By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Andrew Schulz, a comedian who supported Trump in 2024, expresses disillusionment with the president’s foreign policy, particularly the war in the Middle East, and his economic decisions. Schulz, representing a non-ideological segment of Trump’s base drawn to anti-establishment figures, feels betrayed by policies that contradict campaign promises, such as increased spending and continued wars. This sentiment is mirrored by other “bro-casters” and contributes to a notable decline in Trump’s support among young people, Latinos, and independent voters, potentially impacting the upcoming midterms. The unraveling of this coalition opens a void for new leaders within the MAGA movement.
Read the original article here
It appears that a significant shift, or at least a notable fracturing, is occurring within the so-called “manosphere” concerning their former idol, Donald Trump. For a long time, this group seemed largely unified in their support, but lately, there’s a growing sentiment of disillusionment and outright rejection.
One of the recurring themes is a feeling of being “late to the party” in realizing Trump’s perceived shortcomings. The initial support, while perhaps understandable to some in hindsight, is now viewed as a significant misjudgment. The argument is that after witnessing Trump’s presidency, particularly his handling of crises and his rhetoric, continued support in later elections became increasingly difficult to justify for anyone paying attention.
The actions and inactions during the COVID-19 pandemic are frequently cited as a major turning point. Lying about the virus, the handling of public health information, and the perceived prioritization of optics over genuine concern for public well-being are highlighted as deeply problematic. This period seems to have solidified a belief that Trump was not only untrustworthy but actively harmful when faced with a serious crisis.
The events of January 6th, 2021, represent another critical juncture. The refusal to accept election results and the subsequent events at the Capitol are described as “treasonous” and a direct incitement of violence. For many, this was an unforgivable act that demonstrated a fundamental disregard for democratic processes and national stability.
Looking towards the future, especially with specific policy proposals like Project 2025 becoming public, the disillusionment intensifies. The perceived pattern of Trump consistently prioritizing his ego and financial gain, often through corrupt or illegal means, coupled with a willingness to lie incessantly and cause suffering through negligence, has led to a profound re-evaluation for some within this demographic.
There’s a palpable sense that many within the manosphere were “duped” by simplistic tactics. The idea of being swayed by “divide and conquer” strategies and by what is described as an obvious propaganda machine, like Fox News, is a source of embarrassment for those now experiencing this awakening. The fact that this realization often seems to coincide with personal economic impacts, such as rising gas prices, further fuels a sense of frustration.
Some express a desire for public apologies and for those who previously enabled or platformed Trump to acknowledge their role. The feeling is that a significant period of enabling harmful behavior has occurred, and simply moving on without acknowledgment is unacceptable.
However, there’s also skepticism about the depth and permanence of this shift. A common refrain is that this kind of “turning on Trump” narrative has been heard before, particularly since 2016. The concern is that such disillusionment might be temporary, especially if economic factors or perceived threats from opposing political viewpoints resurface.
The notion that some individuals within the manosphere might still be drawn to Trump or similar figures due to economic anxieties or a dislike of “woke” culture is also present. This suggests that the underlying reasons for initial support haven’t entirely vanished for everyone.
A particularly stark and critical perspective is that the manosphere’s embrace of Trump was always based on a misunderstanding or misapplication of certain ideals, leading to a “penisphere” that is now facing the consequences of its choices. The imagery used is often harsh, describing them as being stuck in a “dung heap” or driving recklessly, heading for a crash.
The idea that some within the manosphere are now concerned about being drafted into potential conflicts, such as in Iran, is a significant point of observation. This fear of having to personally face the consequences of the rhetoric and policies they supported is seen as a primary driver for some in their re-evaluation of Trump.
There’s also a cynical view that this “turning” might be less about genuine moral awakening and more about a rebranding or hedging of bets. The suggestion is that the core values and content might remain similar, but the aim is to shed the controversial “Trump brand” to continue attracting an audience.
Ultimately, the prevailing sentiment among those expressing this disillusionment is that while cracks may be showing, the deep-seated issues and the potential for these groups to simply “transform into something else awful” remain a significant concern. The idea that they will not truly turn away, but rather adapt and find new, albeit equally problematic, avenues for their beliefs, is a sobering thought. The realization that they might have to “actually go and die for him” is seen as a potent catalyst, but whether it leads to lasting change is still very much in question.