Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court decision to end racial gerrymandering, the Left and their media allies have been crying racism, and that continued last Saturday, at a rally in Montgomery, Alabama. It all led to a sometimes heated discussion on race, Monday on Fox News's The Five. The segment began with short clips from Democrats who participated in the event, including Tennessee State Representative Justin Pearson, who said, "We are here because a white supremacist dictator known as President Donald Trump thought he could silence us."  The first to weigh in was former Tennessee Democrat congressman Harold Ford Jr., who downplayed the racial issue, claiming, "My difficulty and difference with all of this is we're doing this redistricting during mid-decades." But Ford would go on to sneak race into the issue. FORD: The Court has said that race cannot be a predominant factor, the only factor in doing it. I do think we would be having a different conversation if the Supreme Court said that you couldn't draw districts with a big number of non-college-educated white men.... We'd probably be saying something differently about it. Ford is implying that these white men are Trump voters. Is the we his Fox News panel and other white people? He then returned to downplaying the race issue. FORD: I caution my Democrat friends to leave the race out of it. We have a lot of progress in this country on the racial front. We have a long way to go as well.  But when you have a black president in the last 20 years, you have black members of Congress who are Democrat and Republican representing predominately white districts, and you have black Senators representing predominately white states, to me that flies in the face of some of the things we heard in our opening. When it was Greg Gutfeld's turn, there was no doubt about where he stood on the issue of race. GUTFELD: Those leaders are living in the past, which is what the race card literally is. You're living in the past to imprint it on the future. The things that they say are happening aren't happening. It used to work. We used to be paralyzed by the fear of the scarlet letter R for racism. But the race card doesn't work anymore on half the population that sees through it. The other half are just doing it out of habit.  Gutfeld then addressed Ford. GUTFELD: Now all of a sudden race relations are worse (than when Obama was first elected) and people are at each other's throats... This is a filter, Harold. I'm talking about identity politics. It's a filter put in place to destroy a country because it's absolutely opposite what a melting pot is.   And Ford's seesawing continued, back to racism. FORD: We have a history in our country where we had slavery a long long time. GUTFELD: And we ended it, Harold. We fought a war to end it. Aren't we the only country to ever fight a war to end slavery? We didn't start slavery. Where did slavery start? It's an ugly fact. It's not from us. FORD: Greg, we had laws in our books that didn't allow black people to vote. GUTFELD: I understand that. This is 2026. Ford then retreated. FORD: Would you that agree with me that you shouldn't redraw congressional lines mid-decade? That's what the President is doing. GUTFELD: I don't care. I look at these districts and I see all of these Republicans and no representation. That's wrong. After Kennedy added her take, which included ripping Democrats for playing the race card on redistricting, Ford took one more shot. FORD: A radio host told a Republican woman who is in Congress that he's against Hakeem Jeffries coming down to Virginia, and trying to dictate what to do.... Then he said at the end, tell him to keep his cotton picking hands off Virginia.  That was race. He should not have said that. I don't disagree with a lot of things you guys said about identity politics, but when race is obvious, it needs to be called out. In this incidence Greg I would agree with you, race is not obvious in what they're talking about but we should not be redrawing districts mid-decade. It seems that Ford wanted to have it both ways. Say it's not about race, but keep bringing up race, all the while finishing with his safety valve of say no to mid-decade redistricting.

On Tuesday, after the shooting attack at an Islamic Center in San Diego, California, MS NOW’s Morning Joe focused on the rise of “anti-Muslim hatred” and a “rising tide of anti-Semitism” after October 7th, which the show blamed on the Trump Administration. Co-host Joe Scarborough also implied the use of posts that used Christian language on government websites and “quoting biblical verses on historic sites” were part of the rise of hatred. The segment started with a report on the shooting attack in San Diego, as Scarborough and fellow co-host Willie Geist praised the work of a security guard who died as a result of the shooting. But after the report and praise of the security guard, Scarborough went straight towards a blame game and connected the rise of anti-Muslim hatred to a rise in anti-Semitism:  You have historic levels of anti-muslim hatred across America. A rising tide of anti-semitism across America. The events of October 7th, and Gaza, and everything that's followed has led to a complete lack of dialogue and some of the places where it's needed the most badly on college campuses among our young people.  The hatred that is spreading online against muslims, against Jews, against Hispanics, against Asians, against, quote, “the others” is sad and unfortunate.   On Morning Joe, after the San Diego mosque attack, Joe Scarborough mentioned increased hatred post-October 7th before he turned to hint that the use of Christian language and bible verses among government officials and employees was a possible reason for inflamed hatred. pic.twitter.com/jPt8WNIbbC — Nick (@nspin310) May 19, 2026   Scarborough then mentioned he was raised as an evangelical, as he turned to mention the use of Christian language and bible verses by government officials and employees; hinting it was a possible reason for inflamed hate: I can tell you as someone evangelical, someone who was raised in the church, I do understand that there is a place for people of faith in government. But seeing - seeing this, this constant, this constant, un-American campaign by people posting on official U.S. Government websites that ‘We are a Christian nation’ and quoting Bible verses on historic sites, that - it goes completely against what the First Amendment says. Frequent guest David Ignatius, columnist for The Washington Post, also blamed the administration due to “more polarization, more inflammatory rhetoric.”    Scarborough continued, after David Ignaitus blamed the Supreme Court's "extreme view on the Second Amendment," and said "Christian Nationalists" were "trying to project their view of America from the perch of government bureaucracy?" pic.twitter.com/S33mP8uPRs — Nick (@nspin310) May 19, 2026   Ignatius praised the security guard before he turned to call the Supreme Court “oblivious” to shootings along with their “extreme view of the Second Amendment.” At the close of the segment, Scarborough went back to his earlier point of Christian language used by the government and started to mention “Christian Nationalists”: And I must say again, on faith, ask, what would Jesus do? These people that are, again, deciding that they're going to try to push on government bureaucracy - through government bureaucracies, their view of the bible? Christians don't even agree on their view of the Bible. Christian nationalists have totally twisted and distorted Jesus's words in the gospels. His exact words in the gospels being twisted and distorted. So, if Christians can't even sort through it, what are Christian nationalists doing trying to project their view of America from the perch of government bureaucracy? The morning program could have focused on the heroes that protected the center from the attack, like the security guard, but they decided to focus most of their segment on an apparent connection to the use of Bible verses “Christian Nationalists” in government, along with jabs for the Supreme Court. The transcript is below. Click "expand": MS NOW’s Morning Joe May 19, 2026 6:31:51 AM Eastern WILLIE GEIST: Joe, some reporting this morning too that that security guard who was killed outside the school stood between the shooters and the children inside and being called a hero this morning. Rightly so. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. Incredible eyewitness seeing him actually take a shot and then run inside to protect those inside. An absolute hero.  And, David Ignatius, just an absolute tragedy right now. You have historic levels of anti-muslim hatred across America. A rising tide of anti-semitism across America. The events of October 7th, and Gaza, and everything that's followed has led to a complete lack of dialogue and some of the places where it's needed the most badly on college campuses among our young people.  The hatred that is spreading online against muslims, against Jews, against Hispanics, against Asians, against, quote, “the others” is sad and unfortunate. I can tell you as someone evangelical, someone who was raised in the church, I do understand that there is a place for people of faith in government. But seeing - seeing this, this constant, this constant, un-American campaign by people posting on official U.S. Government websites that ‘We are a Christian nation’ and quoting bible verses on historic sites, that - it goes completely against what the First Amendment says.  And you, also, at the same time, have a lot of those people also say terrible things about Muslims, saying terrible things about, quote, the others. And unfortunately, anti-semitic slurs, anti-muslim slurs continue to skyrocket, and people lose their lifes as well. DAVID IGNATIUS: Joe, we're just tearing each other up in this country. I think we all feel it. There's something oppressive about it. And we're a country that just desperately needs good leaders. We look to the administration, Donald Trump, and often what we see is more polarization, more inflammatory rhetoric.  When you hear a story about a person like this security guard, just a guy standing in front of the building who has the courage to try to save people, because that's his job, and because that's what keeps our country and the place he was assigned orderly. You know, you think, okay, that's the spirit that gets us out of this. That multiplied by a million, by 100 million, that produces the country that we love and want to live in.  And, you know, I never want to give up hope on that. But this is this is a time when we're really under strain and that the institutions that should be helping us, like the Supreme Court, seem oblivious to some of these pressures, you know, a shooting almost every day somewhere. And we sail along with this extreme view of the Second Amendment. Sometimes it's just a depressing picture. But when you hear those stories of the individual heroes, you think, yeah, bang, that's still it. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. And again, you're so right. I mean, the growing tide of gun violence and nothing happening post Sandy Hook, we thought there would be a reckoning. Just basic things that 90 percent of Americans support, like universal background checks. Republicans keep blocking that. Red flag laws. Republicans keep blocking that. Basic safety measures. Republicans keep blocking.  And I must say again, on faith, ask, what would Jesus do? These people that are, again, deciding that they're going to try to push on government bureaucracy - through government bureaucracies, their view of the bible? Christians don't even agree on their view of the Bible. Christian nationalists have totally twisted and distorted Jesus's words in the gospels. His exact words in the gospels being twisted and distorted. So, if Christians can't even sort through it, what are Christian nationalists doing trying to project their view of America from the perch of government bureaucracy?  Individuals? Fine. I celebrate that. I celebrate that when politicians, individuals talk about their faith, be they Muslim, be they Jewish, be they Christians or Hindu. That's America. But man, this, this, this hatred toward, quote the others. It leads, unfortunately, to terrible violence. (...)

On Tuesday afternoon, Vice President JD Vance helmed the second White House press briefing since Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went on maternity leave and, much like Secretary of State Marco Rubio did back on May 5, he deftly took on liberal journalists looking to trap him on the new Justice Department weaponization fund, the war in Iran, and even stocks. Vance’s strongest takedown came in the penultimate question, with the Independent’s Andrew Feinberg asking about President Trump’s most recent financial disclosures that include millions in stock trades. As Vance calmly schooled him, it’s one thing to ask a question about a tenuous subject, but it’s another to offer a long-winded speech masquerading as a query. Feinberg began with a rambling set-up: The President’s financial disclosures were released recently, and they showed a lot of stock trades in companies that he has talked up at events, official events at the White House on his Truth Social account, sometimes even putting the stock ticker symbols in his posts and encouraging people to buy their — their stock. Americans, according to recent polling, are increasingly describing the President as corrupt[.] Notice the lack of a question mark. .@Independent’s @AndrewFeinberg: “The President’s financial disclosures were released recently, and they showed a lot of stock trades in companies that he has talked up at events, official events at the White House on his Truth Social account, sometimes even putting the stock… pic.twitter.com/swexhmiec7 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 When he went to add “and trading stocks,” Vance interjected: “This is a helluva question.” Feinberg played along, taking it as a compliment and said, “thank you, sir” before continuing. Vance interrupted a second time to wonder if there was a question, which only then did Feinberg provide (click “expand”): FEINBERG: Trading — trading individual stocks is something that you said that public officials should not be able to do when you ran for Senate all those years ago. And yet the President, who arguably has access to more nonpublic information than your average senator, is not only buying and selling individual stocks, either through his — through his trust — VANCE: Okay, what’s the question? FEINBERG: — the question — is the question, sir, is how can you and your administration argue to Americans that you’re cleaning up corruption, you’re preventing fraud, you’re fighting the sorts of things that harm people and people’s financial situations when the President seems to be talking up stocks that he owns, selling them and enriching himself? Before addressing the topic at hand, Vance blasted this “doozy” of “speech” and approach liberal reporters engage in by hurling insinuations of malfeasance before expecting a substantive answer (click “expand”): Okay. So, let me — let me — let me answer your question here. That was a doozy. Before I answer your question, I want to just observe — there are different ways to ask a question, okay? You can just ask a question and try to get your answer. Or you could do like a speech where you say, you know, Mr. Vice President, every — you know — you’re a — you’re a terrible human being, and so is the President, and so is the entire cabinet. And then I’m like, what’s your question? And then your question is, how dare you? Come on, man. Have a little bit of objectivity in the way that you ask these questions, because there are a lot of things in that speech masquerading as a question that didn’t actually get asked, okay? Number one, the President doesn’t sit at the Oval Office on his computer, on his, like, Robin Hood account, buying and selling stocks. That’s absurd. He has independent wealth advisors who manage his money. He is a wealthy person. He has had success in business. He’s not making these stock trades himself. And your question imputes that. It sort of — it doesn’t say it exactly, but a reasonable person listening to that question would assume the President is sitting around and doing that. He’s not. Second of all, you’re right. I’m a big fan of banning members of Congress from trading stocks. So is the President of the United States. All of us believe that nobody should be taking proprietary information gained from public service and buying and selling stocks. We want to ban — we want to ban that — we want to ban that process. And I think the way to lead by example is banning that process, banning that approach, and making it illegal, which is exactly what the President has proposed doing. Elsewhere, longtime ABC correspondent and four-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl predictably focused on the $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded program for Americans to seek relief from the government if they feel as though it was unfairly weaponized against them. Karl first wanted to know if that would include those originally convicted based on their conduct from January 6, 2021 and had beaten police officers: ABC’s @JonKarl: “I want to ask you about that $1.8 billion fund set up — weaponization fund it’s being called. Why should taxpayers be paying to settle a $10 billion lawsuit that was brought by the President of the United States? And should people that attacked the Capitol… pic.twitter.com/2HAVqwSOro — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 Karl didn’t like Vance’s lengthy answer, so he asked again: ABC’s @JonKarl: “I understand that everybody is eligible to apply for this one. I mean, you’re eligible, but I assume you’re not going to apply and you don’t think you should get money out of this fund.”@VP @JDVance: “Of course.” Karl: “So, isn’t it just as easy to say that… pic.twitter.com/mUQWGbtDMU — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 Former conservative reporter-turned-CNN liberal Kaitlan Collins followed up a little over 20 minutes later: CNN’s @KaitlanCollins: “You previously told me that anyone who assaulted a police officer on January 6th should go to prison. So, why not rule out giving them taxpayer-funded money?”@VP @JDVance: “Well, Kaitlin, what I said is we’re going to look at everything case-by-case.”… pic.twitter.com/4JNqLv5PV9 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 CBS’s Caitlin Huey-Burns followed Collins and asked a fair question about the timing of announcing the fund, given that Americans are feeling an economic squeeze amid the war with Iran. Vance also gave a fair answer explaining how Americans shouldn’t view this fund as a check that could have been used elsewhere and, given other administration initiatives such as the Working Families Tax Cut, it’s not as though personal finance hasn’t been a concern: CBS’s @CHueyBurns: “Going back to the price tag for this DOJ fund, $1.8 billion, you have people that can’t afford groceries. Gas is high. People are making sacrifices in their personal lives to accommodate for this rise in prices. People are telling us that they feel financially… pic.twitter.com/Dv4wgnhMOA — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 Rewinding back to the beginning of the Q&A, Breitbart News’s Nick Gilbertson used his perch from the “new media seat” to ask about Tuesday’s Kentucky primaries featuring a Trump-backed challenger to GOP Congressman Thomas Massie: .@BreitbartNews’s Nick @Gilbertson_DC was today’s “new media seat” recipient at the White House press briefing, hosted by @VP @JDVance... Gilbertson: “Today, we saw the President endorse Ken Paxton over John Cornyn and the Texas Senate race. Do you think that sends a message… pic.twitter.com/egwSQU5RJJ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 Despite what the so-called media reporting crowd tries to have its followers and readers think, Fox News and conservative media came with tough questions. Aishah Hasnie didn’t have softballs as she tried to pin Vance down on whether the Iranians are negotiating “in good faith”: Fox’s @AishahHasnie: “Just following up on what you just said, you said that the White House is negotiating with Iran in good faith. I think Americans tend to believe that. But what is it about the Iranian side that you personally have seen, where you believe that they are… pic.twitter.com/TBSuAlXrcp — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 Fox’s @AishahHasnie: “Just for Americans at home, because this has been going on for several weeks now. I think what people just want to know is, do you personally believe that the Iranians will come to a deal? Because we keep seeing this over and over again when they go back and… pic.twitter.com/uEioY8gOUQ — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 The New York Post’s Steven Nelson had two meaty, newsy topics about whether the Trump administration achieved anything last week with China on fentanyl plus if Russia could play a role in taking over an Iranian uranium: .@NYPost’s @StevenNelson10: “I’d like to ask a quick follow up on Iran. But first I’d like to ask you about fentanyl. Fentanyl is sourced largely from China, killed about 403,000 Americans over the past seven years, according to CDC data. That’s one in every one — one in every… pic.twitter.com/66xYh5T93f — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 Our friend Reagan Reese of the Daily Caller — who asked Trump a now-viral question last week — wondered if the work of the White House Fraud Task Force could yield an indictment of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and then whether working on the task force has altered Vance’s view on the country’s “immigration or refugee policies.” .@DailyCaller’s @ReaganReese_: “I want to ask you about the anti-fraud task force. You previously mentioned that Ilhan Omar seemed to have committed immigration fraud. Or — do you anticipate an indictment against her, an indictment related to that situation?”@VP @JDVance:… pic.twitter.com/9tqhJ1MVTq — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 .@DailyCaller’s @ReaganReese_: “Based on what you’ve seen during your work on this anti-fraud task force, do you believe anything should change about our immigration or refugee policies to stop fraud in the United States?”@VP @JDVance: “Well, yeah. I mean, look, one thing I’d… pic.twitter.com/UqScXp7W2x — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 The Daily Mail’s Jon Michael Raasch had this hardball on Iran: .@DailyMail’s @JMRaasch: “So, Trump initially said that the war would last six weeks. We are now it’s been going on for 11 weeks in three days. What’s your message to the American people as to why it’s gone on so long and it hasn’t ended yet?”@VP @JDVance: “Well, first of all,… pic.twitter.com/ttuv3nVnOX — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 And, filling in for the great Monica Luisi while on maternity leave, Turning Point USA’s Frontlines had Rowena Ortiz on hand to ask Vance to deliver a message to Americans of “across all faiths in America” amid “an uptick in religious violence.” .@FrontlinesTPUSA's @Rowena_Ortiz_: “There has been an uptick in religious violence across the country. What’s your message to protect people across all faiths in America?”@VP @JDVance: “Well, I appreciate that question. Obviously, Turning Points would — would know a lot about… pic.twitter.com/5lyzLzLxXl — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 Vance explained how religious violence is particularly insidious, given it violates the core tenet of most major religions that “we are all children of God” (click “expand”): [T]he principle of religious violence is particularly disgusting, especially in the United States of America. And as a devout Christian, I would say it’s — it’s one of the most anti-Christian things and anti-American things that you could do. And here’s — here’s why. One, because a fundamental principle of all the great faiths is we are all children of God. And because of that, we are endowed by certain rights that are unique to our status as human beings. You violate those rights, most importantly, when you commit violence against another person. You can violate them in other ways as well. But the most profound way to violate the fundamental right of human dignity is to commit violence. But here’s why the religious piece of it is particularly egregious. One of the fundamental American rights that I think came from our Christian heritage as a civilization is the idea that we respect people’s religious freedom, in part because we respect them as human beings, but also because we respect their right to find their own pathway to God. You can’t force anybody to a pathway to God. They have to, through their own free will, find God themselves. That’s one of the reasons why that right of religious freedom is the very first right enshrined in our Constitution. So, when you commit acts of violence, you’re committing an act against this fundamental idea that people are created in the image of God, and that they have the right, through their own free will to find God however they might want. And as a as a Christian, of course, you might have your preference for how they find their pathway to God. They have to find that choice. And anybody who would commit violence against another human being in the name of religion is, I think, doing something that is a violation, of course, of the laws of — of man. But I think more importantly, it is a fundamental violation of the laws of God. Vance addressed Monday’s deadly attack on a San Diego Islamic center earlier on in response to a question from Lindell TV concerning a repugnant so-called joke from Pete Davidson about the late Charlie Kirk: Vice President Vance on Pete Davidson’s Charlie Kirk “joke” on Netflix and yesterday’s deadly shooting at a San Diego Islamic center... “Charlie was a very, very dear friend. But more importantly than that, Charlie was a father of two beautiful kids, and he did not deserve to… pic.twitter.com/61bOnDIgiH — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) May 19, 2026 To see the relevant transcript from the May 19 briefing, click here.

Two of The View’s multimillionaires demanded that Americans who could not afford their prescription medications continue to struggle. ABC News co-hosts Joy Behar and Sunny Hostin tried to scare them away from using TrumpRX to score heavily discounted medications. They claimed, without evidence, that people who took the medications were going to die and then insisted that President Trump was going to take a cut of the sale (or employ some other method to enrich himself). They even got into a screaming match with their co-hosts over it. After playing a soundbite of Trump and liberal billionaire Mark Cuban launching the program, Behar lashed out. “First of all, you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas,” Behar snapped at Cuban. “Correct! Correct!” Hostin shrieked in agreement. Without evidence, Behar started shouting about how they were supposedly Trump-branded drugs and that they were going to kill everyone: “And I like Mark Cuban. I've always like the him but this is a mistake and once Trump puts his name on prescriptions we're all going to die!” Hostin would later back up Behar’s suggestion that the drugs were unsafe, asserting, “There could be short cuts involved.” “Anything he touches is tainted! I don’t trust it!” she also screeched. “The drugs don't actually have his name. They're existing drugs. It’s a marketplace for them,” co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin tried to shout back. “Whatever! If he's involved with it,” Behar wrote it off. Farah Griffin noted that TrumpRX had one of her IVF medications, Follistim at a tenth the price she had paid for it. “The average family, one third of American families cut back on essential food and utilities to be able to cover their prescription drug costs. You're not going to convince me that just because Trump’s involved we should be like ‘screw it, don’t bring down prescription drug costs,’” she argued.   ABC News co-host Joy Behar claims "we're all going to die" because Trump wants to lower drug prices with TrumpRX. She even lashes out at Mark Cuban for getting involved. She shouts at her co-hosts who support lowering drug costs. pic.twitter.com/Wi3SNqU41J — Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) May 19, 2026   Behar and Hostin then teamed up to tell people they shouldn’t get cheaper medications from TrumpRX because Trump was supposedly getting rich from it: BEHAR: If he's going to take a profit out of it, don’t take it! HOSTIN: Correct! I completely agree with that! FARAH GRIFFIN: No! Americans are struggling! HOSTIN: I agree with you, Joy! He is a failed businessman. And if you heard what he said, he said, we both want to make people wealthy, he didn't say healthy. FARAH GRIFFIN: So I pay ten times more for my medication? HOSTIN: He said wealthy which means to me that there's something in it for him! This is not a well-intentioned person! Again, they provided no evidence, only vibes. “He is not a well-intentioned person. He is not doing this out of the goodness of his heart! He's doing this to make money!” Hostin screamed through her hoarse voice. “You guys are naïve!” Behar attacked Farah Griffin and co-host Sara Haines, who was all for the program. “The people literally suffering illnesses and cannot pay for their medicine, I can't think of a sicker business model! Bring down the prices and if you get results on this, call it Donald Trump medicine!” Haines shouted. Behar and Hostin, multimillionaires who didn’t have an issue paying for their medications, took turns bashing their co-hosts for wanting people to use the program just because Trump was president: BEHAR: You are so naïve, the two of you, wow! HOSTIN: The two of you are so naïve! BEHAR: So naïve! Behar literally cackled at her attack, going so far as to claim the program didn’t even exist at all. “Don't believe anything he says Alyssa!” she sneered. “It’s real! Go and literally look it up! It is right there,” Farah Griffin shouted back, pointing to the screen behind Behar showing the literal website. This was an instance where The View’s unhinged Trump-hate could get people hurt. There’s a strong possibility that people would put themselves though more financial hardship because they believed Behar and Hostin’s disinformation that the program was fake or distributing tainted medications. Moreover, they didn’t have to worry about it since they didn’t need the program and could afford their drugs just fine. ABC News didn’t respond to NewsBusters’ request for comment asking the evidence they had of their claims. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View May 19, 2026 11:17:04 a.m. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: And, hey, listen to this one, billionaire Mark Cuban was a harsh critic of MAGA who campaigned for Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 but yesterday he was with you-know-who touting their partnership to expand generic drug coverage. Take a look. [Cuts to video] PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: I want to thank the leaders of several major pharmacies and generic drugmakers who are partnering with us on this effort including the co-founder of Cost Plus Drugs, Mark Cuban. Mark, thank you very much. Mark. Looking good, Mark. Come here, Mark. Nice to be with you. MARK CUBAN: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. TRUMP: We have the same thing. One thing in common. We want to make people better and keep them wealthy, right? [Transition] CUBAN: I think other than you I've been the biggest proponent of Trumprx.com and the reason for that is because Republicans want cheaper drugs, independents want cheaper drugs, Democrats want cheaper drugs and together, I think we're going to do something special. [Cuts back to live] GOLDBERG: Okay. JOY BEHAR: First of all, you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. SUNNY HOSTIN: Correct! Correct! [Applause] BEHAR: And I like Mark Cuban. I've always like the him but this is a mistake and once Trump puts his name on prescriptions we're all going to die! Okay? He put his name on the Trump shuttle, the Trump vodka, the Trump University HOSTIN: And Trump steaks too. BEHAR: - and my favorite, the casinos, they all went bankrupt. Do not go there Mark. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: The drugs don't actually have his name. They're existing drugs. BEHAR: Whatever! FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s a marketplace for them. BEHAR: If he's involved with it. FARAH GRIFFIN: No. [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: Wait a second. FARAH GRIFFIN: A medication I had to take for IVF is a tenth of the price on TrumpRX. I don’t - whatever, it's tacky that his name is on it. Mark Cuban has dedicated his life to bringing down prescription drug costs. BEHAR: Good. FARAH GRIFFIN: The average family, one third of American families cut back on essential food and utilities to be able to cover their prescription drug costs. You're not going to convince me that just because Trump’s involved we should be like “screw it, don’t bring down prescription drug costs.” BEHAR: If he's going to take a profit out of it, don’t take it! HOSTIN: Correct! I completely agree with that! FARAH GRIFFIN: No! Americans are struggling! HOSTIN: I agree with you, Joy! He is a failed businessman. And if you heard what he said, he said, we both want to make people wealthy, he didn't say healthy. FARAH GRIFFIN: So I pay ten times more for my medication? HOSTIN: He said wealthy which means to me that there's something in it for him! This is not a well-intentioned person! [Crosstalk] SARA HAINES: The presidency is something he cashes in, Sunny, but what this does is it helps American people. HOSTIN: No, Sara! He is not a well-intentioned person. He is not doing this out of the goodness of his heart! He's doing this to make money! BEHAR: You Guys are naïve! FARAH GRIFFIN: No one thinks he’s doing this out of the goodness of his heart. HAINES: Joy, we're the wealthiest country and we pay the most for drugs. HOSTIN: There could be short cuts involved. HAINES: The people literally suffering illnesses and cannot pay for their medicine, I can't think of a sicker business model! Bring down the prices and if you get results on this, call it Donald Trump medicine! BEHAR (interrupting): There are countries - HAINES: I don't care what you call it! BEHAR: Excuse me! There are countries all over this world - especially in Scandinavia - that have national health insurance. HOSTIN: Correct. BEHAR: They do not want to have that. That would bring down the cost of drugs and healthcare but they don't want that. They call that socialism. [Crosstalk] HAINES: They have concepts of a plan Joy, and right now this is a plan, I’m going to go with it. BEHAR: You are so naïve, the two of you, wow! HOSTIN: The two of you are so naïve! BEHAR: So naïve! [Crosstalk] [Behar literally cackles in the background] FARAH GRIFFIN: If I may speak! So, you're saying in the meantime, while he remains in office for the next two years people should not have access to cheaper drugs because Trump put his name on it? BEHAR: They should! HOSTIN: Anything he touches is tainted! I don’t trust it! FARAH GRIFFIN: Today, I can literally order a prescription drug I need for a tenth of the cost because of this and it's not -- BEHAR: Don't believe anything he says Alyssa! FARAH GRIFFIN: It’s real! Go and literally look it up! It is right there. I can get Follistim! (…)

More than half of those who voted for Democrat Kamala Harris in the 2024 election say it’s justified to gerrymander in one state to retaliate against other states that gerrymander, results of a new national survey of U.S. adult citizens reveal. Fully 92% of citizens agree that it’s a problem when states draw legislative districts that intentionally favor one political party, including 73% who say it’s “a major problem” and 19% who deem it a minor problem, according to a national poll by The Economist/YouGov conducted May 9-11. Democrat citizens (89%) and Independents (74%) are more likely than Republicans (57%) to think gerrymandering constitutes a major problem. Similarly, 89% of those who voted for Harris label it a major problem, compared to 60% of Trump voters. Democrats also voiced much more support for retaliatory district-drawing when asked the following question: “If one state redraws its congressional districts to advantage a political party, are other states justified in retaliating and redrawing their districts to benefit the other party?” Here, 56% of Harris voters and 51% of self-identified Democrats feel that retaliatory gerrymandering is justified, compared to just 33% of Trump voters and 32% of Republican citizens. Among Independents, 31% support redrawing districts in one state in order to retaliate against other states that redraw their districts. Men are more likely than women (44%-30%) to approve of retaliatory district-drawing. By race, Blacks (81%) are more likely than either Whites (72%) or Hispanics (68%) to think gerrymandering is a major problem and nearly half (45%) say it’s justified to retaliate in kind, compared to 38% of Whites and 29% of Hispanics. Taken together, 37% of all U.S. adult citizens say it’s justified, 27% say it isn’t and 36% are “not sure.”