Since February 14, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been largely shut down after funding lapsed because Democrats demanded changes to President Trump’s deportation policies, leaving government workers such as TSA agents to work without pay and turn to food banks. A Media Research Center study found that, since the start of the DHS shutdown, only eight percent – or 125 seconds – of the 26 minutes and 22 seconds on the shutdown across the flagship evening newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC have brought up the fact that the long lines at airports are because of the left’s obstructionism. MRC analysts examined every mention of the DHS shutdowns and its effects (mainly at America’s airports) by journalists, starting on February 14 on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News, and NBC Nightly News and tallied both the total coverage and allusions to Democratic demands to reopen DHS. All told, only nine days out of 30 mentioned Democrats and the shutdown. Watch the video below to see all of them: In the month since it began, they have only spent just over 26 minutes acknowledging the shutdown and its ripple effects, most notably at airports with long security lines as TSA agents have now gone a month without pay. Here are all ten Democrat mentions, tallying 125 seconds pic.twitter.com/hjep15QOnm — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 16, 2026 Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) – the agency at the center of the left’s ire following Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis – is funded through fiscal year 2029 and thus unaffected by the shutdown. NBC represented the smallest percentage acknowledging the role of Democrats at a remarkable three percent of its coverage (or 13 seconds out of six minutes and 59 seconds). NBC didn’t tie Democrats to the shutdown until the March 11 Nightly News when senior correspondent Tom Costello relayed in a five-second allusion to hours-long security lines “as Democrats say they’re open to funding TSA, but are demanding ICE policing reforms.” But on March 13, Costello spent 88 seconds on TSA workers, but not one mention of Democrats or even immigration policies. Instead, all viewers heard was this claim that “[t]onight, the airlines are calling it ‘a disgrace that Congress cannot reach an agreement or act on viable bipartisan solutions.’” “Solutions” to what? Why is it “a disgrace that Congress” hasn’t acted? Costello wouldn’t say. On Friday, 'NBC Nightly News' had 88 seconds in this longer piece on the long TSA lines and workers turning to food banks to put food on the table (if they haven't quit) amid the DHS shutdown, but not a single mention of Democrats and ICE Tom Costello offered this vague… pic.twitter.com/8CVRXXZCXt — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 16, 2026 In second place was ABC’s World News Tonight clocking in with nine percent (44 seconds) of its eight and a half minutes on the shutdown and its effects (8:27). On February 14, Saturday anchor Whit Johnson said “Democrats are demanding reform for immigration enforcement” and was followed by senior White House correspondent Selina Wang saying “Democrats [are] refusing to fund the agency unless Republicans agree to major changes to immigration enforcement.” She added those demands include “requiring agents to wear body cameras, banning from them wearing masks, and mandating they obtain warrants signed by a judge before making arrests.” Separately, chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce boasted on February 24 that “Democrats [are] refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security until Trump reforms his immigration enforcement tactics,” alluding to Democrats refusing to fund the government, but putting the onus on the President to acquiesce. This marked the last time World News Tonight has uttered the word “Democrats” in regards to the shutdown. On six different occasions, World News Tonight covered aspects of the shutdown, but never even explained why it was happening. Take this March 7 report from transportation correspondent Gio Benitez: From last week, this March 9 report on ABC's 'World News Tonight' was remarkable. Roughly 90-second segment on travel chaos and long TSA lines as workers remain without a paycheck since early last month. But not one mention by David Muir or correspondent Gio Benitez about *why*… pic.twitter.com/Lij9Diuy5i — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) March 16, 2026 CBS wasn’t much better on the stopwatch with ten percent of its shutdown tally – or 68 seconds out of roughly 11 minutes (10:56) – and all five mentions name-checking Democrats appearing on a weekend. “Democrats sticking with their demands including a ban on face masks for immigration agents, a requirement for officers to show ID, and wear body cameras,” correspondent Willie James Iman said on February 14. This became a variation of the excuse he would offer on February 15 and 22. About half of CBS’s mentions of Democrats came this past weekend in stories by reporter Tom McNicholas (click “expand”): MCNICHOLAS [on 03/14/26]: Democrats have refused to approve the Department of Homeland Security’s budget unless GOP lawmakers and the White House agree to changes to ICE, including requirements for agents to wear IDs and remove their masks. Yesterday, DHS began playing this video in airports blaming ‘the ongoing Democrat shutdown of the TSA’ for longer than average wait times. (….) MCNICHOLAS [n 03/15/26]: President Trump blames the funding lapse on Democrats, who refuse to approve the Department of Homeland Security’s budget unless GOP lawmakers and the White House agree to changes to ICE, including requirements for agents to wear IDs and remove their masks. DHS – whose responsibilities also include the Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), cybersecurity (CISA), and responding to natural disasters (FEMA) – has been left in limbo at a time when the country has suffered four Islamic terror attacks in two weeks and millions are traveling for spring break. Last week, all Senate Democrats – with the exception of Pennsylvania’s John Fetterman – blocked three separate votes to fund DHS. None of those failed votes have been mentioned on the network evening newscasts. If Republicans had held up funding for a cabinet department at time when its relevant agencies were under the national microscope, these networks would certainly ensure viewers knew on a night in and night out basis.

The 98th Annual Academy Awards premiered on ABC last night and it was another left-wing awards show hate fest. Host Conan O'Brien initially opened the show with a funny sketch, offering a brief moment of hope that this ceremony might be different than all the previous ones this season.   Satirically done up like the villain Aunt Gladys from last year's hit horror movie Weapons, he paraded through nominated movie scenes dressed as the clownish-looking character. But after the skit ended and his opening monologue commenced, all hope was lost for a fun night of apolitical humor. "I should warn you tonight could get political. Okay? And if that makes you uncomfortable, there's an alternative Oscars hosted by Kid Rock at the Dave and Buster's down the street,” he said. After taking a dig at half of America, he then falsely implied Trump was a pedophile, just as Trevor Noah had done at this year's Grammy Awards.  "It's the first time since 2012, the first time since 2012 that there are no British actors nominated for best actor or best actress. Yeah. British spokesperson said, yeah, well, at least we arrest our pedophiles. So, we've got that going for us," he said. This "joke" was particularly offensive as it ignored the Pakistani rape gangs that have run rampant for decades in Britain. Conan O’Brien: “It’s the first time since 2012 that there are no British actors nominated for best actor. A British spokesperson said well at least we arrest our pedophiIes.” The UK literally covered up muslim rape gangs for years and let pedos roam freepic.twitter.com/8HR5gEHoKm — Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 16, 2026   O'Brien has also apparently never heard of BBC star and British pedophile Jimmy Savile, among others. Then O’Brien got "serious" and fell into the doomsday rhetoric that animates left-wing discourse. “If I can be serious for just a moment, everyone watching right now, around the world, is very aware that these are very chaotic, frightening times. It’s at moments like these that I believe that the Oscars are particularly resonant.” Whenever a Democratic candidate wins the U.S. presidency, all is well in the world. Whenever a Republican wins, the world is on the brink of destruction. This has been the Hollywood mentality since Reagan's presidency, if not earlier, and such hysteria has only grown worse. O'Brien's worst quip of the night was a genitalia joke at the president's expense, saying “We’re coming to you live from the Has a Small Penis Theater. Let’s see him put his name in front of that!” Conan O’Brien hosting #Oscars: “We’re coming to you live from the Has a Small Penis Theater. Let’s see him put his name in front of that!” pic.twitter.com/l3yC0SOmay — Brent Baker

On today’s installment of ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, a preferred media narrative was laid waste in real time. A retired Navy admiral exposed the ridiculousness of the notion, pushed heavily across the Elitist Media, that military planners somehow failed to plan for contingencies along the Strait of Hormuz.  Watch as former Fifth Fleet Commander Kevin Donegan (VADM, USN-RET) tells ABC’s Martha Raddatz that such contingencies were “built into it from the beginning”: "BUILT INTO IT FROM THE BEGINNING": Watch as former Fifth Fleet commander VADM Kevin Donegan (USN-RET) shuts down the media's ridiculous "failed to plan for the Hormuz Strait" narrative, as put forth by ABC's Martha Raddatz. MARTHA RADDATZ: But-- but- you say we knew about their… pic.twitter.com/tixeW55uCo — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 15, 2026 MARTHA RADDATZ: But-- but- you say we knew about their capabilities. And certainly in the Strait. Are you surprised that we didn't do more or have a bigger plan for- for- against that? KEVIN DONEGAN: I would say that if you look at the campaign CENTCOM initiated, this was built into it from the beginning. And when you think about it in terms of the things that- that the Chairman said and the things that Admiral Cooper said his mission was, one of the things in there was- was to go after the (Iranian) Navy. And what they really meant was Iran's capability to control the Straits when this is over, because we don't want them to have power projection capability. We also don't want them to have this leverage over this internet. You know, this- such an important chokehold so this effort that that that's being done and being waged by CENTCOM is specifically to get at their cruise missile threat, their ability to launch drones at boats, put mines in the water, all those things that when this is over you want then NOT to have, if that makes any sense.  From whence did this asinine narrative emerge? Who is pushing it? You hear it mostly from Elitist Media reporters citing unnamed Pentagon or administration sources. But seldom do you hear it from actual military- especially those who served in the region as Vice Admiral Donegan did.  The narrative crumbles upon simple examination. The Strait of Hormuz has been an intermittent issue for a long time. During the Gulf War Era, American vessels transiting the Strait had to post mine watches when transiting the Strait- a lingering aftereffect of the Iran-Iraq War.  Vice Admiral Donegan calmly and clearly laid out what a Hormuz contingency looked like. Raddatz shifted to Navy escorts in the Strait. And just like that, a narrative crumbled. Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned interview as aired on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, March 15th, 2026: MARTHA RADDATZ: And I’m joined now in studio by retired Admiral Kevin Donegan, who commanded the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in the Middle East during President Trump’s first term. It’s very good to see you this morning, Admiral. You are deeply aware of what’s happening in the strait, and you have a deep understanding of that. Are you alarmed by what’s happening? KEVIN DONEGAN: Well, I’m not surprised by what’s happened. And I guess the first thing that I’ll say, you know, we’ve been looking at this problem set for a long time, decades, to be honest. And so, we knew that if we were going to be involved in something in Iran from an offensive state -- capability, that the Iranians would, at some point, leverage the, you know, some -- or try to attempt in some way to control the straits and put the pressure on the global community. RADDATZ: So, are you surprised by the reaction from the administration, by the Pentagon? Secretary Hegseth says, basically, don’t worry about this. But we’ve seen what’s happening. It’s effectively shut down. DONEGAN: It is -- it is effectively shut down, the straits. We knew when we -- if we would go into conflict, that de facto traffic flow would stop through the straits. You know, as you know better than anybody else, in conflict, when missiles are flying overhead back and forth, the traffic through the Straits of Hormuz is going to -- is going to come to a stop because there are tankers, liquid natural gas carriers, container ships, et cetera, they’re going to slow down. And so, we understood that. Well, what I think that surprised me more than anything in this, what’s going on, is Iran’s retaliation. And I said from the beginning, to understand the effectiveness of the campaign that we’re waging, we should look at how Iran -- not to a box store, but look at, you know, Iran’s capability to retaliate. And -- RADDATZ: But you say we knew about their capabilities. DONEGAN: Sure. RADDATZ: And certainly in the Strait. Are you surprised that we didn't do more or have a bigger plan for- for- against that? DONEGAN: I would say that if you look at the campaign CENTCOM initiated, this was built into it from the beginning. And when you think about it in terms of the things that- that the Chairman said and the things that Admiral Cooper said his mission was, one of the things in there was- was to go after the (Iranian) Navy. And what they really meant was Iran's capability to control the Straits when this is over, because we don't want them to have power projection capability. We also don't want them to have this leverage over this internet. You know, this- such an important chokehold so this effort that that that's being done and being waged by CENTCOM is specifically to get at their cruise missile threat, their ability to launch drones at boats, put mines in the water, all those things that when this is over you want then NOT to have, if that makes any sense.  RADDATZ: And you have heard Secretary Wright and others say the Navy may go in there and escort tankers, how would that work? How complicated is that? Do they need air cover if they’re in there? How many boats can they escort? DONEGAN: We saw a little bit of this when we saw the Houthis, you know, close the strait -- I mean close the Red Sea down, right, and we saw that it doesn’t take a lot to stop traffic. But in the end, you know, the Red Sea, you know, things flow -- eventually flow. Here we had -- we had a really big problem if we were going to do this and this operation hadn’t started, because then you would have had an Iran that had -- we used to call it a layered threat. They could come and put missiles on convoys that were moving, they could put cruise -- you know, ballistic missiles, they could put cruise missiles, they could put drones, they could put mines in the water, they could swarm it with boats, right? That was the threat to moving convoys before. What you have now is a different starting point because a lot of the cruise missile threat has been taken out, the ballistic missile threats taken out. In the end, though, it’s not going to be easy to escort convoys, but we practice it. And we don’t practice it alone. Every year we do an exercise with 30 plus other nations in that same region. The last one is in February, just to rehearse, not just with ourselves, but with international partners on how we would do escorting and how we would keep the strait open if Iran actually, you know, followed through on trying to either control it or close it. RADDATZ: And we’ll see if we can get thirty nations to join. We appreciate you coming in this morning, Admiral. DONEGAN: Thanks, Martha.  

The Hollywood trade publication Variety has demonstrated a dramatic anti-Trump bias – they’d call it an anti-fascist bias. So it was shocking that they published an article under the headline “Stephen Colbert’s Long ‘Late Show’ Goodbye Has Gone From Resistance to Ego Trip.” TV reviewer Daniel D’Addario -- who just weeks ago trashed the new CBS Evening News anchorman Tony Dokoupil as an untalented but ambitious man with his finger in the wind -- could not abide Monday’s episode, where actor John Lithgow read a Colbert-ogling poem titled “The Mighty Colbert.” Lithgow honored the “sublime masterworks” that are Colbert’s monologues, and asked, “So why is he canceled? Why trash all that pleasure? Why yank off the air this beloved national treasure? Stephen's tale is a lesson for all who come after: Beware of a boss with thin skin and no laughter.” Even the leftists at VARIETY thinks that CBS is enabling a long Colbert 'ego trip,' as John Lithgow reads Stephen a poem about how he's a National Treasure. *urp* pic.twitter.com/sAPlnzemtQ — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) March 15, 2026 D’Addario declared “by this point in his lame-duck tenure, Colbert is likely accustomed to endless fawning from his guests!” He declared the news of his cancellation “seismic,” but added “What has ended up making it to air has been an increasingly puffy tribute to the show’s own host. The endless bouquets being tossed Colbert’s way have started to make the studio smell a bit cloying.” He acknowledged that Colbert’s famous fans are truly emotional on his set. “But the show’s focus on its own host’s misfortune has become outsized and a bit dramatic, especially because so many other institutions are in crisis: With everything else going on in the world, we have to go through a monthslong celebration-of-life for a comedian whose job is coming to an end?” Clearly, boosting Colbert as both a legend and a victim is an important part of Colbert's next chapter.  "The cause of standing up for a comedian who may have been tossed aside for angering the regime is getting tied up in honoring Colbert the celebrity, and it’s starting to feel wearying," D'Addario wrote. "Colbert deserved better treatment from CBS, but watching one person beam while receiving laurel after laurel doesn’t make the argument for his show’s relevance, as it’s frankly not very good TV, and — for this relentlessly political host — not in touch with the concerns of people who have been turning to The Late Show for its political perspective."  He concluded that Colbert's career is far from over, but "When that day comes, won’t it feel like an anticlimax, after we’ve already spent the better part of a year celebrating him?" 

CNN’s Jake Tapper ended today’s edition of State of the Union with an editorial defending the Elitist Media’s coverage of the ongoing military operation against the Iranian regime. Tapper took exception to social media posts by President Donald Trump and former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. In the process, he reminded us that those who live in glass houses should abstain from throwing stones. Watch the editorial in its entirety as aired on CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday, March 15th, 2026: WATCH: Jake Tapper, anchor at the network caught schmoozing with the Iranian Khomeinist regime in London, takes exception to criticism of the manner in which the U.S. military operation against the aforementioned regime has been covered by the media. JAKE TAPPER: President Trump… pic.twitter.com/IWhbHJyqUO — Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) March 15, 2026 JAKE TAPPER: President Trump and his allies are still frustrated with journalists for having the audacity to report on the war with Iran in ways that they do not approve of, rather than simply cheering it on. Take President Trump baselessly claiming on Truth Social that: "The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal and other low-life papers and media actually want us to lose the war." The most surprising attack on the news media, however, might have come from former Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Now, you might think that someone who was part of an administration about whom President Trump said -- quote -- "They lied, they said there were weapons of mass destruction, there were none, and they knew there were none" -- unquote -- you might think somebody like that might sit this one out. But, no, Mr. Fleischer accused the media of constantly painting a picture of America losing when it is actually winning. And his proof was this October 2001 New York Times article about Afghanistan by the late Johnny Apple, and specifically about the risk of Afghanistan becoming a Vietnam-like quagmire, an idea that Fleischer found preposterous since key cities such as Kabul fell to the U.S. just days later. Of course, the war didn't end after Kabul fell. Bush put boots on the ground and Afghanistan became a 20-year quagmire. Quagmire is a word that Secretary of Defense Hegseth used this week to describe it. And, remind me, who controls Kabul right now after we beat the Taliban? The story that Fleischer disapprovingly cited concludes -- quote -- "In Afghanistan, as in South Vietnam, there is a huge question about who would rule if the United States vanquished its foe. Washington never solved that issue satisfactorily after the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963. And solving it in Afghanistan, a country long prone to chaotic competition among many tribes and factions, will probably not be much easier" -- unquote. Every reporter that I know wants the United States to succeed in every way. And the way that reporters help that happen is by asking questions of people in power and not blindly cheering on leaders who take the nation to war. I guess, when it comes to Ari Fleischer versus Johnny Apple, you can say that the Bush White House and its spokespeople are the ones who got it right about the war in Afghanistan. You can say that. That, of course, is not what the facts and history say. This is some nice misdirection, as Tapper fails to mention the fact that his network’s own chief global affairs correspondent and London bureau chief were caught palling around with the Khomeinist regime at its London embassy. And he wasn’t there to cover the event. As our own Nick Fondacaro notes:  In one of the images captured by Iranian state media, Iran Press, and shared by The Telegraph, CNN London bureau chief Andrew Roy and CNN chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance can be seen meeting and shaking hands with Iran's Ambassador to the U.K., Seyed Ali Mousavi (pictured above; left to right, Mousavi, Chance, and Roy). The CNN officials didn’t appear to be attending the event as journalists. No camera crew are visible and neither was there any form of recording equipment. No voice recorders. No note pads. No visible press credentials that would show they were there for work. None of this made it into Tapper’s rant, which selectively targeted Trump and Fleischer for their criticisms of the sainted media. Of all the institutions ripe for criticism over Iran coverage, CNN has been the worst with its constant acritical parroting of Khomeinist propaganda.  The argument against criticism of the media sounds increasingly shrill given its visible decline and loss of credibility, which has accelerated during the Trump years. If such an argument is to be credibly made, it should be made by someone who didn’t pretend that Joe Biden’s cognitive and physical decline didn’t exist before announcing a book about it after he left office.  THIS, of course, is what the facts and history say.