Donald Trump launched his presidential campaign by claiming Mexico and other regions are sending criminals and drug traffickers into the United States, arguing the border is out of control and criticizing the government’s competence in securing it. He promised to build a wall along the southern border and said Mexico would pay for it, and he pledged to end President Obama’s immigration executive action protecting certain undocumented immigrants from deportation. Latino leaders and immigration advocates condemned his remarks, while the article notes immigration was becoming a central 2016 campaign issue as candidates balanced Latino voter concerns with conservative demands for tighter enforcement and opposition to what they call amnesty.

The article argues that many people dismiss online hostility as unreal, yet its extreme tone and misinformation are increasingly shaping mainstream politics. Donald Trump’s campaign is presented as an example of comment-section rhetoric—insults, racism, manufactured anger, and invented facts—moving from social media into presidential debate. Like other protest figures internationally, he appeals to electorates with strong online identities who feel ignored by conventional political discourse. In doing so, he effectively gives public influence to trolls, conspiracy theorists, and nihilistic agitators who were previously confined to cyberspace.

The episode is a comedic monologue skewering Donald Trump’s rise in the polls by spotlighting his shaky grasp of foreign-policy distinctions and his claim that he could master them within 24 hours of taking office. It also mocks his assertions of military readiness, contrasting his lack of service with his attendance at a military-themed boarding school and his inflated view of what that experience means. Throughout, the theme is Trump’s self-mythologizing—portrayed as lifelong and unchanged since childhood—used as a vehicle to question his temperament and fitness for leadership.

The episode riffs on early 2016 election dynamics, focusing on Donald Trump’s surge in Republican primary polling and the GOP establishment’s growing alarm at his staying power. Colbert highlights talk of drafting Mitt Romney as a late “white knight,” the tightening primary calendar with Iowa and New Hampshire as make-or-break contests, and the party’s fading hope that Trump will self-destruct. Through satirical examples, he argues that Trump’s controversial remarks haven’t dented his support and jokes that Republicans may have to stop fighting the possibility and start getting used to the idea of “President Trump.”

The article argues that an internal GOP memo likening Donald Trump to 1940 nominee Wendell Willkie is a misguided attempt to normalize Trump as a traditional Republican outsider. It contrasts Willkie’s civil-rights advocacy and internationalism with Trump’s rhetoric and proposals targeting immigrants and Muslims, contending that Trump’s style and tactics resemble those of authoritarian demagogues more than Willkie. The piece cites examples such as Trump’s calls for mass deportations, a Muslim entry ban, and encouragement of rally violence, alongside analyses and critics who describe his approach as fascistic. It concludes that the more alarming development is Republican leaders’ reluctance to fully reject Trump, prioritizing electoral unity while treating him as an acceptable standard-bear...

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus offered only mild disagreement with Donald Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims because GOP leaders fear Trump could run as an independent and split the Republican vote. Polling suggests most Trump supporters would follow him outside the party, reflecting loyalty to Trump over the GOP, and a three-way race scenario could substantially benefit Hillary Clinton. The article argues Trump’s pledge not to run third party is meaningless given his history and self-interest, leaving Republicans with little leverage beyond trying to avoid provoking him. As a result, party leaders tolerate rhetoric they believe harms the GOP brand because they are more afraid of Trump’s exit than his influence inside the party.

The episode focuses on the Republican primary heading into Super Tuesday, weighing whether Donald Trump’s momentum and delegate math make his nomination effectively inevitable and what options rivals and party elites might have to stop or accommodate him despite ideological mismatches within the GOP. It then turns to the Supreme Court in its first sitting after Justice Scalia’s death, using a Fourth Amendment search-and-seizure case to explore the exclusionary rule, policing realities, and the political fight over whether Senate Republicans should consider President Obama’s replacement nominee. Finally, the hosts revisit the Apple–FBI encryption dispute, debating whether courts can compel a private company to help unlock phones, what that means for privacy and law enforcement going forward...

The article argues that blaming television and the broader news media for Donald Trump’s rise is a misguided explanation for a complex political phenomenon driven primarily by voter choice. It contends that Trump’s extensive coverage reflects his availability and the news value of interviewing candidates, which serves democracy better than reliance on short political ads. The author dismisses claims that networks “gifted” Trump airtime by bending interview preferences and notes that journalists have extensively fact-checked him for months through mainstream reporting and dedicated fact-checking outlets. Ultimately, the piece says many voters either tolerate or support Trump despite knowing he lies, and that responsibility for his success cannot be shifted onto journalism.

The article traces how Paul Manafort, a long-time Republican strategist and lobbyist known for working discreetly for powerful interests including foreign strongmen, rose from convention and campaign management into a key leadership role inside Donald Trump’s 2016 operation. It links Manafort’s work for Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych to his value for Trump, arguing that his real mandate quickly expanded beyond delegate counting into shaping budgets, messaging, and overall campaign discipline. It also recounts Manafort’s connections to Trump through Roy Cohn and Roger Stone, and describes how Manafort and Stone helped pioneer a “double-breasted” model that paired electing politicians with lobbying the officials they helped put in power. An early example of Trump’s ties to this network was his ...

Drawing on Plato’s argument in The Republic that tyranny can arise from democracy at its most permissive and egalitarian, the author describes a “late-stage” democracy in which authority and expertise are scorned, social hierarchies collapse, and citizens grow fragmented and resentful of elites. In Plato’s account, such conditions create an opening for an elite-backed demagogue who attacks the rich, channels popular anger, and offers relief from democratic disorder, leading people to surrender freedom for a promise of control. The author sees unsettling parallels in the rise of Donald Trump and worries that American democracy’s historic vulnerability to demagoguery is reemerging. While praising the Constitution’s original anti-populist firewalls, the piece argues that expanded suffrage, pr...

Stephen Colbert talks with Megyn Kelly about her public clash with Donald Trump and why she chose to sit down with him for a televised “clear the air” interview alongside other guests. Kelly says the central focus is Trump’s temperament and sense of responsibility as a would-be leader, especially how his words affect women and marginalized groups, and whether he can show restraint given his influence. They also discuss Trump’s self-image as a “counterpuncher,” Kelly’s view of journalism as holding politicians accountable, and the personal toll and unexpected positives of the backlash she faced from his supporters.

Tony Schwartz, who ghostwrote Donald Trump’s 1987 bestseller The Art of the Deal, says he feels deep remorse for helping craft the public image that later supported Trump’s presidential run. After watching Trump cite the book as proof of his leadership and seemingly claim authorship, Schwartz concluded that Trump’s self-mythologizing and willingness to lie were central traits, and he came to view him as dangerously impulsive and self-centered. He broke decades of silence because he feared the consequences of a Trump presidency, arguing that Trump lacks a consistent ideology and is driven mainly by personality. The article also recounts how the book originated as a publishing project pushed by media executives and how Schwartz, despite misgivings and an earlier critical profile of Trump, ac...

Donald Trump appointed Omarosa Manigault, his former Apprentice protégé, to lead his campaign’s outreach to Black voters despite polling showing he has exceptionally low support among African Americans, including reported zero percent in some swing-state surveys. Omarosa disputed the polling and claimed to have identified hundreds of Black supporters at pro-Trump events, praising his plans for the community. Other Black Apprentice alumni have publicly denounced Trump for rhetoric they describe as racist and hateful, and Trump has responded by attacking them. The article notes that Trump’s positions on issues affecting Black communities are inconsistent, mixing occasional calls for reform with opposition to Black Lives Matter.

Stephen Colbert riffs on Donald Trump’s alleged ties to Russia by highlighting rumors of financial entanglements with Russian oligarchs and replaying interviews where Trump and his campaign struggle to reconcile claims about Putin and Ukraine. The segment centers on Trump’s shifting statements about whether he has a “relationship” with Putin, using past clips to underscore contradictions and evasive definitions. Colbert closes by noting a blunt on-air critique from Fareed Zakaria and framing Trump’s messaging as incoherent flip-flopping.

The episode focuses on Donald Trump’s attempt to walk back birtherism while, the hosts argue, layering new falsehoods about Hillary Clinton’s role in it, and they discuss how journalists should handle accountability, fact-checking, and the media dynamics that let such claims spread. They broaden the critique to Trump’s conspiratorial mindset, insinuations that flirt with political violence, and reported self-dealing through his foundation, while also comparing the “performance” of Trumpism to a kind of destructive cultural spectacle. The conversation closes with the state of the polls and what to watch for in the first Clinton-Trump debate, including moderation and fact-checking, gender dynamics, and Clinton’s risks around seeming evasive given her long history of scrutiny.

The episode focuses on the escalating turmoil around Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign, including a wave of new sexual assault allegations, his attacks on Republican leaders like Paul Ryan and John McCain, and how these developments deepen the GOP’s strategic and moral dilemma about whether to stand by him or break away. The hosts discuss what Trump’s rhetoric and fear-based messaging reveal about voter anger, resentment, and economic dislocation, pushing back on overly simplistic characterizations of his supporters while arguing he amplifies people’s worst impulses. They also assess the likely electoral fallout—polling shifts, down-ballot implications for Republicans, and the practical governance risks of a Trump presidency, including his apparent lack of policy discipline and the dif...

Stephen Colbert processes the shock and anxiety following Donald Trump’s election, describing nationwide protests, the sleepless mood in New York, and the uneasy reality of accepting the outcome even while encouraging people to keep speaking up. He riffs on what a unified Republican government could mean for rights and institutions, jokes about the polling failures and the Electoral College, and tackles how adults are trying to explain the moment to children while urging basic decency and civic responsibility rather than escapism like moving to Canada. Throughout, the episode uses satire—including a mock conversation with “God”—to channel grief, disbelief, and coping strategies in the wake of the election.

The episode focuses on Donald Trump’s sprawling global business interests and why his reliance on licensing the Trump name creates pervasive, hard-to-audit conflicts of interest that could distort foreign policy and undermine U.S. anti-corruption credibility. The guests debate whether any meaningful mitigation is possible short of full divestment, criticizing proposals like handing control to family members and warning that even “best practices” would still allow foreign actors to buy influence through deals tied to the Trump brand. They also argue that the most realistic check would have to come from congressional oversight, with particular attention to Republican leadership’s willingness to impose accountability.

Stephen Colbert jokes about Donald Trump’s post-election rally remarks, including his complaints about political correctness and being named Time’s “Person of the Year,” then pivots to Trump’s reported plan to nominate ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State and Tillerson’s ties to Vladimir Putin. The episode’s central focus is the CIA’s assessment that Russian hackers interfered in the election to help Trump, the resulting calls for a bipartisan Senate investigation, and the uncertainty over what consequences would even be possible. Colbert also mocks the Trump team’s attempt to discredit the CIA by invoking past intelligence failures and closes with a meta bit about his prompter seemingly being “hacked” with pro-Russia lines.

The article argues that Republicans who criticized Hillary Clinton for avoiding press conferences and for alleged conflicts tied to the Clinton Foundation are now applying different standards to President-elect Trump. It notes that Trump went months without a press conference, has been vague about releasing tax returns and timely financial disclosures, and faces potential conflicts as foreign governments book events at his Washington hotel while he remains connected to his businesses. The author also criticizes Republicans for treating Julian Assange as credible despite his past actions and for welcoming figures like GM CEO Mary Barra onto Trump’s advisory panel, concluding that these concerns seem to matter only when Democrats are involved.