As the United States and Iran come to a tentative ceasefire, President Trump and former MAGA podcasters can’t seem to do the same. 

The Make America Great Again, or “MAGA” movement has always relied heavily on the right-wing media ecosystem that propagates its rhetoric. The circulation of information continues to come from traditional media outlets such as Fox News, The Washington Examiner, and the National Review. However, the rise of prominent individuals who use their personal social media platforms to promote MAGA is no doubt a factor in the success of the movement. Namely, conservative figureheads have dominated the podcast industry, with right-wing political activists accounting for six of the top fifteen podcasts on Spotify. These six podcasts all either hosted Trump or closely aligned themselves with the MAGA movement at one point.

Now, there’s trouble in MAGA paradise. After February 28th when Trump authorized missile strikes on Iran without the approval of congress, focal members of the MAGA community voiced their opposition to his decision. The metaphorical break that these individuals demonstrated in their alignment with the President represents a phenomenon that political scientists Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe Schmitter identified within their series Transitions from Authoritarian Rule. The authors classify members of a given political party into two factions: “hard-liners” and “soft-liners”. Individuals that fall under the hard-liner category are those whose allegiance to their political party is stronger than their personal beliefs. Regardless of if the party shifts from the principles that founded its original platform, hard-liners will stay committed to the existing regime. By contrast, soft-liners are willing to transition away or deviate from their current political party if another better aligns with their beliefs. 

Two conservative podcasters notably confirmed themselves as regime soft-liners following Trump’s decision to send U.S. troops to Iran: Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens. As a former political analyst on Fox News, Carlson was decidedly pro-MAGA. However, the podcaster openly encouraged U.S. government officials to say “…no, absolutely not, and say it directly to the president, no” if asked to engage Iran in nuclear warfare. Similarly, long-standing Trump supporter Candace Owens wrote on social platform X that the “25th amendment needs to be invoked”, suggesting that the Vice President and Cabinet should vote Trump out of office for his decision making regarding the war in Iran.

Both podcasters are demonstrating that, although they’ve previously aligned themselves with president Trump and the MAGA movement, their personal beliefs in what is morally correct override their allegiance to the party. It’s important to acknowledge that neither Carlson or Owens are merely complaining about the President. No, the podcasters are issuing a call-to-action. O’Donnell and Schmitter confirm that hard-liners might personally disapprove of choices their political party makes, however their allegiance to the regime doesn’t waver. By contrast, soft-liners like Carlson and Owens are inclined to take action and encourage both open disobedience to Trump’s demands as well as his removal from office. This willingness to delegitimize and dethrone the figurehead of the MAGA movement confirms that both Carlson and Owens are open to a regime change if it means their personal beliefs are better supported. 

So, why does it matter if Carlson and Owens can be definitively classified as soft-liners, and what does that mean on a larger scale for the future of American democracy? 

To answer this question, one must understand why O’Donnell and Schmitter categorize individuals within a political party into hard-liners and soft-liners. By classifying supporters of a regime by the strength of their allegiance to their political party, opposition movements can better understand who within the regime can be most easily convinced to defect from it. That’s why the summation of O’Donnell and Schmitter’s argument is that for an opposition party to succeed against a regime, they must foster a resistance within people defined as soft-liners. It’s fruitless to target individuals who won’t defect from the regime no matter what they believe is right. Instead, the opposition must appeal to those who prioritize their personal beliefs over their allegiance to their political party. 

In the case of the U.S., the fact that two formerly vehement MAGA supporters have publicly denounced President Trump is indicative of a significant shift in the conservative sphere. When pro-MAGA individuals with massive political platforms like Carlson and Owens start speaking out against the regime they used to regale, it sends a series of signals to everyone listening to their podcasts. For other MAGA members who no longer find themselves in agreement with the President’s policies, the podcasters are a symbol that not all conservatives are Trump supporters. For the leftist opposition, Carlson and Owens represent not just a fracture within MAGA, but hope for the future of democracy. In demonstrating that they don’t just align with a leader but care about the platform he stands upon, the podcasters are affirming the democratic principle that the government must actually act on behalf and for the best of the people.