Finalists for the 2018 Miss America beauty pageant might have been surprised when the questions asked by the judges turned political. 

In the second round of questions, which was to decide which five out of the seven contestants would remain, the topic of conversation turned political, specifically towards President Trump.

Miss Missouri Jennifer Davis was the first to be grilled when judge Jordin Sparks asked about the Russia investigation.

“OK, there are multiple investigations into whether Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia on the election,” Sparks said. “Well, did they? You’re the jury. Guilty or innocent, and please explain your verdict.”

“Right now I’d have to say innocent, because not enough information has been revealed,” Davis said in response. “We are still investigating. And I think we should investigate it to its fullest extent. And if we do find evidence that they do have collusion with Russia, then they should. … The justice system should do their due diligence, and they should be punished accordingly.”

Miss Texas Morgana Wood received the second political question which referred to the violence at the Charlottesville rally.

“Last month, a demonstration of neo-Nazi’s, white supremacists and the KKK in Charlottesville, Virginia turned violent and a counter-protester was killed,” judge Jess Cagle said. “The president said there was shared blame with ‘very fine people on both sides.’ Were there? Tell me yes or no, and explain.”

Wood said the death of the counter-protester, Heather Heyer, was due to a “terrorist attack” before saying the President “should have made a statement earlier addressing the fact and making sure all Americans feel safe in this country.”

The questions continued when judge Maria Menounos asked Miss North Dakota Cara Mund about the Paris Climate Accord and whether President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the agreement was a good one.

“195 countries signed the Paris agreement, in which each country sets non-bidding goals to reduce man-made climate change,” the judge explained. “The U.S. is withdrawing from the agreement citing negligible environmental effects and negative economic impact. Good decision, bad decision? Which is it, and why?”

“I do believe it’s a bad decision,” Mund said in response. “Once we reject that, we take ourselves out of the negotiation table and that’s something that we really need to keep in mind.”

“There is evidence that climate change is existing. So whether you believe it or not, we need to be at that table, and I think it’s just a bad decision on behalf of the United States,” she said in conclusion.

Miss New Jersey Kaitlyn Schoeffel question on the removal of Confederate statues.

“A recent poll found that slightly over half of Americans favored leaving Confederate statues in place while others want them removed,” said Tara Lipinski. “Keep them or get rid of them? What’s your vote and why?”

Featured Image Via Flickr/Gage Skidmore


The Daily Caller

Fox News

  • Timothy Kevin Ready

    Milo’s comment on Facebook was that Miss America will have a “Miss Acid Attack Survivor” competition soon. It really has turned into an anti-America shitshow overrun w/ piggly-wiggly feminists and Muslim-apologists. Boycott.

  • Steve O

    “I do believe it’s a bad decision, Once we reject that, we take ourselves out of the negotiation table and that’s something that we really need to keep in mind.”

    — What she said in conclusion merely repeated what she said at first, reversing the sentence order. This answer isn’t dumb, because it’s exactly what the judges wanted to hear and it is a contest, after all. It’s asking a lot of someone to be informed AND articulate under the bright lights with a microphone in front of you, but I would have LOVED to hear something like this:

    “Superficially it looks like a bad decision because there’s a benefit to being at the negotiating table. But nobody I’ve ever met… who thinks it’s a bad decision… knows what the cost would be of staying at the negotiating table. That probably includes many of those here. Everything is about tradeoffs. In this case, the costs were going to be enormous. And I think it’s simply naive to think that because of this, the US isn’t going to have a voice in how the world responds to climate change.”

    • Rusty Esq

      I think all of the answers given, except terror attack, were excellent responses. As you’ve said, this isn’t the place to get political.

      On the whole, these women handled themselves very well in their responses. I would expect they’ve had diplomacy training.

      I don’t agree with your comments on the climate change discussions. I’ve seen a lot more evidence in favour of climate change being mostly influenced by man (and I keep an open mind to both sides. Assuming all scientists are liars is disingenuous, which seems to be the common rebuttal to the majority of relevant experts agreeing that it’s real). I believe that walking away without putting a position forward more than “I don’t agree” was not a decision I respected. I’ve read a few counter arguments at This site. All have been debunked. If there’s solid evidence rejecting man made climate change, bring it on. But beware, I’ll scrutinise it. The most obvious is checking other sources to see if that’s been debunked with scientific fact. I’m yet to see a single rejection of man made global warming that’s stood up to scientific scrutiny.

      • Steve O

        Almost ALL the models are running hot, with around 97% predicting warmer temperatures than we have been experiencing, and around 3% coming in too low. Does that tell you anything?

        There is insufficient evidence to justify expending massive amounts of resources to prevent global warming. I find that the alarmist side consistently overstates its case, but the real question is “what do we do about it.”

        Whether climate change is man made or not is not even relevant to the discussion of whether or not we should anything about it. If warming will be catastrophic and we can prevent it, then we should take action as long as the benefits are greater than the costs.

        But assuming everything you believe is true, what is the evidence that we can do anything to stop global warming? Remember, you need to stop the natural component to warming, in addition to eliminating the effect of mankind.

        If this really is such a problem, why are the majority of alarmist activists STILL opposed to nuclear power — the world’s only large scale “zero” carbon energy source. You’re going to bet the future of life on earth on technologies that might be half a century away from large scale viability???

      • John Smith


  • Charles Perigord

    So now we have litmus test for beauty contests? This is worse than Feinstein trying to get Goresuch to support abortion on demand.

  • Pearlbuck

    Wow, beauty contests are suddenly so WOKE!

  • Cliff Vincent

    leftists have the same arguments and talking points as miss America candidates… lol sad

  • DavidBetterman

    Donna Brazile leaked that question to Miss North Dakota.