
MAGA Influencers Should Have Some Self-Respect
Here's a question. What if you took the least appealing aspects of traditional broadcast journalism—the self-absorption, the ponderous delivery, the grandstanding—and sucked out any sense of conflict and challenge?
Now we have an answer. For three days this week, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has invited MAGA-friendly influencers to ask her questions during a dedicated press briefing. The results should be deeply embarrassing for everyone involved. We all enjoy getting together with like-minded people to kvetch about petty grievances in our professional lives—that's what keeps bars open—but most of us would have the sense not to do so in the White House, in front of cameras. The first rule of the new-media briefing is that your question should include either personal thanks to her for inviting you, or a pro forma denunciation of the legacy media. The second rule of the new-media briefing is that your question should be, in the five words that conference organizers most dread, 'more of a statement, really.'
Yesterday, Jack Posobiec, perhaps best-known for promoting the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, asked a minute-long question about how violent the far left was, and received a two-minute-long answer from Leavitt about how violent the far left was. Viewers also heard from Dom Lucre (who describes himself to his 1.5 million X followers as a 'breaker of narratives') asking if the White House would investigate 'Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton' for election-integrity offenses.
'It's refreshing to actually hear a question on election integrity, because the legacy media would never ask such a question,' Leavitt replied, ignoring the fact that the media asked quite a lot of questions about her boss's well-documented efforts to pressure officials in Georgia to declare him the winner there in 2020. 'They're so out of touch with where the American people are on this issue.'
The briefing lasted 25 minutes, although the barrage of safe questions and safe answers made it feel much longer. The obvious knock is that this is not journalism but entertainment. The trouble is that it's not even particularly entertaining. Donald Trump, who understands that jeopardy and drama equal ratings, would never be involved in something so dull.
The new-media briefing is part of the Trump administration's attempt to formalize the network of friendly commentators and influencers who have prospered on X, YouTube, Rumble, podcasts, and ultra-conservative television channels. The plan appears to be to secure the loyalty of these attention-hungry narcissists by setting them against one another, in a kind of sycophancy Hunger Games, as they compete for access through ever greater acts of devotion and flattery. Remember when Fox News was the biggest Trump cheerleader in town? Those days are gone. One of the 'questions' this week was the suggestion that the White House should sue Fox for putting out an opinion poll that showed the Dear Leader in a less than flattering light. The guy who asked it was the independent influencer Eric Bolling, who left Fox in 2017 over workplace-harassment allegations (which he denied).
The dedicated briefing is an extension of the White House's existing efforts to soften up the press pool by adding more friendly faces. Starting in January, the Trump White House gave new-media outlets a spot at the main briefing, where they are routinely called upon for the first question. On April 22, that spot went to the podcaster Tim Pool. There are three things you need to know about Pool: The first is that he never, ever takes off his beanie. The second is that he started out as a left-wing activist-slash-journalist, covering Occupy Wall Street. The third is that he was among a group of conservative commentators who, the Justice Department asserted last year, unwittingly received large sums from Russian agents eager to stoke American culture-war controversies. (Pool put out a statement at the time saying that he and his colleagues were 'victims.' More recently, he has contested the Justice Department's allegations.)
Pool's question to Leavitt was just culture-war content in a different form. 'Many of the news organizations that are represented in this room have marched in lockstep on false narratives such as the 'very fine people' hoax, the Covington smear, and now what's being called the 'Maryland man' hoax, where an MS-13 gang member—adjudicated by two different judges, I believe—is just simply being referred to as a 'Maryland man' over and over again,' Pool said, wearing what looked like a hoodie with lapels.
He was talking about Trump's explanation of the white-supremacist violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, and an incident two years later where students from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky were wrongly accused of racism based on an out-of-context viral video. The most recent incident is the Trump administration's decision to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man living in Maryland, who it claims is a gang member.
As well as relitigating press coverage of these incidents, Pool wanted Leavitt to issue a wider condemnation of the traditional media. 'In an effort from the White House to expand access to new companies, you've created this new-media seat,' Pool went on, adding that 'you've had numerous outlets disparage the companies that you've had sit here, as well as the reporters. I'm wondering if you could comment on that unprofessional behavior as well as elaborate if there's any plans to expand access to new companies.'
Well, that's one in the eye of the traditional media, isn't it? Too often, legacy outlets focus on fripperies such as But the Supreme Court has ordered you to do this, so why haven't you done it? or Why is there a tariff on an uninhabited island? or Come on, that's clearly Photoshop. Instead they ought to address the biggest issue of the day: Tim Pool's feelings of grievance. (And I say this as someone who agrees with Pool that many traditional media outlets got Covington wrong.)
Leavitt happily accepted Pool's premise, saying that she welcomed 'diverse viewpoints' and 'unbiased journalists.' Then she claimed that The Atlantic had incorrectly reported Abrego Garcia's story. The administration would rather argue over the words used to describe Abrego Garcia, who undoubtedly is both a man and a Maryland resident, than admit that its grounds for deporting him were initially sketchy and later appeared manipulated. The MAGA-friendly influencers are happy to collude with the White House because it flatters them, portraying them as the only independent-minded bringers of truth.
As it turned out, Pool's sucking up was just an appetizer. The first full-scale influencer briefing, on Monday, showed just how cozy things can get when normies and libs aren't even allowed into the room. 'Tens of millions of Americans are now turning to social media and independent media outlets to consume their news, and we are embracing that change, not ignoring it,' Leavitt said in a seven-minute opening speech. The first influencer to ask a question, Arynne Wexler —'just a nonlib girl in a crazylib world'—kicked things off by noting that 'my Uber drivers finally speak English again, so thank you for that.'
Later on came Winston Marshall, who used to play the banjo in Mumford & Sons until he was forced out for praising a book by the right-wing author Andy Ngo. He is also the son of Paul Marshall, the owner of the British publications UnHerd and The Spectator. Instead of working for either outlet, however, Winston has an interview podcast, on which he speaks with the same people who appear on all the other interview podcasts. Recent guests include Tim Pool.
At the White House, Marshall wanted to talk about the state of free speech in Britain, a topic upon which Vice President J. D. Vance recently delivered a short homily to European leaders. 'As we speak, there are people in prison for quite literally reposting memes,' Marshall told the press secretary. 'We have extensive prison sentences for tweets, social-media posts, and general free-speech issues.'
Nick Miroff: An 'administrative error' sends a Maryland father to a Salvadoran prison
This is a legitimate point—in Britain we have far fewer speech protections than America, and the police here have arrested citizens for their social-media posts. But the alleged topic at hand was merely a setup for Marshall's zinger: 'Would the Trump administration consider political asylum for British citizens in such a situation?'
Leavitt laughed. 'I have not heard that proposed to the president nor have I spoken to him about that idea, but I certainly can, and talk to our national-security team and see if it's something the administration would entertain,' she replied. Let me decode that: Thank you for your absolute nonquestion, which you and I both understand was asked purely to be clipped and posted on social media. The reaction over here in Britain to Marshall's showboating was rather less warm. 'Why stop with free speech martyrs?' one friend texted me. 'I think we should encourage all banjo players to seek asylum in the States.'
Former Trump press secretary turned influencer Sean Spicer then moaned about the president giving an interview to The Atlantic —subtext: why not meeee —before DC Draino, a Florida-based commentator whose real name is Rogan O'Handley, asked about further updates on the government's files about the financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. O'Handley was one of the influencers summoned to the White House in February to be given a ceremonial ring binder of evidence against Epstein—who died in jail while awaiting trial for sex-trafficking charges in 2019. (The influencers got played: The flight logs inside the binders were already public.)
Then came the America First Policy Institute ambassador Kambree Nelson, who asked Leavitt about what she should cover as a reporter. 'So, what direction do you advise me to go into?' she said. 'Like, the White House files that y'all send out every single day?' (This was at least a better question than the one Nelson once asked on X, about whether the moon had disappeared because she hadn't seen it for a week. 'Why is everyone silent about this?' she added.) Leavitt suggested that Nelson might usefully concern herself with the fact that the president does 'so many phenomenal things every day that will never be mentioned on cable news at night.'
Jeffrey Goldberg: Read The Atlantic 's interview with Donald Trump
Other observations from the first day included: 'It's so refreshing to have a press secretary after the last few years who's both intelligent and articulate' and 'Great job this morning, and as always; you're really crushing it.' Anytime someone crept close to a real question—asking when the promised border wall would be completed, or when Trump's pledge of eliminating federal income tax would be enacted—Leavitt simply brushed it aside. 'This is something the secretary of commerce and the secretary of Treasury are both equally as excited about, as is the president,' Leavitt replied to the second inquiry. In other words, it'll happen on about the seventh of never.
Tuesday brought more softballs. 'Congratulations on 100 incredible days,' the internet personality Debra Lea began, before asking what policies Trump would pursue to keep his approval ratings 'historically high' and to win the midterms. (His approval ratings are lower than Biden's were at the 100-day mark.) The answer was 'tax cuts.'
Later, Link Lauren —a man who not only has his names the wrong way around, but also appears to have styled himself after Draco Malfoy —asked Leavitt a question that even North Koreans might have found a bit much. 'You're a very high-profile young mother who seems to juggle and balance it all beautifully,' Lauren said. 'What advice do you have to young parents out there who are starting their careers, having kids, building families, and trying to find that balance so desperately?'
'Well, it's a great question,' Leavitt replied.
Now, I've got nothing against the new media—some of my best friends are Substackers. If you have a podcast, I will go on it to promote my forthcoming book. But what's hilarious is how quickly these influencers, who complain so much about the hated mainstream media, have immediately copied all of their rivals' worst habits when given even the merest taste of access and power. Then again, maybe even they know that the briefings are cringeworthy. As the media reporter Paul Farhi noted, the White House has claimed that it had 10,000 applications from new media, but the second and third briefings had empty seats. I suspect that the MAGA crowd wants to be in the main briefing, where they can lord it over the traditional reporters—not in the kiddie pool. Still, plenty of people find the chance to take a selfie in the Rose Garden irresistible.
Almost everything about the Trump presidency can be understood as a quid pro quo. In the case of the influencers, they are offered access to all the awesome scenery of the White House—the perfect backdrop for any viral video—and the heady sense of being insiders. In return, all they have to do is ask questions that would make a Soviet propagandist blush.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
20 minutes ago
- Politico
GOP lawmakers stick with Trump in messy Musk breakup
Amid the messy ongoing divorce between the president and the world's richest man, this much is already clear: Donald Trump has sole custody of the House GOP. Republican lawmakers are making clear that, if forced to choose, it's Trump — not Elon Musk — they're sticking by as leaders race to contain the fallout for their 'one big, beautiful bill.' Even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, who helms a House panel inspired by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency initiative, blasted Musk's public attacks on Trump as 'unwarranted' and criticized his 'lashing out on the internet.' 'America voted for Donald Trump on Nov. 4, 2024 — every single vote mattered just as much as the other,' Greene said in a brief interview. 'And whether it was $1 that was donated or hundreds of millions of dollars, the way I see it, everybody's the same.' Like many Americans, GOP members watched Thursday's online exchange with a sense of car-crash-like fascination. Many shared that they hoped Musk and Trump could somehow patch things up. But many — including some of the former DOGE chief's biggest backers on Capitol Hill — were wholly unsurprised to see the billionaire suddenly cut down to size after months of chatter about who was really calling the shots at the White House. 'It's President Trump, not President Musk,' said one lawmaker granted anonymity to speak frankly about prevailing opinions inside the House GOP. Speaker Mike Johnson made no secret of where he stands on the public breakup. He told reporters Friday that he hoped the two men 'reconcile' and that it would be 'good for the party and the country if all this worked out.' But in the nearly same breath, Johnson quickly reaffirmed his allegiance to the president and issued a warning to Musk. 'Do not doubt, do not second-guess and don't ever challenge the president of the United States, Donald Trump,' Johnson said. 'He is the leader of the party. He is the most consequential political figure of this generation and probably the modern era. And he's doing an excellent job for the people.' Other House Republicans concurred with the speaker's assessment Friday, even as they faced the looming threat of Musk targeting them in the upcoming midterms or at least pulling back on his political giving after pouring more than $250 million into the 2024 election on behalf of Trump and the GOP ticket. 'I think it's unfortunate,' said Rep. Tim Moore (R-N.C.) of the breakup. 'But Donald Trump was elected by a majority of the American people.' Rep. Warren Davidson of Ohio, who was one of only two Republicans to oppose Trump's megabill in the House last month, also made clear he stood with the president over Musk. 'He does not have a flight mode — he's fight, fight, fight … and he's been pretty measured,' Davidson said of Trump. 'I think Elon Musk looked a little out of control. And hopefully he gets back and grounded.' GOP leaders who have spent weeks cajoling their members to vote for the sprawling domestic-policy bill hardly hid their feelings as Musk continued to bash the legislation online, even calling on Americans to call their representatives in an effort to tank it. 'Frankly, it's united Republicans even more to go and defend the great things that are in this bill — and once it's passed and signed into law by August, September, you're going to see this economy turning around like nothing we've ever seen,' Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in a brief interview Friday. 'I'll be waiting for all those people who said the opposite to admit that they were wrong,' Scalise added. 'But I'm not expecting that to happen.' A few Republicans are still trying to walk a fine line by embracing both Trump and Musk — especially some fiscal hawks who believe Musk is right about the megabill adding trillions to the national debt. 'I think Elon has some valid points about the bill, concerns that myself and a handful of others were working to address up until the passage of it,' Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) said in an interview. 'I think that'll make the bill stronger. I think it'll help our standing with the American people.' Both Trump and Musk 'have paid a tremendous price personally for this country,' Cloud added. 'And them working together is certainly far better for the country.' Notably, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, a key Musk ally on the Hill, declined to engage Thursday when asked about the burgeoning feud. Instead, the Ohio Republican responded by praising the megabill Musk had moved to tank. Democrats, for their part, watched the unfolding and public breakup with surprise and a heavy dose of schadenfreude. 'There are no good guys in a fight like this,' Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.). 'You just eat some popcorn and watch the show.'


The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Freedom Caucus warns it will ‘not accept' Senate changes on green energy tax credits
The conservative House Freedom Caucus said on Friday that it would 'not accept' changes that 'water down' its cuts to green energy tax credits as the Senate weighs whether to alter the legislation. The House version of the 'big, beautiful bill' would make drastic changes to tax cuts for low-carbon energy sources passed in the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Climate-friendly energy projects, including wind and solar, would only be able to qualify for the credits under the House bill if they begin construction within 60 days of the bill's enactment. This brief window would likely make many projects ineligible for the credits, and is expected to significantly hamstring the development of new renewable power. In a post on social media on Friday, the Freedom Caucus warned the Senate against loosening that restriction or others included in the bill. 'We want to be crystal clear: if the Senate attempts to water down, strip out, or walk back the hard-fought spending reductions and IRA Green New Scam rollbacks achieved in this legislation, we will not accept it,' said the post, which was attributed to the Freedom Caucus's board. 'The House Freedom Caucus Board will stand united holding the line. The American people didn't send us here to cave to the swamp — they sent us here to change it,' they added. The Senate has been widely expected to consider changes that could slow the rapid elimination of the tax credit passed under the House version of Trump's 'big beautiful bill.' Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Thom Tillis (N.C.), Jerry Moran (Kan.) and John Curtis (Utah) released a letter warning against a 'full scale' repeal of the tax credits. Senate Republicans can only afford three defections and pass their bill. On Friday, a group of 13 House GOP moderates released a letter calling on Senate leadership 'to substantively and strategically improve clean energy tax credit provisions' in the legislation. 'We believe the Senate now has a critical opportunity to restore common sense and deliver a truly pro-energy growth final bill that protects taxpayers while also unleashing the potential of U.S. energy producers, manufacturers, and workers,' said the letter, which was led by Reps. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.). Altogether, the letters illustrate what could be a tough task ahead of the Republican leadership as they look to find a measure that will keep at least 50 senators on board and appease the House. Emily Brooks contributed.
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Shift4 appoints new CEO
This story was originally published on Payments Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Payments Dive newsletter. Shift4 named founder Jared Isaacman as executive chairman after President Donald Trump abruptly dropped the executive's nomination to run NASA over the weekend, the digital processor said in a regulatory filing Thursday. "Mr. Isaacman will remain an executive officer and Class I member of the Board," the filing said. The change is effective on Thursday, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Allentown, Pennsylvania-based payments processing company had selected Shift4 President Taylor Lauber to succeed Isaacman if Trump's December nomination was confirmed by the Senate, but the chamber never voted on it. Isaacman, who has been the company's CEO and chairman since it was founded in 1999, will retain his super voting shares in Shift4, according to the filing. Lauber said during an April earnings call that Isaacman would convert his class B and class C shares into class A shares, which are worth a single vote per share. That agreement was "subject to several conditions, including the ratification and confirmation by the U.S. Senate of Mr. Isaacman's appointment as administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration," the SEC filing said. "As a result of this condition not being met, Mr. Isaacman is no longer required to reduce his voting shares." Isaacman had a 76% voting power ownership stake in Shift4, according toan April 30 proxy filing. Trump cited Isaacman's "prior associations" when he withdrew the NASA nomination. The president pulled the nomination over the Shift4 founder's past contributions to Democrats, according to a report from the New York Times. However, Isaacman suggested on a Wednesday episode o fthe All-In podcast that his ties to billionaire SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk cost him the nomination, Bloomberg reported. Musk may also have helped him win the nomination from Trump, given Isaacman's participation in past SpaceX missions. Recommended Reading Shift4 CEO likely to keep post