The Resistance Won't Save You; It's Disconnecting.
The initial Trump administration ignited significant public activism and intense media scrutiny. However, this time around, the response has been different.
TroibNews 
In the lead-up to the 2024 election, the Drudge Report emerged as a prime platform for those critical of Donald Trump. Its homepage frequently featured eye-catching banners highlighting the GOP candidate's physical and mental decline: links to stories about Trump struggling to open a garbage truck door and editorials discussing his disturbing cognitive state were commonplace. Additionally, the site often expressed concerns about his potential threat to democracy, with bold proclamations like “EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO DEMOCRACY” gracing its headlines in late October.
However, a week after the election, the narrative had shifted significantly. Searching for the term "Trump" on the Drudge homepage yielded no results.
Was this change just a brief disruption? Likely. News cycles are often driven by presidential actions, and the Drudge Report has a history of embracing relevant stories. Nevertheless, the site’s programming after the election provides insights into shifting sentiments among those opposed to Trump: rather than engaging, many who had fueled the post-2016 resistance seem to be disengaging instead. This trend is supported by various other early indicators from the media landscape.
For a nation curious about whether Trump’s return will spark the same intense public outcry and media focus as after his first election, early signs suggest the opposite may be true.
On television, MSNBC experienced a notable decline in viewership after beating CNN on election night for the first time. In the six days following the election, the network's audience dropped by 36 percent, while CNN's viewership fell by 19 percent. In contrast, Fox News saw an uptick of 56 percent in the same timeframe.
MSNBC compared this decline to past drops following Democratic setbacks, like Joe Biden’s tumultuous summer debate. While the flurry of nominations could potentially draw viewers back, it's worth noting that after Trump's first victory in 2016, the network’s prime-time audience remained above average during the ensuing week, despite a post-election dip.
Indicators suggest there may also be a retreat from Elon Musk’s X platform, with media personalities such as Nicolle Wallace from MSNBC and NPR's Kai Ryssdal planning to reduce their activity on the site, which is increasingly associated with far-right content. While neither has deactivated their accounts, both have indicated a diminished interest in its offerings. Wallace noted she deleted the app from her phone “as an act of self-preservation.”
Journalist Aaron Rupar, known for sharing viral left-leaning content, shared that his follower count had dropped by 40,000 since election day, a decrease he largely attributes to fellow progressive users leaving the platform.
The Guardian announced it would cease posting on X, despite its aspirations within the left-leaning news space. Several prominent figures who were once active on Progressive Twitter have started promoting accounts on the rival Bluesky platform, which has quickly become a popular download on Apple.
Even if anti-Trump supporters merely transition to a different platform, such changes reflect a significant shift in visibility. Given X's pivotal role in shaping narratives within media and activist circles, the desire to distance oneself from it indicates that the post-election progressive fervor that characterized the resistance in 2016 may now be quieter.
Individuals whose work relies on this demographic's media habits don't expect a return to those previous levels of engagement. Following the 2016 election, the publishing industry saw a surge of interest in books critical of Trump, but that energy appears to be waning this time around. A D.C. literary agent specializing in political literature shared their observations anonymously, noting: “I talked to a dozen editors last week to check in with them and to see what they were planning to do for political books in a Trump era. They were all exhausted at the thought of doing more anti-Trump books. It’s like walking out of the stadium in the fourth quarter when your team is down and they played like shit all day. … No one has the energy to go through another four years of publishing this stuff even though the first four years were very good for publishers.”
Where Trump’s initial victory spurred a combative spirit among blue America, the fallout from this year’s election appears to lean more towards retreat.
It stands to reason that shifts in media consumption could be an early indicator of broader trends. Much of the post-2016 resistance was fueled by the specific news environment surrounding that election, marked by outrage about the Comey letter, Russian interference, and the perceived unfairness of the Electoral College favoring a candidate who didn't win the popular vote. Collectively, these elements helped legitimize feelings of anger and led many to view the first Trump administration as an illegitimate regime.
The shock and outrage at what many perceived as the media’s failure to adequately cover the election issues prompted a surge in consumption of critical news and commentary, spawning protests and increased subscriptions to media outlets that claimed to hold power accountable.
In contrast, today’s climate lacks the same dramatic foreign interference, outdated constitutional complaints, or misguided FBI actions to demonize. Many now view Trump's presidency as a legitimate outcome of the electoral process, with lingering grievances largely focused on the media’s portrayal of his narrow victory as a popular mandate. Notably, the prevailing anti-Trump commentary in recent weeks has leaned towards acknowledging errors in past analyses rather than rallying cries for action.
Consequently, the anticipation for large-scale protests seems muted. A recent permit application for a major protest surrounding Trump's second inauguration estimated only 50,000 participants, a mere fraction of the numbers seen during the 2017 Women’s March.
Within progressive circles, there's a growing concern that a lack of resistance, both in media and in activism, may hinder efforts to challenge Trump, especially with his more ambitious and coherent plans for a second term. Those opposed to potential rollbacks of environmental policies, mass firings in government, the dismantling of healthcare provisions, or mass deportations might find public outrage an essential tool for resistance—or, at the very least, a means to strengthen Democrats facing collaboration with the administration.
However, it’s questionable whether opponents of Trump should actually yearn for a repeat of the initial resistance seen during Trump’s first term. The post-2016 surge in political activism mobilized large numbers but also revealed vulnerabilities that ultimately hindered Democrats' retention of the White House after Trump’s exit.
Many significant protest moments were centered around identity issues—such as the Women’s March, opposition to the Muslim ban, and the 2020 racial justice demonstrations. While these movements were just and necessary, they often portrayed the left as a collection of marginalized groups rather than a unified American coalition. Furthermore, instances of public protest during critical moments, like Trump’s impeachment, were notably absent.
The media’s role in this first wave of resistance also produced mixed results. While subscriptions to reporting-focused outlets soared due to the sense of crisis, it also fueled tendencies that proved counterproductive for Democrats during Biden’s presidency. The intense focus on language, treating specific terminology as a means to combat election denialism, overshadowed more substantive political concerns. Additionally, a prevailing instinct to suppress reporting perceived as favorable to opposing views may have contributed to a lack of scrutiny regarding Biden’s age and the sidelining of those advocating for primary challengers.
An information ecosystem that left many Democrats surprised by Kamala Harris’s loss provides little support for ongoing resistance efforts.
One potential casualty of this new disengagement may be The Washington Post.
In a striking pre-election reaction, approximately 250,000 subscribers reportedly canceled their subscriptions in response to Jeff Bezos' decision not to endorse a presidential candidate—a move perceived as a failure of democratic accountability. While these cancellations felt justified, they will affect a budget that has historically supported ambitious journalism, which is now more vital than ever with the resurgence of a leader whose former aides describe him as having authoritarian tendencies.
If the anticipated blue disengagement in 2024 persists, it may not yield an immediate resurgence in enthusiasm for serious journalism.
Ultimately, those on the left may need to wait for tangible presidential actions to ignite public backlash, a reality that will unfold in due course.
Olivia Brown contributed to this report for TROIB News
However, a week after the election, the narrative had shifted significantly. Searching for the term "Trump" on the Drudge homepage yielded no results.
Was this change just a brief disruption? Likely. News cycles are often driven by presidential actions, and the Drudge Report has a history of embracing relevant stories. Nevertheless, the site’s programming after the election provides insights into shifting sentiments among those opposed to Trump: rather than engaging, many who had fueled the post-2016 resistance seem to be disengaging instead. This trend is supported by various other early indicators from the media landscape.
For a nation curious about whether Trump’s return will spark the same intense public outcry and media focus as after his first election, early signs suggest the opposite may be true.
On television, MSNBC experienced a notable decline in viewership after beating CNN on election night for the first time. In the six days following the election, the network's audience dropped by 36 percent, while CNN's viewership fell by 19 percent. In contrast, Fox News saw an uptick of 56 percent in the same timeframe.
MSNBC compared this decline to past drops following Democratic setbacks, like Joe Biden’s tumultuous summer debate. While the flurry of nominations could potentially draw viewers back, it's worth noting that after Trump's first victory in 2016, the network’s prime-time audience remained above average during the ensuing week, despite a post-election dip.
Indicators suggest there may also be a retreat from Elon Musk’s X platform, with media personalities such as Nicolle Wallace from MSNBC and NPR's Kai Ryssdal planning to reduce their activity on the site, which is increasingly associated with far-right content. While neither has deactivated their accounts, both have indicated a diminished interest in its offerings. Wallace noted she deleted the app from her phone “as an act of self-preservation.”
Journalist Aaron Rupar, known for sharing viral left-leaning content, shared that his follower count had dropped by 40,000 since election day, a decrease he largely attributes to fellow progressive users leaving the platform.
The Guardian announced it would cease posting on X, despite its aspirations within the left-leaning news space. Several prominent figures who were once active on Progressive Twitter have started promoting accounts on the rival Bluesky platform, which has quickly become a popular download on Apple.
Even if anti-Trump supporters merely transition to a different platform, such changes reflect a significant shift in visibility. Given X's pivotal role in shaping narratives within media and activist circles, the desire to distance oneself from it indicates that the post-election progressive fervor that characterized the resistance in 2016 may now be quieter.
Individuals whose work relies on this demographic's media habits don't expect a return to those previous levels of engagement. Following the 2016 election, the publishing industry saw a surge of interest in books critical of Trump, but that energy appears to be waning this time around. A D.C. literary agent specializing in political literature shared their observations anonymously, noting: “I talked to a dozen editors last week to check in with them and to see what they were planning to do for political books in a Trump era. They were all exhausted at the thought of doing more anti-Trump books. It’s like walking out of the stadium in the fourth quarter when your team is down and they played like shit all day. … No one has the energy to go through another four years of publishing this stuff even though the first four years were very good for publishers.”
Where Trump’s initial victory spurred a combative spirit among blue America, the fallout from this year’s election appears to lean more towards retreat.
It stands to reason that shifts in media consumption could be an early indicator of broader trends. Much of the post-2016 resistance was fueled by the specific news environment surrounding that election, marked by outrage about the Comey letter, Russian interference, and the perceived unfairness of the Electoral College favoring a candidate who didn't win the popular vote. Collectively, these elements helped legitimize feelings of anger and led many to view the first Trump administration as an illegitimate regime.
The shock and outrage at what many perceived as the media’s failure to adequately cover the election issues prompted a surge in consumption of critical news and commentary, spawning protests and increased subscriptions to media outlets that claimed to hold power accountable.
In contrast, today’s climate lacks the same dramatic foreign interference, outdated constitutional complaints, or misguided FBI actions to demonize. Many now view Trump's presidency as a legitimate outcome of the electoral process, with lingering grievances largely focused on the media’s portrayal of his narrow victory as a popular mandate. Notably, the prevailing anti-Trump commentary in recent weeks has leaned towards acknowledging errors in past analyses rather than rallying cries for action.
Consequently, the anticipation for large-scale protests seems muted. A recent permit application for a major protest surrounding Trump's second inauguration estimated only 50,000 participants, a mere fraction of the numbers seen during the 2017 Women’s March.
Within progressive circles, there's a growing concern that a lack of resistance, both in media and in activism, may hinder efforts to challenge Trump, especially with his more ambitious and coherent plans for a second term. Those opposed to potential rollbacks of environmental policies, mass firings in government, the dismantling of healthcare provisions, or mass deportations might find public outrage an essential tool for resistance—or, at the very least, a means to strengthen Democrats facing collaboration with the administration.
However, it’s questionable whether opponents of Trump should actually yearn for a repeat of the initial resistance seen during Trump’s first term. The post-2016 surge in political activism mobilized large numbers but also revealed vulnerabilities that ultimately hindered Democrats' retention of the White House after Trump’s exit.
Many significant protest moments were centered around identity issues—such as the Women’s March, opposition to the Muslim ban, and the 2020 racial justice demonstrations. While these movements were just and necessary, they often portrayed the left as a collection of marginalized groups rather than a unified American coalition. Furthermore, instances of public protest during critical moments, like Trump’s impeachment, were notably absent.
The media’s role in this first wave of resistance also produced mixed results. While subscriptions to reporting-focused outlets soared due to the sense of crisis, it also fueled tendencies that proved counterproductive for Democrats during Biden’s presidency. The intense focus on language, treating specific terminology as a means to combat election denialism, overshadowed more substantive political concerns. Additionally, a prevailing instinct to suppress reporting perceived as favorable to opposing views may have contributed to a lack of scrutiny regarding Biden’s age and the sidelining of those advocating for primary challengers.
An information ecosystem that left many Democrats surprised by Kamala Harris’s loss provides little support for ongoing resistance efforts.
One potential casualty of this new disengagement may be The Washington Post.
In a striking pre-election reaction, approximately 250,000 subscribers reportedly canceled their subscriptions in response to Jeff Bezos' decision not to endorse a presidential candidate—a move perceived as a failure of democratic accountability. While these cancellations felt justified, they will affect a budget that has historically supported ambitious journalism, which is now more vital than ever with the resurgence of a leader whose former aides describe him as having authoritarian tendencies.
If the anticipated blue disengagement in 2024 persists, it may not yield an immediate resurgence in enthusiasm for serious journalism.
Ultimately, those on the left may need to wait for tangible presidential actions to ignite public backlash, a reality that will unfold in due course.
Olivia Brown contributed to this report for TROIB News
