All topics

U.S. Politics

Public disputes concerning political parties, public officials, institutions, political conduct, and governance in the United States.

Related cases

More cases

Statements

Army Cadet League of Canada

Role at the time: Cadet-support organization

Condemned

Responding to

Hegseth’s post mocked or invited mockery of the appearance and achievements of people shown in the Canadian cadet-program image.

"We strongly condemn any online harassment, or mockery of cadets' achievements."
Why we used this label

The organization’s statement expressly condemns the interpretation of the post as mockery.

Hegseth draws Canadian backlash over post that appears to mock cadets (opens in a new tab)Opening section, including the Army Cadet League statement and David McGuinty's response.

David Eby

Role at the time: Premier of British Columbia

Condemned

Responding to

Hegseth’s post mocked or invited mockery of the appearance and achievements of people shown in the Canadian cadet-program image.

"What an embarrassment."
Why we used this label

The statement is a direct condemnation of Hegseth and the perceived target of the post.

Hegseth post about Canadian cadets called below the dignity of his office (opens in a new tab)Main article and embedded remarks from Mark Carney, David McGuinty, David Eby, and the Pentagon.

David McGuinty

Role at the time: Canadian minister of national defence

Condemned

Responding to

Hegseth’s post mocked or invited mockery of the appearance and achievements of people shown in the Canadian cadet-program image.

"Below the dignity of the office he holds."
Why we used this label

The statement unambiguously condemns the post as inappropriate for Hegseth’s office.

Hegseth post about Canadian cadets called below the dignity of his office (opens in a new tab)Main article and embedded remarks from Mark Carney, David McGuinty, David Eby, and the Pentagon.

Mark Carney

Role at the time: Prime Minister of Canada

Condemned

Responding to

Hegseth’s post mocked or invited mockery of the appearance and achievements of people shown in the Canadian cadet-program image.

"Beneath their office."
Why we used this label

The remark directly condemns the appropriateness of the post from a cabinet official.

Canadian leader Carney pushes back against Trump administration (opens in a new tab)Opening section discussing Hegseth's post, Carney's response, and the Pentagon statement.

Johnny Olszewski

Role at the time: United States representative

Condemned

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"What Laura Loomer said was disgusting. It was vile."
Why we used this label

Direct condemnation by an elected official.

Audie Cornish

Role at the time: CNN anchor and journalist

Condemned

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"It’s depressing for me to wake up and see something like that."
Why we used this label

Editorial condemnation grounded in the treatment of Black women.

Abby Phillip

Role at the time: CNN host and journalist

Condemned

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"Loomer is facing backlash for dropping these racist attacks."
Why we used this label

Editorial characterization by the host rather than an official political statement.

May Mailman

Role at the time: Former Trump policy official and commentator

Mixed or conditional

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"Yes. Go condemn Laura Loomer."
Why we used this label

Contains an explicit condemnation but pairs it with minimizing and consistency arguments.

Noah Rothman

Role at the time: Conservative writer and commentator

Condemned

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"Those are vile comments. A long history of similar vile comments. She deserves to be cast out."
Why we used this label

Explicit conservative condemnation.

Isaiah Martin

Role at the time: Democratic activist and commentator

Condemned

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"Trump absolutely should go and disown Laura Loomer."
Why we used this label

Direct call for repudiation.

Shermichael Singleton

Role at the time: Republican strategist and CNN commentator

Condemned

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"What Laura Loomer said is despicable. It doesn’t stand for the party."
Why we used this label

Explicit conservative condemnation and party distancing.

Rashida Tlaib

Role at the time: United States representative

Condemned

Responding to

The absence of comparable Republican condemnation reflects a political double standard in reactions to inflammatory online figures.

"I’m going to check to see if you said anything about Laura Loomer calling a Black woman running for Senate…"
Why we used this label

The statement treats Loomer’s conduct as condemnable and principally advances a consistency argument.

Hakeem Jeffries

Role at the time: House Democratic leader

Condemned

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"Laura Loomer is a stone-cold racist, pathological liar and nutjob."
Why we used this label

Explicit party-leadership condemnation.

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Role at the time: Former Republican member of Congress

Condemned

Responding to

Loomer’s remarks about Nixon and the other women were racist and misogynistic stereotyping rather than legitimate political criticism.

"I 1000% denounce Laura Loomer and her nasty, hateful, racists comments."
Why we used this label

Explicit cross-partisan denunciation.

Dan Pfeiffer

Role at the time: Co-host, Pod Save America

Minimized

Responding to

Hasan Piker’s remarks about American Jews, Israel, and antisemitic violence

"People condemning Hasan, people condemning the people condemning Hasan and Hasan himself should move on and stop fighting about this."
Why we used this label

The statement treats continuation of the dispute as unproductive while withholding a clear verdict on the passage.

Jon Favreau

Role at the time: Co-host, Pod Save America

Minimized

Responding to

Hasan Piker’s remarks about American Jews, Israel, and antisemitic violence

"Calling on all Dems to take the Don’t Talk About Hasan Piker For A Day Challenge."
Why we used this label

The statement minimizes the dispute’s political value and does not clearly condemn or defend the underlying remarks.

Andrew Kolvet

Role at the time: Host, The Charlie Kirk Show

Condemned

Responding to

Piker’s passage was antisemitic.

"this guy openly salivates when it comes to political violence. And here he is attacking another Jewish Democrat."
Why we used this label

The statement is a direct moral condemnation that frames the passage as hostile and violence-adjacent.

Jon Ossoff

Role at the time: United States senator and reelection candidate

Defended or excused

Responding to

Natalie Harp and other senior White House aides are taxpayer-paid public officials with immense power whose influence is a legitimate subject of political scrutiny.

"These White House staffers are adults, public officials paid by the taxpayer with immense power in positions of public trust."
Why we used this label

Explicit defense of scrutinizing Harp’s official role; no apology or retraction.

Jon Ossoff

Role at the time: United States senator and reelection candidate

Defended or excused

Responding to

Senior aides around Donald Trump act as a security blanket and tell him what he wants to hear rather than what he needs to hear.

"I’ve heard this particular aide referred to as his security blanket. They’re not telling him what he needs to hear. They’re telling him what he wants to hear."
Why we used this label

Defends the relevance of Harp’s role to presidential decision-making.

Jonathan V. Last

Role at the time: Editor and commentator at The Bulwark

Challenged the characterization

Responding to

Jon Ossoff’s “travel with Natalie” remark insinuated that Donald Trump and Natalie Harp were having an affair.

"The Trump people assumed that Ossoff meant that Trump was having some sort of untoward relationship with Natalie Harp."
Why we used this label

Rejects the affair frame while defending scrutiny of the official relationship.

Stephen Miller

Role at the time: White House deputy chief of staff

Condemned

Responding to

Ossoff’s remark was sexist and misogynistic because it reduced a female White House aide’s professional role to a sexual implication.

"This is among the most vile things I’ve seen in American politics."
Why we used this label

Strong direct condemnation, preserved through contemporaneous reporting.

The Wrath of MAGA (opens in a new tab)Opening section and Stephen Miller reaction

Brandon Gill

Role at the time: United States representative

Condemned

Responding to

Jon Ossoff’s “travel with Natalie” remark insinuated that Donald Trump and Natalie Harp were having an affair.

"Any other insinuation is vile."
Why we used this label

Expressly condemns the inferred personal-relationship claim.

Older statements

People with useful coverage

Matt Walsh

Conservative political commentator, author, and host of The Matt Walsh Show.

1 case and 1 statement

Mark Halperin

Mark Halperin is a political journalist and commentator.

1 case and 1 statement

Laura Loomer

Far-right political activist, commentator, and ally of President Donald Trump.

1 case and 1 statement

Kalman Yeger

Kalman Yeger is a New York state legislator and former New York City Council member.

1 case and 1 statement