Someone needs to come up with a “more powerful” word than “fake” to describe just how despicable today’s legacy media have become, President Donald Trump said Tuesday at a White House Hanukkah reception. Trump singled out CNN, which had reporters and cameras at the event: "CNN, fake news, they’re back there (in the reception hall). Their camera’s rolling; their light will go off in any second there. “They hate when I mention their name because they know it’s only bad. Because they’re crooked as hell.” Trump called out CNN for its coverage dismissing the U.S. strike that destroyed the threat of Iran’s nuclear problem earlier this year as an example. Trump said CNN disparaged his claim that “We obliterated them,” even though that’s how the pilots, the Atomic Energy Commission – and even Iran – described the success of the mission. “They're fake news. It might be one of my better terms,” Trump said, taking credit for coining the dubious description of the legacy media’s dishonesty: “I don’t think anybody takes it away. We had some good ones, (such as) ‘Pocahontas.’ But, I think fake news is probably pretty good.” “The only problem is it's actually not strong enough,” Trump said, stressing the need for a stronger adjective: “You know, ‘fake’: it's crooked, corrupt, disgusting news – but, we'll have to do with ‘fake,’ I think." Except, ‘fake’ isn’t strong enough. It’s the only problem. “I wish they could come up with a word that really more powerful than “fake.” But, “fake” is good enough.”

Earlier this week, President Trump filed a $10 billion defamation suit against the BBC alleging that they deceptively edited his speech from January 6, 2021 to omit his call for the a peaceful protest; something the BBC seemed to cop to in an apology they issued in November. The fresh suit caused CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter to clutch his pearls during a Tuesday edition of CNN News Central, where he suggested the suit was about chilling speech. He was wrong. The suits we’ve seen in recent years were to hold the media accountable, and save them from themselves. “Number one, a year ago it was unheard of for a sitting American president to file a lawsuit against a news outlet. This never happened before until President Trump returned to office for his second term,” Stelter warned. “But now, this year, he has sued The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and as of this morning, the BBC. So, he is charting a new course, trying to take his war against the news media to court.” Of course, Stelter conveniently ignored how the Obama Justice Department had targeted individual journalists and tried to lock them up: James Rosen (Fox News at the time) and James Risen (The New York Times at the time). Stelter seemed to channel Puck News’s smears of the defamation case CNN lost earlier this year (which, in part, caused Puck to catch a defamation suit of their own) and claimed the case didn’t have standing in Florida, where it was filed: And it's going to be very difficult for him to do so, but he's trying anyway. Even if these lawsuits are just PR stunts, he is getting the headlines he wants. He is charging defamation against the BBC and arguing that Florida is the appropriate venue for a lawsuit. I spoke with numerous legal experts, media law professors overnight who are very skeptical of Trump's chances, in part because it's going to be hard to prove that he was actually damaged in Florida. But like I said, the headlines might be the point.     Despite of Stelter’s insistence that the case didn’t have standing in Florida, it arguably did for the same reasons the case against CNN was filed there. The BBC documentary was available online and viewable in Florida. Then there’s also the fact that Florida was Trump’s official residence (much like how Navy veteran Zachary Young’s business, Nemex was incorporated in Florida). Stelter was right that a president had never taken the media to court so many times. But we’ve also not seen so many private citizens do the same until recent years. Brian, maybe it's because the media had never been more radical and reckless with their reporting. Since Trump first became president, the media had grown more vicious and zealous in their perceived moral superiority (a dangerous combo); seeing themselves as paladins wielding their pens like swords against what they’ve openly claimed was an “existential threat” to the country and existence. It's the reason they felt comfortable in targeting and smearing children like Nick Sandmann and 9-year-old Chiefs fan Holden Armenta. Also this year, just days before it went to trial, MSNBC had to settle their own defamation suit for erroneously dubbing a doctor the “uterus collector” because his had seen illegal immigrant women in ICE’s custody. The ends justified the means to them: don’t you dare attend the March for Life or put face paint on or work for ICE, or we’ll crush you. That’s the real chilling of speech. What Stelter would like to frame as “chilling critical speech” was actually about holding the media accountable and trying to get them to amend their behavior. When CNN was found liable for malicious defamation against Young in January, the network was also made to pay Young punitive damages (which was paid out via an undisclosed settlement). The point of punitive damages was to make it painful for the defendant as a punishment to teach them a lesson. It also served the purpose as a warning to others who thought of doing the same. Stelter was all for calling out what he saw as misinformation, like calling his efforts to put Fox News out of business “harm reduction”; but when it was about holding the leftist media to account for their misinformation, he condemned it. Looks like CNN didn’t learn their lesson. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN News Central December 16, 2025 8:50:06 a.m. Eastern KATE BOLDUAN: So, President Trump is now taking on the BBC, launching a defamation lawsuit against the British news giant for $10 billion over a documentary that he says was selectively edited. The President says the BBC cut together specific parts of the speech that he delivered on January 6, saying they deliberately omitted a section in which he called for peaceful protests. The BBC has acknowledged and apologized to President Trump, even admitting the error in judgment over the way the clips were edited, though they say that the President has no legal basis to sue them. But where does this go now? CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter is following this one very closely for us. Brian, what do you see here? BRIAN STELTER: Number one, a year ago it was unheard of for a sitting American president to file a lawsuit against a news outlet. This never happened before until President Trump returned to office for his second term. But now, this year, he has sued The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and as of this morning, the BBC. So, he is charting a new course, trying to take his war against the news media to court. And it's going to be very difficult for him to do so, but he's trying anyway. Even if these lawsuits are just PR stunts, he is getting the headlines he wants. He is charging defamation against the BBC and arguing that Florida is the appropriate venue for a lawsuit. I spoke with numerous legal experts, media law professors overnight who are very skeptical of Trump's chances, in part because it's going to be hard to prove that he was actually damaged in Florida. But like I said, the headlines might be the point. Here's what Professor Dylan McLemore told me overnight. He said, "the decision to file in Florida goes back to the question at the heart of all the president's suits against media companies, is he filing them to win in court or to create headlines and chill critical speech from the press?" That is a question in some ways answers itself. So far the BBC not saying much about this suit, Kate. But the BBC has vowed to fight if Trump sues, as he has now done. BOLDUAN: Yes. Brian, thank you so much for being all over this. Much more to come here. I really appreciate it.

National "Public" Radio loves the radical socialist Mamdanis. This is an easy exhibit in their dramatic ideological bias. On Tuesday's Morning Edition, co-host Leila Fadel offered a seven-minute softball interview with Mahmood Mamdani, including his new book Slow Poison, which argues Idi Amin wasn't such a bad dictator -- because he was against the evil Western colonizers and allied with the Soviets. From the Amazon blurbs:  “Mamdani tells the story of his family’s exile―and his own eventual return―in hopes of complicating our view of Amin, and of Ugandan politics. Mamdani is less interested in the jubilation of independence than in the turmoil that followed. Africa’s transformation proved far bloodier than many had hoped, yet Mamdani still insists that the continent’s independence leaders have something to teach the world.”―Kelefa Sanneh, New Yorker “The book is informed by a hardheaded recognition that nation-building is often an ugly business, and that Amin’s crimes should be evaluated in that context.”―Geoff Shullenberger, Compact Magazine “For half a century, Mahmood Mamdani has been one of the world’s most influential and incisive analysts of African and Global South politics. Slow Poison reveals why....upending a litany of myths surrounding Idi Amin, Yoweri Museveni, and modern Uganda. Mamdani makes for a compelling witness. Brilliant!”―Robin D. G. Kelley Fadel referred to Zohran Mamdani as a "political superstar"....twice. He's just becoming a mayor, but NPR sounds like they're putting him on an Obama track. She began the segment like this:  LEILA FADEL: These days, Mahmood Mamdani is known as Zohran Mamdani's dad, the political superstar that felt like he came out of nowhere to win New York's mayoral race. But before his son's political rise, his father had long been a storied academic focused on colonialism and anti-colonialism in Africa. And that academic work stems from his own experience as a Ugandan citizen of Indian origin. Later on, she focuses on the father and son:  FADEL: I can't help but make the connection to your son's recent victorious campaign in New York because so much of it and the attacks on your son were about belonging. And I just wonder if you think about the influence of your own academic research and the conversations you had at home that have turned your son into a political superstar in this moment. MAHMOOD MAMDANI: I mean, look, these conversations were conversations that were there when he was 7, 8, 9 in Cape Town. They were conversations about who is a South African. FADEL: Yeah. MAMDANI: Who belongs and who doesn't? It is the precursor to what Zohran was saying in New York. New York belongs to all that live in it. It wasn't just a question limited to us as migrants from South Asia, but it was a broadly African question. And it was a broadly global question. Fadel asked Mahmood about advice he's offered to Zohran, and he brushed it off, like that's something he doesn't do (until asked). But he was proud of the son's staunch opposition to Israel:  MAHMOOD MANDANI: There are some issues on which he has refused to compromise, and the biggest issue has been his critique of Israel and his pointing to genocide as genocide, refusing to change his vocabulary, refusing to denounce anything as the price of his freedom of speech. So he's done that and he has done it very successfully, and he has shocked his opponents. I mean, he signals a change. He signals the possibility of change. Canary Mission points out Daddy Mamdani is all about dismantling the "Jewish state" of Israel, and not only compared Israel to the Nazis, but compared the American Indians to Jews in the Holocaust. “Zionists in Israel have long drawn inspiration from how Americans cleansed the land of Indians.” To NPR, this makes him a "storied academic."  

Chief financial officers (CFOs) and fund managers at large-scale companies are the most optimistic they’ve been in four years, results of two closely-watched polls released this week reveal. Deloitte’s North American CFO Signals survey gauges the sentiment of more than 200 chief financial officers at capital markets companies with at least $1 billion in revenue. It asks CFOs to rate business and economic confidence and expectations on a scale of 1 to 10. Bank of America’s (BofA) survey measures confidence among more than 200 fund managers overseeing at least $500 billion in assets. The latest results of both surveys place confidence at the highest level since 2021. Deloitte reports that CFO sentiment “soared” in the fourth quarter and now “falls squarely in high confidence territory”: “The CFO confidence score rose for the second straight quarter. The 6.6 mark this quarter is substantially higher than the Q3 reading of 5.7—and pushes the rating up from medium to high confidence. For perspective: 6.6 is the highest confidence score since late 2021, during the post-COVID-19 pandemic recovery.” …. “Among finance chiefs surveyed, confidence soared this quarter to 6.6— the highest reading in four years. While this score is still lower than the record score of 7.2 in Q3 2021, it falls squarely in high confidence territory.” Thirty-six percent of CFOs surveyed rate the current North American economy as very good or good, up from 19% last quarter, and 55% expect it to be “better in a year.” The results bode well for the U.S. economy, as they signal increased hiring and spending in the coming months. Likewise, the Bank of America’s survey shows that fund managers are “the most bullish they've been in three-and-a-half years,” according to a review of the proprietary results by Business Insider: “The survey showed that 57% of fund managers expect the economy to cool while only 3% believe that a recession is looming, a record low for that figure. Thirty-seven percent don't expect the economy to slow at all.” …. “The number of fund managers who expect corporate profits to rise reached 29%, the highest since April 2021.” …. "On the macro…FMS global growth expectations rose to the most optimistic level since Aug'21 (net 18%, up from net 3%)." Additionally, fund managers’ cash levels are reportedly at the lowest level (3.3%) in the history of the survey, which reflects high confidence in investment opportunities. The business and economic reporting of CNSNews.com is funded in part with a gift made in memory of Dr. Keith C. Wold.

Politicians push government IDs. In a TSA announcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sternly warns, “You will need a REAL ID to travel by air or visit federal buildings.” European politicians go much further, reports Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev. They’re pushing government-mandated digital IDs that tie your identity to nearly everything you do. Spain’s prime minister promises “an end to anonymity” online!  Britain’s prime minister warns, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.” Queen Maxima of the Netherlands enthusiastically told the World Economic Forum that digital IDs are good for knowing “who actually got a vaccination or not.” Many American tech leaders also like digital IDs. The second richest man in the world, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, says, “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything.” That’s a good thing? “That is a recipe for disaster and totalitarianism!” says privacy specialist Naomi Brockwell. “Privacy is not about hiding. It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A digital ID will strip individuals of that choice.” “I already have a government-issued ID,” says Tokarev. “Why is a digital one worse?” “It connects everything,” says Brockwell. “Your financial decisions, social media posts, your likes, things that you’re watching, places you’re going. You won’t be able to voice things anonymously online anymore. Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.” Digital ID backers say the new ID will make life easier. “You can access your own money, make payments so much more easily,” says the U.K.’s prime minister. Yes, says Brockwell, “until those services start saying, ‘No, you can’t use our system.’” Even without a digital ID, Canada froze the bank accounts of truckers who protested COVID vaccine mandates. With a digital ID, politicians could do that much more easily. “You’re essentially putting a giant target on every aspect of your life,” warns Brockwell, “wrapping it up in a nice bow and saying, ‘Here, if you want to control me, just untie this.’” In the U.S., many states are passing age verification laws that require you to identify yourself and prove your age before accessing certain websites. Proponents say this will protect kids from dangerous content. “Unfortunately, politicians just can’t promise that it will only ever be used for that,” says Brockwell. “You always have governments with these great-sounding bills called the ‘Let’s-Stop-All-the-Bad-People-Doing-All-the-Bad-Things’ Bill. ... But what they’re voting for is a system of control and oppression. ... You’ll be ranked based on past activities and choices that you’ve made.” China does that. People with low social credit scores may be denied entry into schools or find they cannot buy a train ticket. “It makes you super easy to target!” says Brockwell, “easy to silence if suddenly you become ‘problematic.’ Whoever controls that data has a lot of power. We’re simply handing it to them. People need to be aware that they have no control over who will get access to this tool and who will control this tool in the future.” Tokarev points out that companies like Facebook, Google, and Chase Bank already have her data. “Shouldn’t I trust my government more?” “Governments, unlike companies, can throw you in jail,” Brockwell replies. “This is America,” says Tokarev. “We’re not going to become China.” “We are skyrocketing towards that direction!” insists Brockwell. “The surveillance infrastructure we’re trying to put in place in the United States is heading directly towards where China currently is.” What can we do about it? “People need to be reminded that they’re empowered to actually affect that change,” says Brockwell. “They can reach out to representatives; they can push back. Protect themselves and not build this infrastructure in the first place.” Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of “Government Gone Wild: Exposing the Truth Behind the Headlines.”