The Dictatorship
The complicated political legacy of ‘Saturday Night Live’

In a book released next week, “Saturday Night Live” executive producer Lorne Michaels addresses the show’s politics, saying “SNL” has never favored liberals or conservatives. “It’s the hardest thing for me to explain to this generation that the show is nonpartisan,” Michaels is quoted as saying in “Lorne: The Man Who Invented Saturday Night Live” by Susan Morrison. “We have our biases. We have our people we like better than others, but you can’t be Samantha Bee.”
Michaels’ insistence on impartiality will likely bring howls from conservatives, who have complained for decades that “SNL” has been a liberal viper pit, mocking right-wingers and taking it easy on the icons of the left.
‘It’s the hardest thing for me to explain to this generation that the show is nonpartisan,’ Michaels is quoted as saying.
In 2019, after the show ran a sketch satirizing one of his press conferences on border policy, President Donald Trump lashed out at its “Republican hit jobs,” vowing “retribution” for making fun of him. Over the years, conservatives have called for the show to be “put out of its misery” because of its political slant, suggesting the executive producer is either “stupid or a liar” for claiming the show is nonpolitical.
And progressives, of course, see “SNL” as their own playground. In a 2003 interview, then-head writer Tina Fey told a reporter“We have a liberal bias, obviously,” and her fellow progressives have never doubted her. This is why, when the show steps out of line and allows anti-woke celebrities like Shane Gillis to host, “SNL” fans react with horror — after Gillis’ hosting gig in 2024, one comedy writer said Michaels was “unfit … to run a major network show in 2024.”
“SNL” was forged in the post-Watergate leftism of the 1970s, an era when politicians were viewed with heightened scrutiny and distrust. Michaels and young progressive writers like Al Franken and Chevy Chase drove the show’s political conscience. Three days before the 1976 Jimmy Carter-Gerald Ford election, the show simply replayed the speech in which Ford announced he would be pardoning Richard Nixon, which Michaels later listed as one of his proudest moments as the producer of the legendary comedy show.
But despite “SNL’s” progressive roots, a full review of the show’s history (which I have undertaken as part of a two-year podcast project called “Wasn’t That Special”) uncovers some truly inspired moments of traditional political conservatism.
In the show’s first sketch after Trump’s election in 2016, comedian Dave Chappelle’s character attends an election night party filled with fellow progressives. As the sketch proceeds, Chappelle’s white, New York City-based friends grow increasingly incredulous as election night progresses and Trump keeps winning states. Chappelle’s character, by contrast, simply laughs at how naive his liberal friends had been throughout the election year.
To conservatives, the sketch was an admission by the show that it had been operating in a liberal bubble, unable to see why support for Trump had been growing over the past year.
Or take, for example, a 1990 “Weekend Update” desk bit in which Chris Rock complains both about how much he hates taxes and how he doesn’t mind if prisons are uncomfortable for the inmates. (“Jails are so nice, they come back twice. … They don’t have this problem in Iran because it’s hard to snatch another purse if you don’t have another hand.”) A year later, Rock returned to support the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing him only of the crime of using bad pickup lines in the workplace.
An array of recurring characters in the show have mocked progressive activism. Eddie Murphy played a recurring character named Tyrone Green (first introduced in the famous “Prose and Cons” short film), an illiterate, poetry-writing prisoner who was regularly feted by New York’s rich elite. The whole series of sketches, in which rich progressives are harshly lampooned, has a strong Tom Wolfe-ean “Radical Chic” vibe to it.
Sure, the show famously took joyous whacks at Sarah Palin, but that’s because Sarah Palin is a ridiculous person.
The show also had a particular sore spot for public sector employees. In March 2001, Maya Rudolph portrayed a sassy postal worker who has no time for customers, lending comfort to those who think customer service improves when privatization reigns. In 2010, a brutal sketch featured the “Public Employee of the Year Awards,” in which government workers were given awards for being surly and amassing outlandish benefits packages.
Sure, the show famously took joyous whacks at Sarah Palin, but that’s because Sarah Palin is a ridiculous person. But those who complain about Tina Fey’s broad Palin impersonation also fail to mention a sketch from 2008 in which editors at The New York Times try to enlist their newsroom’s reporters to spend six weeks in Alaska to cover the vice presidential nominee.
The sketch savages the newsroom, portraying reporters as naive Manhattan elites who had never seen the real America. The reporters, confused about Alaska culture, wonder how they will get around without being able to call a cab, worry about polar bear attacks, and mistake a photo of a snowmobile for a “baptizing machine.”
But perhaps one of the most observant political sketches in show history ran just before the presidential election in 2016, when actor Tom Hanks joined in a performance of “Black Jeopardy!” It is assumed that Hanks, playing a red-hatted MAGA enthusiast, will embarrass himself when posed with questions (or “answers,” in “Jeopardy!” style) meant for Black contestants. Yet everyone is shocked when Hanks’ answers comport perfectly with “Black culture,” crystallizing something that had yet to be put into words — politics is a horseshoe, and Trump supporters had more in common with Black Americans than we all thought. (For instance, Hanks’ character, Doug, downplays the importance of voting, saying the outcome of elections are decided months ahead of time, anyway.)
Of course, the show hands plenty of ammo to Republicans who argue the show is hopelessly biased in favor of Democrats. When Trump won, cast members Kate McKinnon, Cecily Strong and Sasheer Zamata all sang songs either bemoaning Clinton’s loss or mourning the end of the Barack Obama era.
But just a year earlier, “SNL” allowed Trump to host an episode while he was running for president. Trump hosted twice, eventually becoming the first president to have hosted the show. And who can forget the ratings-busting show when Palin finally showed up in Studio 8H? The New York Times even gave Palin a rave reviewcalling her “remarkable” and “delightful.”
Whatever your opinion of ‘SNL’s’ politics, Michaels has noticed how each side reacts to being ridiculed.
Nonetheless, there is clearly a pattern in how Republicans are depicted on the show versus Democrats. Generally, GOP politicians lampooned by the show fall into a few select categories: Palin (stupid), George W. Bush (stupid), Dick Cheney (old, evil), George H.W. Bush (old, clueless), Dan Quayle (stupid), Bob Dole (old, clueless) and Trump (clueless, old, evil). And yet, one of the show’s most inspired political sketches featured Phil Hartman playing Ronald Reagan as a secret genius, which suggests the show perhaps should have inverted the formula more often.
Meanwhile, the show has regularly depicted Democrats as being too brainy for the presidency (Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore). Of course, Bill Clinton got the full treatment once his priapic activities threatened his presidency; his travails were simply too juicy a target to ignore. (Even Monica Lewinsky made an appearance on the show, in 1999.)
Whatever your opinion of “SNL’s” politics, Michaels has noticed how each side reacts to being ridiculed. “Democrats tend to take it personally; Republicans think it’s funny,” he said in 2014. We will know if that’s true in 2025 if Michaels avoids a Trump-mandated prison term.
The Dictatorship
Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm


-
New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’
10:42
-
‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister
08:37
-
Now Playing
-
UP NEXT
‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears
05:47
-
The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’
04:59
-
Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war
03:53
-
Ukraine didn’t agree to ceasefire, they bent the knee to extortion, says House member
07:26
-
Dumbest war the U.S. has ever fought: House member slams Trump’s tariffs
03:09
-
‘Mock him’: Why Democrats are failing when it comes to protesting Trump
09:39
-
Musk calls Sen. Mark Kelly a ‘traitor’ over his social media posts in support of Ukraine
04:00
-
Richard Engel: Today, Ukrainians ‘quite satisfied’ with temporary ceasefire
04:16
-
‘Serious and dangerous’ for the economy: Trump’s messaging scares some of his own advisers
08:57
-
Trump’s 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum imports take effect, Europe retaliates
09:11
-
Joe Scarborough’s powerful 9/11 tribute song ‘Reason to Believe’ (2011)
03:45
-
Joe’s decade-long warnings on EU immigration and the rise of Europe’s far-right
03:28
-
What really happens before Morning Joe goes live? ‘Blue Dawn’ tells all (2019 Promo)
04:15
-
The Morning Joe crew gets moving to ‘Dance to the Music’ (2015 Promo)
03:00
-
We have underestimated Putin as an ideological leader: Amb. McFaul
08:58
-
Molly Jong-Fast: Trump’s empty promises are catching up to him
03:09
-
Joe: Elon Musk said we have to eliminate Social Security and Medicare
10:56
-
New York Times writer warns ‘Democracy Dies in Dumbness’
10:42
-
‘These tariffs are just dumb’: Former Canadian Deputy prime minister
08:37
-
Now Playing
Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s ‘retaliatory’ order against law firm
03:49
-
UP NEXT
‘What’s Scarier Than Thunder?’ uses humor to tackle fears
05:47
-
The leaps of faith behind ‘The Tell’
04:59
-
Kentucky bourbon distilleries struggle amid trade war
03:53
The Dictatorship
Trump isn’t joking about wanting to annex Canada

Earlier this month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau publicly said of President Donald Trump“What he wants is to see a total collapse of the Canadian economy because that’ll make it easier to annex us.”
Trudeau’s accusation was extraordinary and unprecedented. Here was the leader of Canada, one of America’s closest and longest-standing allies, accusing the U.S. president of engaging in economic warfare. More and more, however, it seems Trudeau wasn’t making this argument up. The evidence is piling up that Trump has declared economic war on Canada for the express purpose of making our Northern neighbor the 51st state.
Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.
Trump first referred to Canada as the 51st state in a December 2024 meeting with Trudeau. At the time, the Canadian Prime Minister assumed Trump was joking. But then, in January, he said it again publicly, this time threatening the use of “economic force” to pursue annexation. In addition, he began referring to Trudeau as “Governor” rather than “Prime Minister.”
By this point, one could easily chalk this up to Trumpian bluster. He couldn’t possibly be serious about annexing Canada? Could he?
But, two weeks after Trump’s inauguration, a private call between him and Trudeau, which was supposed to be about tariffs, took an odd turn. According to The New York Times, Trump told “Trudeau that he did not believe that the treaty that demarcates the border between the two countries was valid and that he wants to revise the boundary.” He also mentioned revisiting long-standing treaties between the U.S. and Canada regarding the sharing of lakes and rivers.
Even the Canadians were taken aback by Trump’s statement — and it slowly began to dawn on them that perhaps the president was serious (or as serious as one can be about an insane notion like the U.S. annexing Canada).
Publicly, Trump wouldn’t let the matter die. In an interview broadcast before the Super Bowlon February 9, Trump told Fox News’ Bret Baier his plans to annex Canada were a “real thing.” And to magnify Canada’s economic vulnerability, Trump told reporters that Canada was “not viable as a country” without U.S. trade.
The problem for Canada is that Trump isn’t wrong on this front. Canada is so dependent on cross-border trade that if the U.S. were to turn the screws on The Great White North it could crater Canada’s economy.
In the current context of the emerging trade war between the U.S. and Canada, it seems more than reasonable to believe that this is precisely Trump’s intention.
Consider for a moment how this trade war has unfolded. When Trump first declared his intention to slap tariffs on Canada, he used the smuggling of fentanyl across the Canadian border as a justification (never mind that 19 kilograms of fentanyl came across the Canadian border last year, compared to 9,600 kilograms that crossed the U.S.-Mexico border). After Trudeau reminded Trump of Canada’s plan for slowing the smuggling of fentanyl, which was introduced late last year, he backed down.
But then last week, Trump returned to the trade spat with Canada, but this time blamed Canada because of its protectionist trade policies on dairy, lumber and banking. After Ontario’s premier, Doug Ford, announced a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, Minnesota and New York, in response, Trump upped the ante announcing a new 25% tariff on Canada’s exports of steel and aluminum (which is in addition to already planned tariffs on steel and aluminum).
How can Canadians end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?
In announcing the new tariffs, Trump didn’t mention fentanyl as a justification, but instead wrote on TruthSocial that “the only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State. This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” In a follow-up post, he wondered why the U.S. “allow(s) another Country to supply us with electricity, even for a small area?”
Trump’s zigzagging has left markets and the business community flummoxed. For Canadians, the confusion is even worse. How can they end these trade tensions if the reason Trump is slapping tariffs on their country keeps changing?
But perhaps the obvious answer is staring us in the face, and we’re all too dumbfounded to acknowledge it. Trump has been remarkably consistent in stating that Canada should become America’s 51st state — he has said this repeatedly for months now. Moreover, he has openly espoused using U.S. economic power to achieve that goal — and is doing precisely that.
Just so we’re clear, this is not a Trump-only phenomenon. Yesterday, when asked if the U.S. still considers Canada a “close ally,” White House press secretary Katherine Leavitt said that Canada would “benefit greatly” from joining the United States and pointed to its high cost of living as a reason for surrendering sovereignty.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick sounded a similar theme, noting that “Canada is gonna have to work with us to really integrate their economy, and as the president said, they should consider the amazing advantages of being the 51st state.”
In recent days, the Trump administration has further imposed its will on Canada by requiring Canadians who visit the country for more than 30 days to register with the U.S. government.
The first 51 days of Trump’s presidency have been, for lack of a better word, an odyssey. Crazy has been dropped on top of more crazy. But in the year 2025, an American president, with no pushback from his Cabinet or Congress, has declared economic war on our closest neighbor to annex its land (which is larger than America’s) and wants to make its 40 million citizens part of the United States. This is the craziest notion of all.
Michael A. Cohen is a columnist for BLN and a senior fellow and co-director of the Afghanistan Assumptions Project at the Center for Strategic Studies at the Fletcher School, Tufts University. He writes the political newsletter Truth and Consequences. He has been a columnist at The Boston Globe, The Guardian and Foreign Policy, and he is the author of three books, the most recent being“Clear and Present Safety: The World Has Never Been Better and Why That Matters to Americans.”
The Dictatorship
The House just gave Musk and Trump a blank check. The Senate should tear it up.

On Tuesday, House Republicans voted to hand a blank check over to a White House that is already stealing from our families and communities to fund the largest possible tax cut for billionaires and the biggest corporations.
The continuing resolution passed by the House gives Elon Musk and President Donald Trump even more flexibility to steal from the middle class, from seniors, from veterans, from working people, from small businesses and from farmers, all to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
The administration’s slash-and-burn approach has already left a trail of destruction in our communities. From our national parks to Social Security officesVA medical centers to food banks, Americans are seeing the direct results of the administration’s illegitimate, ill-informed and illegal campaign to tear apart our institutions.
This CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government.
Article I of the Constitution clearly spells out Congress’s authority to determine spending. It reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” To carry out this authority, the House and Senate Appropriations committees engage in tough negotiations that result in bipartisan legislation to fund the government and all of the agencies, programs and services that are provided to the American people.
As recently as early March, we were on the cusp of such an agreement. The “four corners” of the Appropriations committees — Tom Cole and me in the House and Susan Collins and Patty Murray in the Senate — were inches away from securing a deal on the funding topline, which would have allowed us to begin the roughly monthlong process of writing full-year bills.
This process is critically important: It ensures that final funding bills are the results of broad compromise among the people’s elected representatives. Nobody ever gets everything they want, but instead, the interests of Americans from coast to coast are considered and accounted for.
But House Speaker Mike Johnson, at the behest of Musk and President Trump, pulled the rug out from under us and set the House on a track to hand Congress’ authorities over government funding to Musk and Trump. Several of my House colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who by their own admission never vote in favor of government funding bills, enthusiastically voted for this CR, completely ending the appropriations process.
As Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districts, the American people are wise to their abandonment of duty.
Why? Because this CR takes away any remaining restraints and guardrails from the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle our government and destroy the services that help Americans get by, and because they believe the president will continue to unilaterally freeze and deny funding for programs and services that do not serve his interests.
House Republicans would rather let an unchecked billionaire and President Trump seize taxpayer funds intended for families and businesses.
But as Republicans are finding out when they go home to their districtsthe American people are wise to their abandonment of duty and of responsibility. Their constituents are so furious that the party’s political consultants are telling lawmakers to stop holding town halls altogether and just hide.
President Trump was elected because the American people wanted help with the cost of living. But the cost of living is nowhere to be found among the president’s concerns since he took office. Rather, he has set off on an agenda of vengeance and destruction, threatening the stability of our economy and the legitimacy of our government. He declared a trade war on our neighbors and closest alliesraising costs on American households, businesses and farmers and weakening our international relationships.
And the Trump administration continues to steal from the American people to fund tax breaks for billionaires. Elon Musk, an unelected, unaccountable billionaire with immense conflicts of interest, and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency have been allowed to illegally freeze payments, tear down our institutions, fire career civil servants who are loyal to the Constitution rather than to President Trump and rip apart hard-fought labor agreements that protect working-class Americans. They even have Social Security in their sights.
My phone has been ringing off the hook with constituents telling me how Musk’s and President Trump’s cuts have affected them, and I know the same is happening in my Republican colleagues’ offices.
Kris, a student at Common Ground High School in my district and an intern at Haven’s Harvest, a volunteer organization that reduces food waste, contacted me after 71 student workers across New Haven were laid off because of the funding freeze. Kris’ internship was part of the Green Jobs Corps, funded by a grant since canceled by the Environmental Protection Agency.
I’ve also heard from CitySeed, which connects dozens of farmers across Connecticut with residents who need access to fresh, local food, through farmers markets, culinary programs and entrepreneurship opportunities. The organization has had funding that helps cover its administrative costs frozen, as well.
And Monica, a senior citizen in my district with a low income who relies on Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP benefits, told me she is not just worried about paying her bills or filling the freezer — she is worried that she will not be able to survive if the Trump administration’s cuts go through.
Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder.
I was at Bradley Airport in Connecticut this week when two Transportation Security Administration officers found out they had been let go. One of them told me they began working for the TSA immediately after its creation in the wake of Sept. 11. I must have missed when the American people asked for fewer TSA agents and longer wait times at checkpoints.
This is wrong, cruel and completely unnecessary. The funding freeze must end, and these draconian cuts must be stopped. But instead of standing up for their constituents and for Congress’s constitutional powers, the CR that passed the House lets Musk and President Trump freeze, cancel and repurpose taxpayer dollars as they see fit.
If this CR becomes law, Musk and President Trump will be able to fire thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration. That will result in office closures, longer wait times and unacceptable backlogs for Americans who are trying to access their earned benefits.
Under this bill, Army Corps of Engineers construction projects to manage our waterways and mitigate flood risks will be cut by $1.4 billion, or 44%. And President Trump, not Congress, would determine all project funding levels and who gets the funding.
Instead of helping our communities address sky-high housing costs, the CR cuts rent subsidies by more than $700 million, leaving landlords to foot the bill or evict more than 32,000 households. And there is not enough funding for disaster relief, abandoning American families who have had their lives turned upside down by extreme weather.
I voted against this CR, and several of my Republican colleagues voted in favor of a CR for the first time, for the same reason: We do not expect the president to actually follow the law.
Decisions about the investments we make cannot be entrusted in one single officeholder. This Congress must decide: Do we have the authority to control spending, as is laid out in Article I of the Constitution?
So long as House Republicans are unwilling to defend the powers of the offices they were elected to hold, all of our constituents will continue to pay the price.
Regrettably, the House has already offered to forfeit its authority to the White House. I implore our colleagues in the Senate to stand up for the American people and our Constitution, reject this CR and put a freeze on this blank check.
Rep. Rose
Rep. Rosa DeLauro serves as ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. She represents Connecticut’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.
-
The Josh Fourrier Show4 months ago
DOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
Uncategorized4 months ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
Economy4 months ago
Fed moves to protect weakening job market with bold rate cut
-
Uncategorized4 months ago
Johnson plans to bring House GOP short-term spending measure to House floor Wednesday
-
Economy4 months ago
It’s still the economy: What TV ads tell us about each campaign’s closing message
-
Politics4 months ago
RFK Jr.’s bid to take himself off swing state ballots may scramble mail-in voting
-
Politics4 months ago
How Republicans could foil Harris’ Supreme Court plans if she’s elected
-
Politics4 months ago
What 7 political experts will be watching at Tuesday’s debate