Connect with us

Politics

Column: Why it's wrong to blame Trump's victory on Latino men

Published

on

Column: Why it's wrong to blame Trump's victory on Latino men

Six years ago in this newspaper, I coined the term “rancho libertarian” to describe a political ideology I was observing in many of the Latino men I knew.

Proud of their family’s rural immigrant roots but fully of this country. Working class at heart, middle class in income. Skeptical of big government and woke politics yet committed to bettering their communities. Believers in the American Dream they had seen their parents achieve — and afraid it was slipping away.

The rancho libertarians I knew were mostly Mexican Americans, but not exclusively — there were Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Peruvians, Colombians. They weren’t Donald Trump fans — he only won 28% of the Latino vote in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, according to the Pew Research Center — but I saw how Latino men could easily cozy up to him. An orange-tinted despot seemed relatively harmless compared to the ones in their ancestral lands, so they didn’t view Trump as much of a threat.

These guys were used to blabbermouths as bosses. They respected people who said what they wanted and didn’t care about consequences. Besides, rancho libertarians never liked to raise a fuss, so they went on with their lives while dismissing the loud opposition to Trump by activists on the streets and Democrats in Capitol Hill as little better than leftist hysteria.

After Joe Biden won in 2020 with less Latino support than Clinton, I warned liberals that the Democratic Party was losing blue-collar Latino men. Few listened to my concerns. Rancho libertarians were seen as antiquated vendidos — sellouts — who would drown in the progressive blue wave that had covered California due to GOP xenophobia and that was now spreading across the country.

Advertisement

Well, who’s treading water now?

Democrats are — to mix political clichés — soul-searching in the political wilderness yet again after Trump’s dominant win over Kamala Harris. Pundits are carving up poll data like a Thanksgiving ham — and the cut that’s proving the hardest for Democrats to swallow is Latino men.

An NBC News exit poll of voters in 10 states — including Arizona, Florida and Texas, which have huge number of Latinos — showed Trump capturing 55% of the Latino male vote. It’s the first time the demographic has sided with a Republican in a presidential election.

In an exit poll by Edison Research, Latino male support for Trump skyrocketed from 36% in 2020 to 54% this year. Meanwhile, CNN tracked a 42% swing toward the Republican candidate from 2016 to 2024 — by far the most dramatic change of any group.

More analysis will appear in the coming weeks and months, but the idea that Trump won by bringing Latino men into his coalition of the cruel is already a talking point for the chattering class. This happened despite Trump surrogates uttering anti-Latino jokes at rallies and despite Trump’s promises to not only deport undocumented immigrants but also to revoke birthright citizenship — a privilege more than a few rancho libertarians were blessed with.

Advertisement

CNN anchor Erin Burnett on Wednesday night described all this as “an unprecedented shift in American politics.” Senator Chris Coons of Delaware told the New York Times about the Harris defeat: “There’s a couple of groups in the United States, young men and Latino voters, that just did not respond in a positive way to our candidate and our message and our record.”

Screengrabs of the polls I mentioned are filling my social media feeds, along with an angry message: Trump won, and it’s the fault of Latino men.

In this 2020 photo, then-President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to the cheering crowd after a Latinos for Trump Coalition roundtable in Phoenix.

(Ross D. Franklin / Associated Press)

Advertisement

The explanations for this new rightward lean are coming in as fast and hot as the Santa Ana winds: Machismo. Misogyny. Anti-blackness. Self-hatred. Straight-up stupidity. Aspirational whiteness.

We should criticize Trump-loving Latino men for their choice. But to pin the return of Trump so heavily on them excuses other guilty actors.

Much is being made of the gender gap this year between Latina women — 60% supported Harris, according to the CNN exit poll — and Latino men, only 38% of whom backed the Democratic nominee. The implication is that the women fought the good fight to save democracy, while the pendejo men essentially guaranteed its demise.

But that ignores an overall shift in Latino support for Trump. The Edison exit poll showed that 46% of Latinos supported Trump, the highest number ever tracked for a Republican presidential candidate. Support for the Democratic candidate among Latinas went from a 44-point advantage for Clinton in 2016 to a 22-point advantage for Harris in CNN’s exit poll— still sizable but a significant drop.

So it’s not just hubristic hombres who fell under the Trump spell of a better economy and an end to wokeness — it’s solipsistic señoritas as well.

Advertisement

The other big reason why Latino men went for Trump is the Democratic Party, which took them for granted for decades and has alienated them repeatedly during the Trump era.

Democrats pushed immigration reform and ethnic solidarity as key planks in their Latino platform, even though surveys have shown that Latinos care more about economic issues and have become increasingly hawkish on the border now that their familes have established themselves in this country. The Democratic neglect of its traditional working-class base in favor of college-educated and white collar workers hasn’t helped, either.

Then there was “Latinx,” an ungendered term pushed by progressives and used in the past by Harris and Biden. I have no issue with it, but nearly every non-progressive straight Latino male I know despises “Latinx.”

The term is such electoral kryptonite that a recently released study by researchers at Harvard and Georgetown found that politicians who use “Latinx” turn off Latino voters instead of attracting them. And it’s not just eggheads saying that. Three years ago, Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego of Arizona banned “Latinx” from his official communications. He argued in a social media post that Latino politicians were using the term “to appease white rich progressives who think that is the term we use. It is a vicious circle of confirmation bias.”

Progressives blasted Gallego as insensitive. He’s now in the lead to become the Copper State’s next U.S. senator, even as Trump is ahead of Harris in a state Joe Biden won in 2020.

Advertisement
A man with a cardboard cutout of Donald Trump

Jorge Rivas, a Salvadoran immigrant who owns an eatery in Arizona, in a 2020 photo.

(Cindy Carcamo/Los Angeles Times)

I’m not defending Latino male Trump supporters. I think they’re putting too much faith in someone who’s ultimately only about himself. But they are our elders, our relatives, our friends. They voted the way they did because they felt abandoned by Democrats, and the Trump campaign made a hard, successful push for them. These rancho libertarians did what liberals said Latinos would do and conservatives long insisted was impossible: They assimilated.

Demonizing them will only harden their views. Besides, where’s the disdain among Harris supporters for white women, who have sided with Trump in every election along with white men? Or for Arab Americans who shunned Harris because of the Biden administration’s stance on Israel and Gaza? Or first-time voters, moderates and all the other groups who were supposed to go with Harris but didn’t?

Nah, hating on Latino men is easier. It’s been a favorite sport of Americans for centuries. We’ve been buffoons to them, criminals, rapists — and now, traitors.

Advertisement

That last insult used to come from white supremacists. Now, liberals are throwing it around. That’s progress, right?

Politics

Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

Published

on

Video: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

new video loaded: Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

transcript

transcript

Lawmakers Demand the Release of Classified Boat Strike Video

Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.

“It Is the 22nd bipartisan briefing we’ve had on a highly successful mission to counter designated terrorist organizations, cartels, bringing weapons — weapons, drugs to the American people and poisoning the American people for far too long. So we’re proud of what we’re doing, able to lay it out very directly to these senators and soon to the House. But it’s all classified. We can’t talk about it now. But in keeping with longstanding Department of War policy, Department of Defense policy, of course, we’re not going to release a top secret, full, unedited video of that to the general public. H.A.S.C. and S.A.S.C. and appropriate committees will see it, but not the general public.” “I’ll be introducing a live unanimous consent request to release the video both to the full Congress, but also to the American people. The public should see this, and I hope that we’ll have support to make it public. I found the legal explanations and the strategic explanations incoherent, but I think American people should see this video and all members of Congress should have that opportunity. I certainly want it for myself.”

Advertisement
Following classified hearings for all the members of the House and Senate, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth declined on Tuesday to release the unedited video of a boat attack in September that included a second strike to kill survivors.

By Meg Felling

December 16, 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

HHS probes Minnesota’s use of billions in federal social service funds amid fraud concerns: report

Published

on

HHS probes Minnesota’s use of billions in federal social service funds amid fraud concerns: report

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has launched a review into how Minnesota used billions of dollars in federal social service funding, requesting detailed records from Gov. Tim Walz’s administration and other state entities after reports raised questions about whether portions of the money were misused, according to letters first obtained by the New York Post.

The letters were sent Monday by Alex Adams, assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, to Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and a nonprofit involved in administering Head Start programs, the Post reported.

According to the Post, Adams said HHS is attempting to determine whether federal safety-net funds were diverted or mismanaged and whether such misuse might have “been used to fuel illegal and mass migration” into Minnesota.

Adams told the outlet the review is focused on “accountability for American taxpayers” and on ensuring federal benefit programs were not compromised.

Advertisement

LABOR SECRETARY ANNOUNCES ‘STRIKE TEAM’ GOING TO MINNESOTA TO INVESTIGATE RAMPANT FRAUD

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has said, “Minnesota is a prosperous state, a well-run state.” (AP Photo/Meg Kinnard)

The Post reported that Minnesota received more than $8.6 billion in ACF funding between fiscal years 2019 and 2025 through more than 1,000 federal grants. In fiscal year 2025 alone, the state received over $690 million for safety-net programs under President Biden, according to federal spending records reviewed by the Post.

In the letters, Adams requested what the Post described as a “comprehensive list” of all state entities that received ACF funding during that period, along with detailed administrative data. The information sought includes recipient names, addresses, dates of birth and, where applicable, Social Security numbers and immigration A-numbers, the Post reported.

Adams told the Post that HHS has “legitimate reason to think that they’ve been using taxpayer dollars incorrectly,” citing recent fraud investigations and allegations involving Minnesota’s Department of Human Services. According to the Post, the letters referenced public statements from hundreds of DHS employees alleging warnings of fraud were disregarded and whistleblowers faced retaliation.

Advertisement

TRUMP CABINET OFFICIAL CALLS ON WALZ TO RESIGN OVER MASSIVE FRAUD SCANDAL IN SCATHING LETTER: ‘SHAME ON YOU’

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey speaks during a press conference at City Hall following a mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic School on Aug. 28, 2025 in Minneapolis.  (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

The review comes amid heightened scrutiny of Minnesota’s handling of federal funds following multiple high-profile fraud cases. Federal prosecutors have charged dozens of individuals in connection with the Feeding Our Future scheme, in which more than $250 million intended for child nutrition programs was diverted for luxury purchases and real estate. Many of those charged had ties to nonprofits serving Minnesota’s Somali community.

The Post also cited Pew Research Center data showing Minnesota’s unauthorized migrant population increased by roughly 40,000 people between 2019 and 2023, reaching an estimated 130,000 residents, or about 2% of the state’s population.

Men take part in a weekly Friday Jum’ah prayer session at Abubakar As-Saddique Islamic Center amid a reported ongoing federal immigration operation targeting the Somali community in Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S. Dec. 5, 2025.   (Tim Evans/Reuters)

Advertisement

According to the Post, the ACF review includes several major federal programs, including the Community Services Block Grant, Social Services Block Grant, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Title IV-E Foster Care, Refugee Cash and Medical Assistance, the Child Care and Development Fund, and Parents in Community Action, a Head Start grantee.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“The Trump Administration has made clear its commitment to rooting out fraud, protecting taxpayer dollars, and ensuring program integrity across all federal benefit programs,” Adams wrote in the letters, according to the Post. “This information is necessary for ACF to conduct a thorough review of program operations and to assess the extent of any irregularities that may have occurred.”

Fox News Digital reached out to Gov. Walz, Mayor Jacob Frey and HHS for comment but did not receive an immediate response.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Eaton fire survivors ask Edison for emergency housing relief

Published

on

Eaton fire survivors ask Edison for emergency housing relief

A coalition of Eaton fire survivors and community groups called on Southern California Edison on Tuesday to provide immediate housing assistance to the thousands of people who lost their homes in the Jan. 7 wildfire.

The coalition says an increasing number of Altadena residents are running out of insurance coverage that had been paying for their housing since they were displaced by the fire. Thousands of other residents had no insurance.

“When a company’s fire destroys or contaminates homes, that company has a responsibility to keep families housed until they can get back home,” said Joy Chen, executive director of the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, one of the coalition members asking Edison for emergency assistance of up to $200,000 for each family.

At the coalition’s press conference, Altadena residents spoke of trying to find a place to live after the Jan. 7 fire that killed 19 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes, apartments and other structures. Thousands of other homes were damaged by smoke and ash.

Gabriel Gonzalez, center, an Eaton fire survivor, speaks at a news conference in Altadena on Tuesday. He and others urged Southern California Edison to provide urgent housing relief to Eaton fire families.

Advertisement

(Gary Coronado / For The Times)

Gabriel Gonzalez said he had been living in his car for most of the last year.

Before the fire, Gonzalez had a successful plumbing company with six employees, he said. He had moved into an apartment in Altadena just a month before the fire and lost $80,000 worth of tools when the building was destroyed.

His insurance did not cover the loss, Gonzalez said, and he lost his business.

Advertisement

Edison is now offering to directly pay fire victims for their losses if they give up their right to file a lawsuit against the utility.

But members of the coalition say Edison’s program is forcing victims who are most desperate for financial support to give up their legal right to fair compensation.

A man speaks holding a folder.

Andrew Wessels, Strategy Director for the Eaton Fire Survivors Network, speaks about Edison’s Wildfire Recovery Compensation Plan (WRCP).

(Gary Coronado/For The Times)

“If families are pushed to give up what they are owed just to survive, the recovery will never have the funds required to rebuild homes, restore livelihoods or stabilize the community,” said Andrew Wessels. He said he and his family had lived in 12 different places since the fire left ash contaminated with lead on and in their home.

Advertisement

In an interview Tuesday, Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said the company would not provide money to victims without them agreeing to drop any litigation against the company for the fire.

“I can’t even pretend to understand the challenges victims are going through,” Pizarro said.

He said the company created its Wildfire Recovery Compensation Program to get money to victims much faster than if they filed a lawsuit and waited for a settlement.

“We want to help the community rebuild as quickly as possible,” he said.

Pizarro said Edison made its first payment to a victim within 45 days of the compensation program launching on Oct. 29. So far, he said, the company has received more than 1,500 claims.

Advertisement

Edison created the compensation program even though the official investigation into the cause of the fire hasn’t been released.

The company has said a leading theory is that its century-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which it last used in 1971, briefly became energized from the live lines running parallel to it, sparking the fire.

The program offers to reimburse victims for their losses and provides additional sums for pain and suffering. It also gives victims a bonus for agreeing to settle their claim outside of court.

Pizarro said the program is voluntary and if victims don’t like the offer they receive from Edison, they can continue their claims in court.

Edison has told its investors that it believes it will be reimbursed for all of its payments to victims and lawsuit settlements by $1 billion in customer-paid insurance and a $21 billion state wildfire fund.

Advertisement
Zaire Calvin, of Altadena, a survivor who has lost his home and other properties, speaks.

Zaire Calvin, of Altadena, a survivor who has lost his home and other properties, speaks.

(Gary Coronado/For The Times)

Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers created the wildfire fund in 2019 to protect utilities from bankruptcy if their electric wires cause a disastrous wildfire.

State officials say the fund could be wiped out by Eaton fire damages. While the first $21 billion was contributed half by customers of the state’s three biggest for-profit utilities and half by the companies’ shareholders, any additional damage claims from the Jan. 7 fire will be paid by Edison customers, according to legislation passed in September.

Some Altadena residents say Edison’s compensation program doesn’t pay them fully for their losses.

Advertisement

Damon Blount said that he and his wife had just renovated their home before it was destroyed in the fire. They don’t believe Edison’s offer would be enough to cover that work.

Blount said he “felt betrayed” by the utility.

“They literally took everything away from us,” Blount said. “Do the right thing, Edison. We want to be home.”

At the press conference, fire victims pointed out that Edison reported nearly $1.3 billion in profits last year, up from $1.2 billion in 2023.

Last week, Edison International said it was increasing the dividend it pays to its shareholders by 6% because of its strong financial performance.

Advertisement

“Their stock is rising,” said Zaire Calvin, one of the Altadena residents calling on Edison for emergency relief. Calvin lost his home and his sister died in the fire. “They will not pay a penny when this is over.”

Continue Reading

Trending