Connect with us

Politics

The Trump Resistance Won’t Be Putting on ‘Pussy Hats’ This Time

Published

on

The Trump Resistance Won’t Be Putting on ‘Pussy Hats’ This Time

The week after Election Day in 2016, Shirley Morganelli, a women’s health nurse and lifelong Democrat, invited a dozen friends over to the living room of her rowhouse in Bethlehem, Pa., for a glass of wine. Actually, many glasses.

“Misery loves company,” she said.

Ms. Morganelli’s friends, mostly women then in their 50s and 60s, were teachers, nurses, artists and ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton. Some of them had dressed in suffragist white to cast their votes that day, expecting to celebrate the election of America’s first female president. Instead, they had ended the night consoling their college-aged daughters.

“When she called me at three o’clock in the morning — I get all choked up now, because it was the first time I couldn’t say, ‘Everything’s going to be all right,’” said Angela Sinkler, a nurse and former school board member in Bethlehem.

The get-together — Ms. Morganelli called it “unhappy hour” — became a regular event. By the end of the month, commiserating had turned into organizing. They started with writing postcards to elected officials calling on them to oppose Donald J. Trump’s agenda, then moved on to raising money for a local Planned Parenthood chapter and joining in community protests.

Advertisement

Local political candidates began showing up to their gatherings, too, and the group, now called Lehigh Valley ROAR, turned to campaigning. In 2018, several members were elected to City Council in Bethlehem, and Susan Wild, the city solicitor in nearby Allentown and old friend of Ms. Morganelli’s, was elected to Congress with the group’s support.

Lehigh Valley ROAR was one of more than 2,000 similar grass-roots groups formed in the wake of Mr. Trump’s first election — a moment of mass organization larger than even the Tea Party movement at its peak during President Barack Obama’s first term, said Theda Skocpol, a Harvard University professor of government and sociology who has studied both movements.

A vast majority of the groups were led by women, and many traced a similar arc to Ms. Morganelli’s, their shock at Mr. Trump’s election sparking political activism and then, often, electoral victories.

But then there was the defeat of Vice President Kamala Harris in November.

As Mr. Trump returns to the White House on Monday with a popular vote majority and a governing trifecta in Washington, there are few signs of the sort of mass public protest that birthed “the resistance” the last time he took office.

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s inauguration in 2017 was met with the largest single-day public demonstration in American history. Although thousands marched in Washington Saturday and smaller protests were held in other cities, their numbers fell far short of the hundreds of thousands that rallied eight years ago.

Organizers of the 2017 efforts say this shift reflects the lessons learned from the street protests that took place early in the first Trump presidency, tactics that were quickly abandoned in favor of more strategic organizing — and that opposition to a second Trump term is unlikely to take the same forms.

But some concede that the opposition is more uncertain than it once was. Congressional Democrats and governors now openly debate the wisdom of locking arms against Mr. Trump’s agenda, as they eventually did during his first presidency. And Democrats still now bear scars from last year’s conflicts over Israel’s invasions of Gaza and Lebanon, their embrace of identity politics and President Biden’s aborted candidacy.

In 2017, “everything felt bigger, more important,” said Krista Suh, a screenwriter in Los Angeles. When the Women’s March was announced for the day after Mr. Trump’s swearing-in, Ms. Suh, a novice knitter, came up with a pattern for a cat-eared pink cap to wear to the protest and posted it online.

Within days, “pussy hats” became a ubiquitous emblem of anti-Trump dissent.

Advertisement

Ms. Suh has stayed somewhat politically involved; she canvassed for Ms. Harris in Arizona. But she had no plans to protest this weekend.

“I feel like I’m just so much more jaded now,” she said.

When members of Lehigh Valley ROAR assembled once again in Ms. Morganelli’s living room this month, days before Mr. Trump would return to the White House, few were certain about what they should do next. They had canvassed and phone-banked for Ms. Harris. “You name it, we did it,” Ms. Morganelli said.

Ms. Wild had lost her seat, too.

In the corner of Ms. Morganelli’s living room, a cardboard cutout of Mr. Obama still wore a pink hat from the 2017 Women’s March, which most of the group members had attended. But none of them were going to Washington to protest Mr. Trump’s inauguration.

Advertisement

Some members had come to question the effectiveness of the Women’s March. Others were now more concerned about the safety of demonstrating. Last fall, one member’s car was broken into by someone who also tore up the Harris yard signs she had in the back seat.

Four years after the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, Ms. Morganelli was ambivalent about the optics of protesting the outcome of a fair election.

“This time, he won the popular vote,” she said, referring to the president-elect. “As good Americans and good Democrats, you have to accept that, right?”

Instead of protest, the group planned to get together to drink wine and write thank-you notes to Mr. Biden. “Moving forward, all we can do is try to be our best selves as good citizens,” Ms. Morganelli wrote on the group’s Facebook page.

In its early days, the opposition to Mr. Trump seemed to practically organize itself. Grieving liberals poured their energy into any vessel available. People who had never organized a protest in their lives were transformed into leaders of demonstrations of historic scale, sometimes overnight, as was the case for Naomi Lindquester.

Advertisement

Jolted by Mr. Trump’s election, Ms. Lindquester, then a 42-year-old elementary schoolteacher in Denver, created a Facebook event called Women’s March on Denver. She thought she would have to beg her friends to attend.

Instead, the day after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 people arrived at the State Capitol to denounce the new president. It was likely the largest demonstration in the history of Colorado.

The Women’s March protests drew some 500,000 attendees to Washington and hundreds of thousands more rallied across the country. But the groups that materialized to organize them, often led by media-savvy young urban professionals, soon found themselves struggling to maintain momentum and, at times, infighting.

The national Women’s March organization splintered after one organizer accused others of antisemitism. Other groups disintegrated amid more prosaic conflicts over priorities and egos.

“It got really ugly, really fast,” said Ms. Lindquester, who has not spoken with her fellow organizers of the Denver march since they fell out in late 2018.

Advertisement

Many such groups, she believes, were victims of their sudden celebrity. “I’ll be really honest with you,” she said, “I very much enjoyed my 15 minutes of fame.”

Since November, Ms. Lindquester has found herself questioning the impact of the march she organized. “The fact that we did that ginormous march and he still got re-elected a second time?” she said.

She has mostly stepped back from public politics — a shift that was in part a result of her move from Denver to a small, conservative town elsewhere in the state, and the heightened scrutiny on teachers’ politics in recent years.

While she was proud of her role in the 2017 protest, “I don’t talk to anyone about that, because I will hear about it if I do,” she said.

In a Facebook post this month she suggested a list of actions that she argued would make a bigger difference now than marching: Plant trees. Volunteer in the community. “Engage with people who think differently than you and find your common ground.”

Advertisement

Some argue that the energy is still out there, but the goals are different. Ezra Levin, the executive director of Indivisible, an organization he co-founded in 2017 to channel grass-roots opposition to Mr. Trump, said the group had registered more new local chapters since November than it had at any other point since 2017.

In a new blueprint for action released shortly after the election, Indivisible urged its members to focus not just on Mr. Trump and Congress but also on local elected officials — particularly Democrats in blue states that could serve as a bulwark for resisting Mr. Trump’s policies.

It conceded that “too often in Trump 1.0, we embraced the aesthetics of protests instead of using them as part of a strategy.”

“You shouldn’t start with a tactic,” Mr. Levin said. “You should start with a goal.”

In Ms. Morganelli’s living room, the Lehigh Valley ROAR members spoke of leaning on one another even more as some family members drifted away from their politics in recent years: children who had grown enamored with right-wing survivalism or opposition to vaccines during the coronavirus pandemic, or turned on Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris over their support for Israel.

Advertisement

“I lost my liberal, progressive son to Joe Rogan,” one said, as others nodded in sympathy.

They felt alienated from younger Democratic activists who seemed to see fighting Mr. Trump as a lesser priority than matters of ideological purity.

“If you’re not lefty-left enough, they are willing to sacrifice their vote and throw it away,” either by not voting or voting for a third-party candidate, said Lori McFarland, a member of the group who is now the chairwoman of the Lehigh County Democratic Committee. “And they’ve just set us back.”

Ms. Suh, the “pussy hat” creator, has not sought to reprise her role in the protest movement. She thought that a unifying phenomenon like her hat would still be possible — but the message should now be something different than the defiance of early 2017.

“I think,” she said, “it has to be something like: ‘I hear you. This is hard.’”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Vance Says Pope Should Stay Out of U.S. Affairs

Published

on

Video: Vance Says Pope Should Stay Out of U.S. Affairs

new video loaded: Vance Says Pope Should Stay Out of U.S. Affairs

transcript

transcript

Vance Says Pope Should Stay Out of U.S. Affairs

Vice President JD Vance weighed in on the tension between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV as Catholics expressed dismay about Mr. Trump’s attacks.

“I certainly think that in some cases, it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of, you know, what’s going on in the Catholic Church and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.” “I don’t think that the message of the Gospel is meant to be abused in the way that some people are doing. And I will continue to speak out loudly against war, looking to promote peace.” “Pope Leo said things that are wrong. There’s nothing to apologize for. He’s wrong.” “I’m not a big fan of Pope Leo. He’s a very liberal person. I don’t think he’s doing a very good job.” “I did post it, and I thought it was me as a doctor, and it had to do with the Red Cross. There’s a Red Cross worker there, which we support.” “It’s terrible. It’s gross. It’s blasphemous.” “I stand with the pope. I mean, the pope speaks the Gospel. He speaks for peace.”

Advertisement
Vice President JD Vance weighed in on the tension between President Trump and Pope Leo XIV as Catholics expressed dismay about Mr. Trump’s attacks.

By Shawn Paik

April 14, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden DOJ weaponized FACE Act against pro-life Americans, 882-report alleges

Published

on

Biden DOJ weaponized FACE Act against pro-life Americans, 882-report alleges

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Justice Department released a report Tuesday alleging the Biden administration weaponized federal law by selectively prosecuting pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, following a review of more than 700,000 internal records.

DOJ officials said prosecutors coordinated with abortion-rights groups to track activists, sought harsher sentences for pro-life defendants and, in some cases, withheld evidence or tried to exclude jurors based on religion.

“This department will not tolerate a two-tiered system of justice,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. “No Department should conduct selective prosecution based on beliefs. The weaponization that happened under the Biden Administration will not happen again, as we restore integrity to our prosecutorial system.”

PRO-LIFE JOURNALIST ASSAULTED ON STREET ASSIGNS BLAME TO DEMOCRATIC RHETORIC

Advertisement

The Justice Department released a report Tuesday alleging the Biden administration weaponized federal law by selectively prosecuting pro-life activists under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, following a review of more than 700,000 internal records. Anti-abortion activists march across the National Mall near the U.S. Capitol during the 50th annual March for Life rally on Jan. 20, 2023 in Washington, DC.  (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

The Justice Department’s “Weaponization Working Group” — a review team created under the Trump administration to examine whether federal law was used in a biased or politically motivated way — said it reviewed internal communications, case files and prosecutorial decisions tied to enforcement of the FACE Act, a law intended to protect access to abortion clinics and pregnancy resource centers.

The report found officials under the Biden administration worked closely with groups including Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation and the Feminist Majority Foundation, which helped compile information on pro-life activists used in investigations and prosecutions.

The report said, “The Biden DOJ prosecutors knowingly withheld evidence that defense counsel requested to prepare an affirmative defense.”

In one case, a DOJ official told defense counsel, “I do not keep the kind of records you requested and, as a result, I do not believe that we will provide them to you,” when asked for data to support a selective prosecution defense. 

Advertisement

The report said the official had the information “readily available” but declined to share it with the defense.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD APOLOGIZES FOR ‘INADVERTENTLY’ GIVING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT COLORING BOOK TO CHILDREN

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department will not tolerate a “two-tiered system of justice.” (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

The report also alleged prosecutors attempted to screen out jurors based on religious beliefs and, in some cases, opted for aggressive arrest tactics rather than allowing defendants to voluntarily surrender.

For instance, the report cited a case involving pro-life activist Mark Houck in which prosecutors declined a request for him to self-surrender and instead authorized an FBI arrest at his home.

Advertisement

DOJ officials further claimed pro-life defendants faced significantly harsher sentencing requests, with prosecutors seeking an average of 26.8 months in prison compared to 12.3 months for defendants accused of violence against pro-life organizations.

The report argued the Biden administration’s enforcement of the FACE Act was uneven, with authorities prioritizing cases involving abortion clinics while failing to adequately pursue attacks on pregnancy resource centers and churches.

The Justice Department said the Trump administration has already taken steps to reverse course, including issuing pardons for some pro-life activists, dismissing several civil cases and limiting future FACE Act prosecutions to “extraordinary circumstances” involving significant aggravating factors.

President Donald Trump also signed pardons for pro-life activists convicted under the prior administration.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Merrick Garland headed the Justice Department under the Biden administration. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Assistant Attorney General Daniel Burrows said the findings raised serious concerns about the conduct of department attorneys.

“The behavior unearthed in this report is shameful,” Burrows said in a statement. “Lawyers who should have known better withheld evidence, worked to keep committed religious people off juries and generally allowed the Department of Justice to be used as the enforcement arm of pro-abortion special interests.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: The results are in, and same-sex marriage was a win for children and society

Published

on

Contributor: The results are in, and same-sex marriage was a win for children and society

Prior to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell decision, opponents raised alarms about the severe and immediate harms that would surely occur if marriages between same-sex couples were recognized nationally. Afterward, when those harms failed to materialize, those voices grew quieter, but some have been returning with renewed vigor, in hopes that the current Supreme Court, after overturning Roe vs. Wade, may be willing to overturn the Obergefell decision as well — though the justices declined to do so in November.

To build public support for rolling back marriage rights, new campaigns have been repeating the claims that legal recognition of same-sex marriages may harm children or even the stability of different-sex marriages. These are some of the same concerns that were raised in the years prior to the Obergefell decision. They were groundless then, and, more than 10 years later, the data confirm these fears to be unfounded.

In 2024, for the 20th anniversary of the first legal marriages of same-sex couples (in Massachusetts), my lab at UCLA joined with a team of researchers at Rand Corp. to review what social scientists learned over those two decades about the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

We addressed this question in two ways. First, we searched through the research literature to find every published study that had examined the consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Prior to 2015, states legalized and prohibited same-sex marriage at different times, and social scientists tracked a wide range of outcomes, including the well-being of children, national trends in marriage and divorce, and the physical and mental health of same-sex couples. Opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage predicted, in the strongest terms, that people would suffer after same-sex couples were granted the right to marry.

Advertisement

After 20 years of legalized marriage for same-sex couples, 96 independent studies confirm there is no evidence for the harms critics predicted. Our review identified not a single study that observed significant negative consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage. Instead, the research literature identified many significant positive consequences.

For same-sex couples, legal recognition of their marriages was followed by more stable relationships, increased mental and physical health, greater financial stability, and stronger connections to family. For the children of those couples, our review found no documented negative outcomes, but legal recognition of their parents’ marriages did result in more children obtaining access to health insurance. And what about the rest of the country? States that recognized same-sex marriages prior to Obergefell experienced economic gains and considerable savings in healthcare costs relative to states that did not.

One of the most striking predictions of the opponents of same-sex marriage was that recognizing marriage among same-sex couples would weaken commitment to the institution of marriage among different-sex couples. That did not happen either.

To address this question, our report conducted new analyses, drawing on census data and other sources to determine whether state-level rates of marriage, cohabitation and divorce changed in the states that recognized same-sex marriage, compared with states that did not. No matter how we conducted the analyses, we could find no effects of recognizing same-sex marriage on any of these outcomes. It makes sense: When different-sex couples are making personal decisions about their own relationships, they are not paying much attention to what same-sex couples are doing.

If any harm resulted from allowing same-sex couples to marry, it ought to be well documented by now. The fact that there has been no evidence of harms despite considerable effort to find some suggests that the predictions made by opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage were unwarranted at the time. Now that we have 20 years of research and experience, those predictions remain unwarranted now.

Advertisement

Benjamin Karney is a professor of social psychology at UCLA.

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
This article generally aligns with a Center Left point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
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

  • The article argues that research from over two decades demonstrates same-sex marriage legalization produced substantial benefits for same-sex couples, including more stable relationships, improved mental and physical health, greater financial stability, and stronger family connections[1][2].

  • The piece contends that children of same-sex couples experienced no documented negative outcomes following legal recognition of their parents’ marriages, while gaining increased access to health insurance[2].

  • The column suggests that states recognizing same-sex marriages prior to the 2015 Obergefell decision experienced measurable economic gains and considerable healthcare cost savings compared to states that did not recognize such marriages.

  • The article maintains that one of the primary concerns raised by opponents—that legalizing same-sex marriage would weaken commitment to marriage among different-sex couples—failed to materialize, with analyses showing no effects on state-level marriage, cohabitation, or divorce rates.

  • The piece contends that approximately 96 independent studies confirm there is no evidence for the harms critics predicted would result from legalizing same-sex marriage, and that not a single study documented significant negative consequences.

Different views on the topic

  • Historically, some researchers suggested potential concerns about children raised by same-sex parents, with the New Family Structures Study initially concluding that people with same-sex parents faced greater risks of adverse outcomes including unemployment and lower educational attainment[3].

  • Some research has indicated that same-sex couples, particularly female-female couples, experience higher divorce rates compared to different-sex couples, with a 2022 study finding female-female marriages had 29% higher divorce rates relative to female-male marriages, and that lesbian unions demonstrate considerably less stability than gay male unions[4].

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending