On December 18, a striking conflict emerged on Fox News, highlighting the increasingly divisive atmosphere among its hosts. Brian Kilmeade, often considered part of the network’s established moderate faction, diverged from his conservative peers by openly criticizing President Donald Trump’s latest antics at the White House—specifically, the newly unveiled “Presidential Walk of Fame.” This display, which includes a humorous jab at former Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama, set the stage for Kilmeade’s contentious remarks.
Trump’s “Presidential Walk of Fame” features various plaques, notably one substituting a conventional portrait of Biden with a picture of an autopen. The text beneath Biden’s plaque is unapologetically scathing, branding him “the worst President in American History” and alluding to the “most corrupt Election” that propelled him into office. This bold stance is typical of Trump’s approach, unfiltered and unapologetic, which resonates with many of his supporters.
However, Kilmeade’s reaction suggests a distance from that support, indicative of a broader battle within conservative media. Describing Trump’s plaques as “repulsive behavior,” Fox News personality Jessica Tarlov could be seen as fanning the flames of disagreement when she sought Kilmeade’s opinion. Kilmeade’s response was a firm rejection of the president’s tactics, stating, “No, I’m not for this at all.” His comments read as a defensive maneuver against anticipated backlash from Democrats, who he predicts would retaliate in kind. In this context, Kilmeade’s rationale appears rooted in an almost guilt-ridden caution, assuming the posture of an adult admonishing a child for mischief.
Critically, Kilmeade’s position implies a dismissal of the long-established tradition of political parody that Trump embodies. He expresses concern over the “cycle” of mockery, lamenting, “So they’re just going to mock President Trump or put something on his plaque.” His contention seems to ignore the precedent set by both sides of the aisle in terms of political satire and the often ruthless nature of American politics. Furthermore, Kilmeade’s declaration that denigrating political opponents is wrong echoes a naïve idealism that fails to acknowledge the reality of partisan conflicts.
This clash escalates with Kilmeade’s proclamation that “I am not for dispelling or saying anything bad,” revealing an inconsistency when juxtaposed with the daily media critiques directed at conservative figures. While urging restraint, he ironically points out that Ulysses S. Grant, often viewed unfavorably in his own era, underwent a reevaluation that positioned him favorably in the eyes of history. Yet, he juxtaposes this reflection against the current narrative of Biden, who Kilmeade implies will not likely receive the same treatment. His remarks suggest a bewilderment regarding Trump’s approach to his predecessors, one that he finds both frightening and misguided.
The ensuing reactions from fellow Fox News hosts Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters serve as a stark counterpoint to Kilmeade’s hesitance. They openly ridicule his stance, suggesting a unanimous disapproval within parts of the network toward Kilmeade’s more traditional viewpoint. This comedic clash represents the ongoing tensions within the conservative media landscape, delineating a schism between those who prefer a more conventional, restrained approach and those aligning themselves with Trump’s unabashed style.
Ultimately, Kilmeade’s criticisms reflect a broader struggle among conservatives, balancing respect for political decorum against the provocative tactics that Trump has introduced into the dialogue. As the handles of media personalities diverge, the question remains whether such divides indicate a larger schism in the Republican Party or merely a fleeting moment of discord among its media voices. The rivalry is palpable, as each faction asserts its understanding of the political landscape—one steeped in traditional values, the other fueled by brash rhetoric and confrontational tactics. In this ongoing saga, only time will tell how history judges these leaders and their respective styles.
"*" indicates required fields
