Journalist Katie Couric has ignited controversy with her remarks suggesting that some supporters of Donald Trump may require “deprogramming,” accusing portions of the movement of resembling a cult-like following. Her remarks, originally made during an appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher, have provoked intense backlash and renewed debate about polarization, media responsibility, and political discourse in the United States.

Couric’s comment came as she criticized members of Congress who backed Trump and voted against his second impeachment. She stated: “Some [Trump supporters] are believing the garbage that they are being fed 24/7 … and they bought into this big lie. And the question is how are we going to really almost deprogram these people who have signed up for the cult of Trump?”  Her use of the term “cult” and her framing of “deprogramming” triggered immediate reaction from both media commentators and political figures.

Media analysts quickly condemned the remarks as deepening divisions in a country already suffering from political fracture. On Fox News’ “The Media Buzz,” analyst Howard Kurtz argued that while Couric is entitled to her opinion, her language painted Trump supporters not merely as opponents of her views but as fundamentally irrational actors. He commented that such broad characterisations were “pretty disappointing language” from a veteran broadcaster. 

Conservative commentators and outlets interpret the remarks as further evidence of liberal media elites dismissing tens of millions of Americans. For example, the Family Research Council characterized the suggestion of “deprogramming” as reminiscent of authoritarian tactics, accusing Couric and likeminded figures of treating political opposition as brainwashed subjects in need of reeducation. (FRC)

Defenders of Couric contend that her remarks were targeted at a specific segment of the population—namely die-hard supporters who persistently promoted election-fraud claims despite judicial outcomes and investigations. They argue that her use of the term “some” is critical, and the broader point she raised pertains to the influence of misinformation, online echo chambers and conspiratorial thinking that may undermine democratic processes. (Medium)

Yet, critics say that regardless of intent, the effect of her language is to delegitimize the political agency of millions of voters and to treat them as problems to be fixed rather than citizens to be engaged. That view is reflected in the broader discourse on the polarization and how language in public media can influence perceptions of “us versus them.”

As the debate continues, Couric’s comments also raise questions about the role of journalists and media figures in navigating political fault-lines. Should journalists adopt the language of diagnosis when discussing political movements, or should they stick to facilitating understanding and dialogue? Her remarks came at a moment of heightened scrutiny for journalism generally, as mistrust in media credibility remains elevated among various demographics.

Importantly, this controversy may have implications for the 2024 election cycle and the strategies of political campaigns. If one major media figure suggests that a voter base may require “deprogramming,” this signals a shift in how elites view opposition constituencies—potentially reducing incentives for outreach, listening and compromise. The rhetorical framing may influence how parties engage with voters, or fail to engage with them, in years to come.

In sum, the term “deprogramming” carries more than rhetorical weight; it evokes mental-health and reeducation themes that are unusual in mainstream political discourse. Couric’s use of it troubles some observers because it treats political allegiance as a pathological condition—rather than a complex blend of ideology, identity, economic interest and cultural affiliation. Whether or not that was Couric’s intention, the result is a widening of the narrative gap between media elites and parts of the electorate.

What happens next remains to be seen. Will Couric offer clarification or retraction? Will media organisations adopt more cautiously nuanced language when discussing large political movements? And will voters respond to being spoken about in this way by turning away from dialogue, or by engaging more deeply? One thing is clear: the controversy underscores how difficult it has become to separate political criticism from personal identity in America’s fractured public sphere.