The Dictatorship

Stop spreading conspiracy theories about the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shooting

Published

2 months ago

April 28, 2026

Apr. 27, 2026, 6:16 PM EDT

The shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner has triggered an explosion in baseless conspiracy theories that the incident was somehow staged by President Donald Trump. These narratives, particularly common among left-leaning accounts on social media, involve no evidence and fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. Yet they’re being propelled by some high-profile prominent commentators, activists and at least one Democratic lawmaker who should know better.

It is understandable that some people believe that Trump — an aspiring tyrant and committed purveyor of disinformation — is capable of doing something crooked to repress dissent and amass power. But theories based on gut-level anxiety and theoretical possibilities are no substitute for evidence and common sense. And there are costs to succumbing to explanations that have no verifiable grounding in reality.

Conspiracy theories surrounding political assassination attempts have become a noxious trend.

Many of the conspiracy theories fixate on the fact that White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a red carpet interview ahead of the event, “It’ll be funny, it’ll be entertaining, there will be some shots fired tonight.” “Shots fired” is a common turn of phrase to describe a put-down or call out, and Leavitt was describing anticipating Trump’s address at the dinner.

But “staged” shooting proponents have read this as a sign that the gunman was part of a “false flag” operation — an action orchestrated by Trump’s inner circle and designed to blame his opponents. It takes maybe half a second of reflection to realize that if Leavitt was in on this whole deceptive operation, then she would not have hinted at it, because that would defeat the entire purpose of any secrecy. Her use of the term is a not-particularly remarkable coincidence.

Another “suspicious” data point for the “staged” shooting theorists is that Trump immediately used the event to demand that lawsuits against his expensive and ethically disastrous White House ballroom be lifted to allow presidents to do events there in the future. If that were true, that would be a comically unambitious reason to try to pull off the kind of stunt which, if uncovered, would be ruinous for Trump’s presidency — a presidency that has struggled to cover up scandal after scandal. Remember, Trump used a Department of Government Efficiency employee getting mugged as a pretext to send the National Guard to occupy the streets of Washington, D.C.

Some point to the poor security Saturday night. But such lapses are hardly exclusive to Trump. And on what basis can one attribute to malice what is most easily explained by incompetence?

In addition to providing even one piece of evidence of foul play, “staged” shooting theorists would have to answer many other questions. Why orchestrate such a major event and have it end so anticlimactically? The gunman was apprehended outside the ballroom, and there were no fatalities. And if any behind-the-scenes operators wanted to properly cover their tracks, surely the gunman would not be alive — a clear liability for the planners. And how exactly does an administration that leaks to the press like a sieve and demonstrates breathtaking incompetence daily manage to not just pull off an enormously complicated operation, but also get potentially hundreds of people across different institutions to never speak a word of it to anyone?

Conspiracy theories surrounding political assassination attempts have become a noxious trend. On both the right and the left, there are conspiracy theories that the attempt on Trump’s life in Butler, Pennsylvania, in 2024 was secretly coordinated by (depending on the theory) Trump, the FBI or some shadowy international cabal. It’s also popular in MAGA circles to claim that Israel was secretly behind right-wing activist Charlie Kirk’s death because he was becoming more critical of its government.

The explosion in popularity of conspiracy theories has many sources. Social media is a hotbed for rumors and disinformation, which often blend in seamlessly with authentic news coverage on platforms. Plunging trust in institutions is also a major factor: With less faith in government, law enforcement and media, more of the public is inclined to believe that the truth lies beyond the accounts of authorities and newspapers. And, of course, there’s Trump himself — a leader who has socialized his political movement to mistrust anything that doesn’t affirm its worldview and conditioned his opponents to believe he is capable of any machination to seize more power.

But there is a difference between it being theoretically possible that Trump could be behind a false flag, and positing a conspiracy’s existence without evidence or a logically coherent account. Moreover, the immediate rush to assume a covert ploy neglects the eminent plausibility of multiple attempts on Trump’s life.

America has more guns than people; huge amounts of untreated mental illness and loneliness; and acute political polarization and increasingly violent political rhetoric (including, most notably, from the president himself) that makes people believe that our institutions cannot be trusted to resolve our political crisis. Four U.S. presidents have been assassinated in office and many, many more presidents have experienced several attempts on their lives — including very close calls. There is nothing in and of itself suspicious about attempts on Trump’s life.

It is good and healthy to demand more information about high-stakes events and to question things that genuinely don’t add up. But the threshold for evidence and for rationally explicable accounts is not something that can be set aside because an event makes us feel uncomfortable or may have negative consequences. The reason is simple: If we decide that proof and sound thinking don’t matter, then there’s no way back to rational discourse, and thus no way back to functioning democracy.

Zeeshan Aleem is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He primarily writes about politics and foreign policy.

The Dictatorship

Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one

Published

6 hours ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship, but he won’t get one

For months, Donald Trump made clear that he expected the Supreme Court to rule against him on birthright citizenship, and his expectations were correct: Last week, a narrow majority of the high court ruled that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment means what it says.

Hours after the decision came down, the president downplayed the importance of his defeat, saying that he would pursue a legislative solution through Congress, but eight days later, the Republican published a very different kind of message to his social media platform that approached the issue in a more hysterical way. The missive read, in its entirety:

Signs and Billboards are being put up all over our Southern Border, and Mexico, advertising BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, with “Deliveries starting at $4000.” Likewise, similar signs going up all over our Country. Billions of Dollars will be illegally made by this SCAM, with Citizenship going to anyone willing to pay. It will be, by far, the number one way of becoming a citizen, and then the entire family will be allowed to follow. Not sustainable.

NOBODY SAW THIS COMING!!! AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IS NOT FOR SALE! In fact, that is a crime, and therefore, the Supreme Court’s ruling is wrong. I will be asking for a Rehearing by the United States Supreme Court, IMMEDIATELY. This miscarriage of justice will destroy America if they don’t change their absolutely insane decision. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

Even by Trump standards, this one’s a doozy.

The New York Times reported“The president appeared to be referring to a Fox News report that identified a hospital in Texas that had advertised paying for ‘Birth Packages in South Texas’ on billboards in Mexico. The outlet reported that Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, had ordered an investigation into the hospital, which told Fox News that “marketing materials regarding maternity services are no longer in use due to any unintended misunderstanding.”

Trump apparently took this report and ran with it, inventing various other details, including the amusing idea that cross-border birth tourism will somehow become “the number one way of becoming a citizen” (“by far,” the president added), as opposed to simply being born on U.S. soil to American parents.

But even if such an advertising campaign existed, it wouldn’t generate a rehearing from the Supreme Court. There is no scenario in which justices would say, “Sure, we ruled last week that the unambiguous language of the 14th Amendment means what it says, but if there are billboards going up, that changes everything.”

For good measure, let’s not forget that, according to Trump, his administration has effectively ended illegal border crossings, so as a practical matter, he really shouldn’t be that concerned.

The president’s online rant said he intends to ask for an immediate rehearing. If he orders administration lawyers to go through with such a pointless exercise and they bother to do the paperwork, they should keep their collective expectations low.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

Democrats’ scramble to replace Graham Platner ramps up in Maine

Published

6 hours ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Democrats’ scramble to replace Graham Platner ramps up in Maine

Christmas. 9, 2026, 9:46 AM EDT

Maine Democrats are scrambling to replace Graham Platner a day after their nominee for U.S. Senate ended his bid following an allegation of sexual assault.

There’s a July 27 deadline set by state law for the party faithful to pick a new standard bearer in a race that is expected to be instrumental when it comes to whether Republicans can keep control of the Senate in this fall’s midterms.

Incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins may be vulnerable, but she has won five straight races for the seat dating back to 1996, and trying to defeat her was likely to carry challenges for Democrats even in the best case scenario.

Their new candidate will have to essentially start from nothing in the race, mend the divisions sown by Platner, introduce (or reintroduce) themselves to the broader electorate and corral support from the ex-candidate’s outsider-minded current and former followers, all in less than four months.

That amounts to a daunting task with massive implications not only for Maine Democrats, but potentially for the final two years of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House. Democrats need to flip at least four GOP-held Senate seats, and maintain all their current ones from several competitive states, to vault themselves into the majority in the midterms. A loss in Maine would be a significant setback.

Maine Democratic Party leaders announced plans “to hold a nominating convention to choose a new nominee,” while stating that “transparency is of the utmost importance.”

Already, several major voices are in the race, including unsuccessful candidate for governor and past Platner supporter Troy Jackson. The former state senate president made his bid clear less than an hour after Platner left the race. One major Bernie Sanders-aligned group, Our Revolution, has quickly rallied around Jackson.

Dan Kleban, co-founder of Maine Beer Company,”https://x.com/mainebeerbrewer/status/2075028234962677872?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet”>is also in the fray, along with former governor candidate Nirav Shah, who worked as Director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention during the pandemic. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows who also ran for governor this summer is among other potential contenders.

Platner’s exit also brings difficulty for Collins and Republicans as well, however. Instead of facing a Democratic rival with a string of alarming controversies even before the sexual assault allegationan accustation Platner has denied, Collins instead will have to try to keep her seat in a blue state against someone far less defined, and potentially with far fewer vulnerabilities, in November.

Across the country this year, Democrats have navigated a political environment rife with divisions over how to sway voters in these strange times, with tension between more entrenched party leaders and an energetic and angered left wing often spilling out into the open.

What happens in Maine over the coming weeks may prove to be no different.

Hunter Woodall covers politics for MS NOW. He’s reported on politics and presidential campaigns for The Associated Press and CBS News and reported on Congress for The Minnesota Star Tribune.

The Dictatorship

Platner’s exit amplifies a key difference between Democrats and Republicans

Published

6 hours ago

July 9, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Platner’s exit amplifies a key difference between Democrats and Republicans

It’s been almost three years since Kevin McCarthy became the first sitting House speaker to be ousted in the middle of a congressional sessionbut the California Republican has nevertheless tried to maintain a public profile and has routinely appeared on conservative media to push partisan talking points.

So it wasn’t too surprising to see McCarthy on Fox News on Monday night, responding to the latest sexual assault allegations against Graham Platner, still a candidate for Senate at the time.

As part of an apparent effort to contextualize the scandals surrounding the Maine Democrat, the former GOP leader said, “One thing I know about Republicans is when we had a very bad candidate and found out, we didn’t vote for that person. We walked away.”

Moments later, McCarthy added, “When Matt Gaetz came forward, we got rid of him.”

As is too often the case, the failed former House speaker not only had it backward, but his mistake also offered a timely reminder of details that made him and his party look worse, not better.

Indeed, Gaetz offers a rather extraordinary example. The Justice Department investigated the Florida Republican over allegations of alleged sex trafficking, and while Gaetz repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and the prosecutors’ probe ended without charges, his House GOP colleagues made no effort to “get rid of him” as the scandal intensified.

What’s more, the House Ethics Committee found “substantial evidence” that Gaetz “regularly” paid women for sex, had sex with a 17-year-old during his tenure on Capitol Hill and possessed illegal drugs. Nevertheless, as that evidence came together, he remained a GOP member in good standing; he won re-election in 2024 with the Republican Party’s backing; and President Donald Trump thought it would be a good idea to nominate Gaetz to serve as the U.S. attorney general — a nomination endorsed by Republican senators such as South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham and Alabama’s Tommy Tubervilleeven after they had seen the House Ethics Committee’s findings.

This is what McCarthy cited as an example of the GOP maintaining the highest standards and throwing “very bad candidates” to the curb. That’s ridiculous.

But there’s no reason to stop with Gaetz. Indeed, the list of scandal-plagued Republicans who continued to enjoy the party’s backing long after ugly allegations had reached the public is not short. Trump is obviously the most glaring example, but the list includes other contemporary figures, including Rep. Cory Mills of Florida and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

There’s no reason to limit the list to electoral candidates, either: Former Fox News host Pete Hegseth faced an avalanche of scandals during his confirmation fight early last year, but Senate Republicans decided to ignore the allegations and make him defense secretary anyway.

As the Hegseth fight unfolded, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein published a smart piece that remains relevant: “I do not believe that Republicans or conservatives are any more prone to [scandals] than Democrats. What has changed, however, is the incentive structure. Once upon a time both parties were equally likely to rid themselves of bad actors; now Republicans are far more likely to tolerate, and in some cases even celebrate, behavior they once would have shunned.”

When Democrats learned of serious allegations against then-Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, the party abandoned him. When then-New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez faced serious criminal charges for which he was later convicted, the party abandoned him, too.

In Maine, the Platner example followed the same path, as evidenced by his decision to withdraw from the Maine race after Democratic officials left him with no other choice.

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, an MS NOW legal analyst, explained this week“The contrast here is hard to ignore. Democrats have shown that when credible allegations of sexual misconduct emerge against one of their own, the conversation turns quickly to accountability. Republicans have made a different choice. That’s not a partisan talking point, it’s a difference in how the two parties have approached questions of character and fitness for office over the last 10 years.”

That’s true, whether McCarthy wants to acknowledge it or not.