the tale of a devious ex-con named Max Cady who obsessively terrorizes a lawyer's family. While on the surface it's a standard psychological crime story, all three variants are masterpieces for a reason one does not often see in this genre — because they speak to deeper issues in the American zeitgeist at their time of release.

For that reason, before I review the 2026 miniseries, I must review the two alternatives that have been likewise captured on camera.

Cape Fear: 1962

For the 1962 movie, Cady (Robert Mitchum) resents attorney Sam Bowden (Gregory Peck) after the latter stops the former from raping a woman and then testifies as a prosecution witness. Characteristic of a movie about America in the Kennedy era, the morality in director J. Lee Thompson's narrative is as black-and-white as the monochrome aesthetic. Peck's Bowden is as upright, heroic and inspiring as his role as Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird," which was released the same year; similarly Mitchum's Cady is a worthless degenerate and child sex offender, as devoid of any redeeming qualities as Peck's Bowden is the litigator equivalent of a Boy Scout.

This is not to say that this adaptation is bad. To the contrary, it holds up remarkably well, bypassing much of the censorship from the Hays Code, or Hollywood's strict censorship regimen that controlled film content from the 1930s to the 1960s. As depicted by Mitchum, Max Cady is unambiguously and malevolently perverted, and therefore his menace feels quite real. At the same time, there is no ambiguity or real character development to be found here. It's a simple action story in which a good man must protect his family from a ne'er-do-well, full stop.

Cape Fear: 1991

Twenty-nine years later, director Martin Scorsese added three dimensions to the two-dimensional individuals who populated Thompson's motion picture. Cady (Robert De Niro) is still a sex offender, and Bowden is still a lawyer, but neither is as simple as appears on the surface. This time Bowden met Cady because he actually represented him in court and deliberately sabotaged his case. Showing a level of (dare I say) wokeness one does not expect from a 1991 action flick, Nolte's Bowden infuriated De Niro's Cady by refusing to mention that Bowden's rape victim had been promiscuous. He correctly, and nobly, points out that a woman's sexual history can be used to prejudice a jury even though it has no relevance to the question of whether someone raped her. Nevertheless, Nolte's Bowden indisputably violated his professional responsibility to represent his client to the best of his ability, and as such De Niro's Cady has a potentially valid complaint against him.

For this reason, the 1991 movie epitomizes the evolution from '60s black-and-white thinking to the more sophisticated ideas that permeated the '90s. In addition to being not as upright in his profession as Peck's Bowden, Nolte's Bowden is also a philanderer who cheats on his wife and a blowhard overly impressed with his own skills as an attorney. He still is ultimately the good guy, of course, and De Niro's Cady remains an out-and-out monster without nuance. Yet while the 1962 movie feels like a fictional psychological story as you watch it, the 1991 story sheds any semblance of "fakeness" that its predecessor possessed. If De Niro's Cady was a real human being in an actual crime documentary, no one would view him as particularly out of place or outlandish.

Cape Fear: 2026

That brings us to 2026, with "Cape Fear" emerging as a 10-episode TV miniseries rather than a roughly-2 hour one-shot film.

In the Apple TV "Cape Fear," the lawyer protagonist has been split into two characters, Tom and Anna Bowden (Patrick Wilson and Amy Adams) while Cady is played by Javier Bardem. Mirroring the convoluted moral landscape of the modern era, the 2026 manifestations of the classic characters are by far the most ambiguous among the three takes. Without spoiling anything, I can say having watched all 10 episodes in one day that Tom and Anna Bowden are easily the least sympathetic lawyer characters in the series. Tom was a prosecutor trying Cady for murdering his wife and unborn child, and he allegedly started an affair with Anna while she served as Cady's defense attorney. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that the two railroaded Bardem's Cady for their own selfish reasons, and the filmmakers here make it clear early on that Cady was legitimately innocent of the crimes for which he was sent behind bars.

From there, the 2026 "Cape Fear" includes intelligent and poignant commentary about the problematic nature of America's criminal justice system. We hear in gripping detail about the horrors of prison gangs, the prevalence of racism in the justice system and the inherent corruption of having private prisons house millions of people in this country. Similarly, Bardem's Cady makes genuine attempts to do good with his newfound freedom, from aiding another wrongfully convicted prisoner in his release to taking care of an abused dog that he finds. The two Bowdens here, by contrast, are less-than-forthright with their two children (this "Cape Fear" has a son and daughter for Cady to terrorize, while the two movies only included a daughter) and show only perfunctory remorse for the fact that they really did send a man to prison for a murder he didn't commit.

Yet Bardem and the writers wisely avoid making Cady into a straightforward antihero. He is still a creep, a pervert, a sadist and a man quick to violence, and in addition to his benevolent actions, he also does not hesitate to manipulate and scheme so he can ruin the Bowdens' lives through "a thousand cuts." Bardem does not hold back when it is time for his Cady to be ominous or downright terrifying. Unlike the other Cadys, though, Bardem's Cady is not a simplistic villain, but rather a deeply wounded man who handles legitimate grievances (both at the hands of the Bowdens and from his abusive father) in horrific ways.

And the Bowdens? Like so much of the rest of America in 2026, they are deeply flawed but still worthy of sympathy. Like Bardem's Cady, they overcorrect for their past sins by trying to do real good in the present (especially Adams' Anna Bowden), and their chemistry with the actors playing their children (Joe Anders' Zack Bowden and Lily Collias' Natalie Bowden) convinces us that they are sincerely loving and devoted parents. We still root for the Bowdens to prevail over Cady, but whereas in 1962 audiences did so through a conventional good-versus-evil tale and in 1991 they did so in the context of a thought-provoking legal drama, in 2026 these are all traumatized people coping with their suffering by inflicting even more trauma on those around them.

Also notable: In the 2026 "Cape Fear," we see how social media, the 24/7 news cycle and our culture's current fixation with true crime can create a perfect storm of psychological torture for people who are perceived as interesting. In this universe, Cady becomes a celebrity, attracting devoted fans and even emerging as a sex symbol. It is hard for anyone who works in media (myself included) to not nod, and to an extent wince, as we recognize the ravenous forces in our journalistic landscape that can elevate and devour the wrong people simply because it feels right at the time. Importantly in terms of the storytelling, these elements also force the 2026 Bowdens to grapple with pressures that were entirely foreign to the 1962 and 1991 Bowdens — and gives the 2026 Cady a massive advantage that the other two could have only wished for.

The only question, for viewers, is who will prevail.

I won't dare spoil that detail, but suffice to say that I was as thoroughly entertained by the 2026 "Cape Fear" as the 1962 and 1991 "Cape Fears." Showrunner Nick Antosca clearly knew what he was doing, and it helps that Scorsese joined him as an executive producer. The ten episodes are so fast-paced that one can easily breeze through them in a day, and Bardem's Cady is just as memorably venomous as Mitchum's and De Niro's. I won't go so far as to say that this is the best version, but that is mainly because all three of them are equally good, just in different ways. If you want "Cape Fear" as a parable, watch the 1962 movie. If you want "Cape Fear" with a realistic-seeming criminal dealing with a plausible lawyer, watch the 1991 movie. As to the 2026 mini-series, I recommend it to everyone who wants a "Cape Fear" in which the major players are less defined by their "protagonist/lawyer" or "antagonist/criminal" status, and instead by the psychological baggage they must shed while interacting with demons from their pasts.

All of them work in their own different ways — and each reflects the evolving moral climates of the eras in which they were released.

Enraged MAGA melts down after action star tears apart Trump

A popular TV action star tore into President Donald Trump for his connections to the Epstein files, and the ensuing fallout saw his MAGA followers go into full-on meltdown mode, as highlighted by a report from The Daily Beast.

Alan Ritchson, 43, is an actor best known for playing the lead role on the smash-hit Amazon Prime series Reacher. As he has been doing the rounds to promote the show's upcoming fourth season, as well as the recent film, Motor City, he sat for an interview with entertainment journalist Josh Horowitz on his podcast, "Happy Sad Confused," and made several comments torching Trump that later went viral across social media. Notably, the actor chastised Trump for his connections to Jeffrey Epstein, accusing him of being "all up into 13-year-olds" while also being in control of "the keys to the nuclear" launch codes.

Ritchson continued to rip into Trump during a later podcast interview, saying, “Look at the politics that we deal with right now. Like, the White House is in ruins, a f—— UFC cage on the lawn. And like, you just do it! You just f—— do it! And nobody says anything!”

While Reacher is a series noted for its potential appeal to conservative audiences, Ritchson himself has never been shy about expressing left-leaning political views. The actor previously went viral online for photos where he could be seen wearing a shirt that said, "Arrest the cops who killed Breonna Taylor." In a 2024 interview, he called Trump "a con man" and called out his fellow Christians for treating him "like he's their poster child." He also once claimed to have been a classmate of former GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, and called him an "adversary" and "not a good dude."

In response to Ritchson's latest remarks, several MAGA figures lashed out on social media, as noted by The Daily Beast.

"Alan Ritchson has decided the best use of his time is to attack Trump, and to throw a few jabs in at Catholics for some reason," Trump-supporting actor Kevin Sorbo posted to X. "You’d think he’d be smart enough to keep his mouth shut because fans of Reacher happen to also be right-wing. But nope."

"Why would he piss off half the public as he builds a career?” filmmaker Mike Binder posted to X. “I felt bad for him but worse for the folks that bankrolled him.”

"Its wild how many of these people can’t articulate why they are mad," conservative commentator Tim Pool posted in response to the actor's comments.

The book that accidentally created monster Alex Jones — and the author's deep regret

Jon Ronson’s book Them: Adventures with Extremists launched him to worldwide fame – and more dubiously, launched conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Though Jones has been deplatformed, his influence lingers: just this week, it was reported that Australia’s far-right One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts praised Jones in 2024 as “a beacon of hope around the world”.

Researched and written in the years preceding September 11, and published in April 2001, Them – which Ronson described in a preface to its second edition as “a snapshot of life in the Western world on 10 September 2001” – is turning 25.

Ronson’s original plan was to spend time with people who’d been described as “the extremist monsters of the Western world” as they went about their everyday lives. They included neo-Nazis, militias and Omar Bakri, a UK Islamic fundamentalist who called himself “Osama Bin Laden’s man in London”, and whom Ronson shadowed for a year in 1996 for a documentary.

Among other things, Ronson recorded the “clownish” Bakri watching the Lion King with a baby on his knee, and asking him to guard the money he’d been collecting for Hamas in giant Coca Cola bottles, while he retrieved a coat – which he agonised over as a Jewish person, but did (seemingly to avoid awkwardness).

Bakri, who told the Daily Mail the September 11 attacks were “exciting”, was barred from the United Kingdom after leaving in 2005. In 2010, he was arrested in Lebanon and sentenced to life in prison after a terrorism trial. Released pending retrial, he was sentenced again in 2015 to six years hard labour.

“I thought that perhaps an interesting way to look at our world would be to move into theirs and stand alongside them while they glared back at ours,” Ronson writes. But what started as a series of profiles of extremist leaders “quickly became something stranger”, when he realised the very different people he was following all shared a belief in the New World Order: a conspiracy theory that imagines “a tiny elite rules the world from inside a secret room”.

This tyrannical, shadowy elite, Ronson soon discovered, was said to launch wars and wield almost unimaginable power. It has the ability to, among other things, “select and cast out the heads of state, control Hollywood and the markets and the flow of capital, operate a harem of under-age kidnapped sex slaves”.

If there was any truth to the theory, Ronson reasoned, there must be an actual secret room, and it had to be located somewhere. So he resolved to find it.

At various points, he found himself chased by men in dark glasses and surveilled from behind trees. He also managed to witness robed international chief executives participate in a bizarre effigy-burning ritual in the forests of northern California – an experience he shared with Jones, then a harmless-seeming regional radio crank, based in Texas.

Now, 25 years on, that worldview has arguably become easier to sustain than Ronson could have imagined. Revelations surrounding figures such as Jeffrey Epstein – who did operate a network of underage girls he coerced into sexually servicing powerful men – have shown the wealthy and powerful can and do conceal serious and shocking crimes through networks of influence and privilege.

But rather than confirming the existence of a secret cabal directing world events, such scandals have often been absorbed into far broader conspiracy narratives – from QAnon to claims about bloodthirsty global elites harvesting adrenochrome from children – further blurring sometimes porous lines between fact and fiction.

Genuine curiosity and refusing caricature

The book helped to establish Ronson’s distinctive investigative approach: an interest in the fringe and the unusual, approached with a genuine sense of curiosity and a refusal of easy caricature.

This sensibility has run through his work since, from The Men Who Stared at Goats (looking at bizarre, fringe tactics adopted by the US army) and You’ve Been Publicly Shamed (an early critique of social media shaming) to his culture war conspiracy theories podcast series, Things Fell Apart.

But Them also propelled Jones into the mainstream – which Ronson has publicly regretted. When Ronson got to know him, “Alex was hollering his powerful apocalyptic vision down an ISDN line from a child’s bedroom in his house, with choo-choo train wallpaper and an Empire Strikes Back poster pinned on the wall”.

Since then, Jones has been “successfully sued” and has filed for bankruptcy after being found liable for defamation for his claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was staged and “no one died”.

Sadly, what once seemed extreme and marginal – the circulation of conspiracy theories and the associated peddling of prejudice and hate – now feels depressingly routine.

Just as it inadvertently captured the historical moment about to erupt with the September 11 attacks and their aftermath, Them anticipated the mainstreaming of conspiratorial thinking, which would become a defining feature of our misinformation-ridden historical moment.

Paranoia as the new common sense

“Paranoia was the new common sense,” writes columnist John Ganz in When the Clock Broke: Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s. “The country seemed to be seeking something new, a break with the exhausted possibilities of the past but also a restoration, a way to recover what had been lost.”

At the end of the 1980s, the Berlin Wall had been reduced to rubble and the communist bloc was crumbling. Excitable liberals were wittering on about the end of history. America stood triumphant, seemingly without rival. And yet something felt off.

Ganz argues appearances were deceptive. “America felt itself to be losing out: losing its dominant place in the world, losing the basis of its security and wealth, and losing its sense of itself.”

There had to be an explanation. And there had to be someone to blame.

This bled through in the culture of the early 1990s. “Just because you’re paranoid, don’t mean they’re not after you,” sang Kurt Cobain, capturing the zeitgeist on Nevermind (1991). It was the time of Oliver Stone’s JFK (1991) and The X-Files (1993). The truth, we were told, was out there. Trust no one – especially anyone in a position of authority.

Ruby Ridge: ground zero?

This atmosphere permeates Them’s second chapter, on the bloody Ruby Ridge standoff in regional Idaho in August 1992. Also permeating the chapter – and the book – are Ronson’s stated aims of painting people “as complicated grey areas, rather than magnificent heroes or sickening villains” and sticking “to the nuanced truth, rather than flattening it to make ideological points”.

Randy and Vicki Weaver were among the first Americans to articulate fears about the New World Order. In the 1980s, they moved from Iowa to a plywood cabin without electricity, high in the Idaho ranges. There, they home-schooled their children, living among bears and mountain lions.

Randy felt the need, Ronson tells us, to socialise from time to time. He made friends within the nearby Aryan Nations community and attended their summer camps with his children four times – though he told Ronson he wasn’t personally a white supremacist, but a “separatist”.

One such friend was an undercover agent, who asked Randy to sell him two illegal sawn-off shotguns. Once arrested, Randy was offered a choice: spy on Aryan Nations for the government or face time behind bars for illicit gun running. He went with the second option. Warned they could lose their house and convinced the New World Order was monitoring them (which was not untrue now), the Weavers stopped showing up to court.

In August 1992, US marshals hiding in the bushes shot the Weavers’ barking family dog as it came too close. Ronson reports that Weaver’s teenage son Sammy fired random shots in response, and was shot and killed. A marshal was killed too. Hundreds of federal agents descended, martial law was declared, and residents emerged from their homes bearing placards denouncing the New World Order. Vicki was shot and killed while holding her infant daughter.

Media coverage recast the human tragedy as a national psychodrama about extremism, government overreach and the collapse of public trust.

In the following months, militia movements expanded rapidly across the US. The infamous siege in Waco, Texas, where David Koresh’s Branch Davidians clashed with federal agents, ending with 75 members dead, unfolded in Texas less than a year later.

For many in the American far right, the ruined Weaver cabin became a symbol of resistance and martyrdom, assuming a quasi-mythic status. One pilgrim who visited was Timothy McVeigh, later responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people and injured close to 700.

Bilderberg: a secret society running the world?

Ronson soon realised the same name was on the lips of the various militia members and anti-government activists he spoke to: the Bilderberg Group. These are the people who actually run the world, they believed. Bilderberg was described as “the Roman Senate” or “a pyramid”.

Jones explained: “They’re way up there. Below them you’ve the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, then you’ve got us down here, the cattle, the human resources.” At the time, he was funding efforts to rebuild the Branch Davidian church.

Ronson first encountered Jones while interviewing Randy Weaver, who considered the then regional radio host “a true and tirelesss warrior”. Jones explained the Bilderbergers were orchestrating world decline from the behind the scenes. As with many conspiracy theories, the line between fantasy and reality was not always easy to discern.

The Bilderberg Group is real. It even has its own website. Established in the wake of World War II, it consists of annual private meetings attended by political and industrial leaders, financiers, media executives and royalty. It is, without doubt, a highly secretive organisation – which has intensified the suspicion around it.

Interestingly, UK politician Peter Mandelson, former US ambassador and friend of Epstein even after his conviction, is named in the book as a Bilderberg attendee.

This explains how Ronson eventually found himself sneaking into Bohemian Grove, the annual retreat (since 1878) of a secretive, elite club whose attendees “read much like a Bilderberg roll-call”, alongside Jones.

There, hidden among the redwoods of northern California, wealthy and politically connected men, many of them drunk, gathered for an elaborate ceremony centred on burning an effigy before a giant owl statue. Harmless elite play-acting, or dastardly occult ritual conducted by the secret rulers of the world? Ronson saw the former, Jones the latter.

In his short book on Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign, The Elephant in the Room (2026), Ronson describes watching the alt-right move steadily closer to political power, propelled in part by “leading voice” Jones – who reportedly received a swift call from a newly elected Trump, thanking him for his support.

Despite a lingering “personal” fondness for his fellow Bohemian Grove crasher, Ronson calls him “basically the most irresponsible man I have ever met”, who “uses his powers to inflame paranoia” and “boldly makes stuff up to suit his weird agenda”.

Lizard people

I first became aware of David Icke, former semi-professional footballer and respected sports journalist, now a believer in giant lizards, in April 1991. I was at home, watching TV, not yet ten years old.

Icke was being interviewed live on a prime-time UK talk show, wearing an eye-wateringly lurid turquoise tracksuit. He had recently started to refer to himself as the “Son of the Godhead”. On air, he made a series of predictions about imminent and devastating natural catastrophes. The audience, not knowing what to make of it all, laughed.

Ronson describes the moment:

He said this with such ferocity, such conviction, that the audience stopped laughing for a moment […] You could feel it sweep across the television studio, sweep across the land, a stirring of some primordial paranoia. Could David Icke actually be a soothsayer?

But in fact, ridicule and opprobrium followed the segment. In the period after his very public shaming, Ronson records, Icke came to believe his mockery had been orchestrated by shadowy elites. He immersed himself in conspiracy literature, including on the Bilderberg Group.

Icke became convinced the global elite were not merely corrupt politicians or financiers, but something much stranger: shape-shifting reptilian beings manipulating humans across millennia. Ancient civilisations, occult rituals and modern political institutions were all folded into a single explanatory system.

The reptilian invaders, he concluded, were the secret rulers of the world.

Critics have long argued his talk of secret reptilian elites functions as a coded form of antisemitism, echoing older conspiratorial myths – including ideas traceable to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Yet Ronson suggests Icke genuinely believes the world is controlled by interdimensional lizard people.

The promise of hidden forces

This creates a puzzle. If someone claims giant lizards secretly control the planet, are we dealing with metaphor, coded prejudice, mental instability, opportunity or sincere belief? Increasingly, it seems the answer may be some unstable combination of them all.

Part of what makes Them feel so relevant now is that Ronson rejects the reassuring assumption that extremist or conspiratorial thinking falls outside the bounds of ordinary life.

Long before social media turned paranoia into a viable business model, he grasped that bizarre ideas do not emerge from nowhere. Rather, they are shaped by spectacle, distrust, insecurity and the seductive promise that hidden forces can explain an increasingly bewildering world – often with disastrous consequences.

Given Ronson’s record of books on topics just hitting (or about to explode into) the mainstream, the topic of his forthcoming one, to be published in August, is unsurprising: the masculinity crisis.The Conversation

Alexander Howard, Senior Lecturer, Discipline of English and Writing, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Director Christopher Nolan tears apart 'irrelevant’ MAGA critics

Director Christopher Nolan has responded to the MAGA “meltdown” over his upcoming film adaptation of Homer’s The Odyssey, slapping down criticisms from conservative corners complaining that the trailers have been too “woke,” calling their argument “irrelevant.”

Nolan dismissed such critics during a new interview with the Telegraph. As the Daily Beast explained, “His comments come after MAGA commentators — including X owner Elon Musktrashed the film for months over Nolan’s choice to cast Lupita Nyong’o as Helen of Troy and trans actor Elliot Page as the Greek warrior Sinon.”

“Musk, Newsmax host Robert Finnerty, and more have slammed the film, which isn’t out until July 17, as a ‘rewriting of history’ and Nolan as ‘racist’ for casting a Black actress in a fictional Greek character’s role,” added the Daily Beast. As the outlet implied, The Odyssey is not based on a historical text, but a work of mythology.

But Nolan had another basis for his rejection of critics like Musk, dismissing them entirely.

“Comes with the territory,” Nolan said. “These conversations that happen before people see the film — they’re always irrelevant, because no one having them knows what the film actually is yet.”

He compared the situation to his experience working on the Batman franchise, noting, “Remember, I spent 10 years of my life dealing with Batman. When I came on to Batman Begins, writers and artists had been working on this beloved character for almost 65 years, and a lot of freighted thoughts were out there about what he represents. And what I learned over my time on that trilogy is you can’t worry about any of that at all. What you have to do is honor the original text by interpreting it in the strongest way you personally can.”

According to the Daily Beast, “Despite Nolan’s cavalier attitude about MAGA’s crusade against The Odyssey — which sold out its first round of tickets a year in advance and crashed ticket-sale apps when sales opened this year — the movie studio has taken note. Universal restricted comments on the film’s official X account following a barrage of hateful posts. Musk has used the platform to engage with posts calling Nolan ‘racist against Greek people’ and trolling the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which he claims influenced the director to cast a ‘diverse’ actress in order to meet Oscars eligibility requirements.”

But as the Daily Beast notes, “Nolan won Best Picture for Oppenheimer, a film with a mostly white male cast that met diversity standards through its production team.”

According to Forbes, legitimate film critics who have actually seen the film have been almost unanimously positive, “some calling it Nolan’s best and others even saying it might be a frontrunner for Best Picture. You could find a couple of negative reviews, but on investigation, on more than one occasion, random users were taking world premiere photos from actual critics and passing them off as their own, accompanied by a negative opinion based on…not seeing the film. Just another angle of the hate being directed at the movie.”

Trump's effort to steal Taylor Swift's spotlight backfires bigtime

On Friday night, as Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce's wedding drew attention to Madison Square Garden, the White House promoted its own version of a sign reading "Trump is your president, copying the venue's "Just&T" announcement.

The gesture comes amid a long history of tension between Trump and Swift. In 2020, Swift publicly encouraged her supporters to register to vote and vote against Trump. In 2024, she endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump responded on Truth Social with "I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!"

The White House sign prompted counter-signs with different messages about the president.

"Even on the happiest day of Taylor Swift’s life, Donald Trump could not resist trolling her," wrote The Telegraph.

The Hollywood Reporter called Trump "Swift-sensitive."

"It's all about him, isn't it?" asked one person.

"Is he dead yet?" asked "That Gay Guy Candle Co." an account known for trolling the president.

"Impeach and Remove" designer and Trump foe Christopher Web commented.

References to the Jeffrey Epstein files were among the most popular comments. Several allegations about Trump were posted, with some photos of the president with his late pal.

"Trump is in the Epstein files," a fake sign read, with one man asking, "Why would MSG do this?"

"Trump raised your prices," congressional candidate Isaiah Martin asserted on a fake sign.

It isn't the only time the White House seemed to make itself part of the nuptials.

The White House did its own "Eras Tour" poster showing photos of moments throughout America's history with Trump at the center.

Trump's night was spent at Mount Rushmore, as his White House teased the idea of putting his face on the massive mountain again. It was briefly championed by Trump and his staff in his first administration.

“There would be no better addition to the iconic Mount Rushmore than the 45th and 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump,” said White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers, in a statement to The Washington Post.

One AI version of Mount Rushmore featuring Trump and his wife, along with Epstein and his convicted accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Trump's followers loved the trolling from the president, but going after Swift could be a heavier lift. As the Hollywood Reporter explained, "plenty of people in swing states where he is backing candidates look up to her and her liberal views, and that a war with her could turn out a vote against him."

'Young Washington' is the July 4 movie MAGA needs — but won’t understand

An Angry Movieogoer

Both before and after seeing "Young Washington," I spoke with members of the audience to get a sense of who was seeing the film and what they thought of it. Virtually everyone was there because they loved American history, wanted to celebrate the 4th of July and/or both. With one exception (a woman who was bored to tears), the eight people who spoke to me on the record all thought "Young Washington" was a fun, action-packed historical epic that celebrated Washington's early military career while still revealing his human side.

There was one notable exception, though, amidst this patriotic good cheer. One elderly woman, upon hearing that I'm a journalist, demanded in a loud voice, "Wait, are you MAGA?" I politely replied, "No, I am not" and said good day to her while her glaring eyes bore a small hole in the back of my head.

If anyone needed to be better informed about what Washington stood for, it was that lady.

My favorite scene from "Young Washington"

In a key scene from “Young Washington,” America’s future revolutionary leader and first president seizes the opportunity to read books with the eagerness that modern children display for video games, Instagram videos and AI slop. Reflecting the real George Washington’s interests, he intellectually imbibes the ideas of classical scholars like Plutarch and Seneca, classical heroes like Cato and Cincinnatus and the late 16th century French Jesuit text “Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation.” Through these books, which Washington reread and took extensive notes on, he developed ideals that he embraced for the rest of his life — compassion for the less fortunate, enjoyment of scholarly learning, comporting oneself with modesty and dignity, being humble and taking accountability for one’s mistakes.

Most importantly for the future country he would lead, they taught Washington to embrace republican forms of government. It is impossible to imagine the young military leader growing up into a democratically-elected president who refused to accept kingship without these ideas first being inculcated into his young mind. “Young Washington” is, at its core, the story of how these principles shaped the man who would become a great free nation’s founding father.

Because it has been released on America’s 250th birthday, and at a time when the United States is led by a president who rejects every single one of those aforementioned values, it is also inevitably a commentary about Donald Trump.

Trump Derangement Syndrome?

I can see Trump supporters rolling their eyes at this point in the review, accusing me of Trump Derangement Syndrome and asking why I must bring him up when they’re just trying to enjoy a movie. In the case of “Young Washington,” though, it is obscene to not juxtapose the man whose courage created America and the one whose physical and moral cowardice is destroying it. The contrast is inevitable for thoughtful and honest people — and necessary to appreciate why “Young Washington” is both a masterpiece on its own terms and a vital reminder that the man whose movement says it will “Make America Great Again” has in fact done the exact opposite of that. When I listed all of the positive qualities Washington developed from his education earlier in this review, I can't avoid noticing that they are all qualities Trump has actively rejected.

“Young Washington,” which will be released on the 4th of July weekend 2026, was directed by Jon Erwin, co-written by Erwin, Tom Provost and Diederik Hoogstraten and starring William Franklyn-Miller, Ben Kingsley, Andy Serkis, Joel Smallbone, Kelsey Grammer, Mary-Louise Parker and Mia Rodgers. As the title indicates, it shows audiences Washington’s youth, focusing on the period from his father’s death (in 1743, when Washington was 11) to his personal (though not military) victory during the French and Indian War in the Battle of the Monongahela (in 1755). Instead of putting Washington on a pedestal, “Young Washington” shows him during a period when he failed over and over again — in love, in his military career, in controlling his pride and stubbornness. Long before he became “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” Washington was the social-climbing son of a modestly affluent planter and merchant who faced constant discrimination for being a provincial without distinguished forebears.

This is an important tale to tell, and for two big reasons. First, it obliterates the popular image of Washington as an infallible, God-like figure; we see him make foolish strategic choices, succumb to demoralization and cringe-inducingly misread social milieus. (He also chops a lot of trees, but the movie steers clear of reaffirming the famous cherry tree fable about his youth.) This is done not to tear down Washington’s image, but to make him easier to admire. Humans cannot easily relate to divine figures, but plucky and precocious youths who figuratively trip over their own feet are quite another matter. The Washington whose face appears on the $1 bill and on Mount Rushmore is a myth; the one whose incompetence inadvertently helped spark the French and Indian War was a human being. If the goal is to inspire people to emulate America’s founding fathers, it is far easier to do so when we see them as humans rather than myths.

“Washington's experience during the French and Indian War involved learning a great deal, both about military culture and strategy, but also about his place in the complex world of the British military,” Gautham Rao, a historian at American University and editor-in-chief of the journal Law & History Review (as well as this author’s adviser when he wrote his master’s thesis about a different president, Grover Cleveland), told AlterNet. Referring to Washington’s loss in the Battle of Jumonville Glen, Rao explained that “from this Washington would learn about the delicate norms that governed the use of force. Washington also learned, in a different theater, about the difficulties of guarding advanced positions in areas not entirely under control, as the task of patrolling between disparate forts led to significant casualties. Finally, Washington learned the importance of careful planning from General John Forbes, beneath whom he worked in the effort to seize Fort Duquesne in 1758.”

Why Washington despised aristocrats

Not all of these events are depicted in “Young Washington,” but one key detail is conveyed — namely, that Washington learned about the inherent unfairness of aristocratic systems, which ultimately informed his sympathy for the American Revolution.

“The entire experience also taught Washington about the glass ceiling in the British service for a colonist, and by the time he resigned his commission, he was well aware that he would not have the ability to advance further as a military man,” Rao told AlterNet.

Second — and more relevant to the year of its release — it demonstrates why Washington grew into the man who would not become king. Although “Young Washington” does not cover this period in his life, the man’s most important legacy was repeatedly refusing to become a king because he sincerely believed in democracy. Washington’s “I won’t be a king, even when the opportunity presents itself” era began near the end of the American Revolution. When it was suggested in 1782 that the Army believed he could become a monarch, he replied "no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, and I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severety [sic]."

This attitude continued through the end of his second term. In his Farewell Address, Washington famously warned that political partisanship might one day create the conditions for a president to become a dictator by refusing to accept the will of the people when he loses an election.

“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism,” Washington (with the help of his one-time Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) co-authored in 1796. “But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

Washington and Trump's Big Lie

Because of Washington’s precedent, every president who served after him accepted the will of the people after it was time for them to leave power — until, that is, Donald Trump rejected his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. As conservative columnist and Ronald Reagan 1980 campaign adviser George F. Will wrote in February, Trump's loss to Biden is beyond reasonable doubt, and is only questioned by those with partisan motives.

“Someone should read to him ‘Lost, Not Stolen,’ a 2022 report by eight conservatives (two former Republican senators, three former federal appellate judges, a former Republican solicitor general, and two Republican election law specialists),” Will explain for The Washington Post. “They examined all 187 counts in the 64 court challenges filed in multiple states by Trump and his supporters. Twenty cases were dismissed before hearings on their merits, 14 were voluntarily dismissed by Trump and his supporters before hearings. Of the 30 that reached hearings on the merits, Trump’s side prevailed in only one, Pennsylvania, involving far too few votes to change the state’s result.”

Will added, “Trump’s batting average? .016. In Arizona, the most exhaustively scrutinized state, a private firm selected by Trump’s advocates confirmed Trump’s loss, finding 99 additional Biden votes and 261 fewer Trump votes.”

It is inconceivable that Washington would not have been horrified and disgusted by Trump’s manipulation of Republican partisanship to convince millions that an election he legitimately lost was stolen from him, as well as turn into a cult of personality for Trump as a man. Washington also would have opposed the idea that Trump should lead America by creating a climate of fear rather than developing a legacy that deserved respect; as one character instructs Washington in “Young Washington,” America’s first president understood that “obedience can be commanded. Respect must be earned.”

Dean Caivano, a professor of political science at Lehigh University (where this author studied for his PhD in history until his dissertation adviser died, leaving him ABD), elaborated on Washington's skepticism toward power when speaking to AlterNet.

"At several key moments, Washington accepted limits," Caivano said. "He resigned his military commission after the revolution. He accepted constitutional authority. He left the presidency after two terms. Those decisions helped establish the idea that public office is temporary and that military authority must be subordinate to civilian rule."

He added, "That lesson is very relevant in the Trump era. Contrary to his actions and rhetoric, the presidency is not personal property. The military is not a private instrument. Law enforcement is not supposed to function as an extension of personal loyalty. A constitutional republic depends on the refusal to collapse public authority into the will of one person."

The seeds of Washington's refusal to believe himself superior to others, and therefore worthy of being a king, were planted as he was humbled during the 1750s. A direct line can be drawn from the flawed youth in "Young Washington" and the great man who became America's first president — not a grandiose king, but a humble, intellectually curious and democratically-elected leader of finite duration.

Washington Derangement Syndrome?

I'm not without criticisms of this movie, or of Washington the man. “Young Washington” is imperfect in its depiction of American history. In addition to a host of smaller details, the movie inaccurately depicts the death of his close friend Christopher Gist for dramatic effect and glosses over Washington's racist views toward African Americans and Native Americans, likely to avoid offending right-wingers who refuse to acknowledge Washington's moral warts.

“Washington is historically significant, having helped establish norms of restraint and peaceful transfer of power. But he was also part of a political world built through slavery, Indigenous dispossession, and exclusion," Caivano told AlterNet. "This, of course, does not make Washington useless for the present. In fact, I think it makes him more useful if we read him honestly. His career helps us see one of the central problems of American politics: how a republic born through war and exclusion could also produce real principles of constitutional restraint, public responsibility, and limits on executive power.”

That is why, despite these shortcomings, “Young Washington” still soars as a movie. It depicts its protagonist as a relatable person, and relays this part of his biography with much gusto. While my review up to this point might make “Young Washington” seem like a somber affair, it has the atmosphere of high fantasy epics like the TV series “Game of Thrones” or the film trilogy “The Lord of the Rings,” all of which combined sweeping scores, beautiful cinematography, strong character development and top-notch acting to make distant worlds feel paradoxically immediate and yet worthy of being escaped into. Set both in colonial Virginia and the Ohio Country (which today includes Ohio, northwestern West Virginia, western Pennsylvania and eastern Indiana), “Young Washington” brings this bygone era to vivid life. It also moves at a brisk clip, feeling far more like an action-packed epic than a stodgy period piece.

In short, "Young Washington" is the best kind of history film — entertaining as well as edifying.

The greatness of "Young Washington" — and America

The educational aspect, as said before, could not be better timed. Before seeing “Young Washington,” I reached out to former Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, who defended President Donald Trump during his first impeachment trial. When I spoke with Dershowitz for a 2019 Salon interview, he guaranteed that the then-first termer would never refuse to step down if he lost the 2020 election.

"No president will refuse to step down if his opponent is elected in his place,” Dershowitz told me at Salon at the time. “It just will not happen, and the American public would never tolerate it.”

Similarly, in response to my question in advance of "Young Washington" about how his earlier quote holds up in light of Trump's coup attempt and talk of staying in power after his second term ends, Dershowitz told AlterNet that Washington “would be distressed if Trump were to try for a third term, even if it were constitutionally permissible.” Washington, after all, set the precedent which held that presidents should only serve for two terms, more than a century and a half before the 22nd Amendment made it law. Aside from Ulysses Grant in 1880 and Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, no president before Trump has ever tried to get elected more than twice.

Dershowitz wasn't alone in saying Trump could learn from Washington's approach to power. Caivano, when asked what lessons Trump should draw from Washington, said that Trump should realize “the presidency is temporary. It is not owned by the person who occupies it. The basic lesson I would draw from Washington is that power has to be limited to remain republican.”

He added, “Strength is not the same thing as domination. Executive power is not legitimate because a single person can command attention or loyalty. It is legitimate only when it remains bound by law, constitutional limits, and public accountability. That is the message Trump should take from Washington.”

Rao similarly observed that Washington, unlike Trump, learned from his past poor decisions to be measured, cautious and studied, even when it aggravated his allies.

"Washington at his best was a deliberate and careful decision-maker," Rao told AlterNet. "This applied as much to his time at the helm of the Continental Army as it did to his time as Commander-in-Chief."

Since I doubt Trump will ever pay attention to what anyone has to tell him, even the first occupant of the office he now holds, I instead urge Trump supporters and those who wish to persuade Trump supporters to pay attention to the message of “Young Washington.” For all of his shortcomings, Washington personified and implemented ideals involving freedom, scholarship and decency that allowed America to contribute massively to the welfare of both its own citizens and humanity overall. Trump has put all of that into jeopardy, and the main question one has after finishing “Young Washington” is whether the Washingtonian philosophy has merely been wounded by Trumpism or outright murdered.

Republicans got outplayed by Sesame Street's Elmo — and critics won't let them forget it

President Donald Trump and his supporters are trying to claim the “Sesame Street” puppet Elmo as one of their own — but online commenters are not allowing them to get away with it.

“The GOP has been faced with their anti-Elmo history after trying to welcome him into the MAGA fold,” reported The Daily Beast's Katie Francis on Sunday. The story began with Elmo declaring, regarding the ongoing World Cup soccer event, that “Elmo loves you, and Elmo loves you, and Elmo loves you, and Team USA, and everybody who’s playing." Yet Elmo then concluded, “Elmo just wants to set the record straight... GO TEAM USA!”

He also clarified, “Just to be clear, Elmo wants Team USA to win, okay? But Elmo loves everybody!”

Notably, the Muppet predicted that his preference for Team USA might be exploited when he asked viewers to not “make this a thing.” Yet despite this warning, House Republicans quickly posted the video with the comment that "Elmo is a certified PATRIOT!”

They then added, “Meanwhile, Democrats are rooting for foreigners...”

What the House Republicans neglected to acknowledge was that Trump and his supporters have fiercely criticized “Sesame Street” and the TV station PBS for its supposedly “woke” culture. Social media users on X quickly reminded them of these facts.

“You clowns literally defunded elmo,” one person posted.

“You a-----es voted to defund PBS and called Sesame Street woke,” another wrote. “You couldn’t be more hypocritical, loud, wrong, or clueless.”

Trump’s vendetta against “Sesame Street” may be personal as well as ideological. Last year The Daily Beast reported that after the president signed an executive order to immediately halt all federal funding to PBS, “almost immediately, people began to suspect that Trump’s vendetta against the network wasn’t because of its 'woke programming.' Instead, it’s all to do with a certain puppet show that has been trolling the man since the ’80s.”

Ronald Grump was a periodic but long-running spoof of the then-hotel magnate that began in the 1980s, as The Daily Beast reported. With song lyrics like “he’s got so much trash it spills out of his can,” locations like “Grump Tower” and occupations like “famous Grouch builder,” Ronald Grump was an undisputed antagonist who tried to do nefarious things like force Oscar the Grouch to give up his garbage can (where he lives) and pave over all of “Sesame Street” so he can turn it into “Grump World.”

After Trump became a reality TV star, the spoofing continued. In a later episode, “Sesame Street” mocked Trump’s NBC reality show “The Apprentice.”

Steven Spielberg’s 'Disclosure Day' asks the one question that could unite humanity

Before seeing the new science fiction movie “Disclosure Day,” I reached out to some of Earth’s top experts about its underlying premise — that is, whether or not extraterrestrial intelligence exists in the universe.

What I learned has changed how I view not only this particular movie, but the poignant subject it semi-realistically depicts. Thanks to the scientists I interviewed and the artists who put "Disclosure Day" on the big screen, I can look at the subject of UFO sightings and feel an emotion that is increasingly rare these days — hope.

In “Disclosure Day,” directed and co-written (with David Koepp) by Steven Spielberg, cybersecurity specialist Daniel Kellner (Josh O’Connor) teams up with meteorologist Margaret Fairchild (Emily Blunt) to expose evidence that intelligent aliens have already visited our planet. It’s a tantalizing concept, especially since evidence of UFO sightings became increasingly public starting in 2023. Spielberg himself has also been long interested in this topic as a filmmaker, with “Disclosure Day” joining three of his other movies in the alien genre. All three of those entries are, in my opinion, classics; they include “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” in 1977, “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” in 1982 and “War of the Worlds” (which I saw in theaters three times in 2005, and personally regard as the best of all Spielberg's alien movies).

Does “Disclosure Day” hold up to its predecessors? As each of those movies captured different aspects of the possibilities involved in human-alien encounters — the wonder, the childlike dreaming and the horror — I wanted to learn how well "Disclosure Day" captures a fourth aspect of this subject, the act of disclosure itself. Before diving into the movie’s intrinsic quality, let me first review the thoughts of scientists far more knowledgeable about UFOs and possible alien intelligence than myself.

"There is credible evidence that people, cameras, radar systems, and other instruments sometimes observe phenomena that cannot immediately be identified,” Dr. Franck Marchis, Senior Astronomer and Director of Citizen Science, SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute, told AlterNet. “In that limited sense, unidentified anomalous phenomena, or UAPs, certainly exist.” Marchis qualified this observation, though, by noting that the objective reality of UFOs and UAPs does not mean they exist because of intelligent aliens.

"An unexplained observation is not, by itself, evidence of an extraordinary origin," Marchis said. "Most cases are eventually explained as aircraft, satellites, balloons, drones, atmospheric effects, instrumental artifacts, or misinterpretations.”

Marchis added, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A blurry video or an eyewitness account is not enough. We need calibrated measurements, complete metadata, observations from multiple independent instruments, and analyses that can be reproduced by independent teams."

An Ivy League scholar who frequently discussed extraterrestrial intelligence confirmed Marchis’ claims.

"It is clear from government reports and disclosures that the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence agencies detect objects whose nature is unidentified,” Harvard University astronomy professor Avi Loeb told AlterNet. “This is a serious national security concern. But as a scientist, I view it as a golden opportunity to check whether one in a million unidentified objects may be non-human-made.”

Loeb continued, “We do not have definitive evidence for that from the disclosed data, but we do not have to wait for the U.S. government to tell us what is in the sky. We can simply look up. This is why I lead the Galileo Project at Harvard University which operates three new observatories (in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Nevada) and uses triangulation to determine distance, velocity and acceleration and AI to search for outliers among millions of detected objects in the sky."

Timothy Caulfield, Professor at the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, as well as Research Director at its Health Law Institute and a well-known pseudoscience debunker, agreed with Loeb and Marchis that "there is a great deal of solid – evidence-informed and science-based – speculation about the existence of intelligent life in the universe. Indeed, most experts in the field agree that intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. The universe is inconceivably massive!”

He concluded, “What is more controversial is whether aliens have visited Earth, which seems much much more unlikely, given what we know about physics, the size of the universe, and the lack of concrete evidence."

Now that we have established the part of “Disclosure Day” that is true (that UFOs have been spotted) and the part that is merely speculative (that they are piloted by intelligent aliens), how does the movie hold up as a work of art?

From a storytelling standpoint, "Disclosure Day" is more a spiritual sequel to "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" than to any of Spielberg's other alien films. While "E.T." was mostly about the wonder toward aliens felt by a child and "War of the Worlds" analyzes the problem from the perspective of pure malevolent horror, "Disclosure Day" — like "Close Encounters" — uses a more cerebral approach. Both movies focus on the psychological and spiritual dimensions of the question of aliens encountering human being. How would the knowledge that we are not alone in the universe impact each of our lives as individuals? What would it mean for our civilization on a collective level? The story by Spielberg and screenplay by Koepp approach these subjects thoughtfully, clearly displaying their extensive self-education on the subject. Their answers to these questions are plausible, and thereby give "Disclosure Day" a sense of groundedness, of realism, more so than Spielberg's three previous alien flicks.

It is also the least accessible of those movies. When I surveyed fellow moviegoers after seeing the movie, four said they liked it, three said their feelings were mixed (one used the adjective "disappointed) and one said he outright "hated" it. Interestingly, those who liked it and those who didn't all cited the same reason — that this easily has the least spectacle of any of Spielberg's alien films. While it contains some memorable action set pieces and special effects-driven moments, there are far fewer than in the other Spielberg alien flicks. We don't get the memorable five tones from "Close Encounters," the silhouette of a child on his bike riding with an alien in the basket from "E.T." or the mammoth killer tripods from "War of the Worlds." "Disclosure Day," by contrast, is more focused on ideas than thrilling people.

For those inclined to philosophize about the subjects of aliens, human civilization and God itself, however, "Disclosure Day" is just intellectual enough to satisfy. Spielberg's and Koepp's ideas are not particularly original, but they are presented compellingly nonetheless, and are particularly sold by O'Connor's and Blunt's performances. After you leave the theater, you are left asking: How would humanity react to the disclosure that aliens exist?

"My hope is that disclosure would bring people together just like a knock on the front door by a neighbor calms down the loud arguments within the house,” Loeb told AlterNet. “We will also realize that we are not at the top of the food chain, cosmologically speaking."

Marchis was a little more optimistic than Loeb.

"I believe humanity is more prepared than it has ever been,” Marchis explained. “Science fiction, movies, journalism, and decades of scientific discussion have familiarized the public with the possibility of extraterrestrial life. The initial announcement would obviously be historic and dominate global attention. But after a few weeks, most people would still need to return to their jobs, families, and everyday concerns. The deeper effects would emerge over time, I believe. A confirmed discovery would probably lead to massive new investment in SETI, astronomy, planetary science, and space exploration.” (Marchis also mentioned that SETI “recently launched a Kickstarter campaign for SkySphere, our intelligent all-sky camera, to accelerate the deployment of this global network and allow individuals and organizations to participate directly in monitoring the sky.”)

"There seems little doubt that confirming the existence of extraterrestrial life would be a massive moment in the history of humanity,” Caulfield told AlterNet. “But, if it happens, it is very unlikely to be the result of ship landing or a dramatic reveal by a government whistleblower. It would be the discovery of an astronomical anomaly that is slowly confirmed via peer review and the use of rigorous scientific methods.”

He added that he thinks "most humans would welcome the news and be tremendously excited." I'm inclined to agree with him.

While I can’t say for sure that Caulfield and I are correct about whether humanity will by and large be excited if aliens visit Earth, I am certain that anyone with decent-or-above taste in entertainment will enjoy “Disclosure Day," especially if they share the values of Loeb, Marchis, Caulfield and yours truly.

Anyone who enjoys smart science fiction will find plenty to love. Yet I'm deeply grateful for "Disclosure Day" for an additional reason; in these bleak times, it actually inspires hope for the future.

MAGA erupts as Pope Leo meets with Bad Bunny

The Vatican has confirmed that Puerto Rican singer, Bad Bunny, held a private audience with Pope Leo on June 8 at the Santiago Bernabéu stadium, and MAGA did not take the news well.

Rich Raho Teacher-Theology Department at DePaul College Prep of the Lake Chicago, made the announcement on X, saying the meeting took place after the pontiff's gathering with the Madrid Archdiocesan community. The Catholic News Agency similarly confirmed the meeting. But before the end of the day on June 9, MAGA posters were already slamming the meeting.

“Just wonderful, the Pope hanging out with a gang-banger,” claimed one MAGA critic, before his post was buried on X by angry hecklers.

“Wait til you find out who Jesus hung out with ... also Bad Bunny isn't a gang banger,” one X user retorted.

“Not a gang-banger, weirdo,” replied another.

“The Chicago democrat pope meets with anybody. He's wonderful,” insisted another on X.

“So Pope Leo would rather have a meeting with Bad Bunny who promotes degeneracy than visiting the African countries where Christians and Catholics are being murdered by Islamists? Ok. Got it,” yowled another critic.

But the pope has his own standing on X, and his fanbase immediately pounced.

“Such a stupid uninformed comment,” one of them barked in reply on X.

MAGA’s hostility toward Pope Leo stems from the one-sided rivalry President Donald Trump has imposed on the Vatican.

In April, Pope Leo XIV chronicler Christopher Hale said he had confirmed that Trump’s Pentagon threatened to declare war on the Vatican. In January, the White House issued a threat behind closed doors at the Pentagon, when Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby summoned Cardinal Christophe Pierre — Pope Leo XIV’s then-ambassador to the United States — and delivered a lecture, said Hale.

“America has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world,” Colby and his associates informed the cardinal. “The Catholic Church had better take its side.”

As the room temperature rose, Hale said he confirmed that one U.S. official “reached for a fourteenth-century weapon and invoked the Avignon Papacy, the period when the French Crown used military force to bend the bishop of Rome to its will.”

Hale said the report confirmed that the Vatican had reason to decline the Trump-Vance White House’s invitation to host Pope Leo XIV for America’s 250th anniversary in 2026 two weeks after the confrontation.

But the pope remains a much more popular figure than the combative president, and columnists noted Trump appeared to go down in a bitter trample of screeching beneath the wheels of the papacy.

Trump and right-wing organizations smear beloved boxing icon with lies: report

President Donald Trump’s controversial America’s 250th anniversary includes a set of mobile museums carrying displays about the nation’s history and prominent figures. But one of the displays is angering the religious community because it falsely claims that Muhammad Ali disavowed Islam.

“It is a stunning slight to the man — a beloved global icon, ambassador of peace, athletic legend, and cultural titan — and to Islam, a faith under siege by the Trump administration and others and for which Ali was a powerful envoy to mainstream America,” said former MS NOW analyst and producer Jonathan Larsen, describing the Freedom 250 organization’s so-called “Freedom Trucks.”

“After converting to Islam, he changed his name to Muhammad Ali though he later disavowed the religion,” the Freedom 250 truck Muhammad Ali display claims. But Ali never disavowed, renounced, or converted from Islam, said Larsen. “He died a Muslim and reportedly had a Muslim funeral.

Regardless, six of Trump’s trucks are currently traveling the country as part of the 250th anniversary commemorations.

Larsen reports the nation’s leading Muslim advocacy organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is horrified at the untruth, responded to the falsehood, saying, “We call on the Freedom 250 Mobile Museum to correct the record.”

The displays were produced with the help of two right-wing Christian organizations — Hillsdale College and the media company PragerU — so Larsen said it is no surprise the Freedom Truck exhibits “predictably skew toward Christianity, elevating its role and focusing more on Christian figures, some of them with little relevance to the arc of America’s story and obscure even to history buffs.”

But Ali is one of the most famous Muslims in the world, as well as possibly the most famous American Muslim in history, said Laesen.

“His conversion to Islam was a seminal moment of the 1960s, setting up the legal battle over his refusal to fight in the Vietnam War that robbed him of more than three years of boxing at his peak,” Larsen added. “A fearless advocate for racial equality and justice, Ali spent much of his life after leaving the ring as an ambassador for peace, especially in the Muslim world.

Prager U is known for hacking together inaccurate history videos that enrage historians. Despite its name, PragerU is not a university. It is a conservative nonprofit that produces short videos on historical, economic and climate topics. The organization is founded and run by conservative talk-show host Dennis Prager and funded by a number of like-minded philanthropists.

One of the videos in its history series, in which two modern-day animated kids travel back in time to talk to abolitionist Frederick Douglass, has come under some of the harshest criticism from historians and academics.

The video suggests that Douglass, a former slave, believed founders’ decision not to abolish slavery in the U.S. Constitution was worth it because it helped convince the Southern colonies to join the Union: “Our system is wonderful, and the Constitution is a glorious liberty document. We just need to convince enough Americans to be true to it,” says cartoon Douglass.

The real story behind the 'murder' of 60 Minutes

CBS News’s new editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, recently announced in an email to staff a major shakeup of the revered broadcast, starting with the removal of “60 Minutes” executive producer, Tanya Simon, for Nick Bilton, who has no experience producing a television news show.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Bilton said he was excited “to take what I believe is largely an unutilized news brand and take it into the modern age.”

Unutilized? Modern age?

“60 Minutes” is the most successful television news broadcast in U.S. history. It has remained the #1 news program for 50 straight years and consistently ranks among the top 10 of all Nielsen-rated television programs.

And it pulls in a fortune for CBS. “60 Minutes” is one of the most profitable programs in all of television, generating tens of millions in annual profit for CBS. In one recent year, its advertising revenues were $67.5 million. The network wholly owns the franchise, which makes it a gold mine. It’s the most lucrative and prestigious journalism operation on the network.

This goes beyond “if it ain’t broke ….”

At a staff meeting yesterday, famed “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley accused Weiss of “murdering” “60 Minutes,” according to an audio recording and a source who was in the room. Others at the meeting applauded. (Scott Pelley gets this week’s Joseph N. Welch Award for truth-telling in the face of tyranny.)

I could understand Weiss wanting to shake up, say, CBS’s Sunday morning news program. But why in hell would Weiss want to shake up CBS’s golden goose?

One hint: Besides chucking its executive producer, Weiss has also cut ties with “60 Minutes” producers Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega.

In December, Alfonsi challenged Weiss’s decision to hold a “60 Minutes” segment on an El Salvador maximum-security prison where the Trump administration sent hundreds of Venezuelan migrants, including alleged gang members. Weiss had raised concerns about the comment-seeking process and determined that it needed additional reporting. Alfonsi termed the decision a political move. (The segment, called “Inside CECOT,” eventually ran in January, with some additional material bookending the piece.)

Alfonsi calls the network’s decision now to allow her contract to expire “a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting” that “sends a chilling message to the entire newsroom.”

Vega is no less blunt. “In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories,” she said in a statement. “Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions…. Let’s call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven.”

Of course it’s censorship, because CBS is now owned and controlled by Trump pals Larry and David Ellison, who kissed Trump’s assets to get Trump’s FCC chair Brendan Carr to approve their acquisition of CBS from Paramount.

Trump’s “fingerprints and DNA are all over this,” veteran “60 Minutes” correspondent Steve Croft says. “He’s been making threats against ‘60 Minutes’ and how he wanted it gone. And he finally got his wish.”

Trump has fixated on “60 Minutes,” calling the show “a dishonest Political Operative disguised as News.” He sued CBS News over an interview of then presidential candidate Kamala Harris that Trump claimed had been edited in such a way as to hurt his presidential campaign. After “60 Minutes” aired a story about Ukraine and another about Greenland, Trump said CBS “should lose their license.”

This much is clear. CBS is being “murdered,” as correspondent Scott Pelley calls what’s happening, not because of economics but because of politics. Economically, “60 Minutes” is a gold mine. Politically, Trump thinks it’s dangerous as hell because it tells the truth about him and his regime, and wants it killed.

Bari Weiss knows this. Larry and David Ellison know it. Nick Bilton knows it. Everyone who’s been fired from “60 Minutes” knows this. Trump’s lapdog at the FCC, Brendan Carr, knows this.

You need to know this.

“60 Minutes” — the most successful television news broadcast in U.S. history — is being dismantled because Trump doesn’t want America to know the truth.

It’s the same reason CBS canned Stephen Colbert — because Trump hated Colbert’s truth-telling humor about him.

It’s important to see all this as a systematic effort by Trump to silence the truth about what he’s doing to America.

Trump’s increasingly corruption — rife with crony capitalism, corporate welfare, and payoffs to the powerful — is producing an increasingly corrupt economy in which everything depends on bribes and personal deals made by the biggest Republican loyalists and grifters, oligarchs and plutocrats, billionaires and multibillionaires, and monopolists.

When political and economic deal-making become personal transactions — when greed and payoffs replace trust — what happens? Authoritarianism replaces democracy. And an economy collapses, as it did at the end of America’s first Gilded Age, in the Great Crash of 1929, leading to the Great Depression.

One day we will look back on the murder of “60 Minutes” as one of the travesties of Trump’s despicable reign.

In the meantime, boycott CBS.

Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

'Pressure' shows why Eisenhower trusted scientists over blowhards —and why we should too

At one point in “Pressure,” meteorologist James Stagg (Andrew Scott) explains to General Dwight D. Eisenhower (Brendan Fraser) that an impending storm will make it impossible for the Allied troops to successfully invade Normandy as planned. As he attempts to break down the meteorology, his competing scientist Irving P. Krick insists on rudely interrupting with his own ill-informed point-of-view. Eventually Stagg tells Krick what he — and the audience — needs to hear: That Krick is “a confident moron.”

With a single insult, Scott’s Stagg sums up both the chief lesson of “Pressure” and its primary pleasure as a source of entertainment. Much like a similar recent World War II-themed blockbuster, “Oppenheimer,” “Pressure” is at its core a story of hard-working, well-informed scientists fighting against arrogant ignorance. While the primary ignoramuses in “Oppenheimer” were political reactionaries and Krick is merely a blowhard, both emerge as antagonists because their hostility toward experts imperils the security and values of the free world.

Directed by Anthony Maras, who co-authored the script with David Haig based on the latter’s stageplay of the same name, “Pressure” follows Eisenhower, Stagg, Krick, Eisenhower’s secretary Kay Summersby (Kerry Condon) and Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery (Damian Lewis) in the days before the June 1944 Normandy invasion known today as “D-Day.” The Allies would be unusually dependent on favorable weather to win the battle, so Eisenhower demands to know what the weather will be. Krick, using so-called “analog” maps that rely on past weather conditions to predict future ones, anticipates sunny skies and clear weather. Stagg, by contrast, relies on sophisticated data collection to anticipate a jet stream will push a major storm into the area.

The main drama in “Pressure” therefore involves the clashing egos of Stagg and Krick (who are equally full of themselves) as well as their clashing intellects (in which Stagg is clearly Krick’s superior). Eisenhower is thus placed in the unenviable position of needing to figure out which one is more reliable. From this potentially dry premise, “Pressure” creates a deeply engaging and fast-paced work of art.

I am not alone in this assessment. Ali, a 13-year-old self-described “history buff” who lives near the Pennsylvania theater where I saw “Pressure,” was very enthusiastic, gushing about how much she enjoyed seeing history brought to life and explaining she chose “Pressure” because it was the only film in theaters that looked interesting. Seven other theatergoers echoed her view, and that was only a small sample of the (for a Friday matinee) surprisingly packed auditorium.

To be clear, “Pressure” does not get the history 100 percent correct. Retired meteorologist Glenn “The Hurricane” Schwartz, who worked for the eastern Pennsylvania NBC affiliate from 1995 to 2022, broke down several aspects of the history that the film missed. It does not mention “pioneering meteorologist” Sverre Petterssen, a key part of the team who Schwartz explained “confidently predicted a bad storm for the 5th. Petterssen literally ‘wrote the book(s)’ on weather forecasting that I actually had to use as a [meteorology] undergrad in 1972!" It overlooks Krick’s post-war disgrace, not even mentioning it in the ending credits text. As Schwartz explained, he interviewed Dr. Francis Davis, who served “on Krick's team. Amazingly, Krick bragged about his role in the D-Day forecast EVEN THOUGH HE WAS DEAD WRONG! Even Davis admitted as such in my 2002 interview. ‘....it didn't work out very well.’” He later added that "Krick was so controversial and his ‘analog’ methods were so criticized by the meteorological community that he was about to be the first person ever thrown out of the American Meteorological Society for violating their Code of Ethics. He resigned instead. His methods live on in the private company, Planalytics, which happens to be located in the [Philadelphia] area. And believe it or not, AI appears to use analogs to make their forecasts, which happened to beat the National Hurricane Center and ALL computer models last season."

For Eisenhower buffs, perhaps the most notable omission is the widely substantiated (but technically unconfirmed) affair between the general and Summersby. Shortly before her death, Summersby admitted that she had to "disguise as best I could the intimacy that had grown between General Eisenhower and me. It was better that way.” While that omission was arguably defensible during Eisenhower’s lifetime, it becomes considerably less so in a movie intended to accurately reflect their interactions. One does not need the steamy indulgences of Oppenheimer’s affair in “Oppenheimer” to at least get that part right.

Yet there is also much for history and science buffs to love about “Pressure.” When it comes to the fundamental contours of the plot, science, military strategizing and overall history, “Pressure” is accurate. In the words of Dr. Michael E. Mann, the Presidential Distinguished Professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, “weather forecasting back then, before the age of numerical weather forecasting (which began in 1950 courtesy of the ENIAC computer at my university, Penn) was fairly primitive. It mainly consisted of using printed out weather maps and the elementary approaches we teach students in introductory courses on meteorology, which consists of taking the surface features (highs and lows), estimating the upper level steering winds, and predicting where those lows and highs are going to end up days later (it’s called the ‘steady state’ approach to forecasting).”

Perhaps most notably, “Pressure” subtly but firmly establishes the link between ignoring science and supporting reactionary political structures. Speaking to the San Francisco Chronicle’s G. Allen Johnson, Fraser explained that “it is a story that speaks to us 80-some years later. We see soldiers deployed again. We ask ourselves why, and then we ask ourselves why compared to 1944. The reason for even fighting (World War II) at all was to end fascism. To partner with nations and allies, later to become NATO, NASA, civil rights. I could go on.”

Maras elaborated on the scientific point.

“Eisenhower had those magnanimous examples of leadership that I think the world could benefit from now,” Maras told Johnson. “He took seriously the points of view of experts. We live in a specialized world, and it’s less about what any leader in particular knows and it is more about having the wisdom of who to trust and why you trust them.”

Dr. Federico Finchelstein, University in Exile Research Professor and Professor of History at The New School for Social Research and Eugene Lang College, told AlterNet that this link is far from coincidental. Indeed, Eisenhower himself famously liberated many concentration camps during the Holocaust so that the Jewish community could prove the atrocities that happened, and explicitly recognized the junk science used by Nazis to rationalize their oppression.

“I can say that historically fascism has had an ambiguous relationship with science,” Finchelstein said. “It instrumentalized rational means to achieve irrational ends. Science per se was not a problem for them insofar as it did not contradict their unreason, their ideological irrational being. Current wannabe fascists, including the Trumpists, tend to do the same but they are even more anti-science and more irrational regarding their means.”

While Krick is not a fascist, his ignorance is part of the same erroneous line of thinking that informs the Allies’ fascist foes. They first come to a conclusion, then retroactively create a logic to support it. Good leadership requires following the facts, even when they are inconvenient and especially when they disprove one's own prejudices. As Eisenhower himself famously told President John F. Kennedy near the end of Eisenhower’s own administration, the Allies won because they had better meteorologists than the Germans.

As President Donald Trump attacks the reality of man-made climate change and slashes federal funding to science programs all over America, this message is both relevant and poignant. Eisenhower was a firm supporter of funding scientific research and education.

“Science education is not only crucial for students with science ambitions,” Schwartz explained. “It's important to understand the basics of how science works to responsibly argue about climate, for example. And scientific research is crucial for the advancement of any branch of science. Cutting observations, research, or efforts to improve forecasting would horrify Eisenhower today.”

Or as Mann told AlterNet, “Not only did Eisenhower understand the importance of embracing science; he understood the pernicious consequences of bigotry and the importance of fighting back against it.” Connecting that point to today, “look no further than the latest effort by Trump and the polluters that he represents (and their hired propagandists) to attack the work of the international climate science community by misrepresenting the latest findings regarding the threat of climate change.”

At one point I quoted Eisenhower to Mann as a way of explaining how the film’s message is relevant to the Trump era.

"High-quality professional personnel in science, engineering, teaching, languages, and other critical fields are necessary to our national security effort,” Eisenhower said in 1958. “Each year, nevertheless, many young people drop out of high school before graduation. Many able high school graduates do not go on to college. This represents a waste of needed talent."

Mann replied, “Right on the money.” If I had to summarize “Pressure” in four words, those are the ones I’d choose: “Right on the money.”

'Total fraud' music act Milli Vanilli 'perfect' for White House extravaganza

On Wednesday, the musical lineup was announced for the Great American State Fair to be held at the National Mall in June as part of Freedom 250 — the country's semiquincentennial celebration and a pet project of President Donald Trump’s. Some have called the impending MAGA extravaganza “authoritarian,” while others have said it’s something right out of the film Idiocracy. One performer who will take the stage has many suggesting that the movie reference may be particularly apt.

Fab Morvan, the remaining half of the musical duo Milli Vanilli, will perform under his infamous act’s moniker. Many have pointed out that this is a somewhat ironic inclusion, as Milli Vanilli were exposed as lip-syncing frauds in 1989, and the Trump administration has been characterized by grift and fraud.

“Milli Vanilli. That's perfect.....” joked one X user in response to the announcement. "Makes sense because they were total frauds,” noted another. “Milli Vanilli were German lol,” noted another, pointing out the irony of a foreign performer headlining an event celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States.

Milli Vanilli will join the likes of Vanilla Ice, Martina McBride, Flo Rida, Bret Michaels, and more. Vanilla Ice has become particularly associated with Trump and the MAGA movement in recent years, and Flo Rida has voiced support for Trump. Other acts included on the bill have maintained a more apolitical stance, including Morvan. But Milli Vanilli’s inclusion is still raising eyebrows.

As the Mirror explains, “Milli Vanilli, founded in 1988 by producer Frank Farian, rose to fame for their eclectic sound and blend of genres, including R&B and disco. Their debut US album, Girl You Know It’s True, sat at number one on the Billboard charts for eight weeks and produced three number-one singles. The duo even won the Grammy Award for Best New Artist in 1990. Milli Vanilli faced backlash when they were exposed for lip-syncing during a performance on the Club MTV tour in Connecticut in July 1989. The backing track for their song ‘Girl You Know It’s True’ began skipping, repeating ‘Girl, you know it’s…’ as the artists panicked.”

Farian went on to admit that the duo had not sung the songs for which they were so acclaimed, and their career was ruined. The duo attempted a comeback in 1992 by releasing an album featuring their own vocals, but it sold just 2,000 copies. Morvan’s co-performer, Rob Pilatus, died of a drug overdose in 1998 just before they attempted a tour.

The wider fair lineup has drawn no shortage of guffaws.

“A few of these are fine, but June 26 has gotta be someone playing a sick late 80s/early 90s joke on the country,” tweeted Scott Linciome of the Cato Institute. “This lineup would've crushed in 1989,” joked former Obama staffer Tommy Vietor. And Bulwark culture editor Sonny Bunch pulled no punches, declaring, “This is the worst lineup of musical acts I have ever seen.”

Donald Trump Jr. pushing 'dangerous clown show'

Las Vegas has always had a reputation for doing things bigger, louder and glitzier than everyone else. On Sunday, May 24 2026 it continues that tradition when the inaugural Enhanced Games take place at a purpose-built entertainment centre at Resorts World, a giant hotel complex on the city’s famous strip.

A one-day sports competition showcasing just three disciplines, the Enhanced Games openly embrace the use of legal performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) and technological advances that maximise human potential.

Conceived by London-based entrepreneur Aron D’Souza and backed financially by billionaires Peter Thiel, Christian Angermayer and Donald Trump junior, the one-day extravaganza will see 42 athletes competing in swimming, track athletics and weightlifting.

With substantial appearance fees and an unprecedented US$25 million (£18.6 million) in prize money – including US$1 million bonuses for breaking world records – the lucrative payouts have attracted some big names. These include Olympic medallists Cody Miller and Ben Proud for swimming; Olympic medallist Fred Kerley for track; and record-breaking weightlifter Thor Björnsson.

The Enhanced Games has drawn widespread criticism from international and Olympic sport. The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) has labelled them a “dangerous and irresponsible concept”, threatening to test athletes involved to “protect the integrity of legitimate sport” – despite the majority being retired from traditional sport. Wada also urged US authorities to shut down the games – which evidently didn’t happen.

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) also issued a formal statement calling the games “utterly irresponsible and immoral … a betrayal of everything we stand for”. Travis Tygart, CEO of the US Anti-Doping Agency dismissed the Enhanced Games as “a dangerous clown show”.

In response, D’Souza argues that Wada is hypocritical and points to Olympic corruption scandals, claiming the Olympics are no longer fit for purpose. Other supporters have also promoted the idea of self-determination, and the need to break free of the IOC’s rules and regulations.

As sport researchers, we might be tempted to dismiss the event as a publicity stunt. However, based on our ongoing research into Olympic swimmers and coaches’ perceptions of the Enhanced Games (we have spoken to more than 20 so far), we believe the event is symptomatic of bigger issues. It represents a critical inflection point, and a unique opportunity to reflect upon the current shortcomings of traditional sport.

Sport’s ideological war

Deeply entrenched battlelines have been drawn on both sides of this complex debate. Recent events, such as Enhanced Games swimmer Kristian Gkolomeev breaking the former 50m freestyle world record, the games’ filing of an US$800 million anti-trust lawsuit against Wada, World Aquatics and US Swimming, and the Enhanced Group’s recent floating on the New York Stock Exchange are telling. They all appear to be the first shots fired in a potentially long and protracted ideological war over the future of sport.

Proponents argue that permitting PEDs such as testosterone, anabolic steroids, growth hormones, peptide hormones and stimulants could potentially unlock unprecedented human potential, allowing athletes to transcend current biological limits. Here, the Enhanced Games and the Olympic Games share a common goal of maximising human potential; the difference lies in precisely how it should be achieved and the transparency surrounding those methods.Supporters of the Enhanced Games also argue that a regulated approach to using PEDs under strict medical supervision is safer for athletes, transforming what is currently an illicit, underground practice into a controlled medical environment, akin to legalising substances like cannabis.

Conversely, defenders of traditional sport argue that this approach contradicts the fundamental integrity of sport. They assert that Olympism is based on natural talent, dedication and rigorous training, free from artificial advantages. Concerns have also been raised about the long-term health consequences for athletes who use PEDs, and the negative role modelling for young athletes who may see drug use as a shortcut to success.

Threat or revolution for sport?

Another critical battleline relates to whether the Enhanced Games exacerbate or alleviate existing issues of integrity within traditional Olympic sport. Proponents of the Enhanced Games – including many of the Olympians that we interviewed – argue that the current system is fundamentally flawed.

These athletes cite what they see as the rampant and pervasive use of PEDs (meaning it’s an open-secret), the misuse of therapeutic use exemptions, the ineffectiveness and erosion of trust in anti-doping authorities, and the need to better compensate athletes for their contribution to sport.

Many people within traditional sport view the Enhanced Games as a profound existential threat to the moral legitimacy of Olympism. However, far from being a circus sideshow, its emergence is symptomatic of deep-rooted, longstanding issues and continued failings that need to be resolved within traditional sport.

Instead of perceiving the Enhanced Games as a rival or threat to the Olympic Games – which we do not believe it is – its emergence should be viewed as a wake-up call. Traditional sport needs to direct efforts to solve these fundamental problems and reflect upon the true value of sport and its role in society.

In this light, we see the emergence of the inaugural Enhanced Games as a window of opportunity for much-needed conversations within international and Olympic sport.The Conversation

Mathew Dowling, Senior Lecturer in Sport Management, Loughborough University; Alex Thurston, Lecturer in Sport Management, Loughborough University, and Jinsu Byun, Assistant Professor of Sport Management, Yonsei University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Colbert didn't just entertain America — he redefined American patriotism

Stephen Colbert’s final episode as host of “The Late Show” on May 21, 2026, won’t mark the end of his career.

But as a scholar of political satire, I think it offers a chance to reflect on the lasting impact of his comedy, which has spanned his work as a correspondent on “The Daily Show,” his conservative pundit persona on “The Colbert Report” and his reinvention on “The Late Show.”

The best satirists do more than entertain. They influence public discourse and leave lasting marks on political life. This group includes towering writers such as Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain, alongside performers like Lenny Bruce and George Carlin.

In my view, Stephen Colbert has earned a spot in the top tier. Here are five reasons why.

1. He didn’t just satirize the news – he informed the public

Most satirists offer wry commentary about political events.

Colbert often did something more ambitious: He helped audiences understand them.

Critics have long dismissed political comedy as superficial entertainment, but Colbert’s satire frequently offered valuable information to the public.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision transformed campaign finance law, tilting political influence toward wealthy people and corporations. As host of the “Colbert Report,” the comedian responded by creating an ongoing series of “Colbert Super PAC” segments. Working with former Federal Election Commission Chair Trevor Potter, Colbert was able to translate the opaque mechanics of campaign finance law into accessible civic education.

Colbert used his platform to highlight the dangers of unrestricted, anonymous donations in politics.

It’s hard to fully track the impact of this approach. But a 2007 Pew Research Center study did find that audiences for satirical news programs such as “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” scored high on political knowledge measures, outperforming audiences who only consumed political news from traditional outlets.

That urge to use satire as a vehicle for civic education continued after Colbert became host of “The Late Show” in 2015.

With debates raging over the border wall proposed by the first Trump administration, Colbert brought experts on to the program to break down the engineering, financial and logistical realities of building one that spanned the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico border. Yes, the absurdity of the physics and finances elicited laughs. But Colbert also helped viewers understand why Trump’s promises were implausible.

2. He gave Americans a new political vocabulary

When the world is absurd, the satirist uses ironic wit to make sense of it.

Colbert excelled at distilling the spin and duplicity of politics into memorable soundbites.

On the first episode of “The Colbert Report” in 2005, he introduced the word “truthiness” to describe the tendency to prefer what “feels true” over what the evidence supports. It incisively gave a name to a deceptive political tactic, one that the Bush administration had repeatedly used, from “Mission Accomplished,” to “weapons of mass destruction” and “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

“Truthiness” took on a life of its own. Merriam-Webster named it Word of the Year in 2006.

Colbert continued this rhetorical work on “The Late Show.” For example, in February 2017, after Donald Trump escalated his attacks on the press by labeling major news outlets “the enemy of the American people,” the comedian shifted from parody to diagnosis. He foregrounded the phrase’s authoritarian history, insisting that the rhetoric signaled a meaningful escalation in attacks on First Amendment rights, rather than a passing controversy.

In other words: There was nothing to laugh about here.

3. He blurred the line between satire and direct action

Media scholars have increasingly noted how political comedians now function as hybrid figures who blur journalism, entertainment and civic engagement. According to communications scholar Joseph Faina, Colbert may be one of the clearest examples of that shift.

Colbert’s satirical presidential campaign in South Carolina in 2007 mocked the theater of American electoral politics. He actually attempted to enter the race through official channels, only to be blocked by the South Carolina Democratic Party. But even in his failure to appear on the ballot, he was able to show how party control and media spectacle, not just voter choice, structure the field of viable candidates.

In 2010, he held a rally with Jon Stewart on the National Mall before a crowd of over 200,000 people. Assuming his conservative pundit persona, Colbert blended irony and sincerity, mocking the self-seriousness, sensationalism and outrage-driven news cycles of cable news through his competing calls for “sanity” and “fear.” But the event was also designed to motivate voter turnout in the midterm elections.

That interventionist impulse continued on “The Late Show.” During the 2020 election cycle, for example, Colbert encouraged voting through segments like “Better Know a Ballot.” A riff on his previous “Better Know a District” from “The Colbert Report,” the “Better Know a Ballot” series was designed to educate viewers about ballot access, voting procedures and the practical elements of democratic participation.

4. He measurably influenced political behavior

Claims about comedians changing politics can easily become exaggerated. But Colbert’s influence has empirical support.

Research by political communication scholars Jody Baumgartner and Jonathan Morris found that exposure to political satire can increase viewers’ sense of what’s known as “political efficacy” – the belief that they can understand and engage with politics. Other studies suggest satirical news audiences are often more politically active than they’re assumed to be.

Colbert is repeatedly cited in these studies as one of the prime examples of a satirist who makes an impact.

Take, for instance, the so-called “Colbert bump,” where candidates who appear on his programs experience boosts in fundraising, visibility and media coverage. Political scientist James H. Fowler found that Democratic candidates who appeared on “The Colbert Report” experienced a 44% increase in campaign donations within 30 days of their appearance.

A similar effect could be seen on “The Late Show.”

After Colbert interviewed Texas state Rep. James Talarico, a U.S. Senate candidate, in February 2026, CBS canceled the segment, claiming – perhaps disingenuously – that the network could be punished for not adhering to the FCC’s “equal time” rule, which requires broadcast stations to offer comparable airtime to opposing candidates.

A taped version of the interview was nonetheless posted to YouTube, where it racked up over 9 million views, helping fuel Talarico’s US$27 million first-quarter fundraising haul, the largest amount ever raised by a U.S. Senate candidate in the first quarter of an election year.

5. He redefined American patriotism

To rank Colbert among America’s most important satirists requires one additional consideration: his role in redefining not only what America stands for, but what it means to be patriotic.

Many satirists lean toward cynicism, portraying politics as hopelessly corrupt and public life as fundamentally absurd. Not Colbert.

As linguist Geoffrey Nunberg argued in his 2006 book, “Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show,” conservatives had claimed a monopoly on patriotism as the 20th century drew to a close. At the same time, many of them promoted what’s known as “blind patriotism,” in which any criticism of the U.S. is cast as evidence of insufficient national loyalty.

Colbert’s satire directly challenged that framework.

To expose that performative patriotism, Colbert’s persona on “The Colbert Report” wrapped itself in exaggerated patriotic imagery: flags, bombast, overconfidence and chest-thumping nationalism.

But the joke was never America itself. The target was a performance of patriotism that treated dissent as disloyalty, emotional certainty as evidence and partisan identity as civic virtue.

As I argue in my 2011 book, “Colbert’s America,” Colbert’s satire consistently distinguished between nationalism and democratic patriotism. The former demands unquestioning loyalty. The latter demands accountability. For example, through segments like “Threat-Down” on “The Colbert Report,” he satirized the way nationalism often depends on exaggerating fictive dangers and denouncing symbolic, external enemies.

In that sense, Colbert belongs in a distinctly American satirical tradition that stretches back to Benjamin Franklin. The great American satirists have used humor not to reject the national project, but to expose the gap between its ideals and its realities. They reshape how citizens understand power and civic responsibility.

For nearly three decades, Stephen Colbert has done exactly that.The Conversation

Sophia A. McClennen, Professor of International Affairs and Comparative Literature, Penn State

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

@2026 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.