Raw Story

President Donald Trump stood with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and announced a new ceasefire proposal and peace plan, but critics couldn't help but notice it's missing some critical pieces — namely, that a key party is missing.

Steve Herman, executive director at the Jordan Center for Journalism Advocacy and Innovation, quoted Trump's comment, "Everyone else has accepted it."

"Except Hamas, according to President Trump, explaining his plan calls for a 'Board of Peace' to be headed by himself," said Herman.

It prompted national security lawyer Bradly P. Moss to remark, "So, you know, a peace plan missing a vital party."

"The new official Trump plan for Gaza. Quite a few things to parse out, including accountability mechanisms, who actually makes up the stabilisation force, and what mandate they would have," said Dr. H.A. Hellyer, a geopolitics and security expert on the Middle East and Europe at the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.

Even senior Washington Examiner writer David Harsanyi had questions: "This plan has been tried more than once. Palestinians have never been able to meet #1."

Bloomberg's Washington Correspondent Josh Wingrove couldn't help but notice that the plan, "previously described as a '21-point plan,'" now "includes 20 points and an image of proposed withdrawals."

"The points include a call for Gaza's governance to be supervised by a 'Board of Peace' - chaired by Trump himself," added Wingrove.

White House columnist Niall Stanage, at "The Hill," also questioned, "It runs to 20 points but how will point 1 — upon which all else may hinge — be defined or verified and by whom?"

"If Trump is to be the head of the newly established transitional administration in Gaza, it means Gaza is becoming a mandate of the USA. Blair is the Mandate Governor," observed Tuğçe Varol, an academic working on Russian and Turkish foreign policy.

After a series of diplomatic blunders, President Donald Trump and America's reputation loss could "raise the risk of global conflict" and come at a major cost, including "mischief or worse" from enemies.

In an opinion piece published Monday, Bloomberg columnist Andreas Kluth describes how a good reputation can be difficult to obtain or maintain, and Trump "has squandered whatever credibility America had left in foreign and security policy."

Following his rambling speech last week in front of the United Nations and his struggle to see the difference between "personal chemistry" with President Vladimir Putin and diplomatic action, Trump has effectively put both adversaries and allies on edge, wrote Kluth.

"Inklings of danger are everywhere," Kluth writes. "America’s partners are becoming more anxious and making alternative arrangements for their security: Saudi Arabia just signed a defensive pact with Pakistan after watching an Israeli strike against its Gulf neighbor Qatar, which is allied to, but got no help from, the United States. America’s adversaries keep testing the resolve of Trump and the West, as Putin is doing in eastern Europe. Or, like Xi Jinping in Beijing and Kim in Pyongyang, they’re recalculating bellicose scenarios in secret. Other countries, like India, are wary of committing to America and keeping all options open, even clutching hands with Moscow and Beijing."

And although Trump is not the first president to struggle with navigating U.S. reputation among foreign nations, it puts America at an unfortunate future disadvantage.

"Against this backdrop, anybody watching US policy for the past decade, from friendly Europe to adversarial China, already had reason to doubt US credibility. What Trump has done in his second term is to remove the doubts and confirm the loss. Allies now know they can’t trust America, while adversaries are ganging up and recalculating their plans for mischief or worse.

It's unclear what will happen in the future; a damaged reputation jeopardizes diplomacy.

"These responses to America’s loss of credibility will raise the risk of global conflict," Kluth writes. "The danger will go up even more if the US, under this or a future president, panics and decides to overcompensate in reestablishing its reputation, with a demonstratively hawkish turn that could tip into war. If America and the whole world are becoming less safe, it’s because Donald Trump’s foreign policy is, literally, in-credible."

Don Brown, a North Carolina Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, argued that President Donald Trump should use the Insurrection Act to fight what he said was "literal civil war on the streets."

During a Monday interview on Real America's Voice, host Jake Novak asked Brown about Trump's decision to deploy National Guard troops in Portland.

"I just feel like we're in a civil war here in America," Novak said. "I wish, I mean, I'm not trying to be hysterical here, but I don't know what else to call it. It's becoming kinetic. People are dying, literally. I wonder if you're as alarmed as I am?"

"You've nailed it on the head," Brown agreed. "There is a literal civil war on the streets."

The candidate argued that Trump had a duty to "ensure domestic tranquility."

"The President of the United States has the authority to send in the National Guard to these cities where domestic tranquility and rampant crime have taken over, with or without the request from the local authorities," he said. "You look into the Insurrection Act. And when Americans' constitutional rights and liberties are being threatened, the president can go ahead and send in troops."

"The president has the authority to do it. And these local leaders who are soft on crime and pro-crime and just want to kiss up to antifa and all these communist left-wing groups that are intent on unraveling civil society, they're not relevant," he added. "So I'm going to encourage the president to do what he needs to do."

A lawsuit filed by Oregon and the city of Portland asserted that Trump did not have the authority to deploy National Guard troops in response to "small" protests near an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.

"There is no insurrection or threat to public safety that necessitates military intervention in Portland or any other city in our state," Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek (D) said in a statement.

President Donald Trump announced Monday that he will be imposing “substantial” tariffs on any country that does not purchase American-made furniture, presumably in addition to his sweeping so-called “reciprocal tariffs” already placed on hundreds of nations.

“In order to make North Carolina, which has completely lost its furniture business to China, and other Countries, GREAT again, I will be imposing substantial Tariffs on any Country that does not make its furniture in the United States,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “Details to follow!!! President DJT”

The North Carolinian furniture industry has indeed suffered significant losses due in large part to China, which has increased its exports of cheap furniture to the United States. Between 1999 and 2009, the furniture manufacturing industry in North Carolina lost more than half of its jobs, one of the many sectors that suffered following the adoption of the NAFTA trade agreements.

President Donald Trump has continued to lean into his use of the military to crack down on crime in Democrat-run cities — once a politically-strong issue for him — but new data reviewed by CNN Monday shows Americans’ are quickly souring on the moves.

Trump’s latest pledge to deploy federal troops to the city of Portland, Oregon comes after his federal takeover of Washington, D.C., which itself came after Trump deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles, California. New polling, however, shows that the continued use of the military may now be doing more harm than good for Trump’s favorability.

“If Donald Trump thinks that potentially sending in the National Guard into cities like Portland is a winning political issue, the polling says you are wrong Mr. President!” said CNN’s Harry Enten.

According to the new polling data shared by Enten, Trump’s use of federal troops is now well underwater, with 58% of voters opposed. Among independent voters, that opposition rises to 64%.

“We've heard this song before, and what happened the last time that Trump sent National Guard [members] into a national city?” Enten continued.

“Well, look at the change in Trump's net approval: overall, it dropped four points! How about immigration? It dropped by seven points! We have a history of Trump sending the National Guard into a western city and what happened was there were clear political ramifications for the president of the United States, and they were not good ramifications.”

The souring of American voters on Trump’s antics also extended to Immigration Customs and Enforcement, the nation’s chief immigration agency. Enten shared data that showed net approval of ICE during Trump’s first term was at 0 points, but now, has reached a net negative 14.

“Down it goes because of their actions during the second Trump term. In fact, the Pew Research Center polled 16 different agencies; ICE's net popularity rating was 15th out of 16th, it was close to being the least popular of them all,” Enten said.

“Bottom line is the president may think this is a politically winning issue for him, but the numbers tell a very different story. It's, in fact, a political loser.”

By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton.

An AI-generated image of Charlie Kirk embracing Jesus. Another of Kirk posing with angel wings and halo. Then there’s the one of Kirk standing with George Floyd at the gates of heaven.

When prominent political or cultural figures die in the U.S., the remembrance of their life often veers into hagiography. And that’s what’s been happening since the gruesome killing of conservative activist and Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk.

The word hagiography comes from the Christian tradition of writing about saints’ lives, but the practice often spills into secular politics and media, falling under the umbrella of what’s called, in sociology, the “sacralization of politics.” Assassinations and violent deaths, in particular, tend to be interpreted in sacred terms: The person becomes a secular martyr who made a heroic sacrifice. They are portrayed as morally righteous and spiritually pure.

This is, to some degree, a natural part of mourning. But taking a closer look at why this happens – and how the internet accelerates it – offers some important insights into politics in the U.S. today.

From presidents to protest leaders

The construction of Ronald Reagan’s post-presidential image is a prime example of this process.

After his presidency, Republican leaders steadily polished his memory into a symbol of conservative triumph, downplaying scandals such as Iran-Contra or Reagan’s early skepticism of civil rights. Today, Reagan is remembered less as a complex politician and more as a saint of free markets and patriotism.

Among liberals, Martin Luther King Jr. experienced a comparable transformation, though it took a different form. King’s critiques of capitalism, militarism and structural racism are often downplayed in most mainstream remembrances, leaving behind a softer image of peaceful dreamer. The annual holiday, scores of street re-namings and public murals honor him, but they also tame his legacy into a universally palatable story of unity.

Even more contested figures such as John F. Kennedy or Abraham Lincoln show the same pattern. Their assassinations were followed by waves of mourning that elevated them into near-mythic status.

Decades after Kennedy’s death, his portrait hung in the homes of many American Catholics, often adjacent to religious iconography such as Virgin Mary statuettes. Lincoln, meanwhile, became a kind of civic saint: His memorial in Washington, D.C., looks like a temple, with words from his speeches etched into the walls.

Why it happens, what it means

The hagiography of public figures serves several purposes. It taps into deep human needs, helping grieving communities manage loss by providing moral clarity in the face of chaos.

It also allows political movements to consolidate power by sanctifying their leaders and discouraging dissent. And it reassures followers that their cause is righteous – even cosmic.

In a polarized environment, the elevation of a figure into a saint does more than honor the individual. It turns a political struggle into a sacred one. If you see someone as a martyr, then opposition to their movement is not merely disagreement, it is desecration. In this sense, hagiography is not simply about remembering the dead: It mobilizes the living.

But there are risks. Once someone is framed as a saint, criticism becomes taboo. The more sacralized a figure, the harder it becomes to discuss their flaws, mistakes or controversial actions. Hagiography flattens history and narrows democratic debate.

After Queen Elizabeth II’s death in 2022, for example, public mourning in the U.K. and abroad quickly elevated her legacy into a symbol of stability and continuity, with mass tributes, viral imagery and global ceremonies transforming a complex reign into a simplified story of devotion and service.

It also fuels polarization. If one side’s leader is a martyr, then the other side must be villainous. The framing is simple but powerful.

In Kirk’s case, many of his supporters described him as a truth seeker whose death underscored a deeper moral message. At Kirk’s memorial service in Arizona, President Donald Trump called him a “martyr for American freedom.” On social media, Turning Point USA and Kirk’s official X account described him as “America’s greatest martyr to free speech.”

In doing so, they elevated his death as symbolic of larger battles over censorship. By emphasizing the fact that he died while simply speaking, they also reinforced the idea that liberals and the left are more likely to resort to violence to silence their ideological enemies, even as evidence shows otherwise.

Digital supercharge

Treating public figures like saints is not new, but the speed and scale of the process is. Over the past two decades, social media has turned hagiography from a slow cultural drift into a rapid-fire production cycle.

Memes, livestreams and hashtags now allow anyone to canonize someone they admire. When NBA Hall-of-Famer Kobe Bryant died in 2020, social media was flooded within hours with devotional images, murals and video compilations that cast him as more than an athlete: He became a spiritual icon of perseverance.

Similarly, after Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, the “Notorious RBG” meme ecosystem instantly expanded to include digital portraits and merchandise that cast her as a saintly defender of justice.

The same dynamics surrounded Charlie Kirk. Within hours of his assassination, memes appeared of Kirk draped in an American flag, being carried by Jesus.

In the days after his death, AI-generated audio clips of Kirk styled as “sermons” began circulating online, while supporters shared Bible verses that they claimed matched the exact timing of his passing. Together, these acts cast his death in religious terms: It wasn’t just a political assassination — it was a moment of spiritual significance.

Such clips and verses spread effortlessly across social media, where narratives about public figures can solidify within hours, often before facts are confirmed, leaving little room for nuance or investigation.

Easy-to-create memes and videos also enable ordinary users to participate in a sacralization process, making it more of a grassroots effort than something that’s imposed from the top down.

In other words, digital culture transforms what was once the slow work of monuments and textbooks into a living, flexible folk religion of culture and politics.

Toward clearer politics

Hagiography will not disappear. It meets emotional and political needs too effectively. But acknowledging its patterns helps citizens and journalists resist its distortions. The task is not to deny grief or admiration but to preserve space for nuance and accountability.

In the U.S., where religion, culture and politics frequently intertwine, recognizing that sainthood in politics is always constructed — and often strategic — can better allow people to honor loss without letting mythmaking dictate the terms of public life.

• Arthur “Art” Jipson is an Associate Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work at the University of Dayton. For 11 years he was the Director of the Criminal Justice Studies program.