Newsbusters

 

Now that Republicans have control of Congress and the White House and Trump’s “government efficiency” czars are looking hard at slicing the funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), it bears repeating: “public broadcasting” is not serving the public. It serves a narrow slice of America, an audience of wealthy liberal elites.

A recent survey of NPR listeners found only 11 percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, 21 percent as middle of the road, and 67 percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. Those people should pay for all of it. Republicans who are routinely attacked by National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service shouldn’t have to pay for any of it.

There are at least five solid reasons to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

 

1. It’s a duplicative waste of taxpayer money. They call the CPB “a private corporation funded by the American people.” But PBS and NPR demonstrate all the “efficiencies” of a public-private partnership. Start with the number of stations PBS and NPR have next to other networks. ABC has 248, CBS has 251, and NBC has 235. PBS has 345. In the Washington D.C. market alone there are three PBS stations: WETA in Virginia, WHUT (Howard University Television) in D.C., and Maryland Public Television out of Annapolis. This overlap repeats in many large cities, including New York City and Los Angeles.

But that pales in comparison to the number of radio stations airing National Public Radio programming: it’s 1,085 stations. The state of New York has 73, California has 61, and Alaska has 52. Legislators in every state and congressional district are likely to have “public” stations lobbying them for funding.  By contrast, the largest private radio station owner in America is I-Heart, with 868 AM and FM stations.

In Boston, there’s even programming duplication on WBUR-FM and WGBH-FM. Both stations run NPR’s newscasts Morning Edition and All Things Considered, and both run the business-news show Marketplace from American Public Media at the same time. Both stations run the BBC World Service overnight. Why should we pay for both?

A CPB grants list from Fiscal Year 2021 shows WBUR received about $2.6 million in federal support, and WGBH radio grants totaled $1.36 million. With all this money sloshing around, imagine being a private radio station in Boston. Throughout its history, public broadcasters have participated in unfair competition with privately owned radio and TV stations. Anyone who tours tax-funded public stations will often notice their facilities are more lavish, with more state-of-the-art technology than private stations.

Public broadcasters claim the vast majority of their funding has nothing to do with government. Defenders of NPR claim the network only receives two percent of its money from Washington. That’s simply untrue. The vast majority of NPR stations receive “community service grants” from CPB, and then turn around and send money back to D.C. for “programming costs” for the nationally distributed shows.

If only two percent of the budget came from taxpayers, then logically, it would be easy to replace with private contributions.  But CPB’s own chart of revenues for both TV and radio asserts that in Fiscal Year 2022 federal, state, and local “tax-based” funding added up to 36.6 percent. According to CPB’s math, federal funding in 2022 made up about $535 milllion (16.9 percent) and state and local funding was $589 million (18.7 percent).

 

2. It’s unnecessary in a sea of media choices. The original rationale for “public broadcasting” was a scarcity of programming when most people only received three networks on their TV sets. This rationale had already evaporated 30 years ago, when House Speaker Newt Gingrich proposed zeroing out CPB. Even today, PBS and NPR still claim they have a mission to help “unserved and underserved communities and audiences.” Who is still “unserved”?

Audiences today have seemingly endless outlets for information – from broadcast to cable to streaming on the internet – with the list lengthening as technology continues to evolve. There are numerous places you can find a serious one-hour documentary beyond the legacy outlets –  Acorn TV, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, Britbox, Disney Plus, Discovery Plus, Fubo TV, Google Play, HBO Max, Hulu, Netflix, Paramount Plus, Peacock, Philo, Pluto TV, Rumble, Shudder, Sling TV,  Tubi, Vudu, and YouTube.

As always, documentarians would love to have the “brand” of PBS, the “public service” halo. Trump-trashing PBS omnipresence Ken Burns could make any of the streamers very happy, but the secret of his “iconic” success is planted firmly in the “public” realm. The “public” branding makes it easier for him to sell a $80 coffee-table book of historic photographs.

When conservatives make documentaries, whether they are sober and serious or more satirical like Matt Walsh’s Am I Racist?, no one imagines they would be federally supported…or aired on “public” broadcasting. Instead, PBS promotes a never-ending stream of long-winded leftist documentaries in its series Frontline. On January 30, 2024, they aired an almost two-and-a-half hour anti-Trump film titled “Democracy on Trial.”

Narrator Will Lyman set the stage: “For the first time in American history, a president charged with crimes in office.” Special counsel Jack Smith was touted as “thorough and methodical. He’s fairly aggressive, but not reckless-aggressive. He’s a very formidable opponent for Trump’s lawyers.”

They made much of Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), the chairman of the Pelosi-picked January 6 Committee, growing up during Jim Crow and who “saw parallels” between that era and what the Trump partisans attempted on January 6. It “affected him profoundly.”

By contrast, a 2023 program on Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife set up leftist academic Randall Kennedy to denounce Thomas as “one of the great beneficiaries in American life of affirmative action” and describe the Thomases as “the It couple of the far right.”

Many left-wing documentaries air on the series Independent Lens, funded by the “Independent Television Service,” a PBS offshoot that subsidizes documentaries, overwhelmingly on the Left. They claim they “help inform civil discourse essential to American society.” Translation: they essentially inform you the Left is always right. Their documentaries often don’t allow an opposing point of view.

In 2017, it was the badly named film Real Boy, about a girl named Rachael who wants to be a boy named Bennett, and her goal in this film was “top surgery,” known in less euphemistic terms as breast amputation. The “balance” in this film was Rachael’s mother Suzy, who was described as “frustratingly apprehensive.” Inevitably, as a PBS documentary would, it shows how Suzy comes around to support the amputation, because you must “love them through it.”

“Public” broadcasting benefits from its branding – being non-commercial causes people to assume virtue, and even assume it’s more civil and nonpartisan than it is. They give them Emmys or Oscars or DuPont-Columbia awards.

 

3. Where does “public” broadcasting end and “private” begin? New technologies make old models obsolete. On June 6, 2024, weeks after a raft of controversy over NPR editor Uri Berliner quitting and revealing all the bias within the public radio newsrooms the CPB Board adopted a list of “goals and objectives” going forward. The mission now is to “support the collaborative development and distribution of trusted noncommercial content and services with particular attention to the needs and interests of children,” as well as other “underserved” audiences.

When they define “underserved,” PBS still touts itself as the primary game in town for children’s “educational” programming, even if there are many places to go. That patina of “educational television” protects all of public television from conservative critiques.

But we’ve come a long way from Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood. In 2021, the PBS show Let’s Learn out of New York station WNET featured drag queen/activist “Lil Miss Hot Mess” singing his song “The Hips On the Drag Queen Go Swish Swish Swish” (to the tune of “The Wheels On The Bus Go Round and Round”). He has a children’s book by the same name. PBS took Drag Queen Story Hour from the library to national television. He told the virtual audience of little ones, “I think we might have some drag queens in training on our hands!” They consider this “trusted noncommercial content” for children aged 3 to 8.

Since the Nixon years, PBS defenders have claimed Republicans were out to defund Big Bird on Sesame Street, but the Sesame Workshop left the PBS nest for HBO in 2015. HBO keeps the new episodes to itself for nine months before PBS re-airs them. CNN reported who wanted this deal: “HBO was interested right away when Sesame Workshop called.” There’s nothing about Sesame Workshop today that says “non-commercial.”

For example, there are two Sesame Place amusement parks (in Philadelphia and San Diego) and four other Sesame-themed sections at other amusement parks. On the list of Sesame Street products for sale are aprons, blenders, backpacks, bubble machines, cookbooks, fruit and veggies smoothie pouches, mealtime sets, straw bottles, snack cups, and toys like the “Chicken Dance Elmo Animated Plush.” Sesame Workshop does not donate back to PBS with all of this affiliated revenue. The same held true when shows like Barney & Friends and Teletubbies were massively popular at toy stores. Today, PBS runs a website called the “PBS Kids Marketplace” where you can buy all your swag from their kiddie shows, including Daniel Tiger’s Neighborhood, Rosie’s Rules, and Sid the Science Kid.

 

4. It blatantly violates its own promise of ideological balance and diversity. In their June goals statement, the CPB board pledged to “promote efforts that ensure fact-based journalism that promotes a symphony of ideological viewpoints,” as well as “promote an inclusive public media workforce that reflects the backgrounds, experiences, and ideological points of view of the American people.”

If this is a goal, CPB has been failing for as long as it has existed. Public broadcasting has always ignored the language of the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 to follow a “strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.” In governing reality, the CPB has traditionally acted as a “heat shield” to protect PBS and NPR from any evaluation of their bias.

PBS and NPR have been intensely one-sided liberal bubbles from the beginning, quickly becoming enthusiastic backers of impeaching Richard Nixon over the Watergate scandal. They aired the congressional Watergate hearings live during the day, and repeated them at night. They aired the Iran-Contra hearings live to ruin Ronald Reagan. NPR led the crusade to ruin the Clarence Thomas nomination to the Supreme Court with Anita Hill’s unproven claims of sexual harassment. PBS aired that live. They didn’t miss a minute of live coverage, in daytime or prime time, of the Pelosi-picked January 6 committee to crumble Donald Trump.

Both PBS and NPR repeat the leftist media’s resistance to an opposing side on contentious issues like climate change and transgender ideology. Our study of seven months of PBS News Hour found they gave over 90 percent of the air time to the Left on gender ideology stories.

NPR displayed its take in 2022 by interviewing transgender Biden HHS appointee Adm. Rachel Levine to argue “There is no argument about the value and the importance of gender-affirming care. There is no argument.” NPR reporter Selena Simmons-Duffin underlined: “Gender-affirming care is not harmful. It’s lifesaving, she explains.” No dissent was allowed.

It’s easily measured that PBS is a sandbox for leftist propagandists in that they perpetually warn their viewers of a dangerous “far right” controlling the Republican Party, and when the words “far left” come up, they’re a pale afterthought. MRC analysts studied the labels used by anchors, reporters and contributors on the “PBS News Hour” regarding American politics from June 1, 2023 to November 30, 2024. The difference in labeling was stark: 162 labels for a “far right,” and only six for a “far left.”

NPR does this, too. On January 18, 2023, the NPR interview show Fresh Air headlined their show, “How will the hard-right Republicans in Congress wield their newfound power?” Gross began: “Now that Kevin McCarthy has assumed his new role as speaker of the House, a position he won after making concessions to the far right of his party, what can we expect?” Between host Terry Gross and her guest, New York Times reporter Catie Edmondson, they labeled the House Republicans as “far right” or “hard right” 32 times in a 44-minute interview. Democrats apparently don’t have an extreme.

   

5. Public broadcasting engages in election interference against Republicans. A glaring Exhibit A is the New York Post series on Hunter Biden’s laptop in October of 2020. Most of the so-called “mainstream media” tried to dismiss this story – falsely – as Russian disinformation. But NPR stood out. NPR’s Public Editor Kelly McBride quoted Terence Samuel, NPR’s Managing Editor for News. “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” He dismissed the Post stories as a “politically driven event.”

Instead of seeking to investigate the Biden family’s influence-peddling, NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a story titled “Experts Say Attack On Hunter Biden’s Addiction Deepens Stigma For Millions.” There wasn’t one word in it about Hunter Biden’s business practices involving his father, which was the point of the Post stories.

On the PBS show Washington Week with The Atlantic in 2023, the roundtable of liberal journalists attacked Republicans for questioning Biden’s mental state. Mark Leibovich said “it’s lying, it’s saying he’s senile, saying he’s demented, saying he’s out of it.” Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg agreed: “Mentally, he’s quite acute.”

The pattern continues. When the House Oversight Committee had a hearing in March where Hunter Biden was supposed to appear, NPR’s “All Things Considered” wouldn’t consider a feature story on it. NPR covered the Pelosi-picked House January 6 Committee live for every minute, and then ignored the Biden impeachment inquiry. Their “news judgment” looks like whatever helps Democrats is news.

MRC analysts watched every minute of the live primetime coverage of the Republican and Democrat conventions in 2024. The GOP gathering received 72 percent negative commentary, and only 28 percent positive. Then the Democrat convention commentary was 88 percent positive, and only 12 percent negative.

Some of the negativity was fierce. PBS anchor Amna Nawaz introduced the second night of the Republican meeting with this: “We have seen though, we should note, Republican rhetoric veer into outright racism, echoing some white supremacist notions as well.”

Meanwhile, her co-anchor Geoff Bennett celebrated socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on the first night with the Democrats: “Her elevation and evolution I think has been so striking because she has found a way to blend populism and pragmatism and blend protest and power, and she got one of the most raucous receptions when she took the stage tonight.”

PBS White House correspondent Laura Barron-Lopez took to the campaign trail in the closing weeks of the 2024 campaign to encourage getting out the vote for Kamala Harris and the Democrats in crucial swing states. In a series of “news” reports, Barron-Lopez offered encouraging words for Democrats about their “potential momentum” to “go blue” in four of the seven swing states of North Carolina, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia. Trump won them all.

When Harris lost, Barron-Lopez went on CNN and complained “there is an entire right-wing media ecosystem that doesn’t exist on the left and it does not exist in the center or mainstream.” This is what PBS calls “fact-based journalism.”

 

Conclusion

PBS and NPR leaders sound cocky when faced with new calls for defunding. “We start with a good base of support among Republicans as well as Democrats,” said Pat Butler, outgoing leader of the lobbying group America’s Public Television Stations.

These lobbyists were pleased with the last proposal out of the Senate Appropriations Committee proposing level funding of $535 million for CPB for Fiscal Year 2027 – as well as another $60 million for “public media stations’ interconnection system” in Fiscal 2025. Unlike most other federal agencies, CPB have received advance appropriations that provide them with funding two years ahead of time, which they tout as “protecting our programming from political influence.”

The New York Times recently touted this protective lag as one of “two crucial advantages” for PBS and NPR stations. After all, if the Democrats take back one or both houses of Congress in 2026, funding could continue without any interruption. The other presumed advantage is their assumption that “public” stations are a crucial part of “emergency alert systems” – as if private radio and TV stations can’t provide such alerts?

Congress should move aggressively to strip CPB funding and should no longer be qualified as noncommercial education stations (NCE stations), since they are neither non-commercial or educational. They are leftist propaganda operations. They love abusing their taxpayer support to advance the politicians and programs they favor, and any attempt to rein them in or monitor their programming is described as “interference in editorial independence.”

 

From the MRC Archives: 

Tim Graham’s House testimony on National Public Radio, May 2024. 

Special Report on Reasons to Defund Public Broadcasting, 2011. 

Tim Graham’s House testimony on PBS fundraising scandals, July 1999. 

Amanpour & Co., a CNN International show that also airs on public television, invited rabidly anti-Israel voice Peter Beinart to discuss his latest screed of a book, Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza. Beinart, former editor for the once-respected liberal journal The New Republic and political analyst for the not-so-respected cable channel MSNBC and editor at the even more ridiculous Jewish Currents, made excuses for the deadly rape-cult Hamas and the atrocities it committed on October 7, 2023.

You know you’re making a hard-left argument if fellow journalist Michel Martin, who worries about Democrats as she co-hosts NPR’s Morning Edition, is obliged to prod you politely (occasionally) from the center regarding your virulently anti-Israel premises.

Martin: This latest book is titled Being Jewish After the Destruction of Gaza. It’s not being Jewish after October 7th. It’s not being Jewish after 1947. Why after the destruction of Gaza? Why is that the beginning point?

Beinart: Because I think that the Jewish community feels and wrestles with the horror of October 7th that we — that’s for all of us omnipresent. I’m doing it for myself, one of the most traumatic days of my life. I know people are already wrestling with the horror of that. But what led me to write this book was seeing so many good and decent people that I know who day after day after day somehow seem to be able to block out the scenes of what was happening in Gaza….most of the buildings are being destroyed, most of the schools, most of the hospitals, most of the agriculture, the number of children who’ve been killed just dwarfs what we’ve seen in Ukraine or almost any conflict of the 21st century, more child amputees than any other place in modern history…

This was not one of the “centrist” questions from Martin.

Martin: How did this understanding start for you? Because you have a reputation as a person who has long been concerned about Israel’s role in the world, the way it manages its governance, of its territories, and the story it tells the world about itself.

Beinart’s actual reputation involves the fantasy of bringing Donald Trump to trial for war crimes and of bringing down the state of Israel so that Muslims and Jews will live in peace and harmony in a single state. Yeah, right.

Beinart explained that when he reached his thirties, he finally saw the light: “I had no idea what it really meant for people to live under the control of a state where they had no rights, where they couldn’t become citizens, where they couldn’t vote, where they lived under military law, where they needed military permission to travel….”

Beinart is overstating restrictions on Palestinians and ignoring why security measures were necessary (Terrorism? What terrorism?).

Martin quoted one of the book’s most offensive lines.

Martin: ….I want to talk about what you call the story that Jewish people tell themselves about being history’s permanent, virtuous victims. What do you mean by that?

Beinart: ….if you want to understand this terrible act of violence by Hamas, you have to be willing to face the fact that Palestinians live without basic rights….

Martin perhaps felt obliged to steer the conversation toward a recognizable moral reality.

Martin: Peter, one of the points that you make in your book is that criticizing the way Israel conducts itself on the world stage and the way Israel conducts itself within Gaza and the West Bank is not the same as being anti-Semitic, OK? But you can acknowledge, can you not, that Hamas and Hezbollah are, that Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups have been or are anti-Semitic and want to kill Jews. So, how should we think about that?

Beinart: The way I think about it is that when people are denied their rights, they resist that oppression. And they do so in a range of ways. Some of which are ethical and humane, some of which are unethical and inhumane….

Brian Stelter is back in his CNN comfort zone, penning those punchy sentences about “Trump’s history of bullying media companies.” It’s as if he cannot conceive of the opposing view, as in “the legacy media’s history of bullying Donald Trump.” They’ve played rough — seeking to destroy his political career, bankrupt his businesses, and even put him in jail for years.

CNN’s nightmare came true, and Trump overcame massive media bullying to win another term in the White House. Now the Stelters of the world desperately want the media to keep its bullying spirit strong. This includes fighting Trump in court instead of settling.

On February 2, CNN touted Stelter’s quote from an anonymous CBS correspondent who doesn’t want CBS to surrender to Trump’s lawyers and provide a full transcript of their softball “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris from October. The quote was “Trump’s lawsuit was a joke but if we settle, we become a laughingstock.”

Just as Stelter generously awarded anonymity to all the leftists burrowed inside Fox News, he’s now granting safety to leftists inside CBS who think the brass are never anti-Trump enough. The sources are persistently anonymous because CNN loves these leftist hot takes. The screen spread the message in all caps: “IF WE SETTLE, WE BECOME A LAUGHINGSTOCK.”

Like Stelter, Captain Anonymous can’t imagine the opposing view: CBS’s puffery of Biden-Harris made them a laughingstock! But these journalists only care about the opinions of their fellow Democrats. That tunnel vision leads to losing elections.

Stelter claimed to Sunday CNN Newsroom host Jessica Dean that Trump’s demand for a transcript is “frivolous,” that “There’s no evidence CBS doctored any segment. It was just doing basic editing.” Dean echoed that: “They didn’t really do anything here.” What CBS did was play a clunky word-salad soundbite of Kamala on Face the Nation, and then they made sure they replaced that with a firmer, shorter soundbite for 60 Minutes. The next night, on Laura Coates Live, Stelter briefly admitted CBS made “a mess.”

But overall, Stelter lined up Trump’s new press policies – shuffling media work spaces at the Pentagon, the FCC questioning NPR and PBS, “the government deleting [Democrat] web pages full of valuable data,” and “the White House deriding real news stories as hoaxes.” He said it’s all designed to say only Trump can be trusted.

Stelter faced no opponent on CNN to rebut him, especially on that last “hoaxes” bit. In the first Trump term, CNN aggressively promoted the Russian collusion hoax for years, and Stelter loved fervent Trump opponent Michael Avenatti so much he buttered him up as a plausible presidential candidate. That didn’t turn out to be a “real news story.” Avenatti went to jail.

In reality, CBS News — going all the way back to Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite in black and white — has been full of softball interviews for Democrats just like Kamala’s, and loaded with vicious hoaxes against Republicans, like Dan Rather’s phony documents about George W. Bush’s military record. For all we know, the anonymous CBS reporter currently crying “laughingstock” still thinks Dan Rather is a hero. Professionalism often takes a back seat to partisanship.

CBS could improve its reputation by breaking with its tawdry traditions and trying to question both sides with the same measured and respectful attention to detail, holding government accountable no matter who is governing. No one expects that. Stelter’s leftist clique thinks that would be corrupt, “normalizing” the Republicans.

The Resistance Media continue to seethe over the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) march through the federal government, particularly through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID coverage trod old and familiar tropes, seeking to elicit sympathy for the dying agency.

NBC’s report was the most comprehensive, and was the top story on NBC Nightly News. However, it seemed reductive in comparison to prior reporting.

There was the mention of concerns over executive overreach- something that NEVER came up during the wildest executive excesses of the Biden Administration. There was the emphasis on the lifesaving humanitarian aspects of USAID relief, as well as on USAID’s budget. 

And on NBC, there was another federal employee insight, a complement to ABC’s platforming of the woman that made sure to yank pride flags and remove “provocative” books before DOGE entered the premises: 

Last night, it was a USAID employee blabbing to ABC about yanking pride flags- tonight it’s NBC featuring a federal employee crying about having to explain himself to DOGE employees, explaining to loud gasps that the DOGE supervisor lives onsite with his family: pic.twitter.com/ENaPkSxM3v
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) February 5, 2025

PETER ALEXANDER: A senior administration official tonight telling NBC News more than 20,000 federal employees have accepted the offer so far. But many federal workers are furious at the pace and the scope of the president’s changes.

FEDERAL WORKER: I am angry. I am seething.

ALEXANDER: Speaking at a town hall in Virginia overnight.

FEDERAL WORKER: My colleagues are getting 15-minute one-on-one check-ins with 19, 20, 21-year-old college graduates asking to justify their positions. (VIDEO SWIPE) One of Musk’s top lieutenants and his wife and young child have shacked up on the sixth floor of our agency and are living there.

(GASPS)

WHAT???

Over at ABC, the story was folded within its D.C. roundup, but still hit all the requisite spots: 

RACHEL SCOTT: Musk then seizing control of USAID, which provides humanitarian assistance around the world, helping an estimated 32 million children suffering malnutrition and bringing food, water, shelter and health care to victims of natural disasters. USAID’s $43 billion budget is a tiny fraction of what the government spends, about 1%. But Musk, who is the world’s richest man, posting, “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” 

The pro-USAID talking points remain in place: small part of the budget, USAID only pays for nice stuff like food and medicine. You’ll hear nothing about transgender operas, LGBT comic books, color revolutions overseas or gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. 

The Resistance Media remain salty.

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned reports as aired on their respective newscasts on Tuesday, February 4th, 2025:

NBC NIGHTLY NEWS

2/4/25

6:31 PM

LESTER HOLT: Good evening and welcome. An executive order to abolish the U.S. Department of Education may be forthcoming, according to two sources familiar with the plans, as billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk continues to test the limits of his authority and influence in the Trump White House. Having already gained access to government computers, targeted America’s foreign aid program for elimination, and offered incentives for government workers to quit, Musk’s apparent freedom to slash what he identifies as wasteful spending is fueling backlash tonight. Musk estimating a few billion dollars a day of savings so far. But Democrats in Congress becoming increasingly vocal as Musk directly challenges Congress’ traditional authority, including on matters such as eliminating the Department of Education. Republican lawmakers applauding the rapid makeover of the federal government that’s also angering many federal employees. Peter Alexander has the latest.

PETER ALEXANDER: Tonight, two weeks after returning to office pledging to take a wrecking ball to Washington, President Trump is pushing back against new attacks on his efforts and those of billionaire Elon Musk to reshape the federal government.

DONALD TRUMP: He’s done a great job. Look at all the fraud that he’s found.

ALEXANDER: But tonight, top Democrats are sounding the alarm that Musk and his lieutenants are going too far.

CHUCK SCHUMER: The American people will not stand for an unelected secret group to run rampant through the Executive Branch. Being innovative is good. But Mr. Musk, this isn’t a tech start up. These are public institutions.

ALEXANDER: Musk, who vowed to slash $2 trillion from the budget, runs the Department of Government Efficiency that is not a government agency. But his team has already gained access to closely held data systems.

ELON MUSK: There’s already been really tremendous progress. We- our rough estimate is that there’s at least a few billion dollars a day of savings.

ALEXANDER: Sharply reducing the federal work force by offering a buyout to federal workers. A senior administration official tonight telling NBC News more than 20,000 federal employees have accepted the offer so far. But many federal workers are furious at the pace and the scope of the president’s changes.

FEDERAL WORKER: I am angry. I am seething.

ALEXANDER: Speaking at a town hall in Virginia overnight.

FEDERAL WORKER: My colleagues are getting 15-minute one-on-one check-ins with 19, 20, 21-year-old college graduates asking to justify their positions. (VIDEO SWIPE) One of Musk’s top lieutenants and his wife and young child have shacked up on the sixth floor of our agency and are living there.

(GASPS)

WHAT???

ALEXANDER: Today President Trump praising Musk, including his move to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which distributes and delivers foreign aid, arguing much of its $40 billion dollar budget is wasteful. 

TRUMP: Money going to all sorts of groups that shouldn’t deserve to get any money.

ALEXANDER: But the agency’s supporters say it’s a vital mission. Still, leading Republicans strongly back Musk’s moves.

MIKE JOHNSON: I told him to continue the effort because it’s really important for us to get- to restore fiscal sanity to Washington.

ALEXANDER: Late today, the president responding to a new offer from El Salvador o take back deported undocumented migrants and American prisoners too.

TRUMP: If we had the legal right to do it, I would do it in a heartbeat. (VIDEO SWIPE) But we could make deals where we’d get these animals out of our country.

HOLT: And Peter, at the beginning of the broadcast I mentioned another sweeping change of what- the abolishment of the Department of Education. Where does that stand?

ALEXANDER: Lester, the president says he told his Secretary of Education nominee that he would like her to put herself out of a job, saying that states should handle all of it. But getting rid of an agency would require Congress’ approval. Meanwhile, non- profit groups tell NBC News tonight that the president’s actions on USAID have left life-saving antibiotics sitting in limbo at the port of Sudan, and essential medicines expiring in The Congo. Lester.

HOLT: All right, Peter Alexander tonight. Thank you.

ABC WORLD NEWS TONIGHT

2/4/24

6:37 PM

DAVID MUIR: This evening, two of President Trump’s most controversial nominees clearing a major hurdle now on their path to confirmation. Secretary of Health and Human Services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard both advancing out of committee today. Tonight, RFK Jr. overcoming the reservations of a key Republican senator who is also a doctor. That senator now supporting RFK Jr. The senator up for re-election. Here’s our Senior Political Correspondent Rachel Scott.

RACHEL SCOTT: Tonight, two of the president’s most controversial nominees clearing key hurdles, on track for confirmation as skeptical Republican senators fall in line. Health Secretary Nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. winning approval of the Finance Committee after the lone Republican holdout, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who is also a doctor, voted yes.

SENATE CLERK: Mr. Cassidy.

BILL CASSIDY: Aye.

SENATE CLERK: Mr. Cassidy, aye.

SCOTT: Cassidy had grilled Kennedy over his years of spreading misinformation about vaccines. The senator acknowledged he was struggling with the nomination. But ultimately Cassidy, who is facing re-election next year, fully aware of the pressure he could face for voting no. Now giving Kennedy his full support.

CASSIDY: Ultimately restoring trust in our public health institution is too important, and I think Mr. Kennedy can help get that done.

SCOTT: A few hours later, former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s pick for Director of National Intelligence, passing a party line vote in the Senate Intelligence Committee, despite Republican concerns over her meeting with former Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad, and her refusal to call Edward Snowden a traitor. Gabbard and Kennedy, two disruptors in a team of them. The leading figure, billionaire Elon Musk, who is out to reshape the government itself. His Department of Government Efficiency, staffed largely by young engineers. At least one of them just 19, have brought beds into their government offices. Musk posting on X, “Working the weekend is a superpower.” His team getting access to the Treasury Department’s payment system, which processes trillions of dollars of the government’s bills and includes the personal information of millions of Americans. Musk then seizing control of USAID, which provides humanitarian assistance around the world, helping an estimated 32 million children suffering malnutrition and bringing food, water, shelter and health care to victims of natural disasters. USAID’s $43 billion budget is a tiny fraction of what the government spends, about 1%. But Musk, who is the world’s richest man, posting, “We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” And tonight, sources tell ABC News that the State Department is now starting to evacuate all USAID staff who are on foreign assignments worldwide. Some 1,500 to 2,000 people. The goal is to bring all those workers and their families back to the United States by this weekend. On Capitol Hill, Republicans applauding Musk’s goals.

THOM TILLIS: He’s throwing out big ideas, and if anybody thinks that all these big ideas are going to be implemented to conclusion, they don’t understand the process of disruption.

SCOTT: But Democrats sounding the alarm.

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: It is unconscionable for him to be exercising this kind of influence and power that he is with his conflicts of interest and his financial benefits flowing to him from the kind of destructive impact, it’s not disruptive, it’s destructive.

SCOTT: And the next target for Elon Musk, the Department of Education. Musk already looking for sweeping changes and cuts. Sources tell us that members of his team were spotted at the department this week, and tonight, president Donald Trump making it clear he wants to abolish the Department of Education altogether, David.

MUIR: Rachel Scott live on The Hill tonight. Rachel, thank you.

 

MSNBC host Chris Hayes has a new book out, The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource. The blurb: “From the New York Times-bestselling author and MSNBC and podcast host, a powerful wide-angle reckoning with how the assault from attention capitalism on our minds and our hearts has reordered our politics and the very fabric of our society.”

Sounds like a natural fit for a fawning interview on public television, and Amanpour & Co. followed NPR in conducting one, with Amanpour correspondent Hari Sreenivasan after an enthusiastic set-up by host Christiane Amanpour. Together, they advanced a shocking, neo-puritanical proposal — to limit online screen time in the name of preserving our attention.

Hari Sreenivasan: What you point out with the book is really, I see so many parallels to the ultra-processed food industry and how we seem to be so much more addicted to sugar. But how do you try to get something like attention back?

Chris Hayes: I’m glad that you point to the food analogy or precedent because I actually think it is the closest one here. In the same way, we have certain biological inheritances, we like salt, fat, and sugar, if you release large global capitalism on that problem, it will give you Coca-Cola and fries. And you can sell it anywhere in the world, right?….

Hayes pined for the good old days of the Internet with “open internet architecture….not commercially bound by a platform attempting to monetize your attention.”

He warmed up to his big idea.

Hayes: I think there’s real questions about the law and regulation and getting serious about regulating how attention is extracted from us and who it is extracted from.

The solution to “attention capitalism,” as his book has it, was a stunningly authoritarian left-wing proposal from someone whose livelihood depends on support for free expression — for himself, at least.

Sreenivasan: Should we, collectively as a society, trying to moderate this in some way?…

Hayes: They will say, please regulate us, but then if you try to do things like put on age caps, they fight it—

Sreenivasan: –yeah, they lobby against it.

Hayes: –so yes, they want to choose their own regulators and regulation. But I think that you need both regulation and alternatives. I like the idea of regulating attention in some way, whether that’s essentially a hard limit on screen time, like a statutory limit, that sounds in people’s heads, utterly insane and the most paternalistic thing. People thought about that about maximum hours at a certain point. That’s what the Lochner decision, the famous Supreme Court decision is all about is like, if New York says, you can only work 55 hours a week, is that paternalism or are they protecting something essential about you? And does the Constitution knock that law down? It is worth thinking about that for attention.

But I also think that you can’t do that unless you also are also nurturing alternatives that are like open platform civic alternatives. Because there are ways that we could communicate with each other, there are, video does not have to exist inside YouTube. There are ways to have open platforms in which people can do things…

Considering the scary quality of this idea, perhaps there should be a hard limit on watching Chris Hayes on MSNBC as well?

Ever since the inauguration two weeks ago, MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhle has apparently had little else to do with her time but complain bitterly about virtually every step the new Trump Administration took. During Monday night’s airing of The 11th Hour, she and former GOP staffer Reed Galen, who is now president of The Union (an apparent subgroup of The Lincoln Project) and host of The Home Front podcast, railed incessantly against the administration’s latest moves, acting as though the world were coming to an end.

True to form, though, they seemed to take some comfort in their conviction that they were right, and know so much better than all those stupid, ordinary, everyday Americans who voted Trump back in.

On the administration’s strong Republican support in Congress, Ruhle asked Galen: “Are they okay with giving up their power as a co-equal branch of government?” “Yes. 100 percent,” Galen replied. “You know, without question, they are – let’s see – 270 walking rubber stamps.”

 

 

He then went on to single out Senator Susan Collins of Maine for her support of Trump’s pick of Tulsi Gabbard as director of national intelligence, saying, “She knows better, but she’s always known better. I guess after all these years, they still haven’t learned their lesson. But, Collins has, which is, she’s going to get in line now that that’s in her best interest.”

The topic then turned to the dismantling of USAID, begun under the auspices of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, and the two could not hide their vitriol for Musk, his plan, or any ordinary person who might take a more favorable view.  “If you are an individual American,” Galen asked rhetorically, “Do you know what USAID is?” “What it does?” or “How does it affect your life?” “No,” Ruhle replied flatly as if to represent Americans.

So, according to them, average Americans were too stupid and ignorant to even know how their own government worked or where their tax dollars went. They were not, in Galen’s words, “worried about the game of thrones that Elon and Trump…are playing,” and unfortunately, “that’s the thing that Republicans have been very clear on.”

Things took a turn for the laughable when Galen asserted that part of the problem was that Democrats “have always had an uncomfortable relationship with power. They’ve been very unwilling to utilize it, they’ve been un- very unwilling to do the things they could when they have it.”

He went on to demand Democrats ask themselves: “now you have to say, are you going to bear the consequences of utilizing whatever slivers of power you have?”

“This is not to turn into a therapy session for you and me, Stephanie- but like- there is some, you know, boundaries you have to put up for yourself, right?” Galen intoned. “But the last piece is,” he concluded, “and again, this is more philosophical than anything else- we must be convinced that at the end of this, whatever else happens, we will prevail. But it’s going to be pretty tough in the meantime.”

“You just have to stay in the light,” agreed Ruhle.

One might suppose that MSNBC could at some point stop obsessing over every action of a president and an administration they happen to dislike, and patting themselves on the back for their own purported moral and intellectual superiority, and simply report the news.

The transcript is below. Click “Expand” to read it

 

MSNBC The 11th Hour

02/03/2025

11:50 PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: RASKIN ON MUSK-WE’RE GOING TO STOP HIM]

STEPHANIE RUHLE: Reed Galen joins us. He worked on a number of GOP campaigns. He’s now the president of jointheunion.us and host of the- the Homefront podcast. 

Reed, can we start with Republicans? Republicans in Congress. We are not hearing much from them. And what I want to understand, are they okay with giving up their power as a co-equal branch of government?

REED GALEN (JOINTHEUNION.US PRESIDENT): Yes. 100 percent. You know, without question, they are – let’s see – 270 walking rubber stamps.

I saw a pathetic excuse for an explanation from Susan Collins of Maine today, about why she was now comfortable with Tulsi Gabbard being the Director of National Intelligence. She knows better, but she’s always known better. I guess after all these years, they still haven’t learned their lesson. But, Collins has, which is, she’s going to get in line now that that’s in her best interest.

(…)

11:52 PM

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: IS CONGRESS GIVING UP ITS POWER TO TRUMP AND MUSK?]

GALEN: And then lastly, look, we have to be very clear. If you are an individual American, one, do you know what USAID is?

RUHLE: No.

Galen: Two, if you do, do you know what it does? And three, if you do, one, are you okay with that? And two, how does it affect your life? 

And that’s the thing that Republicans have been very clear on, is that the individual American who is trying to get through the day is not worried about the game of thrones that Elon and Trump and Jamie Raskin and everybody else are playing.

11:53 PM

GALEN: Democrats, Stephanie, have always had an uncomfortable relationship with power. They’ve been very unwilling to utilize it, they’ve been un- very unwilling to do the things they could when they have it. 

Look, they have a history. Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi’s always understood it. LBJ going back, Harry Reid- like, there are Democrats who’ve understood it. 

But now you have to say, are you going to bear the consequences of utilizing whatever slivers of power you have?

(…)

11:54 PM

RUHLE: So what do you say to people out there? There are voters who feel angered, they feel paralyzed right now, they’re saying, “I did not vote for Elon Musk. I don’t want this.” What should they be focused on? What should they do?

GALEN: You- Look, there’s not a great answer to this, unfortunately. The one thing I can say- and this is not to turn into a therapy session for you and me, Stephanie- but like- there is some, you know, boundaries you have to put up for yourself, right? 

I was talking to somebody, a dear family friend just a little while ago- said “I’m just positively depressed, just watching things all day every day. How could this possibly happen?” They then followed up with “are my social security checks going to stop coming?” So that’s a legitimate concern. But, again, there is a difference between paying attention, keeping your eyes and ears open, and diving deep, deep, deep into the crazy pool all day, every day. 

There are plenty of things around us, right? In our communities, in our neighborhoods, in our kids’ schools, whatever it is, that need help and are going to need more help over the coming days, weeks and months. And that’s not to say that we should ever be okay with what Musk and Trump are doing. But we also have to understand: One, the reality of our situation, but two, understand that if we do the work, that’s unglamorous, it’s unsexy, that ev- involves those individual Americans, one, who either feel disconnected or two, stayed home last November, right? Then we will be able to have some green shoots when the time comes. 

But the last piece is- and again, this is more philosophical than anything else- we must be convinced that at the end of this, whatever else happens, we will prevail. But it’s going to be pretty tough in the meantime.

RUHLE: You just have to stay in the light.

(…)

 

 

 

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has spent years targeting free speech, but its reign of error is ending, as the new president abruptly told employees not to show up to work.

President Donald Trump just announced his decision to temporarily shut down USAID’s headquarters while he and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) decide whether to axe the corrupt agency altogether. One key fact that has not been as widely reported is that USAID was indirectly pushing censorship initiatives, targeting free speech online under the guise of targeting “hate speech” and “misinformation.” And as recently as 2023, USAID reportedly announced grants to entities for “countering disinformation,” while in 2025, it reaffirmed its commitment to suppressing certain free speech. The censorship is coming back to bite the censors.

Read the full blog on MRC Free Speech America’s site.

Even in a world where President Donald Trump clearly racks up foreign policy wins, CNN’s smug harpies desperately try to convince all eight of its viewers that he’s really losing.

CNN anchor Erin Burnett injected a hefty amount of spin into her reporting on Mexico and Canada collectively waving the white flag on their retaliatory threats against Trump’s tariffs and agreed to increase security on both the Southern and Northern borders respectively.

But in Burnett’s Trump Derangement Syndrome-afflicted worldview during the February 3 edition of OutFront, this supposedly constituted “Trump backing down twice in a day.” Huh? So “what changed,” asked Burnett. “Were these always empty threats or not?” No, Erin, they weren’t, or else Mexico and Canada wouldn’t have made the concessions they did.  

Burnett took aim at White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s “characterization”  that “Canada is bending the knee just like Mexico.” “But here’s the reality,” lectured Burnett. “The reason the markets were down so much is because Trump said he was going to do something. He was firm that he was going to do it. And then he did a complete about-face.”

Her evidence for this was a clip of Trump’s vague answer to a reporter on whether anything from Canada and Mexico would cause him to reconsider putting his tariffs into effect: “No. nothing. Not right now,” and “We’ll see what happens.”

Apparently Burnett didn’t learn the principle of never tipping your hand in tough negotiation processes. When questioned by a reporter on the issue of arms control strategy, President Ronald Reagan emphasized the importance of keeping negotiation stances vague before a deal is firmly reached:

Well, I think when you refer back in that other question, the way it came at the time had to do with asking things that would have required me to state in advance negotiating positions. And I’ve had a lot of years experience in negotiating. Before I was ever in public life, I negotiated for about a quarter of a century the basing contracts of our union, the Screen Actors Guild, with management. And you can’t talk about negotiating positions, because if you do, then they’re no longer positions; you’ve compromised your own strategy.

In essence, by broadcasting the explicit parameters of a potential deal that would convince him to temporarily delay his tariffs to the world, Trump would have prematurely revealed his negotiation stance and compromised his own strategy. As Heritage Foundation economist EJ Antoni emphasized in a February 3 column: “In short, Trump holds all the cards, and he knows it.” Pointing to Canada as an example, Antoni analyzed that America’s neighbor would be absolutely crushed by a trade war, whereas the effect on the American economy would be the equivalent to running over a speed bump:

As economist Art Laffer has noted, there are no winners in trade wars, but the losers can face drastically different losses. Nearly all Canadian exports go to the U.S. but only a small fraction of American exports go to Canada. If international trade between the two slows dramatically, it’ll lead to a steep recession in Canada but will be more like a speed bump for the U.S. 

Take a hike Burnett. 

Following their being found liable for defamation in January, CNN proclaimed in a statement that they “will of course take what useful lessons we can from this case.” But during Monday’s edition of The Lead, host Jake Tapper once again found himself embroiled in controversy when he refused to strongly push back on Democratic Senator Chris Murphy (CT) after he peddled the long-debunked hoax that billionaire Elon Musk did the “heil Hitler salute,” and other conspiracy theories.

Near the end of their interview, and while contorting his face into all manner of angry expressions, Murphy went on an unhinged rant against Musk and asserted that he had “amplified vicious anti-Semitic information on Twitter, who gave the heil Hitler salute on Inauguration Day.”

“It seems to be standard that the qualification to serve in the Trump administration is affection for racist and misogynist philosophy,” Murphy added. “So, this guy is dangerous but there seems to be people like him being peppered throughout Trump’s government.”

The claim that Musk had done the “heil Hitler salute” was one of the first hoaxed of the second Trump presidency peddled by the liberal media. Those living in reality, who weren’t bad faith actors, and who wanted to be honest with the American people, would admit that Musk was telling his crowd that his heart went out to them and he figuratively threw his heart to them. Of course, Tapper was none of those things.

Tapper refused to explain the truth of what Musk had done. Instead, he tried to hide behind how Musk had not tried to explain the gesture to those trying to smear him:

Just for whatever it’s worth, the Trump team says that wasn’t a heil Hitler salute, but we have not – I don’t think we’ve heard from Elon Musk on what exactly it was. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, thanks for your time.

 

 

Shortly before allowing Murphy’s lies to go essentially unchallenged in any meaningful way, Tapper teed up the Connecticut Democrat to spew conspiracy theories that Musk was going to steal Americans’ Social Security checks and personal information:

Elon Musk and his aides are have gotten access to critical government computer systems, including the one at the Treasury Department that writes the checks appropriated by Congress for the U.S. checks to federal government employees, checks for Social Security recipients. Et cetera. Do you have an issue with that?

“First of all, every American needs to know that your information, your personal tax records have been potentially compromised, that unelected billionaires and his Silicon Valley right-wing friends may have access to all of your personal information,” Murphy bloviated.

Murphy went on to fear monger that Musk was going to cut of the Social Security checks to those who didn’t support him:

They say they’re just, you know, sorting through all of government spending to make sure that it doesn’t contain funding for woke ideologies. That is just fancy talk to say ‘we’re going to give money to people who pledge loyalty to Donald Trump, and we’re not going to give money to people who don’t pledge loyalty to Donald Trump.’ Today it may be government contracts, but tomorrow it may be your tax refund.

At no point did Tapper push back on the lies and conspiracy theories. If Murphy had been a Republican, Tapper would have been swift to react, much like last week when White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller noted that most of the federal bureaucracy supported then-Vice President Kamala Harris and Tapper shot back saying: “I don’t know that to be a fact.”

Apparently, Tapper doesn’t know much of anything. During his defamation deposition, Tapper claimed he didn’t know what his title was. He also seemingly lied about not paying attention to the ratings of his shows. What he does know is that we have “no reason to doubt” what Hamas says.

The transcript is below. Click “expand” to read:

CNN’s The Lead
February 3, 2025
4:22:36 p.m. Eastern

(…)

JAKE TAPPER: Elon Musk and his aides are have gotten access to critical government computer systems, including the one at the Treasury Department that writes the checks appropriated by Congress for the U.S. checks to federal government employees, checks for Social Security recipients. Et cetera. Do you have an issue with that?

SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Of course I do. First of all, every American needs to know that your information, your personal tax records have been potentially compromised, that unelected billionaires and his Silicon Valley right-wing friends may have access to all of your personal information.

And all of this seems to be in service of taking control of the federal government and using the resources of the federal government to reward Trump’s friends and Musk’s friends, and to punish their enemies. At least to punish people who don’t line up with the political priorities of the administration.

They say they’re just, you know, sorting through all of government spending to make sure that it doesn’t contain funding for woke ideologies. That is just fancy talk to say ‘we’re going to give money to people who pledge loyalty to Donald Trump, and we’re not going to give money to people who don’t pledge loyalty to Donald Trump.’ Today it may be government contracts, but tomorrow it may be your tax refund.

So, I just think this is a super dangerous moment that doesn’t just impact government that doesn’t just impact government contractors, that now may impact ordinary Americans. And I think you’re seeing this weekend and today, folks, realizing the scope of this crisis, and you’re starting to see the American public really speak out and speak up.

(…)

4:25:16 p.m. Eastern

MURPHY: They don’t seem super different than Elon Musk, who has amplified vicious anti-Semitic information on Twitter, who gave the heil Hitler salute on Inauguration Day. It seems to be standard that the qualification to serve in the Trump administration is affection for racist and misogynist philosophy. So, this guy is dangerous but there seems to be people like him being peppered throughout Trump’s government.

TAPPER: Just for whatever it’s worth, the Trump team says that wasn’t a heil Hitler salute, but we have not – I don’t think we’ve heard from Elon Musk on what exactly it was. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, thanks for your time.

(…)

ABC’s Good Morning America aired Monday possibly the most deceitful and glossy depiction of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs as “merit-based,” a continuation of the civil rights movement “levelling the playing field,” and creating “equitable outcomes.” DEI does not, they insisted, have anything to do with hurting one group of people or giving prominence to those undeserving.

As the great Christopher Rufo posted January 12 on X, the reality is “[m]eritocracy and DEI are fundamentally incompatible” with the former “judg[ing] individuals based on their accomplishments, while a DEI-based system judges individuals based on their ancestry.”

Nonetheless, co-host Robin Roberts — who reportedly makes in the ballpark of $20 million — huffed that “federal agencies are banning any celebrations of” Black History Month and used that as a jumping off point to decry President Trump “curtailing” DEI.

 

 

This gave way to 20/20 co-host Deborah Roberts — wife of NBC’s Today co-host Al Roker and no relation to Robin — who started with this lament in a report that offered zero soundbites who oppose DEI:

Hard to believe a small acronym has sparked such a fierce debate. DEI began during the civil rights movement, a way of levelling the playing field, creating equality in power structures. But somehow, the message has been lost, with some now seeing DEI as a symbol for unfair practices. Now, with the government taking that same stand, there’s some big efforts now to push back.

Ah, so DEI — cultural communism — is actually about furthering equality. But notice how ABC and wokesters writ large often use equity and equality synonymously when it’s likely even many of them know the former is flattening outcomes while the latter offers — pun intended — a ladder to climb toward endless possibilities.

Deborah Roberts had the gall to trumpet liberal boycotts, saying “[t]he sweeping rollback of DEI policies striking a nerve with consumers online” with “[s]ome expressing outrage that major retailers” like Target “are retreating from” DEI when its goals are just “helping highlight and strengthen minority groups by addressing long standing issues like the gender pay gap and expanding recruitment of candidates historically overlooked.”

DEI expert Daniel Oppong lamented in a soundbite that it’s viewed as “polarizing,” but it was still true “that different people experience the world in different ways depending on the identities they hold” and thus DEI is necessary “to drive equitable outcomes.”

She followed with this disingenuous swatting away of DEI’s pitfalls in which race is put at the center, not merit: “The impact of DEI stretching wide, from enrollment in higher education to hiring practices and while critics claim DEI includes a racial bias, pitting less qualified candidates against those more deserving, some business experts insist that’s not the case.”

 

 

Oppong followed with the kicker about DEI being “merit-based” and then an older, white, female liberal who actually compared DEI opponents to those against desegregating the American education system:

OPPONG: In my mind, the idea that DE&I isn’t merit based or is anti-meritocracy, is fundamentally flawed.

VALLOTKARP CONSULTING’s ANGELA VALLOT: America has been on a very, very long journey of trying to fulfill, you know, its ideals and it’s been a rocky road. We see the landmark Brown v. Board of education which ended legal segregation at public schools. So, this isn’t new. We’ve seen this throughout history, we make progress then there’s backlash.

Deborah Roberts tried to end on a hopeful note for fellow corporate liberals, noting “big corporations like Delta Airlines, Apple, Costco, and Goldman Sachs…say they will continue to pursue [DEI] policies.”

Prompted by Robin Roberts, Deborah said she saw “a woman wearing a shirt that said ‘earned not given’ which once again plays into that argument that these are given to people. It’s really about opportunities, not about giving.”

Robin replied that viewers “have to remember” a world built with DEI is “still..merit-based” and thanked Deborah for “having people have a better understanding” as though this were a brainwashing.

Our friends at The Federalist took a 20,000-foot view of DEI in February 2023, lambasting the left’s insidious strategy of being “intentionally vague” when their real goal is “sanctioned favoritism in the name of social justice” (click “expand’):

Seemingly in unison, and with almost no debate, nearly every major American institution — including federal, state, and local governments, universities and public schools, hospitals, insurance, media and technology companies, and major retail brands — has agreed that the DEI infrastructure is essential to the nation’s proper functioning.

(….)

Diversity, equity, and inclusion is an intentionally vague term used to describe sanctioned favoritism in the name of social justice. Its Wikipedia entry indicates a lack of agreement on the definition, while Merriam-Webster.com and the Associated Press online style guide have no entry (the AP offers guidance on related terms). 

Yet however defined, it’s clear DEI is now much more than an academic craze or corporate affectation.

“It’s an industry in every sense of the word,” says Peter Schuck, professor emeritus of law at Yale. “My suspicion is that many of the offices don’t do what they say. But they’re hiring people, giving them titles and pretty good money. I don’t think they do nothing.” 

(….)

More recently, a spate of widely publicized police killings of unarmed African Americans has galvanized a growing belief, especially among progressives and especially since Donald Trump’s election, that America is an irredeemably racist nation. In 2020, in the wake of the Floyd murder and in advance of a fraught election, a moral panic set in. Having increased their ranks, social justice entrepreneurs and bureaucrats were poised to implement an ideological agenda and compound their institutional power. 

Although no hard numbers exist on the exact size of the industry, the “DEIfication” of America is clear. From Rochester, New York, to San Diego, California, cash-strapped municipalities have found the funds to staff DEI offices. Startups and small companies that once relied on their own employees to promote an inclusive culture now feel compelled to hire diversity consultants and sensitivity trainers to set them straight.

At Ohio State University, for example, the average DEI staff salary is $78,000, according to public information gathered by economist Mark J. Perry of the American Enterprise Institute — about $103,000 with fringe benefits. Not to be outdone by its Big Ten conference rival, the University of Michigan pays its diversity officers $94,000 on average — about $124,000 with benefits. Until he retired from the position last summer, Michigan’s chief diversity officer, Robert Sellers, was paid over $431,000 a year. His wife, Tabbye Chavous, now has the job, at the vice provost rank and a salary of $380,000.  

For smaller organizations that cannot afford a full-time equity officer, there are other options for shoring up social justice bona fides — namely, working with any of the hundreds of DEI consulting agencies that have risen like mushrooms after a night’s rain, most of them led by “BIPOC” millennials. With some firms, the social justice goals are unmistakable. The Racial Equity Institute is “committed to the work of anti-racist transformation” and challenging “patterns of power” on behalf of big-name clients like the Harvard Business School, Ben & Jerry’s, and the American Civil Liberties Union. With others, the appeal has less to do with social change than exploring marketing opportunities and creating a “with-it” company culture, where progressive politics complement the office foosball tables and kombucha on tap.

If it were all about endorsing “merit” as ABC claimed, then why have incidents like these popped up on a steady basis for years in which one’s First Amendment rights are trampled in the name of comfort for a few?

Rufo’s life work has been in part exposing the DEI rot in American culture. In November 2021, he summarized a “ten-part investigative series on woke capital, exposing critical race theory training programs in America’s Fortune 100 companies” with a few examples.

They included AT&T teaching its employees that “racism is a uniquely white trait” and Walmart holding trainings for white employees to be told about their sins of “white supremacy thinking.”

Thankfully, Walmart ended its DEI policies in November 2024.

To see the relevant ABC transcript from February 3, click here.