Propaganda isn’t about convincing you. It’s about training your tolerance.
When official government accounts borrow slogans, aesthetics, and insider phrases from conspiratorial or extremist-adjacent subcultures, the point isn’t “memes.” The point is permission: for force to feel holy, for outsiders to feel dangerous, and for accountability to feel optional.
A lawful state can defend itself with evidence. This feels like it’s being marketed with myth.
⸻
What PBS just put on the tableWhat PBS just put on the table
PBS NewsHour ran a segment laying out a pattern: multiple official accounts pushing a coordinated communications campaign that draws on imagery and language borrowed from right-wing / white-nationalist circles, paired with aggressive enforcement messaging, and then brought on extremism scholar Cynthia Miller-Idriss to explain what that kind of messaging does.
One example that’s gotten specific scrutiny: the Department of Labor posting “One Homeland. One People. One Heritage.” That slogan has been widely compared to fascist-era rhetoric, and labor groups/observers have called it an explicit shift in tone and symbolism coming from an official agency account.
Another example highlighted in broader reporting: ICE recruitment messaging using “We will have our home again”, criticized as echoing language from far-right subcultures.
Whether you think PBS is overreacting or not, the mechanism they’re describing is real: propaganda doesn’t start by changing laws. It starts by changing what feels normal.
⸻
Why this matters (even if you’re sick of politics)Why this matters (even if you’re sick of politics)
Here’s the simple test:
Public information is boring:
• legal basis
• limits
• oversight
• complaint channels
• error rates
• outcomes
Propaganda is emotional:
• heroic montage
• sacred language
• implied enemies
• insider slogans
• accountability mostly absent
Once the state starts speaking like a movement, it’s no longer persuading you about “policy.” It’s shaping membership (“who counts”), threat (“who endangers us”), and moral exception (“what rules don’t apply anymore”).
And that’s the whole point: not to win an argument, but to widen the zone of tolerated force.
⸻
Three questionsThree questions
- Where are the receipts?
If an action is justified, show the paper trail, IDs, and oversight, and do it consistently. - Where are the limits?
Do official communications clearly state constraints and accountability, or do they just sell a crusade? - Who is the audience?
Does the language read like civic instruction… or like a wink to online factions?
If you can answer those three with “receipts,” you don’t need my worldview.
⸻
My running archive (I’ve logged these instances individually)
(Posting the full list for completeness / receipts.)
#1411677
#1411559
#1411450
#1410764
#1410232
#1409970
#1408617
#1408424
#1408384
#1408146
#1408101
#1407299
#1407215
#1405903
#1404304
#1403374
#1399772
#1396200
#1385943
#1379984
#1374355
#1364715
#1351938
#1314086
⸻
SourcesSources
• PBS segment (video + transcript): “Trump administration using rhetoric linked to extremists” https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-administration-posts-echo-rhetoric-linked-to-extremist-groups
• Guardian: Labor Dept “One Homeland. One People. One Heritage.” backlash 
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/14/union-leaders-trump-administration-white-supremacy
• GovExec: recruitment messaging + “We will have our home again” noted 
https://www.instagram.com/p/DTTeFQriTb1/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
• DHS Facebook post example (shows phrase in circulation) 
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid022k4eTqv9rCusQa4jDZgvWKMR4cxFsB1BEB2or211cLNA7Xhjbwxu8GBn8cnYCMtal&id=100064835614791&mibextid=wwXIfr
• SPLC explainer: Great Replacement theory (what it is / why it radicalizes) 
https://www.splcenter.org/resources/hatewatch/racist-great-replacement-conspiracy-theory-explained/