In a controversial social media post, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer joined podcaster Liz Plank in a video that drew sharp criticism for its apparent mockery of the Catholic ritual of communion. The silent footage features Whitmer, donning a Harris-Walz camo ballcap, feeding Plank—who is kneeling and mimicking a person receiving the Eucharist—a single Doritos corn chip. This choice of snack is particularly notable as Doritos are known to be one of Vice President Kamala Harris’ favorites. Observers have suggested that this connection was likely intentional, given the context of a broader political narrative. The post was captioned with a message promoting the CHIPS Act, a federal initiative aimed at bolstering domestic semiconductor manufacturing, an effort designed to diminish the United States’ reliance on foreign sources for technology production.
Critics argued that the video transcended its ostensibly light-hearted intent and ventured into territory that many found offensive to the Catholic faith. Tim Murtaugh, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, highlighted the video’s potential ramifications, suggesting it could alienate Catholic voters from the Democratic Party, particularly from Harris’ bid for the presidency. Murtaugh characterized the act of using a Dorito in place of the sacred Eucharist as emblematic of an even broader disregard for religious beliefs among Democrats, referencing the lack of concern for the implications of such content on religious communities. This viewpoint was echoed by Catholic Vote, which expressed that the video represented a troubling trend of anti-Catholic sentiment within the Democratic Party.
Plank’s “femistabulous” page on Instagram paired the video with a defense of the CHIPS Act. However, for many observers, the political messaging was overshadowed by the sacrilegious imagery captured in the video. The outrage was emblematic of broader societal divisions over religion and politics, particularly with regards to attitudes toward abortion rights—a contentious issue that both Whitmer and Plank have publicly championed. The film segment itself did not appear in the official interview that Plank conducted with Whitmer, sparking further speculation about the motives behind its release.
The video prompted responses from various figures across social media platforms who interpreted Whitmer’s actions as far more than a parody. For instance, Libby Emmons from Post Millennial condemned the depiction, labeling Whitmer as a “Satanic priestess” of abortion rights, reinforcing the belief that the video was imbued with tasteless innuendo and a mockery of religious practice. Furthermore, this framing aligns with an ongoing narrative that positions the Democratic Party as antagonistic toward traditional values, a charge that critics often level against the party as a whole, especially in the context of the abortion debate, where Whitmer’s political background places her firmly in the pro-choice camp.
Moreover, this event is reflective of substantial cultural tensions, particularly religious discontent towards political figures who are perceived as undermining the sanctity of faith. The Catholic community’s response, spearheaded by organizations like Catholic Vote, illustrates a broader concern regarding the erosion of respect for religious beliefs in contemporary political discourse. The reactions suggest that many within the Catholic community feel increasingly marginalized and targeted by those who espouse liberal values in the political sphere, contributing to a growing divide in American politics.
As the video and subsequent reactions unfolded, it highlighted how quickly political branding and personal symbols—such as Harris’ favorite snack—can be manipulated for impact in a charged environment. Whitmer’s endorsement of Kamala Harris’ presidential campaign had already positioned her in a visible role within the Democratic hierarchy, aligning her with policies and narratives that many conservative and religious voters may actively reject. As the cultural war waged on, this incident served as another flashpoint in an ongoing debate over political engagement, the sacredness of religious rituals, and the responsibilities that public figures hold in navigating their personal beliefs within the political landscape.
