Same Man, Fake Media Double Standards: Obama Decorated Tom Homan — Trump Appoints Him, and Suddenly He’s “Extreme”

The media’s standard isn’t “good vs. bad.” It’s blue vs. red. If Obama rewards a man, it’s proof of competence. If Trump hires the same man, it becomes evidence of evil. That isn’t principled coverage — it’s partisan branding, pretending to be news.

The press secretary’s point wasn’t trivia — it was a diagnostic. One sentence exposed the entire wiring of modern “news” culture: legitimacy is granted or revoked based on who signs the paperwork, not what the person did.Tom Homan didn’t wake up and become a different human being the moment Donald Trump touched a pen. His career didn’t magically transform overnight from “service” into “extremism.” The only thing that changed was the political logo on the decision.

This is where the public is supposed to notice the con. The same outlets that now describe Homan with loaded labels and breathless alarm once had no problem with him operating in government — because when he was operating under Obama, the story was pre-approved. Under Obama, the frame was: responsible enforcement, experienced leadership, professionalism. Under Trump, the frame becomes: authoritarian, dangerous, radical. Same man. Same track record. New script.

And it’s not an accident. It’s the oldest trick in narrative management: swap the moral category when the party changes. That’s what selective outrage looks like in a suit and tie. It’s not that the media “forgot” Obama awarded him a medal — it’s that they don’t want that fact to matter. Because if it matters, the whole performance collapses. If Homan was medal-worthy under Obama, then calling him “extreme” under Trump requires one of two admissions:

1. They were wrong then, or

2. They’re dishonest now.

They won’t say either out loud — so instead they do what they always do: they change the emotional lighting. They push the audience toward the approved feeling first (fear, disgust, outrage), and only then—if pressured—deal with facts as an afterthought. That’s not reporting. That’s propaganda technique: emotion-first framing, selective context, and a moral verdict delivered before evidence.

This is also what party-approved morality looks like: a person is “good” when they serve the approved team, and “evil” when they serve the other team — even when the résumé is identical. That is not a standard. It’s a loyalty filter. And once you see it, you can’t unsee it. The press isn’t acting like an independent referee; it’s acting like a political brand protection unit. Its job is not to inform you; its job is to keep the audience emotionally aligned with the preferred side.

The tell is how quickly “principles” dissolve. If the argument is that Tom Homan represents something morally unacceptable, then that moral judgment should apply regardless of whether he’s serving Obama or Trump. If it doesn’t apply consistently, then it’s not a moral argument — it’s a political weapon. And political weapons don’t need to be fair; they just need to be effective.

So yes: the press secretary’s reminder is a diagnostic — and the results are ugly. The public isn’t watching journalism. It’s watching narrative enforcement. It’s watching selective outrage masquerading as ethics. It’s watching propaganda disguised as professionalism. And it’s watching a media class that too often treats facts not as truth to report, but as obstacles to step over on the way to the approved conclusion.