The Dictatorship
The Nazism taboo in America is broken
In a year defined by President Donald Trump’s attempt to turn our nation into an authoritarian kleptocracy, one of the most disturbing events of the year was not a reactionary policy or a speech, but in fact the results of a focus group which were published Friday.
City Journal, which is published by the influential right-leaning think tank the Manhattan Institute, conducted a focus group of 20 “mostly Trump voters, overwhelmingly Christian, a mix of college and non-college, ranging from late teens to twentysomethings edging into thirty,” based in and around Nashville, Tennessee. The discussion, designed to examine the attitudes of Gen Z conservatives, covered lots of questions, ranging from the economy to feminism to foreign policy. But the most striking answers were related to questions about white supremacist figures — and demonstrated how many young people on the right are marinating in a media atmosphere of the most noxious, racist extremism imaginable, with no obvious pathway back to making such bigotry taboo again.
In today’s right-wing political culture, Trumpism is growing contiguous with Fuentes-ism.
When the moderator asked how many of them knew Nick Fuentes — a white supremacist livestreamer who has, among other things, called Adolf Hitler “really f**king cool,” described Chicago as “n—r hell,” argued in favor of a return to racial segregation, doubted the Nazi Holocaust, opposed interracial marriage and said women shouldn’t have the right to vote — more than half of the respondents raised their hands based on Fuentes’ name recognition alone. Several participants, identified only by their first names, described him in approving or ambivalent terms.
George said, “I agree with a lot of his points. He definitely doesn’t care about how it’s gonna be reacted to, which I respect, but I also think it can be kind of dangerous.” Another, Ally, said, “At its core I believe a lot of what he says, but I think the delivery is kind of poor.” Atticus said, “I dig him… He’s definitely going after more of the shock value with some of his stuff. But as far as general beliefs or values, I sort of agree.”
Andrew, who elsewhere in the focus group said he “really liked” Fuentes, attempted to defend Fuentes as “joking” much of the time, but also expressed earnest support: “I feel like his viewpoints would have been mainstream not that long ago. If he’s saying something like most women want to be raped, well, ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ sells like hotcakes to women, so I feel like that’s just a fact.” Ethan described Fuentes as overly polarizing, but said “He has some interesting opinions, I think specifically about race.” Colin said, “I think he reminds me of the Andrew Tate Republican Party, where he’s really good at addressing a common problem, but the solutions aren’t the solutions to go by.”
There were a few notes of disapproval. Brice said Fuentes “is very dangerous for our side of things,” and Ashley said “I think being too radical pushes people away and makes them look for truth elsewhere.” Notably, neither of these comments contained substantive condemnation, appearing more strategic instead. (Note: City Journal said the transcript it provided was partial, which means other comments might have been excluded.)

The focus group became even more alarming when the moderator asked, “What do you think of Adolf Hitler?”
Ashley said, “I think he was a great leader, to be honest. I think what he was going for was terrible, but I think he showed very strong leadership values.” Andrew said, “I think we should have a stronger executive branch. I don’t think we should be killing people or doing mass genocide, obviously, but I do think we should have a strong executive….. I support national sovereignty, and Hitler was a nationalist. He was like, we have to take Germany back for Germans. And I feel like we should do that in America. We should take America back for our native population.”
Brice, who described himself as Jewish ancestrally and Christian by faith, said, “I’ve actually read ‘Mein Kampf.’ The end conclusions that he came to: absolutely abominable. But I strangely understood where he was coming from as far as wanting to improve the national state of Germany.” Only Lauren offered full-throated condemnation: “He made all of those people suffer, and I want to do ungodly things to people who do things like that.”
The moderator followed up by asking how the group felt about Jewish people.
Atticus said, “They’ve got Hollywood on lock.” George queried, “Don’t they own, like, a ton of the media, and, like, just kind of everything?” Andrew said, “I would say a force for evil.” Only Brice diverged, saying he believed Jewish people were “No different than black people, Asian people, or any other people here today.”
After the moderator asked Andrew to clarify his comments on Jews being “evil,” he doubled down, and then the moderator asked others to respond, prompting a bit of pushback: Ashley said Jews and Christians were similar, biblically speaking; Ally rejected “any classification of a whole people group,” adding, “I just don’t think you can say this entire people group is bad.” But Lauren raised what appeared to be an antisemitic trope about sexually corrupting Jewish cabals: “Israel has a lot of connections to sex and human trafficking, and that doesn’t sit well with me.”
Some of us may have been underestimating how much fascistic energy has bubbled up from more grassroots quarters of American political life.
I was blown away reading this transcript. The venomous Fuentes appears to be just another right-wing pundit who maybe rage-baits a bit too much. Jews are described as sly puppeteers. Hitler is not seen as the apex of genocidal barbarism, but rather a nationalist leader who can be at least partially empathized with.
We’ve known for a long time that the right has been growing more extremebut this focus group really made it sink in: in today’s right-wing political culture, Trumpism is growing contiguous with Fuentes-ism, and the long-standing taboo against Nazism in America is broken.
Here’s another way of thinking about it: For a long time American scholars and journalists have been debating whether or not Trump matches the definition of a fascist; but some of us may have been underestimating how much fascistic energy has bubbled up from more grassroots quarters of American political life. And with the overwhelming majority of participants describing themselves as getting their political news from social media, independent podcasts and YouTubers — and hardly any professional institutional media — it’s difficult to see how to guard against it getting worse. Trolls, demagogues and grifters are whispering into the ears of our youth (and not just on the right), and sabotaging our capacity to adhere to democracy.
Let’s be clear that a focus group is not a poll — we cannot quantify how widespread these attitudes and behaviors are. The point of putting them together is to get a snapshot of a specific subset of the population to gauge the more complex elements of their belief systems that surveys cannot capture. But what these young red state conservatives said doesn’t defy what we know about what’s happening on the right, it confirms it.
Data points supporting the idea that the Nazi taboo is broken are everywhere. Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson — whom multiple focus group participants said was a media figure who best represented their views — recently conducted a softball interview with Fuentes which allowed Fuentes to present himself as a more innocuous pundit than he is. That interview has in turn roiled the American rightrocking right-wing institutions like the Heritage Foundation as they have struggled to figure out how close of a relationship they should hold with Carlson. The Trump administration employs a man who described himself as having a “Nazi streak” in a text message. In October Politico obtained leaked Telegram messages showing young Republican leaders describing Black people as monkeys and sharing messages that include “I love Hiter.”

A number of prominent right-wingers are openly acknowledging that something has gone rotten. Rod Dreher, a conservative writer, recently described a trip to Washington, D.C., in which he said a “D.C. insider” told him that he estimated that between 30% and 40% of Gen Z Republicans in Washington are Fuentes fans and reported that other young Republicans agreed with that estimate. The point isn’t whether that number is accurate — there’s no way to confirm it on the record — but rather that it reflects a perception within the right that Fuentes is ascendant. Vivek Ramswamy, who ran for president in 2024 and is running for governor of Ohio in 2026, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times recently decrying Fuentes’ growing influence on the right.
The presentation of this focus group by The Manhattan Institute — the group that employs the right-wing disinformation agent Christopher Rufo — should also leave us feeling concerned.
In the introductory synopsis to the focus group findings, the author, Jesse Arm, writes “moral stigmas — racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny — no longer reliably do the work they used to.” But he appears to put the blame for those things on the left, saying that, “After a decade of hearing the same accusations leveled at everyone from John McCain to Mitt Romney to Donald Trump, some see allegations of bigotry as table stakes.” Arm also downplays the extent of extremism surfaced in the focus group by saying there was “one true believer who agreed with Fuentes’ worldview and espoused explicit authoritarian and anti-pluralist views” who was “an outlier.”
The Manhattan Institute is not endorsing the participants’ worldview, but it was also clearly not trying to sound the alarms. It did, however, seem confident that the group was an authentic representation of the state of today’s right-wing youth — a group of Americans who increasingly are intrigued by the most vicious and destructive among us.
Zeeshan Aleem is a writer for MS NOW. Sign up for his newsletter.
The Dictatorship
Trump threatens to fire Powell if the Fed Chair remains with central bank after his term ends
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors made an unannounced visit this week to a construction site at Federal Reserve headquarters that is the focus of an investigation into a $2.5 billion renovation projectaccording to two people familiar with the visit.
Two prosecutors and an investigator from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office were turned away on Tuesday by a building contractor and referred to Fed attorneys, one of the people said. The two people familiar with the visit spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss an ongoing investigation.
The visit underscores that the Trump administration is not backing down from its investigation of the Fed and its chair, Jerome Powell, even though the probe has delayed the confirmation of a new chair nominated by President Donald Trump. The investigation is focused on cost overruns and brief testimony about the project last summer by Powell. Trump confirmed in an interview that aired Wednesday on Fox Business that he wants to continue the probe.
Last month, during a closed-door hearing before a federal judge, a top deputy from Pirro’s office conceded that they hadn’t found any evidence of a crime in their investigation of the headquarters project.
Robert Hur, an attorney for the Federal Reserve board of governors, sent an email to Pirro’s prosecutors about their visit and their request for a “tour” to “check on progress” at the construction site. Hur’s email, which The Associated Press has viewed, noted that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that their interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was “pretextual.”
AP AUDIO: Prosecutors sought access to Federal Reserve building as Trump threatens to fire Powell
AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on more drama surrounding a federal probe of a massive construction project at the Federal Reserve’s headquarters.
“Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it,” Hur wrote.
Republican Tillis is key vote
Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, has vowed to vote against Kevin WarshTrump’s nominee to replace Powell as Fed chair, until the investigation is dropped. With the committee closely divided on partisan lines, Tillis’ opposition is enough to block Warsh from receiving the committee’s approval.
Tillis on Wednesday criticized the investigation as “bogus, ill-timed, ill-informed” and repeated that seven Republican members of the banking panel have said they do not believe Powell committed a crime when he testified last June.
Tillis also said there aren’t enough votes on the committee or in the broader Senate to do an end-run around the committee and get Warsh confirmed some other way.
“There really is no path,” he told reporters, adding that Pirro and her aides were “asleep at the switch” because the investigation has essentially delayed Powell’s departure from the Fed, despite Trump’s obsessive criticism of the Fed chair. Powell has now said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved.
Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.
Tillis suggested Pirro blindsided the White House with her investigation. “They should have consulted with the White House, because I’m sure if they would have, (the White House) would have said, ‘no, we can wait,’” until Powell steps down.
But Kevin Hassett, the Trump administration’s top economist, said Wednesday that the Justice Department got involved because “the president wanted to investigate the cost overrun,” Axios reported.
The Banking panel said Tuesday that it will hold a hearing on Warsh’s nomination April 21. Powell’s term as Fed chair ends May 15, but Powell said last month he would remain as chair until a replacement is named.
Powell is serving a separate term as a member of the Fed’s governing board that lasts until January 2028. Chairs typically leave the board when their terms as chair end, but they can remain on the board if they choose. Powell has said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved. If he remains it would deny Trump the opportunity to appoint someone else to the seven-member board.
Late Tuesday Tillis posted a link on social media to The Wall Street Journal’s article on the visit below an image of the Three Stooges and wrote, “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. at the crime scene.”
Investigation centers on building renovations
The investigation centers on an appearance by Powell before the Banking Committee last June, when he was asked about cost overruns on the renovations. The most recent estimates from the Fed suggest the current estimated cost of $2.5 billion is about $600 million higher than a 2022 estimate of $1.9 billion.
“It is probably corrupt, but what it really is, is incompetent,” Trump said. “Don’t you think we have to find out what happened there?”
The president’s support for the investigation threatens a timeframe set out by Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who chairs the Banking Committee. Scott said Tuesday on Fox Business that he believed the investigation would be “wrapped up in the next few weeks,” allowing Warsh to be confirmed soon after.
Threat to fire Powell
News of the unannounced visit by prosecutors comes as Trump has again threatened to fire Powell, if the Federal Reserve Chair decides to stay on the central bank’s governing board after his term as chair expires next month.
“Well then I’ll have to fire him, OK?” Trump said.
Trump has for months wanted to remove Powell, saying he has been too slow in orchestrating interest rate cuts that would give the U.S. economy a quick boost. Powell has said the investigation is a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence to set rates.
Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said Trump can only fire Powell “for cause,” meaning some kind of misconduct, “so that’s a pretty tall order.”
Supreme Court weighing another Trump removal
Trump’s threat to fire Powell comes as the Supreme Court is weighing the president’s effort to remove another central bank governor, Lisa Cook. Lower courts have so far allowed Cook to remain in her job while her legal challenge to the firing continues. The Supreme Court also seemed likely to keep her on the Fed when the court heard arguments in January. A decision could come any time.
The issue in Cook’s case is whether allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied, is a sufficient reason to fire her or a mere pretext masking Trump’s desire to exert more control over U.S. interest rate policy.
The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of the heads of other governmental agencies at the president’s discretion, with no claim that they did anything wrong, while also signaling that it is approaching the independence of the nation’s central bank more cautiouslycalling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”
___
AP Writers Seung Min Kim, Mark Sherman, Paul Wiseman, Alanna Durkin Richer, and video journalist Nathan Ellgren contributed to this report.
The Dictatorship
The Latest: US blockade of Iranian ports ‘fully implemented’ as Trump says war is near end
SnoCountry Mountain Reports
Sports Betting Line
Pacific Northwest Sportswatch Daily Listings
Gulf States Sportswatch Daily Listings
The Dictatorship
It’s Tulsi Gabbard’s turn to target Trump’s enemies
President Donald Trump was impeached in December 2019, charged by the House of Representatives with abusing his office to gain leverage over Joe Biden in the upcoming presidential election. This week, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard rebooted that scandal with the release of a handful of newly declassified documents that question the beginning of the impeachment investigation — in hopes of discrediting everything that followed.
MS NOW confirmed Wednesday that Gabbard’s office has sent criminal referrals to the Justice Department for the whistleblower whose concern over a phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy launched the impeachment inquiry and the former inspector general who fielded their complaint. The referrals were first reported by Fox News.
Gabbard’s new disclosures mirror a well-worn playbook used by Trump’s loyalists to investigate his investigators. But in every instance, including this latest endeavor, the evidence gathered of wrongdoing on Trump’s part has far outweighed proof of misconduct from his investigators.
In every instance, the evidence gathered of wrongdoing on Trump’s part has far outweighed proof of misconduct from his investigators.
In Gabbard’s telling, as she posted on Xthe process was an inherently corrupt conspiracy where “deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people.” Michael Atkinson, former inspector general for the Intelligence Community, is painted in a press release accompanying the new materials as a rogue actor who spun a secondhand tale into an attempted coup.
Newly-declassified records expose how deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that Congress used to usurp the will of the American people and impeach duly-elected President @realDonaldTrump in 2019.
Today, we reveal the truth 👇… pic.twitter.com/oLXW5nqi2n
— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) April 13, 2026
The materials posted Monday do provide an interesting window into the chain of events eventually leading to Trump’s first impeachment. Among them are official records from the preliminary 14-day investigation Atkinson undertook to determine that the whistleblower’s initial complaint was of “urgent concern” and needed to be reported to Congress. Also included are transcripts from Atkinson’s two closed-door interviews with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, one before the White House released the transcript of the Zelenskyy call and one after the impeachment inquiry was underway.
But despite Gabbard’s breathless claims of a “coordinated effort … to manufacture a conspiracy,” nothing among the materials contradicts anything uncovered later. If anything, the initial interviews with the whistleblower, conducted in late August 2019, line up neatly with the fuller story that would be revealed over the coming weeks in the press and during the House’s impeachment inquiry. Both the whistleblower and a corroborating witness were extremely forthcoming about exactly what they did and did not know about the call, and why they were deeply concerned by Trump’s repeating conspiracy theories and pressing Zelenskyy to resume an investigation into Biden.

Gabbard’s cries of “politicization” from Atkinson are likewise overblown. Her claim is based on a section in the IG’s interview process where subjects were asked if they have anything in their background that might reveal any biases that could be used against them. The responses given suggest a certain hesitation to speak out for fear their words would be spun into right-wing attacks but was overridden by the necessity to speak out. Atkinson transparently mentioned in a letter to then-acting DNI Joseph Maguire that there was an “indicia of an arguable political bias” from the complainant, but that it didn’t alter his determination that their information was credible.
Maguire initially prevented Atkinson from providing the complaint to Congress, claiming that the Justice Department ruled it was outside of the IG’s remit. Atkinson disagreed and told lawmakers an “urgent concern” existed, as he believed the law required him, but did not provide the whistleblower’s complaint. Instead, it was only after media reports of the investigation and the White House’s subsequent release of the so-called perfect call with Zelenskyy that Atkinson was able to speak to Congress about the complaint directly.
All of this, in Gabbard’s telling, amounted to a “weaponization” of the process.
Several things stand out at this point. First is how ill-equipped Gabbard is to be leading America’s intelligence community. Her emphasis on how the first people to come forward about Trump’s scheme didn’t have firsthand knowledge of the call would be laughable if it weren’t so inept. It is literally the job of the intelligence community to consume partial information as it is received and work that raw data into a complete analysis. What Gabbard is essentially saying is that someone who only saw a single piece of the puzzle, at first, cannot be trusted to put together a picture in their head once more pieces have come together.
It is literally the job of the intelligence community to consume partial information as it is received and work that raw data into a complete analysis.
Second is how blatantly she has copied the failed formula of the GOP’s efforts to discredit the Russia investigation during Trump’s first term. For years now, through numerous investigations from the House and an independent counsel alike, Republicans have tried to claim wrongdoing from the FBI and other supposed “deep state” figures when first investigating hints of Russian interference in the 2016 election. But John Durham’s four-year-long probe came up empty, and despite Trump’s demands for revenge, there have been no criminal charges filed against anyone involved in the case.
Finally, it’s worth remembering Gabbard’s position when she was serving as a U.S. representative from Hawaii during Trump’s first impeachment. By the time the House voted on the articles of impeachment, she was already running a longshot bid for president. Accordingly, she was attempting to position herself as not beholden to the left wing, but still a viable candidate to be the Democratic nominee.
Gabbard was the only Democrat in the House to vote “present” on the articles. But she made clear in a statement afterward that she believed “President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.” Her vote, or nonvote rather, was cast because, in her view, “removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.” The centrism by way of cowardice branding that brought her to prominence has fully given way — she now simply yields to the rightward pressures she finds herself under as part of Trump’s cabinet.
In his first interview with the House Permanent Select Committee on IntelligenceAtkinson described himself as a first responder, one who may not have had the full picture, but who had heard a fire alarm ringing and chose to act. “I don’t know whether it is just smoke, don’t know whether it is a small fire,” he told lawmakers as he refused to reveal what he’d learned from his preliminary findings. “All I know is that there was a time when … another first responder was not getting information about an alleged fire.”
Atkinson did what he thought was right and in accordance with the law by telling Congress that a complaint existed. The whistleblower did the same, despite the potential reprisals they’d face from a vengeful White House. Gabbard is now targeting them specifically for doing so, even as it is her job to be the early warning system against the nation’s greatest threats. It’s disturbing then to think what alarm bells she would prefer to silence, what risks she would take with America’s safety, rather than risk upsetting Trump.
Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MS NOW. He focuses on politics and policymaking at the federal level, including Congress and the White House.
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
The Dictatorship7 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show1 year agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?







