The leftists inside CBS News clearly despise new Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, who threatens to add troublesome balance to their “news.” The war erupted when Weiss delayed the latest 60 Minutes hit piece on Team Trump deporting Venezuelans into a "notorious" Salvadoran prison. Delaying it is a “crisis,” the Trump-haters screamed, a “death knell for democracy.” Reporter Sharyn Alfonsi assembled what we could guess was a typical hit piece on the “notorious” CECOT prison in El Salvador that temporarily held illegal migrant cause celebre Kilmar Abrego-Garcia. When it was delayed at the last minute, The Wall Street Journal reported a combative note from Alfonsi to fellow 60 Minutes staffers that quickly leaked to the media, where she said her segment was being held for political reasons, not editorial ones. Alfonsi said Weiss had "spiked" the story and not given her a chance to discuss it further. It is certainly a serious subject when the Trump administration not merely deported illegal immigrants, but deported them directly into a prison. That can certainly be questioned. We can question why it was that Weiss couldn’t delay this story until the promos had already been sent out. Team Alfonsi not only leaked to the papers, but I think we can guess they got their story posted in Canada through Global TV, which has the rights to air 60 Minutes in Canada. so that all their super-fans could see it. We’ve seen it, and the best we can about it is this: It’s like all the other hatchet jobs that 60 Minutes has launched against Team Trump in 2025. If it had aired, it might not have caused as much of a ripple outside its natural audience. Make no mistake: to use Brian Stelter’s lingo, it "centered" the story on illegal immigrants and their allegations of torture and sexual assault. It was intended to suggest Trump sent innocent men into “Hell,” the term of art CBS used, even though these people aren’t generally religious. If you think 60 Minutes ever wanted to ponder the Hell endured by Laken Riley, by Rachel Morin, by Jocelyn Nungaray, and other people murdered by illegal aliens, think again. They never want to center the negatives about illegal immigration. The illegal immigrant in general, or in specific like Kilmar, have been centered all year long. They are automatically, let’s joke autocratically awarded Sympathetic Victim Status. The Border Patrol and ICE are perpetually the villains of these stories. Alfonso and her crew didn't want to put a Trump aide like Stephen Miller into this story. Why? Because they don’t want an energetic rebuttal, where someone might cast aspersions on illegal aliens or worse yet, on CBS for making Fake News.  Alfonsi could not abide Weiss wanting a Trump official to comment: "If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a 'kill switch' for any reporting they find inconvenient.... We go from an investigative powerhouse to a stenographer for the state,” Alfonsi wrote. This statement's hilarious, considering Pelley put aside "investigative powerhouse" to "stenographer" in two puffball interviews with President Biden, not to mention Alfonsi's own puddle of goo over student activists like David Hogg at Parkland High School.  If Alfonsi wants to trash Weiss for curtailing her speech, she could review her 60 Minutes piece hailing the Germans for cracking down on free speech on the internet. Enjoy the podcast below, or on Apple or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts.   

President Trump is overturning and disrespecting traditions pell-mell, an unparalleled rampage through the great American institutions. Or so says the PBS News Hour. On Tuesday, reporter William Brangham served as guest anchor to cover Trump adding his name to the Kennedy Center, and brought on an insufficiently identified left-wing presidential historian to flay the president. William Brangham: Since returning to the White House earlier this year, President Trump has made quick work reshaping Washington, D.C., in his image, in some cases literally. That will be on full display during what he's calling the Trump-Kennedy Center Honors, which is being broadcast on TV tonight. The president hosted the event from the recently and controversially renamed building, one that has roots tracing back to the Eisenhower administration more than 60 years ago. Stephanie Sy takes a closer look at its history and evolution. Sy was joined by historian Mark Updegrove and asked him, “Is there any precedent for a sitting president to have major cultural buildings named after him, especially ones in which they themselves control the board?” Mark Updegrove, Presidential Historian: No, not at all. I mean, it would be unthinkable, I think, for a president to even entertain being the chairman of the Kennedy Center board. That was unprecedented…. Updegrove launched into Democratic talking points, using the new phrase that pays, “affordability.” Updegrove: We shouldn't have our presidents, I think, thinking about things that should be named in their honor. President Trump is barely a quarter into his second term in office, at a time when most Americans are worried about affordability. We saw that as almost -- the off-year elections as a referendum on the Trump presidency and his failure to deliver on the promise of resurrecting our economy, bringing down inflation, boosting our employment numbers…. The historian found what Sy termed “the demolition of the White House East Wing” to be “very concerning, deeply concerning, to see this president, I think, overreach….of President Trump just deciding to do something and doing it without consulting anyone, without looking at the rules, without looking at the precedents. And I think that in itself is dangerous.” Sy only gave away her guest’s partisan affiliation at the very end. Sy: That is Mark Updegrove, the president of the LBJ Foundation. Predictably, Updegrove is a fan of ABC News reporter and Biden suck-up extraordinaire Mary Bruce. Also on Tuesday’s edition, the News Hour stirred up controversy over Trump abruptly recalling ambassadors from 30 countries. He promised “one perspective on this move,” which turned out to be the only perspective offered in the studio. After a 15-second reading by Brangham of a State Department statement on the recalls (shown onscreen), Dinkelman said of Trump’s move, “This is unprecedented. This is unheard of. This is a sabotage of the American diplomatic machine. This is an affront to the professional Foreign Service that we have spent decades, a century in building in our country. And I don't know what it foretells.” Brangham hardly blinked at the loaded word "sabotage," merely repeating it. William Brangham: Sabotage? John Dinkelman: Definitely.... Brangham rehashed the State Department's point and invited Dinkelman to attack it. Brangham: I mean, you heard the State Department's position on this. They're arguing, this happens with every administration. Many of these people were appointed by the Biden administration, and the president wants his own people in there. What do you make of that argument? Dinkelman: This -- it is entirely incorrect and a misrepresentation of the reality. Every American ambassador submits their resignation to the incoming president, who either chooses to accept or reject those resignations at that time. Brangham: And all these ambassadors did that? Dinkelman: All of these ambassadors did that about one year ago right now. And the Trump administration not only refused those resignations, but actually encouraged the individuals to remain. Even within the past few weeks, senior-level Cabinet individuals have visited with these various ambassadors on trips, reaffirming the desire of the administration that they stay in their positions, only to find them getting a phone call and surreptitiously being told they haven't until January to get out. So in other words, they got an extra year in their positions? These overwrought, one-sided anti-Trump segments were brought to you in part by BNSF Railway. Transcripts are available, click “Expand.” PBS News Hour 12/23/25 7:25:17 p.m. (ET) William Brangham: Since returning to the White House earlier this year, President Trump has made quick work reshaping Washington, D.C., in his image, in some cases literally. That will be on full display during what he's calling the Trump-Kennedy Center Honors, which is being broadcast on TV tonight. The president hosted the event from the recently and controversially renamed building, one that has roots tracing back to the Eisenhower administration more than 60 years ago. Stephanie Sy takes a closer look at its history and evolution. Stephanie Sy: When the building opened to the public in 1971, the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts stood as a living memorial to the late president. That legacy stood untouched until last week, when the Kennedy Center board, most of whom were appointed by President Trump, followed through on the president's wishes and voted to rename it the Trump-Kennedy Center. While it takes an act of Congress to make that official, construction teams wasted no time. Within 24 hours, President Trump's name was emblazoned alongside Kennedy's in the marble facade. For more on this change and how it's part of a larger effort by the president, I'm joined by presidential historian Mark Updegrove. Mark, it's a pleasure to have you on the show. Comment on this move. Is there any president for a sitting president to have major cultural buildings named after him, especially ones in which they themselves control the board? Mark Updegrove, Presidential Historian: No, not at all. I mean, it would be unthinkable, I think, for a president to even entertain being the chairman of the Kennedy Center board. That was unprecedented. The president is presiding over the nation. He has some big problems to resolve. And I think the American people would agree that that is not the function of a president. We don't want to see our president acting as the chairman of the board for the Kennedy Center. We want him addressing the challenges and the problems that come across his desk, as being not only the president of our nation, but, for all practical purposes, the leader of the free world. So this is unprecedented on so many levels. Stephanie Sy: From a historian's perspective, why do you think it matters that the name of this building is being changed? Mark Updegrove: We shouldn't have our presidents, I think, thinking about things that should be named in their honor. President Trump is barely a quarter into his second term in office, at a time when most Americans are worried about affordability. We saw that as almost -- the off-year elections as a referendum on the Trump presidency and his failure to deliver on the promise of resurrecting our economy, bringing down inflation, boosting our employment numbers. He hasn't accomplished that, but what he has done is renamed institutions in his honor, not something that we see from a president. I think of humility as an American value and part of the American brand. But, of course, narcissism is really part of the Trump brand. This shouldn't surprise us, but it should alarm us. Stephanie Sy: Tell me more about this building and how it originally came to be named after President Kennedy. Mark Updegrove: The Kennedy Center was not something that President Kennedy had imagined. Rather, it was the thinking of Lyndon Johnson, President Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded President Kennedy after his assassination. President Johnson wanted to do something to reflect the best of the arts in America and named the Kennedy Center in -- for President Kennedy, partly to get it through Congress, but partly to honor the accomplishments of our 35th president, John F. Kennedy. Stephanie Sy: This is not the first time in recent months that the president has shown what critics say is disregard for historical and cultural sites, the demolition of the White House East Wing, for instance. As a historian, how would you frame all of these changes taken as a whole? Mark Updegrove: I think it's very concerning, deeply concerning, to see this president, I think, overreach. Fifty years ago, we called the Nixon presidency the imperialistic presidency, but it really pales in comparison to what we have seen from Donald Trump. The demolition of the East Wing of the White House is another example of President Trump just deciding to do something and doing it without consulting anyone, without looking at the rules, without looking at the precedents. And I think that in itself is dangerous. Stephanie Sy: Mark, but, of course, Trump was elected. He was elected twice, and he has millions of supporters. We also know that, as a real estate magnate, he was long known to put his name on his properties. Of course, we're talking about government buildings now, including the Institute of Peace building, which bears his name. His picture is now, by the way, in front of many buildings, like at the Department of Agriculture. But, as much as Trump critics say this is something that looks like we'd see in authoritarian regimes, haven't we seen a lot of renaming of monuments in the last several years, for example, to more align with what is viewed as politically correct today? I mean, do you see parallels or contrast there? Mark Updegrove: No, I don't see any parallels. I think there are renaming of institutions. And a couple of examples are the JFK Airport, which was named for President Kennedy, like the Kennedy Center, after his assassination. It was posthumously named for President Kennedy. The National Airport in Washington, D.C., was renamed Reagan National. Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's early in the 1990s, and so it was renamed for President Reagan in 1998, when President Clinton was in office. So President Reagan was still very much alive, although ailing from Alzheimer's. We don't generally see these things until a president has left office and has rendered a legacy. In President Trump's case, he is only one-quarter through his second term in office. We have yet to see the legacy he will render as president. And I think he would do well to think that -- not about being remembered for his name being on a building, but what he does in the office of the presidency of the United States to better the American people in our nation and around the world. Stephanie Sy: That is Mark Updegrove, the president of the LBJ Foundation. Mark, thank you so much for joining us. Mark Updegrove: Thank you very much. * PBS News Hour 12/23/25 7:12:07 p.m. (ET) William Brangham: In an unusual move, the Trump administration is recalling the ambassadors from nearly 30 countries around the world. According to the Associated Press, nations in Africa are losing the most diplomats, followed by Asia, then Europe, the Middle East, and here in the Western Hemisphere. The State Department told the "News Hour" in a statement that -- quote -- "This is a standard process in any administration. An ambassador is a personal representative of the president, and it is the president's right to ensure that he has individuals in these countries who advance the America first agenda." So, for one perspective on this move, we turn to John Dinkelman. He is the president of the American Foreign Service Association. He had a nearly four-decade diplomatic career with the U.S. State Department. John, thank you so much for being here. John Dinkelman, President, American Foreign Service Association: Thank you for having me. William Brangham: How unusual is this to recall nearly 30 ambassadors one year into an administration? Is this standard practice? John Dinkelman: This is not standard practice. This is unprecedented. This is unheard of. This is a sabotage of the American diplomatic machine. This is an affront to the professional Foreign Service that we have spent decades, a century in building in our country. And I don't know what it foretells. William Brangham: Sabotage? John Dinkelman: Definitely. When individuals have spent their lives devoted to a profession, to representing our country overseas, and, en masse, you tell those who have qualified to represent our country, to carry out our policies, to execute any administration, any president's goals in any given country, when you tell them all summarily that for some reason they don't qualify, something is definitely wrong. William Brangham: I mean, you heard the State Department's position on this. They're arguing, this happens with every administration. Many of these people were appointed by the Biden administration, and the president wants his own people in there. What do you make of that argument? John Dinkelman: This -- it is entirely incorrect and a misrepresentation of the reality. Every American ambassador submits their resignation to the incoming president, who either chooses to accept or reject those resignations at that time. William Brangham: And all these ambassadors did that? John Dinkelman: All of these ambassadors did that about one year ago right now. And the Trump administration not only refused those resignations, but actually encouraged the individuals to remain. Even within the past few weeks, senior-level Cabinet individuals have visited with these various ambassadors on trips, reaffirming the desire of the administration that they stay in their positions, only to find them getting a phone call and surreptitiously being told they haven't until January to get out.   William Brangham: We know that the U.S. already had about 80 vacant ambassadorships before this event. Then this comes. What is your sense of what the impact is going to be on our ability to project American power in ways, soft and hard, all over the world? John Dinkelman: Simply put, we're taking our star players off the field before we can even enter the game. These individuals will not be able to exercise the personal and professional bona fides and relationships that they have established over decades. And what will be very interesting is who replaces them. If it's a member of the professional Foreign Service, I have to worry, as the president of the Foreign Service Association, what kind of loyalty oath are they going to be required to take that demonstrates their fidelity to the administration, in addition to the fidelity that they should have sworn to the Constitution in the first place? William Brangham: Have you seen any evidence that there is such a loyalty oath being passed around to potential candidates? John Dinkelman: I have not yet seen that, and I am looking for it closely. William Brangham: Have you been hearing -- I imagine your phone must be ringing off the hook? John Dinkelman: Incessantly, yes. William Brangham: And what are they saying to you? John Dinkelman: They're hurt. They're concerned. Many of them are afraid. There is a wonder as to what in the world they could have done that would have caused the ire of our leaders. They have done everything they could to carry out the policies of the president, as they would for any elected leader of our country, because that's what the Foreign Service does. But, in this case, they are left stumped, as am I, as to what would have caused this en masse dismissal of our leaders in our Foreign Service. William Brangham: Is it possible, just playing devil's advocate, that, to take the State Department's stated position, that some of these people were not enacting what President Trump believes is an America first agenda in their positions? John Dinkelman: I find it inconceivable. Individuals like myself who have spent decades trained to make sure that they're advocating on behalf of our leaders, on behalf of the elected leaders of the United States, it is incomprehensible to me that individuals would do this, much less 30 or 40 of them en masse all at once. It simply cannot happen. William Brangham: At the beginning, I put the list up of all those nations that were -- where the ambassadors have now been pulled. Are there particular nations, when you look at that list, that you're -- that concern you specifically John Dinkelman: There's various that concern me, but I'm particularly interested in what's going on in Guatemala, where not only our ambassador, but our deputy chief of mission, both senior Foreign Service officers with decades of experience each, have been summarily told that they are to leave the post. Given the immigration crisis that the administration says we are in and the key role that Guatemala plays in that crisis, how we could determine that the individuals in charge of our mission there, on the other side of that problem, working with the other side of the equation, are no longer going to be there and who will fill that gap is beyond me. William Brangham: You mentioned earlier to one of my colleagues the concern that you have that, if every new administration comes in and basically guts the corps, civil service, what that does to America's ability to enact its foreign policy. What did you mean by that? John Dinkelman: It will politicize us as a profession. We come into the service sworn loyal to the Constitution and nothing else. And when presidents change -- I myself have been through six different presidents and have served willingly under each one of them. I know that the thousands of men and women in the Foreign Service will continue to do so, because that's what they were sworn to do. If, on the other hand, we start to move our people in and out with every administration, it's going to deplete our ability as diplomats to get the job done. It will hurt our credibility and it will hurt our nation in general. William Brangham: John Dinkelman, thank you so much for being here. John Dinkelman: Thank you.

Hunter Biden is a shameless liar. It’s just as true today as it was in the midst of his binges on crack and hookers. It’s also true that the elitist media have long shown a deep desire to ignore him entirely, and when they couldn’t, it was a sad family tragedy, so head for the handkerchiefs. The Daily Caller reports that Hunter went on “The Shawn Ryan Podcast” to unload more whoppers, and no lie was more shameless than this: “What I can tell you about the laptop is that there is no laptop. That’s bulls--t.” Ryan replied, “There was no f--king laptop?” Hunter implausibly claimed “There is an actual physical laptop that somebody had, but the guy that had, that said he had the laptop, the existence of the search for the laptop came before he was even a twinkle in Rudy Giuliani’s eye.” He started babbling about how Lev Parnas “literally went to Ukraine to get a laptop “four months before John Paul Mac Isaac ever even… existed. And so, what they did is they cobbled together [a] stolen, concocted, fabricated mishmash of digital information, largely, which is, you know, thousands and thousands and thousands of emails…from 25 years. I mean, no laptop could have held all of that.” He later added: “There’s nothing in the laptop other than a record of me being a degenerate, a degenerate drug addict in my, at the worst moment in my life.” All of this is false. Hunter brought the laptop to Mac Isaac’s shop and then forgot it there for years. It was not “stolen” or “concocted.” It contained evidence that Hunter Biden was exploiting his father’s power for personal gain, which he then wasted on drugs and sex workers. Fox News added that Biden also claimed in their interview that the super-rich always avoid the consequences for their actions. As if Hunter didn’t avoid the consequences of his actions by having his daddy in the White House pardon him for everything that may have happened from 2014 to 2024? Acting like an advocate for normal Americans – a category he clearly doesn’t fit – Hunter said only the rich are benefitting today. "Yeah. Not regular guys,” he told Ryan. “Not the guys you served with, not the guys that I went to high school with, not the, you know, nobody that I know," Biden said. "You know the people that are benefiting and the people that seem to have always some way [to] avoid the consequences and win and that's, you know, the .1 percent. And it's not even the 1 percent anymore." Biden clarified that he did not believe "all billionaires are evil" but that "every one of us" were "victims of the algorithm." "What we do is that we allow ourselves to be driven by our algorithms to believe things that just are not even remotely true and which then we all give up. Like you just said, nobody's held accountable," Hunter said. Hunter Biden is the one who’s “not even remotely true,” and yet, he’s never been “fact checked” by the “independent fact checkers” at PolitiFact. There’s pages for two Duncan Hunters, Todd Hunter, Tony Hunter, and Hunter Schwarz, but no Hunter Biden. This isn't true of other presidential progeny:  Donald Trump Jr. has 21 fact checks, Ivanka has nine, Eric has five.  Almost every elitist media operative who brays about being essential to democracy or holding politicians accountable failed to report honestly on how the Bidens exploited national office for personal gain. Saving that mission for the Trumps alone just cements their partisan reputation.

It was a challenging task, but an esteemed panel of NewsBusters editors, led by MRC President David Bozell and MRC’s Vice President for Research and Publications Brent Baker, boiled down all the biased outbursts from lefty hack hosts, anchors, reporters and pundits in 2025 and on December 17 announced The Media Research Center Award for Worst Quote of the Year.  Of course, every year, there is way too much bias for just one category. So we broke down the Worst of 2025 into five additional categories (The Craziest Analysis Award; The Trashing Trump Award; The Damn Those Conservatives Award; The ICE Breakers Award for Hating Trump’s Deportation Policy; and the Celebrity Freak-Outs Award).  Today, we present the WORST OF 2025: The Celebrity Freak-Out Award.    WINNER     “I don’t think he [Donald Trump] won in a free and fair election. You heard me. I’m coming out and saying it myself. I don’t care if that means I look crazy because Elon Musk – who’s this other Nazi guy running around town who owns X….He’s a professional Nazi in my humble opinion. And he’s good friends with Trump….He was giving out million-dollar checks to people if they would vote for Trump. That’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional and illegal.”— Comedian Kathy Griffin on her podcast Talk Your Head Off with Kathy Griffin, October 15.   RUNNERS-UP   “I will always treasure your debate with Trump….That was one of the greatest rhetorical performances I’ve ever seen. You smoked him like a ham….You warned everyone about the future under our present president. You said he would prosecute his political enemies, he would cut Medicaid and Medicare, he would ignore court orders, he would alienate our allies, he would give massive tax cuts to the rich. And I know you’re not here to say, ‘I told you so,’ but would you like to?”— Host Stephen Colbert to former Vice President Kamala Harris on CBS’s The Late Show, August 1.   “In my home, the America I love, the America I’ve written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration. Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experience to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism, and let freedom ring.”— Singer Bruce Springsteen live from the Co-Op Live stage in Manchester, England on May 14.   Co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin: “I think it’s very different to live in the United States in 2025 than it is in Iran.”Co-host Whoopi Goldberg: “Not if you’re black!”— ABC’s The View, June 18.   “This was a church inside a Catholic school and whaddaya know [shooter] was a white guy, Republican, MAGA person. Whaddaya know? White supremacist.”— Comedian/former ABC’s The View co-host Rosie O’Donnell incorrectly identifying the shooter as MAGA, on her TikTok feed, August 28.   Host Jonathan Capehart: “You said earlier, Mr. De Niro, about the President, he will not leave the White House. This is where you and I are on the same wavelength.”Actor Robert De Niro: “No way. He will not. We see it, we see it, we see it every –  we see it all the time. He will not want to leave. He set it up with his, I guess he’s the [Joseph] Goebbels of the cabinet, Stephen Miller. He’s a, he’s a Nazi. Yes, he is, and he’s Jewish, and he should be ashamed of himself.”— MSNBC’s The Weekend, October 19.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio upset European socialists by announcing he would “bar leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States.” The New York Times provided an unintentionally laughable headline on Christmas Eve: They Seek to Curb Online Hate. The U.S. Accuses Them of Censorship. The Trump administration said five regulators and researchers who work to tackle disinformation and abuse on the internet had been barred from entering the United States. Yes, censorship is defined by the Left as “tackling disinformation and abuse,” or “curbing online hate,” but it’s still suppressing and punishing speech. Imagine if European socialists censored The New York Times website or their social-media communications. But they don’t – they’re censoring “the Enemy,” the haters. So it’s all good. The headline in the paper on Christmas was "5 Fighters of Online Hate Are Barred From the U.S.," those poor hate fighters. Times reporter Adam Satariano began by painting the European censors in positive terms: Josephine Ballon and Anna-Lena von Hodenberg lead a German legal aid organization that assists individuals facing online abuse and violent threats. Clare Melford runs a British group that helps identify disinformation. Imran Ahmed is a British activist who runs an organization that has chronicled anti-vaccination content on social media. On Tuesday, the Trump administration accused all of them of a campaign of censorship against Americans. The four individuals, along with a former senior European Commission official, Thierry Breton of France, were barred from entering the United States after Secretary of State Marco Rubio labeled them “radical activists” who undercut free speech. Again, this is not merely an accusation. It's a reality. Notice that other than Rubio's "radical activists" citation, none of them are identified as leftist ideologues. It never happens in this story. They treat Rubio's accusation as dubious. Ballon and von Hodenberg's group is called HateAid. Melford runs the Global Disinformation Index. We especially call out Imran Ahmed, who runs the “Center for Countering Digital Hate,” which in 2021 tagged NewsBusters as one of the “Toxic Ten” for pushing “climate deniers” like our friend Marc Morano and his book Green Fraud. The reporter laments “Mr. Trump and others on the right have successfully pushed social media firms to roll back moderation rules that they viewed as silencing conservative voices.” They viewed? Imagine a reporter spending an entire article presenting the sun coming up as an allegation. Speaking of "silencing conservative voices," Satariano's article never quotes Rubio or any other conservative. We just get a press release for these censors. The prime minister of France turns it upside down: “These measures amount to intimidation and coercion aimed at undermining European digital sovereignty,” Mr. Macron said on social media." Censorship is "digital sovereignty." The Europeans aren't just trying to "curb online hate," as you can see: The issue came to a head this month when the European Commission, the executive branch of the European Union, fined Elon Musk’s social media platform X $140 million. The commission said that the site had violated the Digital Services Act by selling verification check marks that allow users to mislead others about their identities, by maintaining opaque advertising practices and by refusing to provide researchers with data access. This isn't just about fact checking or hate fighting. It's about using the power of government to aggressively supervise speech on social-media platforms, and especially conservative speech.