Alligator Alcatraz...

'Elon and Trump will reconcile'

'Planned Parenthood should look in the mirror'

Multiple interviews with with senior Biden administration officials have been scheduled

President Donald Trump toured a new detention center for illegal aliens referred to as “Alligator Alcatraz” in the Florida Everglades on Tuesday.   “I mean, you don’t always have land so beautiful and so secure,” Trump said of the location of the detention facility after stepping off Air Force One in Florida.   “They have a lot of bodyguards and a lot of cops that are the form of alligators. You don’t have to pay them so much,” Trump said with a smile. “But I wouldn’t want to run through the Everglades for long. We’ll keep people where they’re supposed to be.”  President Trump has arrived in Florida to tour Alligator Alcatraz. "We have a lot of bodyguards and a lot of cops that are in the form of alligators – you don't have to pay them so much." pic.twitter.com/hvD7GlYIQO— Virginia Allen (@Virginia_Allen5) July 1, 2025 “It might be as good as the real Alcatraz,” Trump said of the facility, referring to long-closed prison in San Francisco Bay. The detention center currently can hold 3,000 illegal aliens, but Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who accompanied the president on his tour, said the goal is to quickly process the illegal aliens through the facility. Florida’s primary National Guard facility, six hours north of the Everglades, will hold 2,000 additional detained illegal aliens.  “We’re offering up our National Guard and other folks in Florida to be deputized to be immigration judges,” DeSantis said. Once approved by the Department of Justice, “I’ll have a National Guard judge advocate here,” he added.   “Someone has a notice to appear, [President Joe Biden] would tell them to come back in three years and appear” for a hearing, DeSantis said. “Now, you’ll be able to appear in, like, a day or two, so they’re not going to be detained, hopefully, for all that long” before being deported. DeSantis also pushed back on claims that the facility poses an environmental threat to the Everglades, explaining that the facility has been set up on a concrete runway and taxiway at an airport that was built years ago.   “I don’t think those are valid and even good-faith criticisms, because it’s not going to impact the Everglades at all,” DeSantis said of the detention facility.   Kevin Guthrie, executive director of the Florida Division of Emergency Management, said the “fully compliant detention facility … includes over 158,000 square feet of housing. It is a fully aluminum frame structure rated for winds of 110 miles an hour,” Guthrie said, in reference to Florida’s upcoming hurricane season. The facility also boasts backup generators, air conditioning, capability to provide detainees with three hot meals a day, a medical facility, indoor and outdoor recreation areas, clergy services, and space for up to 1,000 facility staffers, according to Guthrie.   The detention facility has also been outfitted with more than 200 security cameras, 28,000 feet of barbed wire, and more than 400 security personnel.   “This facility here is a fantastic representation of what can happen when all of government works together, and when it’s accountable to the taxpayers and to the citizens that live here,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said, seated beside the president at a press conference after the tour.   Noem thanked DeSantis for working with the Trump administration to advance the president’s immigration agenda, and said she hopes her “phone rings off the hook from governors calling and saying, ‘How can we do what Florida just did?’”   The president also said he hope other states follow Florida’s example and similar facilities are opened across the country.   President Trump says he'd like to see MORE detention facilities like the new "Alligator Alcatraz" open up across the country ?"It's a little controversial, but I couldn't care less." pic.twitter.com/mmzDkTjE0S— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) July 1, 2025 It has been estimated that more than 10 million illegal aliens entered the U.S. during the Biden administration, leading to Trump making border and immigration issues a pillar first of his campaign, and now his administration.   “In five months, my administration has already arrested over 2,700 members of the murderous Venezuelan gang known as Tren de Aragua, including a pack of these sadistic animals arrested last month with over 280 guns,” Trump told reporters.   During Trump’s press conference at “Alligator Alcatraz,” the Senate passed the “Big, Beautiful Bill” that includes much of Trump’s agenda, including additional resources to secure the southern border and prevent illegal immigration.   “It shows that I care about you, because I’m here, and I probably should be there, but we do care,” Trump said when he learned the Senate had passed the bill, sending the amended version back to the House for a vote.   WATCH: Moment President Trump Learns Big Beautiful Bill Passed Senate, Dismisses Claims that Over 11 Million People Will Lose Medicaid “I think it will be easier in the House than it was in the Senate.” pic.twitter.com/0XXF0DGEUb— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) July 1, 2025 “The One Big, Beautiful Bill includes funding for 3,000 new Border Patrol officers and 10,000 new [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents,” the president said.   The House is operating under a tight deadline to pass the final version of the bill. Trump has said he would like to sign the legislation on Independence Day, July 4.   The Everglades are a popular tourist attraction in Florida. Whether the boats will be allowed anywhere near “Alligator Alcatraz” is not immediately clear. (Peter Parisi/Daily Signal) The post Trump Tours Florida’s New Illegal-Alien ‘Alcatraz,’ Where Guards Take ‘Form of Alligators’   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Imagine judging a trial, ruling for one party and writing a 179-page opinion, only to find the same parties asking you to vacate your opinion and dismiss the case six months later! That’s exactly what has happened to the federal district court judge who presided over trial in the Students for Fair Admissions versus the United States Naval Academy case last year.    How We Got Here  In June 2023, the Supreme Court held that public and private colleges and universities could not use racial preferences in admissions because that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, noted in a footnote that since the military service academies were not parties to the lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, the opinion was not applicable to them “in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”    In the fall of 2023, Students for Fair Admissions sued the Naval Academy in federal court alleging that the consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions at the academy violates the Constitution. To establish standing, Students for Fair Admissions represented Member D (a pseudonym), a white applicant who was otherwise qualified, but was denied admission to the Naval Academy .    The Trial  In December 2024, after a nine-day bench trial in federal district court in Baltimore a few months earlier, Judge Richard D. Bennett ruled in favor of the Naval Academy, holding that the service academy could continue to use race in its admissions process as it was narrowly tailored to achieve what the Biden administration claimed was a compelling national security interest, namely “diversity.”    Bennett dedicated several pages of his opinion to the concept of judicial deference to the legislative and executive branches in military matters. The Supreme Court, according to Bennett, has treated the military “separate and apart from civilian institutions in at least three areas: (1) constitutional challenges; (2) military personnel policies; and (3) military justice.”    Bennet got one thing correct: “military judgment is set by the President of the United States and not the federal judiciary.”   One of us (Stimson) covered the trial in a three-part series, found here, here, and here. The thrust of the government’s argument centered on the wholly unsupported opinion of military leaders, some of whom testified as expert witnesses for the government, that a diverse military force is imperative to national security.    Under cross-examination, none of those witnesses were able to point to any peer-reviewed studies to prove their point, nor were they able to show that diverse units were more effective, efficient, or lethal than other units.    Worse than that, a key government expert witness reluctantly admitted under cross-examination that the federal government itself, and DOD in particular, had failed to implement the recommendations from a 2011 congressionally-mandated diversity commission that would have vastly increased the number of qualified minority applicants to the service academies, without the need to resort to using racial preferences (as we wrote here).   But those inconvenient facts seemingly didn’t matter to the judge.    The odd part of the entire trial was the fact that the service academies only provide about 18% of the officers across the services. Fully 82% of officers in the U.S. armed forces graduate from colleges other than the service academies, and those colleges and universities are prohibited from using race in admissions because of the Supreme Court’s decision in 2023.     At trial, lawyers for Students for Fair Admissions called several distinguished military officers as experts in their case-in-chief. One witness, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Dakota Woods, a Naval Academy graduate, was particularly impressive. He was a former employee of the renowned Dr. Andrew Marshall. Marshall was one of the most distinguished American defense and foreign policy experts in the last 100 years and head of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment—the think tank inside the Defense Department. Woods testified that not a single study existed showing a correlation between a diverse officer corps and lethality, retention, efficiency, or military readiness of our forces.    Woods (a former Heritage colleague) was right, and the government didn’t even try to rebut his testimony on cross-examination.     That too seemingly didn’t matter to the trial judge, who barely mentioned Woods’ testimony and didn’t even address the dearth of studies noted by Woods in his opinion.  Trump Takes Office  After President Donald Trump took office, he issued Executive Order 14185. Entitled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” the EO orders every element of our armed forces to “operate free from any preference based on race or sex.”    Shortly after EO 14185 was issued, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth issued a memorandum to the entire Department of Defense on Jan. 29, 2025, entitled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force.” In it, he emphasized that because DOD’s mission is “to win the Nation’s wars,” it is imperative to “have a lethal fighting force that rewards individual initiative, excellence, and hard work based on merit.”    Hegseth noted that a “foundational tenet of the DOD must be that the most qualified individuals are placed in positions of responsibility in accordance with merit-based, colorblind policies.” To that end, Hegseth found that diversity, equity and inclusion policies “are incompatible with the values of DOD.”  Hegseth followed up that DOD-wide memorandum with a military service-academy specific order on May 9 entitled “Certification of Merit-Based Military Service Academy Admissions.”    It directed the secretaries of the military departments to certify that for purposes of the 2026 military service academies’ admissions cycle, as well as all future admissions cycles, their respective admissions’ offices will not consider race, ethnicity, or sex during the selection process and that offers of admissions will be based “exclusively on merit.”    Failure to focus exclusively on merit, Hegseth said, “erodes lethality, our warfighting readiness, and undercuts the culture of readiness in our Armed Forces.”    The military judgment of Trump, and expanded upon by the secretary of defense, could not be clearer.    Erasing Bennett’s Decision   One would think that and order from Trump and Hegseth would settle the matter, and in one sense, it has. The military service academies must follow the lawful orders of the commander in chief and the secretary of defense. Hegseth’s order not to use race in admissions is a lawful order, so it must be followed. Failure to follow a lawful order is a criminal offense in the military.    But that’s only a short-term fix to the issue. That still leaves the existence of Bennett’s judgment and opinion in place for others to rely upon as settled law in the future.    So, earlier this month, after Member D was admitted to the Naval Academy, it filed a joint motion with Students for Fair Admissions to dismiss and the court’s judgment and opinion for two main reasons:  First, since Member D was admitted to the Naval Academy and planned to matriculate, the case was moot.     Second, since the military judgment of the Trump administration is that diversity is a not compelling national security interest and does not contribute to lethality, that calls into question the very deference Bennett relied upon to justify, in large part, his opinion.    The joint motion makes several representations, including:   The consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions at the Naval Academy does not promote cohesiveness, lethality, recruitment, retention, legitimacy, national security, or any other governmental interest.  Recruiting and promoting individuals based on merit alone, and not based on their immutable characteristics, improves unit cohesion and performance.  The recruitment, retention, and legitimacy of the U.S. military is not positively affected by the service academies’ consideration of race in admissions.  Merit-only admissions practices increase the legitimacy of the U.S. military.  Race-based admissions practices at the Naval Academy do not support any valid military interest.  The representations were chosen carefully, as they represented the mirror-opposite of the rationale in Bennett’s opinion.  On to West Point and the Air Force Academy  Assuming Bennett swallows his pride and follows the law, he should grant the joint motion to vacate his judgment and opinion and dismiss the case. Once he does so, his opinion cannot be cited or relied upon in the future.    However, Students for Fair Admissions has sued the United States Military Academy at West Point and the United States Air Force Academy to prohibit them from using race in admissions. They are not using race in admissions now given Hegseth’s order, but those lawsuits are still out there. We look forward to seeing what the Justice Department will do with those cases.     The post Students for Fair Admissions and Naval Academy File Motion to Vacate Opinion Allowing Academy to Use Race in Admissions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Antisemitic Harassment at a Public School in Seattle

On Monday, NBC News released a story which claimed that more than 14 million people will die in five years as a result of USAID cuts by the Trump administration. Suggesting Trump’s policies would lead to “88 deaths per hour,” NBC used poorly concluded research in order to fund their narrative of hate while explicitly omitting key facts of waste and abuse within USAID. NBC stopped at nothing to make the claim of “14 million deaths” fall solely on the Trump administration, even though a majority of cuts were deemed as waste, fraud, and abuse, with key lifesaving treatments being untouched or cut marginally. Not to mention, many other countries also offered aid to foreign countries.  The left leaning outlet, decided to throw out an eye gouging statistic that the cuts were “leading to 88 deaths per hour.” The website in which NBC pulled this statistic from reached many of their conclusions through this methodology: “Based on the budget for the 2024 financial year, USAID's nutrition program was allocated $168 million dollars [3]. It is estimated that the cost of treating a child for severe malnutrition, while varied by context, is between $100-$200 [4]. Assuming: a similar budget of $160 million dollars in 2025, that this budget is utilized for treatment of severe acute malnutrition in children and that on average treatment per child costs $150 (midpoint of range), approximately 1.12 million children with severe malnutrition would remain untreated as a result of USAID funding freeze and discontinuation in 2025. This would result in approximately 168,000 (112,000 – 224,000) annual deaths in children under 5.” This “research” took the average cost of feeding a malnutritioned child and incorporated it directly into the eight million dollar budget cut in order to reach the number of children with severe malnutrition who would remain untreated. This conclusion failed simple scientific research methods for several reasons. For one, it concluded that USAID, under 2024 funding, would stop every single one of these deaths without considering the influence of outside factors like treatment that still ended in death. Next, it assumed that USAID’s nutrition program was strictly allocated for significant malnutrition and neglected the fact that cuts could be towards waste within the appropriation of funds and not specifically for severe malnutrition. Lastly, it implied a static cost of $150 to feed a hungry child and neglected the ability of outside nations to meet their standards of treating severe malnutrition in areas where USAID was also present.  This “research” used the above methods to arrive at many conclusions in their work, NBC obviously did little to no digging, and instead just threw out the number because it made the Trump administration look bad.  Secretary of State Marco Rubio had made it clear that USAID viewed itself as serving the international humanitarian community and not the American people or taxpayers. As of July 1st, The Department of State has declared the disbanding of USAID and in turn, replaced it with a foreign funding mission that prioritizes national interests. Opting to sub out a “charity-based” model in favor of investment to actually allow these countries to sustainably grow.  Official statement from the Department of State on the issue: “We will do so by prioritizing trade over aid, opportunity over dependency, and investment over assistance. For Americans and many around the world, July 1st will mark the beginning of a new era of global partnership, peace, investment, and prosperity.” The House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast (R-FL) exposed to the public just some of the waste by USAID that NBC neglected to include after mentioning the 83 percent of cuts to USAID. The USAID had been sending “$3,315,446 for LGBTQ in the Caribbean,” “$1.5 million to promote job opportunities for LGBTQ in Serbia,” and “$425,622 to help Indonesian coffee companies become more climate and gender friendly,” just to name a few.  The USAID had burned through $715 billion in inflation-adjusted spending using American tax dollars over the decades. Significant evidence of NGOs pocketing money meant for the people in these foreign countries was found. One USAID official and three corporate executives pleaded guilty earlier in June for a decade-long bribery scheme that involved over $550 million in U.S. taxpayer contracts. 

Since late January of 2012, the Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard has once a week featured a “Mainstream Media Scream” selection in his “Washington Secrets” column. For each pick, usually posted online on Monday, I provide an explanation and recommend a “scream” rating (scale of one to five). This post contains the “Liberal Media Screams” starting in January 2025. > For 2023 and 2024, for 2021 and 2022, for 2020. For 2019. For 2018. (Re-named “Liberal Media Scream” as of June 11, 2018.) “Mainstream Media Screams” for: > July-December 2017 posts; January through June 2017; July to December 2016; for January to June 2016; for July to December 2015; for January to June 2015. (2012-2014 are featured on MRC.org: For 2014; for June 17, 2013 through the end of 2013. And for January 31, 2012 through June 11, 2013.) Check Bedard’s “Washington Secrets” blog for the latest choice and his other Washington insider posts. Each week, this page will be updated with Bedard’s latest example of the worst bias of the week. (For more of the worst liberal media bias, browse the Media Research Center's Notable Quotables with compilations of the latest outrageous, sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.) ■ New on June 30, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS embraces socialist Mamdani, calls GOP criticism ‘hateful’ See the posting on the Washington Examiner's site where you can watch the video and read Baker's assessment. A week later, Bedard's article will be posted here.   ■ June 23, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Feckless Margaret Brennan thinks she’s secretary of state (Washington Examiner post) If the Sunday performance of CBS Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan were in a Looney Tunes cartoon, Bugs Bunny would have mocked, “da nerve!” Instead, and much better, Secretary of State Marco Rubio brushed aside her grade school “yes it is, no it’s not” debate over military intelligence and belief that she knows more about it than President Donald Trump’s top national security adviser. “You don’t know what you’re talking about,” Rubio said in an appearance to discuss Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities over the weekend. After Brennan continued to say she knows more about whether Iran planned to make nuclear weapons or not, Rubio gave his best “da nerve” look and told her, “That’s not how intelligence is read. That’s not how intelligence is used. Here’s what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program.” From Sunday’s Face the Nation on CBS: MARGARET BRENNAN: Let me follow up on a phrase you just used — weaponization ambitions. Are you saying that the United States did not see intelligence that the supreme leader had ordered weaponization? SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: That’s irrelevant. I see that question being asked in the media all the time. That’s an irrelevant question. They have everything they need to build a weapon. BRENNAN: No, but that is the key point in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that. RUBIO: No, it’s not. BRENNAN: Yes, it was. RUBIO: No, it’s not. BRENNAN: That the political decision had not been made. RUBIO: No, I know — well, I know that better than you know that. And I know that that’s not the case. BRENNAN: But I’m asking you whether the order was given. RUBIO: You don’t know what you’re talking about. And the people who say that — it doesn’t matter if the order was given. They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury — why would you bury things in a mountain 300 feet under the ground? BRENNAN: Right. RUBIO: Why would you bury six … why do they have 60% enriched uranium? You don’t need 60% enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60% are countries that have nuclear weapons, because they can quickly make it 90. They have all the elements. They have … why are they … why do they have a space program? Is Iran going to go to the moon? No. They’re trying to build an ICBM, so they can one day put a warhead on it. BRENNAN: No, but that’s a question … that’s a question … that’s a question of intent. And you know, in the intelligence assessment, that it was that Iran wanted to be a threshold state and use this leverage. RUBIO: How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? How do you know what the intelligence assessment says? BRENNAN: I’m talking about the public March assessment. And that’s why I was asking you if you know something more from March, if an order was given. RUBIO: Well, that — but that’s also an inaccurate representation of it. That’s an inaccurate representation of it. That’s not how intelligence is read. That’s not how intelligence is used. Here’s what the whole world knows. Forget about intelligence, what the IAEA knows. They are enriching uranium well beyond anything you need for a civil nuclear program. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Refreshing to see a guest take on the liberal premises forwarded as facts by legacy media hosts. This wasn’t the first time this year that Brennan has been schooled by a Trump administration official. Maybe she should consider being more of a dispassionate interviewer and less of an advocate for the left-wing spin of the day.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE screams.   ■ June 16, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS sees Trump ‘suspending elections’ (Washington Examiner post) It’s hard to imagine that PBS could get any more anti-Trump, but after House Republicans voted to endorse President Donald Trump’s bid to defund public broadcasting, all of its “Trump derangement syndrome” sirens have gone off. For our weekly Liberal Media Scream, we feature its most extreme claim from lefty News Hour commentator Jonathan Capehart that the president is on a power grab that will have him “suspending elections.” On Friday’s PBS News Hour, Capehart suggested that Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to California to protect federal buildings against anti-ICE demonstrators, as well as “rumors” of a pardon for the police officer convicted of the murder of George Floyd, is part of a plan to “create the conditions that would allow the president to invoke the Insurrection Act.” Tying the Army birthday parade Saturday with the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, Capehart said, “We are at a turning point, I think, this weekend with what we have seen in the run-up to tomorrow’s parade, with what’s happening in Los Angeles. More people’s hair should be on fire, not just because of the National Guard troops in Los Angeles without the — working with or permission from the governor, which is by law what should have been done, but the calling up of Marines, U.S. military, on American streets.” “That is a line that, to me, anyway, is one that should never have been crossed. And the president putting out this order and putting out this order that isn’t specific to Los Angeles, isn’t specific to any city. It’s so broad. The language is so broad that it’s sort of like you could just tuck it into like a giant L.L. Bean tote bag, and you just pull out: Where do I need to send troops?” Jonathan Capehart on Friday’s PBS News Hour: I think they’re creating the political conflict because, you know, I interviewed Minnesota State Attorney General Keith Ellison in the run-up to the anniversary, the fifth anniversary of the murder of George Floyd. And he brought up on his own the rumor that the president was going to pardon Derek Chauvin. And the attorney general said that the president might do that as a distraction to larger goals. And one of the larger goals that the attorney general mentioned that has always been in the back of my mind is to create the conditions that would allow the president to invoke the Insurrection Act. And once the president invokes the Insurrection Act, all sorts of powers are handed to the president, you know, suspending elections, and other things once you open that box, and particularly you open that box with this president and the administration and the yes-people he has around him, there’s no going back. That is among the reasons why I am so concerned about what we’re about to see tomorrow. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Tinfoil hat time. And PBS supporters act befuddled as to why conservatives see PBS as the home of left-wing crazy talk, leading the House last week to approve President Trump’s rescission package to end taxpayer funding of PBS and NPR. Capehart’s wild speculation passes for informed analysis on PBS’s top ‘news’ program.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ June 9, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Pompous Pelley warns America ‘is doomed’ (Washington Examiner post) Just when we thought CBS’s Scott Pelley couldn’t get any more pompous, he proved us wrong — again. This time it was in decrying America under President Donald Trump, declaring that only journalism can save the nation, and warning that “If you fall silent, the country is doomed.” Seeing parallels between Sen. Eugene McCarthy in the 1950s and Trump today, while speaking after CNN showed George Clooney’s play about legendary newsman Edward R. Morrow, Pelley said, “You cannot have democracy without journalism. It can’t be done.” Pelley has used his 60 Minutes perch to air his liberal bias and editorialize against Trump. Murrow played an outsize role in ending McCarthy’s career. From CNN’s special coverage Saturday night, Good Night, and Good Luck Live: Truth and Power, after the live airing from Broadway of the stage play, Good Night, and Good Luck: ANDERSON COOPER: Do you still believe in journalism? Do you still believe in the role of journalists? SCOTT PELLEY: It is the only thing that’s going to save the country. You cannot have democracy without journalism. It can’t be done. The people at home need reliable, consistent information in order to make decisions about their lives and their futures, and the country’s future. So, there is no system of democracy without journalism. We have to figure out how to keep journalism free, independent, accurate, and responsible for what it’s doing. But journalism is the only profession that is protected by the Constitution of the United States. And there’s a reason for that. James Madison believed that freedom of speech was the right that guaranteed all the other rights in the Bill of Rights. And so it is today. COOPER: What is your message to people about, who have just watched this, and are worried? PELLEY: It’s going to take courage, as it often has, to get through this period of American history. Our forebears were called by their times to have courage to move the country forward. And so it is with us today. The most important thing is to have the courage to speak, to not let fear permeate the country so that everyone suddenly becomes silent. If you have the courage to speak, we are saved. If you fall silent, the country is doomed. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Could Pelley be any more pompous? If he, CBS News, and the rest of the legacy media had ever lived up to his promise of providing ‘independent, accurate and responsible’ news, they wouldn’t be held in such disdain by so much of the public who see them as left-wing political players. And that’s a reality he confirmed by advocating everyone get in line and join him in having the ‘courage’ to oppose the policies of the man who earned the most votes in the last election.” Rating: FIVE out of FIVE screams.   ■ June 2, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Stephanopoulos tries to top Pelley with his Trump hate (Washington Examiner post) Have you noticed how the liberal Sunday news show hosts have been tripping over themselves to find some, any angle to attack President Donald Trump and his team? The latest to join the parade is George Stephanopoulos, the ABC big shot and former Bill Clinton spinner-in-chief, who on Sunday tried to one-up the recent string of anti-Trump editorials from Scott Pelley on 60 Minutes. On ABC’s This Week, Stephanopoulos opened with this: “Good morning and welcome to This Week. The scale is staggering. President Trump and his family are making hundreds of millions, potentially billions of dollars, as Trump and his administration take official actions that benefit contributors and investors.” The attack was par for the course for the Clinton family defender, who was unfazed that the Clinton Foundation profited from foreign governments when Hillary Rodham Clinton was secretary of state or that the Biden family enterprise cashed in on Joe Biden’s vice presidency and presidency. And it followed a pattern of attacking Trump at any cost, a dangerous practice that recently prompted ABC and Stephanopoulos to issue an apology and pay a Trump-related foundation $15 million to scuttle a defamation lawsuit. For his hypocrisy, Stephanopoulos’s rant is our Liberal Media Scream of the week. Stephanopoulos on Sunday’s This Week on ABC, with the quoted text displayed on screen: “Good morning and welcome to This Week. The scale is staggering. President Trump and his family are making hundreds of millions, potentially billions of dollars, as Trump and his administration take official actions that benefit contributors and investors. Just this week, we learned of pardons to tax cheats, including a man whose pardon was granted weeks after his mother attended a million-dollar-a-head fundraiser with the president. The Trump Media and Technology Group raised nearly $2.5 billion from 50 institutional investors whose identities have not been disclosed. The SEC dropped its lawsuit against the cryptocurrency firm Binance days after Binance began listing the cryptocurrency launched by World Liberty Financial, the crypto firm started by Trump’s family. “This unprecedented money-making by a sitting president and his family summarized by critics like the Atlantic’s David Frum. ‘Nothing like this has been attempted or even imagined in the history of the American presidency,’ he writes. ‘Throw away the history books, discard feeble comparisons to scandals of the past. There is no analogy with any previous action by any past president. The brazenness of the self-enrichment resembles nothing seen in any earlier White House. This is American corruption on the scale of a post-Soviet republic or a post-colonial African dictatorship.’” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: You’d think someone like Stephanopoulos, who forced Disney/ABC to pay $15 million to Trump’s future presidential museum for a false statement impugning President Trump, would be more reluctant to display such rank hypocrisy in becoming so overwrought about charges of corruption against Trump. Especially when he showed no similar concern over how the Biden family profited off of lucrative secretive deals fueled by President Biden’s high offices.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ May 27, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: MSNBC calls Trump ‘dictator’ to bow before (Washington Examiner post) As if MSNBC can’t get any more ridiculous, a regular guest proved it could when previewing President Donald Trump‘s solemn Memorial Day events by calling him a dictator whom all must bow before. In comments condemning more than half of the voters who support Trump, Dean Obeidallah, host of The Dean Obeidallah Show on SiriusXM, told the MSNBC audience, “This really is a push and pull between two competing visions of America. One that we believe in is freedom, the United States of America with due process, and their vision, which is an autocracy, and that really — what we’re dealing with, or easier than that, a dictatorship. They want Trump as the dictator of the United States, and we all have to bow down to him.” Obeidallah’s rant won this week’s Mainstream Media Scream, but it was a close call, with hard-left CBS 60 Minutes anchor Scott Pelley and his liberal colleague, Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan, in full Trump derangement syndrome. Pelley made headlines for his over-the-top Trump hate commencement at Wake Forest, and Brennan for her uneducated attack on the House Republican “big, beautiful bill.” Dean Obeidallah, during the noon hour on Saturday of Velshi on MSNBC: I think the fact that it’s Memorial Day weekend gives us a moment to pause. People made the ultimate sacrifice. They did it for something that you mentioned in your — in your monologue there. And that word is “freedom.” And I’m writing an article right now. I was looking back at the very first speech in the modern day Memorial Day, which was Rep. James Garfield before he was president, 1868 Arlington, to Joe Biden’s. I looked at all different presidential speeches and the one word that came up in all those speeches: “freedom.” And that’s what people — that’s what makes us Americans. And Donald Trump is going after everything, freedom of speech, in ways we’ve never seen. I mean, a judge just ruled on Friday protecting the law firms, saying you’re going after dissent, going after universities. I had professor Steven Levitsky on my show, co-author of How Democracies Die, saying every autocrat goes after universities because they are independent centers of dissent. People think he’s going after media outlets. He’s going after Democrats. They’re arresting judges. The mayor of Newark, they dropped the charges. They had no case. Then a Democratic member of Congress, they opened up investigations into ActBlue because it’s a platform to help Democrats raise money. Now, an investigation into Media Matters, Angelo Carusone’s, the FTC is beginning an investigation. This is a reenvisioning of what America is about. And I think you summed it up so well. This really is a push and pull between two competing visions of America. One that we believe in is freedom. The United States of America with due process, and their vision, which is an autocracy, and that really — what we’re dealing with, or easier than that, a dictatorship. They want Trump as the dictator of the United States, and we all have to bow down to him. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “There’s no holiday weekend break on MSNBC from the anti-Trump hostility, not even for a solemn occasion which Obeidallah used as a hook to launch his rant against Trump as anti-freedom of speech. Quite ironic given the support by so many on MSNBC for canceling and silencing conservative voices who dared question woke edicts.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ May 19, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Katie Couric calls news objectivity ‘old fashioned’ (Washington Examiner post) She was once the queen of TV news, and as the co-host of NBC’s Today show and anchor of CBS Evening News, Katie Couric struggled with basic news objectivity. And now we know why: She doesn’t believe there is such a thing. “I think there’s no such thing as true objectivity,” she said on her “Next Question” podcast last week. What’s more, the 68-year-old newswoman apparently thinks it’s just something old people “75 and up” mutter about while watching evening news. That, and her slam on conservatives for calling out bias in liberal media “fact-checking,” make Couric our Liberal Media Scream of the Week. Couric, to her guests, the three brothers who created the liberal MeidasTouch podcast, on Thursday’s edition of her “Next Question with Katie Couric” podcast posted to YouTube: “I’m curious, because I’ve struggled with this as someone who you grew up watching, I’m sure, and started in very traditional mainstream media. Now, pointing out the facts and what is really happening is automatically interpreted as being biased, right?“ “And, and of course, I think there’s no such thing as true objectivity, but having said that, you know, I really struggle with that. And many people say, ‘Listen, the rules have changed.’ It’s OK to say you support trans people. It’s OK that you say I am 100% for reproductive rights, you know, all these things that honestly, personally, I hold dear, but professionally, I’ve never really, I’ve been trained to not share that.“ “So I’m curious if you think sort of old-fashioned, semi-objective — knowing that pure objectivity is impossible — that kind of journalism still has a place in the culture, or is it simply, you know, the 75 and up people who are watching the network evening newscasts?” Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Couric demonstrated why legacy media figures have refused to address their obvious and overwhelming hostility to conservatives for decades and President Trump in recent years: They are condescending elitists who presume their liberal view of the world reflect ‘the facts’ and so, anyone who questions that presentation of ‘the facts,’ are knowingly making a baseless charge of bias and thus can be dismissed as ignorant cranks.” Rating: THREE out of FIVE screams.   ■ May 12, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: ABC prays Pope Leo XIV will ‘counter’ Trump (Washington Examiner post) Reporters have rarely been fans of faith in politics, and often decry the Republican Party’s cozy relationship with religious Americans, such as evangelical Christians. But give them a pope willing to criticize President Donald Trump, well, that’s a different story. Now that Pope Leo XIV has replaced Trump critic Pope Francis, there is an eagerness to find out if the Chicago native will also challenge Trump on key matters, including immigration. ABC News anchor Martha Raddatz, our pick for the Liberal Media Scream of the week, led that prayer group last week. Raddatz used her hosting duties in Rome for This Week as a platform to ask her guests how Leo will challenge the president. “Will he be a counterbalance for what’s happening in American politics right now in President Trump?” she asked the archbishop of Chicago. Later, she told Father James Martin, an ABC News papal contributor, that “Pope Francis indirectly rebuked President Trump’s policies, especially on immigration” and Leo, “before he was pope, he retweeted some things about immigration and saying, you know, retweeting that he supported the Dreamers, things like that. Do you think that will be an incredibly strong message for him?” Raddatz also asked ABC News reporter Terry Moran, “Do you think he will serve, in some ways, as a counter to President Trump [on immigration policies]?” Moran took the bait, saying Leo “will be a voice for the teachings of Jesus, which in many ways, many Catholics believe are not consistent with some of the president’s policies.” From ABC’s This Week on Sunday: MARTHA RADDATZ, TO CARDINAL BLASE CUPICH, ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO: Pope Francis cared so much about the poor and migrants. Pope Leo does as well. In some ways, will he be a counterbalance for what’s happening in American politics right now in President Trump? ….. RADDATZ, TO FATHER JAMES MARTIN: Pope Francis indirectly rebuked President Trump’s policies, especially on immigration. And Pope Leo, before he was pope, he retweeted some things about immigration and saying, you know, retweeting that he supported the Dreamers, things like that. Do you think that will be an incredibly strong message for him? I mean, he has been, he does have the “odor of sheep,” as you say? …..RADDATZ: And Terry [Moran] and Liz [Nagy], do you think he will serve, in some ways, as a counter to President Trump on those policies? TERRY MORAN: Reluctantly, right? They are the two most famous Americans in the world right now. And arguably, Pope Leo might be even more famous than President Trump, and whether the pope wants it or not, because I think he wants to preach the Gospel and do the good work of the church. They have different approaches naturally in some ways, and I think that is going to come out. He will be a voice for the teachings of Jesus, which, in many ways, many Catholics believe are not consistent with some of the president’s policies. That will happen. I don’t think he’s going to go look for a fight, but it will happen. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Raddatz couldn’t resist injecting her American politics into papal coverage, trying to transform the new pope into a force for resistance to President Trump. She was so obsessed with her agenda that she prodded three guests, at different points in the show, to endorse her premise, finally getting some guarded agreement from the third, a fellow ABC News journalist.” Rating: FOUR out of FIVE screams.   ■ May 5, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: ‘Pompous’ media on public TV’s dole rip Trump cuts (Washington Examiner post) There is nothing more self-serving than media figures on public TV’s payroll ripping President Donald Trump’s call to end taxpayer funding of National Public Radio and television’s Public Broadcasting System. But that is exactly what happened over the weekend, making it our Liberal Media Scream of the week. First there was NPR President Katherine Maher telling Face the Nation that it’s Trump’s fault if coverage comes off too liberal. “NPR people report straight down the line,” she said. “We’ve been making requests of the Trump administration to have their officials on air. We would like to see more people accept those invitations. It’s hard for us to be able to say we can speak for everyone when folks won’t join us.” Documentary filmmaker and PBS producer Ken Burns got his punches in while appearing Friday on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360. “I think PBS is part of the pursuit of happiness machine,” he said, adding, “This is who we are. It puts the ‘us’ in the U.S.” And leave it to PBS News Hour regular Jonathan Capehart to prove true Trump’s complaints about bias on the network when he said, “There is only one profession that is protected in the Constitution, and it is the free press. It is the press.” Jonathan Capehart on Friday’s PBS News Hour: I think what the president is doing, it is a fundamental attack on our Constitution, on the foundation of this country. People need to understand and remember, there is only one profession that is protected in the Constitution, and it is the free press. It is the press. And why? Because the founders understood that the survival of a democracy depends on an informed citizenry. And the citizenry can only be informed by a press that can report and do — report on affairs of the republic free and unfettered. And whether they are, come from the left or from the right, the government should not interfere with that reporting. And so, when you have a president of the United States who is making it his mission to attack the free press, we should all be concerned, whether we are at PBS or whether we are at MSNBC, because he’s focused on us too. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Could Capehart be any more pompous? He and others, who claim PBS and NPR are neutral news providers serving a grandiose noble purpose the nation cannot survive without, are dissembling. Anyone who watches or listens to PBS and/or NPR knows their far-left skew and that Capehart etc. are just upset Trump has dared to try to take away their taxpayer subsidies.” Rating: FIVE out of five screams.   ■ April 28: No Liberal Media Scream this week   ■ April 21, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Chris Matthews returns more unhinged than ever (Washington Examiner post) As if we need more Trump-hating media, an old favorite of the Liberal Media Scream team has returned to the Trump derangement syndrome stage to add his voice to those challenging President Donald Trump. After about five years on the sidelines, former Hardball host Chris Matthews is reviving his show on Substack. He proved that he’s lost a step or two in his debut Monday and during a promotion on Jim Acosta’s Substack last Friday. Weeks after others tried to portray Trump as America’s homegrown Adolf Hitler, Matthews rolled out the tired analogy again, this time suggesting that the president will round up his critics and ship them to death camps. “I got a nasty one for you,” he told Acosta. “What did Hitler do in the Holocaust? He took people from Germany to other countries where there was no German law. There was not even a pretense of German law. They took them to Poland or Hungary or wherever, and they killed them.” Then, on his channel on Monday, Matthews opened with another Hitler reference. He said, “I want to ask you about something I said last week: that the fact that Trump is willing to say American citizens should be allowed to be sent overseas for punishment does something that rhymes very much with what happened in the Holocaust. That Germany was able to take people in France, Jewish people, and deport them to the east, and even the word deport was similar. So why would Trump personally say I’m going to take regular American citizens and deport them? It sounds like he wants to be seen as an autocrat.” From Jim Acosta’s video show Friday for Substack: JIM ACOSTA: One thing that every taxi driver will talk about these days is Donald Trump. And I have to ask you some newsy questions before we spend the entire time together reminiscing. CHRIS MATTHEWS: I got a nasty one for you. ACOSTA: Okay, well, good, I’m just wondering, I mean—” MATTHEWS: What did Hitler do? What did Hitler do in the Holocaust? He took people from Germany to other countries. ACOSTA: Yeah. MATTHEWS: Where there was no German law. There was not even a pretense of German law. They took them to Poland or Hungary or wherever, and they killed them. ACOSTA: And so when you see what’s happening right now with this Salvadoran gulag, I mean, this CECOT gulag, he’s basically taking a page out of that playbook, you think? MATTHEWS: Well, it gets them out of the country. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Just when you thought it was safe to go to Substack, they give shows to Jim Acosta and Chris Matthews. As if there weren’t enough Trump-hating journalists with a platform. In this case, Matthews has taken TDS to a whole new level. There are rational arguments one could cite for disagreeing with sending illegal alien criminals to a foreign prison, but to equate that policy with a mass-murdering dictator who implemented genocide against a whole religion is inane.” Rating: FIVE out of five screams.   ■ April 14, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Media eat their own and rip Bill Maher for dining with Trump (Washington Examiner post) It’s hard to believe that our weekly Liberal Media Scream has been documenting the Washington press corps’ Trump Derangement Syndrome for about nine years and that we can find some new hypocrisy every single Monday to highlight. But thanks to the eagle eye of our partner Brent Baker, the vice president of the Media Research Center, we have one of the first examples of the liberal media trying to keep wandering members of the tribe in line. It happened Friday night after HBO talk show host and political comic Bill Maher described his recent dinner in the White House with President Donald Trump. Maher said it was a successful effort to break bread instead of just hurling insults at each other. But some in the media weren’t happy that the two met. Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin, on Maher’s show, accused his host of falling into Trump’s “trap.” He scolded, “For him, this was a PR stunt, and in his view, you were a prop in that PR stunt.” From Friday’s Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO: JOSH ROGIN, WASHINGTON POST: Counterpoint? You know, Bill, I think you’re right in saying that people make too much of this. OK, it’s not the Yalta Summit, you’re not Churchill, Kid Rock is not Stalin, Trump, sure as s***, isn’t FDR, OK? So yes, I believe too much has been made about this, but I think you’ve fallen into the trap. I think I represent 99% of the internet when I say this, is that you have played the game of proximity is principle, and what people are worried about — it’s not your motivation, we believe you, we love you, everybody loves Bill, right? So, I’m not questioning your motivation, I’m questioning Trump’s, OK? And if we can say that you went there in good faith, but maybe, just maybe he wasn’t there in good faith. I mean, you sold him on the Iran deal, and he took it in — I mean, give me a break, OK? So, the idea here is that your motivation is sound, but what’s the impact? And I think a lot of people out there, fans of yours, people who love you, people who are fans of you, like me, been fans of yours my whole life. BILL MAHER: You don’t have to patronize me, dude — ROGIN: OK. Fair enough. MAHER: I don’t know you, I never met you, not everybody has to like it. ROGIN: I’m just saying that this comes from a place of love. All I’m saying — MAHER: That’s what we said, there are people who didn’t want it to happen at all, you sound like one of them. It’s OK. ROGIN: No, no. MAHER: Did you hear what I said? ROGIN: Yeah. MAHER: What is the alternative to not talking? Just sitting at your lunch table and don’t talk to anybody? ROGIN: I’ve talked to him, I’ve interviewed Trump. Piers has interviewed Trump. MAHER: This was not an interview. This was not an interview. ROGIN: I agree with the principle of engagement. I’m just saying from his perspective, you have to understand, that people who out there know, all Americans know, that for him, this was a PR stunt, and in his view, you were a prop in that PR stunt. MAHER: The fact that you began your little rant with the internet — that tells me everything. You take your cues from the internet. Good luck! The internet is a cesspool that just wants to fight. ROGIN: I support what you’re trying to do. I’m just saying the expectation that Donald Trump is going to be changed by something — MAHER: I said in the piece I did not think that was going to happen. I love the people on either side who ignore the parts they don’t like. I just did it. It wasn’t like it was three weeks ago. Watch it again, maybe you’ll find something new in it. ROGIN: It’s not a judgment, but it’s a little bit of a judgment. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Josh Rogin displayed the reflexive attitude common in the Washington press corps that anyone who does anything which might ‘normalize’ President Donald Trump must be discredited. Bill Maher did a great job, however, of discrediting Rogin’s weak arguments.” Rating: FOUR out of five screams.   ■ April 7, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: CNN cheers X-rated comic dumped by press corps (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream puts the spotlight on CNN and its hosting of a left-wing comic so biased and X-rated that she was dumped from performing at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner. CNN’s new show, Have I Got News For You, put the spotlight on one of its “captains,” Amber Ruffin, who reiterated the hatred of President Donald Trump that got her kicked out of the dinner. After her firing came up on the show, Ruffin added to her reasons why she hates the president and his team, claiming that they are “disappearing people to a prison in El Salvador.” She said, “I lost the gig because I was out here talking s***.” From Saturday’s airing of Have I Got News For You on CNN: HOST ROY WOOD JR: Amber offended the White House, as well as members of the White House Correspondents Association. Amber, following the tradition of Craig from Friday, was fired on her day off as she was uninvited from the White House Correspondents dinner when she said that she intended to make fun of the current administration. Amber, do you think you lost the gig because you said too early what you were going to do about going in on Republicans? AMBER RUFFIN: I mean, oh, my god, I could f***ing talk for the next three hours. But what I choose to say is it’s like I lost the gig because I was out here talking s***, and I think it’s a good thing that I lost the gig because I was going to show up there and act all the way out. Also, like, also, it’s not anyone’s fault because when I was hired, we were like, oh yeah, and we’ll give it to everybody. And I was like, beh. Then they started f***ing disappearing people to a prison in El Salvador. They rolled back f***ing civil rights. So I was like, if I make this equal, then I’m also a piece of s***. I can’t f***ing do that. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Ruffin demonstrated why she is totally inappropriate to provide comedic commentary about the political scene. She’s filled with vitriol and hate toward the man who the nation chose as its president. But she found her audience on CNN where she was cheered and applauded for her crude invective. A sad commentary on the state of CNN.” Rating: FIVE out of five screams   ■ March 31, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Trump has made Bob Woodward deranged (Washington Examiner post) President Donald Trump has done it. In just two short months, he has not only turned the liberal Washington Post into a TDS cesspool but made its most celebrated reporter nearly certifiable. How else can we explain Bob Woodward’s latest unhinged rant against Trump in which he claims that the billionaire businessman has a goal of ruining the economy? “Well, his end goal is it looks like he wants to destroy the economy,” said the 82-year-old reporter and author on a Washington Post podcast. For that, he wins this week’s Liberal Media Scream with five out of five screams. From the Post Reports podcast interview, recorded at Woodward’s home by Washington Post “national politics/democracy reporter” Colby Itkowitz, which was posted Friday night on YouTube: BOB WOODWARD: All these executive orders. I mean, he is, stood his ground and said this is what I’m going to do. I am shrinking. He and Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, his sidekick, are cutting the government, and look at what we are seeing. I mean, in some cases it’s done, as people have said with the chain saw, and we know from our personal lives or businesses that when you have to cut, that’s a really tricky undertaking, and you need to very carefully spell out what you’re gonna do and do it very slowly and be very certain that the impact is that they’re not secondary events that you trigger with — and look at what’s going on now. I think it’s one of the most dangerous times this country has ever faced. COLBY ITKOWITZ: What do you think Trump’s end goal is in all of this in the sledge-hammering the government tariff, putting tariffs on our allies like Canada, like what is the, what is his big end goal as president? WOODWARD: Well, his end goal is it looks like he wants to destroy the economy and that is a very dangerous undertaking. I mean, he states the motive is very positive, but look at what people are going through — having very negative impact. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “It’s one thing to contend that President Trump’s tariff policies are misguided and will harm the economy, but to charge that ‘he wants to destroy the economy’ is an attitude which reflects a particularly nefarious view of Trump. Does Woodward really think Trump is so awful that he has set out to intentionally ‘destroy’ the economy? That’s what he said and it fits with his very far-left perspective that reducing the size of government makes this ‘one of the most dangerous times this country has ever faced.’” Rating: FIVE out of five screams.   ■ March 24, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: All TDS on PBS as centrist calls Trump an ‘extortionist’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream provides the latest fodder for conservatives calling for an end to taxpayer support of public TV because of its anti-Right bias and disdain for President Donald Trump. In focus is the nightly PBS News Hour program that regularly features guests critical of Trump. For our example, it wasn’t the liberal on the show rapping Trump but the resident centrist, New York Times columnist David Brooks, who called the president an “extortionist” and “bully” for using his powers to get countries, companies, and people to do what he wants. “People call Trump a transactional politician, but he’s an extortionist. That’s actually a difference. There’s — a transaction is, we do a deal. Extortion is, I bully you until you give me what I want,” said Brooks. At issue was an earlier move by the White House to withdraw the security clearance of the Paul Weiss legal firm, which is close to Democrats. The firm agreed to do $40 million worth of pro bono work for causes favored by the White House to win back the clearance. From Friday’s PBS News Hour: HOST AMNA NAWAZ: We saw President Trump going after institutions, including Big Law, right, including universities, as you mentioned, where many of these guys went to school. And this week, we saw two big institutions take steps to comply with the demands of the Trump administration. We saw Paul Weiss agree to a settlement, essentially, that says they’re going to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services. Columbia University agreed to a list of demands so they don’t lose hundreds of millions of dollars in funding. Jonathan, what does this moment, these steps from these institutions say to you? JONATHAN CAPEHART: It says to me that our democracy is teetering. And I’ll focus on Perkins — I’m sorry — on Paul Weiss and the legal sphere. We have seen a complete capitulation by the legislative branch, the Republican majority, to what the president wants to do in the executive. And all our hopes for the maintenance of our democracy now rests with the judiciary. And in the olden days, before Trump, you would rely on these white shoe law firms like Paul Weiss to provide pro bono help to folks who are suing for redress, who want the courts to step in when Congress or the president goes overboard. When a Paul Weiss decides to pull back, when other big law firms like that decide to pull back, what does that mean in terms of the judiciary’s ability to stop a president like Trump? And that’s what’s so concerning to me about this piece of the capitulation. NAWAZ: David? DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, people call Trump a transactional politician, but he’s an extortionist. That’s actually a difference. A transaction is, we do a deal. Extortion is, I bully you until you give me what I want. And so that’s what we’re seeing here. Now, I put myself in the shoes of, say, the president of Columbia, the head of Paul Weiss. And I think, well, if I compromise with Trump, I’m hurting my institution. But if I lose $400 million, I’m also hurting my institution. These are real choices that people have to make. And I understand that. In the case of Columbia [University], I personally think the Trump requests or demands, whatever it is, are kind of reasonable, and Columbia should have done all this stuff five or 10 years ago. They really did get ideologically out of control. And if they’re publicly funded, partially publicly funded, then you’ve got a problem. And they created this problem. So I understand why. I got to save my university. I got to save $400 million. On the other hand, caving into an extortionist rarely pays off because he will say, ‘Oh, I take that. Here’s my next demand, here’s my next demand.’ And if you look at the history of Zelensky, Macron, people — all the people who’ve tried to cozy up to the extortionists, they all end up losing in the end. And so I think it’s time for the universities as a body — and we saw this with the Princeton president — to say no more deals. We are standing up because there will be a time — and, again, I don’t think this is quite the time to sort of beat down the Trump administration. There will be a time where everybody has to hold together and stand up and say, no, no more deals. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “A perfect reflection of how ‘diversity’ on PBS is all about gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and race, not political ideology. PBS’s panel of Capehart and Brooks, touted as offering perspective from the left and right, does not (Brooks agrees with the liberal Capehart 61% of the time per a Media Research Center analysis). Indeed, they regularly find commonality to denouncing President Trump. So much for PBS viewers hearing much of anything that challenges their liberal world view and disgust for all things Trump.” Rating: FOUR out of five screams   ■ March 17, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: NBC urges harsher Trump hate by Democrats (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features a Sunday NBC panel mocking Democrats for failing to be harsher and faster in blasting President Donald Trump and his relationship with Tesla founder Elon Musk. On Meet the Press, there was a collective scream at the liberal party for dropping the ball in attacking Trump, which the panel clearly felt was in order when the president displayed Teslas at the White House. “Shocking,” they agreed, that Democrats didn’t work up a quick ad blasting Team Trump for essentially doing what former President Joe Biden did when he featured American-made vehicles on the South Lawn during a White House event. “Another missed opportunity,” said MSNBC senior Washington correspondent Eugene Daniels, who is president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. From Sunday’s Meet the Press on NBC: HOST KRISTEN WELKER: One of the striking moments of this week was the moment where President Trump basically had a car show at the White House. Teslas on display with Elon Musk. It comes as, of course, Tesla’s sales have been dropping. Elon Musk’s approval ratings, much lower than President Trump’s, by the way. The optics of this, Anna, is it complicated for the White House? ANNA PALMER, Punchbowl News: Well, it’s amazing that they’re doubling down on Elon Musk, because, to Cornell’s point, this is the opening for Democrats. They’re already starting to run ads featuring Elon Musk as the boogeyman. This gives them the B-roll and the visuals that you need to say that the White House is, you know, kind of mixing business with the work of the government. ….. POLLSTER CORNELL BELCHER: And the idea that what Biden did at the White House is similar to Trump basically being a salesman and hawking the Teslas on the front lawn of the White House is completely different. The ad writes itself. MSNBC’s EUGENE DANIELS: But Democrats aren’t doing it. Immediately, the next day, there should’ve been just, that ad, just showing it over and over again. WELKER: You’re saying another missed opportunity for Democrats. Shocking! DANIELS: Another missed opportunity to get on the same — BELCHER, DANIELS: Shocking that the Democrats are bad on messaging! DANIELS: But I mean, you know, like, when you talk to them behind the scenes, they explain the Elon of it all in a much better way than they do when they go on television. They don’t talk about him as an oligarch behind the scenes, right? They talk about him as someone who is, in their eyes, doing this, doing DOGE because he wants to help his businesses at the end of the day, right? They talk about that conflict of interest. That’s something that the American people actually understand, but they, again, continue to miss an opportunity to actually do that. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “So much for pretending there’s any separation between the Washington press corps and Democratic Party interests. Can you imagine journalists ever advising Republicans or Trump supporters on how to more effectively undermine a Democrat? Of course not.” Rating: Four out of five screams.   ■ March 10, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Sunny Hostin tells Democrats fight or ‘people will die’ (Washington Examiner post) This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the return of one of America’s lefty pundits suffering most from Trump Derangement Syndrome, The View’s Sunny Hostin. Reacting to Rep. Al Green’s (D-TX) censure by Congress for his outbursts during President Donald Trump’s joint session address Tuesday, the hostile Hostin said the Democrats in the chamber should have joined him in rudely protesting Trump and stormed out in support. While virtually every other Democrat in the media is calling for a more level-headed approach to Trump, she went in the other direction, claiming without a shred of evidence that Trump’s policies will kill people. As a result, we give her outburst a rare five-scream trophy. The View on Friday: JOY BEHAR: Ten Democrats voted to censure Green. SUNNY HOSTIN: Do you want a list of the 10? BEHAR: Do you want to hear their names? HOSTIN: Yes, I do. BEHAR: Why go after them too? Go after the Republicans. HOSTIN: Because they don’t know how to fight and be part of an opposition party. Representative Green gave them the example. The Democrats are not meeting the moment. It is very clear that Medicaid is on the table. It is very clear that Social Security is on the table. It is very clear that people will die. The baby boomers, the civil rights generation, they knew what they had to do! They were willing to fight and die for their rights. This generation of Congress, they are not meeting the moment. This is an existential crisis! BEHAR: And also, I might point out some of them are from the most liberal states like New York, Hawaii, California. HOSTIN: They should be ashamed of themselves! They should have all walked out with him! Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “ABC News should be embarrassed by the daily left-wing drivel on The View. Even many Democrats were ashamed by Green’s antics, which went far beyond what any Republican has ever done during a presidential speech to Congress. So much for contending it’s Trump who has lessened decorum. Hostin is advocating more coarseness in politics. And ABC News is sanctioning it.” Rating: FIVE out of five screams.   ■ March 3, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: PBS twists Trump press pool diversity as ‘sinister’ (Washington Examiner post) Here’s another reason for all the PBS and NPR critics to call for federal tax dollar defunding. Instead of cheering the expansion of media allowed into the White House press pool, PBS declared it a “sinister” move to censor the press. This week’s Liberal Media Scream features the outlet’s twisted view of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s decision to take charge of choosing who is in the daily pool that covers White House events for the rest of the press when there isn’t enough room for all, such as the near-daily back-and-forths President Donald Trump hosts in the Oval Office. She made the decision because she believed that the White House Correspondents’ Association was being too selective by favoring legacy media and barring new-age social media and conservative outlets. The old guard protested, though, in its first week of operation, the new pool remained heavy with legacy media. One exception was the Associated Press, which Trump’s team omitted because the news service won’t recognize the president’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, as the government has. In our example, PBS NewsHour co-anchor Amna Nawaz called the White House move an attack on the press, prompting contributor and Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart to chirp that “we are in more sinister territory” with Trump and the media. Of course neither talked up former President Joe Biden’s move to take away the press passes of over 400 mainly conservative outlets or former President Barack Obama’s seizing of phone records from AP or others in his dragnet for leakers. From Friday’s PBS News Hour: AMNA NAWAZ: His continued attacks on the press, blocking the AP’s access from some White House coverage as well. You saw him take control of the White House, take control of the press pool that covers the president full time, makes sure everyone else knows what’s happening with the president. Peter Baker, of course, longtime Russia correspondent, said it reminded him of the Kremlin press pool takeover. And I just want to get your takes on where that sort of attack on the press stands and whether we’re in much more sinister territory now. JONATHAN CAPEHART: I do think we are in more sinister territory because you’ve got to look at what’s happening with AP, in light of his lawsuits against CBS, against ABC, threats, threatening the licenses of other broadcast entities. This is all part of a pattern of roughing up anyone he views as not either insufficiently loyal or people who have wronged him. And he looks at the press as an entity that has wronged him. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “Imagine that. President Trump sees ‘the press as an entity that has wronged him.’ And he’s fighting back, which really upsets the legacy media despite the fact that nothing he has done has blocked the public from full access. It’s hardly ‘sinister’ just because the White House is allowing a more ideological diverse group of outlets to get access instead of just a few privileged and entitled journalists.” Rating: Three out of five screams.   ■ February 24, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Mike Johnson cuts off CBS bedwetting (Washington Examiner post) It took over two years for the Nixon-era Watergate scandal to bring on the constitutional crisis that led a president to resign. But hearing CBS describe President Donald Trump’s first month of moves the network doesn’t like shows this generation’s Watergate has already arrived. Even more than the Hollywood whining of Jane Fonda and others at Sunday’s Screen Actors Guild Awards, Jane Pauley’s CBS News Sunday Morning jumped head first into decrying Trump’s moves promised during a year on the campaign trail to drain the swamp as a constitutional crisis. “More than a half-century ago,” said CBS’s Robert Costa, “as the Watergate saga unfolded, President Richard Nixon had a standoff with the Justice Department and the courts” that the media declared a “constitutional crisis.” Now, he added, “that term, constitutional crisis, is back.” But amid the name-calling and historical hyperventilating in the show’s main story, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) offered a sense of calm and perspective. “I have been asked so many times, aren’t you uncomfortable with this? No. I’m not,” he said, making the CBS report our Liberal Media Scream of the week. From CBS News Sunday Morning: JANE PAULEY: With judges across the country pushing back against some of the Trump administration’s flurry of executive orders, there are those who ask: What would happen if the White House defies the courts and simply moves ahead with its plans? We’ve asked our Robert Costa to make some inquiries. ROGER MUDD, CBS ANCHOR, NOV. 4, 1973: Despite his powers as chief executive, his future is really in the hands of the other two branches of government: the courts and the Congress. ROBERT COSTA: More than a half-century ago, as the Watergate saga unfolded, President Richard Nixon had a standoff with the Justice Department and the courts. DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR, OCT. 20, 1973: In breathtaking succession tonight, the following historic events occurred. The president of the United States demanded that the attorney general fire Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. The attorney general refused and resigned. COSTA: The tensions brought a certain phrase to the fore of the American conversation. JOHN CHANCELLOR, NBC ANCHOR, OCT. 20, 1973: The country in the midst of what may be the most serious constitutional crisis in its history. COSTA: Now that term, ‘constitutional crisis,’ is back. JULIAN CASTRO, former House Democrat from Texas: We’re headed toward a constitutional crisis. U.S. SENATOR ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): We’re fast barreling toward a constitutional crisis. COSTA: Many Democrats are sounding the alarm about President Donald Trump’s use of executive power. U.S. REP. SEAN CASTEN (D-ILL): The actions that Musk and his IT goons have taken, they’re illegal. COSTA: And some fear that Trump, who has shattered norms and who worked relentlessly to try to overturn the 2020 election, cannot be counted on to follow the courts. SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I have been asked so many times, aren’t you uncomfortable with this? No. I’m not. COSTA: Most Republicans are shrugging off talk of a crisis. In fact, many are cheering as Trump overhauls the Justice Department and FBI, works with Elon Musk to fire thousands of federal employees and signs piles of executive orders. Brent Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow and vice president for research and publications at the Media Research Center, explained our pick: “You know it’s a media-fueled effort to create a scandal when the journalist in question regurgitates Watergate. It’s what Costa and the Washington press corps see as their halcyon days of glory. And if the supposed scandal matches a current liberal Democratic talking point, so much the better, despite the lack of any real substance to the fearmongering.” Rating: Four out of five screams.   ■ February 17, 2025: Liberal Media Scream: Scott Pelley, now TV’s top Trump hater (Washington Examiner post) He has a lot of competition in the media, but few have as big a stage as 60 Minutes elder Scott Pelley. As he continues to step up his attacks on President Donald Trump and the new administration, Pelley is elbowing aside all others to emerge as Trump’s loudest TV critic. Never a fan of Trump, Pelley has taken his 60 Minutes perch at CBS to offer critical monologues of the president. People took notice even before Trump returned to the White House when Pelley ripped Trump’s Cabinet picks, saying, “Some nominees appear to have no compelling qualifications other than loyalty to Trump.” However, other than gnawing down his reading glasses, Pelley had no impact. All of Trump’s picks to get a Senate floor vote won. Then, on Sunday’s show, he opened with another hit on Trump, saying the president was in “defiance of the Constitution” with his agenda. Again, there was no impact since a day later, a federal judge expressed skepticism about any harm the president’s Department of Government Efficiency threatened. Each week, Secrets teams with the Media Research Center to choose the loudest liberal media scream, and Pelley won again this week. What’s more, Media Research Center Vice President Brent Baker gave Pelley’s rant a score of five out of five screams. That is a rare top score, but one we expect to see more of as the liberal media turns up the heat on Trump as it loses its influence on him and his White House. From the lead story on Sunday’s 60 Minutes: SCOTT PELLEY: It’s too soon to tell how serious President Trump is in defiance of the Constitution. In his first 28 days, he signed an order to nullify birthright citizenship for some — a right guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. And he has closed agencies and frozen spending that Congress mandated by law. Lower courts are holding up many of the president’s priorities, but nothing has risen to the Supreme Court, where these battles over presidential power could rewrite history. Presidents often push limits — FDR’s New Deal, for example — and voters in this last election wanted change. But the scope and speed of Trump’s reach for power may be unprecedented. One example is a 63-year-old agency created by Congress, codified in law and eviscerated by Trump in a matter of days. KRISTINA DRYE: People are really scared. I think that you know, 12 days ago, people knew where their next paycheck was coming from. They knew how they were going to pay for their kids’ daycare, their medical bills. And then, all gone overnight. PELLEY: “All gone, overnight,” for Kristina Drye and Adam Dubard — fired this month in the chaotic shutdown of foreign aid distributed by the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID. More than 8,000 USAID employees were sent home by the administration. ADAM DUBARD: They’re not looking for competency. They’re not looking for — if you’re good at your job. They’re looking for pure loyalty tests, and if you don’t give it, you will be punished… … PELLEY: The world’s richest man had cut off assistance to the world’s poorest families. Musk spent nearly $250 million to get Trump and other Republicans elected. He collects billions in taxpayer dollars for his SpaceX rockets. ANDREW NATSIOS, FORMER USAID ADMINISTRATOR: I think we’re creating a system that violates the separation of powers and the checks and balances that are intended in the Constitution. PELLEY: Republican Andrew Natsios, former head of USAID, spoke to us in Washington, in part because he is not hearing public appeals to reason from fellow Republicans. PELLEY TO NATSIOS: How do you view this moment in history? NATSIOS: I don’t want to be too pessimistic. But it does appear we may be headed towards some sort of a constitutional crisis. I don’t, I hope that doesn’t happen. I pray it doesn’t happen. But it’s certainly concerning to me what’s going on in this city right now. PELLEY: Is the constitutional order breaking down? NATSIOS: We’ll see if they refuse to enforce a court order by the Supreme Court. If it gets to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court rules against the administration on something and they refuse to enforce it, then we will have a constitutional crisis. PELLEY: What happens then? NATSIOS: Well, I don’t know. PELLEY: No one knows. NATSIOS: No one knows. Baker, the Steven P.J. Wood senior fellow, explained our pick: “Another hit to whatever remnants are left of 60 Minutes as some sort of dispassionate news magazine which offers a fair and balanced look at complicated issues. Pelley not only matched the Trump Derangement Syndrome of the left, he doubled down on it, presuming the absolute worst motives behind President Trump while taking cheap ideological shots at Elon Musk. This is Exhibit A in why federal spending has never been cut since the end of World War II: The media go to war to discredit anyone w

Liberal wokeness appears to have no bounds in Minnesota, the home of radicals like Rep. Ilhan Omar, a male state representative who pretends to be a woman, and, of course, 2024 failed vice presidential candidate Gov. Tim Walz. Now, an exclusive report from Alpha News has revealed that a foreign national who overstayed his visa became a director at the Minnesota Department of Education after he served a sentence for felony sexual assault.RELATED: Pam Bondi lawsuit accuses Tim Walz of discriminating against US citizens to favor illegal aliens Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty ImagesA criminal legal alienWilson Nduri Tindi, a 42-year-old native of Kenya, began working for the state of Minnesota as a principal auditor in 2018, according to his LinkedIn profile, and eventually rose through the ranks to become the director of the Internal Audit and Advisory Services division of the Minnesota Department of Education. He also previously worked as the chief audit officer at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, according to an archived version of his MDE bio.In November 2015, just three years prior to beginning his job with the state, Tindi submitted a petition to plead guilty to felony fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct in connection with a disturbing incident.'You like this.'On November 23, 2014, Tindi broke into the residence of a woman living below him in his Minneapolis apartment complex, court records claim. He then proceeded to assault another woman who happened to be sleeping over that night.The victim awoke to Tindi touching her genitals and buttocks over her underwear before attempting to remove her underwear, court records indicated. A latent fingerprint from the scene matched Tindi's prints, which were on file.When questioned, Tindi insisted he had been in his apartment all night. He "could not provide any explanation for why his fingerprint would be inside the other unit," court documents said. RELATED: Accused assassin Vance Boelter blames Gov. Tim Walz for murderous rampage: Report Daniel Tamas Mehes/Getty ImagesTindi agreed to plead guilty to criminal sexual conduct in exchange for prosecutors dropping a first-degree burglary charge. He was given a two-year sentence, which was stayed for five years, and was ordered to register as a predatory offender, Alpha News reported. It appears he served 210 days at Hennepin County Adult Corrections Facility.Court documents from that incident also suggest he had committed a similar assault in 2012. In that case, a woman awoke to find Tindi allegedly on top of her and penetrating her "with his finger and his mouth," the documents said. When she begged him to stop, he allegedly retorted, "You like this."Tindi was never charged in connection with the 2012 case, though prosecutors introduced it in the 2014 case as Spreigl evidence meant to demonstrate a pattern of behavior.And while these incidents are more than a decade old, they are not Tindi's only run-ins with the law. Just last month, Tindi was arrested after allegedly driving under the influence and then refusing a field sobriety test. He was assessed a bail of $12,000. Jail records indicate he posted bond and was released from custody on June 10, three days after the arrest. He has been charged with three misdemeanors.Tindi fights deportation — and winsTindi's immigration history indicates that he also tried to exploit the American court system and its attending appeals processes to stay in the country even after violating its laws.According to documents related to a habeas corpus petition Tindi filed in 2018, Tindi entered the U.S. in 2005 on a B-2 visitor visa that allowed him to remain in the country legally for six months. When the six months expired, Tindi did not leave and instead applied for permanent residency. That application was denied in 2007.'The government has provided no evidence that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community.'ICE began processing him for removal the following year, and an immigration judge ordered him to be removed in 2009. However, an immigration judge then reversed the removal order in 2011, and Tindi became a lawful permanent resident in April 2014, just six months before he assaulted the sleeping woman.RELATED: Tim Walz grilled for comparing ICE agents to 'Nazi Gestapo' Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesBecause of his aggravated felony conviction, removal orders were once again initiated for Tindi, and he was transferred from jail to ICE custody in August 2016. Though Tindi appealed, the Board of Immigration Appeals later upheld his removal, and a final order of removal was issued in May 2017.Tindi then filed yet another appeal, this time for his conviction, arguing that he would never have pleaded guilty if he had known the conviction would jeopardize his ability to remain in the U.S. Federal courts later stayed his removal while the appeals process continued, and a magistrate judge recommended that Tindi's habeas corpus petition be granted.In February 2018, Judge David Doty agreed with the magistrate judge and granted the habeas corpus petition. In his decision, Doty claimed, "The government has provided no evidence that he is a flight risk or a danger to the community," even though the decision likewise noted the 2014 burglary charge and the subsequent assault conviction.Blaze News reached out to Judge Doty for comment.Blaze News also reached out to the Department of Homeland Security to see whether it is looking into Tindi's case once again.Silence from the stateIt is unclear whether officials at the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency were aware of Tindi's violent history when they hired him.Tindi's LinkedIn profile indicates he began working for the state in September 2018, nearly four years after the sexual assault, and was named chief audit officer in December 2023. The profile makes no specific mention of the state education department or the pollution regulation agency.His bio also claimed he is 'passionate about ... building trust through transparency.'Blaze News reached out to the MPCA, the office of Education Commissioner Willie Jett, as well as to Lee Her — the director of public engagement at MDE — for answers about what they knew about Tindi and when they knew it. We did not receive a response by deadline.According to an archived version of his MDE bio, Tindi was responsible for "establishing and overseeing an independent internal audit function focused on evaluating risk management, governance, and compliance across the agency." His bio also claimed he is "passionate about ... building trust through transparency, collaboration, and a strong focus on adding value across the organization" (emphasis added).His online bio appears to have been removed shortly after the Alpha News report broke. The Wayback Machine screenshot of his erstwhile profile provided by Alpha News is dated June 17, 2025.RELATED: Tim Walz says Democrats need to be 'meaner' and 'bully the s**t out of' Trump Photo by Mario Tama/Getty ImagesOn June 17, Tindi's profile was still listed among the list of directors with the MDE commissioner's office. As of Tuesday, Tindi is no longer listed there.Blaze News reached out to Tindi's MDE email address and received an automatic reply, stating, "Wilson Tindi is no longer with MDE." Blaze News also reached out to an email address Tindi provided on a previous court document but did not receive a response.As MDE remains under the general purview of the governor and some senior positions at state agencies are filled by appointment or with recommendations from influential individuals, Blaze News reached out to Democratic Gov. Tim Walz for comment. Walz's office did not respond.H/T: Dustin GrageLike Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!