When fact-free grievance is treated like perspective, democracy loses.
The New York Times' April 29th, 2025 piece, "Tariffs, Immigration, and Trump’s First 100 Days: 14 Former Democratic Voters Discuss," offers a transcript of a focus group moderated by Frank Luntz and Patrick Healy. The participants are 14 former Democratic voters who backed Donald Trump in 2024. The piece presents itself as a neutral glimpse into the minds of disaffected Americans, but in reality, it platforms a dangerous cocktail of misinformation, grievance politics, and authoritarian nostalgia—all without a single factual challenge.
This isn’t journalism. It’s stenography for the reactionary id.
The moderators claim their role is to listen, not fact-check. That decision isn’t passive; it’s editorial. And it has consequences. In a country where the truth has already been bent into oblivion by years of conspiracy and propaganda, refusing to correct blatant falsehoods is not neutrality—it’s surrender.
Asked about immigration, participants unleashed a torrent of disinformation, and the moderators let it stand:
"He’s almost all but completely stopped the flow of immigrants into this country. And then he’s gone out and been pretty aggressive with removing people that don’t belong here."
That’s Brian, 50, from California. There’s no factual basis for what he says—none. Immigration numbers remain volatile and complex, and "removing people that don't belong" is euphemism for racial profiling, ICE raids, and constitutional violations. But the quote is presented as insight, not ignorance.
"The border has basically been shut down. If you're going to do it legally, I have no problem with it. But you've got a lot of criminals over here. We need to get rid of them."
John, 62, from Ohio. This is pure Trumpist blood-and-soil rhetoric, delivered as casual truth. It repeats the lie that undocumented people are inherently criminal and reinforces a worldview where justice means purging the unworthy. The moderators remain silent.
When Frank Luntz asks if Trump’s immigration policy has been successful, seven participants raise their hands. No one interjects to note the cruelty, chaos, or constitutional concerns. Instead, they move on.
Matt, 54, a mail driver from Pennsylvania, offers the focus group’s guiding mantra:
"He said what he was going to do, and he’s doing it."
That phrase shows up again and again. It doesn’t matter whether what Trump does is legal, effective, or moral. What matters is that he acts. That he follows through. That he dominates. This is not a policy preference. It’s a fetish for strongman control.
Dan, 56, from Massachusetts, admits the consequences are exhausting:
"I just didn’t expect so much so fast. I just feel like there’s so many things happening every day in the news. I didn’t expect to have to be so politically oriented every day, watching the news for the next policy change or initiative or vindictive action or executive order."
He wanted upheaval without responsibility. Change without noise. Disruption without disturbance. That expectation—that politics should remake the world but not intrude upon the self—is the emotional core of the modern reactionary voter.
Some participants, like Daniel, 48, from New York, display flashes of recognition:
"I was truly hoping that Trump was looking for some redemption for his past efforts... He’s doing undeniably, unequivocally awful."
"The quagmire of confusion that I’m talking about is that right now, we’re having a fight between who has more power—the justices or the president—over this immigration deal. If you don’t see that, you’re blind, 100 percent."
And yet he still voted for Trump. Still hoped. Still believes. That’s the rot. These voters want to be lied to, as long as the lie is delivered forcefully.
Asked about Trump’s failures, they cite inflation, market volatility, overreach. Then they make excuses.
"The government has spent more in the past 100 days than they did the year prior, same 100 days. So I think DOGE has been a flop. Very disappointing. Promised a lot. Didn’t deliver."
John again. But there is no understanding of how tariffs function, how executive orders circumvent Congress, or what DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) actually does. Their criticisms are aimless, their vocabulary lifted from headlines and hashtags, not substance.
Meagan, 37, a small-business owner in Texas, puts it bluntly:
"These tariffs are actually a very, very scary thing. Being a small-business owner is hard enough, and I’m very afraid that it’s about to get a lot harder... We’re in crisis mode."
She knows her business is suffering under Trump. She knows the costs are real. And still:
"I absolutely admire that, and I hope it works out for us."
Hope? For what? The contradiction isn’t subtle. These voters are not confused. They are complicit.
David, 44, from Alabama, makes it explicit:
"We’re definitely seeing that change is possible. Is this the best way to go about that change? Maybe it’s the only way."
That’s where this leads. To the belief that maybe democracy has failed, and maybe a little authoritarianism—just a dash—is the price of getting things done.
So what does this say about America?
It says that America is not divided between informed liberals and misguided conservatives. It is divided between people who believe in democracy and people who believe in power. It says that for a disturbing number of Americans, facts are negotiable, cruelty is strength, and leadership is measured by how much pain a president can inflict on the right targets.
Allowing lies to go unchallenged in the name of balance is a moral failure. It says that publishing a transcript full of falsehoods and calling it "perspective" is how authoritarianism gets normalized. The Times didn’t just report this conversation. They platformed it. They legitimized it. They handed the mic to people who want less justice, less truth, and less freedom.
This isn’t actually a focus group. It’s a confessional. A group of people publicly explaining how they rationalize the decision to empower a man they admit is destructive, dishonest, and destabilizing. And the Times, instead of questioning them, just hit record.
The Index is a reader-supported, indie publication.
Now, more than ever, the world needs an independent press that is unencumbered by commercial conflicts and undue influence.
By taking out an optional founding membership, you can help us build a free, accessible, independent news platform firewalled from corporate interests.
