If it’s not annoying enough that liberals are defending PBS with an antiquated clip of Mister Rogers testifying to Congress in 1969, it’s really annoying that now they’re using clips from The West Wing — as if that Aaron Sorkin propaganda isn’t imbued with the same arrogant liberal spirit as “public” broadcasting. Characters give impassioned liberal speeches, so naturally there are going to be pro-PBS speeches.

Long-winded Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) proclaimed “Public broadcasters like PBS and NPR give every American access to culture, history, art, and trusted journalism. They’re a cornerstone of civic life.”

What baloney. When Democrats hail “trusted journalism,” it means “trusted to give Democrats every break.”

In the clip, a character correctly explains that the makers of Sesame Street never pay back into PBS: “Product licensing for this merchandise brings in over 20 million dollars a year, none of which goes to PBS, all of which goes to the show’s producer, the Children’s Television Workshop [now Sesame Workshop]…Now this is a company whose chief executive earns high six figures in salary and benefits per year, yet Sesame Street is subsidized by taxpayer dollars.”

Excellent point, and it’s still true. Search for “Sesame Street” under “All Departments” on Amazon and you get over 5,000 results. Nobody has ever expected them to give back to PBS.

“It’s a perfectly reasonable complaint,” responds the communications director character Toby Ziegler, who quickly adds, “I don’t care” before launching into a diatribe about how commercial TV has sex and violence, so by Jove, they need to defend the Muppets and Julia Child. 

Public broadcasters like PBS and NPR give every American access to culture, history, art, and trusted journalism. They’re a cornerstone of civic life.
Defunding them does a disservice to us all, especially in rural communities.
We must defend them. pic.twitter.com/oU78Nm5yin
— Cory Booker (@CoryBooker) May 3, 2025
A month ago, “trusted” PBS fawned over Booker’s fake filibuster. PBS pundit Jonathan Capehart found it “so inspiring” and his pseudoconservative counterpart David Brooks gushed, “if Donald Trump is going to be all about gloom and carnage and threat, Cory Booker is about upbeat. And that’s a good way to counter the vibe of Donald Trump.”

Ever since Audie Cornish took over as host of CNN This Morning, we’ve been on a kvetch campaign over her failure to include Trump supporters on her reliably left-leaning panels. So it was surprising to see a welcome halt to this with the return of Republican strategist Brad Todd.
Introducing him, Cornish said it had been “a minute” since Todd last appeared. In fact, it’s been over two months, ever since Cornish assumed hosting duties in early March.
The topic was Trump’s views on the constitutional rights of immigrants, as expressed to Kristen Welker in a Meet the Press interview aired on Sunday. The words on screen mangled Trump into saying “‘I don’t know’ if I need to uphold Constitution.” Welker insisted that all non-citizens deserve due process. Liberals love the Constitution if it keeps illegal immigrants in America. 

Todd repeatedly made the point that, contrary to what Trump critics have been “shrieking,” Trump is not defying the courts, but has appealed rulings up the judicial chain, and has indicated that he will abide by the Supreme Court’s rulings. That is precisely what Trump’s critics have been demanding, and Todd argued that they should give Trump credit for it.

CORNISH: So here, what I hear when conservatives talk about this due process issue is that it doesn’t count for immigrants. It doesn’t count for migrants. And we do know there are different rules in that respect, but what do you hear, the way the president answered? Because he was asked multiple times about this. 

TODD: Well, he said he’s going to do what the court said. He said he’s going to follow what the Supreme Court said, and that is what all his critics —

CORNISH: But isn’t that like an obvious answer, the yes or no? 

TODD: No, it wasn’t. Well, his critics have said for months, oh, he’s an authoritarian, he’s going to abolish the Supreme Court, he’s going to not hold elections. 

He’s appealing decisions up the chain as they come. He says he’s going to follow the Supreme Court’s directives. This is what his critics want him to say! They should accede and give him credit for that. 

For liberals demanding more transparency in government, Todd pointed out that Trump “has given more interviews in the past five months than Joe Biden gave in four years.” 

Cornish shot back: “Yeah, well, the thing about giving interviews is then people scrutinize the answers, which is where we are now.” So when Biden fails to grant an interview to the alphabet of liberal networks, it’s just fine, there’s no controversy in the hiding. How convenient!

Here’s the transcript.

CNN This Morning
5/5/25
6:01 am EDT

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. 

AUDIE CORNISH: Those comments, as President Trump also weighed in on growing concerns about the economy, and of course speculation about him seeking a third term. 

Joining me now in the group chat, Stephen Collinson, CNN politics senior reporter, Cari Champion, CNN contributor, and Brad Todd, Republican strategist. You guys, welcome back to the chat. 

Okay, Brad, we haven’t seen you in a minute, so do you mind if I start with you?

BRAD TODD: Go ahead! 

CORNISH: So here, what I hear when conservatives talk about this due process issue is that it doesn’t count for immigrants. It doesn’t count for migrants. And we do know there are different rules in that respect, but what do you hear, the way the president answered? Because he was asked multiple times about this. 

TODD: Well, he said he’s going to do what the court said. He said he’s going to follow what the Supreme Court said, and that is what all his critics —

CORNISH: But isn’t that like an obvious answer, the yes or no? 

TODD: No, it wasn’t. Well, his critics have said for months, oh, he’s an authoritarian, he’s going to abolish the Supreme Court, he’s going to not hold elections. 

He’s appealing decisions up the chain as they come. He says he’s going to follow the Supreme Court’s directives. This is what his critics want him to say! They should accede and give him credit for that. 

. . . 

I feel like this is a conversational Trump. This is Trump in low-key mode. He also, by the way, we should note, has given more interviews in the past five months than Joe Biden gave in four years. 

CORNISH: Yeah, well, the thing about giving interviews is then people scrutinize the answers, which is where we are now. 

TODD: That’s right. That’s right. I want to go back to what Stephen [said, though, on the Abrego Garcia case, whether he’s complying or not. The case has been remanded down to the district court for clarification. It’s going to come back up to the Supreme Court. 

Whether or not the administration is complying with the Court will happen once the Court makes its decision on the merits of the case. And I think we all know what we expect that to be. But let’s don’t prejudge that yet. 

. . . 

They are following what the court’s dicta is so far. And they should. That’s clearly what they have to do. But his critics for five months have been shrieking, oh, he’s preparing to defy the courts. He’s not doing that. And we should note it. 

Last night, Fox’s Family Guy made a crude joke about rape and abortion in an episode that was otherwise focused on corruption in China.

In the episode “China Doll,” Stewie and Brian (Seth MacFarlane) travel to China after Stewie sees a “Made in China” tag on his stuffed animal, Rupert.

Due to a misunderstanding, Brian and Stewie end up in a Chinese forced labor camp that is creating solar panels.

While there, Stewie criticizes liberals for supporting the use of solar panels manufactured in China. In response, Brian insults conservatives for overturning Roe v. Wade.

Stewie: Twenty years in a labor camp for spying on China. What a mess. 

Brian: “Hire Sidney Powell,” he said. 

Stewie: It’s the only place she’s still licensed.

Prison Guard: Break’s over. Get back to work making solar panels for American liberals. 

Brian: Didn’t realize all our solar panels are made by Chinese political prisoners. 

Stewie: Yes. White liberals have a lot to answer for. 

Brian: [Chuckles] Well, I’d say conservatives do as well, especially in a post Roe V. Wade world. 

Woman: Oh my gosh, I finally get to see this little guy. [Gasps] He’s adorable. He looks just like your rapist.

Rapist: I think he looks like both of us. 

Woman: He’s a cutie. He’s gonna be a little lady killer.

Rapist: Well, we’ll see. I don’t want to put any pressure on him.

While abortions due to rape are less than one percent of abortions in the U.S. overall, a child conceived in rape is still a human being worthy of life and not a reflection of a father’s evil. The “joke” was twisted.

Family Guy has pushed pro-abortion propaganda many times throughout its long history on television and has also made rape jokes in the past. An abortion episode that creator Seth MacFarlane wrote in 2009 was so dark and macabre that Fox refused to air it at the time.

MacFarlane’s abortion jokes were not funny then, and they are still unfunny now. 

One really easy way to know that TV journalists are Democrats is how they rush to defense of PBS and NPR and use all the same arguments that Democrats have made in congressional hearings and social media. They willfully ignore the incessant bias of “public” broadcasting and deflect back to kiddie shows like Sesame Street, as if that’s anything like comparing Trump to Hitler. On Sunday’s Face the Nation, CBS host Margaret Brennan was as soft as a stuffed Muppet with PBS CEO Paula Kerger: 

MARGARET BRENNAN: The president tweeted, or socialed, or truthed, “Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR and PBS, the radical left monsters that so badly hurt our country.” I have to tell you, I heard monsters and I thought of Cookie Monster.

PAULA KERGER: I did too, actually.

MARGARET BRENNAN: I thought of Sesame Street and I thought of that children’s programming.

PAULA KERGER: Right.

MARGARET BRENNAN: That is in many – many ways what people think of when they think of PBS.

CBS’s @margbrennan cues up silly PBS talking point: “The President tweeted or socialed or truthed ‘Republicans must defund and totally disassociate themselves from NPR and PBS. The radical left monsters that so badly hurt our country’ — I have to tell you, I heard monster and… pic.twitter.com/TXBuWrux9b
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 4, 2025
Then came more bias-denying absurdity from NPR CEO Katherine Maher.

BRENNAN: When we went and we read the executive order, the language in there says, “government funding of news media in this environment is outdated and unnecessary, corrosive to the appearance of independence. Amd Americans have the right to expect if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting, that it’s fair, accurate, unbiased and non-partisan.” How do you respond to the implication that your news coverage is not?

KATHERINE MAHER: ….We have an extraordinary Washington desk. And our people report straight down the line. And I think that not only do they do that, they do so with a mission that very few other broadcast organizations have, which is a requirement to serve the entire public. That is the point of public broadcasting as we bring people together in those conversations. And so, we’ve had a whole host of conservative voices on air of late. We’ve been making requests of the Trump administration to have their officials on air. We would like to see more people accept those invitations. It’s hard for us to be able to say we can speak for everyone when folks won’t join us.

To be blunt, this is false. I haven’t noticed “a whole host of conservative voices” on NPR lately. Brennan should have followed up on that, as someone who’s prone to pick on J.D. Vance, to “fact check in real time.” We’d all volunteer for an NPR interview, especially if it’s about the bias on NPR. But they can’t handle the truth. 

More howlers from NPR chief Katherine Maher. “NPR people report straight down the line” and at NPR “we bring people together,” so any perceived bias is the fault of Trump’s staff: “We’ve been making requests of the Trump administration to have their officials on air. We would… pic.twitter.com/KJRML5oQ4S
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 4, 2025
Brennan gets a small bit of credit for repeating a few examples of media bias from the Trump White House links, but they were about avoiding terms like “pro-life” and “biological sex,” and she suggested NPR was right to dislike the word “savages” in the Declaration of Independence. She asked: “So, when you see specific editorial criticisms like that, what do you interpret the intention of this being?”

Earth to CBS: The “intention” is to complain about the injustice of this taxpayer-funded smear machine. Maher went on a bizarre jaunt about how funding NPR equals the First Amendment:

In a forum provided by CBS’s @FacetheNation, NPR CEO Katherine Maher asserted cutting taxpayer funding of NPR and calling out its leftist agenda is “an affront to the first amendment,” and ludicrously she insisted “we have an independent newsroom and we will always have an… pic.twitter.com/ENJPv5o7Ww
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) May 4, 2025

MAHER: Well, I interpret the intention of this being – trying to create a narrative around our editorial independence. And as I said in our–

BRENNAN: To control it and –?

MAHER: To control it. And I think  that is an affront to the First Amendment. We have an independent newsroom and we will always have an independent newsroom.

From my perspective, part of the separation that the First Amendment offers to keep government out. In fact, the statute that was written when the Public Broadcasting Act was signed into law was very explicit about interference from any member of the government, whether it is elected officials, whether members of independent agencies, because it is so sacrosanct, that division between the state and independent media.

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 also has language about insuring objectivity and balance in all programming of a controversial nature, but no one at PBS or NPR has ever observed that passage. Liberals equate “independent newsroom” with “thoroughly anti-Republican newsroom,” and you can see where Republicans are like “no, that makes you a rabidly partisan newsroom.”

Removing the funding does nothing to change the shoddy and partisan journalism that these networks do. It merely stops forcing conservative and Republicans taxpayers to fund it. NPR infamously campaigned against the Hunter Biden laptop as a “diversion,” which sounds a lot like there was no division between the White House and “independent media.” 

Maher was so ridiculous about equating the First Amendment with NPR that even the donors are somehow censored: “This order interferes with the First Amendment rights of our listeners and viewers who have made a choice to contribute. And this is the news that they want to see and hear, or the programming that they are committed to.”

We know what the donors want to hear: incessant bias, they want to keep it coming. 

On CBS’s Face the Nation, host Margaret Brennan expected agreement from Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH) as to the relationship between the President of the United States and the National Security Council. Instead, she got taken to school.

Watch the exchange as it aired on Face the Nation (click “expand” to view transcript):

GOP Ohio Rep. and perennial Face the Nation guest Mike Turner very gently SHUTS DOWN Margaret Brennan’s line of questioning on the National Security Council pic.twitter.com/4nV9dGuWnO
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 4, 2025

MARGARET BRENNAN: Is it in the national security interest, though, to have the Secretary of State, who also has, at least on paper, three other jobs now, in this role, and for how long? You’re saying how important it is.

MIKE TURNER: Well, I mean, it certainly – certainly, we know Henry Kissinger has been in that position before.

BRENNAN: And even he said it was untenable.

TURNER: Right.

BRENNAN: And even – but he was in lockstep with his president.

TURNER: I think what’s also very important here is that Marco Rubio, from a policy perspective, is very strong in this administration. His signal of being in this position sends a signal of continuing the same policies in the administration. From a Trump team policy perspective, him taking over this sends a signal of continuation and strength. That’s excellent.

BRENNAN: But the policy…

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: Now we have got to give him the opportunity of, is he going to be able to build out the team in the National Security Council? And that’s certainly hope – hopefully that he will be able to do so and build out a strong team there that represents really the opportunity to support President Trump in giving him the information and knowledge and the access to information and knowledge that he needs.

BRENNAN: That’s a diplomatic way of saying there shouldn’t be loyalty tests to the president. You want actual experts staffing National Security Council. You don’t want Laura Loomer, a far right activist, making decisions on personnel?

TURNER: Well, at the same time, there does have to be loyalty to the president.

BRENNAN: Of course, but also to the Constitution.

TURNER: I mean, we saw in the president’s first term that the president was betrayed during the first Trump impeachment by individuals who were at the National Security Council. So Trump personally has an understanding that you have to have people at the National Security Council that are on Trump’s team. And the National Security Council, being – directly working with him and being in the White House, it’s very, very important that they be personnel that work for and on behalf of the president.

BRENNAN: You were talking about National Security Council members who testified under oath that the president was withholding aid to Ukraine during the first administration for a political favor.

TURNER: And was shown to have wrongly been testified, because I was part of that panel. And they – their testimony was proven not to be accurate, that the president was not tying aid to Ukraine to the investigation.

BRENNAN: Well, that was the premise of the impeachment. But your point is, that looms large in the president’s memory and interaction with the National Security Council now. OK.

TURNER: The president needs to make certain that he has staff that are supportive of him in the National Security Council and his policies and makes certain that they’re providing him information.

BRENNAN: Yes.

TURNER: This is the heart of, what does the president know that our adversaries are doing?

BRENNAN: Right.

TURNER: When he’s dealing with Russia and what – and policies with respect to Ukraine, he needs to know what Vladimir Putin is doing. And that’s coming directly from the National Security Council.

BRENNAN: Noted.

Turner is a perennial guest on Face the Nation, making frequent appearances wherein he addresses matters pertaining to intelligence and national security. As House Intel Chair, he was practically a regular. So there is a familiarity here that should not be overlooked.

This schooling of Brennan is not the sudden, “I don’t really care, Margaret” blast from Vice President JD Vance. It is the gentle redirection from a stance that is only adversarial because it is in opposition to Trump.

As interim National Security Advisor, it is absolutely Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s province to staff the National Security Council the way he sees fit in alignment with the administration’s agenda and objectives. And it is important that these individuals are loyal to the President of the United States. 

When Brennan pushed back on that concept, Turner reminded her of the first Trump impeachment, instigated by NSC staff. Shut down again and with her Laura Loomer strawman burned to the ground, Brennan had little choice than to utter “noted” before meekly moving on to the next question. 

Click “expand” to view the full transcript of the aforementioned report as aired on CBS Face the Nation on Sunday, May 4th, 2025:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning, and welcome to Face the Nation. We have a lot to get to, so let’s begin today with Ohio Republican Congressman Mike Turner. Good to see you here in person.

MIKE TURNER: Thanks for having me, Margaret.

BRENNAN: So I have a lot of national security topics to get to you, but at the heart of so much is America’s economic strength. And so I want to ask you about what President Trump said this week about the cost, the impact of his China tariffs on the supply of goods in the United States. Take a listen.

DONALD TRUMP (President of the United States): Somebody said, oh, the shelves are going to be open. Well, maybe the children will have two dolls, instead of 30 dolls, you know? And maybe the two dolls will cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally.

BRENNAN: Do your constituents back in Ohio really want to hear the message that they need fewer Christmas presents this year? He’s acknowledging less supply, higher prices.

TURNER: Well, I think there’s going to be a lot that has to be shaken out here. And we certainly are seeing, I think, some reaction now in China also that means that the president’s goal is that these nations, that – of which he’s putting tariffs on the table and tariffs, which are a punishment for having behaved poorly, taking advantage of the United States economically, will come to the table and negotiate better economic deals than the United States has been experiencing. Those deals are beginning to be offered. The White House is beginning to negotiate those. China is beginning to signal that they’re willing to come to the table. So, even though the president is making those statements, at the same time, we’re seeing that the president taking that step of saying we want a better economic deal is beginning to work.

BRENNAN: But, in the meantime, China said it may restrict exports of materials used by General Dynamics, which makes tanks, including in your state of Ohio. Are you concerned that the trade war won’t just impact people’s purchasing of toys, but preparedness, tanks, and military readiness?

TURNER: I think we’re all concerned of the effects on the supply chain. And certainly we have got to make certain that this works through the entire processes and that we are concerned on the effects of the economy. I think the president’s going to be looking at that. Congress is going to be looking at that. But the real concern here is that we do have to look long term as to how this protects our overall economy.

BRENNAN: Well, Beijing has not yet launched those talks. We will be watching for them if they do get under way. Let’s get to the other news of the week, the reshuffling at the top of the national security apparatus. It has long been clear there are divides within the administration on certain topics. Iran is one of them. Russia is another one of them. Mike Waltz, who you served with, viewed as a traditional Republican hawk. I say this because, when he was on this program previously, he laid out in pretty clear terms that the U.S. goal in these negotiations with Iran are dismantlement of its nuclear program, not limits on enrichment, not verification, but those are the things that the envoy negotiating with Iran have said. We’re seeing policy differences from within the president’s own administration here. Has Congress been given details on what the goal is and what the plan is?

TURNER: Well, I mean, the goal is simply stated, that we do not have a nuclear Iran. And, certainly, the president is leaning strongly in that. From his first term, with the maximum pressure campaign, the president was clear that, both in non-nuclear Iran and also making certain that we have – that the nefarious activities of Iran working through their proxies, the terrorist groups and organizations, that that be stopped. So the president is very strong on an anti-Iran policy, including ensuring that there not be a nuclear Iran.

BRENNAN: But the things that his envoy have described sound a lot like that 2015 nuclear deal negotiated under President Obama, with limits on enrichment, for example, and things like that. I know in the past you voted for legislation that would give Congress more oversight over a deal with Iran. Do you expect President Trump to bring any kind of deal he brokers to Congress for approval?

TURNER: Well, I think we have to see what the deal is. I mean, currently, there’s just ongoing negotiations. We will have to see how that evolves. We will have to see what those terms are and really – well, I…

BRENNAN: You don’t want any kind of review regardless?

TURNER: I mean, as it evolves, we will have to see what those terms are and what – and really what is achieved. And, certainly, there’s a role for Congress to play as that goes forward. But I think we need to give them the opportunity for success.

BRENNAN: Well, the Israeli prime minister issued a statement yesterday denying that he personally was talking to Mike Waltz about bombing Iran, military action against Iran. Of course, we know his aides could have those conversations. Is it appropriate work for the national security adviser to the president to be coordinating with Israel about military action against Iran, or was Mike Waltz possibly in the wrong here?

TURNER: Well, first off, we don’t know specifically that that was occurring. But, at the same time, the National Security Council, the function of the National Security Council is to ensure that the president of the United States has the greatest information possible. And Mike Waltz is – has an incredible background and experience. He worked diligently to make certain he had a strong role in the national security team of the president. And I’m certainly glad that he’s going to be retained and staying in a strong role in this administration. Working directly with world leaders and heads of state is certainly an important role of – as the national security adviser to the president. And I – certainly, I think, even as U.N. ambassador, he will continue to do that type of function.

BRENNAN: Is it in the national security interest, though, to have the Secretary of State, who also has, at least on paper, three other jobs now, in this role, and for how long? You’re saying how important it is.

TURNER: Well, I mean, it certainly – certainly, we know Henry Kissinger has been in that position before.

BRENNAN: And even he said it was untenable.

TURNER: Right.

BRENNAN: And even – but he was in lockstep with his president.

TURNER: I think what’s also very important here is that Marco Rubio, from a policy perspective, is very strong in this administration. His signal of being in this position sends a signal of continuing the same policies in the administration. From a Trump team policy perspective, him taking over this sends a signal of continuation and strength. That’s excellent.

BRENNAN: But the policy…

(CROSSTALK)

TURNER: Now we have got to give him the opportunity of, is he going to be able to build out the team in the National Security Council? And that’s certainly hope – hopefully that he will be able to do so and build out a strong team there that represents really the opportunity to support President Trump in giving him the information and knowledge and the access to information and knowledge that he needs.

BRENNAN: That’s a diplomatic way of saying there shouldn’t be loyalty tests to the president. You want actual experts staffing National Security Council. You don’t want Laura Loomer, a far right activist, making decisions on personnel?

TURNER: Well, at the same time, there does have to be loyalty to the president.

BRENNAN: Of course, but also to the Constitution.

TURNER: I mean, we saw in the president’s first term that the president was betrayed during the first Trump impeachment by individuals who were at the National Security Council. So Trump personally has an understanding that you have to have people at the National Security Council that are on Trump’s team. And the National Security Council, being – directly working with him and being in the White House, it’s very, very important that they be personnel that work for and on behalf of the president.

BRENNAN: You were talking about National Security Council members who testified under oath that the president was withholding aid to Ukraine during the first administration for a political favor.

TURNER: And was shown to have wrongly been testified, because I was part of that panel. And they – their testimony was proven not to be accurate, that the president was not tying aid to Ukraine to the investigation.

BRENNAN: Well, that was the premise of the impeachment. But your point is, that looms large in the president’s memory and interaction with the National Security Council now. OK.

TURNER: The president needs to make certain that he has staff that are supportive of him in the National Security Council and his policies and makes certain that they’re providing him information.

BRENNAN: Yes.

TURNER: This is the heart of, what does the president know that our adversaries are doing?

BRENNAN: Right.

TURNER: When he’s dealing with Russia and what – and policies with respect to Ukraine, he needs to know what Vladimir Putin is doing. And that’s coming directly from the National Security Council.

BRENNAN: Noted. The White House budget was released Friday. It is not the trillion-dollar promise the president campaigned on. Susan Collins on Appropriations, Roger Wicker on the Senate Armed Services Committee says this is not adequate. And, in fact, he said: “The intention is to shred to the bone our military capabilities and support to service members.” Do you share your Republican senators’ concerns?

TURNER: I think there’s more work that can be done on the national security portion of the president’s budget.

BRENNAN: You would like to see more defense spending than the White House is putting forth?

TURNER: I think there’s going to be more debate and I think there’s more opportunity for increased investment. We really need to do more in the national security space. There are adversaries that we have that want to do America harm, and we need to be strong.

BRENNAN: All right, Congressman Turner, thank you for joining us.

TURNER: Thank you.

BRENNAN: Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us.

 

“If it’s Sunday”, per the booming voice of the show’s announcer, “it’s Meet the Press.” Meet the Press has become synonymous, as is the case with the rest of the Sunday shows, with horribly biased coverage of conservatives generally, and of President Donald Trump specifically. This-week’s much-ballyhooed presidential interview was not the exception.

The interview began with an exchange on the economy. An exchange on “empty shelves” led to Trump’s first rebuke of Welker:

“THIS IS SUCH A DISHONEST INTERVIEW ALREADY”: @realDonaldTrump swats Kristen Welker’s “empty shelves” question pic.twitter.com/NhtirReFbD
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 4, 2025

DONALD TRUMP: And we’re doing really well psychologically. The fake news was giving me such press on the tariffs. The tariffs are going to make us rich. We’re going to be a very rich country. 

KRISTEN WELKER: So let’s talk about the tariffs. And I want to ask you about something you said this week that got a lot of attention. Your cabinet meeting, you said, quote, and I’m going to quote what you said: “maybe the children will have two dolls instead of 30 dolls”?

TRUMP: Yeah.

WELKER: “And maybe the two dolls would cost a couple of bucks more than they would normally. Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices to go up?

TRUMP: No, I think the tariffs are going to be great for us because it’s going to make us rich.

WELKER: But you said some dolls are going to cost more. Isn’t that an acknowledgement that some prices will go up?

TRUMP: Sure. I don’t think- I don’t think a beautiful baby girl needs- that’s 11 years old- needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls because what we were doing with China is unbelievable. We had a trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China.

WELKER: When you say they could have three dolls instead of 30 dolls, are you saying you’re- Americans see empty store shelves?

TRUMP: No, I’m not- no, I’m saying that. I’m just saying they don’t need to have 30 dolls, they can have three. They don’t need to have 250 pencils, they can have five.

WELKER: But you’re basically saying there could be some supply shortages because of the tariffs. 

TRUMP: I’m basically saying we don’t have to waste money on a trade deficit with China for things we don’t need, for junk that we don’t need. 

WELKER: Well, prices are already going up on some popular items. Tires, strollers…

TRUMP: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa. This is such a dishonest interview already. 

WELKER: No, no.

TRUMP: Prices are down on groceries.

WELKER: Right.

TRUMP: Prices are down for oil. Prices are down for oil and energy, prices are down at tremendous numbers for gasoline and let me tell you, when you have the big thing, what he did. He spent, like, a stupid person, which he was, but he spent like a very stupid person and that was bad for inflation. But what really killed us with inflation was the price of energy. It went up to $3.90 even $4 and in California, $5 and $6, right? Ok. I have it down to $1.98 in many states right now. When you go that much lower on energy, which is ahead of my prediction because I really thought I could get it down into the $2.50s, we have it down at $1.98 in numerous places. But when you say costs are going up, even mortgage rates are going down.

Welker got rightly called out for pushing “empty shelves” at this juncture of the process. Her hunger and thirst for a gotcha moment led her to push for a follow-up but completely miss Trump’s rationale for the tariffs:

“We don’t need to feed the beast.” @realDonaldTrump addresses what is at the heart of current economic policy: weaning the U.S. away from an overreliance on cheap Chinese goods pic.twitter.com/eoRZCriusv
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 4, 2025

WELKER: Let me give you some examples. These are- I mean, these are actual examples. So you’re saying the prices are going down. Some prices are going up. Tires, strollers, some clothing in the wake of your tariffs.

TRUMP: That’s peanuts compared to energy. Energy is 60% of the cost. Energy is…

WELKER: But sir, you campaigned to bring prices down on day one.

TRUMP: Well, I don’t know what- you say strollers are going up. What kind of a thing? I’m saying that gasoline is going down. Gasoline is thousands of times more important than a stroller someplace.

WELKER: But what do you say to Americans who say they voted for you because they want and they need relief right now.

TRUMP: And they’re getting it.

WELKER: Right now? What about those different items I just mentioned—

TRUMP: Mortgage rates are going down despite the fact we have a stubborn Fed.

TRUMP: But you said dolls- even dolls could cost a couple of bucks more.

TRUMP: Maybe they might, but you don’t need to have, as I said, 35 dolls. You can have two, three, four, and save a lot of money. We don’t need to feed the beast.

“Feed the beast” is a clear reference to overreliance on China for cheap imported goods, and the strategic peril therein. This got lost in service of a lame gotcha that never materialized.  

WATCH: @realdonaldtrump catches Welker on a cherrypicked quote, holds fast on China tariffs pic.twitter.com/3etzmNxM73
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 4, 2025

WELKER: You take me to my next question which is about China. They’ve been making a number of public statements.

TRUMP: Very positive statements the last 24 hours.

WELKER: Well- most recently, they said before talks could happen the U.S. would have to remove unilateral tariffs. Would you consider dropping the tariffs to get China to the negotiating table?

TRUMP: No. First of all, you’re giving me a statement that was said a week ago. You’re not giving the statement that was said today.

WELKER: I have May 2nd, Chinese Commerce Ministry.

TRUMP: Do you know what they said today? “We’re looking forward…”

WELKER: The U.S. should show sincerity by preparing to take action in correcting its mistakes and canceling the unilateral tariffs.

TRUMP: They made num- first of all, they made  numerous statements. 

WELKER: Yes. They’ve made numerous statements. 

TRUMP: You know how many people speak for China…?

WELKER: Yes. They’ve made numerous statements. 

TRUMP: I can give you a statement for any occasion. 

WELKER: Yes. Yes.

TRUMP: But they said today they want to talk. Look. China, and I don’t like this, I’m not happy about this. China is getting killed right now. They’re getting absolutely destroyed. Their factories are closing, their unemployment is going through the roof. I’m not looking to do that to China. Now, at the same time I’m not looking to have China make hundreds and billions of dollars and build more ships, and more army tanks and more airplanes.

WELKER: So you’re not prepare- just to be very clear, you’re dropping the tariffs against China to get them to the negotiating table. Those tariffs are staying on.

TRUMP: Why would I- why would I do that?

WELKER: Would you lower them?

TRUMP: At some point I’m going to lower them because otherwise you could never do business with them. And they want to do business very much. Look. Their economy is really doing badly. Their economy is collapsing. 

Here again, the points about national security and the Chinese economy sailed over Welker’s head because she was chasing a moment where she might corner Trump. Welker took the Chinese government quote as an opportunity for such, but was quickly shut down. 

After an exchange on small business, the interview shifts to immigration, and to continued advocacy for MS-13 gangbanger Kilmar Abrego García. The most interesting part of the exchange is not Welker’s continued advocacy, but what DIDN’t make it to air on Meet the Press, to wit: Trump’s mention of piling domestic violence evidence against Abrego Garcia.

“EDITED FOR CLARITY”: NBC News cuts President Trump’s mention of the emergence of damning evidence against Kilmar Abrego García from the Meet the Press broadcast.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: You see what happened just this morning. Tapes came out, horrible tapes from his wife. You don’t… pic.twitter.com/ppr15BxLOa
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) May 4, 2025

TRUMP: You see what happened just this morning. Tapes came out, horrible tapes from his wife. You don’t get much worse than that. You don’t get, I mean, he seems certainly like a very dangerous, very bad person, but even the wife who. was so afraid. She was afraid to talk and all of a sudden, tapes got released this morning that were devastating to him.

After staking their credibility on Abrego Garcia and being humiliated for it, the media appear to have decided to collectively memory-hole the story in service of other, friendlier narrative victims to be exploited in support of the preservation of open borders. Last week alone they trotted out Columbia pro-terror agitator Mohsen Mahdawi, and misrepresented the removal of U.S. citizen children in their custody of their illegal alien mothers as “deportations.” As a result, coverage of related court rulings has also cratered. 

The rest of the interview trod familiar ground: “retribution”, the “Trump 2028 hoax”, Canada/Greenland, and succession. The broadcast portion ended with a tour of Mar-a-Lago and talk of a grand ballroom. 

This interview could be most charitably described as “more of the same.” Newsworthy items are overlooked  in favor of the pursuit of agenda items. Ultimately, these “legacy media” interviews elicit the same question over and over: Why does Trump keep doing them? We have our answer. He enjoys the sparring.

 

Perhaps responding to pressure from the Trump Administration threatening federal funding of PBS and NPR over their liberal slant, the PBS News Hour is beginning to pepper its guest list with the occasional conservative. But those guests don’t get the typical soft-soap treatment reserved for liberal activists (and almost never labeled as such) but instead receive a defensive, combative reception. Case in point: Thursday’s edition of the PBS News Hour featuring anti-woke activist Christopher Rufo, featured in PBS’s new “On Democracy” series.

Anchor Amna Nawaz: ….Tonight, we’re looking at the president’s push for more control at dozens of colleges and universities in order, he says, to promote free speech, end wokism and clamp down on burgeoning antisemitism. But many schools are opposing the administration and argue that Trump is trying to dictate what’s acceptable speech and what colleges can do. We’re joined by a leading conservative activist who’s been instrumental in triggering the wider response and big changes from the administration. Christopher Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute….

Nawaz couldn’t help calling him “conservative activist” even in the friendly first question and from then on, she defended the elite universities from Rufo’s critiques.

Nawaz: So a lot of the action we have seen from President Trump in his second term so far builds on a lot of the ideas we have heard from a number of conservative activists, but you in particular, and I know you have called for a number of reforms, but you have also said the first field of battle is higher education. So explain to us why that is and also why the focus on elite universities as well.

Christopher Rufo: Well, you want to focus on elite universities because elite universities establish the cultural signals that then flow downward to the university sector as a whole. And what we know from Ivy League universities, including Harvard, Princeton and Columbia, is that they are directly, flagrantly and intentionally violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They’re promoting from their central administrations racial discrimination, scapegoating and even segregation.

….

Rufo: ….the last bastion of racial segregation is ironically enough at these elite Ivy League universities, which retain segregated programs, segregated graduation ceremonies, segregated scholarship opportunities in many cases….

Nawaz: I know you’re using the term segregation here. I think it’s important to point out too people would participate in those by their own choice. This was not a segregation that was imposed from the university coming down….

Rufo fought back against Nawaz’s defensive premise.

Rufo: Well, I think you’re wrong on the facts. When you have racially segregated or racially separate affinity groups, and you have affinity groups that are for members of particular races with support from the administration, I think you’re just wrong on the facts….

Nawaz: Well, Chris, if I may, those are groups that people joined by choice. They are not forced to join those.

Her penultimate question was the worst, equating the breakup of pro-Hamas encampments — which often featured physical confrontation against Jewish students — with denial of free speech and calling the administration free speech hypocrites for doing so. A Media Research Center study found the News Hour’s coverage tilted overwhelmingly toward the protesters, downplaying their pro-Hamas, anti-Jewish rhetoric.

Nawaz: But, Chris, if I may, how do the actions and what we have seen from this administration so far, how do they defend free speech? I mean, we have seen the border czar basically come out and say that there are limitations on free speech when he was talking about the reasons for deporting some of the pro-Palestinian protesters. You saw the president come out with an executive order that actually restricted how teachers and faculty and staff in K-12 schools can talk about things like race and gender. Those are all limits on free speech.

This segment was made possible in part by taxpayers like you.

A transcript is available, click “Expand”

PBS News Hour

5/1/25

7:31:19 p.m. 

Amna Nawaz: Now to our series On Democracy, where we hear a range of perspectives on how government should function, what’s led to this moment in American history, and where the country might be headed next.

Tonight, we’re looking at the president’s push for more control at dozens of colleges and universities in order, he says, to promote free speech, end wokism and clamp down on burgeoning antisemitism. But many schools are opposing the administration and argue that Trump is trying to dictate what’s acceptable speech and what colleges can do.

We’re joined by a leading conservative activist who’s been instrumental in triggering the wider response and big changes from the administration. Christopher Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Chris, welcome to the “News Hour.” Thanks for joining us.

Christopher Rufo, Manhattan Institute: Thank you.

Amna Nawaz: So a lot of the action we have seen from President Trump in his second term so far builds on a lot of the ideas we have heard from a number of conservative activists, but you in particular, and I know you have called for a number of reforms, but you have also said the first field of battle is higher education.

So explain to us why that is and also why the focus on elite universities as well.

Christopher Rufo: Well, you want to focus on elite universities because elite universities establish the cultural signals that then flow downward to the university sector as a whole.

And what we know from Ivy League universities, including Harvard, Princeton and Columbia, is that they are directly, flagrantly and intentionally violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They’re promoting from their central administrations racial discrimination, scapegoating and even segregation.

Amna Nawaz: So the changes we know the Trump administration has been trying to push through are really being enforced by threatening to cut federal funds, right? That is sort of the threat that’s looming over these universities.

A lot of universities, who I should note dispute the allegations you laid out in your first answer, though, a lot of universities will say, we can talk about this. There are processes and laws in place to make these changes. This is not how you do it. Why do you think this is the best way to force that change?

Christopher Rufo: Well, it’s exactly how you do it. And,of course, we know this from legal cases. We know this from my investigative reporting. And we know this even yesterday from Harvard’s own report on antisemitism at Harvard. And so this is actually the moderate option.

If you go back in history, President Eisenhower enforced the civil rights law at the time by sending federal troops into Little Rock High School. President Kennedy did the same thing, sending troops to desegregate University of Mississippi.

So the president’s threat under his Article II powers as president is not only legitimate, but I think it’s really moderate, given the context of what’s happening.

Amna Nawaz: I should note that the efforts you’re citing there were to end segregation. Those were to address a lot of the legacy of racist policies in America’s history, and also that Harvard University, as you note, has put out a report.

They said there’s work to do on both antisemitism and Islamophobia, addressing both on campus. But they also maintain that the government does not have the right to subvert their independence. And a number of other universities argue the same thing. What do you say to that?

Christopher Rufo: Well, I mean, of course, that’s not true at all.

I’m a fellow at Hillsdale College. Hillsdale College takes no federal money because Hillsdale knows that when you start taking taxpayer dollars, there are corresponding and reciprocal obligations and duties. And so Harvard has a duty to uphold the law.

Certainly, we have made massive progress since the civil rights era, but the last bastion of racial segregation is ironically enough at these elite Ivy League universities, which retain segregated programs, segregated graduation ceremonies, segregated scholarship opportunities in many cases.

And so that’s really what we’re fighting against. And I think we’re going to win. Harvard actually announced yesterday they were going to stop racially segregated graduation ceremonies. It’s a good start, but much more is needed.

Amna Nawaz: I know you’re using the term segregation here. I think it’s important to point out too people would participate in those by their own choice. This was not a segregation that was imposed from the university coming down.

But I guess the big question here is, what is the big change you want to see at the universities? I know you’re alleging that they’re breaking laws. They dispute that. If that’s not going to be pursued through the courts, what’s the big change you want to see at the university system?

Christopher Rufo: Well, I think you’re wrong on the facts.

When you have racially segregated or racially separate affinity groups, and you have affinity groups that are for members of particular races with support from the administration, I think you’re just wrong on the facts. But here’s the big change.

Amna Nawaz: Well, Chris, if I may, those are groups that people joined by choice. They are not forced to join those.

Christopher Rufo: Harvard has adopted a principle. Sure, but you could have labeled water fountains and say, we’re not going to punish you if you go to the wrong race, categorized water fountain. It’s your choice, but it’s still wrong. It’s still a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

But the big question here is a big question for America. Do we want to have rule by racial equity or do we want to have rule by colorblind equality? Under racial equity that is currently practiced at places like Harvard, you are rewarded and punished in part because of your ancestry.

Under what I’m proposing, a regime of racial equality and in a colorblind manner, you would be judged solely on your own talents, merits, and achievements.

Amna Nawaz: So, as you have probably seen, hundreds of college presidents and universities signed the letter protesting what they argue is unprecedented government overreach here.

And this is what they said in their letter. They said that they have a “commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry, where in the pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of attribution, censorship, or deportation.”

I know that you have argued a lot of your efforts are about defending free speech. What they’re saying here is these actions actually limit free speech. What do you say to that?

Christopher Rufo: Well, you have to actually interrogate the factual premise of that statement. Are these places bastions of open inquiry and free speech? And the answer is obviously no.

Less than 1 percent of Harvard faculty now are conservative because they have been ruthlessly through DEI policies and other ideological preferences weeded out of the university departments. And so the idea that these places are bastions of free speech and open inquiry is not supported by the facts.

Amna Nawaz: But, Chris, if I may, how do the actions and what we have seen from this administration so far, how do they defend free speech?

I mean, we have seen the border czar basically come out and say that there are limitations on free speech when he was talking about the reasons for deporting some of the pro-Palestinian protesters. You saw the president come out with an executive order that actually restricted how teachers and faculty and staff in K-12 schools can talk about things like race and gender. Those are all limits on free speech.

Christopher Rufo: I don’t think that’s right. I think you should take a look at the president’s executive order.

I’m not aware of the comments by the homeland security director, but what I can say is that there is a playbook that we have developed in states around the country, including the state of Florida. We have expanded the range of discourse in higher education. At New College of Florida, for example, where I’m a trustee, we have probably the widest range of discourse of any public university in the United States.

We have a faculty that approaches issues from a wide variety of perspectives, all within the classical liberal arts tradition. These are not restrictions on speech. These are basic protections of our civil rights, civil discourse and civil liberties.

Amna Nawaz: You have talked about the fact that you agree there is a legacy in America to our history of anti-Black enslavement and Jim Crow policies and so on.

So I’m curious. If you take away the label of DEI, in what ways do you think that legacy should be addressed? Through what systems and what processes?

Christopher Rufo: Well, the problem with DEI was really encapsulated…

Amna Nawaz: Yes, take DEI off the table for a second.

Christopher Rufo:… best by “critical Race” through Ibram Kendi.

Yes, but it’s this idea that the solution to racist discrimination in the past is so-called anti-racist discrimination in the future. And so any kind of literate kindergartner would be able to say, hey, wait a minute, two wrongs don’t make a right. Discrimination against one group in the past does not mean that discrimination against another group in the future is the right course of action.

I think what we want to do is to say we want to have a principle of colorblind equality in which every American is judged as an individual and that people can use their talents and gifts to pursue happiness in whatever way they see fit and then to really encourage everyone to participate in the system that we have with equal treatment under the law.

I think that is a very popular idea. I think it’s the right idea. And I think that’s really the only way to move forward in what we have, which is a complex and multiracial society.

Amna Nawaz: Chris Rufo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Chris, thank you very much for your time.

Christopher Rufo: Thank you.

Squad member Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) couldn’t answer why all her Democrat colleagues are taking publicity trips to hang out with an alleged MS-13 alien deported back to El Salvador. Instead, she cursed out the reporter who politely questioned her.

“Do you think more of your Democratic colleagues should travel to El Salvador to advocate on behalf of Kilmar Abrego Garcia?” asked Daily Caller News Foundation reporter Myles Morell, as Omar was walking near the Capitol building. 

“I think you should f*ck off,” she replied. 

“I’m sorry, what, Congresswoman?” pressed the baffled reporter. 

“F*ck off,” she repeated.

“Who?”

“You.”

“Why me?” asked Morell, to no response.  

The nasty woman and her juvenile entourage of DEI types smugly marched away. 

When social media users called her out for behaving like her base of bratty college students, the congresswoman doubled down.

I said what I said. You and all your miserable trolls can f*ck off. https://t.co/qxqqAhaIEc
— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) May 1, 2025
“I said what I said. You and all your miserable trolls can f*ck off,” she snapped on X.

Viewers wonder if she kisses her brother with that mouth.

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington: The Sequel?

Jake Tapper is taking ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith’s flirtation with a presidential run seriously enough to have had him on Sunday’s edition of CNN’s State of the Union.

Smith repeatedly described himself as a centrist and moderate who eschews the extremes. Thus, Smith said that what President Trump has done with the borders was “absolutely necessary.”  He also condemned “identity politics, woke culture, cancel culture”

But at one point, Smith said:

“I’m fiscally conservative when it comes to my money. I’m socially liberal. I’m liberal when it comes to social issues. Pretty much across the board. I believe in living and let living.”

Smith didn’t specifically say that he supported abortion rights. But if someone is liberal “across the board” on social issues, the issue at the top of the board would surely be abortion.

The irony–or hypocrisy–of Smith claiming “I believe in living and let living” is glaring. 

When it comes to unborn children, Smith’s theme could be Paul McCartney’s title song from the James Bond movie—”Live and Let Die.”

Note: Tapper didn’t exactly endorse Smith. But at the end of the segment, when Smith said that as president, he would “call it like I see it,” Tapper responded: “a hundred percent,” adding that he would have Smith back on the show.
Here’s the transcript.

CNN
State of the Union
5/4/25
9:31 am EDT

STEPHEN A. SMITH: I have no problem with what he’s done with the borders. I thought it was absolutely necessary. So I definitely think that was a plus, because I was never a proponent of open borders.

And I try not to lean in either direction of the extreme. I’m a centrist and a moderate at heart, and I try to make sure I’m as balanced in my thinking as I possibly can be. 

JAKE TAPPER: If you were to run for president, though, it would be as a Democrat, or no? You know what? 

SMITH: Uh, you know what ? I’m an independent. I’m a registered independent. I would lean, who leans left. 

I’m fiscally conservative when it comes to my money. I’m socially liberal. I’m liberal when it comes to social issues pretty much across the board. I believe in living and let living. So I’m a moderate. 

And I would say if I had to run, it would be as a Democrat. But I’m not happy with the Democratic party. So the Democratic Party as presently constructed, it would pretty much need to be purged in order for me to assume that I would want to be associated with them and I would garner their support, because I don’t like the way they’ve gone about doing a lot of things. 

Identity politics, woke culture, cancel culture, I thought that was something that ravaged our nation psychologically, because you had people literally scared they were going to lose their jobs if they pronounced the wrong pronoun, for crying out loud. It got that bad. 

. . . 

All we’re doing is engaging in acrimony and hate And as a result, the American citizens are suffering. So when I look at it from that standpoint and I think the kind of impact that I could have as a centrist, as a moderate, as somebody who believes in being sensical and engaging in common sense. 

Unfortunately, I believe that if I did take this very, very seriously and I moved forward and I decided that I wanted to be a politician, do I believe I could win your damn right? But it’s by default. 

It’s not because I’m the most qualified candidate in the world, it’s because of the state of our politics in the nation’s capital, the politicians that we’re looking at, and the fact that we don’t believe for one second that they are serving the interest of the American people, nor are they interested in it. 

People look at me and they know one thing, I would be interested in serving the American people and doing what’s in the best interest of this country. That means you, that means me, that means the black community, the Hispanic community, the white community, everybody. Because if all of us are rife with chaos, all that’s going to lead to is America’s destruction. And why would we want to be a part of that? 

So, again, I’m not qualified. There are plenty of people that are qualified, more qualified to be at — practically everybody. But are you going to win? And are you going to be committed to doing what’s in the best interest of America? 

I know I’m that kind of person. That much I will say for myself. I’m not interested in division. I’m interested in galvanizing. That’s what I’m about. That’s what I try to be about. And sometimes you do that by calling it like you see it. And that’s certainly something that I have proven I would do. I’d call it like I see it. People would know that.

TAPPER: A hundred percent. Stephen A. Smith, we’ll have you back. Thanks so much, good to see you. Thanks for getting up early–I know you’re in California.

SMITH: Thank you.

One easy way to prove that PBS and NPR are like taxpayer-funded MSNBC is their promotion of radical ranter Elie Mystal of The Nation magazine. On Amanpour & Co. on Friday, Hari Sreenivasan tossed softballs at Mystal for 17 minutes over his new book Bad Law: Ten Popular Laws That Are Ruining America.

On March 24, NPR’s Fresh Air platformed his rage for 36 minutes. Tonya Mosley facilitated the rage: “So your feelings that everything before 1965 is kind of in direct opposition to what America is most proud of. Can you explain that argument a little bit more?”

On PBS (as well as CNN International), Sreenivasan began with his overall thesis that all laws passed before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should be considered null and void since they were passed under American “apartheid.” On PBS, they also championed his view that the concept of illegal immigration is racist. 

PBS IS MSNBC (and CNN): ‘Amanpour & Co.’ platformed radical crank Elie Mystal for 17 minutes, including his thesis that the concept of illegal immigration has racist and eugenicist roots. pic.twitter.com/Ab9tceUyld
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) May 4, 2025

SREENIVASAN: You have a whole chapter called, “How Did Immigrants Become Illegal?” You say it was invented basically with the stated intentional goal of keeping America white and Protestant. How do you think we should be approaching it?

MYSTAL: Yes. So, again, throughout my book, I don’t ask people take my word for it, I go back and I look at the actual language from the people who passed the law. In the case of the 1921 Immigration and Nationalization Act, which is what is our foundational immigration law in this country.

This law was — this law heavily relied on the science of America’s leaning eugenicist, Harry Laughlin. So, you know, that’s kind of a problem. And the congressman at the time, as they were passing the law, said that this law was necessary to stop the mongrelization of the white race by the inferior races. I don’t think a law that is based on such obvious and stated bigotry and racism should be allowed to exist today in modern America.

On NPR, Mystal was more energetic about America and Laughlin: “Laughlin would later go on to receive a medal from the then-Nazi-controlled University of Heidelberg for his important scientific contributions to the theory of eugenics. When I say that America exported Nazi eugenics to the Nazis, I’m not being hyperbolic.”

Like many on the Left who argue no person is “illegal,” he wants illegal immigration to be merely a civil offense, like a speeding ticket:

But throwing people in jail, taking them away from their children, throwing their children in jails, or holding pens or concentration camps, or whatever euphemism we’re calling it today, that’s immoral, that’s wrong, and that doesn’t need to happen. And the only reason why that does happen is because the 1921 Immigration and Nationalization Act supported by people with the very most racist intentions possible made it so. Before the 1921 Act, all immigration offenses were civil penalties, not criminal, and they could be again if we repealed that section of that law.

Nobody opposed to Mystal will appear to debate his radical rantings, and his PBS and NPR interviewers are like servants. That’s why these networks shouldn’t be funded by the half of America that votes Republican.