Media and democracy · AnalysisNov. 4, 20268 min
When politics became content, governing became the part nobody was trained for.
Donald Trump and the political creator economy rose together by presenting themselves as irreverent outsiders. Eleven years later, many of those outsiders have become the establishment they once mocked.
Donald Trump entered the 2016 presidential race at the same moment internet creators were beginning to challenge traditional media.
Both movements sold a similar identity. They were anti-establishment, politically incorrect, confrontational and frequently funny. They promised to say what professional politicians, corporate executives and traditional journalists supposedly would not.
A mutually beneficial relationship. Trump supplied the spectacle. Online creators supplied the distribution. Every rally, insult, nickname and confrontation could become a clip, meme, podcast segment or reaction video. Creators received a constant stream of highly profitable content. Trump received an enthusiastic network of personalities who could communicate with audiences that increasingly distrusted conventional news organizations.
A recent KFCBarstool Instagram post described this as a “symbiotic relationship.” That is a useful way to understand what happened, even if online creators were only one part of Trump’s rise. Trump was already a television celebrity. Cable networks gave his campaign extraordinary attention. Talk radio, Fox News, Facebook, rallies and widespread dissatisfaction with political institutions also contributed. It would be inaccurate to say internet personalities alone made him president. But they helped transform support for a candidate into an online culture.
The movement sold rebellion. For many supporters, Trump represented a rejection of institutions they believed were condescending, dishonest or unresponsive. Sharing a Trump clip became a way to reject those institutions and join a community that appeared more entertaining than conventional politics.
Benny Johnson, Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro and Laura Loomer built significant online audiences. Megyn Kelly, Greg Gutfeld, Jesse Watters and Sean Hannity came from broadcasting. Nancy Mace is an elected member of Congress, not a media host. It would be inaccurate to describe every person in this group in exactly the same terms.
What connects them is participation in a political media environment where confrontation frequently performs better than careful explanation. A provocative clip can travel farther than a detailed policy discussion. Mockery is easier to package than context. Anger produces comments, shares and repeat viewers.
The same incentives operate in left-wing activist and influencer communities. Personal attacks, purity tests and viral denunciations can replace serious discussions about policy there as well. The scale, organization and audiences are not identical, but the underlying business incentive is similar.
Trump did not create polarization. American politics was becoming more divided long before Trump’s 2015 campaign announcement. In 2014, Pew Research Center found that most Americans did not hold uniformly liberal or conservative positions. The people most actively involved in politics, however, were more ideologically consistent and less interested in compromise. They were also more likely to donate, contact elected officials and participate in campaigns. The political edges therefore possessed more influence than their numbers alone would suggest.
Trump did not create that imbalance. He understood how to use it. Social media gave the most committed voices access to national audiences. Cable news gave conflict a permanent home. Political campaigns became less dependent on newspapers, local television and professional reporters who traditionally stood between candidates and the public.
Some of that change was healthy. Traditional media organizations had made serious mistakes and sometimes treated legitimate public concerns dismissively. Direct communication allowed people outside established institutions to challenge powerful organizations and expose information that gatekeepers might have ignored.
But removing the gatekeepers also removed many of the standards. A creator can publish a claim without contacting the subject, reviewing the underlying document or waiting for additional evidence. If the claim is wrong, the correction may reach only a fraction of the original audience. The result is a system that can reward confidence more reliably than accuracy.
Research does not establish that algorithms alone created American polarization. Political sorting began decades before modern social media. Some experiments have found that changing a feed does not automatically change political attitudes, while other research indicates that exposure to partisan hostility can increase animosity. The responsible conclusion is that social media can amplify division, not that it single-handedly caused it.
The outsiders became the establishment. The anti-establishment identity becomes harder to maintain after a movement controls the presidency, Congress, government agencies and a substantial part of the political media.
Trump is no longer an untested outsider. His decisions have consequences that cannot be evaluated as entertainment. Tariffs affect prices. Military decisions affect lives. Appointments determine how federal agencies operate. Pardons, business relationships, government contracts and family financial interests create legitimate questions about corruption and conflicts of interest.
These subjects require more than jokes, debate clips and campaign slogans. They require documents, expertise, historical context and a willingness to report facts that an audience may not want to hear.
A personality who built an audience by defending a political movement faces a conflict when that movement gains power. Honest scrutiny may alienate viewers. Continued loyalty may preserve the audience but turn the commentator into an unofficial spokesperson. The creator must decide whether the purpose is to inform the audience or maintain the relationship.
Real voters were talking about real costs. The 2026 midterm results provide an important test. The Associated Press Voter Poll surveyed approximately 80,000 voters across the country. Most voters identified the economy or the state of democracy as the country’s leading problem. Roughly half said the cost of living and government corruption were crucial to their congressional vote. About 7 in 10 said Congress was not doing enough to provide checks and balances on the president.
These voters were not necessarily endorsing every Democratic position. Many remained dissatisfied with both parties. They were responding to costs, corruption, presidential power and the consequences of government decisions.
Culture wars and the engagement trap. Cultural and civil-rights questions can directly affect real people and deserve factual coverage. The problem begins when isolated incidents are presented as national emergencies, entire communities are treated as threats or outrage becomes a substitute for governing.
A person can support restrictions in women’s sports while voting based on grocery prices, health-care costs or corruption. Online engagement often erases that distinction because the most emotionally charged subject becomes the most visible one.
Traditional media helped create the problem. Professional journalists cannot place all the blame on influencers. Television networks repeatedly gave Trump uninterrupted coverage because he attracted viewers. News organizations adopted the visual language of sports and entertainment, including countdown clocks, dramatic music, confrontational panels and constant speculation about winners and losers.
The public noticed. In a Pew survey, 84% of Americans said political debate had become less respectful and 78% said it had become less fact-based. Majorities in both parties believed political disagreements received too much attention while important issues and actual government policies received too little.
The next political grift could move left. A weakened conservative media ecosystem does not guarantee a return to professional reporting. The same incentives can migrate. If progressive candidates and personalities become more powerful, creators may attach themselves to figures such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Zohran Mamdani or Abdul El-Sayed. Some will provide useful analysis. Others may discover that uncritical advocacy is profitable.
That possibility should not be used to declare every popular Democratic figure a grifter in advance. The standard must remain evidence. Do they disclose financial relationships? Do they correct false claims? Do they distinguish reporting from opinion? Do they challenge politicians they ordinarily support? Do they provide original evidence, or merely react to the work of others?
Attention is not expertise. The political creator economy is not disappearing. Nor should every independent commentator be dismissed. Some creators conduct serious interviews, examine public records and reach audiences that traditional outlets have failed to serve.
The problem begins when popularity is mistaken for expertise, commentary is presented as reporting and loyalty replaces verification. Trump and the creator economy rose by convincing audiences that established institutions had failed. Eleven years later, they have become powerful institutions themselves.
They should now be judged the same way: by the accuracy of their claims, the interests they serve, the mistakes they correct and the consequences of the power they helped create.
Politics can be entertaining. It cannot be only entertainment. When government decisions affect war, prices, civil rights and public money, the country needs more than personalities who know how to win the feed. It needs people willing to examine the record, tell the truth and remain skeptical even when the facts are inconvenient for their own side.