Experts offer guidance for talking to MAGA relatives without breaking trust

A guide distilled from cult-recovery and high-control-group research offers practical, nonconfrontational tools for navigating conversations with MAGA relatives and friends. The aim is not to “deprogram” someone in a single exchange, but to sustain dialogue, reduce harm, and keep lines of connection open as beliefs and information sources come under scrutiny. The guidance draws on interviews with Steven Hassan, Ph.D., founder of the Freedom of Mind Resource Center, and Daniella Mestyanek Young, cult survivor and author, weaving together techniques that emphasize listening, gentle challenges, and boundaries as pathways back toward trusted relationships.

The core technique starts with asking good questions and cultivating a warm, curious tone that invites the other person to think aloud. Hassan says that if you’re speaking with a relative or a childhood friend, you should try to remember who they were before their current beliefs took hold and remind yourself they are still there beneath the surface. “They’ve been hacked. They’re going to come out. So how can I help them just realize for themselves that they’re not happy there?” he said. The strategy centers on concise, open-ended questions you already know the answers to, paired with patient listening. Suggested prompts include, “Tell me more about why you believe this to be true?” and “Where did you get this information from?” He emphasizes quiet patience as the other person responds, followed by reflective mirroring like, “So did I understand you correctly? You believe this and this?” The goal is to demonstrate genuine listening and to plant the seed of critical thinking without escalation.

Come prepared with gentle, credible rebuttals. Daniella Mestyanek Young stresses that many people drift toward misinformation not from malice but from loneliness, fear, or a need for significance. She offers concrete lines to introduce doubt without shaming, such as, “I’ve looked into this, and it’s actually been widely debunked. Would you be open to reading a source I trust?” and, “I know this feels true, but it’s coming from a site known for disinformation. Can I share why I’m concerned?” She adds that change is unlikely in a single message, but planting seeds of doubt—delivered with kindness rather than condescension—can make a difference over time. A third nudge she recommends is, “It’s really hard to talk about this stuff with all the false information out there. Maybe we can focus on something else?” The emphasis is on respectful dialogue that preserves the relationship.

Know your triggers and theirs. A central caveat from Hassan is the importance of self-awareness: recognize your own triggers and understand how to neutralize them. The conversation should aim to help the other person exit the cycle of misinformation rather than inflame it. He notes that people respond to love, respect, and kindness, not hostility, and that attempts to attack or ridicule can push individuals deeper into their beliefs. He remains hopeful: human beings can change and grow, and a patient, nonjudgmental approach increases the odds of continued contact even when agreement isn’t reached.

Be prepared to (safely) disengage. There are moments when keeping the door open is too costly—for personal well-being or for the safety of the relationship. Young recommends clear, compassionate boundaries such as, “I love you too much to argue with you about this,” or, “I’ve learned that these conversations don’t feel good or helpful to me. I’m setting a boundary.” Other phrases include, “I want to focus on connecting with you, not debating you,” and, “Let’s keep this space politics-free.” If pressure persists, the guidance is straightforward: boundaries are about protecting peace, not changing behavior. The option to step away remains legitimate, and there is no obligation to endure conversations that harm you or reinforce misinformation.

Keep a tether to the relationship. Connection does not require agreement; it requires curiosity, boundaries, and a continued commitment to core values. Young frames the current moment as one of “spiritual intoxication,” where misinformation can function as a belonging mechanism for some people. The most radical action, she says, may be to remain grounded and refuse to play the games of argument or power—the act of staying connected, even minimally, can offer a lifeline for someone who could later choose to step back from the echo chamber. “A life raft doesn’t have to be big — it just has to float,” she notes, underscoring that even small gestures—a birthday text or a supportive message about a pet—can become the thread someone uses to reestablish contact later on.

Context and timing matter. The strategies are not about persuading someone on the merits of a policy in a single exchange; they are about preserving relationships long enough for individuals to reassess their information sources and their sense of belonging. The guidance reflects broader concerns about the role of misinformation in contemporary U.S. politics, particularly how online ecosystems can reinforce radicalized thinking and isolate people from friends and family who disagree. By prioritizing listening, patient questioning, and clear boundaries, the approach aims to reduce the personal toll of political divergence while leaving open the possibility of long-term reconciliation.

Tethering everyday life to shared values remains a central theme. Hassan and Young emphasize that, even in heated political times, the goal can be to stay whole rather than to win an argument. The guide highlights the emotional labor behind these conversations—the willingness to hear painful truths, the discipline to avoid personal attacks, and the humility to acknowledge that change often occurs in small, incremental steps rather than sudden shifts. For families and communities navigating the post-truth era, the recommended playbook offers a measured, human-centered path through a landscape where beliefs and information are increasingly contested. A careful blend of curiosity, restraint, and care can help maintain the ties that make it possible, someday, for someone to reexamine their beliefs without losing the relationship that matters most.