
How the Right has reshaped the narrative around George Floyd
Advertisement
In the right's retelling, Floyd did not die from being deprived of air, and Chauvin was railroaded by a country that flew into a panic over race and did not consider the facts soberly. To build this case, conservatives have packaged misleading details from court documents, images of burning and looting during the protests, Floyd's criminal record and drug use, and legal theories that lawyers say are distorted.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Related
:
Disputing facts that most people once agreed on has become part of a new political playbook, often employed by right-leaning pundits and politicians. But the killing of Floyd in Minneapolis on May 25, 2020, was not just any news story. For conservatives, it was the catalyst for a kind of liberal mania that, some of them assert, led directly to racial hiring quotas, 'woke' curricula in school and white guilt.
Advertisement
'President Trump's war on wokeness cannot be considered complete unless he addresses the fundamental injustice that started it all,' Shapiro said in March, in one of five episodes of his show on the 'Daily Wire' devoted to 'The Case for Derek Chauvin.'
A protester and a police officer clasped hands during a rally calling for justice over the death of George Floyd, in New York, on June 2, 2020.
Wong Maye-E/Associated Press
Many prominent Trump supporters have joined the defense of Chauvin, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Charlie Kirk and Christopher Rufo. 'America will not be made whole until we receive justice for Derek Chauvin,' Jack Posobiec, a Trump loyalist and conspiracy theorist, told a cheering audience in December. 'The truth must come out about what happened with George Floyd. It was a lie and it was always a lie.'
Shapiro started an online petition that his spokesperson said has nearly 80,000 signatures. On social platform X, Elon Musk said a pardon was 'something to think about.'
Related
:
Brian O'Hara, the police chief of Minneapolis, has decried what he called an attempt to rewrite history, saying the goal was to undermine police reform. 'We all knew what we saw, and we all knew it was wrong,' he wrote in an opinion essay in The Minnesota Star Tribune in February.
Misinformation began to circulate immediately following Floyd's death in 2020. A YouTube video amplified by conspiracy group QAnon claimed that the entire incident had been faked by the deep state and that Floyd, who is buried in Texas, was still alive. There were viral social media posts alleging that George Soros, the billionaire who has become a punching bag for the right, was secretly funding the protests, which was not true.
As body camera videos and autopsy reports became available, right-wing news sites began to construct a counternarrative of the day of Floyd's arrest.
Advertisement
In these accounts, Chauvin was a decorated officer who was only following his police training. In fact, he was both honored for some actions and the subject of numerous complaints, and Minneapolis police officials testified that his treatment of Floyd did not conform to the department's training.
Ben Shapiro spoke during a Conservative Political Action Conference on Dec 4, 2024, in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Tomas Cuesta/Getty
Tucker Carlson, a former Fox News commentator, said Chauvin was railroaded by mob justice that he likened to a Southern lynching. Other accounts suggest Floyd died not because he was pinned down for so long, but from other causes -- a drug overdose, heart disease or maybe even a rare type of tumor.
Related
:
At Chauvin's trial, medical experts gave conflicting opinions on all three claims. The jury concluded that Floyd would not have died but for Chauvin's actions. In December, in response to an attempt by Chauvin to overturn his conviction, a federal judge granted permission to run tests on medical samples from Floyd to determine if the tumor contributed to his death.
Shapiro and other right-wing commentators also argue that the jury was under intense pressure to convict, or was predisposed to do so.
These accounts purport to reveal the 'real truth' about what happened.
They rely heavily on autopsy reports, body camera video and other evidence that have been available for years and were presented to the jury in great detail. Many note the fact that the autopsy found no injury to Floyd's neck, though medical examiners say that a person's air supply can be cut off with no signs of injury.
In an interview, Shapiro said that he had changed his mind about Chauvin's guilt while watching the trial and that he had waited to make a case for a pardon until after Trump took office.
Advertisement
Such a pardon would largely be symbolic. Chauvin was convicted of both state and federal crimes, and Trump has the power to pardon him only for the federal ones.
If he did so, Chauvin would be transferred from federal prison to Minnesota to serve out the rest of his 22 1/2-year state sentence.
In March, Trump said he was not considering a pardon, but Shapiro was undaunted.
'Concerned citizens speak out consistently,' Shapiro told his viewers. 'Eventually, those voices permeate the administration's awareness and influence what makes it onto the president's agenda.'
The narrative of the invasion of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, went through a similar shift. At first, the event was met with bipartisan condemnation. But upon taking office in January, Trump pardoned the participants in what he called a 'day of love.'
Media analysts say that a strategy like Shapiro's can be effective. 'Repetition and amplification equals truth for our brains, so this is how bad actors can hack the media,' said Esosa Osa, the founder of Onyx Impact, a nonprofit that fights disinformation targeting Black communities.
Over the years the machinery of reinvention has cranked on.
In 2022, Ye, a vocal Trump supporter, attended the premiere of a documentary by a right-wing firebrand, Candace Owens, 'The Greatest Lie Ever Sold: George Floyd and the Rise of BLM.' The rapper formerly known as Kanye West said afterward that Floyd had died of a drug overdose.
Law enforcement officers stood along Lake Street as fires burned after a night of protests in Minneapolis on Friday, May 29, 2020, following the death of George Floyd.
David Joles/Associated Press
Another Chauvin defender was Liz Collin, a former Minneapolis news anchor who is married to Robert Kroll, the former head of the Minneapolis police union. Chauvin's first public comments appeared in Collin's documentary, 'The Fall of Minneapolis,' released in 2023. He called the trial 'a sham.'
Advertisement
In an interview, Collin said the idea that Floyd was a victim of racist brutality had caused unnecessary strife. She blamed officials who she said were slow to disclose information, and what she called the media's failure to emphasize elements of the narrative, such as the fact that one of the officers who arrested Floyd was Black. These gaps, she said, created a 'dangerous and divisive narrative that we're still living with the consequences of to this day.'
With the fifth anniversary of Floyd's murder Sunday, Minnesota officials have braced for unrest over a potential pardon. And the right and the left have accused each other of using the issue -- and massaging the facts -- for political advantage.
On his podcast, Tim Pool, a conservative influencer, said Democrats were exaggerating the possibility of a pardon to attack Trump. On the other hand, Larry Krasner, the liberal prosecutor in Philadelphia, warned his Instagram followers that they should not fall into the trap of rioting if Chauvin is pardoned.
'What they're trying to do is, they're trying to get people in the cities to engage in unrest so they can bring in the military,' he said.
This article originally appeared in

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


Vox
a few seconds ago
- Vox
The Joe Rogan Experience is a mirror for America
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the Democratic Party. He joined Vox in 2022 after reporting on national and international politics for the Atlantic's politics, global, and ideas teams, including the role of Latino voters in the 2020 election. Joe Rogan is many things — a comedian, a commentator, and a contrarian; a reality TV star and martial artist-turned-host of the most listened to podcast in America: The Joe Rogan Experience. His fans say he's just asking questions, calling out liberal hypocrisy, and defending free speech. His critics use other terms: a conspiracy theorist and peddler of misinformation and anti-trans rhetoric, who platforms not just off-the-wall ideas, but dangerous narratives that cause real-world harm. There's truth in all these labels. There's another way to think of Rogan that may help put him in his rightful context for this decade: 'Joe Rogan is the Walter Cronkite of Our Era,' declared British satirist Konstantin Kisin for Quilette in 2019. 'Not one established newspaper or broadcaster can now compete with a popular YouTube host conducting a conversation from his self-funded studio,' he wrote at the time, reflecting on Rogan's three-hour interrogation of Twitter executives. Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Kisin's declaration — before the global Covid-19 pandemic, before the 2020 election of Joe Biden or the 2024 reelection of Donald Trump — might have been a bit premature. But he effectively predicted what Rogan would yet become: not just one of the most influential voices in politics, popular culture, and social commentary, but also a harbinger for a new form of media, communications, trust, and truth in a post-pandemic world. There is no monoculture in 2025; but for a huge part of America, the realm Rogan pioneered and steers is as close as we might get. Related The Gen Z divide that could decide the next election He and his show have been at the crossroads of just about every major moment and societal change that defines the 2020s, from Covid misinformation and vaccine fearmongering to the expansion of the 'manosphere' universe. His show is a mirror for a country that has grown more anxious, distrustful, and paranoid in the last decade. Like a lot of America, the pandemic changed Rogan When Kisin made his Cronkite comparison in 2019, Rogan's mainstream crossover was just getting started. Back then, The Joe Rogan Experience was well on its way to being the most popular podcast show in America — the second most downloaded Apple podcast in 2017 and 2018, before topping the list the next year. His YouTube uploads regularly attracted a million views each (racking up more than 2 billion by mid-2020), and the show had become a must-stop destination for both traditional celebrities and a realm of alternative and conspiratorially minded pseudointellectuals (think: Alex Jones, Kanye West, Elon Musk). There is no monoculture in 2025; but for a huge part of America, the realm Rogan pioneered and steers is as close as we might get. He had achieved that by developing a space for curious-minded average joes and those folks Slate once described as ''freethinkers' who hate the left' to listen to his two-to-three-hourlong, anarchic episodes. In trying to understand what made Rogan's show work, the writer Devin Gordon summarized his roster as being roughly divided into three categories: fellow comedians, fellow athletes and fighters, and ''thinkers.'' The latter label, Gordon wrote in The Atlantic, 'requires air quotes because it encompasses everyone from Oxford scholars…all the way across the known intellectual galaxy to conspiracy theorists like Rogan's longtime buddy and Sandy Hook denier Alex Jones.' And gobbling up this content were millions of, primarily, American men, across every demographic. Through it all, a handful of principles anchored the show. While he wasn't overtly political, he described himself as having essentially libertarian views with strong socially liberal leanings. Free speech, and the platforming of those who had been canceled in the mainstream, were a foundational goal of the show. Skepticism of government, big tech, and corporate media were a corollary. And a pseudo-Socratic line of curiosity and skepticism were his modus operandi. That led him to take traditionally liberal positions on social issues and civil rights, to criticize interventionist foreign policy, and to embrace the policies of political figures like Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as well as populist movement headed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who Rogan backed during the 2020 Democratic primaries. Yet with the dawn of the pandemic, a few things changed. While originally critical of Trump, the tone of his shows, and his guests, began to move in a rightward direction after Trump's 2020 defeat. Rogan had been critical of pandemic shutdowns and mitigation efforts, questioned the efficacy of vaccines, and railed against what he called censorship and speech suppression on social media platforms. And once the 'left,' and 'woke' liberals became the establishment in the Biden administration, media, pop culture, and business, Rogan and his show had an easy foil to criticize and ask questions. This post-2020 period was a time of growth and challenge for Rogan. He inked a reported $200 million multiyear deal with Spotify for the platform to exclusively host his podcast, but both he and Spotify faced intense calls by artists, liberal activists, journalists, and science communicators to either censor, deplatform or moderate his show to prevent the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation. He has previously described this era between 2020 and 2022 as 'terrifying' — for the threats to free speech he felt were being emboldened by the Biden administration, by popular culture, and by mainstream media. This period contextualizes his feuds during that time with Facebook and Twitter for allegedly suppressing right-wing opinions and speech, with the Biden White House for pressuring social media companies to regulate speech, and with the mainstream media. Yet he survived this controversy, and his show only grew bigger since then, aligning with his eventual drift to not only interviewing but endorsing Trump in 2024. His format, and style, has changed America and its relation to truth Rogan and his show are now perfect avatars of America's political and cultural revolution in the Trump era: The Joe Rogan Experience is now one of the key arbiters of truth and reality for scores of Americans who get informed from nontraditional and alternative media sources. His YouTube channel now boasts over 6 billion views across the episodes uploaded there; his episodes are rarely not the top shows across Apple, Spotify, and other podcast apps. He's become the mainstream, popular enough to cause strife during the 2024 election when he declined to interview Kamala Harris but hosted Trump and Vice President JD Vance. He also interviews the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, various politicians and entrepreneurs, and many more celebrities, actors, and comedians. His format has been imitated or adapted across the internet — yielding a web of right-wing, testosterone-driven, trash-talking shows collectively known as the manosphere. In this realm, pioneered by Rogan, inquiry and curiosity can easily give way to conspiratorial thinking and paranoia. There's a sense that there are greater forces and powers trying to influence American minds, and thus requires radical skepticism. In this realm, pioneered by Rogan, inquiry and curiosity can easily give way to conspiratorial thinking and paranoia. In that way, Rogan's show encompasses the crossroads of three defining forces of the 2020s: the anti-incumbent, change-the-status-quo energy that permeated American politics in the last years of the Biden administration; the silo-fication of news, media, and truth into echo chambers and algorithmically powered feeds; and the political awakening and radicalization of low-information, low-political engagement, and low-trust Americans. Rogan has successfully helped to yoke together a particularly reactive, ill-informed, and even paranoid group; a group that is now accustomed to having their beliefs confirmed by increasingly powerful people. Yet now that he's the mainstream, Rogan finds his show in a potentially tenuous position: holding together a vast audience that could eventually come to question their loyalties and question him. His Trump endorsement, in particular, came with risks — opening him up to accusations of hypocrisy, flip-flopping, or misplaced trust should Trump end up walking back the policies and stance he promised. Those tensions are already playing out across the manosphere, as other hosts who endorsed Trump claim they were duped or regret their support.


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump Is Deploying the National Guard to D.C.—Power Grab or Public Safety? Newsweek Writers Debate
President Donald Trump announced he would deploy the National Guard to Washington, D.C., and assume control of the city's police force. Was this announcement a sign of creeping authoritarianism? A legitimate measure to combat crime in the nation's capital city? Or just a publicity stunt? Newsweek contributors David Faris and Mark Davis debate: David Faris: Deploying the National Guard to Washington D.C. is an unconscionable abuse of federal power and another worrisome signpost on our road to autocracy. Using the military to bring big, blue cities to heel, exactly as "alarmists" predicted during the 2024 campaign, isn't about a crisis in D.C.—violent crime is actually at a 30-year low. President Trump is, once again, testing the limits of his power, hoping to intimidate other cities into submission to his every vengeful whim by making the once unimaginable—an American tyrant ordering a military occupation of our own capital—a terrifying reality. Mark Davis: In another masterstroke of messaging and practicality, President Trump has taken aim at crime in America's capital city, vowing to use the resources under his control to "make Washington safe again." No big city is ever safe enough, and there are cities with worse crime problems than D.C., but this is the city where Trump lives, as do countless politicians and media types who will criticize him while quietly enjoying a city with less violent crime. Democratic mayors and governors have done too little; Trump will act, and residents of every political stripe will benefit. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Associated Press Faris: There is nothing practical about deploying an expensive military force when crime is already in freefall. If President Trump actually cared about the city he escapes every weekend to go golfing, he would empower it with statehood or voting representation in Congress, not occupy it with troops. Davis: Washington residents—and I know plenty—may beg to differ on the "crime in freefall" observation. Last year provided a momentary breather by some measures, but this decade's crime numbers have spiked over the 2010s. Whatever current levels are, they will decrease with Trump's D.C. strategy, a goal that should be appreciated by all. Faris: I doubt that even one in ten Washingtonians would approve of deploying the military to combat a fabricated crime crisis. Trump did not consult with residents and doesn't care what they think. This is about dictatorial pageantry, a strongman applying the boot to places he believes are full of domestic enemies. Davis: My kingdom for a reliable flash poll, which I believe would show surprising support. But even if D.C. is filed with voters with a taste for high-crime Democratic governance as in Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and elsewhere, that doesn't mean Trump has to agree. And perhaps viewing murderers and carjackers as domestic enemies will actually dissuade those behaviors. Faris: It's telling that the cities Republicans bring up in these conversations are always in blue states, as if there aren't problems in Dallas or St. Louis, both of which are ruled by Republican-dominated state governments and policies. Why isn't the president threatening to send the National Guard to these cities? Davis: There are problems in every large city. The worst are the ones saddled with unchecked Democratic governance. I'm sure the president would love to send the National Guard into Chicago, but cities in both blue and red states are not under his direct authority. Washington is, and its residents are about to benefit from it. Faris: The American far right fears and loathes cities, and President Trump has long publicly fantasized about unleashing the military on them. A sanitized, terrorized capital city, with uniformed soldiers brandishing assault rifles on street corners, has been a hallmark of every authoritarian society I've visited. The militarization of Washington will not have any lasting effects on violent crime. But it's not intended to. It will only clarify President Trump's contempt for American democracy and his endless need to humiliate people he sees not as equal citizens but as disloyal subjects. Our depressing slide into sclerotic autocracy continues. Davis: In the final analysis, this comes down to whether safer streets are good. It is hard to fathom an argument to the contrary. The objections seem ginned up from the usual complaint that "Trump wants it, so it's bad." Critics tried that with borders and it failed. They said tariffs would sink us into depression. Hasn't happened, and it won't. Is there an element of political theater to this D.C. crime strategy? Sure, but it's also sound policy of the type that shows a president in touch with a concern real people have, which is served him well, and also the nation. David Faris is a professor of political science at Roosevelt University and the author of It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. His writing has appeared in Slate, The Week, The Washington Post, The New Republic, Washington Monthly, and more. You can find him on Twitter @davidmfaris and Bluesky @ Mark Davis is a syndicated talk show host for the Salem Media Group on 660AM The Answer in Dallas-Ft. Worth, and a columnist for the Dallas Morning News and Townhall. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

Los Angeles Times
9 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexico expels 26 drug cartel figures wanted by U.S. in deal with Trump administration
WASHINGTON — Mexico is expelling 26 high-ranking cartel figures to the United States in the latest major deal with the Trump administration as American authorities ratchet up pressure on criminal networks sending drugs across the border, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press on Tuesday. The cartel leaders and other prominent figures were being flown from Mexico to the U.S. on Tuesday, the person said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the ongoing operation. Those being handed over to U.S. custody include Abigael González Valencia, a leader of Los Cuinis, a group closely aligned with the notorious cartel Jalisco New Generation, or CJNG. Another person, Roberto Salazar, is accused of participating in the 2008 killing of a Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy, the person said. Mexico's attorney general's office and Security ministry confirmed the transfers, which were carried out after a promise from the U.S. Justice Department that authorities would not seek the death penalty in any of the cases. It's the second time in months that Mexico has expelled cartel figures accused of narcotics smuggling, murder and other crimes amid mounting pressure from the Trump administration to curb the flow of drugs across the border. In February, Mexico handed over to American authorities 29 cartel figures, including reputed drug lord Rafael Caro Quintero, accused of masterminding the killing of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent in 1985. Richer and Verza write for the Associated Press. Verza reported from Mexico City.