→2025→04→27→Editorial cartooning→Trump Media Indignant at Telnaes’ Trump Swastika Baton Toon
Editorial cartooning

Trump Media Indignant at Telnaes’ Trump Swastika Baton Toon

1 minute 23 comments

The recent PBS “Art in Action” segment, “Political cartoonists on navigating a changing media landscape,” featuring Ann Telnaes, Michael Ramirez, and Sara Duke came into righteous indignation from the conservative media with the eight minute report featuring a few seconds (at around the 5:38 mark) of Ann Telnaes’ February 13, 2025 political cartoon commenting on Trump usurping control of The Kennedy Center with the president holding a swastika baton.

Ann Telnaes cartoon

Clay Waters for Newsbusters (Media Research Center) is near apoplectic writing about the PBS segment with the headline “PBS Celebrates Artistic Freedom for Cartoonist Who Drew Trump With a Swastika Baton.”

Friday’s PBS News Hour celebrated liberal political cartoonist Ann Telnaes, who resigned in a huff from the Washington Post when a cartoon mocking Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos was rejected, part of PBS’s “Art in Action” coverage, “exploring the intersection of art and democracy.” PBS showed some of Telnaes’s latest work, now available on Substack, including President Trump conducting at the Kennedy Center with a swastika-tipped baton. Ha?

Previous Post
The Collection Plate
Next Post
CSotD: 100 Strange Days Have Found Us

Comments 23

  1. A very well done segment. Am a fan of Ann’s candor and expressive style…but, gotta agree with Bill Maher who recently said, “I think the minute you play the ‘Hitler’ card, you’ve lost the argument.”

    1. The problem with that ethos is it means a wannabe dictator can then copy Hitler without fear of criticism.

      Really, when the parallels are this striking, not making the comparisons to Hitler are journalistic malpractice.

      1. That reasoning seems more visceral than fact-based based. It appears moderate Democrats are beginning to understand constantly slandering Trump is not particularly constructive.

      2. All one has to do is describe what Trump says and does. If that’s slandering, so be it.

      3. > That reasoning seems more visceral than fact-based based.

        Ah, I see. An apologist. Forgive me for expecting you to not dismiss facts as “feelings”. Good bye.

    2. Mm, hmm. Interesting point. But I have to agree with people who read for comprehension when they say, “If I catch myself agreeing with Bill Maher, does that mean I’m also being an easily duped tool who’s somehow smugly convinced he’s the only real thinker in the world?”

    3. Instead of quoting others like you have with Maher, why not think for yourself?

      1. Thanks for providing that examination of history, although, one could argue the same for the previous administration. Sharing constructive feedback and the nuanced conversations about process is the reason I participate in this platform.

      2. “…one could argue the same for the previous administration.” Seriously???! How? What did the previous administration do that was equivalent?

      3. He’s an apologist. Don’t bother trying to understand where he’s coming from; it’s not going to make sense and he’s never going to accept anything we say.

    5. Even Godwin disagrees with Bill Maher on this. After the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017, Godwin encouraged people to compare the alt-right with Nazis.

      Sure, if you compare everything to Nazis, you will lose debates. But if you stick to only comparing people who act like Nazis to the original Nazis, then you’re making an accurate point. How can you not compare them to Nazis when they’re literally flashing Nazi salutes?

      Ann’s use of the Swastika, as so many of us have done as well, is accurate because the Trump regime are acting like Nazis.

    6. Nope. The author (Mike Godwin) who came up with Godwin’s law (once you invoke Nazis or Hitler you lose the argument) finally said (of Trump and the far right): “Yes, it’s okay to compare Trump to Hitler. Don’t let me stop you.”

      Further: “…when people draw parallels between Donald Trump’s 2024 candidacy and Hitler’s progression from fringe figure to Great Dictator, we aren’t joking. Those of us who hope to preserve our democratic institutions need to underscore the resemblance before we enter the twilight of American democracy.”

  2. The same people who had no problem calling Obama a Communist and Al-Qaeda member get offended when Trump is called a Nazi.

    What else are you supposed to call a far-right authoritarian who creates a grievance-based personality cult, is obsessed with racial purity, equates the rule of law with “weakness,” advocates redrawing international boundaries by military force, has expressed admiration for Hitler on multiple occasions, and is supported by actual, self-declared Nazis? Is there a better word for this?

    Seems somewhat more accurate than calling the guy who took down Osama bin Laden a “Muslim terrorist,” which apparently was “free speech” a decade or so ago. Just saying.

  3. The closer to the bone political satire hits, the louder the screams of indignation from the targets of the satire…without ever refuting the accuracy of the satire.

  4. Could’ve just left the headline “Trump Media Indignant” and left a blank—-something new will take its place every damn day.

    And I don’t think any left-leaning cartoonist needs advice from a Trump fan about how to make a point.

  5. Satire is a form of non-violent violence. it’s supposed to be mean.

  6. It’s one thing to make a random comparison between some right wing politician and Hitler and weakening one’s argument, just as every right wing politician and his flock have done by calling every Democrat a radical left winger for all my 78 years and much longer. Trump and his cabal are obviously using the Third Reich historical record as a playbook.

  7. Someday, there will be a Godwin’s Law about comparing politicians to Trump.

  8. Calling out authoritarian behavior isn’t “slander” — it’s accountability. Comparing Trump to historical figures like Hitler isn’t about name-calling; it’s about identifying dangerous patterns: inciting political violence, undermining democratic institutions, targeting minority groups, silencing dissent, and encouraging loyalty to himself over the rule of law. These are not imaginary parallels — they’re documented behaviors that scholars of authoritarianism, including conservatives, have warned about repeatedly. Pretending that such criticism is just “slander” ignores the substance of the concern and tries to shut down the conversation with empty appeals to civility. When democracy is at stake, refusing to make clear historical comparisons isn’t moderation — it’s complacency, or subterfuge.

  10. I admire Ann’s brilliant cartoon, swastika and all. Comparisons to Hitler well founded, IMHO. Trump’s regime is outpacing Hitler’s whirlwind Nazification of Germany in 1933.
    In the first 100days, our new fascist regime, in reliance on the Nazi playbook, has demolished our government, our economy, our alliances, our civil and human rights, and more. My hope comes from mass protests here. Hitler didn’t face massive antiNazi public demonstrations, but that’s our last resort now.. We beat the Nazis once and we’ll beat them And thanks Ann Telnaes for your astute visual comment.

  11. Whoops. Second to last sentence should read We beat the Nazis once and we’ll beat them again. RL

Comments are closed.

Search

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get a daily recap of the news posted each day.

^ Top