The folks at Snopes like to advertise themselves as fact-checkers, but on Friday, Rae Deng (pronouns: their/they) ditched the idea of fact-checking to accuse the Trump administration of being “outright unethical” for their attempts to get the Bureau of Prisons to stop giving “gender-affirming care” to inmates. In the summary section, Deng writes, “The journalist, Aleksandra Vaca, used legitimate policy and court documents to argue that the proposal amounts to medical experimentation. She said the government "is throwing out existing medical standards and instead wishes to force arbitrary guidelines onto a captive population — all the while being fully aware of the risks and actively documenting the results."  Vaca is a transgender activist, but that aside, Deng adds in the actual article, “She alleged the administration ‘is throwing out existing medical standards and instead wishes to force arbitrary guidelines onto a captive population—all the while being fully aware of the risks and actively documenting the results.'" Deng also writes, “Factually, the proposal rejects medically accepted standards of care for trans patients with gender dysphoria and would forcibly detransition trans prisoners. A court order blocked the policy from going into effect as of this writing, but filings from the American Civil Liberties Union indicated that some trans prisoners still did not receive their treatments, such as hormone therapy.” Later, Deng reports on the policy’s actual details, “The Trump administration's policy calls for treating gender dysphoria by prioritizing psychotherapy and preventing access to sex modification surgeries, hormone replacement therapy and ‘social accommodations.’ The policy also proposes individualized ‘tapering’ plans to remove patients off of hormones who already receive them (see Page 7).” In other words, the Trump administration does not want taxpayer-funded sex change surgeries, makeup, wigs, breast pads, or several other “social accommodations” for prisoners. As for hormones, Deng was also forced to acknowledge that people who have taken them for an extended period of time will not be forced to quit cold turkey, ‘“It may not be appropriate in all cases for the initial tapering plan to include cessation of hormones. But tapering plans should be reevaluated regularly with respect to cessation of hormones,’ the policy said on Page 8, indicating that the end goal is stopping hormones for all trans prisoners.” Nevertheless, Deng added, “Experts Snopes spoke to agreed the Trump administration's policy would not pass through a research ethics board.” Deng then quoted Stanford bioethicist Alyssa Burgart as saying, ‘“This policy is saying that they're using informed consent, but when there's a blanket prohibition … it is actually impossible to have informed consent,’ Burgart said. She compared the policy to a history of forced sterilizations in California state facilities due to both policies' coercive removal of bodily autonomy.”  After several additional paragraphs on the state of the legal fight over the policy, Deng turned to “The bottom line," which was “The Trump administration has plans to forcibly detransition trans people in prison.” Deng also claimed, “The experts Snopes spoke to disagree on whether that's medical experimentation. What's more important, they say, is that denying medically necessary care to a vulnerable population is outright unethical.” Fact-checkers are supposed to check facts, and Deng didn’t do that, choosing instead to write a lengthy opinion piece against a policy restricting hormone treatment for prisoners, even if it isn’t actually trying to implement a one-size-fits-all tapering plan. In the meantime, Deng never did explain why the taxpayers should be forced to provide butt pads to prisoners.

Of a sudden, the media has swarmed now-former Democrat and California Congressman Eric Swalwell.  Over there at The Hill, the headline was as follows:  DOJ investigating Swalwell over sexual misconduct allegations Meanwhile, at The Washington Post was this:  How Eric Swalwell rose to the top of Democratic politics as rumors followed him  Allies such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Ruben Gallego say they knew nothing about the misconduct allegations, with Gallego saying the congressman led a “double life.” Notably the opening of The Post story said this:  When Cheyenne Hunt first arrived on Capitol Hill as a staffer in 2020, several other young women working there warned her privately: Stay away from Rep. Eric Swalwell. Swalwell could be 'creepy,' Hunt said other women told her, especially over social media. This raises a very obvious question….about the media. If, as suggested by that reference in The Post, that it was something close to common knowledge on Capitol Hill that Swalwell had this kind of seriously negative reputation? Then where was the media? Where was the Watergate-style Washington Post investigation that involved the media talking to all these women who were dealing with what was apparent common knowledge about Congressman Swalwell? Suffice to say there was no apparent media interest in following this story. Why? Well the obvious occurs. Swalwell was a Democrat on the rise from the favorite Democrat state of California. You know, California. Home to one-time House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Home to presumptive 2028 Democrat presidential wannabe Governor Gavin Newsom. Swalwell was part and parcel of all of that Golden Pond of California Democrats. So with all these stories about Swalwell apparent common knowledge on the Hill, well, what else to do for the liberal media than look the other way? As in, move along, move along. Nothing to see here. As time moves on, a new set of Swalwell headlines have (finally?) started to appear. A sample:  From the San Francisco Standard: Eric Swalwell scandal: All the investigations raining down on ex-congressman Widespread investigations into the former East Bay representative’s conduct have just begun. From Politico: House Ethics opens Eric Swalwell investigation  From The New York Times: Investigation Opened Into Sexual Assault Allegation Against Swalwell And on….and on and on…go similar headlines now flooding the media.  Say again: Now. The obvious question is “where was the media all the time these Swalwell stories were common knowledge with Capital Hill staffers?” Is the reason there was no flood of Swalwell stories back there because he was a Democrat? A rising star with a serious future down the road? A future star who could be governor? And maybe president someday? Whatever the reason, the fact of the matter is that the media simply did not do its job in covering Swalwell.  Which leads to another question. What else is going on in Washington or in a state government with this or that Democrat politician/office holder that the media has some knowledge of but decides not to report on because, well, he or she is a Democrat.  No idea. But one can easily suspect that the liberal media has no interest in finding out.  Imagine that.

The back and forth between Pope Leo and the Trump administration has produced several hot takes, but CNN’s Kara Swisher may have had the most bizarre and confusing on Friday’s edition of Real Time with Bill Maher Overtime on HBO. As the debate revolves around what constitutes a just war, Swisher threw the First Amendment into the conversation as if someone were attempting to muzzle the pope’s speech. Maher began by asking, “What do you think of JD Vance saying the Pope should be more careful when talking about theology?”   CNN's Kara Swisher suggests the administration is threatening Pope Leo's First Amendment rights or something, I don't get it either, "I have one thing. I mean, look, the Pope is also an American citizen and should be able to say whatever he feels like under the First Amendment."… pic.twitter.com/kX4Te59RGv — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 18, 2026   Swisher jumped at the question, “As I’ve said, he has the charm of a Cybertruck as a politician, but I have one thing. I mean, look, the Pope is also an American citizen and should be able to say whatever he feels like under the First Amendment, and he just looks like a putz.” Yes, the pope is an American, but he does not live in America anymore. Is Swisher suggesting that criticizing the pope is akin to trying to silence him? If so, then Maher himself would soon find himself in trouble as former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel got in on the Vance bashing: “The pope is an Augustinian-trained pope. Augustine is the one that developed the concept of just war. You're gonna lecture the pope on the concept of just war. I think, as one Jewish kid, that takes a lot of chutzpah. I mean that takes a lot of chutzpah, and I got a lot of chutzpah, but that is a lot of lecturing.” Maher then reached back over 1,600 years to attack the man who has greatly influenced Leo and who happens to be one of Western Civilization’s most influential thinkers, “But Augustine—that wasn't like Augustine's main thing. His main thing was that you're born with original sin. You're evil to begin with, and that's why you need the Catholic Church. So, Augustine was not a good guy either.” While Maher’s atheism led him to denounce Augustine for calling attention to mankind’s sinful nature, he did at least have the intellectual honesty to at least make fun of liberals during his monologue on the regular Real Time broadcast for pretending like their defense of Leo is anything other than more anti-Trumpism. Here is a transcript for the April 17 show: HBO Real Time with Bill Maher Overtime 4/17/2026 BILL MAHER: What do you think of JD Vance saying the Pope should be more careful when talking about theology? These guys— KARA SWISHER: Let me take that one. RAHM EMANUEL: No, I— SWISHER: Just one second. [Crosstalk] JAKE SULLIVAN: Rahm’s the resident Catholic. [Crosstalk] SWISHER: As I’ve said, he has the charm of a Cybertruck as a politician, but I have one thing. I mean, look, the Pope is also an American citizen and should be able to say whatever he feels like under the First Amendment— MAHER: Yeah, of course. SWISHER: And he just looks like a putz. MAHER: Yeah. EMANUEL: As, look— MAHER: Well, he’s such a recent convert. EMANUEL: The pope is an Augustinian-trained pope. Augustine is the one that developed the concept of just war. You're gonna lecture the pope on the concept of just war. I think, as one Jewish kid, that takes a lot of chutzpah. I mean that takes a lot of chutzpah, and I got a lot of chutzpah, but that is a lot of lecturing. MAHER: But Augustine—that wasn't like Augustine's main thing. His main thing was that you're born with original sin. You're evil to begin with, and that's why you need the Catholic Church— EMANUEL: That’s why you need him to tell you what a just war is. MAHER: So, Augustine was not a good guy either.

Ever since Pope Leo assumed the papacy, PBS News Hour Friday contributors MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart and The Atlantic staff writer David Brooks have tried to claim him as one of their own in their fight against the Trump administration. That continued this Friday as the duo essentially told Vice President JD Vance to shut up when it comes to criticizing Leo’s remarks about the Iran War, with Capehart claiming they are among “the most insulting things” a VP could say and Brooks arguing the Iran War is permissible under just war theory, but also isn’t because Trump. Host Amna Nawaz began with Capehart and wondered, “Pope Leo issued a pretty strong statement rebuking the war in Iran. Trump then unloaded on him online. Vice President Vance jumped in to criticize him as well, telling him to be careful on matters of theology. Is it smart for the president to be getting into it with the pope? What does he stand to gain from that?”   Jonathan Capehart tells PBS that JD Vance's pope criticisms are "one of the most insulting things I think I could possibly ever hear being said, one, to the pontiff, but, two, from the vice president of the United States. All of this is maddening and surreal." (1/2) pic.twitter.com/UFV2kYbz1e — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 18, 2026   Using logic he would never apply to abortion, Capehart replied: No, it's not smart at all to be getting into it with the pope, to be fighting with the pope, even though the president says, ‘I'm not fighting with the pope.’ Yes, you are, and over something where it's like the president is taking the words from the pope very, very seriously, when any pope, Pope Leo, Pope Francis, Pope John Paul, would have been saying the same thing, because this is about life and death. This is about right and wrong. And it's something big that's happening in the world that has commanded the pope's attention. Eventually getting to Vance, Capehart added, “The vice president of the United States converted to Catholicism nine years ago. For him to tell the vicar of Christ, who's been a priest for 34 years, that he needs to—quote—‘be careful’ about how he talks about theology is one of the most insulting things I think I could possibly ever hear being said, one, to the pontiff, but, two, from the vice president of the United States. All of this is maddening and surreal. Nawaz then turned to Brooks, “David, what do you think of this? I mean, the way the president criticized the pope and then for Vice President Vance to speak of him the way that he did, what are you taking away from this?” Brooks agreed with Capehart but shrunk Vance’s conversion from nine years ago to nine minutes, “I agree with Jonathan that you shouldn't—J.D. Vance shouldn't be questioning the pope after being Catholic for nine-and-a-half minutes. But I do think what you see here is the contrast between the way Trump has gone into this war, which is cavalier in the extreme, and Catholic just war theory, which traced back to Augustine and Aquinas, which is intellectually rigorous.”   David Brooks agrees, "I agree with Jonathan that you shouldn't—JD Vance shouldn't be questioning the pope after being Catholic for nine-and-a-half minutes." He then argues the war in Iran is just according to Just War Theory, but also isn't because Trump (or something), "to be… pic.twitter.com/fqBOozydwH — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 18, 2026   For context, nine years ago was when Brooks married his former research assistant, who is 23 years younger than him. Brooks then tried to explain just war theory and actually argued that the war could pass the test, “And you have—to be a just war, you have to clear a series of hurdles that make sure you're doing the thing right and you have thought about this carefully. And in some ways, I do think they have cleared some of the hurdles. There has to be just cause, it has to be morally righteous. I think that's arguable.” However, he then twisted himself into a pretzel and said it didn’t, “But some of the other hurdles, it is clearly not a cause. Is there right intention? Donald Trump has not explained what our goals and intentions are. So there's no right intention. Is it last resort? Have we given diplomacy every rule? Well, obviously not.” He then concluded, “Is there a probability of success? Well, there was no clear probability of success, because it wasn't carefully calculated. So one of the things you see with what the pope is doing, he's trying to put an intellectual, rigorous process on how you evaluate a very deadly policy. And the Trump administration is completely incapable of thinking in these terms.” The fact that Brooks can’t even agree with himself on whether the Iran War could pass just war theory only proves that this issue is nuanced, and telling Vance to essentially shut up does not actually help differentiate between just and unjust wars. Here is a transcript for the April 17 show: PBS News Hour 4/17/2026 7:46 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: I want to ask you also about something we reported on earlier, which is the president somehow feuding with Pope Leo. Jonathan, we heard Liz reporting on it earlier as well. In the way of background, Pope Leo issued a pretty strong statement rebuking the war in Iran. Trump then unloaded on him online. Vice President Vance jumped in to criticize him as well, telling him to be careful on matters of theology. Is it smart for the president to be getting into it with the pope? What does he stand to gain from that? JONATHAN CAPEHART: No, it's not smart at all to be getting into it with the pope, to be fighting with the pope, even though the president says, “I'm not fighting with the pope.” Yes, you are, and over something where it's like the president is taking the words from the pope very, very seriously, when any pope, Pope Leo, Pope Francis, Pope John Paul, would have been saying the same thing, because this is about life and death. This is about right and wrong. And it's something big that's happening in the world that has commanded the pope's attention. The thing that I have that— and so, you know, I'm not Catholic. I went to Catholic school. But I can understand Catholics in America, but around the world, being very offended by how the president has talked about the pope, talked to the pope, put images of himself as a pope. And then just one other thing. The vice president of the United States converted to Catholicism nine years ago. For him to tell the vicar of Christ, who's been a priest for 34 years, that he needs to—quote—"be careful" about how he talks about theology is one of the most insulting things I think I could possibly ever hear being said, one, to the pontiff, but, two, from the vice president of the United States. All of this is maddening and surreal. NAWAZ: David, what do you think of this? I mean, the way the president criticized the pope and then for Vice President Vance to speak of him the way that he did, what are you taking away from this? DAVID BROOKS: Well, the president was sacrilegious. The Easter texts were vulgar and crude on Easter, and then the Jesus image was legitimately sacrilegious. And so I think one of the great cons that Donald Trump has pulled off is the idea that he's a man of faith. And I think, after the last few days, even a lot of Trump supporters are acknowledging, well, he's not a person of faith, he's not a man of God, because nobody acts that way. I agree with Jonathan that you shouldn't—J.D. Vance shouldn't be questioning the pope after being Catholic for nine-and-a-half minutes. But I do think what you see here is the contrast between the way Trump has gone into this war, which is cavalier in the extreme, and Catholic just war theory, which traced back to Augustine and Aquinas, which is intellectually rigorous. And you have—to be a just war, you have to clear a series of hurdles that make sure you're doing the thing right and you have thought about this carefully. And in some ways, I do think they have cleared some of the hurdles. There has to be just cause, it has to be morally righteous. I think that's arguable. But some of the other hurdles, it is clearly not a cause. Is there right intention? Donald Trump has not explained what our goals and intentions are. So there's no right intention. Is it last resort? Have we given diplomacy every rule? Well, obviously not. Is there a probability of success? Well, there was no clear probability of success, because it wasn't carefully calculated. So one of the things you see with what the pope is doing, he's trying to put an intellectual, rigorous process on how you evaluate a very deadly policy. And the Trump administration is completely incapable of thinking in these terms.

NPR has received two of the largest gifts in their decades of existence, totaling $113 million. It's a natural response to President Trump and Republicans ending federal dollars to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting last year. NPR media reporter David Folkenflik reported Thursday that the philanthropist Connie Ballmer -- wife of Steve Ballmer, one of the Microsoft founders -- contributed $80 million specifically to insure NPR transforms its technology to meet the needs of "public" media audiences. Their natural audience "needs" to be told the Republicans are evil people wanting to ruin freedom of speech.  "I support NPR because an informed public is the bedrock of our society, and democracy requires strong, independent journalism," Ballmer, a former member of the NPR Foundation board, said in a statement. They always describe non-commercial leftist propaganda as "independent." NPR has always been dependent on taxpayers. State governments are still funding many NPR affiliates. An anonymous donor gave the other $33 million, with the intent of helping NPR affiliates across  the country analyze their audiences, market themselves, and raise money. These are the largest donations NPR has received since Joan Kroc, the widow of McDonald's magnate Ray Kroc, left more than $200 million to the network in 2003. In 1987, Kroc gave the Democrats $1 million, at that time the biggest single contribution in the party's history.  Jeffrey Blehar at National Review speaks for all the involuntary conservative donors to "public" broadcasting:  [W]hat conservatives always argued would happen if you cut funding for public broadcasting has indeed happened: nothing at all. They’re doing fine! What limited audience NPR had (it no longer includes me) was always willing to subsidize it. NPR never needed our taxpayer money after all. It was all a parasitic grift, a lobbying yelp, the literal — forgive me, but I am about to cite Jim Morrison — scream of the butterflies. These people merely wanted a guaranteed pipeline to taxpayer funding and the nominal imprimatur of “national” agenda-setting and news-making authority.