Fact Check: Paul Krugman on Racism and Political Reactions
What We Know
In his article titled "We're All Rats Now," published on June 30, 2025, Paul Krugman discusses the political reactions following Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York's Democratic primary. He highlights comments made by prominent figures such as Stephen Miller, Scott Bessent, and Senator Tommy Tuberville, which he interprets as racially charged and indicative of a broader resurgence of bigotry in American politics. Tuberville's remarks, in particular, where he refers to New York's voters as "inner-city rats," are cited as examples of dehumanizing language that reflects a troubling trend towards mainstream racism (source-2, source-3).
Krugman argues that these reactions are not merely political but are rooted in a fear of nonwhite individuals gaining political power. He claims that such rhetoric is part of a larger pattern of discrimination that has been evident in various policies and actions taken by the Trump administration, including cuts to the National Institutes of Health and changes in military policies that disproportionately affect racial minorities (source-4, source-5).
Analysis
Krugman's assertions are supported by specific examples of inflammatory rhetoric from political figures, particularly Tuberville's comments, which have been reported consistently across multiple sources (source-1, source-6). His framing of these comments as indicative of a broader societal issue aligns with ongoing discussions about racism in American politics, particularly in the context of the Trump administration's policies.
However, while Krugman's analysis highlights significant concerns about racism and bigotry, it is essential to evaluate the reliability of the sources he references. His primary source is his own opinion piece, which, while well-argued, is inherently subjective. The secondary sources that corroborate his claims, such as news articles and commentary from platforms like Daily Kos and Justice Integrity Report, also reflect a particular political bias, often leaning towards a progressive viewpoint (source-3, source-5). This potential bias should be considered when assessing the overall accuracy of Krugman's claims.
Moreover, while Krugman effectively connects individual comments to a larger narrative of racism, the extent to which these comments represent a mainstream shift in American politics is more complex and may require further empirical analysis beyond anecdotal evidence.
Conclusion
The claim that there is a resurgence of racism and bigotry in American politics, as articulated by Paul Krugman, is Partially True. While there is substantial evidence to support the notion that inflammatory rhetoric and discriminatory policies are present in contemporary political discourse, the interpretation of these events as indicative of a mainstream acceptance of racism may be overstated. The reliance on opinion pieces and politically biased sources limits the objectivity of the analysis, suggesting that while the concerns raised are valid, they may not fully encapsulate the complexities of the current political landscape.