…not based on outright fabrication, but rather on filtering facts, changing realities, rewarding emotions, and punishing questions.

A “perfect lie” in modern politics is not a simple falsehood; it is a carefully constructed narrative universe built from selective truths, emotional appeal, and relentless repetition. Such a lie is “not based on outright fabrication, but rather on filtering facts, changing realities, rewarding emotions, and punishing questions.” In this self-contained ecosystem of belief, dissenting information is filtered out, and supporters are immersed in a story so pervasive and self-reinforcing that they hardly realize it was chosen for them. trump and his MAGA movement (an acronym for “Make America Great Again”) offer a striking case study in how a perfect lie can be engineered and sustained. From 2016 through 2020, and again in his post-2024 political resurgence, trump and his associates crafted an alternate reality—one that his followers came to inhabit as their reality. This analysis examines how trump’s policies, rhetoric, and actions, along with those of his allies, exemplify the “perfect lie” narrative strategy. We apply an objective, critical lens to the period of trump’s presidency (2017–2021) and the ongoing developments from January 2025 to today, dissecting the methods by which facts were bent or barricaded, emotions were weaponized, and an obedient consensus was forged among his supporters. The goal is to illuminate, in comprehensive detail, how this ecosystem was built and why it has been so resistant to challenge.

Filtering Facts and Rewriting Reality

From the outset of trump’s presidency in January 2017, his administration signaled an unprecedented disregard for objective facts in favor of its own narrative. One of the earliest and most symbolic episodes was the inauguration crowd size dispute. Despite clear photographic evidence that the inaugural crowd was smaller than in past ceremonies, trump insisted it was the “largest audience ever.” His press secretary, Sean Spicer, scolded the media for accurate reporting and declared, “This was the largest audience ever to witness an inauguration, period.” When confronted with the inconsistency of these claims, trump’s advisor Kellyanne Conway coined the memorable phrase “alternative facts” to justify Spicer’s false statements (Swaine, 2017). In effect, the administration announced that it would not accept any reality that contradicted its preferred image. This moment was far more consequential than a trivial dispute over attendance numbers—it set the tone for four years in which the White House would consistently filter out facts that undermined trump’s image or agenda, while amplifying falsehoods that bolstered them. The alternative facts doctrine meant that official government communication could present fiction as truth, and demands for evidence could be brushed aside. Each repetition of an untruth—no matter how blatant—helped cement a new “reality” for trump’s supporters.

Over the course of trump’s term, the scale and frequency of false claims escalated dramatically. The Washington Post Fact Checker project recorded 30,573 false or misleading statements by trump during his four years in office, with the rate of dishonesty accelerating as time went on (Kessler et al., 2021). By his final year in office, trump was uttering dozens of false claims per day, creating a constant barrage of misinformation on topics ranging from the trivial (like weather forecasts) to the critical (like election results). This flood of misinformation was not random or merely impulsive—it was a deliberate strategy often described by trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon as “flooding the zone.” Bannon, who helped craft trump’s populist messaging, argued that “the real opposition is the media, and the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with [expletive]” (Illing, 2020). In practice, this meant overwhelming the public sphere with so many conflicting claims, conspiracy theories, and distractions that independent arbiters of truth (such as mainstream journalists or fact-checkers) struggled to keep up. For trump loyalists, the practical effect was to normalize the idea that truth is malleable—and that only trump and his approved sources can be trusted. Every time factual reality posed a challenge to the president’s image, the response was to rewrite that reality rather than to concede error.

filtering out facts, pumping in misinformation, inflaming emotions, and silencing dissent

trump’s use of social media further enabled the creation of a controlled information space. On Twitter (his preferred platform during the presidency), he could instantly disseminate his version of events to tens of millions of followers, bypassing traditional media gatekeepers. For example, during Hurricane Dorian in 2019, trump insisted Alabama was in the hurricane’s path and even displayed an official weather map doctored with a black marker to support his incorrect claim. When National Weather Service experts in Alabama immediately corrected him to reassure the public, the administration retaliated: the federal agency NOAA released an unusual statement chastising its own scientists and falsely suggesting trump’s information had been correct (Carlisle, 2020). This incident, dubbed “Sharpiegate,” demonstrated the lengths to which trump’s team would go to enforce their narrative. Rather than admit a minor error, they exerted pressure on professional meteorologists to lend credence to an obvious falsehood. Such interventions sent a chilling message throughout the government: data and evidence must be subordinate to the President’s claims. Indeed, under trump, federal agencies were frequently pressured to suppress or alter reports that contradicted his messaging—whether it was climate change data, economic figures, or public health guidelines. Scientific and bureaucratic integrity were often undermined in favor of political expediency, resulting in “changing realities” at the institutional level.

By controlling the flow of information in this way, trump effectively created parallel knowledge streams. In the mainstream fact-based community (including non-partisan experts, career officials, and media outlets with traditional editorial standards), trump’s statements were debunked and seen as false. But within the pro-trump echo chamber, those same statements became accepted truth or at least dominant talking points. This filtering of facts meant that trump’s supporters were often insulated from corrections. False claims were repeated at rallies, on friendly networks like Fox News, and in Facebook groups and talk radio shows, until they felt incontrovertible. Complex realities were replaced with simple, if misleading, storylines. For instance, trump persistently claimed the U.S. southern border was in crisis, “overrun” by criminals and terrorists, and that his border wall was the only solution. While immigration data did not support notions of an unchecked crime wave, these nuances never penetrated the narrative delivered to his base (West, 2024). Instead, the perception of chaos was cultivated to justify hardline policies. In a similar vein, trump boasted about economic accomplishments with exaggerated or false statistics, framing himself as the sole reason for any positive trend. Negative developments (rising deficits, ethical scandals, policy failures) were either denied outright or blamed on purported conspiracies by his enemies. By the end of the first term, trump’s supporters had effectively been given an alternate history of the presidency—one in which he was always victorious, always right, and any evidence to the contrary was either “fake news” or the product of a “deep state” plot.

Rewarding Emotion and Punishing Dissent

A cornerstone of the “perfect lie” is that it appeals to emotions over empirical facts. trump’s political messaging consistently tapped into visceral feelings—anger, fear, pride, resentment—and rewarded those sentiments with validation. He presented himself as the voice of a disenfranchised “real America,” encouraging his followers’ sense of grievance. Policy positions and statements were often framed in stark, emotional terms: immigrants were not just crossing the border, they were portrayed as an invading horde threatening safety and jobs; political opponents were not merely wrong, they were depicted as dangerous, radical, even un-American. By rewarding emotions, trump made his supporters feel justified (even heroic) in their anger and anxieties. For example, he frequently led rally crowds in chants like “Build the wall!” or “Lock her up!” (against Hillary Clinton), which created a cathartic collective fervor. Every cheer was an affirmation that gut-level instincts mattered more than expert opinions. This emotional reinforcement discouraged critical inquiry—why fact-check immigration statistics when one’s feelings told a more compelling story?

Concurrently, questioning or dissenting voices were harshly punished in trump’s world, a practice that served to eliminate internal contradictions and close any gaps in the narrative. trump labeled the mainstream press as the “enemy of the people,” aggressively dismissing any reporter who challenged him. White House press briefings under his administration often turned into showdowns, with press secretaries and trump himself berating journalists for probing questions. This intimidation of the media sent a clear signal to supporters: any news that contradicts our narrative is hostile and untrustworthy. It also frightened some institutional actors into silence. Officials within the administration who raised objections to misleading statements or legally dubious actions were typically marginalized or ousted. High-profile figures who defied trump’s preferred storyline met swift retribution. When Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation (a move grounded in ethics rules), trump never forgave him; he publicly insulted Sessions and eventually forced him out, precisely because Sessions’s principled stance impeded trump’s preferred “witch hunt” narrative. Numerous inspectors general, agency heads, and advisors were removed or resigned under pressure after speaking inconvenient truths or refusing blind loyalty. This pattern made clear that loyalty to trump’s narrative was the paramount virtue, overriding professional duty or factual accuracy.

The Republican Party’s transformation during this period underscored how dissent was methodically purged to maintain a consensus of belief. Nowhere was this more evident than in the fate of Rep. Liz Cheney, a staunch conservative and member of House leadership who broke ranks by vocally denouncing trump’s false election-fraud claims. In May 2021, Cheney was removed from her leadership post by House Republicans as punishment for her refusal to embrace what she bluntly called the “Big Lie” (Strauss, 2021). Her ouster was a stark message: acknowledging reality—specifically, that Joe Biden won the 2020 election fairly and that trump incited a mob attack on the Capitol—had become incompatible with Republican leadership. In Cheney’s words, “We cannot both embrace the big lie and embrace the Constitution” (Strauss, 2021). Yet the party, under trump’s influence, chose the lie. Scores of other Republicans who faltered in loyalty faced similar fates. Those who criticized trump’s actions, or even just failed to actively support his false narratives, were hounded by trump’s allies, censured by party committees, or challenged in primaries. By January 2025, nearly all prominent national Republicans were individuals who either fully subscribed to trump’s narrative worldview or at least were willing to publicly conform to it. This was consensus by coercion: anyone inclined to question the narrative had been weeded out or silenced, leaving a chorus of compliance.

This atmosphere of enforced unanimity also extended to conservative media and propaganda outlets. Rather than offer corrections or divergent views, major voices in the pro-trump media sphere echoed and amplified his false claims—because deviating from the line carried a cost. The case of Fox News is illustrative. In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Fox News initially faced backlash from trump and many viewers simply for accurately calling the state of Arizona for Biden on Election Night. Stung by viewer defections to even more partisan outlets, Fox soon leaned into the baseless election-fraud narrative. The network gave extensive airtime to trump’s attorneys and surrogates who were spouting wild conspiracy theories about voting machines and corrupt officials. Internal communications later revealed that many Fox executives and hosts knew these claims were false, yet they continued broadcasting them to avoid alienating the pro-trump audience (Coster & Queen, 2023). This decision led to a massive defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems and, ultimately, a $787.5 million legal settlement in 2023 (Coster & Queen, 2023). The striking aspect is that even the threat of legal consequences did not immediately dispel the narrative within the MAGA echo chamber—by 2023, nearly two-thirds of Republicans still told pollsters that they believed Biden’s victory was illegitimate and tainted by fraud (Lempinen, 2023). Such is the power of a “perfect lie”: it was incessantly rewarded by political and media validation, while any attempts to challenge it—from within the party or outside—were punished or discredited as treachery. Over time, this created an environment in which emotionally satisfying falsehoods consistently won out over uncomfortable truths.

An Ecosystem of Echoes and Consensus

trump’s tenure gave rise to a closed-loop media and information ecosystem that kept his supporters cocooned in the narrative. Within this environment, all the elements of the perfect lie came together. trump’s claims, no matter how fantastical, would be immediately circulated by an array of amplifiers: friendly cable news pundits, talk radio hosts, online influencers, and a swarm of social media accounts—bot-driven and human alike. Repetition was key. A false claim stated by trump at a rally in the morning would be headline news on Breitbart by afternoon, debated sympathetically on Fox News by evening, and firmly believed as “common knowledge” in countless Facebook groups by nightfall. Each cycle of repetition smoothed over inconsistencies and lent an illusion of substance to baseless ideas. It created what one commentator described as a “narrative ecosystem, so tightly woven, repetitive, and elegantly structured that you don’t even realize you didn’t choose it yourself.” Millions of Americans thus found themselves living inside a storyline crafted by trump and his strategists. In this storyline, trump was the hero, his opponents were villains perpetrating various sinister plots, and the believers were cast as righteous patriots “taking back” their country. Crucially, the supporters often did not realize the extent to which this narrative had been prepared for them—they felt as though they had arrived at these convictions independently, not that they were the intended consumers of a propaganda campaign.

Social science research underscores how effective this closed information loop can be in reinforcing beliefs. Studies have found that a significant portion of the American public falls into partisan echo chambers in their media consumption. By 2020 and into the 2025 political season, a one-sided diet of news had become common among strong partisans. For instance, one comprehensive study found that about 20% of Republicans were watching eight or more hours of Fox News per month, while a similar fraction of Democrats watched partisan channels on the left, with very little crossover (Lempinen, 2023). This means that a substantial bloc of voters was seeing almost nothing that might challenge the pro-trump narrative. When researchers managed to get some Fox News viewers to switch to a different channel for a month, those viewers actually became less hardline in their political opinions—demonstrating that exposure to alternative information does moderate extreme beliefs (Lempinen, 2023). But under normal conditions, few in the MAGA base ever switched the channel. The MAGA media universe expanded beyond Fox as well: online platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and later trump’s own Truth Social were rife with groups and algorithms that pushed users toward ever more radical content in line with trumpist talking points. From Facebook pages propagating theories about migrant caravans or vaccine microchips, to YouTube channels claiming to “research” child trafficking cabals, the content mix always seemed to confirm the movement’s prejudices. This continuous validation bred a consensus reality: devotees of the MAGA movement largely agreed on a set of assertions entirely at odds with empirical evidence, yet internally coherent and mutually reinforcing.

Within this universe, conspiracy theories that would have once been fringe gained broad acceptance because they were woven into the master narrative. trump and his circle frequently flirted with or outright endorsed ideas like QAnon – an absurd allegation that trump was secretly saving the world from a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. Rather than reject this fevered fantasy, trump slyly encouraged it. In 2020, when asked about QAnon, he praised its adherents as people who “love our country”, effectively nodding to their support (Bentzen, 2021). High-profile allies like Gen. Michael Flynn and lawyers in trump’s orbit even promoted QAnon slogans. Similarly, trump propagated the notion of a “deep state” within the U.S. government – an alleged secret network of bureaucrats, intelligence officers, and officials working to sabotage the presidency. This concept became gospel in the MAGA world, used to explain away any government findings or legal processes unfavorable to trump. If the Department of Justice investigated trump’s associates, it was not because of legitimate suspicions of crime, in this view, but because the deep state was out to get him. If multiple courts rejected trump’s election fraud lawsuits for lack of evidence, it only proved that the deep state had co-opted the judiciary too. The genius (and danger) of such a narrative lies in its self-sealing logic: it anticipates counter-evidence and preemptively interprets it as part of the conspiracy. In this manner, there were “no gaps” in the belief system. Every event, every piece of news, could be slotted into the narrative framework in a way that reinforced trump’s infallibility and the nefariousness of his opponents.

By early 2021, the consequences of this manufactured consensus became unmistakably real. trump’s insistence, without evidence, that the 2020 election was stolen—often termed “The Big Lie”—had been accepted as truth by an overwhelming majority of his supporters. Polls at the time showed roughly 70% of Republicans believed the election was rigged or illegitimate (Bentzen, 2021). This lie culminated in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, when thousands of trump’s followers, convinced by months of repetition that democracy had been subverted, stormed Congress in an attempt to overturn the results. In that mob were people from various extremist and conspiracy-driven factions—white supremacists, armed militia groups like the Oath Keepers, evangelical Christians who saw trump as a savior figure, and QAnon believers—normally disparate groups unified now by the shared conviction that trump was the rightful winner and dire action was needed (Bentzen, 2021). They were, in a very literal sense, “cheering on actors they never chose, defending ideas they never challenged.” Average Americans who had spent years inside the MAGA narrative bubble were now risking their lives and liberty on its behalf. They did not personally investigate voting machines or independently verify any claims; they trusted what they had been told by trump and the propagandists around him. And when trump addressed these supporters on January 6, urging them to “fight like hell” and later telling them “we love you” even as violence erupted, it was the capstone of the perfect lie: the author of the fiction encouraging his devotees to fully inhabit the roles he’d scripted for them. Five people lost their lives as a result of that day’s chaos. American democracy itself was shaken, all because a consensus had been manufactured around an enormous falsehood, and that consensus prompted collective action.

From 2025 Onward – Consolidating the False Narrative

Even after leaving office following the 2020 election, trump never ceded his narrative hold on the Republican base. In fact, the period from January 2025 to today has been marked by trump’s resurgence and the further consolidation of his narrative in American politics. trump spent the interim years relentlessly insisting that he was the victim of a grand fraud and a series of “witch hunt” investigations. These claims—though debunked in courtrooms and independent audits—kept his core supporters energized and resentful, priming the ground for his political comeback. By late 2024, trump managed to win back the presidency (a scenario that many observers once deemed unlikely), riding a wave of voter frustration and the loyalty he had shrewdly maintained via rallies and social media. Upon returning to the White House in January 2025, trump moved swiftly to entrench the dominance of his narrative at every level of government. Having learned in his first term that independent-minded officials and fact-based institutional processes were obstacles, he and his inner circle set about removing any remaining checks on his authority and message.

One of the most dramatic moves has been the push to “purge” the federal bureaucracy of those deemed insufficiently loyal. During the 2024 campaign, trump openly campaigned on a promise to uproot the so-called “deep state” by firing thousands of career civil servants and installing loyalists in their place (Davidson, 2024). Soon after inauguration, his administration began implementing this plan. An executive order reinstated a controversial policy known as “Schedule F,” reclassifying a broad swath of federal employees so that they could be dismissed with little protection. This was not about ordinary political appointments, but about reaching deep into agencies to expel anyone who might question dubious orders or present inconvenient facts. trump’s allies, such as his new Vice President J.D. Vance, explicitly endorsed firing “every single mid-level bureaucrat” and replacing them with “our people” (Davidson, 2024). In practice, this translated to leveraging loyalty above expertise across the government. Agencies dealing with science, public health, intelligence, and law enforcement were particularly targeted, given that in the past they had generated evidence or pursued investigations that contradicted trump’s claims. Now, under the purge, these agencies’ ranks are being filled (or thinned) by those who overtly embrace trump’s version of reality. The census is being redone on trump’s orders, for example, after he and surrogates argued that the last one was “flawed” (Political Wire, 2025). Critics note that this could change how political power and funding are allocated, potentially altering reality on paper to benefit trump’s base areas. Even the traditionally nonpartisan realms of statistics and data have not been spared from narrative intervention.

Concurrently, trump’s Justice Department has refocused its priorities in line with his grievances. The new Attorney General—an unabashed trump loyalist—has undertaken investigations into trump’s political adversaries and critics, moves that trump justifies to supporters as rooting out corruption by the “radical left” or the previous administration. At the same time, federal prosecutions of individuals who once opposed trump are being dropped or scaled back. For instance, cases against some of the January 6 rioters have been revisited, with many defendants receiving presidential pardons or commutations as trump had long hinted he would do. This legal clemency for those who acted violently on the basis of trump’s lie sends an unmistakable signal: loyalty will be rewarded, dissent will be penalized. Meanwhile, officials who carried out the 2020 election certification or who testified about trump’s pressure to overturn results are finding themselves under investigation for “misconduct” or being smeared in the media. The result is an atmosphere where truth carries a professional cost but propagating falsehood carries professional benefit. It cements a culture of fear among any remaining career officials—few dare raise objections now, knowing they could be sacked or publicly vilified as “saboteurs.” In effect, the government itself is being transformed into an apparatus of the trump narrative, rather than a source of independent information.

trump’s associates and allies in this new phase are largely the same figures (or types of figures) who helped architect the narrative in the first place. Stephen Miller, the hard-line advisor behind trump’s most controversial first-term immigration policies, is reportedly spearheading efforts to institute stricter “patriotic education” programs and media regulations that align with trump’s worldview. Steve Bannon, though not formally in government, continues to agitate through his media ventures, urging supporters to “have trump’s back” and flood local institutions (school boards, election offices) with MAGA believers—spreading the narrative infrastructure to every community. Rudy Giuliani, despite his legal troubles, remains a frequent commentator on niche conservative channels, rehashing the debunked election conspiracies as if they were unresolved mysteries. Newer faces have joined as well, drawn by trump’s return to power and the purity test of loyalty. Among them are figures like Kash Patel and Richard Grenell, who in trump’s first term demonstrated willingness to push baseless claims in the intelligence sphere; they now hold key national security posts, where they emphasize hunting for “deep state” elements rather than external threats. The common thread among all these associates is that they have fully embraced the mythos of trump as the singular savior of the nation and are committed to using their power to validate and enforce that mythos.

For the average supporter in 2025, daily life in the MAGA narrative continues much as before, only further normalized. The media diet remains intensely curated: outlets like One America News Network and Newsmax have audience spikes whenever Fox News shows a hint of independent reporting. trump himself now regularly addresses the nation in “fireside chat” style broadcasts, delivering his take on events with minimal filter. These chats often include outright fabrications—for instance, he recently claimed to have negotiated a miraculous economic deal that economists say never happened—but within the bubble, his word is unquestioned. This points to an almost cultic dynamic: belief in the leader, trump, has become a litmus test of communal belonging. Faith in trump’s pronouncements is often stronger than one’s own recollection or external evidence. If a job number is bad, and trump says it’s good or fraudulent, loyalists believe trump. If a violent incident occurs on his watch, and he says it was caused by his enemies, they accept that. We see a populace segment effectively cheering on actors they never chose—be it judges trump appoints who rule in his favor, or bureaucrats who suddenly take actions to implement trump’s claims—and defending ideas they never challenged, because to question any part of the narrative at this stage feels like a betrayal of identity. After years of immersion, many cannot disentangle what they genuinely believe from what they’ve been conditioned to believe. And indeed, as one of the opening observations put it, this is “not because they are ignorant, but because everything they know was prepared for them.”

The trump–MAGA movement’s success in constructing and maintaining a “perfect lie” offers a sobering lesson in the power of narrative to override reality. Through a combination of filtering out facts, pumping in misinformation, inflaming emotions, and silencing dissent, Donald trump and his associates managed to create an alternate consensus—one so encompassing that millions of Americans live within its confines as if it were objective truth. Between 2016 and 2020, this approach cemented a tribal loyalty that persisted even when tested by the ultimate reality check of a lost election. By 2025, with trump’s return to the presidency, the narrative has not only endured but become further institutionalized. It now shapes the behavior of the federal government and one of the nation’s two major parties, with virtually no internal opposition allowed. In intelligence analysis terms, the trump phenomenon can be seen as a domestic information operation that achieved strategic depth: it reshaped how a significant portion of the populace interprets information, to the point where traditional facts and evidence carry little weight if they conflict with the leader’s messaging.

The ramifications for American democracy are profound. A healthy democracy relies on a shared baseline of reality—an agreement on facts that can then be debated and interpreted. trump’s perfected lie undermined that foundation, creating “separate realities” for his supporters versus his opponents (Bentzen, 2021). In one reality, trump is essentially infallible and any contrary facts are fake; in the other, trump is seen as chronically dishonest and dangerous, and the fervent belief of his base is baffling. The gulf between these worldviews has only widened with time, aggravating polarization to perhaps the highest levels since the Civil War era. When truth becomes a partisan commodity, society loses its arbiter for resolving disputes. Every issue—from election outcomes to public health, from climate change to foreign policy—splinters into irreconcilable narratives.

Ultimately, the “perfect lie” as constructed by trump and MAGA has proven remarkably resilient. It feeds on human psychology—our attraction to simple answers, our tribal instincts to rally with our group, and our tendency to favor information that confirms our biases. trump exploited all of these tendencies with a showman’s skill and an autocrat’s ruthlessness. He offered supporters a story in which they were the righteous defenders of a besieged nation, and he cast himself as their champion. It was an emotionally gratifying story, one that answered fears and gave purpose. That is why it took hold so deeply. Unraveling this lie, therefore, is not as simple as presenting contrary data or debunking a few myths. It requires rebuilding trust in credible institutions, reviving norms of accountability, and perhaps most challengingly, rekindling in trump’s supporters the will to question what they have been led to believe. Until that happens, the narrative will endure—tightly woven, gapless, and consensual—holding a large segment of Americans in its thrall. The saga of the trump era thus stands as a powerful illustration of how a “perfect lie” can be constructed and how, once in place, it can profoundly alter the course of a nation.

 

References

Bentzen, N. (2021, February). Trump’s disinformation “magaphone”: Consequences, first lessons and outlook. European Parliamentary Research Service Briefing, European Parliament Liaison Office in Washington DC. (PE 679.076)

Carlisle, M. (2020, February 1). Newly-released NOAA emails show anger and confusion around Trump’s “doctored” Hurricane Dorian map. TIME. https://time.com/5775953/trump-dorian-alabama-sharpiegate-noaa/

Coster, H., & Queen, J. (2023, April 19). Fox settles Dominion lawsuit for $787.5 million over U.S. election lies. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/legal/dominions-defamation-case-against-fox-poised-trial-after-delay-2023-04-18/

Davidson, J. (2024, July 26). Trump’s second-term agenda plans a purge of the federal workforce. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/26/trump-agenda-project-2025-federal-workers-schedule-f/

Illing, S. (2020, Feb 6). “Flood the zone with shit”: How misinformation overwhelmed our democracy. Vox. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/16/20991816/impeachment-trial-trump-bannon-misinformation

Kessler, G., Rizzo, S., & Kelly, M. (2021, January 24). Trump’s false or misleading claims total 30,573 over 4 years. The Washington Post. (Fact Checker Analysis). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/

Lempinen, E. (2023, April 21). Love Fox? MSNBC? You may be locked in a ‘partisan echo chamber,’ study finds. UC Berkeley News. https://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/news/love-fox-msnbc-you-may-be-locked-partisan-echo-chamber-study-finds

Strauss, D. (2021, May 12). Liz Cheney removed from House leadership over Trump criticism. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/12/liz-cheney-house-leadership-republican-caucus-vote

Swaine, J. (2017, January 23). Donald Trump’s team defends ‘alternative facts’ after widespread protests. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-inauguration-alternative-facts

West, D. M. (2024, November 7). How disinformation defined the 2024 election narrative. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-disinformation-defined-the-2024-election-narrative/