Politics
Column: Trump keeps reminding us why people support him. It’s the racism
The president of the United States posted a racist video Thursday night depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as apes. On Friday, the White House dismissed criticism — but the president deleted the post. Was this episode disappointing? Yes. Surprising? Not anymore.
Last spring, after Pope Francis had died, Donald Trump posted an AI image of himself as the pope just days before cardinals convened to elect a successor.
So, no — it is not surprising that the president would choose to post virulent anti-Black imagery during Black History Month.
But it is disappointing here in 2026 that an occupant of the Oval Office is still thinking like that.
Back in 1971, the president of the United States laughed when the governor of California referred to the African delegates at the United Nations as monkeys. Less than 10 years later, that governor became the president of the United States. And here we are, half a century later, and yet another president has amplified that racist trope.
Meaning white supremacy is still on the ballot.
That Nixon-Reagan-Trump throughline isn’t tightly wound around policy or principle, but simply that shared worldview. After all, Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency and Reagan offered amnesty to immigrants — highly un-Trump-like moves. No, their commonality is best revealed in the delight each man took in an old racist attack against Black people.
For Americans who are 50 and older — roughly a third of the nation — this worldview has been the architect responsible for White House policy for most of our lives. And yet, when Kamala Harris lost the 2024 election, the forensic investigation focused on grocery prices and her absence from Joe Rogan’s podcast. Some — in trying to explain why Harris lost — mischaracterized her role at the border or inflated her influence on the war in Gaza.
For some reason, race did not seem to receive the same level of scrutiny.
This factor was slighted despite decades of data, such as the wave of white nationalists endorsing Harris’ opponent and the birther movement questioning President Obama’s citizenship. The trio of presidents who are on the record as enjoying depictions of Black people as monkeys — Nixon, Reagan and Trump — all used racist dog whistles in their combined 10 presidential campaigns. Their administrations have tended to be more anti-civil-rights movement than post-civil-rights movement.
Our nation’s attempts at understanding ourselves are continuously undercut by the denial that for some single-issue voters, race is their single issue. Not the price of bacon or their religious convictions. Not Gaza. Just the promise of having a safe space for prejudice. And when the president of the United States entertains racist jokes as Nixon did in the 1970s or shares racist videos as Trump continues to do, undoubtedly there is a sense among the electorate that such prejudice has a home in the White House.
Before Trump used social media to push yesteryear’s ugliness, earlier in the week Harris relaunched her 2024 social media campaign account, calling it a place where Gen Z can “meet and revisit with some of our great courageous leaders, be they elected leaders, community leaders, civic leaders, faith leaders, young leaders.” She exhorted: “Stay engaged. I’ll see you out there.”
Whether she plans to run again in 2028 is unclear. What we do know is she would not have posted an AI picture of herself as the new pope while Catholics were mourning Francis (or any other time). We know she would not have advocated for immigration officers to racially profile Black and brown Americans or disregard the 14th Amendment to detain children. We do not know how many of her policy proposals she would have been able to get across the finish line in Congress, but we do know her record of public service to the American people, in contrast with the current president who is suing the American people for $10 billion.
There is nothing wrong with revisiting Harris’ missteps on the campaign trail or debating her electability as she reemerges in the public spotlight. But now that Trump has resorted to posting monkey jokes about Black people, perhaps updated forensics will consider our well established history of racism among the factors in the 2024 election.
It is not a shock that a president of the United States thinks poorly of Black people. Not when you know that more than 25% of those who have held the office were themselves enslavers. But it is disappointing that 250 years into our nation’s story, some of us still deny the role that racism plays in shaping our politics and thus all of our lives.
YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
-
Trump’s posting of racist imagery depicting the Obamas as apes during Black History Month represents a troubling continuation of a historical pattern, with Nixon and Reagan similarly engaging with racist depictions of Black people[1][3]. The incident reveals that white supremacy remains embedded in American politics across multiple presidential administrations, united not by policy consistency but by a shared worldview that finds amusement in racist attacks against Black Americans[1].
-
Race has been an under-examined factor in recent electoral outcomes, with the 2024 presidential election analysis focusing disproportionately on issues like inflation and media appearances while overlooking documented evidence of racist mobilization, including white nationalist endorsements and baseless conspiracy theories targeting the previous administration[1]. This omission is particularly significant given decades of data demonstrating racism’s influence on voting patterns[1].
-
For some voters, racism functions as a single-issue priority—not economic concerns or religious convictions, but rather the assurance of having a politically sanctioned space for racial prejudice[1]. When a sitting president entertains or amplifies racist content, it signals to this constituency that their prejudices have legitimacy within the highest office[1].
Different views on the topic
-
The White House initially characterized the incident as misrepresented outrage, framing the video as an internet meme depicting political figures as characters from “The Lion King” rather than focusing on the racist imagery, and urged critics to “report on something today that actually matters to the American public”[1][2]. This framing suggested the controversy represented distraction from substantive governance concerns[3].
-
The White House later attributed the post to an erroneous action by a staff member rather than deliberate presidential conduct, creating distance between the president’s stated intentions and the offensive content[3]. This explanation positioned the incident as an aberration in staff management rather than reflective of administrative values[3].
Politics
Gorsuch says ideological divides on Supreme Court come down to ‘how you read law,’ not politics
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said differences among his colleagues on the high court are often less about politics than they are about diverging approaches to constitutional interpretation — a dynamic, he said, that influences both the court’s rulings and its internal relations.
“That has nothing to do with politics,” Gorsuch told Fox News Digital in a recent interview. “That has to do [with] how you read law. Interpretive methodologies.”
Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Donald Trump in 2017, has described himself as a “textualist,” noting his approach focuses on interpreting legal texts based on the ordinary meaning of the words as written. The philosophy is linked to originalism — or the view that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original public meaning when it was adopted.
Other justices have different interpretations, including ones that allow for evolving interpretations over time. Gorsuch stressed that differences, while significant, are not inherently personal.
JUSTICE THOMAS WARNS PROGRESSIVISM IS A THREAT TO AMERICA IN RARE PUBLIC REMARKS
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch speaks at the Reagan Library on May 5, 2026, in Simi Valley, Calif. (Getty Images)
“At the end of the day, you’re trying to get to the right answer under the law,” he said, adding that disagreement is an expected, and healthy, part of the process.
His remarks come as the federal judiciary and members of the Supreme Court have come under increasing scrutiny in recent years, including by Trump and his allies, who have criticized the courts for impinging on what they see as the duties of the executive branch.
Trump took to Truth Social last month to criticize the Supreme Court’s conservative majority for showing him “very little loyalty” in blocking his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs in February.
He also suggested they might block his executive order seeking to end so-called “birthright citizenship” in the U.S.
“Certain ‘Republican’ Justices have just gone weak, stupid, and bad, completely violating what they ‘supposedly’ stood for,” Trump said.
JUSTICE GORSUCH HIGHLIGHTS HUMANITY, HISTORY IN CHILDREN’S BOOK CELEBRATING AMERICA’S 250TH ANNIVERSARY
President Donald Trump greets Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts as he arrives to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress in 2025. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
He contrasted this with liberal justices on the court, whom Trump said “stick together like glue, totally loyal to the people and ideology that got them there.”
Gorsuch, for his part, stressed that the justices often share plenty of common ground, even if their interpretation of the Constitution prompts them to reach different conclusions.
That approach, he suggested, carries over into how the justices work together behind closed doors — where collaboration and debate are central to the high court to perform its constitutional duties.
FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS TRUMP’S BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP BAN FOR ALL INFANTS, TESTING LOWER COURT POWERS
The U.S. Supreme Court building is shown in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 13, 2023, as the court unveiled a new ethics code following scandals involving gifts and vacations received by some justices. (Mandel Ngan/AFP)
“The framers understood that people would come to the table with different views,” Gorsuch told Fox News Digital. “The goal is to reason together.”
While ideological divides can be sharp, Gorsuch emphasized that culture at the high court is built on mutual respect.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“If you sit and listen to someone long enough, you’re going to find something you can agree on,” he added. “Maybe you start there.”
Two press freedom groups that own shares in Paramount Skydance are demanding to see the company’s books and internal documents, citing allegations that the company’s leaders may have promised favors to the White House to win approval for Paramount’s deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
The letter, sent Thursday to Paramount chief legal officer Makan Delrahim, says that media reports alleging that Paramount owner David Ellison and others promised favors to the Trump administration “create credible concern that Paramount leadership has offered, solicited, or effectuated a corrupt exchange,” which the groups argue would “constitute a breach of fiduciary duties” and open the company up to a “range of potential civil and criminal penalties.”
The letter cites Delaware law that allows stockholders to inspect the company’s books and records “for any proper purpose.”
Paramount declined to comment on the letter.
Among the issues raised in the letter are promises reportedly made by David Ellison and his father, Oracle billionaire Larry Ellison, that they would make “sweeping” changes at the news network CNN, which is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery.
The Ellison family acquired Paramount, which includes CBS and the storied Melrose Avenue film studio, last summer.
The letter cites changes implemented in CBS since their acquisition, including their decision to end late night television house Stephen Colbert’s show days after he characterized a settlement Paramount reached with Trump as a “big fat bribe.”
Under Ellison’s ownership, the letter says, numerous high-profile reporters have left the network and its ratings have dropped to “historic lows.”
Larry Ellison, who is backing the financing of Paramount’s proposed takeover of Warner, reportedly told White House officials that Paramount would “implement the CBS playbook” at CNN if the merger is approved, and remove anchors and commentators at the cable news network that Trump doesn’t like, according to the letter.
The effort comes just two weeks after Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders overwhelmingly approved the proposed merger. Investors have supported the Larry Ellison family takeover, which would become the biggest Hollywood merger in nearly a decade. The deal would pay Warner stockholders $31 per share — four times the stock price a year ago.
The letter was written on behalf of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which develops secure communication tools for journalists and tracks violations of press freedom, and Reporters Without Borders, which tracks press freedom globally.
The organizations are being represented by former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who established the Public Integrity Project this year to challenged alleged government corruption, as well as Delaware attorney Ronald Poliquin.
The missive, which could be a precursor to a lawsuit, opens another avenue of attack against the controversial $111-billion deal, which would transform the smaller Paramount into an industry titan.
With Warner Bros. Discovery, the Ellisons would also control HBO, TBS and the vast film and TV library of Warner Bros., which includes the Harry Potter, DC Comics, and Scooby-Doo, in addition to CNN.
Paramount, led 43-year-old David Ellison, wants to finalize its Warner Bros. takeover by the end of September. President Trump favors the deal; he has long agitated for changes at CNN.
But the proposed merger would saddle the combined company with $79 billion in debt, stoking fears that Paramount would be forced to make steep cost cuts to juggle such a large debt load.
Politicians, unions and progressive groups separately have pressed California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to scrutinize the proposed merger, hoping that he brings an antitrust lawsuit in an attempt to upend the deal.
More than 4,000 film industry workers, including Ben Stiller, Bryan Cranston, Ted Danson, J.J. Abrams, Jane Fonda and Kristen Stewart, have signed an open letter imploring Bonta and other regulators to block the merger. The group lamented the proposed tie-up, saying it “would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.”
Opponents fear the consolidation would lead to massive layoffs and diminish the quality of programming that Warner Bros., CNN and HBO are known for.
Hollywood has sustained thousands of layoffs over the last seven years since Walt Disney Co. swallowed Fox’s entertainment assets in another huge merger. In addition, the film production economy hasn’t recovered from shutdowns during the 2023 labor strikes. An estimated 42,000 entertainment industry jobs were lost from 2022 and 2024.
On Thursday, 34 California Democrats in Congress also sent a letter to Bonta, encouraging him to look closely at the merger.
The deal is expected to become one of the largest leveraged buyouts ever.
Ballou, who is working with the press freedom groups, previously served as a Justice Department special counsel with expertise in private equity transactions.
He resigned from the Justice Department in January 2025 when Trump returned to office. In his book, “Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America,” Ballou examined large leveraged buyouts and found that many of which resulted in bankruptcies.
The United States and Iran traded missile fire and accusations on Thursday as tensions in the Strait of Hormuz ratcheted up, threatening an already fragile cease-fire.
U.S. Central Command said that American forces had “intercepted unprovoked Iranian attacks and responded with self-defense strikes” while U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers were traversing the strait to the Gulf of Oman on Thursday.
In a statement, Central Command said Iranian forces launched multiple missiles, drones and small-boat attacks as three U.S. warships were transiting the strait. None of the American naval vessels were hit, Central Command said.
The U.S. vessels that were traversing the strait were the U.S.S. Truxtun, the U.S.S. Rafael Peralta and the U.S.S. Mason. The warships had steamed into the Persian Gulf earlier in the week as part of the Navy’s short-lived effort to guide merchant ships stranded in the Persian Gulf through the strait.
In response, U.S. forces struck targets on Qeshm Island and Bandar Abbas along the Iranian coast in the strait, U.S. officials said.
It was the latest twist in a head-spinning week in the region, as President Trump, searching for an off-ramp in the war that he started Feb. 28, has contradicted his senior administration officials on the state of the war, the state of American efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and the status of peace talks with Iran.
After the exchange of fire on Thursday, the president said the cease-fire was still in effect and downplayed the Iranian attacks.
“They trifled with us today,” Mr. Trump told reporters late Thursday. “We blew them away.”
The president added, however, that Iran needed to sign on “fast” to a proposal from the United States that would have both sides reach an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and refrain from fighting for 30 days while they try to reach a comprehensive deal.
Even as the president and senior officials described peace negotiations that they said were advancing, Central Command has forcefully hit Iranian vessels that it says have violated an American-imposed blockade of the strait.
Central Command “eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking U.S. forces, including missile and drone launch sites; command and control locations; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance nodes,” the command’s Thursday statement said. It added that Central Command “does not seek escalation but remains positioned and ready to protect American forces.”
Iran, for its part, accused the United States of launching “unprovoked” attacks as the U.S. ships traversed the strait.
In a statement carried by state media, Iran’s armed forces said the U.S. military had violated the month-old cease-fire by carrying out airstrikes on Qeshm Island and two other cities on the country’s southern coast. Central Command said the ship attacks had emanated from those sites.
When asked if the U.S. response to the Iranian drone, missile and small-boat attacks went beyond self-defense, a senior U.S. military official said that an effective defense sometimes involves a carefully calibrated offense.
Erica L. Green contributed reporting.
-
Culture3 minutes agoHow ‘The Sheep Detectives’ Brought its Ovine Sleuths to Life
-
Lifestyle9 minutes agoWhy Everyone Was So Mad About the Met Gala
-
Education15 minutes agoShe Tried to Help Schools Build Healthier Playgrounds. Then Her E.P.A. Grant Was Canceled.
-
Technology21 minutes agoThe Steam Controller’s reservation queue is open
-
World27 minutes agoIsraeli police say Iran using WhatsApp, Facebook, blackmail to recruit spies as latest attempt foiled
-
Politics33 minutes agoGorsuch says ideological divides on Supreme Court come down to ‘how you read law,’ not politics
-
Health39 minutes agoCan wearables detect heart problems early? Doctor breaks down real data
-
Sports45 minutes agoWNBA season tips off today with Liberty favored and some intriguing futures bets to consider