Watch: MAGA influencers accuse Cory Booker of Nazi-style salute, call him ‘literally Hitler'
Senator Cory Booker's closing gesture at a Democratic convention has sparked fierce online criticism, drawing comparisons to salutes made by Elon Musk and Steve Bannon that were previously condemned as Nazi-like. Though Booker has not commented, footage of the moment has gone viral on right-wing social media. This latest incident comes just weeks after the New Jersey Democrat made headlines with a marathon 25-hour speech against Donald Trump's policies, positioning him as a rising 2028 contender.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Right-Wing figures react swiftly
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Nazi Salute: A familiar gesture with loaded meaning
Booker's wider political message
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Who is Cory Booker?
Senator Cory Booker , a Democrat from New Jersey, is facing an online storm after a gesture he made during a speech at the California Democratic Convention on Saturday. Booker placed his hand over his heart and then extended it outward to the crowd. Within hours, a video of the moment spread widely on social media. Critics were quick to draw comparisons to similar gestures made earlier this year by Elon Musk and Steve Bannon — both of which ignited widespread backlash for resembling a Nazi salute.Booker, who has not issued any public response yet, delivered the gesture at the close of his speech before an audience of over 4,000 delegates.The video was first posted by Richie Greenberg, a San Francisco-based political commentator and former Republican mayoral candidate, who captioned it: 'Moments ago, Cory Booker salutes 4,000 CA Democrat Party delegates.'It was then picked up by several conservative influencers and commentators. Collin Rugg, co-owner of the site Trending Politics, reposted the clip and remarked: 'Looking forward to the wall-to-wall coverage from the 'honest' and totally not biased media.'Gunther Eagleman, a right-wing social media figure, added: 'Cory Booker is a straight up NAZI. WOW. HOLY S***!' Meanwhile, conservative journalist Nick Sortor went further, writing: 'Cory Booker made a Nazi salute. He's literally Hitler.'One user wrote: 'I'm literally shaking right now. Cory Booker is literally Hitler. I can't wait for fake news to cover this as extensively as they did Elon when he gave his heart out to everyone!'Earlier this year, Elon Musk faced similar scrutiny after making a gesture — hand on heart, then extended outward — during Donald Trump's second inauguration. Critics said it resembled a Nazi salute. Musk, however, defended it, saying it meant: 'My heart goes out to you.'At the time, Musk posted on X: 'Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The 'everyone is Hitler' attack is sooo tired.'Shortly after, Steve Bannon — former White House strategist and host of the War Room podcast — made a similar motion at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February while chanting: 'Fight, fight, fight.'Their supporters described it as a 'Roman salute,' referencing depictions in 18th and 19th-century art. But historians note there's no evidence such a gesture was used in ancient Rome.Saturday's incident has overshadowed the broader context of Booker's recent activism. Just weeks ago, the 56-year-old senator delivered a 25-hour and 5-minute speech on the Senate floor — the longest since Senator Strom Thurmond's record in 1957 — protesting former President Trump's agenda and Republican policies.Referencing civil rights leader John Lewis, Booker urged Americans to cause 'good trouble' in the face of injustice. The phrase also featured in Saturday's convention speech.'I think the Democratic Party lost a lot of elections because people didn't believe that they cared about them. So let's stop worrying about the politics and get more focused on the people,' Booker said after the event.He added that he didn't want to prescribe tactics for change but stressed the importance of citizen engagement: 'I know one thing it's not is sitting down and doing nothing and just watching on TV and getting stuck in a state of sedentary agitation. Everybody has to be taking measures to put the pressure on to change.'Booker's passionate engagement has helped boost his national profile. A recent poll by AtlasIntel ranked him fourth among potential Democratic candidates for the 2028 presidential race , behind Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Pete Buttigieg.Although he ran unsuccessfully for president in 2020, Booker has said he remains focused on running for Senate re-election in 2026. As for a White House bid, he told reporters: '2028 will take care of itself.'Booker has neither confirmed nor denied whether the gesture was deliberate or meant to emulate Musk or Bannon. For now, the debate continues to unfold on social media — where perception often shapes reality faster than facts can catch up.(With inputs from AP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
US Supreme Court gives DOGE access to sensitive social security data
The decision allows DOGE, once led by Elon Musk, full access to personal data in the Social Security database while the case moves forward on appeal Bloomberg By Greg Stohr and Zoe Tillman The US Supreme Court gave the Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive Social Security information, lifting restrictions a judge said were needed to protect the privacy of millions of Americans. Over three dissents, the high court on Friday granted a Trump administration request to put US District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander's order on hold. The decision lets DOGE, the office once led by Elon Musk, have full access to personally identifiable information in the Social Security Administration database while the case proceeds on appeal. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order, which didn't lay out the majority's reasoning. The court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In a separate decision, the high court said a different judge went too far by requiring DOGE officials to testify and produce records to a watchdog group. The order came in a case about whether the DOGE office is covered by US public records laws. The Supreme Court liberals dissented from that decision as well. The cases are the first Supreme Court clashes involving DOGE, the office set up by President Donald Trump to weed out what he says is wasteful spending across the federal government. Sensitive Data Musk recently left his formal government position within the administration and is now publicly feuding with Trump. In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. Hollander said two labor unions and an advocacy group for retired people were likely to succeed on their claims that unfettered access would violate the 1974 Privacy Act. 'For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records,' the Baltimore-based judge wrote. 'This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation.' Hollander's order allowed DOGE team members access to anonymized data only after completing the type of training and background checks required for SSA employees. She said DOGE employees could get 'discrete, particularized and non-anonymized' information if they submitted a written statement explaining why the information was needed and why anonymous data was insufficient. Hollander also ordered people affiliated with DOGE to delete data they've already acquired. The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals kept Hollander's order in place on a 9-6 vote. In her dissent, Jackson said the lower courts had crafted an order 'tailored to the needs of the moment.' She said the Supreme Court had 'truly lost its moorings' by granting the government's request without requiring it to show that it was suffering any harm. 'The 'urgency' underlying the government's stay application is the mere fact that it cannot be bothered to wait for the litigation process to play out before proceeding as it wishes,' she wrote. Democracy Forward, the legal-advocacy group that represented the challengers, said it was a 'sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people.' White House spokesperson Liz Huston hailed the decision. 'The Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and modernize government information systems is a huge victory for the rule of law,' she said in an email. The case is Social Security Administration v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, 24A1063. DOGE Records The Supreme Court's action in the records case blocks a Washington federal judge's order for the administration to answer questions, produce documents and make DOGE administrator Amy Gleason available to testify at a deposition. US District Judge Christopher Cooper had authorized the group that brought the public records case, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, to gather evidence about DOGE's activities as it fights with the Justice Department over the office's legal status. The Supreme Court majority faulted Cooper for requiring the government to disclose internal DOGE recommendations and to say whether those suggestions were followed. 'Separation of powers concerns counsel judicial deference and restraint in the context of discovery regarding internal executive branch communications,' the Supreme Court said in its two-page order. Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson didn't explain their reasons for dissenting. CREW has argued that the DOGE Service should be considered an agency under the federal Freedom of Information Act, which empowers the public to see a wide range of government records. The Trump administration disagrees, arguing that DOGE plays a purely advisory role within the White House and is exempt from the law. Musk served as the public face of DOGE, but government lawyers stressed in court that Gleason is the formal head of the DOGE office. CREW's underlying public records request seeks to pry loose new information about the Tesla Inc. chief executive's role in dramatic cuts to federal spending and the workforce. The lawsuit also aims to reveal more broadly what DOGE-affiliated staff have been doing and the structure of that effort across US agencies. The case is US DOGE Service v. CREW, 24A1122.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
US Supreme Court grants DOGE access to social security data amid legal battle
The US Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays the request of the Justice Department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based US District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, criticized the court's majority for granting DOGE "unfettered data access" despite the administration's "failure to show any need or any interest in complying with existing privacy safeguards."In a separate order on Friday, the Supreme Court extended its block on judicial orders requiring DOGE to turn over records to a government watchdog group that sought details on the entity established by Trump and swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the US government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration, or SSA, including Social Security numbers, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Forward, a liberal legal group that represented the plaintiffs, said Friday's order would put millions of Americans' data at risk."Elon Musk may have left Washington, DC, but his impact continues to harm millions of people," the group said in a statement. "We will continue to use every legal tool at our disposal to keep unelected bureaucrats from misusing the public's most sensitive data as this case moves forward."In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the Social Security Administration had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training and demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems.""For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation."advertisementHollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling did allow DOGE affiliates to access data that had been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access had gone through the proper training and passed background also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their Richmond, Virginia-based 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration Department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach."The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the UTreasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card InMust Watch
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Trump, Musk and a split foretold
It has been less than six months (of a 48-month tenure) since Donald J Trump assumed the office of the President of the United States for a second time. In that time, he has upended the US's relationship with its Western allies and engaged in a start-stop tariff regime based on questionable assumptions. He has also injected elements of uncertainty into the US's ties with countries, including India, that have been growing and deepening steadily for nearly three decades. The public spat between President Trump and Elon Musk — beyond the barbs and the almost reality TV style of the 'breakup' — must be seen in this context. Drama and uncertainty mark both US domestic politics and how the superpower engages with the world. The world's richest man played a significant part in the Trump campaign and the administration. Musk contributed about $250 million to Trump's election fund and, after the election, led the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The differences over the Trump administration's 'One Big Beautiful Bill', emerging a day after Musk left DOGE, quickly spiralled into an all-out social-media war between the two billionaires, replete with name-calling. While Musk claimed that he won Trump the election and echoed conspiracy theories about his connections with deceased financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the President raised questions about government contracts for the Tesla and SpaceX founder's companies. Given their egos, perhaps it was a split foretold. That said, the Trump-Musk spat sends out the message that it is not necessarily institutions and interests that determine the course of politics and policy in Washington. Till recently, the 'bromance' between the two men made Musk's companies all but de facto national champions and the tech entrepreneur was seen across capitals as an extension of the White House. SpaceX, for example, has deep ties to NASA and its vessels ferry US astronauts to the International Space Station. The uncertainty around the future of that collaboration will make things more complicated for Delhi as it tries to deepen cooperation in space with the US. Deals with Tesla and Starlink, while made by private players, may take on a different colour. The Trump administration's domestic policies have already had reverberations in India, especially its attitude to visas for foreign students and workers. The immature insistence that the White House mediated the ceasefire after Operation Sindoor went against the grain of 30 years of the bilateral relationship — through Republican and Democrat administrations — of de-hyphenating India and Pakistan. As India tries to manage the US relationship over the next three years, it must keep in mind that it is working with a partner that is much more temperamental — today's Trump loyalist might be tomorrow's persona non grata.
