'Swifties for Trump' Criticizes Trump's Taylor Swift Comment: 'I Cringe'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Jenna Piwowarczyk, the founder of "Swifties for Trump," criticized President Donald Trump for his comment on Friday declaring Swift "not hot" anymore, saying that it contributes to the alienation of conservative women who like Swift's music.
"I cringe when the President says stuff like this," Piwowarczyk told Newsweek.
Why It Matters
Trump's renewed criticism of Swift comes as the megastar continues to play a high-profile role in American cultural life, recently concluding her mega successful Eras Tour.
His decision to target Swift—a performer with a massive global following—is consistent with his strategy of attacking influential public figures who oppose him or his policies.
What To Know
On Friday, Trump posted on Truth Social asking if anyone noticed that ever since he said he hates Swift that she's "no longer 'hot.' "
Piwowarczyk told Newsweek the goal of "Swifties for Trump" was to bridge a gap that has historically existed between young women and conservative ideology. Women have been more likely to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election since 1992 and the gender gap between young adults and politics is stark.
A recent poll from NBC News found 45 percent of men aged 18-29 approve of Trump's job performance, but only 24 percent of young women do. It's the biggest gender gap of any generation. There's a 13-point gap between men and women aged 45 to 64, a 9-point gap between men and women aged 30-44 and a 7-point gap between men and women 65 years and older.
Taylor Swift attends the 67th Annual GRAMMY Awards on February 2, 2025, in Los Angeles.
Taylor Swift attends the 67th Annual GRAMMY Awards on February 2, 2025, in Los Angeles.for The Recording Academy
Piwowarczyk, 19, started the group in August and previously told Newsweek it was important to have because she said millions of young, female voters consider themselves Swifties and she wanted them to know why they don't have to choose between loving Swift and voting for Republican.
Swift endorsed former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election in September in a post on Instagram and signed it "Childless Cat Lady," in a reference to a comment Vice President JD Vance made.
Days later, Trump posted on Truth Social that he "hates" Swift.
"I do not think that President Trump's comments on his feelings towards her had any real negative impact, but I do believe that if he were to speak positively about her, it would lead to more unity between conservatives and young women," Piwowarczyk told Newsweek.
What They're Saying
Piwowarczyk told Newsweek: "Taylor just got off a 2-year-long tour marathon, and if she wants some time away from the spotlight, that's her business alone, and it does not impact her popularity."
Trump in a Truth Social post in February 2024: "I signed and was responsible for the Music Modernization Act for Taylor Swift and all other Musical Artists... There's no way she could endorse Crooked Joe Biden... and be disloyal to the man who made her so much money."
What Happens Next
Swift has not responded to Trump's comments and has been mostly staying out of the spotlight since her Eras Tour came to a close at the end of last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
On gerrymandering, Democrats should fight fire with fire
If you want to understand how Congress became so polarized, look no further than Texas. Egged on by President Trump, Gov. Greg Abbot (R) and Republican leaders in the state are trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting, bucking the norm of waiting until the conclusion of the census every 10 years to redraw congressional maps to accommodate population changes. Both Democrats and Republicans have weaponized gerrymandering over the years. But only Texas Republicans have tried twice — in 2003 and now — to exercise the nuclear option of mid-decade redrawing of districts twice. I understand the motivations of these Republicans — and the desire of Democrats to take revenge. In 2012, I chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and we had a score to settle with Republicans for eliminating six Democratic seats in Texas in their 2003 mid-decade assault. We might have tried to persuade Democratic governors and legislators to strike earlier than the typical redrawing of maps after the 2010 census, but we decided not to retaliate against Republican rule-breaking with rule-breaking of our own. Instead, we waited for the regular process to take place ahead of the 2012 election. Once the decennial census concluded, we quickly realized that our best opportunity to pick up more seats was in Illinois, where the House delegation had eight Democrats and 11 Republicans. Gov. Pat Quinn and Democratic leaders in the statehouse became political Picassos, redrawing districts to create three more Democratic seats after the 2012 elections. That was not a one-off. Both parties have regularly engaged in designing their own abstract district art. Pennsylvania's old Seventh District — designed in 2011 to protect Republican incumbent Rep. Patrick Meehan — was famously called ' Goofy kicking Donald Duck ' for its bizarre resemblance to the Disney characters. In 2000, Arizona created a district that snaked oddly along the Colorado River so as to include the Hopi Reservation but not the surrounding Navajo Reservation, circumventing longstanding tensions between the two tribes. In 2022, a plan favored by Democrats in New York extended my former Third Congressional District across several bridges and the Long Island Sound, into the Bronx. But that gerrymandering plan backfired, as a state judge struck it down. The result of this map madness is that the moderate, competitive districts have shriveled, while the number of highly partisan districts has skyrocketed. When I first entered Congress in 2001, there were 29 districts with a partisan voting index within a range of four points, reliably swinging between a two-point Republican or Democratic advantage, depending on national trends. In other words, they were toss-ups, and the incumbents needed crossover voters to win reelection. Bipartisanship wasn't a fuzzy goal — it was an urgent strategic imperative. Today, the number of those districts is just 16. Most of the other districts have been drawn to be more red or blue. That means that many House members don't lay awake at night fretting about being defeated in the general election by someone in the other party. Instead, they lay awake thinking about being defeated by a fringe, extreme candidate in their next primary. The political gravity of Congress has shifted. Our system forces legislators to the ideological extremes, when most Americans fall closer to the center. That's without even accounting for the trend of partisan residential sorting, as Americans increasingly live with ideologically likeminded neighbors. We've divided ourselves into Fox News and MSNBC districts, where contradicting views are rarely found on any given block. Of course, some states have attempted redistricting reforms. California and Arizona adopted independent commissions. New York has a bipartisan redistricting commission that places guardrails on just how much Democrats can gerrymander. And that's part of the problem Democrats face: Republicans in Texas and elsewhere play to win by breaking the rules, while in Democratic controlled states, leaders often play to protect the rules, even when it costs them. Over the years, many have argued that Democrats need to fight fire with fire. Instead, Democrats have historically focused on writing a fair fire code even as arson consumes American bipartisanship. But this new Texas mid-decade redistricting push seems to have finally changed the Democratic mindset. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Kathy Hochul of New York and JB Pritzker of Illinois are teasing mutual assured gerrymandering destruction by threatening mid-decade redistricting in their own states if Texas Republicans go through with their plan. Each of these efforts faces an uphill legal climb, however, given that voters in two of those three states outlawed such practices. Democrats have realized that patiently waiting until the next redistricting cycle is not an option. Congressional majorities aren't won on a moral high ground but on the streets. Only when Republican members of Congress from New York, California and Illinois see their seats turn blue will national GOP leaders recognize that, in gerrymandering, 'an eye for an eye' makes the whole political system blind. And so to restore bipartisanship in the long run, Democrats may need to play by Texas Republican rules.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Cuomo knocks Mamdani for rent-stabilized apartment
Andrew Cuomo is going on offense against fellow New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani over his rent-stabilized apartment despite his well-off financial status. Cuomo formally unveiled a legislative proposal on Tuesday that he's calling 'Zohran's Law,' which would require that upon a rent-stabilized apartment becoming vacant, the rent for the next renter must be no less than 30 percent of their income. He said this would ensure that rent-stabilized apartments are available for those who need it and not the wealthy. 'We must build more housing quickly, but we also need to ensure that our rent-stabilized apartments are going to the New Yorkers who need them the most,' the former New York governor said. 'They are supposed to be for hardworking men and women, but far too many rich people are taking advantage. 'We must stop the Zohran Mamdanis of the world from gaming the system and boxing out lower income New Yorkers who are barely scraping by and Zohran's law will do that,' Cuomo continued. Mamdani earns over $140,000 per year in his role as a New York state Assembly member and has said he pays $2,300 per month in his rent-stabilized apartment. Cuomo also rents an apartment but pays significantly more than Mamdani does. A release from Cuomo's campaign touts his plan to build and preserve more than 500,000 affordable units, two-thirds of which would be for low-income and moderate-income New Yorkers. But he said the affordable units must be for those who truly need them. The release states about 46 percent of tenants in rent-stabilized apartments and 40 percent of tenants in market-rate housing pay at least 30 percent of their income on rent. The campaign said Cuomo's proposal builds on a reform he enacted as governor in 2019 to prevent housing units from no longer being rent controlled if the rent or the tenant's income reached a certain high level. But some housing experts expressed skepticism about Cuomo's plan, telling The Associated Press that the proposal would by definition require individuals to pay a significant portion of their income on rent. The Hill has reached out to Mamdani's campaign for comment. The general election race for New York City mayor has been heating up as Election Day approaches, with Cuomo running as an independent after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani. The field is made up of five candidates — Mamdani, Cuomo, incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, Republican Curtis Sliwa and independent Jim Walden. Adams is a registered Democrat but is also running as an independent. Mamdani has hit back at Cuomo recently, taking shots at a phone call that Cuomo and President Trump reportedly had to discuss the race. Cuomo denied this, saying he 'can't remember' the last time he spoke to Trump and that he and Trump haven't ever discussed the race. Mamdani also released a video on Tuesday criticizing Cuomo over a consulting business he's had for the past couple years without publicly revealing his clients, calling on him to release a list. Mamdani has led in polling of the general election by double digits, with the other candidates splitting opposition to him.
American Military News
16 minutes ago
- American Military News
Pentagon plans ‘reaction force' for ‘domestic civil disturbance: Report
A new report claims that President Donald Trump's administration is developing plans to potentially create a 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' of 600 U.S. National Guard troops that could be quickly deployed in the event of civil unrest. According to internal Pentagon documents obtained by The Washington Post, the Trump administration's 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' plan would involve roughly 600 National Guard troops being ready to deploy at all times. The outlet noted that the National Guard troops would be separated into two groups of 300 troops at military bases in Arizona and Alabama and would be ready to deploy in as little as one hour. The Washington Post reported that while the Pentagon documents have been marked as predecisional, the documents contain comprehensive plans and discussions regarding the potential implications of the creation of a National Guard 'reaction force.' According to The Washington Post, the plans have been compiled by the National Guard and have time stamps from late July and early August. READ MORE: Trump deploys Nat'l Guard in DC, takes federal control of DC police Fox News reported that the Trump administration's reported plans for a National Guard 'reaction force' would require the president to use Title 32, which would allow Trump to bypass normal restrictions regarding the use of the military for domestic purposes and would authorize National Guard troops to use certain law enforcement powers. The Washington Post reported that it is not yet clear whether the plans for the 'Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force' have been reviewed by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. In a statement obtained by The Washington Post, Kingsley Wilson, a Pentagon spokesperson, said, 'The Department of Defense is a planning organization and routinely reviews how the department would respond to a variety of contingencies across the globe. We will not discuss these plans through leaked documents, pre-decisional or otherwise.' The Pentagon's potential plans for a 'reaction force' come after Trump has deployed the National Guard multiple times in response to domestic issues. In response to June's anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) riots in Los Angeles, the president deployed thousands of National Guard members and U.S. Marines to maintain order in the city and provide protection for ICE officials and government property. According to Fox News, Trump also deployed 800 D.C. National Guard troops on Monday as part of his plan to federalize Washington, D.C., and crack down on surging crime in the nation's capital.
