Blog

Florida has become just the second state in the nation to break the monopoly the American Bar Association (ABA) has long held over legal education and professional credentialing. The move marks a significant step toward restoring competition, viewpoint neutrality, and accountability in a profession that depends on public trust. It also confirms what we have been warning about for awhile: the ABA has drifted far from its role as a professional trade association and instead positioned itself as a national ideological regulator. That is precisely why the ABA received one of our 2025 Worst of the Woke Awards. A Trade Group Turned Ideological Gatekeeper For decades, the ABA has exercised extraordinary power by controlling law-school accreditation, a gate that determines who may sit for bar exams, practice law, and advance professionally. In theory, accreditation should focus on competence, ethics, and access to justice. In practice, the ABA has used that authority to enforce ideological conformity. In recent years, the organization has continued conditioning accreditation and professional standing on mandatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) requirements, including identity-based training, reporting mandates, and policy benchmarks unrelated to legal skill or ethical conduct. Law schools and attorneys who question or resist these frameworks face real consequences from accreditation risk to reputational damage. This is not tolerance, it’s coercion. By embedding political ideology into credentialing, the ABA has transformed “inclusion” into a loyalty test, chilling open debate in a field that should prize viewpoint neutrality and equal treatment under the law. Why the ABA Earned Our 2025 “Worst of the Woke” Award We awarded the ABA one of our 2025 Worst of the Woke Awards for this longstanding and historic behavior. In early 2025, the ABA’s diversity-focused accreditation requirement—Standard 206— was temporarily suspended under political pressure from President Trump’s executive action and after a direct letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi urging its removal, reflecting concerns that the rule unlawfully conditioned accreditation on diversity metrics rather than competence. After the suspension, the ABA responded by sending letters defending its position and asserting its commitment to access and diversity even as it reviewed the standard’ the organization also pursued legal action against the Department of Justice (DOJ) related to funding cuts, illustrating how deeply it was willing to fight to maintain its ideological approach. When the nation’s most influential legal body substitutes ideology for impartial standards, public confidence in the justice system erodes. Lawyers should be evaluated on their competence and ethics, not their willingness to comply with shifting political doctrines. The ABA’s actions undermine equal justice by privileging ideology over merit and by punishing dissent rather than encouraging rigorous debate. That is not progress; it is institutional capture. Florida Pushed Back Following Texas’ lead, Florida’s decision to loosen the ABA’s grip on legal education represents a meaningful course correction. By opening the door to alternative accreditation pathways and reducing reliance on a single, politically captured authority, Florida is reaffirming a basic principle: no private organization should wield unchecked power over an entire profession, especially one as central to constitutional governance as the law. This reform does not weaken legal standards, however, it strengthens them by restoring competition, accountability, and a focus on core professional values. A Model for Other States Florida’s move should serve as a model for other states willing to question entrenched systems that no longer serve the public interest. Breaking monopolies, especially ideological ones, is not a radical idea or action in the year of 2026. This process is necessary when institutions abandon neutrality and use their authority to impose conformity. The New Tolerance Campaign will continue documenting, writing about, and exposing cases where powerful organizations weaponize credentialing, culture, and compliance to silence dissent and narrow acceptable thought. Florida’s action is proof that reform is possible—and that tolerance can be restored when coercion is confronted.

For years, Hollywood has treated pronouns not as a matter of language, but as an ideological loyalty test. Scripts were rewritten, characters contorted, and entire storylines bent to affirm a worldview that insisted biology was optional and words were infinitely malleable. Viewers were told to suspend disbelief, not for dragons or space travel, but for the denial of biological reality. And then something interesting happened. In Landman, Paramount+ quietly aired a series that includes two unvarnished moments — played straight, without lectures or winks — that collapse the modern pronouns argument under the weight of real life. No speeches. No sermons. No culture-war monologues. Just reality doing what it always does when ideology meets the real world. Reality, Not Rhetoric Unlike the carefully curated worlds where pronoun ideology typically thrives, corporate offices, college campuses, or scripted HR scenarios, Landman is set in an unforgiving environment: West Texas oilfields, where physical labor, danger, and competence determine outcomes. Scene One: Ainsley Meets Paigyn In one of the scenes now circulating online, Ainsley Norris meets her new roommate, Paigyn, who is from Minneapolis and immediately lays out a list of expectations for the shared dorm room. Paigyn uses “they/them” pronouns, objects to Ainsley eating meat in the room or wearing animal products, dislikes music because “they” view the dorm as “their” safe space, and presents as intensely health-conscious—going so far as to oppose the use of an air freshener because it is a “toxic airborne petrochemical that they would be breathing into their lungs.” After outlining these boundaries, Paigyn asks Ainsley what her preferred pronouns are. Ainsley responds plainly: “I think that’s pretty clear.” The exchange then turns to the broader pronouns debate, with Ainsley explaining her confusion: “I’ve always been curious why they/them, because there is just one of you, and those are plural pronouns. I just never understood the hoopla of pronouns. My name is Ainsley and I just can’t really come up with a reason why you would address me in third person in a conversation that I’m a part of. So if you do, I’m probably not there, so I wouldn’t even really know what pronouns you are using anyways—so why does it matter?” Scene Two: Ainsley with the College Counselor Following her interaction with Paigyn, Ainsley visits her college counselor to explain why their personalities aren’t meshing and why the living arrangement may not be workable. Rather than approaching the situation neutrally, the counselor quickly sides with Paigyn, challenging Ainsley on whether she believes a dorm room should function as a “safe space.” When Ainsley raises her concern about pronouns, arguing that their use is not proper according to the English language, the counselor responds dismissively: “Here we go… I’m just preparing myself to be offended.” The counselor then shuts down the discussion entirely, stating: “Ainsley, I am not going to argue the evolving nature [of] pronoun usage with you. ‘They’ would prefer you use the ‘they/them’ pronoun. Why is that an issue for you?” Why These Scenes Matter The modern pronouns movement depends on artificial environments, places where consequences are muted, physical differences are ignored, and dissent is socially or professionally punished. Remove those conditions, and the entire framework collapses. Landman doesn’t play along. It shows what happens when people work dangerous jobs, face real risks, and live in environments where truth is not a social construct. In those moments, the pronouns framework doesn’t just feel wrong, it is completely irrelevant. Why This Matters for Hollywood Hollywood’s cultural power has always rested on storytelling. For the last decade, much of that storytelling has been hijacked by ideological activism, often at the expense of coherence, realism, and audience trust. Viewers noticed and ratings followed. Landman signals something different: a return to story first, truth before trend, and character over catechism. This isn’t about cruelty or exclusion. It’s about clarity: Biological reality isn’t bigotry; it’s the baseline for explaining the world. Equal opportunity doesn’t mean pretending differences don’t exist; it means fairness within reality, not fantasy. Tolerance doesn’t require enforced speech or compelled belief. Is ‘Wokeism’ Losing Its Grip on Hollywood? One show doesn’t end an era, but cultural shifts always begin with cracks. When a mainstream series stops bending the knee to ideological demands and starts trusting audiences again, the spell breaks. Studios are learning what the public has known for years: People don’t want to be politically lectured. Viewers want story lines that make sense. Enjoyers want characters who feel human. The vast majority of Americans want reality, not reeducation. Landman doesn’t market itself as anti-woke because it doesn’t need to. By simply telling a grounded story rooted in the real world, it exposes how fragile the pronouns orthodoxy actually is. The New Tolerance Standard True tolerance doesn’t require everyone to repeat the same script. It allows disagreement, it respects reality and it trusts people to see the world as it is, not as activists insist it must be. If Hollywood is finally rediscovering that lesson — one scene at a time — that’s not a culture-war victory. It’s a cultural course correction and it’s long overdue!

FBI Director Kash Patel has formally ended the Bureau’s partnership with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), calling it a political operation “masquerading” as a watchdog. It’s a decisive break from years of ADL-influenced trainings and briefings for agents, and it marks a turning point in how federal law enforcement chooses its outside “experts.” This decision didn’t happen in a vacuum. It followed mounting backlash over the ADL’s since-removed online material that smeared mainstream conservative organizations and figures — most notably the inclusion of Turning Point USA in a now-closed “extremism” glossary. Even as the ADL insists it merely offers education, the record shows a steady drift from civil-rights work to viewpoint policing. Director Patel’s action acknowledges that drift and ends the FBI’s support for it. The ADL has defended its collaboration with law enforcement and highlighted its “Law Enforcement and Society” (LEAS) programming. But that’s the point: trainings that start as neutral can morph into pipelines for selectively framed labels that end up in case files, policy memos, and media narratives. The most powerful investigative agency in the world cannot afford “outsourced bias” disguised as “expertise.” “Watchdogs” or Political Fronts? For years, self-styled “watchdogs” have claimed a monopoly on defining “hate” and “extremism.” These labels are then used to gatekeep social trust, stifle speech, and nudge public and private enforcers to punish the disfavored. That’s not accountability — it’s power without oversight. Patel’s move effectively says the FBI will no longer rent out its building or their badge to politicized third parties. He framed the break as a refusal to “partner with political fronts masquerading as watchdogs,” a standard that should apply across the board. If your “research” reads like a campaign mailer, you shouldn’t be writing the textbooks or lesson plans for federal agents. The SPLC Problem And Why It’s Boiling Over The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) exemplifies the same problem: originally created in 1971 to “ensure that the promise of the civil rights movement became a reality for all,” now treats ideological disagreement as pathology. The SPLC’s notorious “hate map” has lumped mainstream groups together with fringe outfits for years; media outlets cite it uncritically; platforms and donors lean on it to justify bans and blacklists. Early this morning, Elon Musk captured the public mood bluntly: “The SPLC is an evil organization that spreads hate propaganda relentlessly. It needs to be shut down.” That assessment will offend the professional hall-monitors, but it resonates with millions who’ve seen their beliefs smeared by politicized labels and watched those labels used to chill lawful speech. Whether one agrees with Musk’s exact phrasing, the core critique stands: when self-described “watchdogs” manufacture moral panics, they don’t reduce hate, rather they cheapen the term, dull public vigilance, and push our institutions toward selective enforcement. That’s the opposite of tolerance. Why This Matters for Real Tolerance The New Tolerance Campaign exists to confront double standards. We’ve documented a pattern: powerful institutions subcontract their moral judgment to advocacy groups and self-righteous individuals that claim neutral expertise but act like political actors. The results? Bias laundering: Agencies and companies adopt outside “ratings,” then claim their hands are clean. The politics didn’t disappear, rather they’ve been outsourced. Label inflation: The more expansive the definition of “extremism,” the more normal dissenters get swept in, and the easier it becomes to marginalize them. Public mistrust: When people see the rules enforced one way for some and another way for others, they stop trusting the referees. Director Patel’s decision begins to unwind that unhealthy dynamic, at least inside the FBI. It also sets a precedent other agencies and private-sector partners should follow: no automatic deference to organizations that use “tolerance” as a partisan weapon. What Should Happen Next?  To move from a single decision to durable reform, we recommend: Transparent Vetting of Third-Party Trainers: Any nonprofit organization selected to brief or train federal agents should meet a clear, public standard: empirical rigor, transparent methods, and demonstrable impartiality. Past political advocacy — left or right — must be checked at the door, fully disclosed and weighed appropriately before moving forward. Independent Review Panels: Congress and Inspectors General should establish neutral review panels to audit government reliance on external “hate” or “extremism” designations. If a list or map is used inside government, it should be replicable, falsifiable, and insulated from partisan funding streams. Diversified Perspectives: When agencies do bring in outside voices, they should ensure ideologically diverse perspectives, so that one advocacy brand can’t define the entire field. That’s how you avoid blind spots and groupthink. Sunset Clauses for Partnerships: Formal Memorandum of Understanding with advocacy groups should expire unless re-approved after performance audits. “Set it and forget it” is how bias calcifies as policy. A Culture of First Principles: Law enforcement must anchor training to constitutional rights, statutory law, and objective criminal indicators — not to NGO glossaries that conflate speech with violence. Addressing the Obvious Pushback You’ll hear that cutting ties risks “ignoring antisemitism” or “going soft on hate.” That is a false choice. The FBI can and must investigate crimes motivated by bias without deputizing political nonprofits to define which Americans are suspect. In fact, staying neutral strengthens legitimate hate-crime enforcement by keeping it free from the taint of partisan gamesmanship. Likewise, criticism of the SPLC isn’t a denial that hate exists; it’s a rejection of cartoonish scorecards that lump tens of millions of law-abiding citizens into rhetorical proximity with true extremists. The more indiscriminate the label, the less useful it is in stopping real threats. A Win for Accountability — If We Make It One Director Patel’s decision is a needed correction. But lasting reform requires policy, not just press releases. Agencies should publish their criteria for outside partnerships. Congress should exercise oversight. And the media should stop treating advocacy branding as gospel. When “watchdogs” become biased political attack dogs, storied institutions must have the courage to take away the leash. As for the SPLC, Musk’s blast will spur headlines, but the underlying question is bigger than one post: Should any private entity hold quasi-official power to define which viewpoints are acceptable? Our answer is no because tolerance cannot be selective. Real tolerance means one rule for everyone,

Wednesday, September 17, 2025 Kansas City Chiefs Executive Leadership Clark Hunt, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Mark Donovan, President Brett Veach, General Manager Kansas City Chiefs 1 Arrowhead Drive Kansas City, MO 64129 Dear Mr. Hunt, Mr. Donovan, and Mr. Veach: On behalf of the New Tolerance Campaign and thousands of Americans who believe in fairness and responsibility, I am writing to express concern over recent displays of support for Rashee Rice by Kansas City Chiefs players, Travis Kelce and Tyquan Thornton, as well as the accompanying remarks made just one day later by Head Coach Andy Reid. Mr. Rice’s case is troubling not simply because of the reckless conduct that led to a devastating six-car crash, but because of what happened afterward. Court records and reporting confirm that Mr. Rice was racing his Lamborghini at 119 miles per hour on a Dallas highway when he caused the multi-car collision. Instead of checking on the innocent people he injured, he fled the scene on foot, leaving others to deal with the aftermath. The presiding judge, in sentencing him to five years of probation and thirty days in jail, made clear that this behavior “bothered him” and raised doubts about whether Rice was truly remorseful. Though Rice has since offered words of apology, his personal actions — running away and dodging accountability — spoke louder, especially to the victims and members of the surrounding community. Even today, Mr. Rice has failed to take responsibility in the most basic way: one of the victim’s attorneys confirmed that he has not paid the $1.1 million settlement owed to his client involved in the crash, citing lack of funds. This demonstrates that he has not even taken financial accountability for the harm he caused, compounding on the pain of those directly impacted by his careless decisions. Against this backdrop, it is alarming that at least two Chiefs players took to the field wearing “Free 4” apparel, as though the real injustice were Mr. Rice being held accountable, rather than the victims who were injured through no fault of their own. On a video call one day after this pre-game incident, Coach Reid told members of the media, “I know these guys love Rashee, and they feel for him sitting out here… I just think that those guys, they love the kid and want him to feel part of it in their own way.” Empathy for a teammate is understandable, but when paired with public displays that excuse serious misconduct, it risks sending a dangerous message — that talent and fame are a free pass from responsibility. The Kansas City Chiefs are more than a football team. You are a cultural institution with millions of fans, many of them young people who look to your players and organization as role models. The message they absorb matters. Do we want them to learn that accountability and responsibility come first, or that reckless behavior can be brushed aside if you wear the right jersey for a successful team? We respectfully urge the Chiefs to demonstrate real leadership by discouraging fans and banning players from displaying any “Free 4” material for the remainder of Rice’s suspension. We would also appreciate seeing a clear statement of support for the victims of this crash and encouraging Mr. Rice to take meaningful restorative actions that go beyond the bare minimum required by law. Such steps would quickly reaffirm that the Kansas City Chiefs stand for integrity, not excuses, and that no one — no matter how talented — is above accountability. The legacy of your franchise is built not only on victories but also on the respect of your stated values: “Win with Character, Unite our Community, Inspire our Fans, and Honor Tradition.” This is a moment to show that the Chiefs’ commitment to character is as strong as their commitment to winning another NFL championship. Sincerely, Chad A. Banghart President New Tolerance Campaign   P.S. It is worth underscoring that the New Tolerance Campaign has publicly supported members of your organization before. When your starting kicker Harrison Butker was attacked for delivering a commencement speech rooted in his Catholic faith, we stood with him and defended his right to express his beliefs without intimidation or censorship. Our commitment is not to target the Chiefs, but to hold all institutions, including the NFL, to the same standard of fairness and integrity — whether that means protecting free expression or demanding accountability for the celebration of reckless harm.

The passing of Charlie Kirk is a devastating loss, not just to his family, friends, and TPUSA colleagues, but to millions of Americans who found in him a fearless defender of faith, freedom, and truth. Charlie’s voice rang clear in a time of national confusion, and one of his greatest contributions was his ability to cut through the noise and frame our challenges with clarity. To honor his memory, we must continue that work. For too long, America has been told that our political ideology is simply left versus right, Republican versus Democrat, conservative versus liberal. That framing no longer fits our current reality. What we are really confronting today is not a traditional political debate, but a battle between insanity and humanity. Consider the issues before us. It is no longer a “left-wing” talking point to say men can become women and compete in women’s sports — it’s taking place in schools across our country – it’s sheer insanity. It is no longer just a policy disagreement to demand that children be indoctrinated with radical gender ideology in schools — it is an assault on our nation’s most vulnerable, their innocence and overall common sense. To refuse to secure our borders in the midst of national security threats, to celebrate abortion as a “right” while ignoring its murderous disregard of human life, to punish citizens for speaking their faith or defending their values – these are not mere differences of opinion. They are rejections of basic humanity. Charlie understood this. He recognized that our nation was in danger of losing its moral compass, and he worked tirelessly to remind us that freedom is not preserved by slogans, but by courage rooted in truth. His gift was not simply rallying conservatives but persuading everyday Americans to see what was right in front of them: that our culture is being pushed toward chaos, and it takes courage to stand for order, faith, family, and freedom. The good news is that when the argument is framed correctly, the American people know where they stand. Most parents do not want their children sexualized in classrooms. Most citizens want a secure border, safe neighborhoods, and a functioning justice system. A majority of our great American workforce want dignity in their labor, not lectures from corporate boardrooms about the latest progressive fad. These are not partisan desires – they are deeply human. This is the ultimate legacy Charlie Kirk leaves us: refuse to be trapped in the old political boxes, be outspoken about your faith, and to insist on standing for humanity against the minority who perpetuate insanity. He knew the stakes. If America loses its moral foundation, its traditional values, and its deep-rooted Christian faith, freedom will collapse with it. As conservatives, we honor the life of Charlie Kirk best not by softening our convictions, but by sharpening our language and moral clarity. We must continue to expose the absurdities that have become normalized in our culture, while offering our fellow citizens a hopeful alternative: faith, family, community, and country. That is not extremism — it is humanity. The challenge before us is urgent, but Charlie’s achievements in his young life are proof that one voice can make an actual difference. He lived boldly, he spoke truth without apology, and he inspired the next generation to stand firm. In this time of grief, may we carry his torch forward. For our fight ahead is not about left versus right; rather, it’s whether we have the courage to reject insanity and defend humanity itself. At the New Tolerance Campaign, we are committed to this very fight. We are standing on the side of humanity by calling out double standards, exposing woke cultural madness, and defending the values that keep America strong and united. In this critical moment, we join countless others in declaring that we will not bow to insanity. We will help people see the light within truth through faith and facts. We will never yield to the madness of our age, and we will continue to rise, unashamed and unafraid in order to further preserve humanity.

If you’ve ever walked through San Francisco’s Castro District or caught a glimpse of the pastel-painted Victorians, you’ve seen the outward expression of California’s pride in its “spirit of tolerance.” As one BBC feature puts it, San Francisco has long embodied “a city of nonconformity,” where costumed parades, free expression, and welcoming acceptance are baked into its character. Meanwhile, The Golden State under Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom codified its ethos of diversity, equity, and inclusion — values that have become central to the governor’s identity and the state’s brand. Today, Bed Bath & Beyond’s Executive Chairman Marcus Lemonis announced that the company will refuse to open or operate retail stores in California and not for political reasons, but “because it’s about reality.” He laid out a stark truth: “California has created one of the most overregulated, expensive, and risky environments for businesses in America… We will not participate in a system that undermines both [customers and shareholders].” That’s not a partisan talking point, it’s reality. California’s “Tolerance” is Intolerance in Disguise What does it say when a state that prides itself on progress drives away employers, jobs, and affordable goods? Lemonis spelled it out: higher taxes, endless regulations, unsustainable costs for employees and customers alike. California’s political class calls this equity. But it’s really exclusion — punishing ordinary citizens with higher prices and punishing businesses with impossible rules. This isn’t tolerance. It’s hypocrisy. The Consequences Are Real Jobs lost: When businesses can’t survive in California, workers lose opportunities. Prices climb: Regulations and taxes don’t hurt the wealthy, but they certainly hit working families the hardest. Community life erodes: When real storefronts are replaced by online-only delivery – nothing builds civic pride like a vibrant local economy. Lemonis framed it as “common sense,” but in practice, it reveals something much darker: California has become a state that preaches openness while robbing its citizens of vast opportunity and injecting unnecessary burdens into everyday life. A Wake-Up Call for the Rest of America This isn’t about supporting one company, but it is about confronting a broader truth: California’s vaunted tolerance is failing. And if its model collapses under the weight of its own policies, why would anyone else emulate it? The mission of the New Tolerance Campaign is to expose hypocrisy when institutions declare values they don’t uphold. California claims to lead on equity and inclusion, yet its policies are forcefully excluding businesses, burning out minimum wage employees, and dissolving the idea of “the American Dream.” If California cannot meet its own standards, it doesn’t deserve to set the standard for the rest of our nation. The Bottom Line San Francisco may still wear the rainbow crosswalks and celebrate diversity, but behind that imagery is a failing system that no longer delivers. Bed Bath & Beyond is just the latest business to say, “Enough!” California’s “tolerance” has transformed into nothing more than intolerance and that should be disturbing to all of us, no matter which state we call home.

Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld appeared on NBC’s The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon this last night, a booking that has raised eyebrows across the media landscape. On the surface, it looks like a rare moment of ideological crossover in a space that has long been dominated by one-sided perspectives. But is it really a sign of cultural balance returning to late-night television, or just a calculated move by a media giant under political pressure? The Rarity of Balance in Late-Night Late-night television has, for years, been an echo chamber for progressive talking points. A recent Newsbusters’ study shows that 99% of political guests lean left, a trend that has eroded trust and alienated millions of Americans. Compare that with Gutfeld’s program on Fox News, which has consistently beaten Fallon, Kimmel, and Colbert in the ratings and it’s clear why this booking is attracting attention. The Colbert Cautionary Tale CBS’ decision to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert is instructive here. Since 2022, carefully tracked data shows Colbert hosted 176 liberal or Democratic guests, compared to just one Republican guest – who also happened to strongly dislike President Trump. That rigid guest booking pattern may have played well with one segment of the population, but it did him no favors in a nation where nearly half of the electorate felt ignored. In a cultural landscape this divided the nation due to their active effort in shutting out opposing viewpoints – which isn’t just bad for dialogue, but CBS learned it’s also bad for business. A Glimmer of Nonpartisan Hope or Manufactured Optics? Some may see Gutfeld’s appearance as a refreshing sign of openness. Think about it… a longtime left-leaning media network and its associated late night talk show finally recognized that half the country deserves to see their viewpoints represented. But in today’s media climate, nothing is ever that simple. Could this be less about ideological diversity and more about appeasing a presidential administration that holds the regulatory power, who has also proved  to successfully take on – and win – against various left-leaning media conglomerates in court? Corporate Pressure and Political Calculus Jimmy Fallon’s home network, NBC, is part of one of the most powerful media corporations in the world. In the wake of legal defeats and growing accusations of bias, is this appearance a genuine olive branch to a conservative audience, a sign of respect toward Gutfeld for his amazing late-night success, or is it a corporate PR strategy designed to curry favor with the Trump Administration? For media companies facing collapsing trust, shrinking audiences, and skittish advertisers, a Gutfeld-Fallon segment could be an easy, low-risk gesture toward “balance” without fundamentally altering their programming’s political lean. The New Tolerance Campaign’s Take At the New Tolerance Campaign, we welcome genuine dialogue across ideological lines. But token gestures are no substitute for a real cultural shift. If this signals a true willingness to feature diverse perspectives consistently, it’s a win for all Americans. If this is just a one-off stunt to check a box and calm critics, then it’s business as usual for a corporate media system that thrives on selective tolerance. The real test will come after the cameras stop rolling: Will NBC and Jimmy Fallon’s show keep booking conservative voices regularly, or will Gutfeld be the exception that proves the rule?

There’s a curious double standard playing out in corporate America and everyday consumers would do well to pay attention. When Jaguar tried to reinvent itself with a daring, “inclusive,” postmodern rebrand, they got applause from all the leftist circles. Never mind that it alienated actual customers and cratered public confidence in the brand. Meanwhile, when American Eagle ran a cheeky, lighthearted jeans ad with actress Sydney Sweeney, they were instantly accused of promoting racism, eugenics, and — brace yourself — “white supremacy.” Let’s break this down. The Fall of Jaguar: When Legacy Meets Woke Rebranding Remember when Jaguar meant something? British luxury. Sleek design. That iconic leaping cat. In an apparent bid to erase everything remotely masculine or classic, Jaguar unveiled a new “J” logo, painted everything soft pink, and launched a campaign with zero cars in sight. The tagline? “Copy Nothing. Delete Ordinary.” The slogans? “Create Exuberant,” “Live Vivid,” “Break Molds.” The marketing buzzwords were all there and the company executives responsible for rolling out this rebrand defended it saying it’s a “bold and imaginative reinvention” and a “dramatic leap forward.” But what they deleted was their entire identity. The blowback was immediate. Longtime fans called it a parody. Others wondered if it was satire. Tesla CEO Elon Musk responded to one of the ads posted on X (formerly Twitter) asking, “Do you sell cars?” Even Nigel Farage, a Member of Parliament of the United Kingdom weighed in to roast the rollout. But the truth of how bad the rebrand was for the company lies within their sales: Jaguar’s used car sales dropped 9% since their rebrand originally launched. The automotive company also faltered in Europe as sales plunged by 97.5% following their botched relaunch and pivot to electric vehicles (EVs). The overhaul went so poorly that Jaguar’s CEO Adrian Mardell, who had led the company in that position for 3 years and who had been with the company for 35 years, announced he would retire shortly after it all went sideways. So much for “live vivid.” Jaguar tried to win applause from the fashion elite. What they got was confusion, mockery, and a brand identity crisis. Now Compare That to American Eagle’s Sydney Sweeney Campaign  In contrast, American Eagle didn’t abandon their roots, they leaned into them. Their recent campaign, starring actress Sydney Sweeney, was a straightforward (and undeniably effective) play on words: “Great genes. Great jeans.” It was fun, flirty, and unmistakably American. But that was apparently too much for the outrage industrial complex. Woke critics accused the ad of promoting “eugenics.” One outlet even published an opinion piece that said the ad shows “an unbridled cultural shift toward whiteness.” Why did the author assert this, well, of course, it’s because Sweeney is, “blonde, blue-eyed and white.” But here’s the punchline: while the left raged online, American Eagle laughed all the way to the bank. According to recent reports, “American Eagle Outfitters saw its stock price surge more than 20% on Monday, after President Trump praised the retailer’s controversial marketing campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney on his Truth Social platform.” While the jeans are flying off store shelves and the share price increases daily, it turns out Americans are tired of being told that creative is offensive and that a confident young woman modeling denim is somehow a new political crisis everyone should be outraged about. The Real Lesson: Authenticity Wins. Woke Theater Doesn’t. Jaguar’s face-plant and American Eagle’s triumph tell the same story: when brands chase the woke left’s unachievable expectations instead of relying on creative clarity, they lose. When companies connect with American culture instead of lecturing it, they win. American Eagle didn’t have to burn their legacy to reach a new generation of shoppers, rather they embraced their brand standards and got innovative. Jaguar, on the other hand, threw their entire automotive footprint right into the trash. And the financial results speak for themselves. This is exactly why the New Tolerance Campaign exists: to call out the nonsense. Socially conscious corporations that bend the knee to the loudest activist voices while ignoring the public deserve scrutiny. Meanwhile, those willing to push back, those who double down, and those who refuse to apologize for being normal, deserve credit. You don’t have to love American Eagle, nor do you have to know who Sydney Sweeney is to see what’s happening here. The culture war is everywhere thanks to the progressive left who remain out-of-control. It’s in car commercials. It’s in denim ads. It’s in every branding decision where cowardice is dressed up as “boldness.” Woke Americans tried to cancel American Eagle for their advertisement of Sydney Sweeney showing off her great jeans. Jaguar canceled its own century-long history to please the progressive mob. Only one came out stronger on the other side. Let this be a lesson for any brand still thinking they can pander their way to cultural relevance: Be real. Be proud. And maybe keep the original logo, or in this case, the leaping jaguar.