(OPINION) Brendan Carr, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), sparked a heated debate after appearing publicly with a golden pin bearing the likeness of President Donald Trump.

The pin, which depicts Trump in profile, drew comparisons to imagery associated with Mao Zedong, the former leader of communist China, due to its stylistic resemblance to pins worn during Mao’s era.

Australian activist Drew Pavlou was among the first to highlight the similarity, posting photos of Carr wearing the pin on social media. Pavlou remarked, “Welcome to MAGA Maoism,” referencing Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

The comparison quickly gained traction online, with critics pointing to the pin’s design as evocative of the cult of personality that surrounded Mao, whose image was omnipresent in China during his rule.

Mao Zedong, a pivotal figure in the Chinese Revolution, led the Communist Party to victory in 1949. His ideology, Maoism, diverged from traditional Marxism-Leninism by emphasizing peasant-led revolutions over worker-driven ones.

Mao’s rule was marked by widespread veneration, with his image and words treated as near-sacred. Pavlou and others argue that Carr’s pin, intentionally or not, mirrors this type of idolization.

As the FCC’s chair, Carr oversees the regulation of communications across radio, television, internet, satellite, and cable in the United States.

His decision to wear the pin has raised questions about the intersection of personal political expression and public office. Supporters of Carr dismiss the controversy, arguing the pin is merely a show of political allegiance, not an endorsement of authoritarianism.

They point out that political memorabilia, including pins, is common in the U.S. and does not inherently signal a cult-like devotion.

The debate has also touched on broader concerns about political symbolism in the Trump era.

Critics argue that such imagery risks normalizing excessive loyalty to a single figure, while Trump’s defenders see the backlash as an overreaction driven by political opponents. The controversy continues to unfold online, with social media platforms amplifying both sides of the argument.