Donald Trump probably should’ve known he’d face some questions about his associations with Laura Loomer. As we’ve discussed, she is, after all, a right-wing activist, a radical conspiracy theorist, and a failed Republican congressional candidate who has described herself as “pro-white nationalism.” More recently, as my MSNBC colleague Ja’han Jones noted, Loomer “has used her platform to lob overtly racist and sexist attacks at Kamala Harris.”
Loomer nevertheless attended the presidential debate last week, even appearing backstage with Trump ahead of the event, and she traveled on the Republican nominee’s plane. A day later, the former president attended a Sept. 11 remembrance and brought Loomer along — despite the fact the activist has pushed false conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks having been “an inside job.”
At a Friday afternoon press conference, the GOP candidate praised Loomer as “a free spirit,” before trying to rationalize her radicalism by way of an online statement.
It was against this backdrop that Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, appeared on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” and host Kristen Welker asked the senator for his reaction to Loomer’s extremist rhetoric. While the Ohio Republican conceded that he doesn’t “agree with” some of the activist’s comments, he added:
I think what Laura said about Kamala Harris is not what we should be focused on. We should be focused on the policy and on the issues.
The problem, of course, is that as Election Day 2024 nears, it’s hardly unreasonable to see a presidential candidate’s team as a meaningful issue.
As a Politico report summarized, “Who has the would-be president’s ear and what they say into it matters — especially when, like Loomer, (A) that person has a history of virulent statements about race, religion and immigration, (B) has given voice to baseless conspiracy theories and (C) when the would-be president in question has been hesitant to disavow her remarks, as Trump has.”
I’m reminded of something Ezra Klein wrote in early 2016, before Trump had even secured the Republican Party’s nomination for the first time. Still at Vox at the time, Ezra argued, in reference to Trump, “His tendency to solicit, repeat, and retweet self-serving falsehoods served up by sycophants and hangers-on should be taken seriously. Among the most important tasks the president has is knowing what to believe, whom to listen to, which facts to trust, and which theories to explore.
“Trump’s terrible judgment in this regard is one of the many reasons he’s not qualified for the office. Trump’s record here also undermines the strongest argument for his candidacy: that his showman’s persona is just a front, and at heart he’s a calm, thoughtful, coolheaded businessman who will surround himself with the best people and govern in a pragmatic, results-oriented fashion.”
That was true eight years ago. It’s still true now, as Trump brings a “pro-white nationalism” activist into his inner circle in the campaign’s closing weeks, after spending much of the year amplifying her radicalism online. (As my MSNBC colleague Clarissa-Jan Lim noted, “He endorsed her in 2020 during the first of two failed runs for Congress. He has called her a ‘terrific’ person and talked glowingly of her support for him.”)
What’s more, it’s not just the former president. As Media Matters noted, the same day that Trump brought a 9/11 conspiracy theorist to a 9/11 commemoration event, the National Republican Senate Committee promoted one of her videos via social media. Another Senate Republican, Utah’s Mike Lee, amplified a false Loomer claim earlier in the summer.
It is, in other words, a little late for Vance to pretend Loomer’s associations with Trump are unimportant.
NBC News, meanwhile, reported that some of Trump’s allies are worried that his Loomer ties “could cost him votes in key battleground states.” The report quoted an ally of the Republican candidate saying, “She has to go. Laura Loomer cannot stay. She just can’t. She is unapologetic.”
The news prompted The Atlantic’s David Frum to write online, “If a candidate for president surrounds himself with lunatics, crooks, and agents of hostile foreign powers, the patriotic response is not: ‘Oh no, he might cost himself the election!’ The patriotic response is: ‘He damn well should lose the election.’”