Tag: heritage foundation
'Trad Wife' Influencers Spreading Far Right Disinformation Against Birth Control

'Trad Wife' Influencers Spreading Far Right Disinformation Against Birth Control

Cancer. Infertility. Unintended abortion.

These are just a few of the fears young patients bring to Dr. Bayo Curry-Winchell, a family physician in Reno, Nevada. For some of her patients, she said, taking birth control pills is like wearing a scarlet letter.

“Taking the pill has almost become a bad thing, where you won’t fit in if you’re taking it.”

Curry-Winchell, medical director for the Saint Mary’s Urgent Care Group, said the trend away from hormonal birth control has become pervasive in recent years among her patients between about 14 and 32 years old. According to a recent KFF poll, that’s the same age group most likely to say they get their health information from social media.

When she talks with young patients, Curry-Winchell hears concerns about sinister long-term impacts of hormonal birth control—and the language often echoes conservative influencers who have no medical training.

Doctors say what is at stake is not whether every patient chooses the pill or an IUD, but whether they can make evidence-based decisions about preventing pregnancy in a country with some of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy nations.

Misinformation is reshaping exam-room conversations

Curry-Winchell and other doctors interviewed for this story say they have no problem with patients who are not interested in hormonal birth control. What they’re worried about is a growing group of influencers who are robbing young women of the ability to make informed choices.

Dr. Mariko Rajamand, a Reno OB-GYN and founder of FEM Women’s Wellness, said she now meets about three to five patients a day, typically in their early 20s, who are completely resistant to hormonal birth control. On one recent day she saw six patients under 25; two had IUDs and four refused to consider any hormonal contraceptive method at all.

Rajamand said she now spends around 15 minutes in many new-patient appointments just dispelling misinformation. “I tell them that my goal is not to hurt you, it’s to help you,” she said. “I am going to partner with you. I will never push you to do something that you’re not comfortable with.”

Usually, after two or three visits, she said, patients who absolutely do not want to get pregnant but initially opposed hormones decide they are less afraid of hormonal birth control than they thought.

Curry-Winchell, a mother of two young daughters, said countering disinformation about hormonal birth control starts with building “a level of trust and comfort” and letting young women know she is not going to judge them. “I tell them that I want to be their co-pilot,” she said.

“I’ll just be curious and ask, ‘What do you know? Because I don’t know what you know,’” she said. “We just make it a conversation, and I can hit that misinformation in a more targeted way once I know where a patient is coming from in terms of her hesitancy and concerns.”

The problem is bigger than any one clinic. On social media, disinformation about the safety and side effects of the pill and other forms of hormonal birth control has become so pervasive that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a nationwide fact sheet on contraception misinformation in October. A National Library of Medicine study published in 2025 found it has become “increasingly difficult to distinguish accurate content from misleading information” about contraceptives on TikTok and urged providers to be ready to counter online myths in the exam room.

Influencers push fringe claims to massive audiences

Social media posts about health issues often lack context, and algorithms reward content that is sensational and emotionally charged. Influencers rely on such algorithms for views and, in turn, their paychecks.

One such influencer is podcaster Candace Owens, who has millions of followers on YouTube, Instagram and TikTok and proudly describes herself as a “full-time wife and mother” who does not believe in birth control. Katie Miller, the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, told her hundreds of followers on X that the pill is “poison for your body and mind.

Alex Clark, a conservative “health and wellness” podcaster, testified in the Senate and later told her hundreds of thousands of followers that women were “tricked” by pediatricians into going on the pill as teenagers to clear up acne or ease cramps. Clark has also claimed that women who stop taking the pill find they are no longer attracted to their husbands.

Then there is Elon Musk, who has fathered 14 children and has repeatedly insisted that declining birth rates are the “biggest danger to civilization.” In an interview with Tucker Carlson, he claimed hormonal birth control changes women’s personalities and preferences in partners. Carlson has more than 5 million subscribers on YouTube. A clip of that conversation now has hundreds of thousands of likes and more than 100,000 shares on TikTok.

Why women are primed to distrust

Dr. Sharon Thompson, an OB-GYN in Phoenix, said one reason influencers have made such headway sowing distrust is the way medicine has treated women for generations.

She said historically women have been brushed off and dismissed. “Medicine has a bad habit of attributing many things that women complain of to hormones,” Thompson said. “Always in history people just told women what to do—and now this is the pushback.”

“The sad truth for a woman is that she can take her symptoms to her primary doctor and she can not be listened to or she gets brushed off,” she said. “It drives me bananas… when women feel like they are getting the runaround or they aren’t getting equal treatment.”

Michigan-based OB-GYN physician assistant Nikki Vinckier has seen the fallout firsthand. She said she was having “multiple of the same conversations every single day” with young patients asking to come off hormones and try “natural family planning,” a method they had seen promoted on social media.

Vinckier said the challenge is to listen “without gaslighting their experiences and saying, ‘Oh no, none of these side effects exist.’” While studies show hormonal birth control is safe for most patients, she said, there are women who “don’t fit the mold,” and it is condescending to tell a patient her experience is not valid.

“It’s important not to negate the experience of any patient,” Vinckier said. “I want to educate them and empower them to make their own choice.”

“Natural” methods sound safer than they are

Because of fears being pushed on social media, doctors say many patients now come in asking for a “natural” form of birth control instead of the pill, an IUD, or another hormonal method of contraception.

Natural fertility awareness methods require women to take their temperature every morning at the exact same time, check their cervical mucus discharge daily, chart their cycles and abstain from sex for at least 11 days a month when they calculate they might be fertile.

In reality, natural family planning or fertility awareness fails 22to 25 percent of the time to prevent pregnancy in a given year, according to the National Library of Medicine.

“Young women patients often feel that ‘I should be doing it all natural’ or ‘You’re doing birth control the wrong way,’ or ‘You’re not in tune with your body if you do a medication,’” Curry-Winchell said. “They think that if it’s natural, it’s the safest and most in tune with their bodies.”

She said the “beautiful packaging” of natural fertility awareness kits makes the method look like a simple process, but in reality “takes a lot of consistency.” “Plus, our hormones, the way we work, the way we operate, we’re all different. We’re not one-size-fits-all.”

Rajamand said she has “a whole conversation about natural family planning—what it is and what it isn’t.”

“It really only works for the woman who is ovulating perfectly and I have yet to meet that woman,” she said. “If they are going to go that route, then I’ll have a serious discussion about the rate of pregnancy.”

“I’ll ask, ‘If you get pregnant, is that OK?’” she said. “If their answer is yes, then it’s a nonissue, but if they say, ‘That’s a problem,’ then I say, ‘Let’s come up with a Plan B.’”

Wisconsin OB-GYN and complex family planning specialist Dr. Carley Zeal said she is especially concerned about enthusiasm for “natural” methods in states with strict abortion bans. When patients tell her they want to avoid hormones, she works with them “to find whatever contraceptive method is going to work best for them.”

“It’s not my job to tell them they are wrong or that symptoms they may be experiencing are not real, because their experience is their experience and everybody’s side effects or experience with different medications is important to respect,” Zeal said. “But it’s my job to tell them the data.”

What the data actually say

There is cause for careful consideration before choosing a method of contraception, and doctors acknowledge that hormonal birth control can have side effects. Studies have linked hormonal methods to symptoms like altered stress responses and reduced libido, and one large study found a very small increase in depression among girls ages 15 to 19 using certain hormonal IUDs.

ACOG warns its members that while hormonal birth control can have minor side effects, “those minor side effects can be exaggerated to instill fear and uncertainty in people considering using contraception.”

One of the greatest concerns doctors hear now is a belief that hormonal birth control is “pumping” women full of extra hormones. Thompson said that is simply not true.

“The idea that hormones are harmful is false. Most people, including influencers, don’t realize this,” she said. “When you are using a hormonal method of birth control, if you were to average your hormones out over the month, they are actually less than your ovaries make naturally.”

“That’s why we can use hormonal birth control to treat some conditions,” she added. “Like migraines—they can get better if you have them cyclically—or endometriosis pain. We’re actually dialing your system down.”

Curry-Winchell said the hormones involved—estrogen and progesterone—are ones “you naturally have.” “Women all have a level of these hormones naturally,” she said. “If anything, the pill is just replicating what your body would do naturally to prevent a pregnancy. They’re not ‘pouring’ extra hormones into you.”

She also noted that estrogen and progesterone “aren’t just important to your reproductive health but to your brain health, your gut and your bones…. These are hormones that are vital to you being able to function.”

A political project to stigmatize the pill

Beyond individual influencers who build careers capitalizing on women’s fears, major conservative institutions have begun amplifying the same talking points about hormonal birth control.

The Heritage Foundation, an influential right-wing think tank that produced Project 2025—a blueprint Donald Trump’s administration has now implemented—has published several essays recycling influencer myths about contraception. A newer Heritage “family” blueprint goes further, calling for limiting contraception, IVF and other fertility treatments as part of a decades-long plan to “save the family” by undoing feminist gains.

In an October 2025 essay, Heritage analyst Jennifer Galardi, who is neither a doctor nor a scientist, urged Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to “grill the pill” and questioned its safety. Another Heritage piece by policy analyst Emma Waters repeats similar claims without providing scientific evidence, while criticizing the FDA for approving an over-the-counter hormonal birth control pill.

This is not just about “concerns” over side effects. It’s part of a broader project sometimes branded as “pronatalist” or “trad wife” politics. Heritage and allied thinkers explicitly argue that women’s ability to control their fertility is a root cause of declining marriage and birth rates, and promote policies that would push women to marry young, have more children, and rely financially on husbands rather than on degrees or careers. Weakening access to contraception is one way to make that traditional, male‑headed family model harder to opt out of.

Vice President JD Vance has said he wants “more babies” in the US and derided women without children as “childless cat ladies” who are “miserable,” reinforcing a political narrative that casts delaying or preventing pregnancy as a social problem, not a personal decision.

Doctors say they now find themselves countering not only TikTok rumors but also the implied message from powerful politicians and think tanks that women who use birth control—or opt not to have children—are doing something wrong.

Pregnancy is more dangerous than contraception

For Dr. Alhambra Frarey, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania and a complex family planning specialist, the core medical reality is simple: “Being pregnant is far more dangerous to a woman’s health than any contraceptive.”

“Pregnancy is much more common if you are not on birth control and the health risks of pregnancy are much more significant than from any form of contraception,” she said.

The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate of any high-income country in the world: 22 US women out of every 100,000 die during pregnancy, childbirth or in the months after giving birth. In Canada the rate is 8.4, and in Great Britain it’s 5.5.

“Let’s be real,” Thompson said. “This isn’t about women’s safety. Not having a baby is safer than carrying a pregnancy to term, especially in America where our maternal mortality rates are still way higher than other countries.”

Hormonal methods, by contrast, are extremely effective at preventing pregnancy when used correctly. The IUD is more than 99 percent effective and can last up to 10 years. The pill is about 99 percent effective with perfect use and 93 percent effective with typical use; implants like Nexplanon are also around 99 percent effective, and the Depo-Provera injection is about 95 percent effective.

Clinicians answer with facts—and trust

Thompson said her starting point with patients is not a specific method, but their lives. “My role isn’t to convince you to be on birth control pills,” she said. “What I want to do is talk to you about your life goals.”

“What will make your life enjoyable and fulfilling? And if one of your goals is to finish graduate school, to advance your career, or even to build your relationship with the person that you are with, then it may be in your interest to put off childbearing,” she said. “Birth control pills can help you do that, if that’s the right method for you. They’re not the only method. But if putting off childbearing is right for you, let’s talk about the tools I have to help you do that.”

Thompson and Curry-Winchell both said they are frustrated that, as physicians bound by medical ethics, they stick to evidence-based information while wellness influencers face no such constraint.

“Wellness content creators have no oversight,” Curry-Winchell said. “Versus, as a physician I’m beholden. I could be held liable if something happens to you.”

“I cannot lie to women. I must give them information that is evidence-based,” Thompson said. “We have to have scientific validity behind what we tell people, which social media influencers do not.”

“They made me go to school for a long time so I can give you quality information—pros and cons—and I put it in front of you like a great meal at a restaurant and you don’t have to like it,” she said. “You can pick and choose. But on social media they have no such obligation. They can tell you whatever. They can give you their opinion that they made up yesterday in their living room.”

To help patients find providers who will listen and offer that kind of counseling, Curry-Winchell has created the national directory Clinicians Who Care. The site lists physicians and medical providers who, she said, “take the time to listen to and believe in their patients.”

For Rajamand, the stakes could not be clearer. “The greatest liberating thing for women in our history of human culture has been birth control,” she said. “Thankfully society today says that we’re worth more than just as baby producers. That we have more value.”

Bonnie Fuller is the former CEO and editor-in-chief of HollywoodLife.com and former editor-in-chief of Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, and USWeekly. Follow her substack, Bonnie Fuller: Your Body Your Choice.

Reprinted with permission from The Nevadan.

What Republicans Really Mean When They Accuse Democrats Of 'Election Cheating'

What Republicans Really Mean When They Accuse Democrats Of 'Election Cheating'

The Republicans are determined to pass it. It's their Hail Mary pass for the midterms. If you can't win an election fair and square, then suppress the votes. Disenfranchise those who aren't likely to vote for you. Create a phony problem that you then have to solve. It's an outrage. And it's happening in real time.

"The cheating is rampant in our elections," President Donald Trump told Congress last month. That's a lie. It isn't. The liberal Brennan Center reached the same conclusion as the conservative Heritage Foundation. Noncitizen voting is ridiculously rare. The Brennan Center found exactly 30 instances of noncitizens voting out of 23.5 million votes it reviewed in the 2016 election. The Heritage Foundation found 24 instances of noncitizens voting in U.S. elections between 2003 and 2023.

Results from the states confirm these numbers. A sample from Reuters: Florida has prosecuted two people for voting as noncitizens since 2022, out of 13.5 million registered voters. In Kansas, a 2018 court case found that 39 noncitizens registered to vote between 1999 and 2013, out of roughly 1.8 million registered voters. Nevada found that three noncitizens voted in the 2016 election, out of more than 1 million ballots cast.

"You gotta win the midterms," Trump told House Republicans in January, "because if we don't win the midterms, they'll find a reason to impeach me." And how do you do that when the country is turning against the president? The answer Trump gave last week was simple. Pass the SAVE Act. "It'll guarantee the midterms ... If you send it up there, you will win the midterms and you will win every election for a long time."

By disenfranchising women voters, young people and poor Americans. By making it more difficult for people to vote, you make it easier for Republicans to win. It is shameful.

Here's how it works, or rather doesn't work. The bill requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. A real ID isn't even enough; only five states — Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington — even offer a special "enhanced" driver's license that indicates citizenship and those cost extra. For everyone else, you'd need a U.S. passport or a birth certificate paired with a photo ID to register to vote.

But wait. Who has a valid passport? About 146 million Americans don't. And the birth certificate won't work for the 84% of married women who change their last name and so would also need a copy of their marriage license, in addition to the birth certificate and photo ID, just to register, or re-register to vote. That's some 69 million American women whose birth certificate no longer matches their legal names.

Under the SAVE Act, any of them who need to register, re-register, or update their address would have to show up in person at an election office — which only six percent of voters currently do — with three separate documents: a birth certificate, a photo ID and a marriage certificate to bridge the gap between the two. Those who fail to do so or who are swept up in the bill's mandatory voter-roll purges could lose the right to vote.

What are Republicans so afraid of? How can they tie up the Senate on this? Have they no shame?

They are afraid of women voters. They are afraid of new voters. They are afraid that the more people vote, the worse they will do. They are doing nothing less than undermining the democratic process. It is simply indefensible.

Susan Estrich is a celebrated feminist legal scholar, the first female president of the Harvard Law Review, and the first woman to run a U.S. presidential campaign. She has written eight books.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

As Right Splits Over Neo-Nazi Fuentes, Steve Bannon Signals His Dark Affinities

As Right Splits Over Neo-Nazi Fuentes, Steve Bannon Signals His Dark Affinities

Podcaster and former Trump strategist Steve Bannon indirectly signaled his support for Tucker Carlson and those who defended him after his friendly interview with white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes created a massive rift within conservative media.

On Wednesday, Bannon invited former Heritage Foundation operative Ryan Neuhaus to appear on his influential War Room podcast, ostensibly to discuss the cost of living crisis facing young people in the United States. Left unsaid was Neuhaus’ central role defending Carlson’s October 27 interview with Fuentes, which was a predictable attempt by the former Fox News prime-time star to sanitize and amplify Fuentes’ antisemitic beliefs.

Still, Bannon’s signal to the more plugged-in, online segment of his audience was clear, even if shrouded in plausible deniability: Neuhaus, and by extension Carlson and Fuentes, are welcome inside of the MAGA tent

The November 12 War Room segment was not the first time Bannon has weighed in on the split. On October 31, Bannon responded to conservative backlash directed at Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, who had released a statement — which Roberts later said had been written by his then-chief of staff Neuhaus — reiterating Roberts’ longstanding friendship with Carlson and criticizing the “venomous coalition” of “bad actors who serve someone else’s agenda” now seeking to “cancel” him over the Fuentes interview.

While some conservative commentators saw Roberts’ remarks as embracing antisemitism, Bannon saw things differently.

“For Tucker having Nick Fuentes on, they wanted to crush Tucker,” Bannon said. “I think Tucker's solid as a rock.”

“There was a meltdown because Tucker had Nick Fuentes on for an interview,” he added. “I just don't get it.”

Roberts’ video has thrown Heritage into a state of panic and disarray. In an apparent attempt to mitigate the damage, Roberts distanced himself from his own words, claiming they’d been written by Neuhaus but hadn’t been circulated or vetted beyond that. By November 4, Neuhaus was out at Heritage.

Over the course of the controversy, Neuhaus has repeatedly defended himself and Carlson’s interview on X (formerly Twitter).

In what appears to be Neuhaus’ first post about the topic, on October 28 he wrote in support of the interview by arguing, “We need to reach young men.”

On October 30, Neuhaus reposted Roberts’ video — which clarified that Heritage was not “distancing” itself from Carlson — commenting: “God bless @KevinRobertsTX. We are so fortunate to have him serve as a leader representing the interests of the American people.”

God bless @KevinRobertsTX . We are so fortunate to have him serve as a leader representing the interests of the American people.

Citation

From Ryan Neuhaus' account on X/TwitterOn November 10, Neuhaus wrote: “Masks are coming off every day now and the gatekeeping strategy of Buckley is dying fast,” seemingly referencing the myth — still held as gospel among many on the right — that National Review founder William F. Buckley worked to purge antisemites from the conservative movement. “This is not only a clarifying exercise for those paying close attention, but enables a legitimate and unified future within the MAGA coalition,” he continued.

Following Neuhaus’ appearance on Wednesday, the official War Room X account posted a clip of the interview.

“Love the @Bannons_WarRoom posse,” Neuhaus responded. “It was a privilege to be on air today.”

Am

Great MAGA Crack-Up Features Antisemites, Ultra-Zionists And (Of Course) Misogynists

Great MAGA Crack-Up Features Antisemites, Ultra-Zionists And (Of Course) Misogynists

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” ― F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Crack-Up

It was always only a matter of time: MAGA, with its racial purity obsession and America First tendencies, was always the strangest of bedfellows with the Miriam Adelson wing of the Trump administration. Shared Islamophobia, panic about sharia law coming to the local school board, and state harassment and deportation of pro-Palestinian professors, students and writers could only hold it together for so long.

The irreconcilable differences are exploding into the open at the Heritage Foundation, a formerly mainstream Republican policy shop that went all in for Trumpism and is now being accused of helping mainstream one of America’s coarsest Nazi sympathizers.

Last week, Tucker Carlson aired a long interview with Nick Fuentes, the young leader of the “Groyper” wing of the new right. With Carlson at his studio in Maine, Fuentes was more restrained than usual (he’s compared Jews killed in the Holocaust to “cookies baked in an oven” and has said “organized Jewry” is working to control banks, media and government). Carlson did not quiz him on his past statements. He did respond with gentle disagreement a few times, suggesting that as a multiracial and multiethnic nation, Americans should not be segmented into self-interested identity groups, as Fuentes was arguing. Of course, Tucker has spent a lot of his own media capital doing just that – hosting Darryl Cooper, a Nazi apologist whom he referred to as the “best and most honest popular historian in the United States” on his podcast, for example.)

The outrage (fake or real?) was swift. Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal editorial board issued an op-ed about the fracas with the headline “The New Right’s Antisemites” – as if they were only just waking up to the fact that their ethnonationalists could not long co-exist with non-white non-Christian Americans. Florida Rep. Randy Fine (R-FLL) called Carlson “the most dangerous anti-Semite in America” and accused him of leading a “modern-day Hitler Youth.” Fine also cancelled a planned event with Heritage.

In Washington, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts voiced big support for Tucker Carlson in a tweeted video statement. “Conservatives should feel no obligation to support any foreign government” when such support doesn’t serve American interests, he said. “My loyalty as a Christian and an American is to Christ first and America always.” He then called out pressure from “the globalist class” – a phrase often seen as referencing Jews.

The video statement landed like the proverbial turd in the swimming pool. Lawyer Mark Goldfeder, who is Jewish, announced he was resigning from the Foundation’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. “I cannot serve under someone who thinks Nazis are worth debating,” Goldfeder wrote.

Roberts’ chief of staff, Ryan Neuhaus, then doubled down, calling out Heritage dissidents who were criticizing his boss online and accusing those who expressed outrage at Carlson’s softball interview of “virtue signaling.” Roberts then abruptly deployed Neuhaus to a different office – a wing of the Heritage foundation that happens to be run by a white Christian nationalist with open anti-Jewish inclinations of his own.

Scott Yenor is a misogynist superfreak from the great state of Idaho who entered the national MAGA mainstream via the odious hatchery of the Claremont Institute. He was forced to resign from a university board in Florida earlier this year after reports of his past statements about American Jews, including that they shouldn’t be considered for national leadership. The batshittery doesn’t end there. Yenor has advocated that the medical and legal professions ban women because they are “medicated, meddlesome, and quarrelsome.” He is also a founding member of a secret society of prominent white Christian nationalist men planning for what they call a “national divorce.”

None of that was a hindrance to getting hired at Heritage. Last month, Yenor crowed on Twitter about his new job as Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies. While Neuhaus has since announced he is resigning from Heritage altogether, Yenor remains burrowed in at Simon Center, which the foundation’s website calls “the center that safeguards the heritage of Heritage … dedicated to preserving the intellectual and moral underpinnings of our nation’s Founding.”

None of this is surprising. Heritage Foundation founder, political strategist Paul Weyrich, was one of the most effective and extremist religious zealots to operate in American politics in the last century. Kevin Roberts is an ideal inheritor of that vision. Before coming to DC, he ran a Catholic university in Wyoming that produced righty culture warrior kids who would complain to local shops about the impropriety of advertising bras on mannequins (“upsetting to male students”) and who held anti-LGBTQ “traditional marriage picnics.”

This ugly war is breaking out all over. As John Ganz noticed in his essay Who Will Win the GOP Civil War? when right wing radio screamer Mark Levin criticized Fuentes, Tucker, and Candace Owens in a recent rant about their antisemitism, he sounded “less bombastic than shrill. The fact is, Levin seems nervous. And he should be. The momentum is not on their side. Go on YouTube and look at the comments. They are all anti-Israel or anti-Semitic. “

Russ Vought’s wife and Heritage VP of communications Mary Grace Vought – whose side hustle with a Texan out in Oklahoma we recounted in a recent episode of the Freakshow – took time out of whatever Beltway white Christian nationalist hypocrites do on Sundays to issue a tweet from her personal account. No, the policy tank was not about to cancel Roberts – not yet anyway: “Online rumors about a recent meeting of the Heritage Board of Trustees are completely baseless,” she announced.

Obviously those of us revolted by Project 2025 relish this spectacle. Anyone who has been paying any attention to the “no enemies to the right” Nazified big tent of American conservatism could not have predicted any other outcome. But it is also terrifying. To get a sense of sensibility, read this defense of young racist Paul Ingrassia today. The brain trust of the MAGA movement has always flirted with antisemitism – Bronze Age Pervert for example, whose revolting book is in the back pocket of most young Trumpist staffers on the Hill, is explicitly anti-Jewish. Most of the eugenicists, ethnonationalists, and trad Caths who comprise the MAGA movement’s intellectual core are all-in for racial and religious purity.

Now, these highbrow men with dirty fascist theories are angry about a midwestern rube who talks rough getting mainstreamed. Perhaps they’re jealous.

Laura Fields is a political scientist and author of the new book, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. Fields told me:

It was only a matter of time until far-right antisemitism became a real issue for them. For years now people across the MAGA New Right, including Yoram Hazony, have been arguing and perhaps pretending that antisemitism is really a problem of the left. Meanwhile, again and again, influential young people and staffers on the New Right – in the chats and on X and beyond – keep being exposed for their gross antisemitic humor or use of Nazi symbology, and the leaders of the movement kept silent (the important exception here is Sohrab Ahmari, who proves the rule). Now Kevin Roberts has gone too far. But he and others have been giving cover to the extreism – and not just antisemitism but also misogyny, homophobic bigotry, and at times racism – for many years now.

AUTHOR NOTE: I will be continuing the conversation with Laura Fields on Substack Live Thursday, November 6 at 11 AM Eastern time. You won’t want to miss it.

Nina Burleigh is a journalist, author, documentary producer, and adjunct professor at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She has written eight books including her recently published novel, Zero Visibility Possible.

Reprinted with permission from American Freakshow



Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World