On March 5, Politico economics correspondent Victoria Guida made it clear she's frustrated that President Trump isn't losing momentum. noted  That March piece is dripping with frustration and irritation, starting with the headline: "Trump Keeps Gambling With the Economy — And Getting Away With It." Well it now appears that same bitterness on the part of Guida has carried over into April as reflected in title of her Friday story, "Job growth shatters expectations in March, in boost to Trump." And if you missed the bitterness in the title, the subtitle makes it quite clear, "That report gives the president some useful talking points as polling shows deep dissatisfaction with the state of the economy." Got that? In March Trump  was "getting away with it" on the economy and now in April he got himself some "useful talking points." We now join Guida in her current state of high irk: U.S. job growth surged past expectations in March and the unemployment rate dropped, giving President Donald Trump breathing room as the economy comes under increasing pressure over the war in Iran and rising oil prices. Companies added a net 178,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department reported Friday, a huge swing from February, when the economy actually shed jobs. But it was roughly in line with January, a sharp fluctuation that is making it harder to gauge the job market’s health. But the overall positive trend suggests that the economy remained resilient during the first quarter of the year. ...None of those figures are likely to change the narrative that has prevailed over the past couple of years of a low-hire, low-fire labor market. But the unemployment rate now stands at 4.3 percent, and the manufacturing sector — which has been anemic for a long period of time — added 15,000 jobs in March. That gives Trump some useful talking points as polling shows deep dissatisfaction with the state of the economy, particularly in the wake of the war in the Middle East, which has led to a surge in gas prices. One can only wonder how much frustrated stomach acid was produced by the economic combo of March's "getting away with it" and April's "useful talking points."

Friday’s roundtable on MS NOW’s The 11th Hour concluded by naming their MVPs of the week and there were some interesting selections. MS NOW’s online editor Anthony Fisher selected Judge Randolph Moss for his nonsensical ruling that said NPR and PBS are private companies and that President Trump’s defunding of them violated the First Amendment. Meanwhile, Independent Veterans of America CEO Paul Rieckhoff picked the crew of Artemis II, which was a completely understandable selection, except he did so because he thought they provided a noticeable contrast to Trump. Fisher began by declaring “My MVP is Judge Randolph Moss, U.S. district judge out of D.C., who ruled that President Trump's executive orders that defunded NPR and PBS were illegal, constituted viewpoint discrimination. It does not mean that the federal government is going to now refund NPR or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is done.”   MS NOW editor Anthony Fisher says his MVP of the week is the judge who "who ruled that President Trump's executive orders that defunded NPR and PBS were illegal, were—constituted viewpoint discrimination...we need judges to be able to continue. We need judges to continue to say… pic.twitter.com/zS2I8AF2OC — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 4, 2026   Taking his victories where he can get them, Fisher continued, “So, there is a bit of a symbolic victory here, but as you mentioned before, we still are a nation of laws. And this judge—” Guest host Catherine Rampell then interrupted to cheer, “For now. Yay!” Fisher then resumed, “This judge at least said that this was unconstitutional. It was against the First Amendment. It was viewpoint discrimination. And we need judges to be able to continue. We need judges to continue to say these things, because it is my hope that the First Amendment survives this administration.” In the very first sentence of Moss’s opinion, he states that National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service are “private entities,” and therefore withholding grants from them on the basis of their liberal bias is illegal. But, of course, NPR and PBS are not private entities, and so the whole opinion was nonsensical. As for Rieckhoff, he began by declaring that his opposition to the war in Iran is as popular as the Artemis mission, “Something special happened this week. America was united and not just against the war in Iran, but when Artemis took off and everyone saw the prowess and the excellence and the visionary possibility of Artemis and of NASA, this country was united. This country was inspired. This country was proud.” He then tried accusing Trump of ruining it with his Iran speech earlier in the week while also suggesting Trump would have canceled the mission if he knew one of the astronauts was Canadian, “Now, Trump spoke a couple of hours later and, kind of, crapped on all of that. But for this moment and still now, there is a real feeling of pride in this country, in these incredible astronauts who are also diverse, and even includes an ally from Canada. And thankfully, maybe Trump didn't find out otherwise, he would have shut it down.” In the real world, Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney had a phone call on the day of the launch. Nevertheless, Rieckhoff continued in his hopes that Artemis could be a counterweight to Trump, “But Artemis is right now in space as role models for our children and giving a new generation reason to be proud to be Americans, we needed some hope. Hope is the oxygen of democracy. And we got it this week from Artemis.” Artemis was and is a unifying moment, so why does MS NOW have to try to ruin that by making it about their opposition to Trump? Here is a transcript for the April 3 show: MS NOW The 11th Hour 4/3/2026 11:51 PM ET ANTHONY FISHER: Speaking of separation of church and state, my MVP is Judge Randolph Moss, U.S. district judge out of D.C., who ruled that President Trump's executive orders that defunded NPR and PBS were illegal, constituted viewpoint discrimination. It does not mean that the federal government is going to now refund NPR or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is done. So, there is a bit of a symbolic victory here, but as you mentioned before, we still are a nation of laws. And this judge— CATHERINE RAMPELL: For now. Yay! ANTHONY FISHER: —this judge at least said that this was unconstitutional. It was against the First Amendment. It was viewpoint discrimination. And we need judges to be able to continue. We need judges to continue to say these things, because it is my hope that the First Amendment survives this administration. RAMPELL: Paul. PAUL RIECKHOFF: Something special happened this week. America was united and not just against the war in Iran, but when Artemis took off and everyone saw the prowess and the excellence and the visionary possibility of Artemis and of NASA, this country was united. This country was inspired. This country was proud. Now, Trump spoke a couple of hours later and, kind of, crapped on all of that. But for this moment and still now, there is a real feeling of pride in this country, in these incredible astronauts who are also diverse, and even includes an ally from Canada. And thankfully, maybe Trump didn't find out otherwise, he would have shut it down. But Artemis is right now in space as role models for our children and giving a new generation reason to be proud to be Americans, we needed some hope. Hope is the oxygen of democracy. And we got it this week from Artemis.

On Good Friday, David Bozell, President of the Media Research Center, joined WMAL host Derek Hunter to lambast the elitist media for their biased coverage and Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Bozell highlighted a glaring pattern: no matter how clearly and repeatedly President Trump articulates America's goals in the ongoing conflict in Iran, elitist anchors and commentators insist he hasn't outlined any objectives. "Every single hour... he articulates the goals of this war, yet each time, the press pivots back to the studio where pundits claim ignorance of the very points just made," Bozell noted. This willful disconnect, Bozell argued, isn't harmless. It fuels market instability. "You want to know why your 401(k) sunk like a stone? The S&P sunk like a stone? Oil futures skyrocketed?" he asked. "I'm gonna start blaming the media for this stuff." The president delivered a 20-minute, substantive address explaining the "why" behind recent actions and future objectives. The media's refusal to acknowledge it only amplified uncertainty. .@DavidBozell torches the anti-American media for pretending they don't know President Trump's goals with the Iran War "How many times to they have to hear him articulate the effort... and then go back and say he's not articulating the effort?"@derekahunter @WMALDC pic.twitter.com/LOZi6nqNsa — Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 3, 2026   Hunter then turned to the ladies of The View, where the hosts fretted over renovations at the White House, including a new ballroom (widely seen as necessary) and an updated bunker beneath the East Wing. They speculated wildly about billionaires fleeing there for the shelter. .@DavidBozell and @derekahunter roast The View for being outraged by a White House bunker: "I don't care if you're a billionaire, a head of state, a comms staffer or a janitor in the White House, if you're in the ballroom and it's attacked, you're going to go to the bunker." pic.twitter.com/Rl2KB28Lqh — Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 3, 2026 Bozell pushed back sharply. "If you're in the ballroom and it's attached, you're gonna go to the bunker," he said, whether you're a billionaire, staffer, or janitor. He reminded listeners of 9/11, when terrorists targeted the White House but struck the Pentagon instead. The original bunker dates to 1941-1942; the current project modernizes the bunker with internet wiring. Far from scandalous, a secure presidential bunker is common sense. "The scandal would be if he redid the East Wing and didn't put in a bunker," Bozell observed. "That would be the scandal." The View proves there's no bottom to partisan media hysteria; they just keep digging.  

The trio of PBS News Hour anchor Amna Nawaz, The Atlantic staff writer David Brooks, and MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart appeared ready to pronounce defeat on Friday as they juxtaposed President Trump’s Iran speech earlier in the week to the day’s news that saw an American F-15 and Black Hawk helicopter go down in Iran. Nawaz began with Brooks and suggested there was a contradiction between Friday’s news and Trump’s speech, “David, all of this is just two days after the president said in an address to the nation that the U.S. had crippled the Iranian military and the war was nearly over. What's your reaction to all of this?”   PBS is ready to declare defeat in Iran with host Amna Nawaz asking David Brooks about Friday's F-15 and Black Hawk shoot downs "All of this is just two days after the president said in an address to the nation that the U.S. had crippled the Iranian military and the war was nearly… pic.twitter.com/SNtPomWlpa — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 4, 2026   The correct answer for the conservative half of this segment would have been to point out that the reason why this is such a big news story is because it is so rare. It took Iran over a month to get its first confirmed shoot down, but instead, Brooks took Nawaz’s framing and ran with it, “Yeah, that's one of the disadvantages of having a huckster for president, that he does just—he can't tell the American people that, when you're going to war, it's horrible, and that Iran is a serious country that's been preparing for this for nearly half-a-century.” Brooks claimed that while he was initially somewhat supportive of the decision to attack, the benefits no longer outweigh the costs, “To me, what happened—I have been somewhat, moderately hoping there'd be some positive outcome. And I think there has been some. We have had to go to the Middle East for almost every decade for the last 50 years because of radical Islam, which the Iranian regime typifies. But this is clearly the week when the costs of the war are so exponentially larger than the benefits of what we're getting in these marginal weeks.” With references to how high oil prices enrich Iran and Russia, the state of the world economy, and of NATO, Brooks concluded, “The costs are just exorbitant now, not to mention the human suffering. And so, if Trump doesn't see that we're losing every day he continues this thing, he's going to just face more and more political problems, military problems, and all sorts of problems. And so he just needs to admit that—what's going on. And I doubt he has the mental ability to do that.” As for Capehart, he pulled out an interesting analogy to try to paint a dire picture, “I mean, this is a war of choice. We didn't need to do—take this action now. What's funny, but not funny, playing on cable right now on a loop is Top Gun: Maverick. And if anyone has seen that movie, the whole plot is about a U.S. military operation deep inside Iran, and two fighter pilots have to eject out of their planes.” According to Capehart, “There was more of a plan in the fictional plot of Top Gun: Maverick than there appears to be in this very real, very live situation in the United States' war with Iran.”   Jonathan Capehart then claimed "There was more of a plan in the fictional plot of Top Gun: Maverick then there appears to be in this very real, very live situation in the United States' war with Iran." As for Trump's speech, "What he should have done was told the American… pic.twitter.com/Xyuq1pDFc9 — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 4, 2026   The plot of that movie revolved around an unnamed country—which was clearly meant to be Iran—and its nuclear program. It was more analogous to the single mission in June’s Operation Midnight Hammer than the wider campaign of Epic Fury. The U.S. lost no aircraft in Midnight Hammer because while Top Gun: Maverick was a good and entertaining movie, the point of the climatic bombing run was meant to develop characters and themes, not to show realistic combat tactics. Nevertheless, Capehart returned to Trump’s speech, “Look, I applaud the president for finally addressing the American people, but he is a month too late, and told us nothing we had not already heard from him, from his administration through—in various ways. What he should have done was told the American people really why we went, how we're getting out, and then spend more than half-a-phrase on the 13 service members who lost their lives in this war of choice, his choice.” Friday featured tragic events and reminded the country why we admire those who serve, but we should also keep things in perspective and be appreciative that these events have been so rare. Brooks and Capehart can have their own opinions about the costs and benefits of this war, but they can’t apply a standard to Trump that has never been applied to previous wartime presidents.  Here is a transcript for the April 3 show: PBS News Hour 4/3/2026 7:36 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: So, as we sit here and speak now, as we reported at the top of the show, there's still a U.S. crew member from that downed fighter jet missing, a search-and-rescue operation under way. We know Iranians were also able to shoot down another aircraft over the Gulf, shot at a Black Hawk helicopter that returned to base safely. Iranian leaders are looking for that missing crew member on the ground. David, all of this is just two days after the president said in an address to the nation that the U.S. had crippled the Iranian military and the war was nearly over. What's your reaction to all of this? DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, that's one of the disadvantages of having a huckster for president, that he does just—he can't tell the American people that, when you're going to war, it's horrible, and that Iran is a serious country that's been preparing for this for nearly half-a-century. And they're going to fight back and they're going to make countermoves like this or like the Straits of Hormuz. To me, what happened—I have been somewhat, moderately hoping there'd be some positive outcome. And I think there has been some. We have had to go to the Middle East for almost every decade for the last 50 years because of radical Islam, which the Iranian regime typifies. But this is clearly the week when the costs of the war are so exponentially larger than the benefits of what we're getting in these marginal weeks. The cost to Russia is now getting all this revenue. Iran is getting all this revenue. The European economy and the world economies are in crisis. NATO is in shreds. And so the costs are just exorbitant now, not to mention the human suffering. And so, if Trump doesn't see that we're losing every day he continues this thing, he's going to just face more and more political problems, military problems, and all sorts of problems. And so he just needs to admit that—what's going on. And I doubt he has the mental ability to do that. NAWAZ: Jonathan? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I mean, this is a war of choice. We didn't need to do—take this action now. What's funny, but not funny, playing on cable right now on a loop is Top Gun: Maverick. And if anyone has seen that movie, the whole plot is about a U.S. military operation deep inside Iran, and two fighter pilots have to eject out of their planes. I bring that up because there was more of a plan in the fictional plot of Top Gun: Maverick than there appears to be in this very real, very live situation in the United States' war with Iran. Look, I applaud the president for finally addressing the American people, but he is a month too late, and told us nothing we had not already heard from him, from his administration through—in various ways. What he should have done was told the American people really why we went, how we're getting out, and then spend more than half-a-phrase on the 13 service members who lost their lives in this war of choice, his choice.

MS NOW's Deadline: White House, or the Nicolle Wallace show, is where Democrats go to hear other Democrats throw rhetorical bombs at the Republicans. No one is any good in the GOP. On Thursday, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) greeted Attorney General Pam Bondi's dismissal with a“good riddance”—then dismissed every potential replacement, all while being encouraged by host Alicia Menendez. Lofgren didn’t limit herself to criticism of Bondi’s tenure: LOFGREN: Good riddance to Pam Bondi. But good luck to us for who might come next. She then turned her disdain on possible successors. Menendez named some rumored replacements -- "Lee Zeldin, Jeannine Pirro, Alina Habba" -- and asked if any of these people were “actually confirmable” or someone Republicans could “get behind,” Lofgren rejected them wholesale: LOFGREN: None. None. Not those names . . . These people are jokes. Lofgren went on to deride multiple figures as “an embarrassment,” claim another “got thrown out of court,” and suggest others were unfit for the role. Menendez added the name of Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah): "It was posited to me that his Republican colleagues just want him out of the Senate so badly that they saw an opening." Even then, Lofgren said Lee was someone she had worked with and could “talk to”—she remained dismissive: LOFGREN: No. I don’t think he would be a good AG. Rather than push back, Menendez repeatedly steered the conversation toward further criticism—first by inviting Lofgren to assess confirmability, then by introducing additional names only to have them dismissed. Dem on MS NOW: 'Good Riddance' To Pam Bondi pic.twitter.com/R1v4SgKJqP — Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) April 2, 2026 Menendez went further still, raising the prospect of professional consequences and asking what “accountability” should look like for Bondi. Lofgren responded by suggesting Bondi’s conduct could raise questions about her ethics, floating the possibility she could be disbarred. Later, Menendez pressed Lofgren to elaborate on the “damage” Bondi had allegedly done to the Department of Justice, framing her tenure as harmful even apart from specific outcomes, citing "the time, the money, the pain, the damage to our democratic institutions." As usual, Democrats on either side of these interviews pretend that the Justice Department under Biden or Obama was so pristinely apolitical. The result was not simply criticism, but a sustained, host-enabled pile-on—beginning with “good riddance” and extending to blanket condemnation of any potential successor. The liberal media recently expressed outrage over Donald Trump’s rough remarks on the passing of Robert Mueller. On Deadline: White House, however, a Democratic lawmaker’s “good riddance” drew no pushback—and was instead followed by prompts to escalate the criticism. Here's the transcript. MS NOW Deadline White House 4/2/26 4:24 pm EDT ZOE LOFGREN: It's hard to know with this president what's motivating him. She completely embarrassed herself. But it could be that she's failed to convict people, without any cause, people who are his enemies.  Certainly, the Epstein files have not been handled well. People across the country now believe that there may be a reason why President Trump is trying to hide the files, when before people were giving him the benefit of the doubt.  So this has been a bad situation for her and for the president, but I don't assume that her replacement will be something we'll cheer.  I understand Todd Blanche is going to be filling in. He's the guy who went down and coddled Ghislaine Maxwell, who's serving time for child abuse, moved her to a country club prison after the interview.  So good riddance to Pam Bondi. But good luck to us for who might come next.  ALICIA MENENDEZ: Well, let's talk about some of the other names that are circulating. You referenced Todd Blanche. We've also heard from our colleagues Lee Zeldin, Alina Habba, Janine Pirro. The question, of course, who on that list is actually confirmable? Is there someone here Republicans can get behind? LOFGREN: None. None. Not those names. I mean, Zeldin is violating the law constantly in his current position. He's been called out on it by myself and others in the Science Committee. Pirro has been -- You can indict a ham sandwich, but not Trump's political enemies. She's been a failure and an embarrassment. Habba got thrown out of court.  I mean, these people are jokes. I mean, they cannot be confirmed, I would imagine.  MENENDEZ: Okay, let me throw one more name into the mix, because there's reporting today that some senators are trying to pitch Donald Trump on replacing Bondi with Senator Mike Lee. It was posited to me that his Republican colleagues just want him out of the Senate so badly that they saw an opening and thought they could -- LOFGREN: That could be. MENENDEZ: --  potentially position him. Do you think Mike Lee would make a good AG?  LOFGREN: No. I mean, I've worked with Mike, actually, on some FISA reforms. So, you know, he's not somebody I can't talk to. But I don't think he would be a good AG.  And I imagine that some of his fellow Republican senators might want to get rid of him. Whether he would take that deal, turn in a Senate seat where he probably could serve for the foreseeable future for a job that, you know, he could get fired in a few months by Trump. He's so volatile. So would he even take it? I wouldn't if I were him. MENENDEZ:  I'm, I'm stuck on something that my colleague Michael Feinberg, who served as a special agent at the FBI, said in our previous block, which was, here you have a president who is frustrated that Pam Bondi has not succeeded sufficiently, in his view in bending the DoJ to his whims and to his will. Michael Feinberg's argument was that she didn't just bend it, she broke the institution that once was the Department of Justice.  In your mind, what does accountability look like for Pam Mondi, even as she returns to being a private citizen?  LOFGREN: Well, she has to come to Congress. She's been subpoenaed, and the fact that she's been fired doesn't excuse her from complying with that subpoena. She has information that the Congress needs to get about the Epstein files. Whether she will escape bar association accountability, it's hard to say.  A number of Trump defenders who are lawyers lost their bar licenses. I don't know if there's anything going on in that regard relative to her, but certainly some of her conduct as AG might lead to questions about her ethics and her ability to adequately serve as an officer of the court.  MENENDEZ: I'm just so struck that if you read the reporting, it seems as though the president's biggest critique or frustration was her inability to prosecute his perceived enemies.  But from your vantage point, how much damage did she actually do? Even if she didn't succeed, if there wasn't a home run, simply the time, the money, the pain, the damage to our democratic institutions that has been inflicted. How are you going to look back on her tenure?  LOFGREN: That was the point, I think, to try and harm people who the president doesn't like and who he considers his enemies, whether or not -- they hadn't committed crimes, any of them, which is why the effort to indict them failed miserably.  Obviously, if you are a defendant in a matter, it costs money, it's aggravating. I think in some cases, you know, it may end up helping people.  They're now going after my colleague, Eric Swalwell, who is running for governor of California. And I think, you know, since they've singled him out as the biggest enemy of Trump, that probably helps Eric in California. People are wondering who among the Democrats they should vote for. And I've heard a lot of people say, well, if Trump is against him that much, he must be our guy.  MENENDEZ: It's a truly remarkable day in a truly remarkable moment in American history. And Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, I am so grateful to you for making time today to be with us.