What MAGA Really Believes: I Watched 24 Minutes of Their ‘Facts’ and Found a Cult of Feeling

In the sacred theater of American paranoia, there exists no stronger sermon than the sermon of possibility. That is, if something could be happening, never mind the evidence, logic, or law, then it must be. And if you so much as suggest otherwise, you’re not cautious or empirical. No, you’re a heretic.

Such was the tone of a recent TikTok Live, recorded and dissected over the course of twenty-four minutes, where MAGA faithful gathered around a glowing screen and a government document like monks parsing a fragment of prophecy. The text in question? A White House fact sheet, released under Trump’s administration, no less, claiming that over two million "illegal aliens" were issued Social Security Numbers during fiscal year 2024.

This figure, while bloated with implication, is suspiciously devoid of substance. No independent agency corroborates it. No audit confirms it. And yet, the fact sheet alone, like an ancient scroll, is deemed sufficient to convict millions of a crime that doesn’t exist. What followed in the Live was not a presentation of proof, but a group therapy session for conspiracy theorists in denial that their worldview is built not on bedrock, but on quicksand.

As Democrats appeared in the comments asking for sources, clarification, or even the mildest of citations, they were met with mockery: “So now we don’t believe the White House?” came the chorus, as if to say: this truth is self-evident because we like the man who printed it.

When pressed, the hosts didn’t offer data, studies, or legal framework. Instead, they pulled the rhetorical ripcord of last resort: “Could it not be possible that it’s happening?”

Let us pause here.

This is not a question. It is a spell, a sleight of hand that transforms a lack of evidence into a suspicion so sticky, it clings to the conversation like molasses. It is the bedrock of conspiratorial logic: the absence of evidence becomes the evidence itself.

But what is truly cunning here is not just the fallacy itself, but the audience's hunger for it. The question does not probe reality, it replaces it. It is a cheap magic trick in the arsenal of the authoritarian-adjacent, one that weaponizes the uncertainty of the unknown to justify the oppression of the known.

Let us be perfectly clear: undocumented immigrants, those without legal status in the United States, cannot legally obtain Social Security benefits. They can’t legally get a Social Security Number. They can’t file for Medicare. They can’t collect retirement. In fact, they pay billions into the system using fake or mismatched SSNs and never get a penny in return. The SSA’s own Earnings Suspense File is a testament to this ghost labor: contributions that vanish into the void, subsidizing the very citizens who demonize them.

And yet, because someone in a studio suit printed a number in a fact sheet, a number conflating non-citizens (which include green card holders, DACA recipients, asylum seekers, and legal visa holders) with “illegal aliens”, a moral panic is born.

It is an old trick. Strip away context. Conflate categories. Stir in fear. Serve hot.

Then came the rhetorical cherry on top: a man appeared in the Live and, with the solemnity of a cult whisperer, suggested that the way to convert Democrats was to "be nice to them."

“That way,” he explained, “they’ll say, 'Wow, that guy was nice to me.'

Ah yes, the cult accusing others of cultishness. A movement that worships one man, denies objective reality, recites talking points like scripture, and punishes apostasy with exile—lecturing others on how to deprogram. One need not have read Hannah Arendt to smell the projection steaming off the screen.

But perhaps the most tragicomic element of this entire exercise was the total absence of humility. There was no space for uncertainty, no pause for fact-checking, no curiosity. Just performance. Possibility turned into prophecy. Doubt weaponized into dogma.

This is not politics. It is epistemological rot. And it is spreading.

When you demand data, they offer vibes. When you ask for law, they offer folklore. When you speak of policy, they respond with pulp fiction. It is not merely that they have abandoned truth—it is that they now mistake imagination for evidence and certainty for virtue.

Why do they do this? The answer lies in the architecture of their psychology.

Studies on Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1996) show that high-RWA individuals are drawn to strong authority figures, resistant to nuance, and threatened by uncertainty. When facts challenge their worldview, they retreat not into reason, but into obedience and aggression. The claim that undocumented immigrants might be receiving Social Security isn't a conclusion based on evidence, it’s a protective incantation meant to restore the illusion of control.

Similarly, Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto et al., 1994) explains the underlying belief that certain groups (namely, "real Americans") are entitled to dominance over others. If immigrants, legal or otherwise, are seen as benefiting from the system, this triggers a psychological threat response in high-SDO individuals. Hence, they do not need proof of wrongdoing, they need only the feeling that their status is under siege.

Add to that motivated reasoning (Taber & Lodge, 2006), which reveals that people don’t process information like scientists, they process it like lawyers. They seek to defend their beliefs, not test them. When a White House fact sheet makes a vague claim that aligns with their fears, they don’t ask if it’s true. They ask how they can use it.

Lastly, collective narcissism (Golec de Zavala et al., 2012), the belief that one's group is exceptional and deserves constant admiration, fuels the conviction that any perceived slight or redistribution of resources is an existential attack. The mere idea that non-citizens (especially non-white ones) are receiving assistance is framed as betrayal, regardless of legality.

And so we arrive at the great inversion: to demand proof is now "disingenuous." To believe what can be proven is to be a traitor to "what could be." And if you resist this paranoid gospel, you are not skeptical, you are complicit.

The result? A movement so hollowed out by grievance that it now finds purpose not in governance or reform, but in chasing shadows of its own making. It is a faith tradition built not on scripture, but on suspicion.

Let them believe that what could happen is happening. But let the rest of us remember: civilization is built not on what we fear might be, but on what we know, prove, and act upon.

Until then, let us keep the receipts, cite the sources, and speak plainly. Because the antidote to superstition is not silence. It is exposure.

---

References

• Altemeyer, Bob. The Authoritarian Specter. Harvard University Press, 1996.

• Altemeyer, Bob. The Authoritarians. Online publication, 2006. http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

• Pratto, Felicia, Sidanius, Jim, et al. “Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 67, no. 4, 1994, pp. 741–763.

• Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, no. 3, 2006, pp. 755–769.

• Golec de Zavala, Agnieszka, et al. “Collective Narcissism and Its Social Consequences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 103, no. 4, 2012, pp. 652–674.

• Social Security Administration. “Earnings Suspense File.” SSA.gov.

• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Undocumented Immigrants' Contributions to Social Security and Medicare.” CBPP.org.

• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). “Asylum Overview.” USCIS.gov.