Rejecting Reality Is the Price of MAGA Admission
Loyalty to Trump in the MAGA movement often means denying facts, embracing contradictions, and rejecting reality itself.
On a recent episode of his podcast, The New York Times’ Ezra Klein opened with an old joke: “A conspiracy theorist dies and goes to heaven. Upon passing the pearly gates, God says to the man, ‘You may ask me one question and I’ll tell you the truth.’ The man says, ‘OK, I really want to know who really killed JFK.’ God pauses and replies, ‘My son, Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and acted alone.’ The man shakes his head and says, ‘I knew it. This cover-up goes all the way to the top.’”
And that’s how it goes with most conspiracy theorists and die-hard MAGAites.
I never paid much attention to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. He deserved prosecution, and anyone complicit in his sex trafficking operation should be held accountable. But I dismissed the conspiracy theories. What interests me now isn’t Epstein himself, but how the MAGA world twists itself into knots trying to rationalize Donald Trump’s contradictions—on Epstein, economic policy, social programs, and even his core identity.
If you enjoyed this content, please consider liking, subscribing, restacking, and sharing it with a friend.
Over the weekend, I watched several interviews between Trump skeptics and MAGA loyalists. While figures like Charlie Kirk occasionally raise valid points on isolated issues, they consistently refuse to reconcile the glaring inconsistencies in their views. When presented with hard evidence that undermines their claims, they pivot, deflect, or dig in deeper.
In one exchange, a Trump supporter praised the former president’s authenticity as a person and a leader. But when asked about Trump’s long record of falsehoods, his refusal to concede the 2020 election, and his failure to declassify the Epstein files as promised, the supporter brushed it all aside and reaffirmed his loyalty.
Kirk himself, when challenged about the Trump administration walking away from peace negotiations with Russia, sidestepped the question. Another supporter insisted that Trump is fighting for the working class and “true American values,” but denied that proposed budget cuts would harm rural healthcare recipients under the One Big Beautiful Act—despite clear evidence to the contrary. And when someone pointed out that Trump pardoned hundreds of individuals who assaulted police officers on January 6—despite branding himself the law-and-order candidate—supporters deflected, changed the subject, or denied the premise entirely.
People are entitled to opinions, and facts can evolve over time. But many of the criticisms leveled against Trump over the past decade are grounded in public records, court filings, and direct observation. They’re not speculative. Yet even when confronted with irrefutable evidence, many remain unmoved. Why?
Because rejecting a belief—or the person who represents it—is far more complicated than accepting a new set of facts. People often double down on flawed positions not out of ignorance, but because those positions serve deeper psychological, social, and emotional needs.
Cognitive Dissonance: When confronted with evidence that contradicts a core belief, people experience discomfort. Rather than resolve that tension through reflection, they dismiss the evidence, rationalize it, or reinforce their original belief—anything to avoid admitting they were wrong.
Identity Protection and Group Loyalty: Political beliefs often become entangled with personal identity. In tight ideological communities, loyalty is paramount. Correction isn’t seen as growth—it’s seen as betrayal. For many MAGA followers, supporting Trump is less about policy and more about belonging. Reversing course risks rejection from the tribe—a fate worse than being wrong.
Confirmation Bias: People instinctively seek information that supports their existing beliefs and tend to dismiss data that contradicts them. In echo chambers, contradictory evidence is filtered out or preemptively discredited, making self-correction exceedingly difficult.
All-or-Nothing Framing: Modern political discourse often presents issues in binary terms—right vs. wrong, patriot vs. traitor. Nuance is suspect; compromise is weakness. Changing one’s mind is not a mark of maturity, but a signal of capitulation.
Fear of Precedent: Conceding a single point can raise the fear of a slippery slope. To protect themselves, people adopt a strategic rigidity: it is better to give nothing than to appear vulnerable or open the door to further concessions.
Reputational Risk: In many ideological circles, changing your stance carries steep social penalties. Those who evolve risk being labeled inconsistent, untrustworthy, or disloyal. Holding the line—no matter how irrational—feels safer than facing exile.
The Backfire Effect: Ironically, presenting corrective evidence can cause people to become more entrenched. When facts are framed as attacks, the instinctive response is to defend rather than reflect. The result is a hardening of belief rather than a softening.
Rejecting correction is rarely about the facts themselves. It’s about what those facts require—humility, introspection, and the courage to change. For many, that cost is too high. They fear losing community, credibility, or the comforting certainty of a worldview that once made sense.
So they stay put. They reject new information, contort logic, and embrace contradiction—not because they lack intelligence, but because they fear what’s on the other side of truth: alienation, shame, and the collapse of the self-image they've built. In that context, belief becomes a form of armor. And in some circles, wearing that armor is the only way to belong.
Strong systems—economic, business, social, and political—are self-correcting. They are built on evidence and testing, adapt to new information as it becomes available, and make adjustments even when those changes contradict prior assumptions. This is the essence of progress. Systems and belief structures that reject self-correction and evolution become stagnant—and ultimately, self-defeating.