Matt Taibbi, a former Rolling Stone editor known for criticizing both censorship and the Russia collusion narrative, slammed the Democrats’ “don’t follow illegal orders” messaging as clumsy propaganda that echoes old, discredited tactics.
Matt Taibbi comes from the left but has spent years calling out excesses wherever he sees them, including censorship by big tech and sloppy political narratives. He earned a reputation as a Russian collusion skeptic early on, which put him at odds with much of his own side. That background makes his recent rebuke of Democratic messaging worth noting to anyone watching the political skirmish.
Taibbi framed the “don’t follow illegal orders” stunt as not just partisan theatrics but as a propaganda play that risks making the country look fractured. From a Republican perspective, it reads less like principled legal caution and more like a messaging tactic designed to damage opponents. That kind of broad, vague rhetoric invites confusion rather than accountability.
It’s such blatant, bad, overwrought propaganda … It reminds me again of the beginning of Russiagate when there were all these leaks about encouraging people not to share intelligence with the United States.
That made Trump look bad, but it also made the United States look weak and vulnerable and sent the signal that the country was in schism and maybe the government was not stable.
Is that what they’re trying to project? I mean, is that right? I don’t think so.
The comparison to Russiagate is intentional: Taibbi sees a pattern where leaks and selective messaging aim to shape public perception more than reveal facts. Republicans would point out that repeating that pattern risks normalizing political warfare that undercuts institutions. When political actors focus on spectacle instead of clear allegations, voters get the short end of the stick.
One practical problem Taibbi noted is specificity. If you tell people not to follow “illegal orders” without naming which orders you mean, the message collapses into theater. From a conservative viewpoint, casting a wide net of fear without concrete examples is a strategic dodge. Voters respond to clarity and evidence, not vague exhortations designed to score points.
Taibbi’s criticism also touches the media’s role in amplifying such lines of attack. He has frequently blamed the censorship complex and partisan echo chambers for enriching narratives at the expense of truth. Republicans who have long warned about media bias will see this episode as another case where headlines matter more than the hard work of proving wrongdoing.
Beyond the immediate back-and-forth, the episode highlights how political communication has shifted toward symbolic gestures. Democrats pushing this line likely intend to energize a base that trusts broad warnings over detail. Conservatives, by contrast, emphasize rule of law and evidence, and they view the “don’t follow illegal orders” push as politically convenient rather than principled.
Taibbi’s stance is notable because it comes from someone who is not aligned with the right, yet he accuses his own side of deploying a weak, dangerous playbook. Republicans can point to that as a reminder that grievance politics corrodes public trust. Whatever one thinks of the players involved, the tactic risks leaving the country saying less about facts and more about fear.
