Growing up, Republicans treated deportations like a topic that required careful handling. Under presidents such as George W. Bush, the language was softened, the messaging was restrained, and the emphasis was placed on policy rather than persuasion. The assumption was that if the argument was sound, the public would eventually come around to it.

That assumption turned out to be wrong.

The goal is not to explain policy in a traditional sense, but to normalize it through repetition, familiarity, and shareability.

Consider the sympathetic yet stern immigration pivots Republicans such as former Texas Governor Rick Perry had during the 2012 GOP primary. Back then, the media and liberal pundits painted Perry as hardcore and extremely right-wing. Compared to Republicans in office now, however, he would be considered passive and extremely soft on the issue.

The assumption that the independent and flip-voter public would buy in to the GOP stance was not because the policy case for enforcement lacked merit, but because the conversation was happening somewhere else entirely.

Opinions were not being decided based on press briefings or white papers. They were being shaped on TV screens, social media feeds, comment sections, and viral content ecosystems where tone and format mattered as much as the substance.

Jeremy Knauff, founder of the PR firm Spartan Media, puts it this way:

Public relations plays a far larger role in policy than most people realize. It’s not enough just to educate the public any more — today, lawmakers need to engage in a more direct effort to influence public perception. The government has always done this to some degree, but the left has been significantly more active and effective in this regard. But now we’re starting to see a measurable shift from the right.

What we are seeing now from the Department of Homeland Security’s social media team represents a break from that old model. Simply put, they’re playing to win.

The kids want memes

The DHS, along with the White House and ICE, has been using memes, viral audio, and internet-native content to promote deportation policy and immigration enforcement. This includes Christmas-themed deportation memes, TikTok-style videos set to trending music, and stylized content designed to travel well beyond traditional government channels.

Keep in mind that Millennials (roughly ages 27-42) spend an average of nearly three hours per day, or approximately 17 to 20+ hours per week, on social media.

These aren’t your father’s government employees figuring these things out on the fly, looking sloppy and rushed. The content they’re putting out isn’t just quality; it is the type of content you would see on the feeds of the most viral social media content creators. They’re in the major leagues of viral political content.

One viral video posted by the DHS, captioned 'Gotta Catch ‘Em All,' showed ICE agents blowing in doors and handcuffing and leading away undocumented immigrants to the theme song from the "Pokemon" cartoon. It certainly tugged on Millennial heartstrings, because that clip alone has been viewed 75.5 million times.

The backlash has been as immediate and intense as you would expect. Critics say this approach is dehumanizing, that it trivializes serious issues, and that it reflects a level of insensitivity that should not be associated with government communications.

CNN has gone so far as to claim that "underlining" DHS recruitment posters "are undertones that historians and experts in political communication say are alarmingly nationalist — and fraught with appeals to a specifically White [sic] and Christian national identity.”

Supporters see it as effective and long overdue after years of what they view as overly cautious messaging from the right.

Erhui1979/Getty Images

Focusing only on whether the memes are appropriate misses the larger point. What is happening here is not primarily about humor or tone; it is about control over how the issue is framed and where the framing takes place.

Knauff says, “The people who are criticizing this approach are only doing so because they can see that it’s effective. And their complaints are disingenuous because it’s the exact same thing they’ve been doing for decades.”

The cool kids in control

For the better part of the last decade, conservatives did not lose the immigration argument on substance. They lost it on distribution. They had policies and data on their side, but they failed to communicate those ideas in the environments where younger voters and low-information audiences were actually forming opinions.

Put plainly, they were boring and unwilling to defend their position with the same passion as liberals.

The polling makes the gap impossible to ignore. Multiple 2026 surveys show that younger Americans are far less supportive of Trump’s immigration policies than older voters, especially Boomers who largely consume cable news.

A February PBS/NPR/Marist poll found that just 18% of voters under 30 approved of the administration's approach to deportations, while 69% disapproved. A CBS/YouGov survey in mid-January similarly found that 60% of respondents under 30 believed Trump was doing “too much” to deport illegal aliens.

This issue isn’t cut and dry. Trump was delivered a mandate in 2024, but now that optics are changing, the question is whether to keep the foot on the pedal or not.

The picture is clear though: Younger voters are not instinctively aligned with the administration’s immigration agenda, even if they support individual enforcement measures in isolation. So what to do? Keep the memes coming.

The current strategy appears to be an attempt to close that gap by meeting the audience where it already is. Instead of trying to pull younger users into formal policy discussions, the DHS is embedding its messaging inside the formats the youth consume on a daily basis.

The goal is not to explain policy in a traditional sense, but to normalize it through repetition, familiarity, and shareability.

Propaganda? Only call it that if it's boring.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

It’s all about virality

What we’re seeing represents a significant shift in how the government communicates. In the past, agencies relied on press releases, official statements, and media intermediaries to convey their message carefully and cautiously. Now, the message is being delivered directly to the public in the same formats used by influencers, creators, and online communities.

The distinction between political communication and internet culture is becoming increasingly blurred.

There are clear risks to this approach. When complex policies are reduced to highly shareable clips, the conversation can quickly become polarized.

At the same time, the old model was not getting the job done. Staffers with communications degrees did not win over younger audiences, did not reshape cultural perception, and did not prevent immigration from becoming one of the most emotionally charged issues in our society today.

Backtracking to a more restrained style of messaging would not solve anything. It would only surrender the digital battlefield once again.

What makes this moment notable is not just the content itself, but what it signals about the future of political communication. The DHS is operating less like a government agency and more like a savvy political campaign, prioritizing reach, engagement, and narrative control over neutrality.

Weapons of meme destruction

The DHS’ use of memes is an indication that the rules of engagement have shifted. Political power is no longer exercised solely through policy decisions or legislative victories, but through the ability to shape perception at scale.

Republicans spent years trying to win arguments in spaces that fewer and fewer people were paying attention to. Now, they appear to be adapting to the environment as it actually exists. Whether that approach proves sustainable or backfires politically remains to be seen.

Knauff explains it like this:

I believe this strategy will not only continue to be effective, but also become more effective as time goes on. Right now, it’s novel and exciting, but as the new car smell wears off, the impact will remain — if we have the discipline to stick with the mission. Public relations requires time to create the desired outcome. It’s not something you can rush. The left had decades to slowly leverage this strategy, so the right needs to be just as patient in their execution.

If the GOP maintains its majority in Congress, Republicans might joke about how the memes saved them. If they lose, expect the old guard to say the memes were too mean.

What is clear is that the next phase of political communications will not be conveyed primarily through speeches, press conferences, or media panels. It will be fought through content and the side that understands that reality will have a decisive advantage.

May the side with the best memes win.

There’s A New Name For Those Pierced, Weird-Looking Internet Addicts You Keep Seeing

The trends that were once confined to Discord servers and convention floors have now gone mainstream.

The trial lawyers come for online free speech

Trial lawyers are poised to accomplish in courtrooms nationwide what politicians have thus far failed to write into statute. The effects of this effort — undertaken without the deliberation of the nation’s representative bodies — are likely to rival those of even the most sweeping laws.

The product of social media platforms is not loaves of bread or pianos or widgets, it is speech, protected by the First Amendment.

A jury in Los Angeles is determining whether Meta and YouTube are liable for design features alleged to have substantially aggravated a young woman’s psychological disorders.

As thousands of similar lawsuits are ongoing — with more likely to follow — the determination of the Los Angeles jury will echo loudly in the deliberations of other juries across America.

These echoes will prove dissonant with Americans’ love for, and dedication to, free speech. Meta’s Instagram and YouTube were said to have disseminated speech too well, working too successfully to configure their products to maintain users’ interest.

This is supposed to constitute “addicting” their users. In fact, it is the aim of every business — from media organizations to retail stores to restaurants to attract and retain customers, to earn profits by marketing a product that consumers value.

In short, it is the business of entrepreneurs to give the people what they want. The product of social media platforms is not loaves of bread or pianos or widgets, it is speech, protected by the First Amendment.

Meta and YouTube are charged with having designed their products to include features — such as “infinite scroll” and individualized algorithmic recommendations — which allow and incentivize their users to view too much speech for too long.

As National Review’s Andrew McCarthy put it, “the plaintiff’s lawyers argued ... a theory that the case was not about the content but about theprocesses by which the platforms present the content." Despite titanic efforts to harden this distinction, it melts under the heat of elementary scrutiny. Platforms’ design features are impotent absent content that intrigues users.

Mike Masnick, editor of Techdirt, put it this way:

Here’s a thought experiment: Imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying. Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing?

Social media algorithms sort and distribute speech — a function without which individuals could neither access speech online nor effectively find an audience for their own speech.

Delihayat/Getty Images

Whatever the plaintiff’s attorneys contend, the liability imposed upon Meta and YouTube cannot be severed from the content they host and disseminate. Without the latter, the former would never be imagined, much less found by a jury.

The plaintiff in the case, a young woman known as Kaley or “KGM,” was brought up in anguishing conditions, the daughter of a mother who physically and emotionally abused her. She “was self-harming around when she was in the 6th grade,” reads the Associated Press account of the trial.

It is unsurprising that she, as a young girl, withdrew to social media to find something like peace, fulfillment, and satisfaction. It is equally unsurprising that she used social media to excess and leveraged her every chance to obtain engagement.

More generally, it is anything but certain that users’ affinity for social media is rightly termed an “addiction.” Likewise, research purporting to prove that social media has caused an epidemic of psychological disorders among children — the research of Jonathan Haidt, for example — has proven to be faulty, rife with faulty methodology and confirmation bias.

It is obvious that some misuse social media and their lives are, consequently, diminished. But this no more indicates that the platforms are “defective” in some legally cognizable sense than the mere existence of obesity in America indicates that McDonald’s or Taco Bell’s offerings are “defective” — or that fast-food restaurants ought to be held liable for occurrences of diabetes.

Gabby Jones/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Humans are a diverse bunch. That a minority, suffering from particular difficulties or vulnerabilities, cannot engage with this product or that in a healthy fashion should not, in a courtroom or the public square, constitute the basis of a totalizing rebuke.

Should the Los Angeles verdict stand, social media companies, confronted with the prospect of liability, are bound to remake their products to prevent any allegation — credible or otherwise — that their platforms cause or worsen whatever psychological distress from which users might suffer.

“If media companies must worry about liability whenever their expressive outputs are thought to be ‘harmful,’ the universe of available content would be reduced to the safest, blandest, and least engaging stuff imaginable,” warns Ari Cohn, the lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The operations of Instagram and YouTube broke no law enacted by Congress or a state legislature to regulate the workings of social media. Even so, this litigation, if successful, will be regulatory in its effect, resulting in the contracting of the free and open internet.

With Missouri V. Biden Settled, It’s Time For Censorship Reparations

The resolution to the case in favor of those the government had censored represents a dramatic turnaround of potentially outsize impact.

Biden’s COVID censorship machine takes a hit: Missouri wins landmark ban on federal threats to Big Tech

A landmark settlement delivered a blow to the censorship industrial complex that silenced Americans during the COVID era.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that Missouri had reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. government in its Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which accused the Biden administration of violating Americans' First Amendment rights by directing social media companies to censor speech challenging the government's COVID messaging.

'For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours.'

Schmitt filed the lawsuit against the Biden administration while serving as Missouri attorney general, before securing his Senate seat.

The agreement included a 10-year Consent Decree that enforces a narrow permanent injunction on the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The injunction prevents them from threatening social media companies with any form of punishment if those companies fail to remove or suppress content that contains protected speech.

However, this ban applies only to posts made on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube by the specific plaintiffs in the case, including Missouri and Louisiana government officials and agencies acting in their official capacity. It does not extend to other social media networks or content posted by the general public.

"The Parties also agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' or 'malinformation' to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected," the agreement reads.

The court must first approve this settlement agreement.

Eric Schmitt. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"We just won Missouri v. Biden," Schmitt wrote in a post on X. "As Missouri's Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent 'misinformation' while they pushed their narrative on the American people."

Schmitt called the Consent Decree the "first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine."

He explained that it "directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech."

"For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered," Schmitt concluded.

Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor at the Federalist, addressed the victory's narrow application.

"This decree is limited to the plaintiffs, but as precedent, and practically, its impact may prove orders of magnitude more powerful in protecting disfavored speech," Weingarten wrote, calling it "a momentous blow for the First Amendment."

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had to withdraw as a plaintiff in the case after being appointed by the Trump administration, called the settlement "a huge win for all Americans."

"Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I've never been more pleased by 'losing' in my life," he wrote.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Settlement Stops Government From Using Social Media As ‘Speech Police’

'Biden officials at the highest levels of government tried to use Facebook, X, and YouTube as their speech police,' Sen. Eric Schmitt said.

The new censorship doesn’t say ‘no’ — it says ‘no one can see it’

Free speech isn’t dying in one dramatic moment. It’s getting shaved down in two different ways — both deliberate, both dangerous.

The first track is blunt-force censorship. It looks like platform bans, coordinated deplatforming, demonetization — and in some countries, handcuffs.

The First Amendment requires vigilance — and a culture and an infrastructure that respect not only the right to speak, but the ability to be heard without invisible manipulation.

When Joe Rogan reacted to reports that more than 12,000 people in the United Kingdom had been arrested over social media posts, he said the U.K. has “lost it.” Hyperbolic? Maybe. But the concern is real. Americans still recoil at the idea of police knocking on someone’s door over a tweet. In parts of Europe, that line keeps moving.

Take the arrest of Irish comedy writer Graham Linehan over posts criticizing trans activists. Agree with him or not, the point stands: Government shouldn’t referee online speech disputes. Speech that would receive constitutional protection in the United States is treated elsewhere as a criminal offense. That isn’t progress. It’s just regression dressed up as “social responsibility.”

We aren’t immune in the United States. We just do it differently.

The First Amendment still blocks direct government suppression in most cases. But a parallel system has grown up alongside it — one where Big Tech companies act as speech gatekeepers. They decide who can speak, who gets heard, and who disappears into digital exile. You may have the right to talk, but if you can’t reach anyone in the modern public square, what does that right mean?

That’s the predictable result of handing global communication infrastructure to a handful of corporations with opaque rules and shifting political winds. Platforms remove accounts, throttle content, suspend monetization, and slap “misinformation” labels on disfavored opinions. The rules move, enforcement varies, and appeals are a black box.

Jeff Dornik, founder of Pickax, a fast-growing platform branding itself as a free-speech alternative, puts it bluntly: “You can’t have freedom of speech without freedom of reach. It’s quite literally written into the First Amendment: ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ If you limit reach, you abridge speech.”

That brings us to the second track — subtler and arguably more insidious.

It’s algorithmic manipulation. It’s the Overton Window nudged by code instead of Congress. It’s the illusion of free speech paired with the quiet denial of reach.

Dominant platforms defend themselves by insisting they support “freedom of speech.” Ask conservatives who’ve watched Big Tech suspend them, kneecap their businesses, or bury their content, and they’ll translate it the same way: Say what you want — we decide who sees it. Freedom of reach is optional at best.

Algorithms decide what trends, what goes viral, and what gets buried on page six of your search. They shape perception, reward some views, starve others, and then hide the rulebook. Users adapt. They soften language and avoid topics entirely. They self-censor — not because they got banned, but because they learned the cost of crossing invisible lines.

Photo by Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Dornik argues that algorithms can be more corrosive than outright censorship: Instead of punishing speech the powers-that-be don’t like, they dangle engagement and monetization to train creators to censor themselves — “essentially getting you to rewire your own brain.”

“Almost all of the Big Tech platforms are using algorithms to manipulate us,” Dornik says. “The byproduct of this form of censorship is that it’s almost impossible to create community.”

He’s not wrong about the incentive structure. When creators wake up to find engagement cut in half after an unpopular opinion, they get the message. Stay inside the narrative. Don’t challenge the consensus. The window narrows — not because voters demanded it, but because code enforced it.

That’s why the free-speech debate can’t be reduced to arrest statistics. It’s about who controls visibility. It’s about whether speech is meaningfully free when distribution gets manipulated behind the scenes.

America still has the strongest constitutional speech protections in the world. But constitutional protection is only part of the story. Culture matters. Platform design matters. Incentives matter. When creators depend on systems that can quietly demonetize or suppress them, speech becomes conditional.

That’s the gap platforms like Pickax say they want to fill: no shadow bans, no algorithmic throttling, no opaque moderation. The feed is chronological and long-form content is encouraged. Creators own their content, and monetization is simple and direct.

Pickax held a launch event on February 24, with an all-day livestream featuring many of its creators. Dornik called it more than a rollout: “One of our primary missions with Pickax is to build human-to-human connections. We do this by eliminating the computer-driven algorithms ... allowing our users to become the algorithm.”

Photo by Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Skeptics will say alternative platforms stay niche or ideological. Maybe. But the fact that they keep gaining traction tells you something: People sense the digital public square has been curated, filtered, and sanitized in ways that don’t feel organic.

Free speech has always been messy. It has always included opinions we dislike and arguments we reject. Far from a flaw, that’s the system as it is supposed to work.

The alternative is a world where governments arrest people for posts — and corporations erase dissent with code. One is loud and authoritarian. The other is quiet and corporate. Both undermine open discourse.

The First Amendment is not self-executing. It requires vigilance — and it requires a culture and an infrastructure that respect not only the right to speak, but the ability to be heard without invisible manipulation.

No algorithms and no more shadow bans. No “reach dropped — try boosting.”

If we lose that fight, we won’t lose it all at once. We’ll lose it post by post, throttle by throttle, until only approved voices remain.

The kids want memes

The cool kids in control

It’s all about virality

Weapons of meme destruction

Black Lives Matter and NYPD clash after protest stops traffic on George Washington Bridge: 'We shut s*** down!'

Report: Foreign-Funded Dark Money Group Shelled Out $1 Million To Elect Wisconsin Leftist Susan Crawford

Bills Keeping Foreign Money Out Of Ballot Measure Campaigns Pick Up Steam In Republican States

Leftists lash out at 'cowards' in RNC for threat to prohibit Republican candidates from participating in presidential, VP debates due to bias against GOP

The kids want memes

The cool kids in control

It’s all about virality

Weapons of meme destruction

We’ll keep you informed with top stories for conservatives who want to become informed decision makers.