If you’re like me, the last time you gave any serious consideration to The Enlightenment was when you were in college. Even then, it seemed to me that it was a bunch of old men in powdered wigs sitting around saying painfully obvious things like, “I think, therefore I am”.

The more I learn about the American Revolution, the more I’ve come to realize that The Enlightenment was not the irrelevant philosophical exercise that I thought it was. It is, in fact, the basis for most modern social, political, and economic thought.

OK, What Exactly Was The Enlightenment?

It was an intellectual movement that began principally in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. It emphasized reason, science, liberty, and skepticism of inherited authority. Some of the smartest people in Europe reexamined everything they thought they knew. They questioned the nature of God, the foundations of knowledge, the rights of individuals and how they related to the purpose of government, and the relationships between the people with power and those without. Underneath it all was the core belief in the possibility of human progress.

Elements of the Enlightenment

There are several key elements that define The Enlightenment. Probably the most important was an almost religious devotion to the supremacy of reason. Prior to this, most Europeans accepted that the ultimate authorities in the world were the church and the monarchy. Enlightenment thinkers were the first to question those authorities. They argued that a human mind with its ability for observation, logic, and evaluation of evidence could discover the truth without having it dictated by the church or the king. They didn’t necessarily reject religion, but they questioned superstition, intolerance, and blind obedience. They thought that reason gave people the power to understand the universe and improve the human condition.

Closely related to this was their belief in empiricism and the scientific method. The Enlightenment came soon after the Scientific Revolution and was influenced by figures such as Isaac Newton who demonstrated that nature operated according to principles that could be discovered and understood and that true understanding came from observable experience rather than from inherited doctrine. René Descartes, whom I quoted somewhat cavalierly in my opening paragraph, is sometimes recognized as the philosophical godfather of the Enlightenment. His landmark work Discourse on the Method, published in 1637, gave rise to the practice of rejecting any belief that couldn’t be verified by rigorous inquiry.

Another central element is the belief in the natural rights of humanity. They believed that all people possess certain rights bestowed by nature. These include life, liberty, property, and security and that all people possess these rights simply because they live. Central to this is the idea that no government had granted those rights and therefore no government can legitimately revoke them. They viewed this as an implicit social contract between rulers and the people and not a gift of a sovereign. The key element of this idea is that the people could, at any time, withdraw their consent and reconstitute the government.

Other key elements of the Enlightenment included skepticism towards authority, and a questioning of the scripture as the final word on nature. They disputed the divine rights of kings. They also stressed religious toleration and proposed the conscience should not be coerced by the state. They had a strong belief in the ability of civilization to progress through education, science, and political reform. While all enlightenment thinkers did not have the exact same specific beliefs, they believed in the core element of the value of the improvement of humanity.

Who’s Who in The Enlightenment and the Revolution

There were many writers, scientists, and philosophers associated with The Enlightenment. They range from Adam Smith and his economic theories to Voltaire and his theories of tolerance and free thought. In an essay such as this it would be impossible for me to do justice to all these great thinkers. I’m going to focus on the two I believe had the greatest impact on the American Revolution: John Locke and Charles- Louise de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu.

Locke was a physician, philosopher and political theorist and his works probably had a greater influence on revolutionary thought than those of anyone else. His central argument was that all individuals have a natural right to life, liberty and property and that those rights exist independent of any government and that no government possesses the right to violate them.

Montesquieu was a French judge and political philosopher whom many view as the architect of separation of powers. He wrote that tyranny is best prevented by dividing governmental authority among distinct branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—and that each will check the power of the other.

Likewise, almost every central player in the American Revolution was familiar with the works of The Enlightenment writers. I’m going to focus on the two whose work, I believe, most obviously reflects the thoughts of The Enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Jefferson, Locke, and the Declaration of Independence

Thomas Jefferson is, arguably, the member of the revolutionary generation most identified with the philosophy of John Locke. Other colonial writers such as George Mason in his June1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and Samuel Adams in his 1772 The Rights of the Colonists, clearly reflected Lockean principles. In fact, Adams specifically mentioned Locke in his treatise. But it is Jefferson in his Declaration of Independence whose relationship to John Locke is most familiar to the American people.

Locke argued that all individuals possess natural rights that include life, liberty, and property and that governments exist solely to protect those rights. Jefferson incorporated Locke’s ideas almost in verbatim into the Declaration’s most famous passage excepting that he substituted “the pursuit of happiness” for Locke’s “property”. Jefferson likely intended to broaden the appeal of his arguments beyond just protection of wealthy landowners to include more universal human rights. The Declaration also included other elements that reflected Locke’s thoughts such as a listing of violations by the British government that caused it to forfeit its legitimate authority. Jefferson had turned Locke’s social contract theory into a statement of grievances against the British monarchy.

I think it’s also important to note that not all historians agree that John Locke was the sole or even principal influence on Jefferson’s thinking in the Declaration. Other enlightenment philosophers thought to have influenced Jefferson include Francis Hutchinson, Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Jefferson himself identified the ancient philosophers Aristotle and Cicero as being intellectual sources.

Some historians have proposed that the inclusion of Locke’s ideas in the Declaration of Independence was less the result of a deep philosophical study on the part of Jefferson then a recognition that Locke’s ideas had become widely accepted in the colonies by the 1770s. Jefferson himself later wrote that the declaration wasn’t meant to be a new philosophy but to reflect the “common sense of the subject”. Regardless of whether the influence was direct or indirect, I find it difficult not to see the ideas of John Locke throughout the Declaration of Independence.

James Madison, Montesquieu, and the Constitution

Montesquieu laid out his ideas for the separation of powers in his 1748 treatise The Spirit of the Laws. He was concerned that whoever holds power will tend to abuse it. He believed that the best protection for liberty is dividing governmental power among three co-equal groups: those who make the law (legislative), those who carry out the law (executive), and those who judge disputes (judicial). He further believed that if one of these groups held excessive power, freedom would be endangered because the same person could write laws to their own benefit, then enforce those laws as they saw fit and then render judgments in their own favor.

James Madison has often been called the “father of the Constitution”. I’ve never thought that was a very accurate description, mainly because I’m not sure what it means. There was no single author of the Constitution, it was a group effort that was based on compromise, debate, bargaining, threats, and endless rewriting.

I would call Madison the architect of the Constitution. While he didn’t come up with the idea of the three branches of government, it had been in wide circulation in the colonies for several years, he showed up at the Constitutional Convention with a plan. As a result, the convention wound up debating his plan as the basis for a new constitution. Madison’s “Virginia Plan” underwent extensive revisions at the hands of the convention, but its basic structure of three coequal branches of government, reflecting Montesquieu’s ideas, remained intact.

The Legacy of the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment had a profound effect on both political and intellectual thought in the western world. It influenced not only the American Revolution but later the French Revolution. Though largely unrecognized by other revolutionaries at the time, its philosophy influenced democratic movements around the world.

The ideas of constitutional government with its principles of freedom of speech, religious liberty, and human rights all trace directly back to Enlightenment ideas. The Enlightenment did have its own problems. Many of the thinkers, reflecting the social and political mores of the 17^th and 18^th centuries, excluded women, enslaved Africans, indigenous people, and the lower social and economic classes from their ideas of political and social equality. Perhaps ironically, their emphasis on reason and human progress eventually began to bring these other groups into full membership in democratic society.

Unfortunately, many of the Enlightenment principles that underpin our system of government are currently under attack by politicians and oligarchs attempting to consolidate their own power and wealth.

Image generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

Britannica: The Enlightenment

Wikipedia: Enlightenment Philosophy

Wikipedia: Age of Enlightenment

World History Encyclopedia: 12 Key Enlightenment Philosophers

Britannica: Key Figures of the Enlightenment

Britannica: John Locke

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Locke’s Political Philosophy

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: John Locke

History Hit: Heroes of the Enlightenment

U.S. Army: Impact of the Enlightenment on the American Revolution

usconstitution.net: Enlightenment’s Impact on U.S. Democracy

Albert.io: The Enlightenment and the American Revolution

Vaia: Philosophy of the Declaration of Independence

UGA Press: Montesquieu and the American Constitution

Wikipedia: Influence of the American Revolution on the French Revolution

Accountability or Restoration? The Dilemma Facing Democrats

By John Turley

On November 10, 2026

In Commentary, Politics

It is tempting to imagine Donald Trump, his sons, and the rest of his administration standing in the dock answering criminal charges. It would be satisfying, but a waste of time, considering the amount of work needed to repair the damage that he has done to this country. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be held responsible; I’m saying that repair and restoration should come before revenge.

I know some of you are thinking “It’s not revenge, it’s justice.” I agree that justice needs to be done, but it should be deliberate, fact-based justice, not the weaponized justice of the Trump administration. More importantly, it should not detract from the important work of rebuilding public faith in our government and restoring important programs that have been destroyed.

The Democrats message should be first that they’re going to make the government work for the people again and that they will provide remedies where the law allows. At the same time, they must assure the public that where there is credible evidence of wrongdoing there will be a proper and independent investigation. They must state that no one gets immunity because they are powerful or wealthy and likewise that no one loses their constitutional rights because they are unpopular.

The guiding principle should be that they will not sacrifice justice for the appearance of reconciliation and will not sacrifice the public’s welfare for the satisfaction of punishment. They will repair injuries, establish responsibility in a fair manner, and make it harder for anyone else to abuse government powers.

We must also hold the members of the Trump administration accountable to send a message to future political leaders that such behavior is not tolerable. It is important to recognize the difference between illegal behavior and bad policy. The Congress should concentrate on repairing bad policy but should at the same time put in place the procedures for punishing crimes. Special prosecutors and revived inspectors general would be the most reasonable method of pursuing the legal avenues.

Convening impeachment hearings might be an appealing undertaking. but in the long run it will be unsuccessful in removing Donald Trump from office and will detract from the important work of reversing the damage he has done. Since there’s little likelihood a finding 67 senators who will vote for conviction, it would simply be a “feel good” activity.

It may seem simple to distinguish criminal conduct from bad policy decisions. But it’s not as straightforward as it seems. Illegal and harmful are not simply interchangeable ideas.

Bribery, obstruction of justice, and corruption obviously require criminal investigation. It will not be possible to investigate everything at once. Congress should prioritize criminal investigations based on the seriousness of the harm done to the public not on what would make the biggest splash on the 6:00 news.

Abuses of government authority may violate constitutional or administrative law while not resulting in any individual criminal liability. There are also actions that may be harmful, discriminatory, economically damaging, or contrary to traditional activity but still are not unlawful. Pursuing a criminal indictment against behavior that is not clearly unlawful runs the risk of tainting the entire investigative process, ultimately accomplishing little, and emboldening future bad actors with the idea if they can “get away with it”.

It is important at the beginning to establish that officials who have violated criminal statutes cannot claim immunity from prosecution simply because they were pursuing political objectives or operating under the orders of government officials. We need to strongly invalidate the “I was only following orders” defense.

I won’t attempt to list the number of things that Congress needs to undertake to repair all the damage that’s been done to this country. Many of the political and institutional problems exposed during the Trump administration are not necessarily new. There have been longstanding tensions between presidential authority over federal bureaucracy and immigration policy and the role of congressional oversight. We’ve also seen increasing politicization of judicial review and law enforcement.

But I believe one thing is important: we must not only repair the damage that’s been done but we must perform an analysis of how a single administration was able to undermine years of government procedure and policy so that we can ensure that safeguards are in place to prevent it from ever happening again.

Congress should pursue a two-track program running in unison to examine both personal accountability and systemic reform. Congress needs to be careful not to make promises beyond their ability to deliver. The Democrats do not have a veto proof majority and attempting to reach beyond what they can expect to accomplish may undermine their entire program.

This is not about one president or one administration, and it is not an either-or choice. We need to do both. If done properly, we could emerge with an even stronger constitutional system with stronger checks and balances and a greater ability to serve the public.

Would Jesus Recognize the Politics of the Modern Conservative Evangelical Church?

By John Turley

On November 2, 2026

In Commentary, Politics

American conservative evangelical Christianity has become one of the most influential political forces in the United States. Over the past several decades, and particularly since the rise of Donald Trump, a large and highly visible portion of white evangelical Protestantism has aligned itself closely with the Republican Party. Its political agenda has emphasized opposition to abortion and LGBTQ rights, stricter immigration enforcement, gun rights, religious liberty, traditional gender roles, and, increasingly, the claim that the United States was founded as a Christian nation.

This raises an uncomfortable but legitimate question: How closely does this political movement resemble the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels?

The “conservative evangelical church” is not a single institution with a single political agenda. It encompasses Southern Baptists, nondenominational megachurches, Reformed Christians, Pentecostals, charismatics, and many independent congregations. Millions of people in evangelical congregations do not always agree with one another or even with their pastors on all political issues.

Polls usually focus on the segment most visible in American politics, white conservative evangelical Protestants. They make up a population of roughly twenty-five million adults whose voting behavior and political opinions have been extensively studied. This is the group I will focus on.

We shouldn’t assume they represent all evangelicals. Black and Latino evangelicals, for example, often share many of the same theological beliefs while differing substantially in their political opinions.

I’m not going to discuss if evangelicals are “hypocrites.” That accusation generates more heat than light. A more useful approach is to compare documented evangelical political positions with specific teachings attributed to Jesus and ask where the two fit comfortably and where they do not.

What Did Jesus Actually Teach?

Whatever you believe about the historical Jesus or the theological claims made about him, the Gospels present a recognizable and consistent ethical message.

The Sermon on the Mount praises the meek and merciful and commands followers to love their enemies and to pray for those who persecute them. The Good Samaritan makes a despised outsider the model of what it means to be a neighbor. People are judged according to whether they fed the hungry, clothed the needy, welcomed the stranger, and cared for the imprisoned.

Jesus also repeatedly warns about the love of wealth. In one case, he tells a rich man that his possessions are an obstacle to following him and declares that no one can serve both God and money. In another case he says, “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” Jesus never says that money is evil, and he recognizes that it can be used to do good for the less fortunate. He warned against greed and accumulating wealth for its own sake.

These are not obscure theological interpretations. They are among the best-known passages in Christian scripture.

The difficulty comes when Christians try to translate the teachings of a first-century itinerant Jewish rabbi into the policies of a twenty-first-century nation-state. Jesus never developed a federal budget, immigration code, tax schedule, or health-care program.

Christians can agree that they should help the poor while disagreeing about whether it should be done by government or private charity. They can value compassion toward immigrants while also believing that nations have a legitimate right to control their borders.

Christians have struggled with this distinction between personal morality and governmental responsibility since the fourth century when Christianity began to expand their political power. We should be cautious about declaring that any particular modern policy is obviously “what Jesus would do.”

Where the Fit Is Closer Than Critics Admit

Several aspects of conservative evangelicalism deserve consideration before we look at the contradictions.

The first is opposition to abortion. Evangelicals generally understand their pro-life position to be protection of vulnerable human life. Whether you agree with their conclusions about when personhood begins, the argument itself is not difficult to connect with a Christian obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Second, evangelicals have a substantial tradition of charitable giving. Practicing evangelicals tend to donate generously to churches and charities. Evangelical organizations have played important roles in disaster relief, international development, food assistance, adoption services, and care for the poor. Charitable giving is an important part of evangelical religious practice and has an obvious connection with the Gospel emphasis on caring for people in need.

Immigration provides a third, more complicated example. Surveys suggest that many evangelicals hold positions more nuanced than their political reputation would suggest. Some support secure borders and enforcement of immigration laws while simultaneously opposing the separation of families and favoring some form of legal status or pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants already living in the United States.

This is not necessarily inconsistent. You can believe both that a nation requires secure borders and that immigrants should be treated humanely. The difficulty arises when enforcement becomes punitive.

Where the Fit Becomes Strained

White evangelicals have been unusually supportive of aggressive immigration enforcement, increased funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, detention of undocumented migrants, and mass-deportation proposals. They also tend to view ICE more favorably than other major religious groups.

The story of The Good Samaritan is instructive on many levels. On the surface this is a story of someone considered to be an outsider showing compassion and caring for an unfortunate person. Samaritans were considered disreputable by Jews and the fact that a Samaritan would offer unequivocal love and concern for the less fortunate while Jews did not is significant on its own.

There’s another layer to this story. The “expert in the law” who questioned Jesus about whom he should see as his neighbor has long been considered to be a minor character who simply sets up the question so Jesus can provide a story. But a deeper reading reveals that the expert may be the object of the story. Rather than trying to understand who his neighbor is, he is attempting to set boundaries around those to whom he must show love. Jesus doesn’t ridicule him or directly point out his errors. He merely allows him to conclude that everyone is his neighbor regardless of any preconceived notions about them. Whether this changes the expert or not we aren’t told. We can only hope that it does.

This passage doesn’t tell us how governments should regulate immigration, but it makes it difficult to argue that the suffering of foreigners should be morally irrelevant to Christians.

An even more striking controversy has developed within evangelicalism over empathy.

Some conservative Christian writers, including Pastor Doug Wilson and theologian Joe Rigney, have warned that empathy can become morally dangerous when it causes people to identify so completely with another person’s suffering that they abandon moral judgment. They distinguish empathy from sympathy or compassion and argue that Christians should resist the former when it undermines their political objectives.

Their evangelical critics regard this as a remarkable reversal of traditional Christian priorities. Compassion for people who suffer is hardly peripheral to the ministry of Jesus. He repeatedly responded to sickness, hunger, grief, exclusion, and poverty with compassion and empathy.

The significance of this debate is that the criticism is no longer simply coming from secular liberals attacking conservative Christianity. Evangelicals themselves are arguing about whether their political culture has made them suspicious of one of Christianity’s central virtues.

Wealth, Poverty, and Selective Morality

Jesus repeatedly describes love of wealth as spiritually dangerous. He warns against storing treasures on earth and says that people cannot serve both God and money.

Jesus did not propose an economic system. Nothing in the Gospels tells us whether the top marginal tax rate should be 25 percent or 50 percent. It is simplistic to claim that Christianity requires support for a particular welfare program or tax policy.

But it is equally difficult to reconcile the Gospels with a Christianity that celebrates wealth while treating poverty as evidence of personal failure.

This leads to a broader question of selective morality. Why do abortion and sexual orientation receive enormous political attention while greed, pride, dishonesty, cruelty, contempt for foreigners, and indifference toward the poor receive comparatively less? Jesus certainly discussed sexual morality, but he also spoke repeatedly about money, hypocrisy, mercy, forgiveness, pride, and care for society’s outcasts.

A political Christianity that concentrates heavily on some sins while overlooking others risks reshaping the Gospel around the priorities of a political coalition.

Romans 13 and the Power of Government

The tension is especially visible in the Trump administration’s family-separation policy of 2018. Attorney General Jeff Sessions invoked Romans 13, Paul’s admonition to submit to governing authorities, as defense of their enforcement of immigration law.

The argument cannot simply be dismissed as theological fabrication. But Romans 13 also carries historical baggage. Appeals to obey governmental authority have repeatedly been used to defend unjust political systems and even slavery. These arguments generally ignore the fact that the same chapter concludes by describing love of one’s neighbor as fulfillment of the law.

There is also an historic Christian theological tradition behind this argument. Martin Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” theology distinguished between the responsibilities of individual Christians and those of civil government. Individuals may be commanded to forgive enemies, while governments still require police, courts, prisons, and armies. A government cannot literally turn the other cheek when confronted with violent crime or invasion.

Christianity contains these two obligations and they are often in tension — respect for legitimate civil authority and resistance to injustice. Emphasizing only the first can turn obedience to government into a religious virtue regardless of what government does. It’s important to remember Jesus’ commandment to render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s. Unfortunately, many modern conservative evangelicals seem to confuse Caesar and God.

Trump, Cyrus, and the Question of Character

Some evangelical leaders have compared Trump with Cyrus, the Persian king described in Isaiah. Cyrus was not an Israelite and did not worship Israel’s God, but the biblical narrative presents him as an instrument through whom God carried out a larger purpose.

Applied to Trump, the argument is straightforward. A political leader does not need to be personally virtuous to accomplish outcomes Christians consider desirable. Polling suggests that many white evangelicals make precisely this distinction. They express reservations about Trump’s personal behavior while strongly approving of his presidency and policies.

This is nothing new. Voters have routinely supported politicians they consider personally flawed because they prefer their policies to the alternative.

But for Christians, it creates another tension. The New Testament places considerable emphasis on honesty, fidelity, humility, self-control, and personal character. If those virtues matter when evaluating pastors, teachers, neighbors, and ordinary church members, Evangelical Christians need to explain why they are less important when evaluating political leaders.

Christian Nationalism

Perhaps the greatest departure from the teaching of Jesus comes with Christian nationalism. This is the idea that Christianity should enjoy a privileged relationship with the American state and that American law should explicitly reflect Christian identity.

The problem is not that Christians participate in politics. Christianity has influenced political movements ranging from the abolition of slavery and civil rights to temperance and opposition to abortion. Religious citizens have the same right as everyone else to bring their moral convictions into public debate.

The danger arises when Christianity becomes identified with a particular nation, party, or political leader and when Christian groups insist that the government must reflect only their religious convictions.

Jesus consistently resisted attempts to transform his religious mission into conventional political power. When questioned by Pilate, he declared that his kingdom was “not of this world.” His followers may participate vigorously in earthly politics, but the Gospel does not easily support the proposition that any modern nation is itself God’s kingdom.

A church shaped by Jesus should be capable of criticizing every political party, including the one supported by most of its members. It should be suspicious when electoral victory is described as divine victory and equally suspicious when political opponents are treated as enemies of God.

A Church Arguing With Itself

American evangelicalism is already having this debate internally. Walter Kim, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, has warned that mass deportation could separate an enormous number of families and has urged evangelicals to approach immigration through a more explicitly Christian framework.

Ordinary evangelical Christians are more divided than either their harshest critics or their most politically vocal leaders like to acknowledge. The story is not simply one of a monolithic church abandoning the teachings of its founder. It is the story of a large and diverse religious movement struggling with an ancient problem. How should a religion built around mercy, sacrifice, forgiveness, and love of neighbor fit within a political system built around power, law, coercion, and competing interests?

Evangelicals invoking Romans 13, and other teachings of Jesus, believe they are interpreting scripture faithfully. They may not be correct about every political conclusion, or any conclusion, but they have not invented the argument from nothing.

Perhaps the best test is not whether conservative evangelicals can find biblical passages supporting their positions; almost any political movement can do that. The important question is what receives the greatest emphasis.

If someone encountered American Christianity without ever having read the Gospels, what would they conclude Jesus cared about most? Abortion? Sexuality? Immigration enforcement? Religious control of government? Or would they recognize a teacher who spoke relentlessly about mercy, humility, forgiveness, hypocrisy, wealth, and care for outsiders and the poor?

That is a question worth asking not only of conservative evangelicals, but of every Christian movement that seeks political power.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT

Sources

1. Pew Research Center, “White evangelicals remain among Trump’s strongest supporters, but less so than a year ago” (Feb. 9, 2026). https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/02/09/white-evangelicals-remain-among-trumps-strongest-supporters-but-theyre-less-supportive-than-a-year-ago/

2. Pew Research Center, “Americans’ Views of Religion’s Role in Government and Christian Nationalism” (May 14, 2026). https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2026/05/14/how-americans-feel-about-religions-influence-in-government-and-public-life/

3. PRRI, “Immigration Enforcement, ICE, and Civil Liberties in the Second Trump Administration” (March 26, 2026). https://prri.org/research/americans-views-on-immigration-enforcement-ice-and-civil-liberties-in-the-second-trump-administration/

4. PRRI, “The New Immigration Crackdown: Where Americans Stand” (Dec. 9, 2025). https://prri.org/research/the-new-immigration-crackdown-where-americans-stand/

5. Lifeway Research / Evangelical Immigration Table, “Evangelicals Want Secure Borders and Citizenship Pathway for Immigrants” (2025 study). https://research.lifeway.com/2025/02/05/evangelicals-want-secure-borders-and-citizenship-pathway-for-immigrants/

6. Religion News Service / Word&Way, “Evangelical Groups Warn Trump’s Deportations Could Leave 1.3M ‘Torn Apart’ From Families” (May 5, 2026). https://wordandway.org/2026/05/05/evangelical-groups-warn-trumps-deportations-could-leave-1-3m-torn-apart-from-families/

7. The Banner, “U.S. Evangelicals Divided Over What Faith Demands as Immigration Tensions Deepen” (Feb. 6, 2026). https://www.thebanner.org/news/2026/02/us-evangelicals-divided-over-what-faith-demands-as-immigration-tensions-deepen

8. PBS News, “Is empathy a sin? Some conservative Christians argue it can be” (Aug. 21, 2025). https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-empathy-a-sin-some-conservative-christians-argue-it-can-be

9. The Gospel Coalition, “Navigating Empathy” (Themelios, Dec. 7, 2021). https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/navigating-empathy/

10. Texas Observer, “The Little-Known Theology Behind White Evangelical Support of Donald Trump” (April 20, 2019). https://www.texasobserver.org/the-little-known-theology-behind-white-evangelical-support-of-donald-trump/

11. HuffPost, “Evangelicals Keep Misusing The Same Bible Verses To Give Trump A Pass” (June 20, 2018). https://www.huffpost.com/entry/evangelicals-keep-misusing-the-same-bible-verses-to-give-trump-a-pass_n_5b297b7fe4b0a4dc9921e6e8

12. Commonweal Magazine, “Rationalizing Trump” (Feb. 24, 2025). https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/rationalizing-trump

13. Providence, “Romans 13 and ICE under the Trump Administration” (Feb. 24, 2026). https://providencemag.com/2026/03/romans-13-and-ice-under-the-trump-administration/

14. Grey Matter Research, “Giving Is Down among Evangelicals” (Sept. 10, 2024). https://greymatterresearch.com/the-giving-gap/

15. Lifeway Research, “What Sparks Evangelical Generosity? Discipleship” (Jan. 14, 2022). https://research.lifeway.com/2022/01/14/are-evangelicals-generous-enough/

16. MinistryWatch, “Christians are Most Charitable, Giving Drives Happiness” (Dec. 18, 2024). https://ministrywatch.com/christians-are-most-charitable-giving-drives-happiness/

Beyond “OK, Boomer” — Why Stereotyping Seniors Gets It Wrong

By John Turley

On October 30, 2026

In Commentary

Perhaps I’m overly sensitive, but it seems that the Internet has lumped everyone over the age of 60 into the monolithic group known as “Boomers“. It not only includes those of us in the baby boom generation is also catches the older Gen X people as well. It seems that we all have the same opinions about everything, at least in the minds of the young blog writers. The internet is flooded with articles with titles such as “Crazy Things that Boomers Eat”, “Stupid Things that Boomers Still Believe”, “10 phrases that Boomers Won’t Understand”, and, my all-time favorite, “15 Things that Show Boomers only Care about Themselves “. If I were to write these same articles using “Gen Z” in place of “Boomers”, I’d be accused of being an out of touch old fossil.

Many young people assume that all seniors form a single uniform conservative voting bloc. According to the Pew Research Center in a 2026 party affiliation survey, adults 65 and older are almost evenly split, 51% favoring Republicans and 46% favoring Democrats. But even that is somewhat misleading, many of us, older folks who report favoring Republicans still think of ourselves as belonging to the Republican Party of Nelson Rockefeller, fiscally conservative, and socially moderate. This was the Republican Party before MAGA or the Tea Party. I know because I was once one of those Republicans. While I no longer identify as a Republican, I don’t identify as a Democrat either.

The Boomers led the protest against the Vietnam War. Some of us turned out by the thousands to protest against what many viewed as an unjust war. Of course, there were many of us who served because we felt it was our duty to our country, not because we felt that the government was always right. This was the first time the people actually began to distrust their government. While it’s a common sentiment now it was an alien concept to us at the time.

I haven’t noticed large numbers of the younger, progressive members of our society protesting any of the recent wars. Personally, I believe that since there is no draft, war doesn’t touch them individually, so as a group they don’t have the motivation to protest. I’ve been to the No Kings rallies and it’s unusual to see anyone under 60 and people under 50 are rare. So, the idea that seniors blindly support the government just doesn’t hold up.

There is a common misconception among young people that Boomers are technologically inept. They mistake unfamiliarity with a lack of understanding. The 20-year-old who takes great pride in their ability to post TikTok videos likely has little or no understanding of the science that makes social media possible. Of course, there are some older people who really don’t understand technology just as there are younger people who don’t. But this is the generation that was a major force in the development of laptop computers, cellular technology and smartphones, the Internet, Wi-Fi, and most of the convivences of the digital age that young people take for granted. We had to repeatedly learn new technology and adapt as science evolved. Younger people grew up with cell phones and computers and have not had to adapt to never before seen technical advances. Saying that we Boomers don’t understand technology it’s the same thing as saying our parents’ generation who put a man on the moon didn’t understand technology because they didn’t have a laptop computer and had to rely on a slide rule.

Boomers are typically painted as being sexually repressed and homophobic. But this is the generation that led away in the sexual revolution, women’s liberation, and the gay pride movement. We had slogans such as “free love “ and “make love not war“. This was a generation that took part in the “Stonewall Riots” that first drew national attention to police abuse of gay people. It’s also the generation that led the way for same-sex marriage and for gay couples to adopt.

Support for same-sex marriage is a good model for understanding how Boomer’s opinions have evolved. Gallup survey data from the 1990s showed this age group to be largely opposed to same-sex marriage, but by 2016 these same surveys showed a majority approving, and the approval rate has continued to climb. This shift in attitudes has been slow, but most of the Boomers grew up at a time when homosexuality was widely condemned, was almost never discussed publicly, and people could even be criminally charged. People in their late 80s in early 90s are the least likely to have shifted positions on gay rights issues but they are the ones who were raised in the times of the harshest attitudes.

Boomers are usually identified with racial prejudice, and this may be the clearest example of the generational divide. To provide some historical framework, many of us older members of the generation were born and came of age during the waning days of racial segregation. This had a profound effect on both Black and White Boomers as we saw racial hatred and violence played out on our television and argued about in our living rooms. For some it heightened their racial animosity while others were incensed at the unfair treatment of their fellow citizens.

Many young White college students joined with Black students at civil rights rallies, voter registration drives, and as freedom riders. Unfortunately, many also joined groups opposed to civil rights and some even engaged in violence against minorities.

Surveys over the past 25 years have shown a generally positive, though slight, shift in the attitudes of White Boomers on racial issues and support for programs to improve racial equality and address the lingering effects of past discrimination. But the positive shift has not been universal. Older White citizens who strongly identify with conservative causes have shown an increasing resistance to programs to support minority rights as demonstrated by their almost universal opposition to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

It is still important to recognize that a Black middle-class family has more in common with a White middle-class family than either one has with a billionaire, regardless of race. The increasing recognition of this commonality hopefully will lead to improving relations across all levels of society.

The younger generation seems to reserve its strongest criticism of the Boomers for issues related to the economy. They see older citizens as a Greedy Gray Army out to steal their future, and keep all the wealth for ourselves. They fail to recognize that we spent our entire lives working and saving. We paid income taxes. We paid Social Security taxes. We paid Medicare taxes. We invested in IRAs and retirement accounts. We are not stealing anything from anyone. We are not being given anything. We earned it. We deserve it. And we expect to receive it.

Looking at it from the perspective of older Americans, we see younger people demanding student loan forgiveness and affordable—subsidized—housing and healthcare. Many of us believe that we’re asking for what we worked for and it’s the young who want a transfer of wealth. At the same time many older people are raising their grandchildren and even great grandchildren and providing significant financial support to their adult children.

Putting all seniors in a single group is no more accurate than saying that all young people lack respect, have no work ethic, and are only concerned with physical appearance and the number of likes they get on social media. It is true, that if you look at “average” polling data it will tell you that the average 75-year-old has different opinions than the average 25-year-old. But that’s a long way from saying all 75-year-olds have the same opinion. It seems that ageism may be the only acceptable prejudice left in American society.

To any young people who have made it this far in this article, I just want to say: “We are all individuals with our own opinions. You’re going to be old someday and the younger generation will look at you as a bunch of out-of- touch old fossils.”

Image generated by author using ChatGPT.

When the Body’s Thermostat Fails: The Dangers of Extreme Heat and Cold

By John Turley

On October 26, 2026

In Uncategorized

Mammals have evolved with an internal thermostat that does a remarkably good job maintaining a consistent body temperature. We humans evolved in a warm climate, so we are physiologically more adapted for shedding heat than for retaining it. Our body runs best when we maintain an internal (core) temperature between 97°F and 99°F.

Our internal thermostat adjusts blood flow, metabolism, sweating, and muscle activity to maintain our internal temperature balance, also known as homeostasis. When we’re exposed to high heat the blood vessels near the skin expand, allowing heat to escape. Sweating increases to cool the body. When we’re exposed to extreme cold, blood vessels narrow to conserve our body heat and we start to shiver to generate additional heat.

Extreme heat or cold can overwhelm the ability of our thermostats to regulate our internal temperature and we begin to experience discomfort, confusion and eventually organ injury, unconsciousness, and even death.

Extreme Heat

Our body’s main defense against extreme heat is sweating. It’s not so much the sweat itself as it is evaporation that cools us. Sweat evaporates efficiently on a hot dry day, but when the air is saturated with moisture, sweating is much less effective. A temperature that would be tolerable in a dry environment can rapidly become unbearable in a humid one. As it turns out, those people who have always said, “it’s the humidity not the temperature“ were at least partially correct.

Sweating works fine for a while, but in extreme heat, it can quickly lead to dehydration. While your body struggles to keep you cool, blood flow shifts towards the skin to give up additional heat. This causes more stress on the heart and the circulatory system. People with underlying heart disease, vascular disease, lung disease, or even diabetes, and kidney disease can be under significant stress from heat. Heat can also affect the brain’s functioning and potentially worsen mental illnesses such as anxiety and schizophrenia.

As a body’s internal temperature increases, it can lead to confusion which can cause accidents and impaired judgment. When the temperature passes 104°F it can even lead to loss of consciousness. This isn’t just a bad day in the sun; it’s a true medical emergency.

I covered specific heat injuries, including their symptoms, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment in my post “When the Sun Bites Back“.

Extreme Cold

Extreme cold presents a different problem. As our body begins to lose heat faster than it can generate it, our internal thermostat works to retain heat rather than shed it. The primary goal becomes preserving internal body temperature. Blood flow shifts to the core, often sacrificing the extremities to protect vital organs.

The initial response is constricting blood vessels near the surface of the skin to reduce heat loss. We then began shivering, involuntary, rapid contractions that can generate considerable heat in the short run. But shivering requires energy and can soon deplete our reserves.

It’s not just the temperature that causes problems. Wind increases heat loss from exposed skin, giving us the well known wind-chill. Water exposure, whether from heavy rain, melting snow, or direct immersion increases heat loss dramatically.

Excessive cold creates symptoms similar to heat, confusion, poor judgment, and slowed thinking set in initially, making it difficult for most people to recognize that they are in the midst of a medical emergency.

The heart is especially vulnerable to extreme cold. As our core body temperature drops, the heart’s electrical conduction system becomes increasingly unstable. This increases the risk of dangerous arrhythmias. The potential for cardiac arrest raises considerably when core body temperature falls below 90°F. What most people think of as “freezing to death” is caused primarily by cardiac arrest.

I will be covering specific cold injuries, including their diagnosis, symptoms, treatments, and prevention in a future post.

Which Is More Dangerous?

Extreme heat seems to get the most notice; a heat wave never fails to make the news. But epidemiological studies tell a different story. Two large-scale studies in Europe in the last twenty years have found deaths from cold to be between nine and seventeen times greater than those from heat. We are less aware of cold deaths because they are spread out over time and location, rather than being the result of a single weather event.

The future may tell a different story. As the climate warms, the rate of heat- related deaths is increasing compared to cold. This is significant because heat waves kill quickly and in large numbers; a 2003 European heat wave is estimated to have caused at least 70,000 excess deaths.

Who Is At Greatest Risk?

Interestingly, the risk factors for heat and cold related injuries and death are almost identical. Obviously, people with significant environmental exposure, outdoor workers, emergency responders, and farmers, are at increased risk.

Age is common risk factor. Infants have limited ability to regulate their internal temperature, and young children heat up and cool off faster than adults. Older adults have a spectrum of problems that increase their risk. As we age, the body can lose its ability to adapt to temperature changes. Cardiovascular reserve can lessen, reducing the ability to respond to the stress of extreme temperatures. Many older people are taking medications that may alter hydration or temperature regulation. Additionally, many older adults have mobility problems or lack reliable transportation or social support to enable them to escape temperature extremes.

Use of drugs or alcohol can contribute to dehydration and heat loss. They also can impair judgement or mentation, increasing the susceptibility to temperature extremes.

Our Human Thermostat

We have evolved with an amazing ability to regulate our internal temperature, but the range is surprisingly narrow. Our adaptability can give us a false sense of security. As our thermostat begins to fail, our judgement and mental status become altered, leaving us even more valuable.

Awareness, planning and prevention are the most important parts of preventing temperature related injuries.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

1. Harvard Health Publishing, “Heat Stroke (Hyperthermia).” https://www.health.harvard.edu/preventive-care/heat-stroke-hyperthermia-a-to-z

2. Cleveland Clinic, “Heat Stroke.” https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/21812-heatstroke

3. “Impact of hyper- and hypothermia on cellular and whole-body physiology,” PMC. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11727703/

4. “Heat stroke: Pathogenesis, diagnosis, and current treatment,” ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1568163724002277

5. American Academy of Family Physicians, “Hypothermia and Cold Weather Injuries.” https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2019/1201/p680.html

6. “Out of the cold: management of hypothermia and frostbite,” PMC (CMAJ). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC140473/

7. Connecticut Department of Public Health, “Frostbite and Hypothermia.” https://portal.ct.gov/dph/communications/crisis-and-emergency-risk-communication/frostbite-and-hypothermia

8. Gasparrini A, et al., “Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multicountry observational study,” The Lancet, 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4521077/

9. Zhao Q, et al., “Global, regional, and national burden of mortality associated with non-optimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019,” The Lancet Planetary Health, 2021. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext

10. “Are there more cold deaths than heat deaths?” The Lancet Planetary Health, 2025. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(25)00054-3/fulltext

11. ScienceDaily, “Cold weather kills far more people than hot weather.” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150520193831.htm

Trump, The Press, And The Authoritarian Playbook

By John Turley

On October 22, 2026

In History, Politics

Donald Trump’s recent battle with CNN, MS NOW, and Politico is just the latest in a long list of conflicts with the press over what he views as unfavorable or inaccurate coverage. Many people believe his actions are becoming increasingly authoritarian. Some are quick to reach for the term Nazi or fascist when describing his actions. I know this can be tempting because I’ve done it myself.

While his actions are becoming increasingly authoritarian-like, have they really reached the level of previous totalitarian dictatorships? Let’s look at a few totalitarian regimes from the last 100 years and see how the Trump administration’s approach to the press stacks up against theirs. While there are many examples to choose from, I’m going to look at two familiar and one not so familiar example — Nazi Germany, Communist China, and Viktor Orbán’s Hungary.

Nazi Germany

Prior to Hitler’s rise to power, Germany had a free and diverse press. In 1933 there were more than 4,700 newspapers in Germany covering almost every political, social and religious segment of society. Less than three percent of newspapers were controlled or heavily influenced by the Nazis.

Hitler rapidly seized control of the German press through a series of emergency decrees and laws he justified through a series of trumped-up events such as the infamous Reichstag fire. Hitler blamed the fire on the communists despite any clear evidence that they were involved.

Hitler also used it to justify mass arrests of political opponents and to issue emergency decrees suspending basic civil liberties and he made it illegal to criticize the government. Within just a few months, communist and social democratic newspapers had been shut down and their printing presses confiscated. Independent newspapers faced increasing pressure to comply “voluntarily” with government restrictions on their reporting.

In March 1933, the Nazis created the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under Joseph Goebbels. He quickly took control of film, radio, theater, and newspapers. The Editor’s Law of October 1933 required every editor and journalist to register with the government. It excluded Jews and anyone married to a Jew, or anyone considered politically or racially unacceptable from taking part in either newspaper writing or publishing.

Editors were given specific instructions about what they would be allowed to report and how stories should be prepared. They were ordered to omit anything “calculated to weaken the strength of the Reich abroad or at home.” Acceptable content was provided through weekly press conferences in Berlin and was relayed to local newspapers. Those who didn’t comply could lose their jobs or even face the concentration camps. By the middle of 1941, the Nazis controlled approximately 80% of German newspapers. By the beginning of 1942, independent newspapers had virtually ceased to exist.

Communist China

China is an important example of media control in the digital age. They have found an effective way of controlling information in a society where almost everyone has a smartphone and almost anyone can post content.

China is not new to the game of media control. The Chinese Communist Party first established the Central Propaganda Department in 1921 and has been in total control of the country’s media since 1949. It found a way to effectively control a commercial media market by allowing some private ownership of closely controlled media companies.

What China has created is an effective system of self-censorship where media outlets employ their own in-house content managers who review all published items based on censorship guidelines from the Central Propaganda Department that are updated on a weekly basis. Publication rights can be granted, revoked, or restricted at the discretion of the party. There is no appeal of decisions.

The party has the “Great Firewall” that blocks foreign platforms and scrubs all sensitive topics from the Chinese internet. Websites can be blocked, social media posts removed, and accounts deleted. In 2016 Xiao Jinping stated, “all the work by the party’s media must reflect the party’s will, safeguard the party’s authority, and safeguard the party’s unity.”

According to nonprofit democracy watchdog groups, Freedom House, and The Committee to Protect Journalists, China has the world’s most restrictive media environment, and it is the world’s most aggressive jailer of journalists, holding at least 50 in prisons.

Hungary

Hungary is important to consider because it is a 21st century example of a state attempting to establish authoritative style control over national media. It’s equally important because it’s an example of an authoritative style government being voted out of office and actually leaving office.

Viktor Orbán used a strategy in Hungary this been referred to as “media capture”. He used organizations meant to provide oversight and protection for journalists and society at large and turned them into instruments of political influence; it’s the way he built and maintained his political power.

He cultivated friendly relationships with wealthy media owners, he made targeted advertising expenditures, and he exerted pressure on independent journalists. He assisted wealthy supporters in acquiring media organizations and provided them with favorable regulatory decisions. Without ever formally banning the opposition press, he wound up with indirect but nonetheless effective control of about 75% of the Hungarian media.

Orbán also worked tirelessly spreading propaganda through news outlets. His government regularly portrayed the opposition media as spreading false information and working for foreign governments. He seems to have a particular fascination with the Hungarian-born American businessman and philanthropist George Soros, something he shares with many American Republicans.

Media outlets that were favorable to Orbán enjoyed institutional and financial support. Critical organizations operated with greater difficulty. The combination of friendly ownership, public spending, and reduced regulatory authority gave an advantage to Orbán’s supporters. While Orbán made sure the competition was unequal, Hungary still retained some independent journalism as is evidenced by his recent election defeat.

How Trump Fits The Pattern

To be fair, I cannot say that Trump is completely replicating the authoritarian management of the press seen in countries such as Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, or modern authoritarian states. The legal, regulatory, and social environment in the United States makes that kind of overt government control of the press extremely difficult. But within the constraints of the American legal and political system, I believe Trump is applying some of the same principles wherever possible.

One example is his effort to control access to news events. The White House does not control reporters or what they write, but it has considerable control over who gets access to the president and his administration. It can influence who attends certain press events, who travels aboard Air Force One, and who receives interviews with the president, cabinet members, and other high-ranking officials. Privileged access is a powerful tool for rewarding friendly coverage and discouraging hostile reporting.

Trump has also benefited from the growing importance of friendly media ownership. Wealthy individuals and corporations increasingly control major news organizations, and their political and business interests can potentially influence editorial decisions. Jeff Bezos’s ownership of The Washington Post and the Ellison family’s influence over CBS and its corporate parent have raised questions about how ownership may affect coverage. An even more direct example is Truth Social, Trump’s preferred social-media platform, in whose parent company he holds a substantial financial interest.

Trump is also skilled at using delegitimizing language, a favorite tactic of authoritarian governments. Repeated attacks on journalists and news organizations can weaken the public’s willingness to defend an independent press. Trump’s frequent use of terms such as “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people” does not, by itself, facilitate the creation of an authoritarian program and rhetoric alone does not create a dictatorship. Historically, however, authoritarian movements have often attacked the credibility and legitimacy of the independent press before attempting to restrict its influence or bring it under greater control.

Perhaps the strongest parallel is the use—or threatened use—of government licensing, regulation, investigations, and litigation as instruments of pressure. Even when direct government action does not follow, repeated threats of lawsuits, license challenges, investigations, or adverse regulatory decisions can influence the behavior of media executives. Companies with billions of dollars at stake in mergers, licenses, acquisitions, and other government decisions may become more cautious about pursuing stories or commentary likely to antagonize the administration.

No single action constitutes government control of the press, and many individual actions may fall within existing law. But when media companies make concessions to the government while seeking favorable regulatory decisions, settling lawsuits, or protecting other corporate interests, the cumulative effect can be significant. Control of the press does not necessarily arrive through censorship laws or government seizure of newspapers and television stations. It can develop gradually, as economic pressure, political intimidation, restricted access, and regulatory uncertainty encourage media organizations to become increasingly cautious and compliant.

How He Doesn’t Fit

The most significant way Trump does not fit the traditional authoritarian pattern is legal. Authoritarian governments typically move quickly to suppress or abolish a free press, either by law or decree. In the United States, however, the First Amendment remains intact, and—for now—the courts continue to serve as an important check on presidential power. Numerous actions by the Trump administration have been challenged in court, and the administration does not have the legal authority simply to abolish freedom of the press. This is an essential distinction that cannot be ignored, even by those who are highly critical of Trump’s attempts to influence the news media.

There is also no equivalent in the United States to the systematic physical coercion employed by many authoritarian governments. Totalitarian regimes have imprisoned journalists, closed newspapers and broadcasting facilities, seized printing presses, and, in some cases, tolerated or encouraged violence against journalists. Whatever the seriousness of Trump’s attacks on the press, the United States has not reached that point.

Most authoritarian governments also attempt to establish centralized control over propaganda, censorship, and the distribution of information. The fragmented nature of the American media makes that extraordinarily difficult. Competing newspapers, television networks, radio stations, internet publications, podcasts, social media, and independent journalists provide Americans with an enormous variety of information. The ready availability of foreign news sources provides another safeguard against any government effort to monopolize information.

There is also an important difference in the speed and effectiveness of government action. Authoritarian regimes often move rapidly against an independent press. The Bolsheviks began closing opposition newspapers within days of taking power, while the Nazis largely brought the German press under their control within the first few years of Hitler’s rule. By contrast, Trump’s efforts to exert greater influence over the American media have encountered resistance from the courts, journalists, media organizations, political opponents, and civil society. The historical pattern of a rapid conquest of the press has not occurred in the United States, and it remains more of an ongoing contest.

Most importantly, Americans keep the ability to change their government through elections. Trump continues to have a substantial political base, but opposition parties and candidates remain free to organize, campaign, criticize the president, and compete for political power. As long as genuinely competitive elections, an independent judiciary, and constitutional protections for speech and the press remain intact, there are substantial barriers to comprehensive media control.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The more relevant comparison for the future may be not Nazi Germany or China, but Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, creating an American version of “media capture.”

The Trump administration may continue moving in that direction. It could place pressure on media owners through regulatory decisions, licensing disputes, government investigations, or the threat of litigation. Lawsuits and threatened lawsuits may also make media organizations more cautious about particularly aggressive coverage. Efforts to reduce or eliminate federal support for public broadcasting could further alter the media landscape.

Several potential developments deserve particularly close attention. Will the administration comply with adverse court rulings, or will it attempt to circumvent or delay them through prolonged litigation? Will the FCC use licensing or regulatory authority in ways that appear connected to the political content of news coverage? Will the Justice Department investigate or prosecute journalists for legitimate news gathering activities rather than for conduct involving clearly established violations of law? And will government power increasingly be used to reward friendly media organizations while imposing economic or regulatory costs on hostile ones?

These questions matter because authoritarian control of the press does not necessarily arrive in a single dramatic act. It can develop gradually as political leaders weaken independent institutions, intimidate critics, reward friendly owners, and make journalists increasingly cautious about challenging those in power.

For that reason, the most useful approach is neither to declare that the United States has already become an authoritarian state nor to assume that its constitutional protections make such a development impossible. It is better to watch what happens to the institutions that stand between political power and control of information: the courts, independent media organizations, regulatory agencies, opposition parties, and ultimately the electorate.

Trump’s relationship with the press clearly does not duplicate Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, or Orbán. The question is whether the safeguards that distinguish the American system from those regimes remain strong enough to resist political pressure.

Illustration generated by author using ChatGPT

Sources

Committee to Protect Journalists. “Alarm Bells: Trump’s First 100 Days Ramp Up Fear for the Press, Democracy.” May 12, 2025.
Associated Press. “Paramount Settles with Trump for $16 Million over ’60 Minutes’ Interview.” July 2, 2025.
Reuters. “Democratic FCC Commissioner Blasts Paramount Settlement with Trump as ‘Desperate’ Move.” July 2, 2025.
Reuters. “CNN, MS NOW and Politico Sue Trump, Challenging White House Ban.” September 21, 2026.
Reuters. “White House Media Ban Faces Long Odds in Court, Legal Experts Say.” September 22, 2026.
Associated Press. “A White House Press Ban Was Lifted This Week. But the …” September 25, 2026.
American Civil Liberties Union. “Trump’s Attacks on Press Freedom Escalate: NPR, PBS Funding Cuts Explained.” August 5, 2025.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “The Press in the Third Reich.” Holocaust Encyclopedia.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Nazi Propaganda and Censorship.” Holocaust Encyclopedia.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Editors Law.” Holocaust Encyclopedia.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “What Was Nazi Propaganda?”
Council on Foreign Relations. “Media Censorship in China.”
Freedom House. “China: Freedom in the World 2025 Country Report.”
Freedom House. “China: Freedom on the Net 2025 Country Report.”
U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Censorship Practices of the People’s Republic of China. Prepared by Exovera’s Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis. February 20, 2024.
Committee to Protect Journalists. “2025 Journalist Jailings Remain Stubbornly High; Harsh Prison Conditions Pervasive.”

Two Holy Men In The Roman World

By John Turley

On October 16, 2026

In History

Comparing Jesus of Nazareth and Apollonius of Tyana

One of my particular interests is the history of religions. Every few months I come across an article that starts out describing an itinerant first century philosopher, teacher, healer, and miracle worker. We get to the end of the article and then the big reveal. Surprise, it’s not Jesus, it’s Apollonius of Tyana. Almost every one of these articles presents this as if they were the first one to discover Apollonius and they want to debunk the story of Jesus and point out that he was only one of many first century miracle workers and teachers. Their thesis seems to be that Jesus was no different than the rest, he just had better PR and now that they have revealed the truth, Christianity will crumble.

This strikes me as a facile and quite frankly dubious comparison

Both men lived in the first-century Roman Empire at about the same time. Both were regarded by their followers as miracle workers. Both taught virtues, challenged the powerful, and attracted disciples. Both are said to have ascended directly into heaven after death.

But that’s where the similarity ends. Only one of them launched a movement that reshaped the entire history of Western civilization. The other faded into obscurity; remembered today mainly as a footnote in attempts to discredit the other guy. The story of Jesus of Nazareth and Apollonius of Tyana is one of the most fascinating side-by-side comparisons in religious history.

Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who began his public ministry around 28–30 CE. His movement grew out of Judaism, and he operated within that tradition. He quoted Hebrew scriptures, observed Jewish festivals, and preached to predominantly Jewish audiences. He gathered twelve close disciples, spoke to common people in everyday language, taught in parables, and performed healings. He often challenged religious and social authorities. He was crucified under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate around 30–33 CE. Soon after his death, his followers proclaimed that he had risen from the dead. That claim became the cornerstone of a new faith.

What makes Jesus important historically is the speed with which written accounts of his life appeared. Multiple authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, recorded his life and teachings within a few decades of his death, while eyewitnesses were still alive. Non-Christian sources, including the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus, also mention Jesus, providing independent corroboration of his existence and execution.

Apollonius of Tyana

Apollonius was a Greek philosopher from Tyana in Cappadocia (modern-day Turkey). He lived from roughly 15 CE to about 100 CE. He was a follower of the Neo-Pythagorean school of philosophy, a tradition that blended the belief of Pythagorus in the purification of the soul with elements of Platonism, Stoicism, and Eastern religious thought. He was reported to be celibate, vegetarian, and committed to a life of extreme asceticism. He traveled widely, to Greece, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and reportedly even India.

There is one important difference. Almost everything we know about Apollonius comes from a single source, a biography called the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, written by the Greek sophist Philostratus somewhere around 220–230 CE, roughly 120 to 150 years after Apollonius died. Philostratus claimed to be working from notebooks kept by a disciple named Damis, but those notebooks are lost and many scholars doubt they ever existed.

Some scholars have suggested that Philostratus may have used the Christian gospels as a source for the Life of Apollonius to create a kind of pagan counterpoint to Jesus by presenting a Greek philosopher who possessed many of the same extraordinary qualities.

The Teachings of Jesus

Jesus’s core message was that the Kingdom of God will transform the social and spiritual order in the present world. His ethical teachings were radical even by modern standards: love your enemies, forgive without limit, care for the poor, humble yourself before others. The essence of his teaching was summed up by the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus also claimed to have a unique personal relationship with God and to be the Son of God. He presented faith in himself as the path to salvation and eternal life.

Jesus’s teaching was revolutionary in its inclusiveness. He broke bread with tax collectors and prostitutes. He praised a despised Samaritan as a moral example. He welcomed women as disciples in a culture that largely excluded them from religious leadership. And he consistently inverted social hierarchies: the last shall be first, the meek shall inherit the earth. This was more than just nice philosophy; it was a direct challenge to the social order of the Roman world.

The Teachings of Apollonius

Apollonius’s message was rooted in Pythagorean philosophy, an intellectual, aristocratic tradition that emphasized mathematical harmony, spiritual purity, and the ascent of the soul through rigorous self-discipline. He preached vegetarianism and celibacy as paths to ritual purity. He taught that God was pure intellect, so far above human concerns that the only appropriate way to approach the divine was through the mind, not through prayer, sacrifice, or emotional devotion. He reformed religious practices in the cities he visited, arguing against animal sacrifice and promoting a more spiritualized form of worship.

Apollonius was a moral reformer who criticized tyrants, corrupt officials, and hypocritical priests, and counseled cities on just governance and social harmony. His ethical teachings urged moderation, justice, and respect for traditional civic life. These were admirable ideas, but they were fundamentally elitist. His teachings required education, leisure, and a philosophical temperament. This was wisdom for the learned few, not a message for the masses.

Beliefs About Jesus

The followers of Jesus made claims that were, by the standards of any religious tradition, audacious. They didn’t just say he was a great teacher or a holy man, they proclaimed that he was the Son of God, the Jewish Messiah, and the savior of all humanity. They believed the resurrection was not merely symbolic, but that it was a historical event witnessed by hundreds of people. The Apostle Paul, writing within twenty years of the crucifixion, lists specific individuals who had seen the risen Jesus, including a five hundred people who witnessed him as a group.

Christian theology also offered something emotionally powerful: a personal God who loves individual human beings, who forgives sin, and who promises eternal life to those who believe. The teachings of Jesus marginalized all other gods and powers, including Caesar, producing a strong internal cohesion and an identity distinct from other religions.

The resurrection provided an answer to the most universal human fear: death. The community that formed around this belief was unusually welcoming. It crossed lines of ethnicity, social class, and gender that were nearly impermeable in Roman society.

Beliefs About Apollonius

Followers of Apollonius regarded him as a divinely inspired sage, a ‘theios aner,’ or divine man, in the Greek tradition. This was a recognized category in pagan culture: a human being elevated by wisdom and virtue to something approaching the divine. Philostratus’s biography depicts him as a miracle worker who could heal the sick, raise the dead, and predict the future. After his death, stories circulated that he had appeared to a doubting follower in a vision, and that he had ascended directly to heaven.

But the theological claims about Apollonius were part of a different philosophical structure. In polytheistic Greek thought, becoming divine was a matter of degree; there were gods, demigods, heroes, divine men, and ordinary humans, arranged in a kind of spiritual hierarchy. Apollonius didn’t claim to be God, didn’t claim to offer salvation, and didn’t claim to have conquered death on behalf of all humanity. He was an extraordinary man who had achieved extraordinary wisdom, impressive, but not world-changing.

The Spread of Christianity

The early Christian movement spread through a combination of personal testimony, community formation, and relentless missionary work. The disciples of Jesus fanned out from Jerusalem almost immediately after the resurrection, establishing communities across the Roman Empire. Within a generation, there were Christian churches in Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Antioch, and Alexandria. By the end of the first century, Roman officials were commenting on this new religion. Pliny the Younger, writing around 112 CE, described Christians in Bithynia as meeting before dawn to sing hymns to Christ “as to a god,” although he also described their religion as “depraved, excessive superstition.“

What made this spread so effective was the community it created. Christians took care of each other during plagues, rescued abandoned infants, fed the poor, and welcomed social outcasts. In the ancient world, where there was no social safety net, this was profoundly attractive. As historian Will Durant observed, the Christian Church prevailed over paganism because it offered a much more attractive doctrine, and because church leaders addressed human needs better than their rivals.

The Spread of Apollonius’s Legacy

The story of Apollonius spread very differently and much slower. It was essentially a top-down, literary affair. There was no mass movement of devoted followers evangelizing in the streets. The primary vehicle for Apollonius’s story was Philostratus’s biography, written around 220 CE at the commission of the Empress Julia Domna. This was a single literary work produced for educated, aristocratic readers and not a grassroots spiritual movement. The biography circulated among intellectuals and pagan philosophers but not among the common people who were searching for spiritual meaning.

Pagan philosophers like Porphyry and Hierocles later used Apollonius as a rhetorical weapon against Christianity. They argued that if Christians could point to Jesus’s miracles, pagans could point to Apollonius’s. But this was an intellectual argument, not a spiritual one. Nobody was gathering weekly to worship Apollonius, nobody was dying for their belief in him, and nobody was going door-to-door in the cities of the Roman Empire inviting strangers to believe in his resurrection.

Perhaps the clearest way to understand why Christianity succeeded and the Apollonius movement didn’t is to compare the two men most responsible for spreading each message: Paul of Tarsus and Philostratus of Athens.

Paul: The Missionary

Paul was arguably the most consequential religious missionary in human history. A Pharisee who had personally persecuted early Christians, he experienced a dramatic conversion around 33 CE. He spent the next thirty years traveling tens of thousands of miles across the Roman Empire, establishing Christian communities wherever he went. There are at least seven letters believed to have been directly authored by him and another three likely written by his followers and three of uncertain authorship that were written under his name. Those letters, still read by millions of people today, were written within twenty to thirty years of Jesus’s death, while the events were still fresh in living memory.

Paul’s genius was his ability to translate a Jewish message into Greco-Roman terms without losing its core. He could speak to Pharisees in Jerusalem and to Greek philosophers in Athens on the same topic. He reframed Jesus’s life and death in theological language that resonated across cultural boundaries. He interpreted Jesus’ message for a broader (Gentile) audience, emphasizing salvation through faith rather than adherence to Jewish law.

He also built real communities, churches with leaders, governance structures, and ongoing support networks. When Paul was done, a city had not only heard about Jesus; it had a functioning community organized around belief in him.

Crucially, Paul was willing to suffer for his message. He was beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned, and ultimately executed. His willingness to die for what he believed gave his testimony a weight that no literary commission could match. He was sharing news about events he personally believed to be true, including his claim of a direct encounter with the risen Jesus.

Philostratus: The Hired Biographer

Philostratus was a talented Greek orator and scholar, but he was not a missionary. He wrote the Life of Apollonius at the explicit request of the Empress Julia Domna, wife of Emperor Septimius Severus, around 217-220 CE. The biography was commissioned by imperial patronage for political and cultural purposes, not a spontaneous work of personal conviction or spiritual revelation. Philostratus himself acknowledged he was working from sources he could not fully verify, and his account is filled with hedged language: ‘it is said that’ and ‘some believe’. Paul’s letters were personal and never employed equivocation.

Furthermore, Philostratus wrote more than a century after Apollonius died, when anyone who had known Apollonius personally had long since passed away. By contrast, Paul was writing within a generation of Jesus’s death, explicitly appealing to living eyewitnesses to verify his claims. The contrast in credibility is stark. Philostratus was producing high-quality literary propaganda. Paul was writing compelling personal testimony.

Paul’s letters were copied, shared, read aloud in communities, and translated to several languages. They circulated among ordinary people, slaves, freedmen, artisans, and merchants. Philostratus’s biography reached philosophers and the wealthy.

One movement went wide; the other stayed narrow.

Why Christianity Won: The Big Picture

The success of Christianity over the Apollonius movement, and over every other spiritual alternative in the Roman world, came down to several advantages.

First, the message was universal. Jesus’s gospel was for everyone: Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female. Apollonius’s Pythagorean philosophy required education and leisure to be appreciated. Christianity could be grasped by an illiterate farmer in Syria or a senator in Rome.

Second, the community was real. Christian churches were functioning communities that provided mutual aid, social belonging, and shared identity. The Apollonius movement never produced anything like this. As historian Rodney Stark has argued, Christianity replaced paganism largely because it improved the lives of its adherents in concrete, measurable ways.

Third, the documentation was early. Multiple independent accounts of Jesus’s life appeared within decades of his death, while eyewitnesses were alive to confirm or deny them. The Apollonius story appeared 150 years after his death, from a single commissioned source, with no living witnesses.

Fourth, the theological core was transformative. The resurrection of Jesus was not just a claim about one man; it was a promise for every human being who believed in him. Death itself had been defeated. No philosopher, however wise, offered that.

John Remsburg, writing in 1909, put it simply: the religion of Apollonius disappeared because the proper conditions for its development did not exist. Christianity thrived because the existing conditions were favorable and because its message was more powerful.

Finally, Christianity had Paul. One passionate, tireless, theologically sophisticated missionary who planted churches from Jerusalem to Rome is worth a thousand imperial commissions. Philostratus produced a book. Paul changed the world.

───────────────────────────────────────────────

Image generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

Apollonius of Tyana – Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana

Philopedia: Apollonius of Tyana: https://philopedia.org/philosophers/apollonius-of-tyana/

About Bible Prophecy: Was Apollonius of Tyana a First Century Miracle Worker Like Jesus?: https://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/apollonius-of-tyana.htm

Christian Publishing House: How Do the Claims About Apollonius Compare to Jesus Christ?: https://christianpublishinghouse.co/2024/12/08/how-do-the-claims-about-apollonius-of-tyana-compare-to-jesus-christ/

Tektonics: Apollonius of Tyana and Jesus: https://www.tektonics.org/copycat/apollonius.php

GreekReporter: The Ancient Greek Jesus Christ, Apollonius of Tyana: https://greekreporter.com/2025/12/20/greek-jesus-christ-apollonius-tyana/

PBS Frontline: Why Did Christianity Succeed?: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/appeal.html

Wikipedia: Spread of Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Christianity

Saint Sophia DC: Four Reasons Why Early Christianity Grew So Quickly: https://www.saintsophiadc.org/four-reasons-early-christianity-grew-quickly/

Catholic Encyclopedia: Neo-Pythagorean Philosophy: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10745a.htm

CARM: Apollonius of Tyana Also Did Miracles – What About Him?: https://carm.org/evidence-and-answers/apollonius-of-tyana-also-did-miracles-and-rose-what-about-him/

Paul of Tarsus – Studies of Religion II: https://lumensor.weebly.com/paul-of-tarsus.html

Ad Fontes: Christian Influence on Imperial-Era Greek Philosophy: https://adfontesjournal.com/andrew-koperski/an-example-of-christian-influence-on-imperial-era-greek-philosophy-and-why-it-makes-one-gloomy-about-the-present/ ────────────────────────────────────────────────

The Generation Gap Is In The Soap Dish

By John Turley

On October 9, 2026

In Humor

It seems that hardly a week goes by that I don’t see one or more articles about some aspect of the “generation gap”. Usually, they have something to do with old folks complaining about how the younger generation has no manners, respect, or work ethic and the younger people complaining about how the old fogeys—usually referred to as Boomers—just don’t understand technology, social media, or whatever the hot item of the day is. Of course, they expect us old folks to benefit from the vast experience gained in their two and a half decades of life. I’m always reminded of an old saying, “all old people were young once, but no young person has ever been old.” Of course, there I go again, another Boomer wandering back into the past.

But there is a real generation gap, and it is “bar soap versus shower gel.” It’s hard to believe, but somebody actually did a survey on this subject and found that 65% of older people prefer bar soap while about 75% of younger people preferred shower gel.

It actually surprised me to learn that all that soap in the squeeze bottles isn’t the same. There is shower gel and then there is body wash. Apparently, body wash is more moisturizing while gel is better for oily skin. I just know that I don’t care for either one of them and I always feel like they never get completely rinsed off.

My wife and I have been doing a lot of traveling this summer and it seems that hotels have almost all completed their transition from bar soap to that liquid stuff in a dispenser hanging on the wall. From what little research I’ve done, apparently this went into full swing during COVID. The claim was that the shower gel is less likely to transmit infection. Although I don’t understand how a dispenser that sits there all the time and is handled by everyone is less a threat of infection than an individually wrapped bar of soap that only I handle. I think it’s just cheaper.

I only ask one thing from a bar of soap and that’s to get me clean. It’s a pretty simple process. You pick it up. You use it. You put it down. You can hold it in one hand. You’re not trying to open a slippery bottle with wet hands. In between showers the soap just sits in a dish waiting for its next job.

It seems to me that life with shower gel is much more complicated. You can’t take a shower until you have a collection of bottles and a personal development plan. You must have one bottle for your hair, one bottle for your face, and another bottle for your body. You have your energizing body wash for the mornings and a calming body wash for evenings. You also have a body wash with botanical extracts for when you need to reconnect with nature. It’s important to have a selection of body washes to be sure that one will match your mood. And don’t even get me started on exfoliating.

If you ask, “Which one is soap?”, you get the answer “It’s not soap, it’s a hydrating shower gel.” You then ask, “Does it get you clean?” And the answer is “Yes.” You respond, “Then it’s soap.” Although I suppose that may be considered an insensitive line of questioning.

I know when my bar of soap is about to fade away, it keeps getting smaller. With shower gel you don’t discover the bottle is empty until you’re standing there soaking wet and trying to squeeze out the last little bit. Maybe it’s just me, but I’d prefer a little advance notice.

And then there’s the whole thing about fragrances. I prefer my soap to smell something like soap. With shower gel there is a whole range of everything from cedarwood to spice to cinnamon to coastal sage to citrus fruit. I can’t even begin to guess what Morning Breeze is supposed to smell like.

I suppose that there’s room for coexistence. I’ll keep my bar of soap, and they can keep their collection of squeezables. But it’s going to take a much larger soap dish. Just so no one expects me to try their brand new $20 bottle of eucalyptus body wash.

Image generated by author using ChatGPT.

Who Pays for American Politics? Citizens United and the Rise of Big Money

By John Turley

On October 7, 2026

In Uncategorized

In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential and controversial campaign-finance decisions in modern American history: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The 5–4 ruling dramatically altered the regulatory restrictions on political spending. It allowed corporations, labor unions, and nonprofit organizations to spend unlimited amounts of organizational funds to independently support or oppose political candidates.

It was hailed by supporters as an important victory for freedom of speech and condemned by critics as opening American elections to the unprecedented influence of special-interest money. For more than sixteen years, Citizens United has shaped the way political campaigns have been financed and continues to do so as we approach the 2026 midterm elections.

I first published this article a little over a year ago and with the reports of increasing sums of dark money being spent on this election, I decided it was time to update it.

The Origins of the Case

In 2008, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, produced Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute documentary highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United planned to distribute the film as a video-on-demand during the primary season.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as McCain-Feingold, prohibited corporations and labor unions from using their general funds for “electioneering communications” during federal elections. Citizens United challenged the restriction, arguing that it violated the First Amendment.

A three-judge federal district court ruled against Citizens United and the organization appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court could have decided the case narrowly; but the justices chose to address the larger question of whether previous precedents restricting corporate political expenditures should be overturned.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

On January 21, 2010, the Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Citizens United. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.

The Court concluded that the government could not restrict independent political expenditure based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations and unions could now use treasury funds to pay for independent communications supporting or opposing candidates.

Kennedy wrote that political speech is “indispensable to decision making in a democracy,” even when the speaker was a corporation.

The decision overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of the Court’s earlier ruling in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent. He argued that corporations were different from individual citizens in ways that legitimately justify different campaign-finance rules. He warned that the decision would undermine public confidence in democratic government.

The Court did not rule that corporations could contribute unlimited amounts directly to candidates. Limits on direct campaign contributions remained in effect. The ruling concerned independent expenditures—money spent advocating for or against candidates without legally prohibited coordination with their campaigns.

Super PACs

It is misleading to say that Citizens United alone created super PACs, but it certainly laid the groundwork.

Two months after Citizens United, relying on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in that case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided SpeechNow.org v. FEC. It concluded that the government could not limit contributions to organizations that made only independent expenditures.

The combination of Citizens United and SpeechNow produced the legal foundation for what would become known as the super PAC.

Unlike an ordinary political action committee, a super PAC can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, unions, and other political committees. It cannot contribute directly to a candidate, and its expenditures must remain legally independent of the candidate it supports.

The distinction sounds significant on paper, but it has become one of the most disputed features of modern campaign finance.

While federal law still prohibits actual coordination as defined by FEC regulations, critics argue that the rules leave considerable room for outside organizations and campaigns to operate in parallel while maintaining the legal fiction of independence. Super PACs can be organized by people who previously worked for a candidate. They can devote all their resources to electing a single candidate. They can conduct advertising and voter-mobilization programs that closely mirror a campaign’s own activities.

The Explosion of Outside Spending

Outside political spending has increased enormously during the post-Citizens United era. According to an OpenSecrets analysis reported after the 2024 election, spending outside reached a record of approximately $4.5 billion. Super PACs accounted for a large portion of that spending.

America PAC, the super PAC closely associated with Elon Musk, reported approximately $263 million in receipts and $261 million in expenditures during 2024. About $174 million of its spending was reported to the FEC as independent expenditures.

While Musk was hardly the only wealthy donor, OpenSecrets estimated that he gave more than $291 million to Republican candidates, political committees, and “unaffiliated” organizations during the 2024 cycle. Five other individuals each contributed more than $100 million to groups supporting Republican candidates and issues. Democrats likewise benefited from wealthy donors though to a significantly lesser degree.

The Rise of Dark Money

The least transparent part of the system is what has become known as “dark money.”

Super PACs themselves generally must disclose their donors. But some nonprofit organizations and shell companies can participate in political spending without publicly revealing the source of their money. These organizations can also contribute money to super PACs, producing situations in which the super PAC discloses the organization that gave it the money without necessarily revealing the original source.

A Brennan Center analysis published in 2025 estimated that at least $1.9 billion in dark money entered federal elections during the 2024 cycle, nearly twice the comparable total for 2020. Approximately $1.3 billion came from nonprofits and shell companies contributing to super PACs.

The researchers cautioned that even the $1.9 billion figure was probably an underestimate because some political activity, particularly certain forms of digital advertising and spending, cannot be fully tracked. They estimated that dark-money organizations probably have spent at least $4.3 billion influencing federal elections since Citizens United.

What About Corruption?

The Court rejected the argument that independent expenditures created the same corruption concerns as direct contributions to candidates. The Court reasoned that if a corporation or individual independently purchases an advertisement supporting a candidate, that expenditure does not create the same potential quid pro quo arrangement as giving money directly to the candidate.

Critics argue that this distinction has little validity in the real world. A donor may give millions of dollars to a super PAC devoted almost entirely to electing one politician. Even without an explicit agreement between donor and candidate, it is hard to believe that such spending doesn’t provide extraordinary access and influence.

Supporters of the decision say that influence is not the same thing as bribery or corruption. Wealthy people, corporations, unions, newspapers, advocacy organizations, and ordinary citizens all have constitutional rights to advocate political ideas. From this perspective, allowing government to decide that some speakers possess too much influence creates its own threat to political expression.

What Americans Think

Public reaction to the ruling has historically been negative, although the best-known nationwide polls are now over a decade old.

A Washington Post–ABC News poll conducted shortly after the 2010 decision found that 80 percent of respondents opposed the ruling, including 85 percent of Democrats, 76 percent of Republicans, and 81 percent of independents. Two years later, Pew Research Center found that 65 percent of registered voters who knew about the new independent spending rules believed they were having a negative effect on the presidential campaign.

Reform Efforts

Some reform advocates favor a constitutional amendment allowing Congress and the states greater authority to regulate campaign spending. Others concentrate on disclosure requirements, arguing that even if independent spending remains unlimited, voters should at least be able to determine who ultimately supplied the money.

Another approach is to restrict contributions to super PACs through legislation designed to invite reconsideration of the constitutional issues by the Supreme Court.

The Abolish Super PACs Act, H.R. 2352, was introduced in the House in March 2025. A Senate version, S. 4602, was introduced by Senator Bernie Sanders in May 2026. Both seek to impose contribution limits on super PACs. As of October 2026, neither has become law.

The prospects for major reform are complicated by the First Amendment principles established in a series of campaign-finance decisions extending back decades. Congress cannot simply reenact the restrictions struck down by the Court and expect them to survive constitutional review by a court that still has many of the justices who made the original ruling.

Citizens United and the 2026 Elections

As November 3, 2026, midterm elections approach, Citizens United remains firmly in place. The super PACs and other outside organizations are still important participants in congressional races.

The enormous sums involved have changed the nature of political campaigns. The individual candidate is no longer the largest financial force in most national and in some state and local elections. A few wealthy donors or organizations can influence the outcome by spending millions of dollars supporting or opposing candidates without ever contributing money directly to any campaign.

It is hotly debated whether this represents an expansion of political freedom or a form of de facto political bribery. This is the fundamental disagreement about Citizens United.

Citizens United did not invent money in American politics. Wealthy donors, corporations, unions, political machines, and special interests have influenced elections since the founding of the republic. The decision didn’t eliminate contribution limits, and it didn’t allow every form of political spending to be kept secret.

It did change one of the rules governing political power. The government can no longer limit independent political expenditure simply because the speaker is a corporation or union. Combined with SpeechNow, it produced a political system in which billions of dollars can be raised and spent outside the traditional campaign structure.

The debate reaches well beyond campaign finance law and asks a question we have struggled with since our first elections. When does protecting political liberty for individuals and organizations begin to conflict with preserving political equality among citizens?

More than sixteen years after Citizens United, we are still trying to answer it.

Images generated by author using ChatGPT.

References

Supreme Court of the United States. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The Court’s official published opinion.
Supreme Court — Citizens United v. FEC

Federal Election Commission. “SpeechNow.org v. FEC.” Summary of the 2010 D.C. Circuit decision that helped establish the legal basis for independent-expenditure-only committees.
FEC — SpeechNow.org v. FEC

Federal Election Commission. “Understanding Independent Expenditures.” Explanation of federal rules governing independent and coordinated spending.
FEC — Understanding Independent Expenditures

Federal Election Commission. “Types of Nonconnected PACs.” Explanation of super PACs and hybrid PACs.
FEC — Types of Nonconnected PACs

Federal Election Commission. “America PAC — Committee Overview.” Official campaign-finance reports for America PAC.
FEC — America PAC

Brennan Center for Justice. Marina Pino and Julia Fishman, “Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election,” January 14, 2025.
Brennan Center — Citizens United and the 2024 Election

Brennan Center for Justice. Anna Massoglia, “Dark Money Hit a Record High of $1.9 Billion in 2024 Federal Races,” May 7, 2025.
Brennan Center — 2024 Dark Money Report

OpenSecrets. Anna Massoglia, analysis of record outside spending in the 2024 federal elections. The analysis calculated approximately $4.5 billion in outside spending.
OpenSecrets analysis — 2024 Outside Spending

Pew Research Center. “Super PACs Having Negative Impact, Say Voters Aware of ‘Citizens United’ Ruling,” January 17, 2012.
Pew Research Center — Citizens United and Super PAC Polling

U.S. Government Publishing Office. Abolish Super PACs Act, H.R. 2352, 119th Congress, introduced March 26, 2025.
GovInfo — H.R. 2352

U.S. Government Publishing Office. Abolish Super PACs Act, S. 4602, 119th Congress, introduced May 20, 2026.
GovInfo — S. 4602

Controlling the Story: Donald Trump’s Decade-Long Battle with the Press

By John Turley

On October 3, 2026

In Uncategorized

In July 2025 when Trump descended that famous escalator to announce his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, I thought he was just a fading reality TV star trying to increase his brand. I never suspected he would be a serious candidate, but I hoped that he would bring some entertainment to what appeared to be a large but otherwise boring field of Republican candidates. I just hoped he wouldn’t drop out too soon. I never expected nor could even have imagined that this would be the beginning of more than a decade of turmoil, the least of which is Trump‘s relationship to the media.

Interestingly, Trump’s love-hate relationship with the media didn’t begin with his presidential campaign. In the 1970s and 80s when he was a real estate developer, he began courting the press. Like most things in his life, it was transactional. He would trade gossip and insider information about the real estate business in return for favorable publicity about himself and his businesses. He was even known to call reporters using a fake name to praise himself and try to curry more favorable coverage.

Even then he was not above criticizing the press, laying the early groundwork for his much later claims of “fake news “. If a news article listed his net worth as being less than what he claimed or would criticize a real estate project, he would respond with unfailing criticism. He filed a $500 million lawsuit against the Chicago Tribune after an article criticized his 150-story Manhattan skyscraper project as being “one of the silliest things anyone could inflict on New York “. He also filed a $5 billion lawsuit against journalist Timothy O’Brien for his 2005 book Trump Nation which estimated his net worth in between $150 million and $250 million, far below the billions that Trump had claimed. Both of these lawsuits were dismissed. This may have set the stage for Trump’s litigative interaction with the news media. He didn’t have to win to get the attention he was seeking. Later, as president he would have the additional leverage to almost force settlement by the news media who needed his approval for their larger projects.

Trump’s relationship with the media changed with the premiere of The Apprentice in 2004. The show presented Trump as an exceptionally successful and decisive businessman. Since it wasn’t journalism, but was instead entertainment, it was given a factual pass. The Apprentice left him accustomed to mostly favorable coverage, making the media response to his campaign that much more surprising to him.

Back to the escalator.

At first, most of the media treated him as a curiosity, and an entertaining one as well. He could be counted on for a colorful quote or a timely soundbite. Some thought it was a publicity stunt designed to increase his reality TV brand. But early in his campaign for the nomination, his tone turned dark, attacking immigrants, liberals, and his opponents for the nomination. He no longer seemed as amusing.

As reporters began to dig into his finances and business practices and to question the credibility of many of his claims, Trump went on the attack.

He quickly learned that he could dominate a news cycle with provocative statements, outrageous claims, and personal insults. While the coverage was not always positive, it always satisfied his need for attention. He was beginning to refine his persecution narrative that would become a central theme in his personal political brand.

Trump’s first use of his now iconic phrase “fake news” was on December 10th, 2016, in a tweet about a month after he won election. In a January 11th, 2017, news conference Trump refused to answer a question from CNN correspondent Jim Acosta saying, “You are fake news.” He rapidly incorporated that phrase for anything that was critical or with which he disagreed. He went so far as to call much of the media “enemies of the American people”. He was attempting to claim the news outlet critical to him were in fact hostile to the country.

Trump claimed to have invented the term “fake news,” but like many other things associated with him it did not stand up to scrutiny. The Oxford English Dictionary identifies the earliest use of the term as a story in the Milwaukee Daily Journal in 1890. The term “fake news” appeared in numerous newspapers throughout the 1890s and early 1900s. Even earlier, newspapers had used a term “false news” for stories they felt were obviously untrue. This usage was limited to stories that were believed to have been fabricated. Trump morphed it into a criticism of anything he didn’t like.

Trump’s battle with Jim Acosta continued until November 2018 when he revoked Acosta’s White House press credentials. This is the first time that a president’s press office has ever cancelled a reporter’s credentials for anything other than a security or conduct issue.

His battle with the press continued in his second term. He developed a new strategy and began to file defamation and related lawsuits against major news outlets. He filed multiple lawsuits, both against broadcast organizations and the print media, including CBS News, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and BBC.

Despite the fact that most legal observers found the suits to be baseless, ABC News and Paramount, the parent company of CBS, settled with Trump almost exclusively on his terms. Many observers thought that this was largely because of his threats, both direct and implied, to their broadcast licenses.

The battle with the media reached its high point in September of 2026 when he announced that CNN, Politico, and MS NOW would be barred from the White House press pool and their reporters’ credentials were cancelled. Those organizations filed suit alleging the administration had violated their 1st and 5th Amendment rights.

Because of the limited space available in the White House pressroom, news organizations have typically rotated to cover news conferences forming a “pool” that will then share information with the other news agencies. News networks, including Fox News, canceled pool television coverage of some events. The New York Times and the Washington Post temporarily stopped photographing White House events.

This dispute is ongoing. All three organizations have regained access to the White House grounds but still find themselves limited in coverage of presidential events.

To be fair, not all of Trump’s complaints were without basis. During his first campaign and subsequent presidential term some stories were based on anonymous sources that later proved incorrect or overstated. Investigation into Russian election interference in 2016 was often based on speculation and political commentary was not always kept separate from news reporting.

Trump has a more cordial relationship with the conservative media, particularly Fox News. Although it is not without its rough patches. When Fox News announced on election night in 2020 that Joe Biden had won in Arizona, Trump reacted angrily. He encouraged his supporters to turn to Newsmax, and One America News Network because they supported him unconditionally and and were willing to accept his unfounded claim of election fraud. Trump often failed to distinguish between Fox’s conventional news operations and its openly partisan opinion programming, believing that any criticism of him, even factual, was fake news.

Even during his battles with mainstream media organizations Trump had an advantage that no other president previously had. He understood social media like no one else before him. Other candidates had assumed that social media was a way just to reach younger voters. Trump realized it could be used to reach across all ages, social and economic classes, and political affiliations. He used social media, particularly Twitter, to attack his enemies, make outrageous statements, and to fire up his supporters.

Trump’s Twitter account was suspended on January 8, 2021, because the company believed his posts posed a “risk of further excitement of violence“ following the January 6 attack on the capital. Twitter said the post violated its policy against glorifying violence. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat quickly followed suit.

Following his suspension from Twitter, Trump was instrumental in forming his own social media outlet, Truth Social. Even though Trump’s Twitter, now X, account was restored in November 2022, Truth Social remains his principle social media outlet.

Trump turned increasingly to social media as he discovered it freed him from editors, publishers, and most importantly, fact checkers. He began to release policy statements, discuss pending legislation and even fire administration officials via social media. Many of his posts were made obviously without review by advisors, administration officials or attorneys. At times, such as tweets about tariff rates, transgender military personnel, Obama wiretapping Trump Tower, and the now infamous memes, the White House found itself having to give elaborate, sometimes convoluted, explanations of what Trump really meant.

Trump was far from the first president to have difficulties or complaints about the press. George Washington was frequently angered by newspaper attacks. John Adams signed the sedition act of 1798 and used it to prosecute journalists critical of him and the federal government. Abraham Lincoln’s administration put restrictions on some newspapers during the civil war. John Kennedy was publicly friendly with the press but was known to exert backchannel pressure to suppress stories of which he disapproved. Prior to Trump, no president had as hostile a relationship with the press as did Richard Nixon. He maintained an enemy’s list and used Vice President Spiro Agnew as a proxy to attack newspapers and television journalists.

Trump is part of a long history of presidents who were unhappy about their news coverage. What makes him different is his constant personal attacks, direct communication through social media, litigation against news organizations and attempts to directly control access to White House news events. His actions are not merely in response to controversial policies or bad coverage, they are part of his governing philosophy, reinforce the message that established news outlets cannot be trusted and that only he will provide the truth. Unfortunately, it seems to be working.

Image generated by author using ChatGPT.

Sources

1. History Hit, “Fake News, Donald Trump’s Relationship With It and Its Chilling Effects Explained” (background on the 2017–2018 Acosta press conferences and the rise of the term “fake news”): https://www.historyhit.com/fake-news-donald-trump/

2. CBS42/AP wire report on Trump’s January 2017 press conference exchange with Jim Acosta: https://digital-release.cbs42.com/?p=97787

3. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, case tracker on Associated Press v. Budowich: https://www.rcfp.org/briefs-comments/associated-press-v-budowich/

4. Axios, “White House strikes back at AP, takes over press pool coverage from reporter group” (February 2025): https://www.axios.com/2025/02/25/white-house-trump-press-pool

5. Al Jazeera, “A ‘ban on the free press’: White House bars journalists from three outlets” (September 19, 2026): https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/9/19/a-ban-on-the-free-press-white-house-bars-journalists-from-three-outlets

6. CNN Business, “Major TV networks stand with CNN, decline to replace its White House pool crew” (September 20, 2026): https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/20/media/cnn-trump-white-house-pool-ban

7. CNBC, “White House pool suspends TV coverage of Trump after CNN ban” (September 21, 2026): https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/21/trump-white-house-press-pool-cnn-ban.html

8. NBC News, “As Trump separates from Fox News, what’s next for both?” (background on Trump’s relationship with Fox, Newsmax, and OAN): https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/trump-separates-fox-news-what-s-next-both-n1245549

9. The Christian Science Monitor, “Banned from Twitter, Trump launches a social media app” (February 2022): https://csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2022/0221/Banned-from-Twitter-Trump-launches-a-social-media-app

10. Al Jazeera, “Paramount agrees to pay $16m to settle Trump lawsuit over CBS interview” (July 2025): https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/7/2/paramount-agrees-to-pay-16m-to-settle-trump-lawsuit-over-cbs-interview

11. NewscastStudio, “ABC News will pay $16M to settle Trump defamation suit” (December 2024): https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/12/15/abc-news-trump-settlement

12. The FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), Robert Corn-Revere, “Can the President Treat the Press as the Enemy of the People?” (historical background on the Sedition Act and Nixon): https://thefire.org/first-amendment-news-robert-corn-revere-can-the-president-treat-the-press-as-the-enemy

13. History News Network, review of Harold Holzer, “The Presidents vs. the Press” (historical comparisons involving Adams, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and Nixon): https://hnn.us/article/177037

14. Inquirer.net (AP), “Remember Nixon? There’s history behind Trump’s press attacks” (February 2017): https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/872659/remember-nixon-theres-history-behind-trumps-press-attacks

15. The Bigfork Eagle, “Presidents vs. the Press” (background on FDR, the Kennedys, and the Obama administration’s dispute with Fox News): https://bigforkeagle.com/news/2018/nov/25/presidents-vs-the-press-15/

16. Wikipedia, “White House press corps” (timeline reference for the September 2026 CNN/MS NOW/Politico ban): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_press_corps

The Grumpy Doc

Grumpy opinions about everything.

The American Revolution and The Enlightenment: Putting Philosophy Into Action

Accountability or Restoration? The Dilemma Facing Democrats

Would Jesus Recognize the Politics of the Modern Conservative Evangelical Church?

What Did Jesus Actually Teach?

Where the Fit Is Closer Than Critics Admit

Where the Fit Becomes Strained

Wealth, Poverty, and Selective Morality

Romans 13 and the Power of Government

Trump, Cyrus, and the Question of Character

Christian Nationalism

A Church Arguing With Itself

When the Body’s Thermostat Fails: The Dangers of Extreme Heat and Cold

Trump, The Press, And The Authoritarian Playbook

Two Holy Men In The Roman World

Jesus of Nazareth

Apollonius of Tyana

The Teachings of Jesus

The Teachings of Apollonius

Beliefs About Jesus

Beliefs About Apollonius

The Spread of Christianity

The Spread of Apollonius’s Legacy

Paul: The Missionary

Philostratus: The Hired Biographer

Why Christianity Won: The Big Picture

Sources

The Generation Gap Is In The Soap Dish

Who Pays for American Politics? Citizens United and the Rise of Big Money

Controlling the Story: Donald Trump’s Decade-Long Battle with the Press