MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart joined PBS News Hour on Friday to recap President Trump’s recent trip to China and hype the idea that Chinese dictator Xi Jinping threw some “high-class shade” at Trump when he invoked the idea of the Thucydides Trap. Capehart was responding to The Altantic staff writer David Brooks suggesting the summit was relatively successful because there was no drama to come out of it when he declared, “I was asked earlier, you know, did the summit do more harm than good or no harm at all or less harm? And it didn't do more harm, but it didn't do any good.” He then moved on to hinting that Xi embarrassed Trump intellectually, but Capehart only ended up embarrassing himself, “I mean, I take all of your points, David. But, to me, as an American watching the American president go to Beijing, and then hearing the way the president has been talking about it, particularly this notion—I cannot pronounce the name of the Greek philosopher that the Chinese president mentioned, the what—”   Jonathan Capehart tells PBS that Xi Jinping mentioning the idea of Thucydides Trap to Trump was "that was some high-class shade of the Chinese president to—of the American president standing right there." Capehart also bumbled his own dunk by referring to Thucyidides as a… pic.twitter.com/okWyISbINQ — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) May 16, 2026   After Brooks and host Amna Nawaz then clarified Xi was talking about Thucydides and former Clinton Assistant Defense Secretary Graham Allison’s Thucydides Trap thesis, Capehart added, “Thucydides, yes. You know, that was a little—that was some high-class shade of the Chinese president to—of the American president standing right there.” First of all, Thucydides was a general and a historian, not a philosopher. Second of all, while Capehart promotes Xi's "shade," Allison’s thesis has two major problems. For one, Thucydides argued the Peloponnesian War came about because Sparta feared the rise of Athenian power. Allison uses this to analogize the U.S. as Sparta and China as Athens, but today, any Sino-American war will almost certainly come about because of China’s territorial aggression. Second, Allison’s thesis assumes that Chinese power is on an irreversibly upward trajectory, which is why Xi likes it so much. Capehart touched on this when he continued, “To your point about Xi Jinping feeling that China is ascendant, especially with an American president who has looked at the world in spheres.” There is a compelling case to be made that the reason why China is such a threat is not because it is an ever-increasing power, but because of its aging demographic nightmare; its power either already has or soon will have reached its apex, which will eventually put Beijing in a “now or never” dilemma. Moving on from Allison’s flawed thesis, Capehart rewrote more recent history, “Trump wants the Western Hemisphere. He seems to be perfectly fine with China exerting its influence in the Pacific, which is why, to my mind, his waffling on Taiwan is very troubling. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when there were some sacrosanct beliefs of the American president… that the United States would stand by Taiwan, rhetorically so far, never had to do it militarily. But it doesn't seem like that is the case. If the American president isn't willing to say, ‘Yeah, you know that—the $49 billion worth of arms, yes, we're down with that. We're still going to go for that.’” If Capehart wants to argue that the bipartisan decades-long policy of strategic ambiguity has outlived its usefulness, he is, of course, free to do so, but he can’t claim Trump’s adherence to it is something new. Also, Capehart’s $49 billion figure actually refers to the total of U.S. military sales to Taiwan since 2010. Trump 2.0 already signed off on $11 billion for Taiwan last year. The current controversy is over another $14 billion that Congress approved in January. Nawaz reined things in a little bit when she wrapped up the China portion of the segment, “I should say, despite what the president said, Senator Marco—or Secretary Marco Rubio said that the U.S. policy has not changed. So we will have to see how this all plays out in real terms.” Here is a transcript for the May 15 show: PBS News Hour 5/15/2026 7:37 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, how do you look at it? JONATHAN CAPEHART: I was asked earlier, you know, did the summit do more harm than good or no harm at all or less harm? And it didn't do more harm, but it didn't do any good. I mean, I take all of your points, David. But, to me, as an American watching the American president go to Beijing, and then hearing the way the president has been talking about it, particularly this notion—I cannot pronounce the name of the Greek philosopher that the Chinese president mentioned, the what— DAVID BROOKS Thucydides Trap. NAWAZ: Thucydides. CAPEHART: Thucydides, yes. You know, that was a little—that was some high-class shade of the Chinese president to—of the American president standing right there, to your point about Xi Jinping feeling that China is ascendant, especially with an American president who has looked at the world in spheres. Trump wants the Western Hemisphere. He seems to be perfectly fine with China exerting its influence in the Pacific, which is why, to my mind, his waffling on Taiwan is very troubling. I mean, I'm old enough to remember when there were some sacrosanct beliefs of the American president. We were there for Europe's defense and a strong proponent of NATO. That is now not so certain, and also that the United States would stand by Taiwan, rhetorically so far, never had to do it militarily. But it doesn't seem like that is the case. If the American president isn't willing to say, “Yeah, you know that—the $49 billion worth of arms, yes, we're down with that. We're still going to go for that.” And he did not do that. If I were the Taiwanese leader, I would be very worried. NAWAZ: I should say, despite what the president said, Senator Marco—or Secretary Marco Rubio said that the U.S. policy has not changed. So we will have to see how this all plays out in real terms.

NBCNews.com somehow found it necessary to "augment" the recent news of Arcadia (Calif.) Mayor Eileen Wang pleading guilty to being a spy for communist China with the notion that this will spur a violent racist reaction against Asian Americans. The headline:  Racial backlash erupts online after California mayor admits to being an agent for China Alicia Lozano and Doha Madani began: "The resignation of a Southern California mayor who pleaded guilty to acting as a foreign agent for China has sparked backlash and reignited fears of anti-Asian discrimination." Conservative accounts on X recalled a Norm McDonald joke from 2016: "What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?" The resignation of a Southern California mayor who pleaded guilty to acting as a foreign agent for China has sparked backlash and reignited fears of anti-Asian discrimination. https://t.co/Vp2B5bDRGD — NBC News (@NBCNews) May 15, 2026   NBC's story laid out the argument:  But racist comments began to appear on social media feeds soon after FBI Director Kash Patel announced on X the case against Wang. Many replies to Patel’s post announcing the charges suggested investigating other prominent Asian American women political figures. Others suggested violent punishment for her. Advocates said they are concerned that this rhetoric is part of a long history of fear and discrimination that has proliferated for generations in regard to Asian communities, especially Chinese immigrants. Experts who spoke to NBC News said Asian people in the U.S. are often treated as perpetual outsiders, which can motivate violence in some cases. The "advocates" highlighted the thought that maybe Chinese spies shouldn't be prosecuted? Wokeness abounds: Rhetoric that can lead to violence The comments made about Wang are part of this larger narrative, said Russell Mark Jeung, professor of Asian American studies at San Francisco State University. In early 2020, the revelation that Covid may have initially surfaced in China caused a wave of anti-Asian violence in the U.S. and around the world. It was not the first time suspicion of Asian people generated a violent backlash. Beginning with the so-called yellow peril stereotype popularized in the 19th century, which depicted Asians as an existential and cultural threat to the West, Chinese immigrants have long endured accusations of espionage, disloyalty and malice, Jeung said.... “It goes beyond the allegations against this one individual and, instead, paints an entire community broadly as suspicious, disloyal foreigners,” said Dahni K. Tsuboi, CEO of advocacy group Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. “That kind of collective blame is dangerous, not just for the Asian American community, but for all of us, all Americans.” The NBC reporters noted that Mayor Wang was honored by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) in 2024 for her leadership and “tireless efforts to improve the lives of Arcadia residents.” Oopsy. But Chu was also hitting the Yellow Peril notes:  Chu also pushed back against anti-Asian sentiment that quickly began to circulate online and in some media outlets. “The Asian American community has already weathered stigma, prejudice, and violence, fueled by rhetoric from President Trump and his administration,” the statement read in part. “We saw this in the violent anti-Asian hate crimes during COVID-19, and the unfair targeting of scholars of Chinese descent in Trump’s ‘China Initiative’ program — both of which I have fought against in Congress.”

Alex Soros pledging a fortune to fight antisemites is about as believable as an arsonist dressing up as a firefighter. The newly-minted chairman of the Open Society Foundations released a sanctimonious statement on X May 13, pontificating that “My father [George Soros] has been the target of antisemitism his whole life. It has only strengthened our resolve to stand against all forms of hate.” He continued, giving himself the proverbial pat on the back: “Proud that @OpenSociety is making a $30 million investment to build trust and solidarity across communities and keep people of all faiths safe.” Did he expect the internet to forget that it was his own organization that heavily financed a cornucopia of radical pro-Hamas groups that celebrated the slaughter of Jews in Israel during the October 7 genocide? One analysis by the New York Post put the Soros grant total of pro-Hamas group funding at $15 million between 2016 and 2023 alone.  Is legitimacy even a litmus test anymore for “philanthropy?” MRC Business was the first to point out this trend of Soros funneling huge wads of cash into groups celebrating the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust just three days after October 7. Then-MRC President Brent Bozell and MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider penned an organizational letter to OSF calling George, his son Alex, and leadership to ask for their grantees’ antisemitic screeching. MRC Business also exposed a horrific 2007 pro-Hamas op-ed written by George Soros himself calling on America and Israel to “open the door to Hamas.”   My father has been the target of antisemitism his whole life. It has only strengthened our resolve to stand against all forms of hate. Proud that @OpenSociety is making a $30 million investment to build trust and solidarity across communities and keep people of all faiths safe. pic.twitter.com/NFoYHmkUrR — Alex Soros (@AlexanderSoros) May 13, 2026 So are we supposed to take Alex seriously now when he preached in an attached video how “discrimination and hate are not abstract concepts to me or my family. They’re deeply personal, and have been persistent throughout our lives.” Meanwhile, as Harvard Law School Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz concluded in May 2023, just months before the October 7 genocide, “[N]o single person has done more to damage Israel’s standing in the world, especially among so-called progressives, than George Soros.”  It didn’t take long for Alex’s X post to get ratioed into the stratosphere, with over 4,200 comments and just over 1,100 likes as of May 15. CUNY Professor of Law Jeffrey Lax excoriated the Soros regime in a rebuke to Alex’s grandstanding: Your father, a HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR for goodness sake, is one of the greatest antisemites and most evil people the world has ever seen. It is beyond shameful that you are carrying on the immense harm he has done to the world. – A fellow descendant of 4 Holocaust survivors. Get off the internet, Alex. America isn’t buying your snake oil window-dressing act any longer.

Until her effort to gerrymander her state by violating Virginia’s constitution plays out in court, Democrat Governor Abigail Spanberger plans to use the current map of districts when early voting begins this year. Spanberger’s voter-passed initiative was set to boost Democrats’ advantage in the U.S. Congress from 6-5 to 10-1, but the Virginia Supreme Court ruled her methods violated the state’s constitution. The governor has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her appeal on an emergency basis – which is unlikely, given that the nation’s high court defers to state supreme courts in matters regarding state constitutions. Local Virginia station WTOP reported Spanberger’s concession, citing its interview with the governor: “Days after Virginia Democrats filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court as part of their ongoing redistricting battle, Gov. Abigail Spanberger said she’s focused on the fall midterm elections and ensuring voters are motivated to turn out.” …. “Spanberger called the appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court ‘important, but when it comes to the execution of elections, no matter the outcome in that case, we will be running our elections beginning next month with early voting on the current maps that we have.’” "We hold that the legislative process employed to advance this proposal violated Article XII, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia," the Virginia Supreme Court explains in its 4-3 ruling striking down the gerrymandering referendum. "This constitutional violation incurably taints the resulting referendum vote and nullifies its legal efficacy." "This violation irreparably undermines the integrity of the resulting referendum vote and renders it null and void," the court said in its opinion. The court found that the legislature failed to comply with procedural rules for passing a constitutional amendment, including failing to publish the amendment three months before the election and taking a second vote while early voting was already occurring, rather than waiting for an intervening election.

Alleged comedian Stephen Colbert once infamously claimed President Trump was Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s “cock holster.” CNN host Jake Tapper was acting in such a manner for Colbert during the Thursday edition of his show, The Lead. According to Tapper, who once claimed there was “no reason to doubt” information that came from Hamas, Trump used inferences and angry posts to get Colbert and his show canceled by CBS. While comparing Trump to a king who wanted his those who annoyed him assassinated, Tapper omitted just how much money Colbert was losing annually. Tapper launched into one of his verbal editorials trying to suggest that Trump had orchestrated CBS’s firing of Colbert through social media posts and wishful thinking that the executives would get his message. His evidence? The testimony from a convicted liar and a disgruntled former employee who later allegedly posted in Instagram that Trump should be killed, Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen and disgraced former FBI Director James Comey (Click “expand”): TAPPER: In our pop culture lead. Years ago, when longtime Trump fixer, Michael Cohen, was testifying before Congress, he was asked about the ways that Donald Trump, now President Trump, makes his desires known. It is seldom with direct instructions, Cohen said. It's more with suggestions, obvious hints. (…) COHEN: He doesn't give you questions, he doesn't give you orders. He speaks in a code. And I understand the code because I've been around him for a decade. (…) SEN. JAMES RISCH (R-ID): This is the President speaking. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Now, those are his exact words. Is that correct? JAMES COMEY: Correct. [Transition] RISCH: He did not order you to let it go. COMEY: Again, those words are not in order. [Transition] It rings in my ear as kind of, ‘will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ Tapper latched onto Comey’s quote, “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” Of course, it was to compare Colbert’s cancelation to a political assassination. “Comey referring there to the folklore about King Henry II. In the 12th century, King Henry voiced frustration with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, who had excommunicated bishops who defied church law,” Tapper explained. “And shortly thereafter, assassins came and killed the archbishop.” Now, the longwinded Tapper did admit there was “no evidence that [Trump] demanded that Colbert be fired or his show canceled,” but he doubled down on the conspiracy theory with his admittedly flimsy historical analogy. “Nor, as King Henry demonstrates, does there need to be direct order,” he chided.   'That meddlesome comedian has been rid. Who's next? And how long will corporate America's chieftains sully their reputations to please one leader?' @jaketapper reports on the timeline of Stephen Colbert's last show and President Trump's criticism of the host. pic.twitter.com/8A8nJdsKD5 — The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) May 14, 2026   Tapper might as well have been standing in front of a corkboard bulletin board while unwinding red twine as he went down of his timeline of events he suggested pointed to Trump getting Colbert fired and others suspended, some of the events being months apart (Click “expand”): TAPPER: But I also want you to consider this calendar. July 1st, 2025, it is announced that Paramount agreed to pay Donald Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit against CBS alleging unfair editing by CBS of a Kamala Harris interview on 60 Minutes. It's a lawsuit that few, if any respected legal experts thought had any merit. That's July 1st. July 14th, Colbert says this. [Cuts to video] COLBERT: Now, I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. It's big fat bribe. [Cuts back to live] TAPPER: July 17th, three days later, CBS announces that Colbert was canceled. One week after that, July 24th, the Federal Communications Commission approves the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance merger. Now, we should note in the midst of all that, on July 18th, Trump posted, "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next." The Kimmel kerfuffle happened two months after that. “Now, you can make of the timing what you will, but it is inescapable that the decision by CBS Paramount to cancel Colbert pleased Trump,” Tapper argued. “And the folks who owned CBS Paramount at the time got what they wanted, and they were handsomely compensated for it.” But Tapper never provided any evidence that CBS Paramount got what they wanted because Trump was pleased. Then again, facts weren’t really Tapper’s thing. It’s why a report on Tapper’s show was the reason CNN was successfully sued and found liable for malicious defamation last year. With the apparent mindset that political history started with Trump announcing his first run for president, Tapper wondered: “The question, would a Democratic president in the future want to use this precedent? (…) What pressure could be put on Fox when it comes to Fox News Channel?” Jake, do you mean like when President Obama was cracking down on Fox News and James Rosen? Or like when Obama had his IRS crackdown on Tea Party and other conservative organizations? Buried within his ranting Tapper admitted “it is absolutely true that the economics of late night television have been challenging for quite some time due to a variety of factors including more streaming competition, declining advertising dollars, and on and on.” He even noted that, “Conan O'Brien's late night show is no more. Ditto, the CBS comedy show that used to run after Colbert.” But again, he omitted the facts. He ignored how Colbert’s show was hemorrhaging money. According to reports, it cost $100 million to produce the show annually and he was only bringing in $60 million. That’s a $40 million loss. No network would stand for that. If they were actually trying to please Trump, they would have fired him immediately and would not have given him a months-long off-ramp where he could have turned his show’s finances around. Tapper was likely upset that he was losing access to one of the shows he could hawk his books on. Tapper had appeared on Colbert’s show three times in as many years. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s The Lead May 14, 2026 5:34:06 p.m. Eastern JAKE TAPPER: In our pop culture lead. Years ago, when longtime Trump fixer, Michael Cohen, was testifying before Congress, he was asked about the ways that Donald Trump, now President Trump, makes his desires known. It is seldom with direct instructions, Cohen said. It's more with suggestions, obvious hints. [Cuts to video] REP. JUSTIN AMASH (R-MI): You’ve suggested that the president sometimes communicates his wishes indirectly. For example, you said, "Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That's not how he operates." Can you explain how he does this? MICHAEL COHEN: He doesn't give you questions, he doesn't give you orders. He speaks in a code. And I understand the code because I've been around him for a decade. [Cuts back to live] TAPPER: So that was 2019. It wasn't an original observation because two years earlier, former FBI Director James Comey had testified about how President Trump had expressed to him the hope that the FBI would drop a probe into his former national security advisor, Michael Flynn. Again, not a direct instruction. [Cuts to video] SEN. JAMES RISCH (R-ID): This is the President speaking. “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Now, those are his exact words. Is that correct? JAMES COMEY: Correct. [Transition] RISCH: He did not order you to let it go. COMEY: Again, those words are not in order. [Transition] It rings in my ear as kind of, ‘will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?’ [Cuts back to live] TAPPER: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” Comey referring there to the folklore about King Henry II. In the 12th century, King Henry voiced frustration with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, who had excommunicated bishops who defied church law, as depicted in the 1964 film, Beckett. [Cuts to video] ACTOR: Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest? [Cuts back to live] TAPPER: “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” And shortly thereafter, assassins came and killed the archbishop. The phrase has come to represent what happens when leaders want immoral actions carried on their behalf. But they also want plausible deniability. Now, there's no evidence that President Trump, who has long railed against Stephen Colbert and other late night comedians who mock him, no evidence that he demanded that Colbert be fired or his show canceled. The final episode of the Colbert show airs in one week, next Thursday, May 21st. Nor, as King Henry demonstrates, does there need to be direct order. The people who ran Paramount, CBS's mothership at the time that the cancellation was announced last July, Paramount at the time led by Shari Redstone, they were trying to get the Trump administration to approve a merger that would allow Shari Redstone and her team to sell the company to Skydance and they would all make a lot of money. I should note that since then, Skydance has taken over Paramount and the company right now is going through the regulatory process to take over CNN and its parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery. But in any case, it was in the midst of the CBS-Paramount merger last summer when Redstone and her company decided, quite surprisingly, to cancel The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. They attributed the decision to economic reasons. They denied that it was political. Now, it is absolutely true that the economics of late night television have been challenging for quite some time due to a variety of factors including more streaming competition, declining advertising dollars, and on and on. Conan O'Brien's late night show is no more. Ditto, the CBS comedy show that used to run after Colbert. But I also want you to consider this calendar. July 1st, 2025, it is announced that Paramount agreed to pay Donald Trump $16 million to settle his lawsuit against CBS alleging unfair editing by CBS of a Kamala Harris interview on 60 Minutes. It's a lawsuit that few, if any respected legal experts thought had any merit. That's July 1st. July 14th, Colbert says this. [Cuts to video] STEPHEN COLBERT: Now, I believe this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. It's big fat bribe. [Cuts back to live] TAPPER: July 17th, three days later, CBS announces that Colbert was canceled. One week after that, July 24th, the Federal Communications Commission approves the $8 billion Paramount-Skydance merger. Now, we should note in the midst of all that, on July 18th, Trump posted, "I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next." The Kimmel kerfuffle happened two months after that. Now, you can make of the timing what you will, but it is inescapable that the decision by CBS Paramount to cancel Colbert pleased Trump. And the folks who owned CBS Paramount at the time got what they wanted, and they were handsomely compensated for it. Now, Trump never posted on Truth Social: ‘Will no one rid me of this meddlesome comedian?’ But anyone trying to curry favor with Trump surely knew where key pressure points were. He had been attacking Colbert years before the show was canceled, and in subsequent posts, he took credit for it. Like the social media post I'm showing you right now. Now, you don't have to like Stephen Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel or anyone on that graphic to find this concerning. Because standards once eroded seldom return. We see that with the gerrymandering wars playing out. The question, would a Democratic president in the future want to use this precedent? What pressure could be put on Spotify, for instance, when it comes to Joe Rogan? What pressure could be put on Fox when it comes to Fox News Channel? What happens if a Democratic president one day wonders, will no one rid me of this meddlesome podcaster? T.S. Eliot wrote an acclaimed drama about King Henry II and Becket, the archbishop of Canterbury. It's called Murder in the Cathedral. The first professional American production of it in 1936, I think, was at the Manhattan Theater at 53rd and Broadway. That theater is now known as the Ed Sullivan Theater. It's where Stephen Colbert's show takes place until next Thursday. That meddlesome comedian has been rid. So who's next? And how long will corporate America's chieftains sully their reputations to please one man?