Commentary Culture Investigations

Rebecca Falconer, Axios

Katie McQue, Guardian Meta has just lost a multimillion-dollar legal battle over its failure to prevent children being sold on its platforms. Here’s how we uncovered evidence that became part…

Londoño et al., NYT

With Donald Trump’s deadline for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz fast approaching, and Iran having said no to a proposed U.S. ceasefire, the left wing media has become obsessed with Trump’s threat to destroy much of Iran’s infrastructure, calling him out for daring to do what Iran has already done to others in the region. That obsession was on full display Monday morning on CNN’s The Situation Room.

Co-host Pamela Brown began her interview with Congressman David Kustoff (R-Tenn.) by presenting another media obsession, Trump’s Easter post warning Iran to cooperate, or else. 

BROWN: I want to read what President Trump posted about Iran yesterday. Quote, Tuesday will be power plant day and bridge day, all wrapped in one. And Iran open the F-ING, he actually used the word, Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell. How hopeful are you that approach will bring Iran to the table?

KUSTOFF: That message was completely tailored for the Iranian leadership…. And there should be no doubt that when Donald Trump speaks and threatens to do something, he’s going to follow up. So he delivered that message. He delivered it very clearly in language that probably only Donald Trump can use. And Iran is on the clock.

Brown then turned to what would become the fixation of the interview.

BROWN: Just to follow up on that tweet, do you support intentionally targeting critical civilian infrastructure like power plants? I just want to note, I spoke to an Iranian who fled since the war, who says Iranian citizens are very worried they could be worse off than before, if that happens, their infrastructure is gone and the IRGC is still in control. What do you think?

KUSTOFF: Does that infrastructure have a dual use? And obviously, could that infrastructure be used by the military? And if the answer to those questions are yes, which I think they are, then they’re within the purview of the United States attacking there.

Needless to say that answer did not sit well with Brown

 

BROWN: But as we have on the screen here, the threats include bridges, desalination plants, which citizens rely on for clean drinking water, power plants, oil facilities and roads. If Iran doesn’t open up the Strait of Hormuz by tomorrow night, as the deadline, the U.S. Imposed, the President imposed, do you support those targets? Do you support the U.S. Military targeting that infrastructure?

KUSTOFF: Well, again, I think if those targets do, in fact, have a dual use and if those targets are being used by the Iranian military, then they’re fair game. And we’ll defer to the President, and to our military leaders.

Apparently annoyed at getting the same answer to the same question she had asked before, Brown started talking over Kustoff, and basically asked the same question again.

BROWN: But what about citizens who rely on desalination plants for clean drinking water? I mean, of course, military would rely on that, but so would the citizens just to have clean drinking water.

KUSTOFF: My guess is if you took a poll right now of the Iranian people, not the regime, but the Iranian people, they are very supportive of the united States actions. I know that the Iranian people in the U.S. are supportive of the U.S.’s actions. This is messy. But if the if the Iranian military is in fact using those facilities, then they’re fair game.

Brown never felt the need to mention that according to Human Rights Watch and CNN’s own reporting, Iran has in fact targeted the very same infrastructure that she is so concerned about, in countries around the Middle East, including desalination plants. Not to mention their targeting of civilians inside Israel along with their proxies the Houthis and Hezbollah. But she did find a new way to ask the same question yet again. 

BROWN: For my reporting, the view from the Iranian citizens is evolving. I mean, initially they were very happy that the U.S. and Israel were coming to help them out with this bombing campaign. But now, as this war drags on into its sixth week, there is a lot of concern that there could be this scenario where they’re in a worse position, where they have the IRGC emboldened, you know, still in power, blood thirsty, even more bloodthirsty than before. And their infrastructure gone. How does that concern you?

Brown never cited what evidence she used for her reporting the evolving view of Iranian citizens. Par for the course. 

Trying to juxtapose President Trump talking about the war with Iran with the setting of the White House Easter Egg Roll, ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel urged his viewers to imagine the new ayatollah laughing at the “lunatic” Trump while watching him stand next to a guy in a bunny suit. The only problem was that Kimmel did not mention the clip he played of Trump was about the U.S. military rescuing the downed airman in a daring operation that left Iran humiliated.

Kimmel introduced a clip of Trump by declaring, “This is a tradition that dates back to 1878, and what you are about to see—even though we did not have video back when Rutherford B. Hayes was running the show—I have to believe that this would rank among, if not at the top of, the most preposterous moments in White House Easter Egg Roll history.”

 

Jimmy Kimmel reacts to Trump at the White House Easter Egg Roll talking about the rescue of the downed airman (although he didn’t provide that framing) “Having fun, kids? Okay. I want you to take another journey with me, if you will. Can you imagine the new ayatollah sitting in… pic.twitter.com/yEYWi6UViD
— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) April 7, 2026
 

In the part immediately preceding the start of the clip, Trump declared, “And what about the rescue that took place yesterday? What about that? That’s something that you rarely see.”

However, Kimmel did not play that part of Trump’s speech, meaning that his audience was probably unaware of what he was talking about. As it was, Kimmel’s clip featured Trump proclaiming, “Well, they were giving me a briefing about that, and they said, ‘Normally, when you’re in very hostile territory’—and I don’t think it gets much more hostile than Iran. They’re capable fighters. They’re very tough people. And there are others like that. You don’t mind when the enemy is weak, but the enemy is strong. Not so strong like they were about a month ago. I can tell you, in fact, right now they’re not too strong at all, in my opinion. But we’re soon going to find out, aren’t we?”

Kimmel reacted by urging his audience to take a mental field trip, “Having fun, kids? Okay. I want you to take another journey with me, if you will. Can you imagine the new ayatollah sitting in his bunker, eating his yogurt and potatoes, watching TV, watching this lunatic bragging about blowing them up, while, with no explanation, standing next to a man in a bunny suit. ‘What this is khargoosh.’ That’s ‘bunny’ in Farsi. I looked it up. I did some research there. And by the way, you know who was in that bunny suit? Marco Rubio! I assume.”

Even if one assumes the ayatollah is cogent, the fact that Trump was talking about Iran’s failure to capture a downed American airman deep inside their own country despite putting a bounty on him means the ayatollah would be well-advised to not make too much out of the fact that Trump made his remarks next to a guy in a bunny costume. Kimmel would also be well-advised to play clips in their full context.

Here is a transcript for the April 6 show:

ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live!

4/6/2026

11:39 PM ET

JIMMY KIMMEL: This is a tradition that dates back to 1878, and what you are about to see—even though we did not have video back when Rutherford B. Hayes was running the show—I have to believe that this would rank among, if not at the top of, the most preposterous moments in White House Easter Egg Roll history.

DONALD TRUMP: Well, they were giving me a briefing about that. and they said. “Normally, when you’re in very hostile territory”—and I don’t think it gets much more hostile than Iran. They’re capable fighters. They’re very tough people. And there are others like that. You don’t mind when the enemy is weak, but the enemy is strong. Not so strong like they were about a month ago. I can tell you, in fact, right now they’re not too strong at all, in my opinion. But we’re soon going to find out, aren’t we?

KIMMEL: Having fun, kids? Okay. I want you to take another journey with me, if you will. Can you imagine the new ayatollah sitting in his bunker, eating his yogurt and potatoes, watching TV, watching this lunatic bragging about blowing them up, while, with no explanation, standing next to a man in a bunny suit. “What this is khargoosh.” That’s “bunny” in Farsi. I looked it up. I did some research there. And by the way, you know who was in that bunny suit? Marco Rubio! I assume.

The rule of byline inflation holds that the reliability of any news content is inversely proportional to the number of journalists credited with producing it. So it is with a front-page New York Times news article headlined “For Military, Trump Seeks $1.5 Trillion.”
The article carries the names of an astonishing nine Times journalists. There’s a byline by Tony Romm, and “contributed reporting” credit from another eight individuals: Brad Plumer, Scott Dance, Maxine Joselow, Andrew Duehren, John Ismay, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Lisa Friedman, and Michael C. Bender.
The Times article begins, “With the United States at war with Iran and embroiled in conflicts around the world, the White House asked Congress on Friday to approve about $1.5 trillion for defense in the 2027 fiscal year. If enacted, that amount would set military spending at its highest level in modern history.”
“The highest level in modern history” language is dramatic. It’s also unusual. When the New York Times writes about Democrat-proposed welfare spending or proposed tax increases, it never, or hardly ever, uses nominal current dollars to claim the “highest level in modern history.”
For example, a March 2023 Times news article about President Biden’s budget proposal began, “President Biden on Thursday proposed a $6.8 trillion budget,” and continued, “The budget contains some $5 trillion in proposed tax increases.” The Times did not describe either the proposed spending level or the proposed tax increase as the biggest in modern history.
A March 2024 Times news article about President Biden’s budget proposal similarly began, “President Biden proposed a $7.3 trillion budget on Monday.” It went on, “The budget proposes about $5 trillion in new taxes on corporations and the wealthy over a decade.” In that article, too, the Times did not describe either the proposed spending level or the proposed tax increase as the biggest in modern history.
Because we have a fiat currency with the Federal Reserve targeting 2 percent inflation, and because the incentives of Congress generally tilt toward spending more, not less, spending in Washington ratchets up from year to year. This is such a sure thing that a senior economist at the Tax Foundation, Alan Cole, won $128,000 betting on a prediction market that federal spending would go up, according to a front-page report in the Wall Street Journal that observed Cole “just needed federal spending to go up, as it almost always does.” This is especially so if you are counting in nominal current dollars rather than by some constant dollar or inflation-adjusted measure.
If the Times editors and reporters can’t grasp the concept, imagine a headline saying “New York Times Reporter Pay Hits Highest Level in Modern History.” It may be accurate in some technical sense. The paper is currently offering $113,270 – $125,000 for a “fitness reporter” to “capture the latest in fitness culture” and “produce outstanding stories about fitness.” But such a headline doesn’t tell the full story of what Times reporter pay means relative to how much apartments cost in New York City, or relative to how much lawyers or bankers or high-tech workers or television news anchors make.
Because the nominal, current-dollar figures are not particularly useful, people who care about defense spending or hope to increase it frequently look at it as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. That has its own issues—it doesn’t necessarily cost more to defend a country simply because its GDP has increased—but it’s another way to look at things.
The Times gestures in this direction lower down in the news article: “The roughly $1.5 trillion sought for the Pentagon next fiscal year would amount to about 4.5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, a measure of its economic output, according to Jessica Riedl, a budget and tax fellow at the Brookings Institution. By that measure, it would be the largest year-over-year increase for defense since the Korean War, her analysis showed, after adjusting for inflation.”
This is confusing to readers because the first sentence talks about levels of nominal spending and of defense spending as a percent of GDP, but the second sentence talks about a “year over year increase” and then places it in historical context.
The Office of Management and Budget’s historical table 8.4 provides outlays by category as a percentage of GDP for the years 1962 to 2025. The 2.9 percent of GDP that “national defense” spending amounted to in 2025 is a tie for the lowest level on the whole 64-year chart. Every year of the Obama administration—not known for its reckless abandon when it came to military spending—came in higher. In 2016, the final year of the Obama administration, national defense was at 3.1 percent of GDP. At 4.5 percent of GDP, defense spending would still be lower than in every year from 1962 to 1992, even lower than in 1978 and 1979 under the anemic Carter administration that was humiliated by its failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran. In 2010, under Obama, the level was 4.6 percent of GDP, so even after a Trump-proposed increase to 4.5 percent of GDP, by the percent-of-GDP measure spending would still be below Obama levels.
You can also look at it in “constant dollars.” By that measure, OMB table 8.2, in 2017 “constant dollars,” the $680 billion national defense outlays for 2025 were lower than what Obama spent in 2009 to 2012, where each year the spending was more than $700 billion.
Reasonable people may differ over what the proper level is. People may disagree over how much of the worldwide burden should be borne by countries like Japan or those in Europe, and how much by American taxpayers. People may disagree about whether the U.S. should think of itself as a peacetime power or as one facing challenges from China, Russia, and radical Sunni and Shia Islam on par with the Cold War and post-September 11, 2001 eras. People may differ on whether any “peace dividend” should be spent on preparing to defend against future threats or repurposed for debt reduction, deficit reduction, domestic spending, or tax cuts. My own view is that there’s a hostile world out there full of threats. Even in a world that looks peaceful, you have to be arming up because you never know what is coming next. That was the point of Winston Churchill’s book While England Slept and President Kennedy’s book Why England Slept. To have an intelligent, informed conversation about these issues, though, you need a reasonably accurate handle on what spending is, and a decent understanding of how it fits in the historical context. The New York Times threw nine reporters at the issue and failed to illuminate it. We’re willing to fill in some of the gaps, though it’d be preferable if the Times got the story right on its own.
The Times reporter, Tony Romm, didn’t return an email seeking comment. Riedl told the Washington Free Beacon, “I provided the Times with a table of historical defense spending (nominal, real, and %GDP) that was straight out of the OMB historical tables.”
I asked, “Does the Times paragraph accurately reflect your take?” and “Were you happy with the NYT paragraph or did you find it somewhat garbled?” Riedl didn’t answer directly. Riedl did say “defense spending as a percent of GDP **should** fall over 75 years because the cost of military hardware and troop compensation do not need to rise as fast as the nominal GDP to maintain the same levels. So 4.5% of GDP today buys more defense than 5%-6% of GDP did in the 1980s.” One could make the same argument about healthcare, or education. Soldiers, sailors, and airmen, unlike the professors, doctors, and nurses, are putting their lives at risk in distant lands, earning pay that’s frequently less than what a New York Times fitness reporter earns.
The Times article didn’t quote or cite anyone from the defense industry or the defense department or from any advocacy groups or think tanks supportive of sharply increased defense spending. Maybe with the room the paper used to credit the eight Times reporters who contributed reporting, the editors could have squeezed in instead some sources with more diverse perspectives about the right level of defense spending.
The post On Defense Spending, a New York Times Double Standard appeared first on .

Much of cable TV news these days is about filling as much space as possible with Trump Derangement slop. This rings especially true at CNN- particularly during the 10 PM hour and NewsNight with Abby Phillip. From time to time, though, hosts are reminded that people get sick of the constant politics when discussing the news of the day.

Watch as Space Shuttle astronaut Clayton Anderson makes Phillip look ridiculous for even bringing politics into a question about the Artemis II mission:

WATCH: Former space shuttle astronaut Clayton Anderson SHUTS DOWN Abby Phillip’s Trump-deranged political question on the heels of the history made by the Artemis II mission
ABBY PHILLIP: And, um, in your view, Clayton, um, does President Trump deserve credit for- he said today… pic.twitter.com/QGIfdWK4Ss
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) April 7, 2026

ABBY PHILLIP: And, um, in your view, Clayton, um, does President Trump deserve credit for- he said today that he was given a choice to shut NASA down or keep it going. Do you think he deserves any credit for keeping it going?

CLAYTON ANDERSON: Well, I think the entire administration deserves credit. Uh, all the people that are involved picking Mr. Isaacman, uh, you know, the politics of it to me is, is, uh, kind of fluff. I think that the key thing is, is that we’re doing it and that takes the efforts of a lot of different people. It takes appropriate budget money, as we all know. Uh, we hope that the budget money will continue to be there because it will be required for us to get, uh, to Artemis III and then Artemis IV. So, um, you know, everybody’s taking credit. I’m taking credit by being on your show and saying, “Hey, I was an astronaut for a while. You know, I lived on the space station. Give me some credit!” so you know, so it’s, it’s kind of a, it’s a humanitarian success.

PHILLIP: 167 days in space. You get all the credit, my friend. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for your service. Clayton Anderson, thank you very much for being with us.

ANDERSON: Thank you.

Anderson rightfully makes Phillip pay for asking such a weird question in what was a segment breaking down the historic successes of the Artemis II crew as they circle the far side of the Moon and head back to Earth. “The entire Administration” means yes, but delivered in a subtle and non-argumentative way.

Anderson then breaks down all the parts of what goes into funding NASA and missions, and then ends with a humorous flourish as Phillip sits there and squirms before laughing along uncomfortably. This segment very much encapsulates the problem with the Elitist Media. A historic moment is overshadowed by Trump Derangement Syndrome. You all know full well what the coverage of this launch would look like were the presidential administration (D)ifferent.

To answer Phillip’s question: the Artemis II mission is an American success. I hope this helps.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned segment as aired on CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip on Monday, April 6th, 2026:

ABBY PHILLIP: Joining me also now is Clayton Anderson. He’s a former NASA astronaut. He spent 167 days living and working in space on the International Space Station. Um, thank you for being here, Clayton. I- when you watch these astronauts on this journey, it’s much shorter than the one that you were on. But, uh, what do you think is the experience of having that particular piece of human history in their pocket in this moment?

CLAYTON ANDERSON: I think it’s great for them. I’m very envious. I would love to be with them in that tiny little capsule. Uh, being so close to the moon. But it’s very important. And I agree with what Miles (O’Brien) said, that we got to be the best. We got to be the leaders in space exploration. And so I love the fact that we finally have committed after 54 years to begin this journey again. Uh, it’s going to take a lot of work, just like Miles said. But, uh, this is the way to go. And I think it’s the right first step

PHILLIP: And, um, in your view, Clayton, um, does President Trump deserve credit for- he said today that he was given a choice to shut NASA down or keep it going. Do you think he deserves any credit for keeping it going?

ANDERSON: Well, I think the entire administration deserves credit. Uh, all the people that are involved picking Mr. Isaacman, uh, you know, the politics of it to me is, is, uh, kind of fluff. I think that the key thing is, is that we’re doing it and that takes the efforts of a lot of different people. It takes appropriate budget money, as we all know. Uh, we hope that the budget money will continue to be there because it will be required for us to get, uh, to Artemis III and then Artemis IV. So, um, you know, everybody’s taking credit. I’m taking credit by being on your show and saying, “Hey, I was an astronaut for a while. You know, I lived on the space station. Give me some credit!” so you know, so it’s, it’s kind of a, it’s a humanitarian success.

PHILLIP: 167 days in space. You get all the credit, my friend. Thank you. Thank you for that. Thank you for your service. Clayton Anderson, thank you very much for being with us.

ANDERSON: Thank you.

 

The Trump administration should offer him political asylum.
The post After Islamic Terror Attack, Australia’s Leftist Gov Instead Arrests Most Decorated Soldier appeared first on Frontpage Mag.