MAGA Melts Down Over Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl Halftime Performance
It was a night of pearl-clutching for many prominent conservatives Sunday night as they objected to yet another hip-hop performance at a major sporting event.
This time, it was Kendrick Lamar, who just weeks after winning big at the 2025 Grammys cemented his victory lap by performing a triumphant halftime show at the Super Bowl—anchored by his infamous diss track lampooning fellow rapper Drake.
Lamar even seemingly predicted the backlash with the inclusion of acerbic actor Samuel L. Jackson, who introduced the rapper to the crowd and later exclaimed: 'Too loud, too reckless, too ghetto. Mr. Lamar, do you really know how to play the game?'
Many right-wing politicians and pundits were quick to let their disappointment be known as part of a collective MAGA hissy fit over Lamar's performance. Most of the criticism seemed to be over the critics' inability to understand his lyrics.
Conservative commentator Matt Walsh described the performance as 'easily the worst halftime show' he had ever seen.
'Halftime show is trash. Nobody can even understand what he's saying,' he added. 'And the vast majority of football fans haven't even heard of most of these songs.'
'The halftime show you just watched is clearly the regime's response to Trump's historic gains with black men,' said disgraced congressman Matt Gaetz.
Another former representative, George Santos, was more direct: 'The Super Bowl Halftime show was absolute TRASH!'
President Donald Trump didn't appear too interested in the performance either. CNN's Brian Stelter reported that the president left his box at the Caesars Superdome in New Orleans about two minutes before Lamar's show ended.
Comedian and podcast host Theo Von, who was at Trump's inauguration and did interviews with the president during the 2024 campaign, said the halftime show was 'boring'—while right-wing pundit Charlie Kirk simply said the music was 'not [his] style.'
Ben Shapiro, who describes himself on his X profile as 'America's #1 ex-rapper,' said Lamar had 'a beautiful voice and a beautiful accent.'
'The only problem is, I can't understand a word you're saying,' he went on. 'But I just say this: good luck, live in peace.'
Michael Knowles, another conservative commentator, tried to offer a more lukewarm take: 'This half-time show is gibberish, but at least it appears to be patriotic.'
Colorado representative and MAGA firebrand Lauren Boebert also seemed to struggle with understanding the performance, asking her followers if she was 'the only one needing subtitles for this!!'
Right-wing commentators Eric Daugherty and Benny Johnson took their criticism to the extreme, describing the performance as 'Black nationalist' and calling Lamar a 'mumbling pagan Satanic cultist.'
Conservatives offered up their own halftime show performance ideas, too.
Johnson said 'the halftime show should have been The Village People with President Trump doing the Trump Dance center stage,' while Jack Posobiec posted a video of the band Creed's Super Bowl performance in 2001, saying 'this is what a real halftime show looks like.'
Outside of MAGAworld, however, not everyone was so cynical.
Ben Stiller said Lamar's performance was 'the best halftime show ever.'
Tennis player Coco Gauff said the show was 'well thought-out' and called herself 'a Kendrick fan forever.'
Rapper Doechii congratulated Lamar and guest performer SZA: 'So proud of y'all. So inspired.'
Lamar performed a medley of his greatest hits, including 'Humble' and 'All The Stars.' The rapper brought out singer SZA to perform their collab 'Luther.'
He also performed a long-anticipated rendition of 'Not Like Us,' a diss track targeting his rival, Drake. The cherry on top of the performance was a surprise appearance by tennis star Serena Williams, who reportedly dated Drake at one point.
Viewers were similarly divided on a pregame performance by Grammy Award-winning singer Ledisi, who sang 'Lift Every Voice and Sing,' also known as the Black national anthem.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
6 minutes ago
Judge extends block on Trump ban prohibiting Harvard students from entering US
A temporary restraining order on President Donald Trump barring foreign Harvard University students from entering the U.S. will remain in effect until next Monday while a federal judge considers arguments made for a preliminary injunction. The temporary block was due to expire on Thursday before being extended Monday by U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs. Harvard's lawyers argued Trump's proclamation violates its First Amendment rights and is outside the authority of the executive branch. Listing the actions taken by the government against Harvard in recent weeks, attorney Ian Gershengorn argued in a court hearing Monday in Boston that the move was retaliation and viewpoint discrimination against the institution. Gershengorn argued the president is not restricting entry, but instead limiting what you do and who you associate with after you enter. The permissible way to classify a class of aliens is based on the character of the alien, he argued. The government pushed back, arguing the administration does not "trust" Harvard and that it did not monitor the "aliens" that it brought into the U.S. The government said bringing in foreigners is a privilege not a right, according to Tiberius Davis, counsel to the assistant attorney general. "We don't trust Harvard to vet, host, monitor or discipline" foreigners, Davis argued. Davis also raised concerns about Harvard's "foreign entanglements" with the Chinese government and said it did not provide sufficient information to the government on foreign students -- which Harvard has denied. Harvard University filed the lawsuit against the government after U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced it was canceling Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which would bar the school from enrolling foreign students. The suit was later amended to include the proclamation and Harvard moved to request a second block on Trump's proclamation. That would have gone into effect for at least six months before it was blocked by Burroughs. The judge questioned arguments made by the government over its concerns about Harvard that motivated the proclamation. "I can't imagine that anything that you just described applies only to Harvard," Burroughs said. Davis argued the government is free to investigate other institutions and said that "a lot of these other universities are willing to" do more to address issues on campus. Davis also argued that different government agencies chose to terminate grants with Harvard because they believed the institution was not following the law, saying that move was not retaliation either. Davis also said Harvard is not being singled out with grant terminations because other institutions have suffered the same. The government argued it is not singling out Harvard, but rather other institutions have been more willing to take action to address issues on campus, while Harvard has not, Davis said. "There's a lack of evidence of retaliation here," Davis said in court. Burroughs said if the point is to root out antisemitism, "Why aren't we letting in people from Israel?" Davis argued antisemitism was just one part of the issue, along with foreign entanglements and not providing sufficient information to the government. Because of their other conduct on campus and their inattentiveness to it "we don't trust them," Davis said. "They don't have to pull over everybody who's speeding. Frankly they can't do that," Davis said. Pushing back on arguments that it did not monitor its students, Harvard said it is the government's responsibility to vet students being allowed into the country. "The vetting is done by the State Department in their visa process," Gershengorn said. At one point in the Monday hearing, the judge asked Harvard's attorneys why it did not name the president in its lawsuit, asking if he needed to appear in this case. Gershengorn said it sued the people who are tasked with implementing the proclamation. Gershengorn argued Trump's usage of the proclamation to block entry of foreign Harvard students is a "vast new authority to regulate the domestic conduct of domestic institutions," a departure from how this proclamation has been used in the past. Gershengorn said it has been used to block the entry of individuals or nationals of a country that have "done something bad." The question is not whether the action is lawful or not, Gershengorn argued. If lawful action is taken as a First Amendment-motivated action, it is no longer lawful, he added. Gershengorn said what Harvard has suffered over the last two months is probably the most "irregular" and "improper" action any institution has suffered. Harvard pushed back against claims there is widespread violence on campus, saying the story the government cites identified two incidents of violence on the basis of religion. The government is "throwing things at the wall to see what sticks," Gershengorn said. Harvard has alleged that the administration is in an "escalating campaign of retaliation" against the school. After Harvard publicly refused to comply with demands made by the Trump administration, the administration responded by freezing more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the school.
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran: At least 224 people killed in Israeli strikes, most of them civilians
'You and I will come to an end somewhere. The most beautiful poem in the world falls quiet,' 23 year-old Parnia Abbasi wrote, who was among at least 224 Iranians killed so far by Israeli strikes. CNN's Nick Paton Walsh takes a closer look at the toll on civilians across Iran.
San Francisco Chronicle
9 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump fires Democratic commissioner of independent agency that oversees nuclear safety
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has fired a Democratic commissioner for the federal agency that oversees nuclear safety as he continues to assert more control over independent regulatory agencies. Christopher Hanson, a former chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said in a statement Monday that Trump terminated his position as NRC commissioner without cause, 'contrary to existing law and longstanding precedent regarding removal of independent agency appointees.' The firing of Hanson comes as Trump seeks to take authority away from the independent safety agency, which has regulated the U.S. nuclear industry for five decades. Trump signed executive orders in May intended to quadruple domestic production of nuclear power within the next 25 years, a goal experts say the United States is highly unlikely to reach. To speed up the development of nuclear power, the orders grant the U.S. energy secretary authority to approve some advanced reactor designs and projects. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told reporters that 'all organizations are more effective when leaders are rowing in the same direction' and that the Republican president reserves the right to remove employees within the executive branch who exert his executive authority. Trump fired two of the three Democratic commissioners at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an independent federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that prohibit discrimination in the workplace. In a similar move, two National Labor Relations Board members were fired. Willie Phillips, a Democratic member and former chairman of the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, stepped down in April, telling reporters that the White House asked him to do so. Trump also signed an executive order to give the White House direct control of independent federal regulators such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called Hanson's firing illegal and another attempt by Trump to undermine independent agencies and consolidate power in the White House. 'Congress explicitly created the NRC as an independent agency, insulated from the whims of any president, knowing that was the only way to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the American people," Pallone said in a statement. Senate Democrats also said Trump overstepped his authority. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray and Martin Heinrich said in a joint statement that 'Trump's lawlessness' threatens the commission's ability to ensure that nuclear power plants and nuclear materials are safe and free from political interference. Hanson was nominated to the commission by Trump in 2020. He was appointed chair by President Joe Biden in January 2021 and served in that role until Trump's inauguration to a second term as president. Trump selected David Wright, a Republican member of the commission, to serve as chair. Hanson continued to serve on the NRC as a commissioner. His term was due to end in 2029. Wright's term expires on June 30. The White House has not said if he will be reappointed. Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called Hanson a dedicated public servant and a strong supporter of the NRC's public health and safety mission. Firing Hanson is Trump's 'latest outrageous move to undermine the independence and integrity' of the agency that protects the U.S. homeland from nuclear power plant disasters, Lyman said in a statement. The NRC confirmed Hanson's service ended on Friday, bringing the panel to two Democrats and two Republicans. The commission has functioned in the past with fewer than the required five commissioners and will continue to do so, the statement said. ___
