The right’s moral charade was always going to be undone by the Trump of it all.
President Donald Trump speaks with the media after a visit to the Fort Bragg Army base on February 13, 2026 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
(Nathan Howard / Getty Images)
I’m not sure we’re terrified enough about the American right scrapping even its own scant moral boundaries.
Every segment of the Trump-backing rightwing — America First nationalists, Trump loyalists and rank-and-file MAGA activists — has unsubscribed from the idea that there is any such thing as right and wrong, much less that wrongdoing should result in consequences. In effect, there is no behavior Trump’s GOP sees as too wrong to vote for. In late July 2025, almost half of Republicans said they would keep voting for Trump even if he “was officially implicated in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking activities.” Crime is legal, where rightwingers are concerned, however heinous the crime is.
At least, for themselves. The right still has morals for days when it comes to Black folks, immigrants and trans people. Its moral code has always been selective and conditional; rigorously enforced and mercilessly punitive toward “outsiders” and “others,” but generally indifferent to even the worst acts by those on the right side of whiteness and power. Wilhoit’s Law — coined by music composer Frank Wilhoit in a now-famous 2018 comment on a political science blog — neatly captures this truth. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition — there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Now it’s ditching even its in-group protections.
The right’s reaction to the Epstein files disclosures is the clearest evidence of this. For the better part of a decade, conservatives lurched from one pedophile-focused moral panic to the next, proclaiming themselves the true saviors of children. They didn’t mean all children, of course; these are the same people who gifted a white woman with $750,000 just for calling a 5-year-old autistic Black boy the n-word. Their concern was always reserved for the white children they saw as fully human. They insisted pedophiles were hiding in pizza parlor basements; obsessed over Q drops and waved signs calling us to “#SavetheChildren” and “Stop Child Trafficking”; and pushed anti-LGBT “groomer” hysteria alongside anti-drag bills. Roughly half of Trump voters said they believed elected Democrats were running child sex rings in surveys from 2020 and 2022; a majority of 2020 Trump voters told pollsters that Trump was actively working to take down “an elite child sex trafficking ring involving top Democrats.” White lives mattered to conservatives, especially the youngest white lives. At least in theory.
And at least as long as they thought their political opponents were responsible. But the more we know about Epstein, the less they care. In July 2025, a CBS News survey found nearly half, or 46 percent, of Republicans said the Epstein files mattered at least “a little” to how they assess Trump’s presidency. By November, that figure had dropped to just 36 percent. (That figure is 64 percent for Democrats.) Faced with at least one allegation in the files that Trump sexually assaulted an underage girl and well documented associations between their leader and Epstein — as well as other alleged sexual predators — the right isn’t just overlooking the implications, they’re abandoning the principles. The right has “gradually de-emphasized” the Epstein issue, CNN writes, choosing to “largely move on.” It was all political calculation.
That might also explain why conservatives, in rebutting the need for greater transparency about the file contents, unfailingly bring up the appearance of Bill Clinton’s name in the Epstein files. They assume the left’s response will be to ditch the issue if there’s no partisan benefit, because that’s what they would do. They genuinely don’t understand that a person might hold a principle like, say, opposing pedophilia, regardless of who engages in it. The notion of sincere moral outrage grounded in right and wrong, instead of political advantage, is genuinely lost on them.
Current Issue
The moral charade was always going to be undone by the Trump of it all. His supporters are members of a reactionary movement almost singularly animated by racial grievance. Trump supporters believed the racial contract — and above all, its guarantee that whiteness was the most immutable hurdle to the American presidency — had been broken. “We haven’t felt like ourselves since Barack Obama,” Megyn Kelly said just this past September, a reminder of the imagined injury white racists sustained nearly two decades ago. Trump promised to not just restore the racial contract, but to punish the people his supporters saw as responsible for breaching it. In exchange, they elevated an openly, extravagantly corrupt white man to the presidency.
When your most coherent ideology is “owning the libs” and fighting against racial equality, and you’ve literally elected one of the most demonstrably immoral people in public life to deliver on both, the moral line can never stop moving. That means every newly horrifying revelation requires the right to set a new moral boundary so that Trump can jump over it, before it’s done being drawn. It means accepting the corrupt enrichment of not just the entire Trump family, but pardons and commutations for errrrybody with a bribe or political clout — the January 6 insurrectionists; comically dishonest former Rep. George Santos; ex-Honduran president and cocaine and weapons trafficker Juan Orlando Hernandez. “I think this is the most corrupt presidency in U.S. history, with the money they are raking in, with the NFTs and the memecoins. I mean it’s so blatant, it’s right in front of our eyes,” Ann Coulter admitted, unashamedly, on the Triggernometry podcast in August, adding, “and the funny thing about [it is], I don’t care, as long as we get a wall and mass deportations.”
When pretending to have moral limits becomes inconvenient to white supremacy, moral limits are thrown out. And that includes when those limits are embodied in white children, abused by those in power. Conservatives have shown themselves willing to scuttle even the last shreds of their own self-interested moral code. What remains is a politics that’s somehow even darker and more nihilistic. And while there’s no disqualifying behavior as long as you’re on their side, by the same token, everyone else is the enemy. The right’s reaction to the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti — the relish they seemed to take in blaming them for their own deaths — makes this painfully clear.
Vice President JD Vance declared Good’s death “a tragedy of her own making.” Erick Erickson smirkily labeled Good “an AWFUL (Affluent White Female Urban Liberal).” “I know I’m supposed to feel sorry for Alex Pretti,” Megyn Kelly said on her podcast, “but I don’t.” And Matt Walsh, who dismissed comparisons between Alex Pretti and Kyle Rittenhouse — who the right lionized after he fatally shot two people at a Black Lives Matter protest with a gun he was neither licensed nor old enough to carry — as “retarded,” wrote that Pretti “got what was coming to him. Simple as that.”
Everyday rightwingers did their part by donating nearly $800,000 in crowdfunded dollars to Good’s killer. (Oddly, no one set up a GoFundMe for Pretti’s killers — really, I looked — and I’m sure that has nothing to do with the fact that the identified agents are Hispanic.) It just confirms what so many of us have long suspected — that the right’s obsession with “crime” and “law and order” was less about an actual moral code and more about weaponizing it against perceived outsiders. Trump’s name, according to House Rep. Jamie Raskin, appears “more than one million” times in the unredacted Epstein documents. NBC reports that “at least a half-dozen top officials in the current Trump administration have connections to” Epstein. But Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal is, in this moment and without irony, still finding space for op-eds insisting it’s Black America who needs a “moral rejuvenation”— chastising them for “Black-on-Black crime” and suggesting they stop “whining about racism.”
Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro made this idea explicit in a recent New Yorker interview when asked whether Trump could do anything he would find “disqualifying, in a moral-political sense.” Shapiro — who at least admitted he would “probably not” want Trump marrying into his family — couldn’t name a single thing.
Popular
“swipe left below to view more authors”Swipe →
“I don’t know what disqualifying means,” he said, before adding, “the only way to lose my faith and support and vote forever would be for there to be an alternative that I find superior to him. This is the problem when you’re making voting decisions.”
And there you have it. “Morality” isn’t about principles or lines you refuse to cross, it’s just a cost-benefit analysis between options that maintain power. That’s how authoritarian movements work — they put hierarchy, dominance and power above all else. (“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”) And while some of us were always held as collateral to be damaged by the right, the abandonment of even its most cynically held limits is still more terrifying still. Where nothing is disqualifying, everything is permissible. And a politics with no no bottom should frighten us all.
More from The Nation
Analilia Mejia’s stunning upset victory in New Jersey offers invaluable insights about the past and present of liberal politics in America.
For all the good news, Democrats are at a dangerous moment politically.
The mayor, the governor, and the members of the city’s big-ticket tax base are all squaring off over prospective tax increases and service cuts.