On Thursday’s episode of MSNBC’s Chris Jansing Reports, former Romney campaign consultant Stuart Stevens was not content to simply criticize specific things about the Trump administration that he happened to disagree with. Rather, he ran off with wild accusations, calling the administration criminal with zero evidence and offering an alarmist view that “this is not a normal moment.” For her part, Jansing just went along as though he had made a valid, substantiated point. Jansing led in with a discussion of government cuts, quipping that she shouldn’t do math: If you take a 20 percent hit, a 25 percent hit, and you lose 40 or $50,000 of your 401K, if you're Elon Musk, if you're Donald Trump, if you're any of the billionaires who work in the administration, that's not real money. That's like me taking a ten out of my pocket, or maybe less. But that's years- that is years, off of what you planned for, to be able to actually pay for your retirement. So how do you message that? “Well,” Stevens began, “I think that- you just laid it out. They have to- Democrats need to get in front of people, and say how this is affecting you personally. That's absolutely the right thing to do.”     Instead of actually addressing any specific problems, how these problems might be affecting people personally, or practically what could or should be done about it, he went off the deep end with wild and unfounded accusations, which by then weren’t even original for the liberal media: And this is what Democrats should be out there hitting. They have to understand that this is not a normal moment. They have to stand up… You know, this is a corrupt administration that is breaking the law. And that's how we should start talking about it. Elon Musk- it’s been said over and over- is probably engaged in criminal activities. That makes him a criminal. That makes him someone who should be held accountable under law. And that's the framework this needs to be put in. It's not a normal moment. Stevens gave no specifics, and provided no evidence, but simply offered his claim that the administration was criminal and this was “not a normal moment” as a blanket assertion. Jansing did not even bother to press him on it, but just took his groundless personal accusations and amorphous prophecies of doom at face value. True to form for MSNBC, rather than actually report some news, Jansing was happy to spend the interview rehashing the same old cliched liberal media obsessions and, if necessary for the storyline, creating a crisis where none existed. To view the full transcript, click "expand" to read: MSNBC’s Chris Jansing Reports 04/03/2025 1:29 PM CHRIS JANSING: Let me try to do something that I probably should never do, Stuart, and that's a little bit of math.  FORMER ROMNEY CAMPAIGN ADVISER STUART STEVENS: [LAUGHS] JANSING: First of all, set a baseline in- politically- that says your most reliable voters are older, right? Older voters tend to vote more than younger people. The average 401K balance is around $127,000. But if you're lucky enough to have one, if you're not depending just on a pension or Social Security, but you have a 401K and you're over 65, your 401K on average is about $272,588, that's before today. Okay? That- those are the latest numbers that are out there.  If you take a 20 percent hit, a 25 percent hit, and you lose 40 or $50,000 of your 401K, if you're Elon Musk, if you're Donald Trump, if you're any of the billionaires who work in the administration, that's not real money. That's like me taking a ten out of my pocket, or maybe less.  But that's years, that is years, off of what you planned for, to be able to actually pay for your retirement. So how do you message that? STEVENS: Well, I think that- you just laid it out. They have to- Democrats need to get in front of people, and say how this is affecting you personally. That's absolutely the right thing to do.  You know, people never believe the politicians will cut taxes. They are willing to believe they will raise taxes, and they are willing to believe that a politician might not raise taxes. So, generally people are very skeptical of any good that is going to come, but they will embrace the harm because they'll see what it's doing to them.  And this is what Democrats should be out there hitting. They have to understand that this is not a normal moment. They have to stand up. I- Booker was- was heroic in this. But do that over and over and over.  You know, this is a corrupt administration that is breaking the law. And that's how we should start talking about it. Elon Musk- it’s been said over and over- is probably engaged in criminal activities. That makes him a criminal. That makes him someone who should be held accountable under law.  And that's the framework this needs to be put in. It's not a normal moment.

In his Tuesday monologue for his eponymous show, Fox News Channel host Greg Gutfeld took a blowtorch to MSNBC’s Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough as a “bozo” and “grifter” with “dime slot hillbilly eyes” and “more full of [EXPLETIVE] than a cage full of chimps mainlining Metamucil” for recently claiming Joe Biden’s June 2024 debate performance was “shockingly bad” despite having said this was “the best Biden ever” “intellectually” and “analytically.” “So they say hindsight is 20/20. And if anybody in the media sees out of his hind end, it’s Joe Scarborough. He was once a Republican in Congress, but will be remembered as the worst thing to happen to Florida since Ron Jeremy toured The Villages. I know. But what I like most about Scarborough is his honesty. Well, that and his dime slot hillbilly eyes,” Gutfeld began.     A clip of Scarborough played from Monday’s show in which he said this to Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes — co-authors of their latest behind-the-scenes campaign book, Fight: We always look back in retrospect and think things were a certain way, just because it’s the way the media at the time defined it. You know, I remember after Biden’s shockingly bad presidential debate, that’s when, like, the history books were starting — you know, you could just see that was going to be the reason why he was pushed out of the race[.] An incredulous Gutfeld clapped back: “Oh, you could just see that was going to be the reason because there were no reasons before the debate....Saying the debate was like a shocking reason for Biden’s downfall is like saying, I didn’t know Hunter Biden was a problem until I saw his artwork.” Noting Scarborough said this all “now that Biden is long gone,” Gutfeld offered arguably the most important point about these tell-all books: “[T]hat’s what you get when the media is interviewing the media without addressing the diseased and dying elephant in the room, the media. Scarborough was talking with the authors of a new book that details just how Biden really was, how bad he was. And Scarborough acts as if he knew it the whole time.” This served as a segue to a clip of Scarborough from March 6, 2024 in which he gushed over Biden as “far beyond cogent” and “[t]his version of Biden intellectually, analytically is the best Biden ever.” NewsBusters readers will recall this was our 2024 Brian Stelter Memorial Quote of the Year:     “I think he meant pungent. Keep yacking, you grifter....Of course, it wasn’t the truth, you bozo, which is why you said it. This guy has always been more full of [EXPLETIVE] than a cage full of chimps mainlining Metamucil,” he replied. Moments later, Gutfeld laid waste to Biden’s actual mental capacity: Biden didn’t have the mental capability to dissect his own pork chop for dinner, let alone dissect a Joe Scarborough op ed. You couldn’t debate a speak and spell, which is why they told him the speak and spell was the nuclear football and Scarborough actually wanted us to believe Joe was still awake at 08:30 at night? By then, he was already in his cryogenic chamber, dreaming about his uncle getting eaten by cannibals, overcoming oil cancer, corn pop’s love for hairy legs. Gutfeld and his team had one more clip as, on February 9, 2024, Scarborough lambasted the Hur report predicting Biden would be seen by a jury as an “elderly man with a poor memory” as “random conclusions, irrelevant conclusions” that were “gratuitous” and in “bad fath.” This went right to Gutfeld’s conclusion about why Scarborough (and the liberal media writ large) refused to be honest: [If] Scarborough got within 200 feet of a polygraph machine, it would burst into flames. But Scarborough couldn’t afford to be honest with his audience because the Dems had a big bad orange man breathing down their necks...He had to blurt out hostile fidgety [EXPLETIVE] or they wouldn’t give him the pills that keep him from turning into a werewolf...The funny thing is [EXPLETIVE] if you had just told the truth when it mattered, maybe the Dems would have had time to find a candidate who could actually win an election...[H]ey, it could always be worse. Morning Joe could be on a network people watch. To see the relevant FNC transcript from April 2, click here.

The PBS News Hour on Monday ran two stories grounded in liberal alarmism against the Trump administration’s quest to cut wasteful spending and fraud in the federal government, including at USAID -- the United States Agency for International Development that provides foreign aid and economic development worldwide. The online headline showed how public television has suddenly discovered that China might be a rival for global influence: “After devastating earthquake in Myanmar, China filling vacuum left by USAID’s absence.” The point was reemphasized in the introduction from guest host William Brangham: “On the News Hour tonight, days after a deadly earthquake hit Myanmar and neighboring countries, USAID is largely absent, leaving a vacuum that China is quickly filling.” Which begs the question -- just how much international respect has the United States been getting for its “soft power” via its enormous worldwide work through USAID and related programs? It seems many around the world are primed to hate the United States no matter what it does or doesn’t do. Reporter Nick Schifrin emphasized that “International aid organizations such as the U.N.'s Children's Fund and World Food Program are working to deliver relief” and that “One of the most visible rescue teams has been Chinese. This morning, Chinese rescuers pulled a child out of the rubble, the team's successes broadcast on Chinese TV.” He relished quoting “a log written by current USAID employees obtained by the News Hour: “The U.S. government no longer has the tools or personnel to respond when our global neighbors request assistance." Talk about a readymade liberal headline! Schifrin interviewed a former senior USAID official named Chris Milligan, who lamented the administration’s response as “too little too late.” Schifrin repeated the log, and Milligan of course agreed. Milligan: I agree with that. We had the capacity. We had the assets. We chose to turn them off, and now people are dying. Schifrin: Let's talk about some of the soft power aspects of this. In the report we just showed, Chinese rescue officials are seen pulling bodies out of the rubble. What's your response when you see and hear that? Milligan: Yes. We provide humanitarian assistance because we're a generous country, and we do it based upon needs. However, there is a big dividend back here for America. It shows -- it's a showcase of American values. It creates goodwill. It strengthens our partnerships in the world, and it supports our global leadership. By walking away from humanitarian assistance, we are creating a political void that others, such as China, can fill for their own advantage. Are we now? History note: Foreign countries haven’t always been enamored with USAID, accusing it of being a CIA front and of “meddling in domestic politics.” After years of mocking and insulting conservatives for blaming China for COVID, the press suddenly cares about national security regarding China. After Schifrin set Milligan up with this leading question: “And does that hurt national security?” Milligan obliged with the now-acceptable China-is-our-enemy angle. Milligan: What would a world look like without USAID? It means more pandemics, pandemics coming to America….It's a less stable world, more conflict, more demands on American soldiers. It's a less free world, and it's a world where China becomes the global leader. Later, Brangham interviewed Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University on the Trump administration under the online headline “Scientists sound alarm on Trump administration’s dismantling of research funding.” (Woolf also serves as a senior fellow at the left-wing Center for American Progress, which wasn’t mentioned on PBS.) These segments were brought to you in part by BDO. A transcript is available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 3/31/25 William Brangham: The true impact of Friday's massive earthquake, which was centered in Myanmar, is now starting to reveal itself. Myanmar's military government says the official death toll is more than 2,000 people, with hundreds still missing. Thousands are injured and now homeless, as local and international efforts turn from rescuing survivors to recovering remains. Nick Schifrin begins our coverage. Nick Schifrin: Three days after the earthquake shook this monastery to the ground, the victims are finally being recovered. Nearly 300 monks lived here. Fifty are confirmed dead, the fate of 150 more unclear. In Mandalay, the powerful earthquake pulled buildings to the ground, collapsed hotels and destroyed an entire apartment complex. A shop owner who wanted to stay anonymous shows the scars from the building that collapsed on top of him. He was rescued after being trapped for hours. Man (through interpreter): I have been removing the debris from my shop on my own. No one has helped me. Nick Schifrin: In neighboring Thailand, Friday's terrifying collapse of a high-rise under construction sent people running for their lives. Today, at the site, they recovered one of the 18 who were killed. Authorities are investigating why the tower fell, when the damage to the rest of Bangkok was minimal. The epicenter was near Mandalay, Myanmar's second largest city, but the impact of the 7.7-magnitude quake spread to rural areas that today have little communications and are still stranded. Years of civil war following the 2021 military coup has left more than three million people displaced, and local media report fighting continued even this weekend between resistance groups and the military. International aid organizations such as the U.N.'s Children's Fund and World Food Program are working to deliver relief. Sai Han Lynn Aung, Chief, UNICEF Field Office in Mandalay: We know this is an absolute catastrophe for children and family across Mandalay. Many homes have been destroyed, road and bridge damaged. Many children and family are still missing and traumatized. Nick Schifrin: One of the most visible rescue teams has been Chinese. This morning, Chinese rescuers pulled a child out of the rubble, the team's successes broadcast on Chinese TV. Woman (through interpreter): The Chinese rescue teams came to help us. Thank you very much. I hope I can express my gratitude to the Chinese rescue teams on behalf of all the people in the affected areas. Nick Schifrin: In Washington, the State Department announced a humanitarian aid team would soon arrive and deny that USAID cuts prevented a U.S. response. Tammy Bruce, State Department Spokesperson: The aid can continue, and it may simply look different, and it may involve more partners. The success in the work and our impact will still be there. Nick Schifrin: But a log written by current USAID employees and obtained by "PBS News Hour" says that on Friday afternoon disaster response experts working on the earthquake received alerts that they should go home; 45 minutes later, they were told if they had urgent or critical needs, they could continue to work as necessary. The log goes on to say — quote — "The U.S. government no longer has the tools or personnel to respond when our global neighbors request assistance." For a perspective on this, we turn to Chris Milligan, who previously held the most senior career position at USAID during the last Trump administration, and prior to that was the agency's mission director to Myanmar. Chris Milligan, thanks very much. Welcome. Chris Milligan, Former Senior USAID Official: Thank you for having me. Nick Schifrin: What is your assessment of the U.S. response to the earthquake that happened on Friday so far? Chris Milligan: There really hasn't been a response. Normally, what would happen if there was a natural disaster like this, the U.S. government would deploy a disaster assistance response team within our. And this disaster assistance response team would be composed of technical experts in sectors like search-and-rescue, water, hygiene that would save lives. For example, when there was the massive earthquake in Turkey in '23, the U.S. government deployed a disaster assistance response team that grew to about 200 people, and 160 of those were search-and-rescue staff. Nick Schifrin: And just to give us perspective, the State Department spokesperson, Tammy Bruce, said today that a team from USAID was traveling to Myanmar now to help identify its most pressing needs, and the U.S. pledged $2 million in humanitarian assistance. It sounds like what you're saying is that that is not how things used to work. Chris Milligan: Correct. It's too little and too late. The three individuals, although I respect that they're humanitarian assistance advisers, are not specific technical experts across the fields that are required at this time. This does not replace a 200-person DART, or disaster assistance response team. When there is a natural disaster, the U.S. government provides well more than $2 million to help those in need. Nick Schifrin: And not only that, timing, right? Why are the first 72 hours so critical after an earthquake? Chris Milligan: They're called the golden hours. If you can find people and rescue them, then they have a chance of surviving. You have to get in there quickly to save lives. And the next thing you have to do is prevent a secondary wave of loss of life by ensuring that there is adequate clean water, food, and shelter. Nick Schifrin: And on both of those notes, let's put them in perspective for the recent USAID cuts overall. A congressional official tells me that the transport contracts that could have moved the dogs, the search-and-rescue teams, those transport contracts have been terminated and that was notified to Congress. And an employee recently let go from USAID confirmed to me that some of the programs that regional offices could have been using in circumstances like the earthquake in Myanmar, those programs have also been cut. What is the impact of those cuts, the overall cuts on USAID on a moment like this? Chris Milligan: The real-world impact is that the agency and the United States government does not have the capacity to help those in need. Those cuts that you mentioned occurred. But there are other cuts that are also significant. The internal programs inside the country were cut. So our ability or USAID's ability to pivot those programs to address the immediate needs of Mandalay doesn't exist anymore either. The relationships with the local individuals and local leaders don't exist anymore either. Nick Schifrin: And I want to read that sentence that I read from the log from current USAID officials… Chris Milligan: Correct. Nick Schifrin: … on Friday — quote — "The U.S. government no longer has the tools or personnel to respond when our global neighbors request assistance," do you agree with that? Chris Milligan: I agree with that. We had the capacity. We had the assets. We chose to turn them off, and now people are dying. Nick Schifrin: Let's talk about some of the soft power aspects of this. In the report we just showed, Chinese rescue officials are seen pulling bodies out of the rubble. What's your response when you see and hear that? Chris Milligan: Yes. We provide humanitarian assistance because we're a generous country, and we do it based upon needs. However, there is a big dividend back here for America. It shows — it's a showcase of American values. It creates goodwill. It strengthens our partnerships in the world, and it supports our global leadership. By walking away from humanitarian assistance, we are creating a political void that others, such as China, can fill for their own advantage. Nick Schifrin: And does that hurt national security? Chris Milligan: What would a world look like without USAID? It means more pandemics, pandemics coming to America. It means less jobs for Americans; 11 of the top 15 trading partners we have were recipients of foreign assistance, $2 billion in agricultural products purchased by USAID to go overseas, a billion dollars in pharmaceuticals. The list goes on and on. It's a less stable world, more conflict, more demands on American soldiers. It's a less free world, and it's a world where China becomes the global leader. Nick Schifrin: And, finally, you worked, as I said, as the senior career official, the counselor under USAID under the first Trump administration. What was your experience then, and how does it compare to how current USAID employees are being treated? Chris Milligan: USAID had a very positive experience under the first Trump administration. Together, we instituted reforms that made USAID more fit for purpose to address global challenges. So it was a very positive experience. We are not — the agency, as you know, being decimated and abolished, this is not the same experience. Nick Schifrin: And, to that point, USAID employees would have been willing to work with this Trump administration? Chris Milligan: Of course. I have worked across six different presidential administrations. I was one of the first civilians in Iraq for the Iraq War under a Republican administration. We don't do politics. We do national security. Nick Schifrin: Chris Milligan, thank you very much. Chris Milligan: Thank you. A pleasure. Thank you.

Most people probably do not know who Angie Drobnic Holan is, but they should. Holan is the director of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter, and on April 2, or International Fact-Checking Day, she wrote an op-ed bemoaning the setbacks the industry has taken in 2025 from Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and the Trump Administration. The entire column displayed a tragic lack of self-awareness on how the industry has failed to learn from its mistakes and the problems stemming from its overinflated view of its importance. Holan writes, “But this year’s fact-checking day also marks a very serious moment for the fact-checking community. We are facing multiple challenges to our ability to do our journalism, and it’s not clear what the next few years will bring. As director of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter, which connects 170 organizations around the world all adhering to high standards in fact-checking, I see a community under intense pressure. Not everyone loves fact-checking, and there are powerful political forces that would simply like it to go away.” Holan thinks people are opposed to factual accuracy when they’re simply opposed to partisan spin pretending to be fact-checks. Nevertheless, Holan claimed that without them, the world would just dissolve into chaos where relativity replaces truth: This is indeed a crisis for fact-checkers, but it’s even worse for the general public. Disinformation hurts people. It has real-world consequences. Without fact-checking, more grandparents will fall victim to financial scams. Adults will refuse to vaccinate children against proven killers like measles. Teens will read faked reports of current events with no way to tell them apart from the real thing.  Does Holan really think that the industry has prevented those things? Conspiracy theories arise because of a lack of trust in “official” sources, and, whether Holan likes it or not, some people are going to say to themselves, “If they lie about how many genders there are, they must also be lying about vaccines.”  Still, Holan goes on, “Two heavy blows hit fact-checking in 2025. In January, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg announced his decision to end its third-party fact-checking in the United States. The program paid fact-checkers to help Meta identify and flag hoaxes and other false information on its platform; the program’s end means less money for fact-checkers and less distribution via one of the world’s largest social media companies.“ She further lamented, “The other blow came from President Donald Trump’s administration, when billionaire Elon Musk pointed his Department of Government Efficiency at the U.S. Agency for International Development. The abrupt ending of USAID meant an immediate end to funding independent international journalism, which included support for fact-checkers in Eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America and Asia. Some of these fact-checkers have suffered quietly, trying to find other ways to fund their work.” Later, Holan continued to show no self-awareness, “Fact-checking’s effectiveness, in fact, may be why it is under such harsh attack in 2025. Fact-checking holds the line on reality for history’s sake. It builds evidence-based records that can withstand political pressures. Politicians who want to create their own realities are fighting hard against fact-checking, and they’re strong-arming tech companies and social media platforms into helping them.” It doesn’t. On everything from naval strategy to vice presidential debates, fact-checkers have said things that are straight-up not true, but the fact-checkers got used to their power to be able to throttle social media posts for things they said were untrue, but Holan was eager to pretend that didn’t happen, “Politicians have led the charge that fact-checking is ‘censorship,’ but that self-serving argument is fundamentally a mischaracterization of what fact-checkers do. We’re more like nutrition labels for online content. Nobody thinks a nutrition label on a bag of potato chips or a gallon of milk is censorship.” In the real world, when a Republican calls a Democrat a communist, they get such a label, but when a Democrat calls a Republican a Jim Crow throwback, they don’t. Sometimes, fact-checkers don’t even agree with each other. Everyone should agree that a democratic society should operate in factual reality, but people who appoint themselves the final arbiter of what is true should be a little humbler and more consistent in how they adjudicate controversial claims.

The story of the “Maryland father” deported to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT supermax prison continues to garner “victim porn” coverage on Spanish-language media. But in order for the story to stick, there need to be significant omissions and distortions when discussing the “victim” in this case.  Consider the many omissions and deflections during Telemundo’s very brief coverage of the story for its midday newscast: NOTICIAS TELEMUNDO MEDIODÍA 4/2/25 12:38 PM OCTAVIO PULIDO: Today a Salvadoran family fights for the return to the United States of Kilmar Abrego who was arrested while taking his son, who has autism, to school. Abrego was deported to the CECOT mega prison in his country of origin despite having valid asylum, work permit and driver’s license. According to ICE, a member of MS-13. In 2019, a judge had already dismissed that accusation. After his expulsion, the immigration service stated in a court document that his deportation was due to an administrative error. The 27-second brief accomplishes its purpose: it casts the “Maryland father” as a victim of President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement, casts the deportation as cruel and imperiling a family, and tries to establish that he is completely innocent of any allegations. But this is false. The amount of omissions required to make this case to the viewing public is simply astounding. There are no mentions of the individual’s suspected gang affiliations, or of the details of his 2019 arrest. There is no mention of the fact that multiple immigration courts found that there was credible evidence linking the deportee to MS-13 including, per a confidential informant: confirmed affiliation, gang name, and gang rank. Per Amber Duke of the Daily Caller: ? Daily Caller Senior Editor @ambermarieduke joins @reason and delivers the FACTS about the "Maryland father" MS-13 gang member? DUKE: "I'll fill in the gaps here.... The other individuals he [deported 'Maryland father'] was with at the Home Depot--that he was arrested… pic.twitter.com/ECLGrQlH3h — Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 2, 2025 As is the custom, especially among Spanish-language media, there is a blatant conceal of relevant data in service of a narrative. In Telemundo’s case, a narrative in furtherance of advocacy against border enforcement.