Juan Villoro
The Danish scientist Niels Bohr, a pioneer of quantum physics, once said, “The opposite of a profound idea is another profound idea.” In the heat of the moment, he boarded a bus in Copenhagen, accompanied by Albert Einstein, and began discussing the uncertainty of subatomic particles. That day, these interpreters of the universe demonstrated their remarkable ability to disagree. They argued so enthusiastically that the bus made three full circles without them getting off. Puzzled, the driver asked them, “Are you going somewhere?” They were heading to the most surprising place of all, where the truth lies hidden, but they hadn’t yet figured it out.
The anecdote illustrates how knowledge is forged. Unfortunately, in the most powerful country on earth, decisions are not made that way. Trump has been able to claim that Haitians eat cats, that chlorine injections combat the coronavirus, and that Tylenol causes autism. His lies break records: the Washington Post identified 2,140 falsehoods in his first year in office (2017–2018).
But the wind is changing. Unlike in science, where a profound idea is countered with another of similar depth, Trump’s followers counter one suspicion with another. Businesswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is known for her conspiracy theories. She compared Democrats to the Nazi Party, accused Bill Clinton of murder, and supported campaigns to destroy Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. She is anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, and a proponent of white supremacy. This background, which could belong in a psychiatric file, led her to Congress in 2020. Republicans themselves censured her belligerence, and in 2026, she resigned her seat in protest over the handling of the Epstein case.
Now an opponent, she questions the veracity of the attack Trump suffered in 2024 in Butler, Pennsylvania. She is not the only one who believes it was a staged event designed to portray the President with his fist raised and his face smeared with blood. What is significant is that she does not consider it necessary to provide evidence. In the realm of post-truth, verification is superfluous.
A similar case is that of Trisha Hope, a Texas representative in the MAGA (Make America Great Again) group, who gained notoriety for the campaign hat she wore when she appeared at the Republican convention. She, too, questions the information provided about the Pennsylvania shooting. “Corey Comperatore’s family deserves to know the truth about Matthew Crooks,” she wrote on X, referring to the murder suspect. What is her basis for saying this? That Trump only mentioned the shooting once in the speech in which he accepted his nomination. She might be right, but she should prove it. We are, essentially, witnessing a change of heart. Hope attended 42 rallies in support of Trump without noticing anything unusual. With the same nonchalance, she now repudiates him.
The best way Trump finds to get out of one problem is to create another. Pope Leo XIV’s recent trip through African countries greatly irritated him. The pontiff spoke in Cameroon about the disastrous effects of colonialism and against the attack on Iran. Trump angrily insulted him and then posted an image of himself, created with artificial intelligence, in which he appeared as the Redeemer caring for a sick person. The backlash from much of the Catholic community led him to remove the image and say, “I didn’t intend to pose as Jesus, but as a doctor.” Clint Russell, host of the conservative podcast Liberty Lockdown, stated, “In 18 months, I went from voting for Trump with reservations to thinking he is the Antichrist.” Immediately, social media was flooded with messages aimed at proving that, indeed, the occupant of the White House meets the criteria of the devil in disguise: he blasphemes, never asks God for forgiveness, uses spectacle to deceive, and considers himself the Chosen One. The discussion has shifted into absurd territory.
The MAGA movement turned speculation into ideology and trained its followers to voice opinions without arguments. What’s new is that this discourse is beginning to backfire on its main proponent.
We are living in an era marked by obscurantism, to such an extent that one longs for the 18th century to return. But the Enlightenment is nowhere in sight.
Further Reading: