Is it possible that the Republican war on so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” is having an effect on the movies? The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is expressing alarm at the decline of LGBTQ characters at the movies – it’s at 20.4 percent of 2025 films in their latest tally, down from 28.5 percent in 2022.Worse yet for the GLAAD squad, none of the 19 films in the animated/family film category had any of LGBTQ characters in it, which they find alarming. Last year, the ratio was two out of 26.They warn that Trump’s FCC has opened a public inquiry into whether the TV ratings system for children should include a warning for parents about plots with transgender and nonbinary characters. Because the Left wants to push their libertine agenda on the youngest, most vulnerable humans they can find. To warn anyone about it is a disturbing outbreak of homophobia, transphobia, and all kinds of phobias.It’s highly unlikely that people making movies today are Trump-supporting Republicans. However, they could decide that seeking to please GLAAD first and foremost might not be the best business decision. It may alienate a significant portion of their potential audience, and hence their profits. GLAAD naturally insists that it’s a savvy business decision to include sexual-minority characters in plots.GLAAD also found it “extremely disappointing” that none of the 225 films in their tally from last year featured a transgender character. They demanded “authentic and inclusive media representation” of people who deny their authentic biological gender.If you oppose the transgender revolution, then you are associated with “misinformation” and violence. GLAAD argued: “The misrepresentation and exclusion of transgender characters and stories in entertainment, while politicians and anti-LGBTQ activists are fixated on targeting trans people through misinformation, anti-trans legislation, and violence, is unconscionable.”Transgenderism isn’t a target of misinformation. It traffics in misinformation, insisting that everyone should embrace “gender-affirming” delusions.Another reason to avoid LGBTQ characters is the way GLAAD types judge them. They have what they call a three-part “Vito Russo Test,” named for the GLAAD co-founder and author of the book The Celluloid Closet. Characters can’t be “solely or predominantly defined by sexual orientation or gender identity” -- they need a deeper personality, they need more dimension. That’s not difficult.Next, the character “must matter” to the plot, that their “removal would have a significant effect.” They can’t just be there “simply to provide colorful commentary, paint urban authenticity, or set up a punchline.” Finally, the LGBTQ character’s story “must not be outwardly offensive, avoids defaulting to well-known tropes or stereotypes.”Obviously, these demanding judges don’t care if the “homophobes” are demeaned with “well-known tropes.” That’s probably encouraged. What GLAAD clearly wants is “affirming” plots and characters, which would naturally include negative depictions of anyone critical of their identity.GLAAD also looked forward to forthcoming films. For example, they expressed hope that the third animated “Spider Verse” film from Sony would expand upon the character Gwen Stacy (Spider Woman) having a “Protect Trans Kids” sticker in her bedroom. This offers “an opportunity to expand this message of support for trans youth to include actual trans characters.”In GLAAD’s view, Hollywood should be pressured each year to be an incessant “ally” on the silver screen, forcing their ideological narratives into entertainment products so the libertine left can win their cultural revolution. The nightmare for GLAAD is the idea that Americans might be able to go to the theatre and enjoy an entire movie without once thinking about their radical identity politics. 

President Trump’s address to the nation on election interference and other matters did not air on the principal broadcast networks, who deliberately sought to prevent their viewers from hearing whatever Trump had to say. However, they all offered rebuttals.The speech was censored per the request of socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Per People Magazine:On Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez was asked by Pablo Manríquez, a reporter for Migrant Insider and the liberal outlet MeidasTouch, whether U.S. news networks should air the President’s address. “I don’t think we should be contributing to any platforming of lies about our elections,” the New York Democrat and possible 2028 Presidential contender said. “Many of these outlets often receive transcripts, and I think we have an ethical obligation not to air things that undermine our election and are not rooted in evidence and fact.”“Of course, it depends on the contents of this speech, but that’s my take on it,” the 36-year-old congresswoman added.And the networks largely complied.  ABC and NBC refused to air the speech, breaking in live to offer post-address rebuttals. CBS broke in but were late getting to the speech, going to The White House at about 4 minutes in, carried another 17 minutes and then broke back to the studio for analysis and rebuttals. Two moments from CBS’s coverage: First, as our colleague Nick Fondacaro points out, Major Garrett and Tony Dokoupil insist on claiming there is no evidence to support President Trump’s claims despite not having seen a single one of the declassified documents. Then Garett suggests Trump is going to steal the midterms (click “expand” to view all transcripts). Despite the documents being declassified only tonight and the fact neither of them have read the documents in the minutes since the address started, Garrett and DoKoupil claim there's no evidence of Trump's claims. They then suggest Trump is going to steal the midterms. pic.twitter.com/ILFPxhxSxd— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 17, 2026 TONY DOKOUPIL: He did not completely walk the line of the promise from The White House to not relitigate 2020.MAJOR GARRETT: He came close to it. He didn’t use some of the rhetoric he has used in the past, but he inferred that there was still something problematic about the election when there was not.DOKOUPIL: And the claim that there are noncitizens and dead people active on voter rolls.GARRETT: Actively voting- that is not substantiated. But he said there are catastrophic vulnerabilities and Tony, you have to ask yourself what is that rhetoric about? Is that rhetoric about setting the stage for federal intervention in the midterms? I mean, we’ve had primary elections all this year. We’ve had more in August. Those primary elections have been under a system that the President said that is catastrophically vulnerable. Yet he and all the other Republicans and Democrats have accepted the elections, I mean, the results of those primaries because they’re being carried out according to state law and with resilient and checkable and auditable results.Amazing stuff here. Is the refusal to acknowledge the possibility of a scintilla of election-related impropriety not its own form of election denialism?Next, Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan comes on and refutes President Trump’s claims against China with…literal Chinese propaganda. Margaret Brennen uses a Chinese propaganda statement to "fact-check" Trump.Listen to the bravado she gives the Chinese while she reads: "China has never and will never interfere in a the presidential elections of a the United States."She then balks at Trump with "And so, what… pic.twitter.com/tKOx9QIGND— Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) July 17, 2026 MARGARET BRENNAN: It’s impossible for us to fact-check each thing that was said but on the specific thing in regard to China that you raised, the President was informed when he was President in his first term, in a classified memo on January 7th. Both the assessments regarding interference, and that was also public prior to that date. So he was aware. And we reported on this network at the time in regard to the assessments as to which foreign countries favored which election candidates. He seems to be alleging that China actively tried to undermine him and even referenced wanting to get him to resign at one point. Ahead of this I did reach out to Chinese officials who were already prepared with a prerebuttal here. I’ll read it to you.The quote is: “China has long adhered to the principle of noninterference in others’ internal affairs. The U.S. election is an internal matter, its outcome determined by the American people. China never and will never interfere in the Presidential elections of the United States.”Now, what was assessed by the intelligence community and made public as recently as- I’m looking at April 2020, I want to read for you what was in the National Intelligence Council. It’s “Chinese intelligence officials analyzed multiple states’ election voter registration data, to conduct public opinion and analysis on the 2020 U.S. general election.” So public opinion analysis is what the U.S. intelligence community said the Chinese were doing. The President is alleging something far more aggressive there in actively undermining his presidency and I think, Tony, the question for tomorrow will continue to be, “and so what are you going to do about it?”Like the Chinese Embassy is going to admit to any sort of wrongdoing. Brennan didn’t address the specific claims made by President Trump against China such as the voter data breach, alleged printing of ballots, or corporate influence operation. Instead, she just regurgitates the statement from the Embassy. NBC refused to air the speech, breaking in after the fact and offering minimal coverage. This segment offers the fullest compendium thereof: WATCH: NBC obeys AOC by not airing President Trump's speech but attempted to rebut it by complaining that Trump didn't present any documents during the speech, and that there was no evidence of China interfering with our voting system and ballots. What is a 220 million voter data… pic.twitter.com/rI3QmsQaWb— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 17, 2026 HALLIE JACKSON: Let me bring in now our Chief White House Correspondent Garrett Haake, who is joining us from the North Lawn. And Garrett, President Trump previously for years had pushed conspiracy theories about election fraud. So bring us up to speed tonight. What did he say, if anything, that was new?GARRETT HAAKE: Hallie, broadly speaking, much of this would sound familiar to people who follow the President. He described the U.S. election system as falling, in his words, “catastrophically short of the standards we should have for election security” and described the declassification and review of American election records that broadly fell into several categories, including that obtaining of voter information by China. Another category as relates to activities that were taking place in Venezuela. A third category on cover-ups, and a fourth on domestic, let's call them voter irregularities, including a focus specifically on one GOTV group in Michigan.He concluded with a line -- I don't know if it was scripted or ad lib -- saying that stolen elections can not happen again. But never did he use the data he was presenting to make a case that any specific election was stolen. Merely that there were these categories of vulnerabilities. He concluded with a push to pass the SAVE America Act, a piece of legislation that would overhaul parts of the voting system in this country, namely requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship to both register and to vote, casting that as a prescription. But again, the prescription didn't exactly match up with the complaints that the President outlined throughout the course of this. As you said, Hallie, hundreds of pages of documents here released by The White House with information we still have to review to find what exactly is new and what’s supported by other information publicly available.JACKSON: And our team’s looking through it, Garrett, thanks, including our National Security and Global Affairs Correspondent Dan De Luce. And Dan, one of the questions people will ask: was there anything revealed by the President, is there anything in these documents that would have changed any actual vote count?DAN DE LUCE: I didn't hear that in that speech. He talked about China not wanting him to get elected. He talked about them getting ahold of this voter data. But I didn't hear him, and I haven't seen in these documents so far some kind of indication that China or another foreign actor penetrated our voting system, got into a state’s election counting system, tampered with ballots. He didn't talk about that. I don't see it yet in the documents. He's not even really alleging that. So, I think the case is still out there. As far as we know, and there's such overwhelming evidence, Joe Biden won that election. And he's also not making clear what should be done now, exactly. Because he's talked about the federal government should take over the process. But he kind of left that open in that speech.In sum, a fancy version of “without evidence” and complaints of Trump not presenting evidence during the speech that had just been declassified. There was also the allegation that there was no evidence of China interfering on our voting system and ballots. But what is a 220 million voter data breach, ballot printing operation and corporate influence operation if not interference with our election?Finally, there’s ABC: they came in after the speech and unloaded. Here’s how Mary Bruce opened the special coverage: WATCH: ABC didn't air President Trump's address. Instead, Mary Bruce opens post-address coverage with a prebuttal, presuming viewer idiocy by telling them, "It's complicated." pic.twitter.com/Ume3U7kLzB— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 17, 2026 MARY BRUCE: Good evening, I’m Mary Bruce. We are coming back on the air because President Trump has just completed his address to the nation, touting his record and what he believes are his accomplishments in office so far. For 22 minutes just now the President, in a rare prime-time address from The East Room, starting his remarks with the issues so many in our part- in his own party were hoping for him to tout. His efforts to bring down healthcare costs. Immigration and the border. And the economy. Also touching briefly on the ongoing war with Iran. And then the President, for the bulk of these remarks, focusing squarely on the nation’s elections. Saying that without trust in the nation’s elections there can be no greatness. And announcing the declassification and release of what he called critical intelligence that reveals vulnerabilities in our infrastructure, claiming it shows foreign interference, especially by China, and renewing his previous claims of irregularities in voting machines.The President just made a host of allegations about information that he claims has been withheld from the public and withheld from him when he was President, and he's calling for the Justice Department and the FBI and CIA to investigate how this information, in his words, was hidden. The President, of course, was President at the time, but still he is attacking the intelligence agencies that reported to him in 2020. The President is now making these new claims based on existing intelligence that he's now declassifying, after directing his administration to go back and review the raw data. He is now making this information public for all to see on The White House website, whitehouse.gov. We should stress this is complicated. This is information that is just being made public. And our teams, just like the public, are carefully unpacking all of this. We're going to continue to do so tonight and throughout the coming days. The President saying his purpose in disclosing this information, quote, “is not to weaken confidence in elections, but to earn that confidence by confronting vulnerabilities and correcting them.” The President, we should note, has for years pushed false claims of fraud. This is a deeply personal issue for President Trump, something he's been talking about a lot since he lost the 2020 election. Claims of widespread voter fraud, though, have been repeatedly disproven by the Courts and by members of his own party in his first administration.If this is so complicated, as Mary Bruce alleges, why not just air the speech so viewers can follow along? If you ever wondered why we refer to the media as “Elitist”, there you have it: a Chief White House Correspondent signaling to viewers that they’re too stupid to understand Trump’s various claims. Also, just for fun: contrast how Bruce refers to Trump’s accomplishments (“what he believes are his accomplishments”) versus her drooling recount of Joe Biden’s farewell to the nation.The elitism theme continues. Here’s Rachel Scott also saying that Trump’s statements are “complex:” WATCH: Rachel Scott’s post-speech prebuttal is indistinguishable from what you’d hear from a Democrat elected official. Also, "it's complex." pic.twitter.com/VFAwhj4fyG— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 17, 2026 MARY BRUCE: I want to go now to Rachel Scott at The White House. And Rachel, so much has been discussed today about why the President is giving this speech now.RACHEL SCOTT: Yes, Mary, you look- sources tell me that this is an issue that the President, quite frankly, has been fixated on, that the President wanted to come before the American people tonight and deliver this address. There's a lot of discussion over on Capitol Hill about whether or not this should have been the focus of what the President should be talking about. We are so close to the midterm elections. They’re just about 110 days away. And for a lot of Republicans, they wanted to hear what the President outlined in probably the first 60 seconds of this speech, talking about the economy, talking about immigration issues they believe are going to be front and center for voters in this midterm election.And there was a question heading into tonight, because The White House was very tight-lipped on what exactly the President was going to say- about how much President Trump would be focused on the 2020 election. We know he has made a series and slew of false claims about that election that he lost, but the President did spend quite a significant time talking about the 2020 election. Again, what the President presented tonight, it's complex. Our team is digging through these documents that The White House says they're now declassifying and making available to the American people. We're reading through it to fact check and understand more of what the President is presenting. But I can tell you, here is what we do know. We know that President Trump and his allies, they challenged the 2020 election repeatedly. They lost about 60 cases in court. We know that the President tonight was talking about how he was deceived. He talked about how the American people were deceived in the 2020 election. Of course, President Trump was President at the time, and his own intelligence officials were presenting assessments to him that showed there was no widespread evidence that would have changed the outcome of the election, something that his own Attorney General said at the time, too, Mary.BRUCE: And that is such an important point and as you know, we are all combing through this.Rachel Scott’s post-speech prebuttal is indistinguishable from what you’d hear from a Democrat elected official. And it’s worth noting Scott addresses none of the substance of Trump’s remarks. Instead she concern trolls Republicans about the subject of the speech before saying the allegations are "complex." Again, why not air the speech?Then there's Pierre Thomas, tackling the noncitizen voters and allegations of "Deep State" meddling. Credit to Thomas, though, for acknowledging the Chinese voter data theft: WATCH: ABC's Pierre Thomas plays the “no evidence” card and moves the goalposts as to the extent of the Chinese intrusion, denying votes were changed but doesn’t address the substance of Trump’s allegations. At least he didn't insult viewers by saying "it's complex." pic.twitter.com/7lu9RyeSXM— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) July 17, 2026 MARY BRUCE: And Pierre, in Washington, you know, the President spent so much of these remarks tonight making these claims, especially about China. And I know that that is something that we have looked at before in the past, accusations that China was involved or somehow trying to meddle in the 2020 election. And I do want to read what the President said about calling for new investigations, because he said that he is asking the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Justice Department, the FBI and the CIA to investigate how and why such crucial information was hidden and to fire those involved. And you, I understand, are learning that the DHS is going to be discussing this more tomorrow.PIERRE THOMAS: Indeed. Mary, here are some of the dominant points. As you point out, he is claiming that China was able to get access to voter registration information about millions of Americans, hundreds of millions of millions of Americans. What we don't yet know is whether they were able to do anything with that information. There is no evidence that they were, again, able to change the outcome of votes. The other very specific thing that he pointed out that I did take note of is that he said that DHS had found that 278,000 noncitizens are registered to vote, and that DHS will be doing a briefing on that fact tomorrow. Again, that's a very specific thing that can be checked out. We will look at and the secretaries of state who conduct these elections, I'm sure, will have something to say about whether this information is accurate or not. So again, a lot to unpack.And the final point I would make, Mary, is this: part of his claim is that his administration, the top intelligence and top law enforcement officials misled and kept information from him, calling them the Deep State. That is a very damning accusation. It will be interesting to see what some of those people who were in position have to say about that.BRUCE: Yeah, Pierre, as we were saying, the President now really shining a spotlight in many ways on his own first administration and asking a lot of questions about who knew what and when. A lot of questions to be asked and unpacked in the coming days.On the one hand, it’s nice to see Pierre Thomas deviate from the subject matter being “complex.” On the other, Thomas plays the “no evidence” card and moves the goalposts as to the extent of the Chinese intrusion. Thomas denies votes were changed but doesn’t address the substance of Trump’s allegations. Thomas closes out by questioning the number of noncitizens registered to vote, and Trump’s statements on the Deep State. Much of this coverage could have been avoided had the Elitist media simply aired the totality of President Trump’s remarks live, so that Americans could come to their own conclusions. But that’s a bridge too far. Instead, they largely chose to self-censor at the behest of a socialist Member of Congress. Americans’ trust in media numbers aren’t going up anytime soon, if this pathetic performance is any indication.

Terry Schilling Antjuan Seawright CNN This Morning 7-15-26 On Wednesday's CNN This Morning, Democratic strategist and frequent CNN contributor Antjuan Seawright accused ICE agents of “cold-blooded murders,” citing the recent Biddeford, Maine, incident involving 26-year-old Colombian national Joan Sebastian Guerrero.Seawright highlighted video of the incident, claiming ICE agents "drug this gentleman out of the car and handcuffed him after he was shot dead. That's brutal, that's deadly."But as law enforcement experts note, handcuffing a suspect — even one who appears incapacitated or worse — is standard operating procedure in volatile, high-risk encounters like this. Officers aren’t expected to conduct on-scene medical diagnoses in split seconds when a vehicle has just been involved in a confrontation. Securing the scene comes first. I have some related experience. Last summer, after ditching my small plane in the waters off Oak Island, NC, rescuers from the water rescue teams of local fire departments pulled me from the wreckage. They later explained to me that their protocol is not to attempt to assess a person's condition on the spot--even whether they are still alive. Their job is to rush the person to medical professionals onshore as quickly as possible, and let them make such determinations. The same principle applies here: law enforcement prioritizes safety and scene control rather than assuming the role of medical professionals.The Maine shooting occurred during an immigration enforcement operation. Agents attempted a traffic stop on a vehicle linked to the surveillance address. According to DHS, the driver attempted to flee, accelerating in a manner that prompted an agent to fire in fear for public safety. Guerrero was not the primary target, but the encounter turned deadly.Seawright also leaned on data from the Cato Institute to downplay the criminality of those arrested by ICE, labeling the libertarian think tank a “conservative” organization.  Conservative panelist Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project, pushed back, correctly noting that Cato is not conservative but libertarian — and calling it an "open-borders organization." Its statistics on ICE arrests and convictions of violent criminals should thus be discounted, said Schilling.  CNN’s Seawright Accuses ICE of ‘Cold-Blooded Murder’ in Maine Shooting pic.twitter.com/4Cqg4hwO3N— Mark Finkelstein (@markfinkelstein) July 15, 2026 Host Audie Cornish made an interesting admission toward the end of the segment. When Seawright pushed for body cams, Cornish retorted that the use of body cams:"Has not exonerated, hasn't helped victims. It's usually ended up the victims are, the police involved are exonerated. So I don't think video solves this problem."That inconvenient truth underscores why calls for body cams in these cases should be welcomed by all sides — transparency works both ways.Note: Seawright also played some anti-Collins Maine politics, saying, "Susan Collins is responsible for the budget that funds ICE." Question for Seawright: since you've accused the ICE agents of "cold-blooded murder," would Collins vote to fund ICE make her an accessory before the fact?Here's the transcript.CNN This Morning 7/15/266:05 am EDTANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT: ICE needs to chill. When the Trump administration came in, they promised to get rid of the bad actors, the violent criminals. Democrats agree with that. We do need to get rid of the bad actors. The problem is, according to the conservative Cato Institute 70% of those who have been arrested have, no, have no history of criminal convictions. Less than 15% have a history of violent, of violent crimes. That's a problem.Number two, Susan Collins is responsible for the budget that funds ICE, that includes the $70 billion in the Big Ugly Bill, and this additional $75 billion dollars, I think, by way of reconciliation. And so what Democrats advocated for what some parameters around ICE, body cameras, most people would agree with that. Let's not invade personal spaces, hospitals, schools, polling locations, most people agree with that, but yet Republicans ignored --AUDIE CORNISH: So much of that fell apart during the government shutdown, the effects of that on, transportation and airports, some of this fell by the wayside.But to your point, the way Antoine is talking about Senator Collins, even though she isn't the sole whole reason why ICE funding is what it is, means these votes will be held against Republicans in places where the tide is turning. We saw that yesterday in our numbers with Latino voters in Texas. So what is the counter, other than telling people this is what you wanted, is there another argument starting to develop in Republican circles about how to talk about the moments when ICE makes a mistake?TERRY SCHILLING: Yeah, look, I think this is why both parties, support body cameras. This is a, it's a necessary thing. It gives a lot of clarity to the people on the ground and the rest of America on what these officers are actually dealing with. I would go further, Antoine. First of all, I would say you gotta discount anything Cato says about immigration enforcement. They are an open-borders organization. They are not conservative: they're libertarian. But secondly, we have to do this. This is for the safety of our country. It's not just ICE that needs to chill out. People need to stop resisting arrest. People need to, when you get pulled over, you don't have a right to resist arrest. Your resisting comes in the courts. SEAWRIGHT: Terry, respectfully, that's why the body cam, cameras matter. Did you -- I don't know if you saw the video, but they drug this gentleman out of the car and handcuffed him after he was shot dead. That's brutal, that's deadly. We, we see these cold-blooded murders in real time. Unfortunately, we've gone so numb to this till we wanna put it back on the individual. ICE needs to be reined in. CORNISH: Terry, can I ask a question? Is the acknowledgement that vehicle stops are no longer in the policy? They're saying, "Look, we're gonna pause on this." Is that an acknowledgement that things are going sideways? That their take is not, "Well, they're fleeing so everybody deal," they're saying, "Okay, wait a second, we got, we gotta pause for a minute and figure out what to do."SCHILLING: I think this is a mistake. I think that -- CORNISH: You think it's a mistake to pause vehicle stops. SCHILLING: Yes, I think, I think Mullins is, is making a big mistake. He's showing weakness here. Look, the, the reality is, is that no one likes more than the Democratic party of Maine.They just pulled a 2024 maneuver where they replaced the top of the ticket with a new person. We don't even know who that's gonna be. CORNISH: I think people remember Platner went through a massive scandal. So I don't think people think they [airquotes] pulled him. It seems like he imploded on the launchpad. SCHILLING: But, Audie, with all due respect, they were defending him up until it was a Democrat [who accused Platner of sexual assault.]SEAWRIGHT: Well, there is something about Maine, but what about Minnesota? Because you, you all, you all --SCHILLING: I was just about to get to Minnesota.SEAWRIGHT: You all make these claims about people resisting arrest, etc. But yet the footage comes out to say something differently and you want to ignore the reality, the facts that are right in front of your face.SCHILLING: In Minnesota, she tried to run him over with her car. She did hit him with her car. CORNISH: This actually gets to something about body cameras, I think, has always been fascinating. For the last twenty years, especially in the anti-police brutality movement, people have talked about body cams.And it has not exonerated, it, it hasn't helped victims. It's usually ended up the victims are, the police involved are exonerated. So I don't, I don't think video solves this problem, because what we have found is people can argue, good people can disagree on things they see with their own eyes. You [Seawright] see a body dragged out of the car, lots of people see that. And you [Schilling] see a person who resisted arrest and therefore led to their own death.

Snapstream As the 2026 midterms loom, many have raised concerns about illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections. The SAVE America Act, highly endorsed by President Trump, is intended to shut down these concerns by enforcing voter I.D. standards nationwide. CNN, and the leftist media as a whole, quickly mobilized to fight against secure elections. On this Wednesday’s Erin Burnett OutFront, CNN commentator Jamal Simmons accused the President of voter suppression.Strangely, however, Simmons didn’t actually mention the SAVE Act. Apparently, Trump’s words alone were already making it harder for people to vote:Yeah, the President of the United States has been using his position to make political statements that are going to make it harder for people to vote. He's looking not to enable people to vote, which is what we usually expect the Justice Department to do when the Justice Department goes into a community to monitor an election. On last night's OutFront, Jamal Simmons claims that Trump's words are making it difficult for people to vote. Must be very powerful words! Of course, he doesn't actually mention what Trump said, because he's really just fomenting anger against the President. pic.twitter.com/7R9iTbNfSF— James Waterman (@jwatermaniv) July 15, 2026 Despite such an outlandish claim, Simmons never mentioned what Trump actually said that could singlehandedly stop people from voting. It almost seems like an unfounded scare tactic to radicalize people against the President, but CNN would never do something like that!Continuing the trend of unfounded claims, Simmons proceeded to throw in a bizarre and incorrect condemnation of the U.S. economy:Here's the thing: the President keeps saying that the election was rigged, but rigged against him. Everybody else in the country thinks that the economy is rigged against them. What they're looking at is a trillionaire friend of the President. They're looking at people making more and more money at the top of the income ladder while they're making less and less.Simmons’ claims about wages, perhaps deluded by his own network’s incessant anti-Trump coverage, flew directly in the face of actual data. Last month, real wages grew by nearly a percentage point, in accordance with longer-term trends that also show consistent growth. So much for the socialist narrative about the poor getting poorer!Maura Gillespie, a notably anti-Trump Republican strategist, then built off Simmons’ attacks on Trump’s election policy, claiming that his flagship SAVE America Act will somehow disenfranchise voters:But I do think that people are tiring of this. Yes, the SAVE Act, SAVE America Act, the idea behind showing identity, showing proof of citizenship, identity to vote doesn't seem so far-fetched until you break down what the SAVE America Act has included in it and it does create barriers to voting and that can be problematic.Gillespie at least acknowledged the conceptual benefits of requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Unfortunately, she then backtracked, making the bizarre claim that the SAVE Act had some secret clause that actually creates “barriers to voting.” Reading the act itself, however, it becomes evident that the act goes no further than establishing the voter I.D. requirements Gillespie claims to agree with. Why would CNN fearmonger about parts of the SAVE Act that don’t exist?The transcript is below. Click "view" to read.CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFrontJuly 14, 20267:37:43 p.m. Eastern(...)JAMAL SIMMONS: Yeah, the President of the United States has been using his position to make political statements that are going to make it harder for people to vote. He's looking not to enable people to vote, which is what we usually expect the Justice Department to do when the Justice Department goes in to a community to monitor an election: it's to help people vote. This looks like he's trying to keep people from voting.Here's the thing: the President keeps saying that the election was rigged, but rigged against him. Everybody else in the country thinks that the economy is rigged against them. What they're looking at is a trillionaire friend of the President. They're looking at people making more and more money at the top of the income ladder while they're making less and less.And all the time, the President's talking about himself and one election that he lost, instead of thinking about how much the American people are.ERIN BURNETT: And when he talks about rigged elections, I mean, I go back to what Thomas Massie recently said, who when Trump turned against him, because Trump does have incredible power, the MAGA base, right? Massie's now out.But Massie's like, “What are we talking about rigged elections for? We have the White House, we have the House, we have the Senate, we have the Supreme Court. I mean, if it's rigged, it's rigged for us.”GILLESPIE: And not only that, but if it's rigged, that means that Barack Obama's administration rigged it and let Trump win in 2016, and then Biden's administration rigged it to let him win in 2024. So, I don't understand where his thought process is that if there's some corruption there deep-seated, because then that means that –SIMMONS: Oh, you're still trying to make sense of this?GILLESPIE: Forgive me for trying. No, it's one of those things where I wonder, one, Republicans are already noticing that it's bad for them. It does not poll well for them, only polls well in the MAGA base there. But I do think that people are tiring of this. Yes, the SAVE Act, SAVE America Act, the idea behind showing identity, showing proof of citizenship, identity to vote doesn't seem so far-fetched until you break down what the SAVE America Act has included in it and it does create barriers to voting and that can be problematic.And that's why there's been such pushback and Republicans as well saying this will not pass through our chambers, but the President only looks at it through his lens of what he wants and what helps him.

If you feel like Americans are watching two completely different movies these days when it comes to following the news, your intuition is 100% correct. An unseen algorithmic filter isolates our screens, actively driving a wedge through public discourse. This division is being engineered by pre-loaded apps on mobile phones, where over half of the country is getting its news.Wednesday night on One America News (OAN), MRC President David Bozell joined guest host Dan Schneider on Fine Point with Chanel Rion to pull back the curtain on the "Big Four" news gatekeepers: Apple News, Google News, Microsoft’s MSN, and Yahoo News. Together, these platforms have a staggering amount of influence over the national conversation. Bozell cited a Reuters study showing that because these aggregators come pre-installed on our devices, they act as the default digital front door for the 58% of Americans who rely on them for news. 58% of Americans get their news from one of the following: Apple, Google, MSN and Yahoo News.Everyday these apps are pushing left-wing news outlets that the public no longer watches, no longer listens to, and no longer believes.@DavidBozell @Schneider_DC @OANN pic.twitter.com/uzfOPWS0zl— Media Research Center (@theMRC) July 16, 2026Despite claiming to be objective curators, these tech giants run a highly partisan operation. Schneider cited MRC Free Speech America studies showing Google News feeds are 70% left-leaning compared to just 2% from the right, while Apple News drops right-leaning sources below 1% or blocks them completely. Over 70% of the stories pushed by Apple and Google News are from left-leaning sources. These are not neutral platforms. @DavidBozell and @Schneider_DC discuss ways to hold these apps accountable and bring balance to the digital media landscape on @OANN pic.twitter.com/UVdkZeOwkW— Media Research Center (@theMRC) July 16, 2026While popular conservative outlets with massive traffic like Fox News and Breitbart are systematically shut out of feeds, tech giants artificially boost struggling, left-leaning legacy outlets. For example, NPR remains a top-20 source on Apple News despite massive financial losses and a shrinking audience. This blatant double standard lets Big Tech pretend its systems are neutral while trapping millions of unsuspecting users in a highly partisan bubble where they only see half the truth.To disrupt this monopoly, MRC is exposing their partisan algorithms and urging center-right organizations to apply for inclusion on these platforms and to publicize every rejection and ignored request.  Watch the full segment here: