Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Daily Caller

Celebrities Do Not Have The Political Star Power They Thought They Did

Published

6 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Bob Rubin

Oprah Winfrey’s hypocrisy and Robert De Niro’s suggestion that he might to leave the United States are reminders that, at the end of the day, celebrities are just people — with no greater understanding of the political landscape than anyone else.

Their declarations of doom and gloom have become background noise in a country that is tired of being talked down to. For years, celebrities have wielded their platforms like megaphones, hoping to sway voters and shape public opinion.

Yet, despite their drama and declarations, their political star power appears to be waning.

Take Oprah Winfrey, for example, who found herself embroiled in controversy after it was revealed her organization  accepted a significant amount of money to conduct a townhall with Vice President Kamala Harris. But now, critics are left asking: Did Oprah’s endorsement even move the needle for voters? Was there anyone genuinely on the fence about Harris who decided, “You know what, if Oprah’s on board, I’m in”?

The fallout from this has only further eroded trust in celebrity endorsements.

Then there are the celebrity escape plans. Robert De Niro, for example, suggested in 2016 he might leave the United States if Trump won.

But what is truly laughable is the hypocrisy of the countless celebrities who back in 2016 shouted: “If Trump wins, I’m out of here!” Cher and others were loud and proud about their disdain for a Trump presidency. Yet, when the moment came, they stayed put — clinging to their mansions in the United States rather than booking flights to Canada.

It begs the question: Why the double standard? If America under Trump is as terrible as they claim, why not leave? Or is it that, deep down, they know there is no better place to live than the United States?

Celebrities threatening to leave the country have become as predictable as award-show standing ovations. These threats serve less as genuine convictions and more as performative gestures meant to energize their social media followings. Yet, the average American sees right through it.

For most working-class voters, celebrity complaints ring hollow when they come from people who enjoy wealth and freedom. The idea that Robert De Niro, who became famous portraying gritty, tough-as-nails characters, feels so aggrieved by election outcomes that he might move abroad is almost comical.

Moreover, the notion that these stars believe their opinions hold more weight than the average American’s is a glaring example of Hollywood’s elitism. Their proclamations of moral superiority may resonate in the echo chambers of coastal cities, but for the rest of the country, it is just noise.

And here is the kicker: President-elect Donald Trump now has more followers on X than Taylor Swift, one of the biggest pop stars on the planet. The fact that Trump has outpaced the ultimate celebrity in social media influence shows that America is not as enamored with Hollywood elites as it once was.

A larger question looms: Do celebrity endorsements even matter in politics anymore? Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign surely thought so when it brought in Oprah, but the results suggest otherwise. Harris’ historic unpopularity has not been bolstered by celebrity star power.

In fact, it could be argued that Hollywood endorsements hurt more than they help. Many Americans see them as out of touch, self-serving or even condescending. After all, why should a multimillionaire actor or singer have any more influence over an election than a small business owner in Ohio or a teacher in Texas?

As Trump’s return to the White House sends shockwaves through the liberal establishment, perhaps it is time for Hollywood to take a hard look in the mirror. Their star power no longer carries the political weight it once did. Americans are increasingly skeptical of those who claim to speak for the “common man” while living in gated communities and vacationing in the South of France.

The truth is, America is not perfect, but it is far from the dystopian nightmare Hollywood claims it will become under conservative leadership. And maybe, just maybe, it is time for these celebrities to stick to what they do best — entertaining — and leave the politics to the people.

Bob Rubin is the Founder and President of Rubin Wealth Advisors. Learn more about him by visiting www.rubinwa.com.

Business

Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan Ramp Up Pressure On Google Parent Company To Deal With ‘Censorship’

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Andi Shae Napier

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan are turning their attention to Google over concerns that the tech giant is censoring users and infringing on Americans’ free speech rights.

Google’s parent company Alphabet, which also owns YouTube, appears to be the GOP’s next Big Tech target. Lawmakers seem to be turning their attention to Alphabet after Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta ended its controversial fact-checking program in favor of a Community Notes system similar to the one used by Elon Musk’s X.

Cruz recently informed reporters of his and fellow senators’ plans to protect free speech. 

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

“Stopping online censorship is a major priority for the Commerce Committee,” Cruz said, as reported by Politico. “And we are going to utilize every point of leverage we have to protect free speech online.”

Following his meeting with Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai last month, Cruz told the outlet, “Big Tech censorship was the single most important topic.”

Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent subpoenas to Alphabet and other tech giants such as RumbleTikTok and Apple in February regarding “compliance with foreign censorship laws, regulations, judicial orders, or other government-initiated efforts” with the intent to discover how foreign governments, or the Biden administration, have limited Americans’ access to free speech.

“Throughout the previous Congress, the Committee expressed concern over YouTube’s censorship of conservatives and political speech,” Jordan wrote in a letter to Pichai in March. “To develop effective legislation, such as the possible enactment of new statutory limits on the executive branch’s ability to work with Big Tech to restrict the circulation of content and deplatform users, the Committee must first understand how and to what extent the executive branch coerced and colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor speech.”

Jordan subpoenaed tech CEOs in 2023 as well, including Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Tim Cook of Apple and Pichai, among others.

Despite the recent action against the tech giant, the battle stretches back to President Donald Trump’s first administration. Cruz began his investigation of Google in 2019 when he questioned Karan Bhatia, the company’s Vice President for Government Affairs & Public Policy at the time, in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Cruz brought forth a presentation suggesting tech companies, including Google, were straying from free speech and leaning towards censorship.

Even during Congress’ recess, pressure on Google continues to mount as a federal court ruled Thursday that Google’s ad-tech unit violates U.S. antitrust laws and creates an illegal monopoly. This marks the second antitrust ruling against the tech giant as a different court ruled in 2024 that Google abused its dominance of the online search market.

Continue Reading

Daily Caller

Daily Caller EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s Broad Ban On Risky Gain-Of-Function Research Nears Completion

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Emily Kopp

President Donald Trump could sign a sweeping executive order banning gain-of-function research — research that makes viruses more dangerous in the lab — as soon as May 6, according to a source who has worked with the National Security Council on the issue.

The executive order will take a broad strokes approach, banning research amplifying the infectivity or pathogenicity of any virulent and replicable pathogen, according to the source, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the anticipated executive action. But significant unresolved issues remain, according to the source, including whether violators will be subject to criminal penalties as bioweaponeers.

The executive order is being steered by Gerald Parker, head of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, which has been incorporated into the NSC. Parker did not respond to requests for comment.

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

In the process of drafting the executive order, Parker has frozen out the federal agencies that have for years championed gain-of-function research and staved off regulation — chiefly Anthony Fauci’s former institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the National Institutes of Health.

The latest policy guidance on gain-of-function research, unveiled under the Biden administration in 2024, was previously expected to go into effect May 6. According to a March 25 letter cosigned by the American Society for Microbiology, the Association for Biosafety and Biosecurity International, and Council on Governmental Relations, organizations that conduct pathogen research have not received direction from the NIH on that guidance — suggesting the executive order would supersede the May 6 deadline.

The 2024 guidance altered the scope of experiments subject to more rigorous review, but charged researchers, universities and funding agencies like NIH with its implementation, which critics say disincentivizes reporting. Many scientists say that researchers and NIH should not be the primary entities conducting cost–benefit analyses of pandemic virus studies. 

Parker previously served as the head of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), a group of outside experts that advises NIH on biosecurity matters, and in that role recommended that Congress stand up a new government agency to advise on gain-of-function research. Former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield has also endorsed moving gain-of-function research decision making out of the NIH to an independent commission.

“Given the well documented lapses in the NIH review process, policymakers should … remove final approval of any gain-of function research grants from NIH,” Redfield said in a February op-ed.

It remains to be seen whether the executive order will articulate carveouts for gain-of-function research without risks of harm such as research on non-replicative pseudoviruses, which can be used to study viral evolution without generating pandemic viruses.

It also remains to be seen whether the executive order will define “gain-of-function research” tightly enough to stand up to legal scrutiny should a violator be charged with a crime.

Risky research on coronaviruses funded by the NIH at the Wuhan Institute of Virology through the U.S. nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance typifies the loopholes in NIH’s existing regulatory framework, some biosecurity experts say.

Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act in 2023 indicated that EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak submitted a proposal to the Pentagon in 2018 called “DEFUSE” describing gain-of-function experiments on viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 but downplayed to his intended funder the fact that many of the tests would occur in Wuhan, China.

Daszak and EcoHealth were both debarred from federal funding in January 2025 but have faced no criminal charges.

“I don’t know that criminal penalties are necessary. But we do need more sticks in biosafety as well as carrots,” said a biosecurity expert who requested anonymity to avoid retribution from his employer for weighing in on the expected policy. “For instance, biosafety should be a part of tenure review and whether you get funding for future work.”

Some experts say that it is likely that the COVID-19 crisis was a lab-generated pandemic, and that without major policy changes it might not be the last one.

“Gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens caused the COVID-19 pandemic, killing 20 million and costing $25 trillion,” said Richard Ebright, a Rutgers University microbiologist and longtime critic of high-risk virology, to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “If not stopped, gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens likely will cause future lab-generated pandemics.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X