The Filtered Truth
The Trump administration is actively filtering the truth to shape public perception and suppress dissent. One of the key players in this effort is FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, who is pushing to strip away regulatory oversight and grant private companies broader authority to moderate content they deem “immoral”—a vague and subjective term often used to silence opposing viewpoints and suppress information that challenges the administration’s agenda. At the same time, mainstream media outlets have been complicit in “sanewashing” Trump’s unprecedented actions, treating dangerous authoritarian behavior as normal political theater. Fearful of backlash, many media organizations have shied away from honest reporting, and numerous journalists have faced termination for refusing to conform to the Trump regime’s narrative. Together, these actions reveal a deeply coordinated attempt to control what the public sees, hears, and believes.
DOGE cut Farsi staffers from the Voice of America. They were recalled due to the Israel-Iran conflict.
As the Israel-Iran conflict intensifies, several dozen Voice of America (VOA) staffers who were sidelined during the Trump administration’s shutdown of the broadcaster in March have been called back to work. VOA has specifically reinstated Farsi-speaking staff to strengthen its Persian-language programming aimed at Iran, countering Iranian government disinformation.
Before the shutdown, VOA produced over four hours daily of Persian-language content targeting Iran and the global Persian-speaking diaspora. While recent output is unclear, VOA’s Farsi YouTube channel has posted new videos following recent events.
Other VOA language service staff have also been recalled. Critics, including a consultant and sidelined VOA journalists, argue that shutting down VOA’s communication with Iran was a mistake and that the broadcaster’s role in delivering independent, credible news during crises is vital. They call for the full reinstatement of VOA staff to regain lost audience trust.
The White House took down the Constitution from its website when Trump took office.
After Donald Trump returned to the presidency in 2025, the White House website removed its page explaining the U.S. Constitution, causing a "404 page not found" error. The Spanish-language version of the site and pages about former presidents were also inaccessible. A White House spokesperson called this a temporary issue due to "tweaking" the website during the transition from the Biden administration.
The removal of the Constitution page is seen by some as symbolic of broader changes under Trump’s new term, especially since he signed an executive order aimed at ending birthright citizenship—a move challenged as unconstitutional. The Spanish site removal has drawn criticism for signaling disregard toward the Latino community.
Protests across the United States have increased dramatically in frequency and diversity since early 2025.
Grassroots Opposition
Despite perceptions that grassroots resistance to Trump’s second term is weak, data from Harvard’s Crowd Counting Consortium shows protests across the U.S. have actually increased dramatically in frequency and diversity since early 2025. These protests focus on a wide range of issues—education, Medicaid, reproductive rights, immigrant and LGBTQ rights, and opposition to Trump’s executive orders and administration policies.
Notable Protests
Notable events include the January 18 “People’s March,” which saw hundreds of protests nationwide; the February 5 “50501” protests in all 50 states; and the February 17 “No Kings Day” protests opposing Trump’s authoritarian actions. These protests involve tens of thousands of participants and widespread activism.
However, mainstream national media coverage of these protests has been minimal, often downplaying their size, significance, and the widespread grassroots opposition. Broadcast networks largely ignored these events, while major newspapers gave limited, often dismissive or buried coverage.
Grassroots activists and some media argue that the resistance is alive and growing, even if the style differs from earlier mass marches. The movement is expanding beyond Washington, DC, into local and state actions nationwide, demanding more comprehensive media attention and coverage.
YouTube loosened its moderation and fact-checking rules for political content.
Freedom of Expression v. Freedom to Misinform
YouTube has relaxed its moderation rules, allowing more controversial content to remain on the platform if the “freedom of expression value may outweigh harm risk.” Moderators are now instructed to allow videos discussing sensitive topics like elections, race, gender, and abortion—even if parts violate policies—as long as the content is deemed in the public interest. The threshold for how much policy-violating content a video can have before removal was raised from one-quarter to half.
YouTube is not the only one
This builds on changes made before the 2024 U.S. election, where political candidate content violating rules was allowed under certain exemptions. YouTube says this affects only a small portion of videos and helps keep important content available. This shift aligns with broader moderation relaxations by other tech giants like Meta and X, who have moved away from strict fact-checking and heavy censorship in favor of community oversight.
The Trump administration attempted to persuade Amazon to remove progressive books, including David Pakman's The Echo Machine
David Pakman reported that an Amazon whistleblower informed him of a request from the Trump administration to remove his book, The Echo Machine, along with other critical works, from Amazon’s marketplace. The whistleblower, identified as an Amazon Web Services (AWS) employee, claimed that a major government client threatened to cancel its contract unless certain books were delisted. Pakman’s book was among those named, along with titles by authors such as Brian Tyler Cohen, Heather Cox Richardson, Brian Stelter, and Mary L. Trump. Pakman expressed concern that this could constitute government-imposed censorship and a violation of First Amendment rights. He has since sought legal counsel and encouraged supporters to purchase the book to demonstrate public demand and resistance to censorship.
Cambridge Analytica claimed to help Trump win the 2016 election.
Summary
A leaked internal document from Cambridge Analytica reveals how the company claimed to help Donald Trump win the 2016 U.S. presidential election through aggressive, data-driven digital campaigning. The 27-page presentation outlines how Cambridge Analytica micro-targeted voters using massive data sets, performance-optimizing algorithms, and platform-specific messaging across Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, and more. By tailoring over 10,000 different ad variants, the campaign reached billions of impressions. Former employee Brittany Kaiser, who shared the document, said the campaign began with virtually no digital infrastructure, but Cambridge Analytica quickly implemented a unified data strategy using Republican Party data and newly developed tools.
Targeted Catchphrases and Messaging
One strategy detailed in the presentation was the use of emotionally resonant, targeted messaging—such as “Drain the Swamp”—which helped mobilize specific voter groups. These catchphrases were not only memorable but crafted to resonate with frustrations, fears, or values of particular demographics. With data revealing individual voter profiles, Cambridge Analytica delivered highly customized slogans and messages to sway public opinion and engagement. Native advertising, like a Politico-sponsored list of alleged Clinton Foundation controversies, also played a critical role by mimicking legitimate journalism to deepen impact.
Harvesting Facebook Data
Although the techniques outlined in the document were not inherently illegal, the broader scandal centers on how Cambridge Analytica obtained data from over 50 million Facebook users without consent. This data allowed the firm to build psychographic profiles and predict behavior with alarming accuracy. The unauthorized harvesting, combined with Silicon Valley platforms’ willingness to monetize political advertising, exposed major vulnerabilities in digital privacy and campaign regulation. The controversy has since become a turning point in discussions around data ethics, online manipulation, and the role of social media in democratic elections.
Tucker Carlson says Fox News is a propaganda network.
Former Fox News host Tucker Carlson has sharply criticized both his former network and key conservative figures for promoting U.S. military escalation in the ongoing Israel–Iran conflict. Speaking on Steve Bannon’s War Room, Carlson accused Fox News of spreading propaganda to sway elderly viewers and labeled prominent conservatives like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Rupert Murdoch as “warmongers.” He also rebuked Donald Trump for being “complicit in an act of war” following Israel’s missile strikes on Iran, suggesting the administration sees escalation as leverage in nuclear negotiations. Carlson’s remarks come amid broader tensions and reflect his growing estrangement from the conservative mainstream. Trump, when asked about the criticism, dismissed Carlson’s influence, suggesting he should “get a television network.” Carlson was previously ousted from Fox News in 2023 following a $787 million defamation settlement involving Dominion Voting Systems.