President Donald Trump has long treated reality like something that can be bent to his will — declare that everything is under control, insist the operation is flawless and expect the people around him to project the same confidence whether the facts cooperate or not.
But as the war in the Middle East continues to spiral outward, the White House is once again finding that projecting strength and actually convincing people things are under control are two very different things.
President Donald Trump speaks during a roundtable discussion on college sports in the East Room of the White House on March 06, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
The latest flashpoint erupted after the White House posted a pair of bizarre, Hollywood-style propaganda videos celebrating U.S. missile strikes on Iran — a move critics say only reinforced the growing perception that the administration is treating a deadly war like a movie trailer or video game.
The posts immediately set off fierce backlash online. One video stitched together scenes from blockbuster action films with real footage of U.S. strikes on Tehran, while another blended clips from a video game.
The first video, posted to the White House’s X account on Wednesday, March 4, opens with a clip from Call of Duty before cutting to footage of military aircraft taking off and real U.S. airstrikes on Iran. Upbeat music plays beneath the one-minute-and-five-second montage captioned, “Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue.”
Critics say the second video, posted Thursday, March 5, is even more disturbing.
The 42-second montage opens with a scene from Iron Man in which AI assistant J.A.R.V.I.S. tells Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey Jr., “Wake up. Daddy’s home,” before cutting to action-heavy clips from films including “Gladiator”, “Braveheart”, “Top Gun” and “Superman” — all interspersed with real footage of the U.S. attack on Tehran.
Another moment features a line from the television series “Better Call Saul”, when the character Saul Goodman declares, “You can’t conceive what I’m capable of.”
The video is captioned “JUSTICE THE AMERICAN WAY” and ends with a deep, ominous voice declaring, “Flawless victory.”
Some of the footage of the U.S. airstrikes appears to have been pulled directly from posts on U.S. Central Command’s own X account.
But instead of projecting strength or confidence, the videos quickly ignited outrage online — reinforcing the criticism that Trump’s team appears more interested in staging a cinematic show of force than explaining a coherent strategy for a rapidly escalating conflict.
French TV host Alex Taylor in post on X called it, “Quite simply one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen on here.”
“Whatever you think of the awful Iranian régime, the White House treating bombing raids like a cheap video game is gut-wrenchingly shocking America, your country is going to hell,” he declared.
Yahoo readers were similarly “disgusted” by the first post on Wednesday likening war to a video game.
“Just imagine if Obama or Bush or for that matter any other president had spliced together a propaganda video like this?? The GOPed would impeach within minutes of its release,” one reader pointed out.
Trump’s White House is known for posting both vulgar and offensive videos. In October after millions took to the streets in cities across the country for the “No Kings” protests, Trump posted a gross video of himself flying a fighter jet and dumping feces on demonstrators.
Others argued the videos trivialized the human cost of war and only reinforced the growing accusation that there are no adults in the room running the administration.
“RIDICULOUS VIDEO! Real people are dying IRL. Don’t make it like you just reset and no one’s has died.”
“CHILDISHLY INAPPROPRIATE, THOUGHTLESS, JUVENILE, SADISTIC, MEAN, IMMORAL AND SAD! WAR IS NOT A GAME OR A MOVIE,” one user wrote. “There are men, women and children being killed, maimed and left homeless because of the cruel leadership in America and Israel.”
“It is all a game with these creeps,” another commenter wrote. “Fantasy is their truth — men who know nothing about war using sci-fi and movies to sell their real killing.”
Some observers also pointed out the bizarre irony in the White House’s choice of film clips with one X user providing a full breakdown.
“Dumb f***ers didn’t understand any one of these movie plot lines?! That tracks.”
The backlash is unfolding as the war launched by the United States and Israel continues to escalate across the region.
In less than a week, since Trump, along with Israel, launched airstrikes on Iran on Saturday, Feb. 28, six American service members have been killed in an Iranian drone attack on a port in Kuwait.
Iran’s Red Crescent says the death toll in Trump’s bombing campaign inside Iran has reached at least 1,000, according to PBS.
Meanwhile, Trump and his allies have offered shifting explanations for the purpose of the operation.
The president initially suggested the campaign was about regime change in Tehran before later saying it was about preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has framed the operation as an effort to “protect Americans” and destroy Iranian ballistic missile capabilities.
But critics say the administration’s messaging has been anything but clear — feeding the rumor spreading online that the White House may not have a coherent plan for how the conflict ends.
Meanwhile, Iran is signaling it has no intention of backing down.
In an interview with NBC News, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi struck a defiant tone when asked whether Tehran feared a potential U.S. ground invasion.
“No, we are waiting for them,” Araghchi said. “Because we are confident that we can confront them — and that would be a big disaster for them.”
(There’s an embedded video on the page that I can’t bring here. Just click the title above to go to the page. Basically, it’s this story, but with comments from Suzanne Ford that aren’t within the story below.)
A California activist is calling for a boycott of the entire state of Kansas because of a new law.
Last month, the law took effect requiring all transgender people to use the bathroom of their sex at birth. The same law also invalidated hundreds of transgender Kansans driver’s licenses.
San Francisco Pride released a statement calling for a national boycott of the state, saying transgender Kansans are being targeted for simply existing.
North Carolina passed a similar law back in 2016, and economic consequences followed. The NCAA pulled the first weekend of the men’s basketball tournament out of Greensboro, and the NBA moved the All-Star game out of Charlotte because of those laws.
FOX Kansas News at 9 anchor Jack Cooper shares more in the video posted at the top of this page.
There is a video at the site linked. How ever as you read through this remember that this is the group that wrote project 2025 and the main author of that Christian nationalist screed is Russell Vought who has a powerful position in the tRump administration. This is entirely about pushing a fundamentalist Christian lifestyle and worldview on the US public with heavy emphasis on quiverful which ishave as many children as possible for Christian families most of whom in that movement lived impoverished on one income. The idea is more kids butts in church pews now leads to more adult butts in those pews increasing tithes and money in the collection plates. Church attendance has decreased steadily and this is designed to increase it again. Plus it removes rights for women and LGBTQ+ families. The parents get the money only if women / the mothers marry young, forgo an advanced education, stay out of the work place, and have child after child after child like a breeding stock farm animal. It is only for the “right or correct types of families” and harms those who are not the “right” kinds of families. Plus it is totally racist with the poor people being cut out of the funds. The fact is minorities make on average far less than white families due to inherent racism and CRT, which is a real thing. Hugs
Last week, I wrote about the Heritage Foundation’s Saving America by Saving the American Family: A Plan for the Next 250 Years. The plan is, essentially, to make women drop out of school, marry young, have tons of babies, rely financially on their husbands, be unable to divorce, and wind up in the poor house if they don’t follow these rules. But I wanted to zero in specifically on the policy section of the piece, which comes at the very end and which I haven’t seen get the coverage it deserves. Because what the Heritage Foundation is proposing is a massive cash transfer from poor single mothers to better-off married couples. This really is the plan: Take from the poor to give to the “right” kind of families. Make poor mothers work, and pay better-off ones to stay home. Further impoverish single mothers to force them to marry.
The Heritage Foundation wants to eventually end cash welfare as we know it (“Credits designed specifically to benefit poor single mothers may be well intended, but they have proven to incentivize single motherhood in poor communities,” Heritage laments). They don’t propose totally doing away with welfare benefits here, I suspect because they realize that would be a nonstarter. But they do propose taking resources that currently mostly benefit poorer families and redirecting them to wealthier ones, so long as those wealthier families have married parents. The Heritage proposal would only give its proposed benefits to married couples (policies should “privilege marriage as directly and explicitly as possible,” Heritage writes, emphasis theirs). It would only give benefits to married couples in which one partner works and makes above a certain income. And it would incentivize women dropping out of the workforce… unless they’re poor or single.
Here are the specifics.
Child tax credits only for married couples who are the child’s biological parents, who are working, and who make at least $30,500. The Heritage proposal would get rid of the Earned Income Tax Credit, because that credit gives more money to struggling single parents than better-off married ones, as well as the Child Tax Credit, and replace them with what they call a Family and Marriage (FAM) tax credit of $4,418 per child per year for four years. But this credit would phase in for families once they’re earning $30,500 per year — in other words, poor families wouldn’t qualify. It would only go to married parents — single parents wouldn’t qualify. It would only go to biological parents — step parents wouldn’t qualify. A person could be working full-time, but even if they’re earning above minimum wage, they may not qualify for this tax credit.
Bonuses for larger families — but only for married couples, only for biological parents, and not for the poor. Additionally, Heritage proposes a 25% per-child bonus to their FAM tax credit for third children and beyond. But, again, poor families are out of luck, as only couples with at least one working spouse qualify, and that spouse has to make at least $30,500.
More money for higher earners, none for the lowest. The FAM credit phases in at $30,500, and goes up from there relative to income. That’s right: This is government family support that gives more money to families that already have more money. And it gives the most money to families that are the most stable: Those with two married parents who make more than six figures. The credit doesn’t begin to scale down until a family makes $110,000, and even then, the wind-down is small (beginning at just 5%). Why set up a program that gives people more money as they make more money? Because “the FAM credit’s phase-in would incentivize work.” All of this means that a married couple with three children making $400,000 a year would get $14,000 additional dollars from the US taxpayer — while a single mom making $20,000 a year would get nada.
No help after a child’s fourth birthday. As it stands, parents can claim the Child Tax Credit until a child’s 17th birthday. The Heritage plan cuts parents off when their kid turns four. They claim that these early years are when parents need the most help. But children don’t stop needing food and a roof over their heads once they’re kindergarten age. The Heritage Foundation is clear that the purpose of this plan isn’t to support children, but to incentivize parents to have more of them: “The FAM credit is designed specifically for families with newborns or young children. Lawmakers interested in family policy may be inclined simply to expand the CTC. However, this approach would be inefficient as a family formation incentive. Only a small fraction of the benefit would go toward new parents, while most of it would go to families that are already formed.” They continue: “many other family benefits, such as the CTC, are backloaded to later in life when many parents are on more solid financial footing and may be past their prime child-bearing years.” Emphasis mine, because this is truly stunning: The Heritage Foundation only wants to give parents tax credits for their (expensive) children if those parents (mothers) are in their “prime child-bearing years” and might make more babies. Eggs too old? No child tax credits for you.
Pay women to stay home. The Heritage Foundation could have proposed a generous paid leave program, which would allow parents of newborns to stay home and care for them in that crucial first year. But their aim is not to make sure that young children receive the best possible care. Their aim seems to be to get women out of the workforce. And so they’ve instead offered a $2,000 per-child credit for one parent (almost always the mother) to stay home and care full-time for her child — but again, this only applies to married couples where one spouse (almost always the husband) is working and makes more than $30,500 per year. You’re a single mom who wants to stay home with your child? Tough luck, get to work. You’re a low-income married parent who wants to stay home with your child? Tough luck, get to work. If the concern really were for children — if the view really was that young children are best off being cared for at home by a parent — then this policy would apply to all parents of young children. But that’s not the concern. The concern is that women aren’t living their lives in the way Heritage deems acceptable.
Fund this whole scheme by getting rid of Head Start. Head Start is an incredible program that has had vast positive impacts, increasing high school and college graduation rates, adult incomes, health outcomes, and overall wellbeing. Studies have found it even decreases child abuse and neglect. This proposal would effectively end it, and use the money saved to give tax breaks to wealthy married couples with children.
Pay people to marry young. The final Heritage policy is a $2,500 deposit into a savings account for every new baby born in the US — but the only way to get the full benefit of that money as an adult is to marry well before the age of 30. That is, when an American is born, the government will deposit $2,500 into a savings account for them, which they cannot touch until they either marry or turn 30. At either marriage or age 30, they can start to withdraw from the account, but only over three years — so about a third of the original value per year. They get the full withdrawal amount each year (roughly one-third of the total account value) if, in each year, they are married but not yet 30. If they’re over 30, whether they’re married or not, they pay a tax penalty. In other words, to get the full benefit, you have to marry by 27 — below the average age of first marriage for women (28.6) and men (30.2) alike. Again, the point is not to incentivize marriage; it’s to incentivize women especially marrying as young as possible, despite early marriage being tied to higher divorce rates.
xx Jill
Subscribe to Throughline by Jill Filipovic
Hundreds of paid subscribers
Connecting the dots. Politics, culture, women’s rights, foreign affairs, law, and more.
