New York Times columnist David Brooks sparked controversy with his recent comparison of redistricting efforts supported by President Donald Trump to chemical warfare. During a segment on “PBS This Week,” Brooks likened Trump’s orders to actions taken during World War I, saying, “What Trump ordered Abbott to do in Texas is mustard gas on our democracy.” His comments were part of a broader critique of ongoing redistricting battles, particularly in Republican-led states like Texas.
Brooks characterized these redistricting efforts as a “war” on democracy itself, stating, “you are literally disenfranchising people because you can pick the district so carefully that the voters don’t matter so much.” He suggested that this manipulation of district lines could lead to a damaging decline in public trust in the democratic process, warning of a future with “literally less democracy.” Brooks acknowledged that while Trump initiated this approach, he believes it bears a “moral stain.”
Critics of Brooks’ remarks pointed to discrepancies in how gerrymandering is treated depending on political affiliation. For instance, Illinois has maintained a firm grip on congressional representation, where Democrats hold 82 percent of the seats with only 37.7 percent of the registered voters backing them. Brooks, however, refrained from labeling Democrats engaging in similar tactics as war criminals, prompting observers to question his impartiality.
PBS, a traditionally respected institution in American media, faces scrutiny for airing Brooks’ comments without challenge. The responses from his co-panelists were notably absent, leading some to imply that this lack of debate reflects poorly on the network’s journalistic integrity.
The PBS X account emphasizes its commitment to editorial independence and unbiased reporting, yet recent discussions suggest otherwise. As redistricting remains a critical issue, the implications of how it is discussed in media outlets like PBS warrant careful consideration. Brooks’ remarks have reignited a debate about fairness in electoral representation and whether the way these conversations unfold is reflective of broader media tendencies.
"*" indicates required fields
