Newsbusters

Last night’s 97th Academy Awards on ABC celebrated “sex workers” and transsexuals in a ceremony that mostly honored films nobody has heard of.

Hosted by Conan O’Brien, the Oscars began with O’Brien poking fun at transgender actor Karla Sofia Gascón. Gascón was nominated as Best Actress for his role in the Netflix movie Emilia Perez, a film about a transexual drug dealer.

Despite being high on the oppression hierarchy, Gascón torpedoed his chances of winning an Oscar as a fake woman after old Tweets resurfaced of him insulting George Floyd, Muslims and the Oscars diversity obsession.

“Karla, if you are going to tweet about the Oscars, remember, my name is Jimmy Kimmel,” O’Brien joked.

Zoe Saldaña won as Best Supporting Actress for her role in Emilia Perez since she had no tweets that could derail her chances.

“My grandmother came to this country in 1961, I am a proud child of immigrant parents, with dreams and dignity and hard-working hands and I am the first American of Dominican origin to accept an Academy Award and I know I will not be the last,” Saldaña said. “The fact I got an award where I got to sing and speak in Spanish, my grandmother would be so delighted. This is for her.” 

Unfortunately for Saldaña, Mexicans were not delighted by her movie and have expressed outrage at the film’s portrayal of Mexico. 

“I’m very, very sorry that you and so many Mexicans felt offended, that was never our intention, we came from a place of love and I stand by that.” Saldaña later told a Mexican reporter backstage. 

The big winner of the night was an independent film called Anora, about a Brooklyn escort who marries a Russian oligarch’s son. It turns out that praising sex trafficking is a winning formula in Hollywood.

Anora’s writer/director Sean Baker thanked hookers when he won Best Original Screenplay. “I want to thank the sex worker community. They have — they have shared their stories. They have shared their life experience with me over the years. My deepest respect, thank you, I share this with you.”

The star of Anora, Mikey Madison, also gave a thumbs up to prostitutes after winning her Oscar for Best Actress, “I also just want to, again, recognize and honor the sex worker community.” The audience gave Madison a huge applause at that line. 

Anora also won Best Picture. It was a surprise to see the happy prostitute picture beat out both the transgender film and the intersex pope movie, Conclave. In the game of oppression Olympics, apparently a feisty “sex worker” now trumps both a trannie and a fictional pope with a uterus.

The award for Best Documentary went to No Other Land, a film critical of Israel. Filmmakers Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham criticized U.S. and Israeli policy in Gaza during their speeches.

Adra: Thank you to the academy for the award. It’s such a big honor for the four of us and everybody who supported us for this documentary. About two months ago, I became a father, and my hope to my daughter that she will not have to live the same life I am living now, always fearing. Always fearing violence, home demolitions, and displacement that my community is living and facing every day under Israeli occupation. No other land reflects the harsh reality that we’ve been enduring for decades and still exists as we call on the world to take serious actions to stop the injustice and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. 

Abraham: We — we made this — we made this film, Palestinians and Israelis, because together, our voices are stronger. We — We see each other, the destruction of Gaza and its people, which must end, the Israeli hostages, brutally taken in the crime of October 7th, which must be freed. When I look at Basal, I see my brother, but we are unequal. We live in a regime where I am free under civilian law, and he is under military law that destroy his life and he cannot control. There is a different path, a political solution. Without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people. And I have to say, as I am here, the foreign policy in this country is helping to block this path. And — You know, I — why? Can’t you see that we are intertwined? That my people can be truly safe if Basal’s people are truly free and safe? There is another way. It’s not too late.

At least Abraham mentioned October 7th and the remaining Israeli hostages. Palestinian activists pretend like the horrors of October 7th never really happened.

Host Conan O’Brien mostly steered clear of political jokes or commentary through the night, though he did take a dig a Trump late in the evening.

O’Brien: You know, Anora is having a good night. Yeah. That’s great. Yeah. That’s great news. Two wins already. I guess Americans are excited to see somebody finally stand up to a powerful Russian.

The only time in the 21st century when Putin did not commit acts of aggression was during Trump’s first presidency. If Trump had been president in 2022, it’s probable Putin would never have dared invade Ukraine. Hollywood lives in unreality.

Most presenters avoided direct political statements of any kind, except Daryl Hannah, who shouted ‘Slava Ukraini’ while presenting the award for Best Editor.

Overall, Oscar night dragged on because it was impossible to care about films nobody has seen. Only a few of the movies mentioned during the night, such as Wicked or Dune: Part Two, would even be recognizable to mass audiences. 

The Academy Awards increasingly cater to weird or niche tastes that fail to engage a wider public. This disconnect between Hollywood and film audiences grows with each passing year.

On Sunday, CBS Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan presented new Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent with a CBS News poll that they used to insist Americans already think President Trump is failing them on the economy. Bessent was sworn in on January 28. When Bessent challenged the pro-Biden/Harris media spin, Brennan got defensive and ended up a little embarrassed. 

Before going to Bessent, Brennan began: “According to our CBS News poll, although people do approve of him on some of those other issues, there is a 50-point gap between people who say the president should make inflation a priority and those who say he is.”

Then she shoved more numbers at the Secretary:

MARGARET BRENNAN: Our polling also shows at least half the country reports concern about paying for food and groceries and housing. They continue to call the economy bad, even more so than last month, and 49 percent told us the economy is getting worse. . When can Americans expect to experience the benefits that President Trump said would be coming in day one?

SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Yes, what – you know, Margaret, what I find interesting is, for the past year-and-a-half and during the campaign, most of the media said, oh, the economy is great, it’s just a vibecession. Now that President Trump’s in office, there’s an economic problem. And I will tell you what the problem was. This is…

BRENNAN: We were pretty straightforward on this program.

BESSENT: Well, I haven’t seen this program, but the – in general, this idea that working-class Americans didn’t know what they were talking about, they didn’t know their lived experience, they didn’t know what their pocketbooks were feeling.

Treasury Sec Scott Bessent: “For the past year and a half…media said the economy is great. It’s a vibe session. Now Trump is in office, there’s an economic problem…”@margbrennan: “We were straightforward on this program.”
Bessent: “I haven’t seen this program.” Ouch. #FTN pic.twitter.com/jqgn8bcZLE
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 2, 2025
Either that’s a zinger, or Bessent is simply trying to say he’s not capable of blaming this one show. Maybe he wasn’t expecting to get this job back in 2024. Hosts are willing to throw their network under the bus, but don’t blame their show! CBSNews.com carried “vibecession” stories. 

Brennan kept pushing the dour poll numbers: 

BRENNAN: I hear you that sometimes the data lags reality, but when we are talking about people’s perceptions of the economy, it’s just how they’re feeling right now, we see in our polling, 52 percent of Americans say Trump’s policies are making grocery prices go up.

They explicitly said that on this bar chart you see there. So it’s an experience and a perception issue. When does that shift? When do we see the benefits of the planning you say is under way?

BESSENT: Look, I think President Trump said that he’ll own the economy in six or 12 months. But I can tell you that we are working to get these prices down every day. But it took four years to get us here, and we’ve had five weeks.

This was another episode where Brennan was very aggressive with Republicans, and not so much with Democrats. Scroll down and see how Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) gets to speak in paragraphs….although sometimes he’s interrupted with Brennan saying “Yes.” 

Appearing as a guest on Friday’s CNN This Morning, CNN weekend anchor Michael Smerconish lamented the Donald Trump administration’s ban on transgenders in the military, calling it “disgraceful.”

Fill-in host Jessica Dean brought up the issue: “I also want to ask you about another story while we’ve got you here. The Trump administration’s plan to kick transgender Americans out of the military — last night, CNN spoke with a Navy diver who’s transgender, and I want to listen to a little bit of her perspective on this.”

After a clip of U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander Geirid Morgan voicing concern soldiers and their families who might be effected, Dean went back to Smerconish and nudged: “I just want to get your thoughts on this and if you think this is doing what the voters wanted from Donald Trump — that they are achieving that goal. They talked a lot about this issue on the campaign trail.”

The CNN host — who has a Saturday morning show on the network — immediately declared that he believes transgenders should be able to serve: “I don’t think that we should turn away people who want to serve their country. Frankly, we’re not in a position to turn away people who want to serve their country because each branch of our armed services is falling short of their recruitment goals.”

He then brought up a transgender friend of his and called it “disgraceful” to ban transgenders from the military:

…for me, it’s a bit more personal because Jo Ellis is an affected soldier who has been in the Virginia National Guard for 15 years, and we’ve worked together. She has transitioned and wants to serve her country. I spoke to her yesterday. She said to me that she’s scheduled for guard duty tomorrow, Saturday, and is in limbo. And that those in her unit desperately want her to continue to serve. She served in Iraq. How do you say to someone who was a Blackhawk helicopter gunner, “Your service is no longer wanted”? I think it’s disgraceful — I really do. Let them serve.

Smerconish ended up complaining that it “sadly” worked for Trump as a campaign tactic:

…well, it’s already, you know, being litigated. I don’t know how it turns out. It was a — look, this was all a very effective — sadly — it was a very effective issue for Trump during the course of the campaign. You know, Donald Trump “is for he or him, not they or them” — I don’t know. I get screwed up sometimes. I just remember it was very effective when he used it against Kamala Harris.

Dean lamented the ad: “Yeah, and it ran in every football game — every sporting event.”

Transcript follows:

CNN This Morning

February 28, 2025

6:50 a.m. Eastern

JESSICA DEAN, FILL-IN HOST: I also want to ask you about another story while we’ve got you here. The Trump administration’s plan to kick transgender Americans out of the military — last night, CNN spoke with a Navy diver who’s transgender, and I want to listen to a little bit of her perspective on this.

LIEUTENANT COMMANDER GEIRID MORGAN, U.S. NAVY: I’m just concerned. I’m concerned for my sailors — I’m concerned for their families — I’m concerned for what the impacts of this might be on the Navy and other services. (editing jump) We’ve been doing this for 10 years, right, and we’ve got a kind of a system in place now to support people that want to transition. And there have been, you know, no incidents really with the service members that have been serving openly for that time period.

DEAN: I just want to get your thoughts on this and if you think this is doing what the voters wanted from Donald Trump — that they are achieving that goal. They talked a lot about this issue on the campaign trail.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH: I don’t think that we should turn away people who want to serve their country. Frankly, we’re not in a position to turn away people who want to serve their country because each branch of our armed services is falling short of their recruitment goals. You know, you hear about this in the abstract, but, for me, it’s a bit more personal because Joe Ellis is an affected soldier who has been in the Virginia National Guard for 15 years, and we’ve worked together. She has transitioned and wants to serve her country. I spoke to her yesterday. She said to me that she’s scheduled for guard duty tomorrow, Saturday, and is in limbo. And that those in her unit desperately want her to continue to serve. She served in Iraq. How do you say to someone who was a Blackhawk helicopter gunner, “Your service is no longer wanted”? I think it’s disgraceful — I really do. Let them serve.

DEAN: Mmm. And how do you think that ends up playing out? Does that go to the courts?

SMERCONISH: I think it — well, it’s already, you know, being litigated. I don’t know how it turns out. It was a — look, this was all a very effective — sadly — it was a very effective issue for Trump during the course of the campaign. You know, Donald Trump “is for he or him, not they or them” — I don’t know. I get screwed up sometimes. I just remember it was very effective —

DEAN: Yeah.

SMERCONISH: — when he used it against Kamala Harris.

DEAN: Yeah, and it ran in every football game — every sporting event. Michael Smerconish —

SMERCONISH: Totally.

DEAN: Yeah.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

DEAN: It’s always good to see you. Thank you so much for being with us this morning. Appreciate it.

Talk about catastrophizing! On Sunday’s edition of MSNBC’s The Weekend, MSNBC contributor and Never Trumper Charlie Sykes said that calling Friday’s Oval Office meeting among Zelensky, Trump, and Vance a “fiasco and disaster” wasn’t negative enough!

No, in the world according to Sykes, the meeting marked nothing less than “a breaking point in world history.” Not only, per Sykes, is the United States under Trump “no longer the leader of the free world,” but “in many cases” is actually its “adversary!”

Co-host Michael Steele teed up Sykes by accusing Trump of having planned the “ambushing” of Zelensky. But the Washington Pos reports that, to the contrary [emphasis added]:

Hours before an explosive blowup in the Oval Office between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump and his team felt they had found a path forward to match the president’s urgency to end the war with the Ukrainians’ need for continued security assistance.

White House officials were expecting a positive meeting and said they had little reason to anticipate animosity. Both sides were satisfied with the minerals deal, hoping it might recalibrate the relationship between the two nations, Ukrainian and U.S. officials said, speaking like others on condition of anonymity to discuss relations at a tense time. Trump himself was in an upbeat mood the night before the meeting, according to those who had spoken with him. 

Cheer up, Charlie. The world is not about to end. Consider that after the meeting, far from declaring that Zelensky had permanently become persona non grata, Trump said that “He can come back when he is ready for peace.” 

And within 24 hours, Zelensky responded “we are ready to sign the minerals agreement.” And in an important change to his position at the meeting, Zelensky did not demand that security guarantees be part of the minerals deal, but only that it would be a “first step” toward those guarantees. 

So you might be able to describe what happened in the Oval Office as . . . the art of the deal.

Here’s the transcript.

MSNBC
The Weekend
3/2/25
8:03 am ET

MICHAEL STEELE: Charlie, Charlie, Charlie. So, the performative meeting in the Oval Office, which was really, in my estimation, planned. That was an ambushing of our ally. The contrast between what we saw with Starmer and what we saw with Trump speaks for itself. 

But I think the important thread here is how our allies now stand up. The reality, the truth is, you cannot negotiate a peace settlement from a one-sided perspective. Trump started this process with Zelensky standing in the hallway. When he brings him into the room, finally, he berates him. He is working out his plan with Putin. Starmer is trying work out a plan for our ally. 

How do you see the European role reshaping this conversation and ultimately what this peace plan and process will look like? 

CHARLIE SYKES: Well, let’s just go back to the last 48 hours, though. You used the word fiasco and disaster. And the more you think about what happened in the Oval Office, I think it is more consequential. 

It feels like a turning point, breaking point, in world history and in the Western alliance. It’s not simply what the Europeans are going to do in this particular circumstance. 

They now have to realize that the United States is no longer the leader of the free world as long as Donald Trump is the president. That we are no longer a reliable ally. In fact, in many of these in many of these cases, the United States might be an adversary. And this is difficult to get your head around. 

Because what we are seeing, what we saw on Friday, was perhaps the end of the post-war alliance. So Europe has to deal with a completely remade world. And the question is now, will Europe step up to fill the vacuum of American retreat and appeasement. 

On Sunday’s This Week, host and former Clinton bimbo-blaster George Stephanopoulos brought on Associated Press Executive Editor Julie Pack to discuss Ukraine, and then of course, the AP being kept out of the White House press pool because they’re #Resistance media. They picked the weird battle of refusing to write “Gulf of America” because they hate President Trump that much. 

Stephanopoulos cued Pace with a softball: “One of the things I want to ask you about, Julie, the executive order of the Associated Press. The Associated Press has now been blocked from basically from covering the White House because you refuse to call the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. Where do things stand right now? How has it affected your coverage?”

On #ThisWeek, @AP chief @JuliePace: “We’re a global, independent, nonpartisan news organization.” Not just about Gulf of America, “also about something so much bigger, this is about freedom of speech…We’re there to be the eyes and ears for Americans and people around the world” pic.twitter.com/OH6PLmOBNp
— Brent Baker 🇺🇲🇺🇦 🇮🇱 (@BrentHBaker) March 2, 2025
Pace lied, claiming AP is “independent” and “nonpartisan,” as if Pace didn’t co-author a smoochy biography of Jill Biden, as if AP didn’t publish sickly sweet campaign story on Kamala Harris’s favorite foods. But you’re supposed to buy that AP embodies the First Amendment, and don’t look at anything they actually publish! 

PACE: Sure. Thank you for asking. So I think, you know, the first thing I would say is the Associated Press is 179 years old. We’re a global, independent, non-partisan news organization that’s had a commitment to covering the White House since our founding. And you know, really you mentioned this is about Gulf of America, Gulf of Mexico, you know, yes, it’s about that, but it’s also about something so much bigger. You know, this is about freedom of speech and that is a principle, a right that Americans across the political spectrum believe in deeply.

This is about whether the government can control the language that we use, that ordinary people can use. And it’s about whether the government can retaliate against you if you don’t use the language that they prefer. So we are standing up for that right, not just for the AP, but for all independent news organizations and for the public because we believe, again, that this is a principle, freedom of speech that all Americans, regardless of their political party, should believe in.

Part of this fight is about how AP’s Stylebook is the one who tries to control the language that people use by imposing their own woke linguistic judgments on AP clients and the media as a whole. The Stylebook isn’t “independent” or “nonpartisan.” It’s pro-abortion and pro-LGBTQ just for starters. But George is just cuing up the Hero Routine: 

STEPHANOPOULOS: Any sense of how it’s going to end?

PACE: We certainly hope that it results in us being allowed back into cover White House events because we’re there to be the eyes and ears for Americans and people around the world.

AP is the goo-goo eyes for the Democrats and the ear-boxers for the Republicans. 

White House correspondent Peter Baker indulged his paranoia in a story in Friday’s New York Times: “In Trump’s Washington, a Moscow-Like Chill Takes Hold — A new administration’s efforts to pressure the news media, punish political opponents and tame the nation’s tycoons evoke the early days of President Vladimir V. Putin’s reign in Russia.”

The odious Russia comparison is not just a stray metaphor but the entire story, predicated on the idea that Trump’s America and Putin’s Russia are similar authoritarian entities run on political vengeance. (And this ran before Trump and Vance’s contentious Oval Office meeting with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.)

Baker reached back to his years covering Moscow to paint Trump as dangerous.

She asked too many questions that the president didn’t like. She reported too much about criticism of his administration. And so, before long, Yelena Tregubova was pushed out of the Kremlin press pool that covered President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.

In the scheme of things, it was a small moment, all but forgotten nearly 25 years later. But it was also a telling one. Mr. Putin did not care for challenges. The rest of the press pool got the message and eventually became what the Kremlin wanted it to be: a collection of compliant reporters who knew to toe the line or else they would pay a price.

Of course, during Democratic administrations in the United States – reporters voluntarily line up to praise Democratic presidents, no carrots or sticks needed.

But after the White House’s decision to bar the venerable Associated Press as punishment for its coverage, the message is clear: Any journalist can be expelled from the pool at any time for any reason. There are worse penalties, as Ms. Tregubova would later discover, but in Moscow, at least, her eviction was an early step down a very slippery slope.

The United States is not Russia by any means, and any comparisons risk going too far. Russia barely had any history with democracy then, while American institutions have endured for nearly 250 years. But for those of us who reported there a quarter century ago, Mr. Trump’s Washington is bringing back memories of Mr. Putin’s Moscow in the early days.

The news media is being pressured. Lawmakers have been tamed. Career officials deemed disloyal are being fired. Prosecutors named by a president who promised “retribution” are targeting perceived adversaries and dropping cases against allies or others who do his bidding….

Baker talked of the transformation in Russia under Vladimir Putin over the period he and his wife (journalist Susan Glasser) covered the region, and extended the paranoid comparisons.

By the time we left in late 2004, Moscow had been transformed. People who had happily talked with us at the start were now afraid to return our calls. “Now I have this fear all the time,” one told us at the time.

There is a similar chill now in Washington. Every day someone who used to feel free to speak publicly against Mr. Trump says they will no longer let journalists quote them by name for fear of repercussions, both Democrats and Republicans.

Except journalists aren’t thrown in jail or assassinated in America — but that’s a minor detail.

They worry about an F.B.I. headed by an avowed partisan warrior who has already developed what seems to be an enemies list….

The chief federal prosecutor for Washington has sent letters to a couple of Democratic members of Congress questioning them about public comments that he considers incitement to violence….

Baker didn’t go into detail about the latter accusation, but you can be the judge.

The reporter sharpened his over-the-top attack in a Friday evening appearance on PBS’s Washington Week with The Atlantic.

 Baker: ….You’re seeing the chill, the takeover of the press, the intimidation of people, and the fear among people who don`t support the president.

NPR White House correspondent Tamara Keith joined the conga line of journalists protesting President Trump for taking the press-pool and press-credential powers away from the White House Correspondents Association. As a former WHCA president, Keith tweeted: “An independent press makes our leaders more accountable and our nation stronger.”

That sounds good. But we don’t have an independent press, especially in “public” broadcasting. Tamara Keith is not an independent reporter. NPR and PBS both rely on her to operate as a state-funded propagandist — befitting a graduate from Berkeley.

We could fill a chapter of a book on Democrat-favoring White House reporters just unspooling the bias of Tamara Keith. But let’s start with one of the doozies. On June 6, 2016, Keith spoke to Hillary Clinton when she won her party’s presidential nomination. This made our Worst of 2016 list. 

“Last night when you took stage in Sacramento, there was a woman standing next to me who was absolutely sobbing. And she said, you know, ‘It’s time. It’s past time.’ And you see the women — you see people here and people just come up to you and they get tears in their eyes. Do you feel — do you feel the weight of what this means for people?”

Hillary said, “I do. I do.”

Just like Joe Biden in 2020, Hillary Clinton was very limited in talking to reporters, unlike the broad access granted by her opponent Donald Trump. The “independent” reporters didn’t protest that, and when Keith had a rare opportunity to challenge her with an “independent” question, she threw her a wet kiss of a question about sobbing feminists.

In fact, Keith defended Hillary avoiding the press. She agreed that was smart. On CNN’s Reliable Sources on August 21, 2016, Keith noted that it had been 260 days since Clinton has done a proper press conference outside of reporter gaggles and scrums at her events. And host Brian Stelter rationalized it saying, “There is obviously political strategy here about why she’s not giving a press conference. She’s trying to sit on here lead, right?”

Keith agreed: “Absolutely! I mean, why would she give a press conference? I mean, from a purely strategic standpoint.” 

Fast-forward to this: after he dropped out last year, President Biden rarely spoke to the press. When Keith was granted a question on October 4, 2024, she threw another softball. “The election is a month away. One, I’d like to know how you’re feeling about how this election is going? And then, also, do you have confidence that it will be a free and fair election, and then it will be peaceful?” Then she followed up with another hint at a violent election: “Are you making any preparations, getting security briefings related to domestic security?”

Keith played White House Helper on Biden’s decline. On February 9, 2024, when special counsel Robert Hur drew the fury of the so-called “independent” press for announcing he would not indict Biden for stealing classified documents because he wouldn’t come across as mentally fit, Keith asked Biden spokesman Ian Sams: “How concerned is the President and the team here that the, quote, ‘gratuitous’ [Hur] comments are going to damage him, damage public perception of him?” It sounded like state-run radio. 

Keith appears as a pundit on the PBS News Hour on Monday nights, and PBS relied on her throughout the Biden years to repeat the Biden line for their liberal viewers, which didn’t sound “independent” at all. A typical one came on March 1, 2024.  

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, meantime, the Biden campaign is looking to lock in the image that President Biden projected at that State of the Union address last week. Here’s a new ad from his campaign released over the weekend.

JOE BIDEN: Look, I’m not a young guy. That’s no secret. But here’s the deal. I understand how to get things done for the American people.

BENNETT: So walk us through the new strategy here, Tam.

KEITH: If you can’t change it and you can’t hide from it, why not run straight into it headlong? And that’s exactly what they’re doing with the age issue.

Here’s another, “spin for Biden, Tam” moment on November 28, 2023. Bennett asked, “Tam, how does the White House see it?…President Biden, the White House, I’m told, feels that he doesn’t always get the credit for doing the work, because he doesn’t do the work in a way that’s properly politically theatrical.” Keith explained:  Biden “very much does not make a public show of things until after it’s done. And then he tries to claim credit, like with all of his economic accomplishments. And then he can’t get the credit.”

Biden’s “economic accomplishments”? Like massive inflation? More state-run radio. 

On PBS @NewsHour, they asked NPR’s Tamara Keith why Biden doesn’t get enough credit. Biden “very much does not make a public show of things until after it’s done. And then he tries to claim credit, like with all of his economic accomplishments. And then he can’t get the credit.” pic.twitter.com/RcE2pbWO7j
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) November 29, 2023
Keith isn’t this supportive when it comes to the Republicans, as you might expect. On October 24, 2023, Keith painted Republicans as arsonists: “What’s happening in the House is a reflection of a broader divide in the Republican Party, where there’s maybe like 20 percent or 30 percent of Republicans who don’t want to burn it all down and who have discomfort with Trump… there really is this divide between Republicans who realize that governing requires some bipartisan compromise just because of the sheer math, and those that don’t care.” (I cited this when I testified before Congress on NPR’s bias last May.)

Now put that insult next to remarks from when Keith was WHCA president. She created unintentional comedy in her 2023 speech at the White House Correspondents Dinner. It’s a “challenging time for our country,” she proclaimed. “People are choosing their news in part based on what they want to hear. And this makes us all vulnerable to conspiracy theories, to seeing the worst in our fellow citizens, to losing sight of our shared humanity.”

Yes. Liberals choose NPR because it’s what they want to hear. They want President Trump described in dehumanizing terms as a monster. Like this one from Keith: 

DEHUMANIZING! On the PBS @NewsHour, NPR reporter Tamara Keith cites (liberal) historian to define Biden in relation to beating Trump: “Right now, if you ask, he was the dragon slayer, as one historian told me, but then he also is the man who let the dragon back in.” pic.twitter.com/HjyehNKnrb
— Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) December 31, 2024

On Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper 360, CNN gave liberal Senator Angus King (I-ME) a forum to accuse President Donald Trump of abusing his constitutional power with his actions since taking office. And on Thursday morning, MSNBC’s Morning Joe followed suit with their own interview with him entirely devoted to this topic.

In neither forum did anyone ask if he objected to any of the similarly controversial actions taken by the Barack Obama or Joe Biden administrations, or, after he brought up USAID on Morning Joe, correct his already debunked claim that the President does not have the authority to shut down the agency.

On CNN, toward the end of his interview, Cooper brought up Senator King’s criticisms by showing a clip of President Trump calling out Governor Janet Mills (D-ME) for refusing to ban males from competing in female school sports. He then fretted over the President describing his administration as the “federal law” on that issue as he cued up the liberal Senator to pile on the President: “Putting aside the issue of transgender athletes, what do you make of the President threatening to withhold federal aid and the governor — threatening the governor’s career and suggesting federal law basically begins and ends with the White House?”

The Senator compared Trump to a king as he began his response:

Well, there are two problems, and you just touched on one of them. The statement, “We are the law” — that reminds me of the king of France, you know, “I am the law.” And we don’t have a king here. We don’t have a dictator. And the very fact that he thought that, that he said that, “We are the law,” that was pretty chilling. And it tells you the direction that their thinking is going in.

He went on to accuse the President of encroaching on Congress’s spending power, and suggested that he is not adhering to the constitutional requirement that he is required to “see that the laws are faithfully executed” rather than “see that the laws he likes are being faithfully executed.” Where was the liberal Senator when Presidents Obama and Biden chose not to enforce immigration laws as required by law, or when President Obama created the DACA program to protect some illegal aliens, or when President Biden was accused of overreaching in enacting stricter gun restrictions beyond what was allowed by the gun control law passed in 2022.

On Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski was melodramatic as she cited Senator King’s recent speech to his Republican colleagues calling for them to protect the Constitution from Trump: “We’ll speak with independent Senator Angus King about his urgent message to Republicans and why he says they should take a stand to protect the Constitution.”

In a second plug, she related that Senator King believes there is a “constitutional crisis.” The segment began with MSNBC spending almost two minutes showing clips of the Maine Senator in a speech accusing President Trump of abusing his power, which included comparing him to the French dictator Napolean Bonaparte.

Questioners Katty Kay and Willie Geist just cued him up to expand on his criticism without any challenge. Geist played along with and bolstered King when he made a crack about House Speaker Mike Johnson’s expertise in constitutional law.

When he twice complained about Trump pushing to close the USAID agency, none of those present pointed out that the President does, in fact, have the authority to do so as Fox analyst Brit Hume did on the February 3, Special Report with Bret Baier show, because the agency was originally created with an executive order during the Kennedy administration.

Transcripts follow:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360

February 26, 2025

8:16 p.m. Eastern

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Are you not going to comply with it?

GOVERNOR JANET MILLS (D-ME): I’m complying with state and federal laws.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I am — we are the federal law. Well, you better do it. You better do it because you’re not going to get any federal funding at all if you don’t. And, by the way, your population, even though it’s somewhat liberal although I did very well there — your population doesn’t want men playing in women’s sports. So you better comply. You better comply because otherwise you’re not getting any federal funding.

GOVERNOR MILLS: See you in court.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Good, I’ll see you in court. I’ll look forward to that. That should be a real easy one. And enjoy your life after, Governor, because I don’t think you’ll be in elected politics.

ANDERSON COOPER: After the exchange. [The] Trump Education Department launched an investigation into the state of Maine. Putting aside the issue of transgender athletes, what do you make of the President threatening to withhold federal aid and the governor — threatening the governor’s career and suggesting federal law basically begins and ends with the White House?

SENATOR ANGUS KING (I-ME): Well, there are two problems, and you just touched on one of them. The statement, “We are the law” — that reminds me of the king of France, you know, “I am the law.” And we don’t have a king here. We don’t have a dictator. And the very fact that he thought that, that he said that, “We are the law,” that was pretty chilling. And it tells you the direction that their thinking is going in.

The second piece is, these are funds that are coming to Maine by virtue of laws passed by Congress and signed by President, and an appropriations bill is the law. And that gets back to the original point I was making that there’s something much deeper and more important going on here, and that is the executive — the presidency pulling the power of Congress which the Framers put there for a reason to protect our freedom, pulling it into his or her hands. In this case, it’s President Trump. Listen, the basic responsibility of the President spelled out in Article II of the Constitution, and here it is. And it’s a responsibility — it’s not a power — it’s a responsibility. The exact words are, “see that the laws are faithfully executed.” That’s in the end of Article II of the Constitution.

The President is to “see that the laws are faithfully executed.” It doesn’t say, “see that the laws he likes are being faithfully executed.” Or “see that the laws he doesn’t like aren’t going to be faithfully executed.” That’s his job, and that’s what the Constitution assigns to him, and the Constitution assigns to the Congress the power of the purse — the power to pass laws. If he doesn’t like the Department of — the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, come to Congress and get us to repeal it. The presidency does not have the power to just arbitrarily say, “We don’t like this department — we’re going to knock it out.” And if we allow the President — any President to get that power, we’re in trouble, Anderson.

COOPER: All right, Angus King, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

(…)

MSNBC’s Morning Joe

February 27, 2025

6:58 a.m.

MIKA BREZEZINSKI (before commercial break): We’ll speak with independent Senator Angus King about his urgent message to Republicans and why he says they should take a stand to protect the Constitution.

(…)

7:38 a.m.

BRZEZINSKI (before commercial break): And, coming up, independent Senator Angus King of Maine joins us, following his speech on Capitol Hill calling out colleagues amid what he believes is a constitutional crisis. Morning Joe is back in just a moment.

(…)

7:42 a.m.

BRZEZINSKI: It’s been five weeks since President Trump took office for the second time, and his administration has reshaped government on everything from law and order to the role of the free press. With that as our backdrop, our next guest took to the Senate floor last week with a message to his colleagues: It’s time to wake up.

SENATOR ANGUS KING (I-ME) (from Senate floor dated February 20): This isn’t just a battle between the Senate and the House and the President and they’re fighting about powers — no. The reason the Framers designed our Constitution the way they did was because they were afraid of concentrated power. (editing jump) The responsibility of the President is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — not write the laws, not deny the laws, not ignore the laws, not pick which laws he or she likes — to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That’s the responsibility of the President. And right now, those laws are being ignored. (editing jump) Power was divided for a reason. There’s some criticism now in the press saying that people are talking about a constitutional crisis, “They’re crying wolf.” No, this is a constitutional crisis. It’s the most serious assault on our Constitution in the history of this country. It’s the most serious assault on the very structure of our Constitution which was designed to protect our freedoms and our liberty in the history of this country. It is a constitutional crisis, and I’ll tell you what makes it worse. The President and the Vice President are already hinting that they’re not going to obey decisions of the courts. (editing jump) What’s it going to take for us to wake up — and when I say us, I mean this entire body — to wake up to what’s going on here? Is it going to be too late? Is it going to be when the President has created all this power and the Congress is an after thought? What’s it going to take? I mean, the offenses keep piling up. (editing jump) The President over the weekend famously quoted Napolean — “When you’re saving your country, you don’t have to obey any law.” Wow, a President of the United States quoting Napolean about not having to obey the law.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Mmm. And independent Senator Angus King of Maine joins us now. It’s great to have you back on the show, Senator. Katty Kay has the first question for you, sir. Katty?

KATTY KAY: Senator, I’ve know you for a long time, and you are not given to making speeches lightly like that on the floor. You choose your words carefully. What — who were you talking to? Who was your audience? What were you trying to achieve when you stood up there on the Senate floor and spoke to your colleagues like that?

SENATOR KING: I was trying to capture the conscience of the Republican Senators because that’s where the power is. They have a 53-vote majority in the Senate, and they can go to the White House and tell the President, “Slow down, this is not the way our system was designed.” And they can — they have some influence. That’s what I’m really talking about. What’s shocking to me is that we’re not standing up for the Constitution, and when the executive — when the President cancels a whole agency created by Congress — whether it’s [US]AID or the Consumer Finance Board or the independent agencies that were set up almost 100 years ago to protect the public as independent agencies. The Congress is not only giving up it’s power, but, as I said in the speech, we’re violating the fundamental structure of the Constitution which was there in order to protect — the Framers were students of human nature, and they understood a very important principle: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Therefore, they divided power. That’s what the Constitution is all about. It divides power between the President, the Congress, the courts, the states and the federal government so that nobody would have all the power because that inevitably leads to abuse.

KAY: You’re an independent. You vote with Democrats, by and large, but I know you have good relationships with your Republican colleagues as well. Do you think they’re open to your message? When you have your private conversations with them — and I don’t want you to disclose names — but are you hearing — are you hearing murmurs of disquiet?

SENATOR KING: I think — yes. I think the answer is — “disquiet” is a good word. I think they’re uneasy — I think many of them understand what’s going on although their public posture is, “Well, the courts will protect us — the courts will take care of us.”

(…)

WILLIE GEIST: In fact, Elon Musk stood up in that cabinet meeting just yesterday and sort of laughed off what happened with Ebola, saying “Ah, we made a mistake and we fixed it.” We’ve reported this morning the Washington Post saying that actually hasn’t been fixed yet, and that money has not been put back where it needs to be to fight Ebola. Just one example. I’m just curious as to follow up on what Katty said about your fellow Senators — Republicans — and members of the House as well — thinking of Speaker Mike Johnson who is a constitutional lawyer. When they say —

SENATOR KING: I wonder what constitution he’s a lawyer of.

GEIST: Well, that’s a fair question in many cases, going back to the 2020 election forward where he helped Donald Trump with all that. When they say, “Look, we’re doing this because the country elected Donald Trump with a mandate — we just have to carry out what he says to do” — strikes a lot of people as a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Congress and the checks and balances of our government. So what do you make of that argument that these men and women view their role as a rubber stamp of what Donald Trump wants, whatever it may be, and even if it violates the Constitution?

SENATOR KING: Well, I think the best answer to that is to go back to the oath that we all take. The oath isn’t to a President, and it isn’t to a party — it’s to the Constitution itself. And the Constitution is very clear about the division of power. In fact, the Constitution — as I mentioned in the speech — doesn’t give the President all that much power. He — commander-in-chief, yes. But the fundamental responsibility of the President and the Constitution is to, quote, “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” I emphasize the word “executed.” It means “carry forward.” It doesn’t mean “write the laws, create the laws, ignore which laws you like,” and for a member of Congress to say, “Well, we’ve got to do whatever the President says,” is a fundamental misunderstanding and, in my view, a violation of our oath and our obligation to the people of this country to keep intact the division of power which is what keeps us safe.

BRZEZINKSI: Independent Senator Angus King of Maine, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. We appreciate it.

(…)

Fox’s Special Report with Bret Baier

February 3, 2025

6:53 p.m.

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS ANALYST: You keep hearing that the President or his aide — his friend Elon Musk doesn’t have — don’t have the power to shut down this agency. Well, Musk doesn’t have the power, but the President does. This agency was created by an executive order signed by President John F. Kennedy in November of 1961. And it was pursuant to a law, but it was separate from the law, and that’s how it came into being. So if it can be created by an executive order, as it was, it can be undone by an executive order, and the President has all the legal authority he needs to do that.

That doesn’t mean that foreign aid ends. It simply would presumably mean — as Marco Rubio was suggesting in his interview earlier on this program — that it would be administered otherwise by some other agency or taken to the State Department, with which it’s supposed to work cooperatively anyway. So this may all be, to some extent, much ado about not quite as much as everybody is saying.

 

On Wednesday’s PBS News Hour, co-host Amna Nawaz tried emotional blackmail to stop spending cuts – any kind of spending cut – in an interview with Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), chairman of the House Budget Committee.

After challenging Arrington on Medicaid spending in the just-passed House GOP budget framework (“Is it possible for you to guarantee that none of the 70 million people who rely on Medicaid are going to have their benefits cut? Can you make that guarantee?”) Nawaz tried to personalize the argument by putting Arrington on the spot regarding potential federal job loss in his district, resulting in these repetitive exchanges, in which Nawaz asked the same question no less than five times.

Amna Nawaz: I do want to ask you about some of the federal worker firings that we have seen from Elon Musk’s DOGE team. The latest figures that I saw show some 130,000 federal employees who live in the state of Texas, in your district about 8,000 or so. Do you know if any of those federal workers have lost their jobs as a result of this team’s cuts?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: I don’t know any personally who have, but I can tell you…

Amna Nawaz: Do you know of any in your district?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: Do I know of any who’ve been cut?

Amna Nawaz: Yes, sir, anyone who’s lost any federal employees in your district who have lost their jobs as a result of the DOGE team’s cuts?

Arrington tried to take a broader view of government fraud and waste, but Nawaz kept twisting the knife.

Nawaz: If I may, among the DOGE team’s listings of cuts, they do list a DHS office closure in Abilene, Texas, which is in your district, for an estimated savings of $340,000. I’m unsure how many people were cut there. But are you concerned that if hundreds of people in your district lose their jobs, it will impact your community?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: I’m concerned that our federal budget went from $4.5 trillion before COVID to $7 trillion. I’m concerned that, during the Biden administration, $8 trillion was added to the national debt, that we’re borrowing $2 trillion.

Nawaz: But are you concerned about people losing their jobs in your district?

Needless to say, this is not the sort of personalized hostile treatment that Democratic House members receive on tax-funded television.

On the same subject that same night, PBS’s White House reporter Laura Barron-Lopez strove to dismiss a whopping $2 billion of savings as barely a cup of coffee. It’s a secret weapon of the big spenders: Spend enough tax money, and even real money looks paltry, relatively speaking.

Barron-Lopez: So, as Jessica noted there, so far, there appears to be no evidence of fraud, despite Elon Musk claims of it. And she also added that, if you did distribute some of the — that $2 billion or so in savings across taxpayers in America, which is what Elon Musk has said he would like to do, it would basically come to $2.42 per person, so potentially not enough for a cup of coffee in some cities.

It’s fascinating that Musk was previously criticized by some leftists for not ending world hunger (yes, really) with the $44 billion he used to buy Twitter, but $2 billion in savings is dismissed.

This segment was brought to you in part by American Cruise Lines.

A transcript is available, click “Expand.”

PBS News Hour

2/26/25

7:18:59 p.m. (ET)

Amna Nawaz: When the House passed the Republican budget framework last night, it was an important step towards implementing President Trump’s agenda. The House budget plan includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, spending cuts totaling $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion, and will add an estimated $3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. Congressman Jodey Arrington of Texas chairs the Budget Committee, and he joins me now. Chairman Arrington, welcome to the “News Hour.” Thanks for joining us.

Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX): Thank you, Amna. Good to be with you.

Amna Nawaz: So, as you know, the bill passed on a 217-to-215 vote. You had one Republican joining Democrats to vote against it. Is it fair to say now that the real work begins of trying to figure out exactly where you’re going to get those $2 trillion in cuts?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: Yes, I think you’re right. I mean, we had to lay out a framework that I think was fiscally responsible, pro-growth. It makes adjustments for supporting the tax cuts, while reining in the wasteful spending to offset along — offset those cuts along with growth — or revenue, rather, from growth, which is a conservative 2.6 percent annual average growth rate, which is lower than we had in the Trump and Biden administrations. But that will bring another $2.6 trillion in. And so, all together, it’s a balanced budget resolution, but, as you mentioned, the real work happens as the policies are developed at the committee level, and it’s designed that way to be kind of a bottom-up approach, and then we will, of course, have to conference with the Senate.

Amna Nawaz: As you know, there’s been a lot of concern about cuts to Medicaid. The mandate that you have set for the Energy and Commerce Committee that oversees Medicaid is for them to cut $880 billion. The largest pot of money that they oversee is Medicare, which you have said you will not touch. So, how do you see hitting that $880 billion figure without touching Medicaid?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: Well, we’re going to make sure we actually eliminate the waste that exists in the federal government, not just in the Medicaid program, but across the federal government. The Government Accountability Office estimates just within 70 programs in the federal government a $2.7 trillion in waste, fraud, and abuse. And then fraud, government-wide, they say on the higher end is $5 trillion. So we have to put the program integrity measures in place to make sure those who are legally eligible are those receiving the benefits that the taxpayers and lawmakers intended. But, for example, if you just review for eligibility not once but twice a year, going back to the Trump administration policies, you will actually not only prevent the fraudulent spending of tax dollars, but you will save $160 billion that you can put towards reducing the deficit and making not just Medicaid, but all of these programs sustainable today that are not sustainable. So, program integrity, state accountability, personal responsibility. SNAP has requirements for able-bodied adults who are able to work to work to receive the benefit. And we think that it’s responsible to do that across the government. Medicaid doesn’t have that. For example, these are some of the things that will be meted out at the committee level.

Amna Nawaz: Chairman, if I may, just to double-check the math here, that $3 trillion you cited there, that is the cumulative of estimated overpayments in fraud from GAO dating back to 2003. So that’s not quite apples to apples here. You mentioned the $160 billion that would come from reversing some Biden era policies. But the national improper pay rate that I saw, HHS estimates on fraud only totals about $31 billion. I’m just pointing these out to show nowhere are you near $880 billion. So, again, where are you seeing math that says you can get to that number without touching Medicaid?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: Yes, actually, let me correct that statement. The Government Accountability Office, $2.7 trillion in improper payments, that’s a 10-year number. That is a 10-year number, not since 2003. That’s going forward. In fact, there’s $50 billion in Medicaid. It’s over $500 billion over the 10-year window. So when we say we want to save $1.5 trillion to $2 trillion in reducing wasteful spending, that’s over the 10-year budget window. So it is apples to apples. I would also suggest — and there are outside groups that have measured this — one that comes to mind is NumbersUSA. They say that we’re spending $150 billion for social services for people who are in this country illegally, about $9,000 per illegal immigrant. That’s more than we spend on U.S. citizens who are the most vulnerable among us and eligible for Medicaid. It’s also more than we spend for our veterans on military benefits. So there’s a lot of cleaning up, a lot of waste and fraud. And there’s just a lot of inefficiencies.

Amna Nawaz: So, if I may, Chairman…

Rep. Jodey Arrington: Yes. Sure.

Amna Nawaz: And I apologize. I know our time is limited. Is it possible for you to guarantee that none of the 70 million people who rely on Medicaid are going to have their benefits cut? Can you make that guarantee?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: I can tell you this. These programs are not sustainable for the most vulnerable people. I can also tell you that the Obamacare expansion population, they get a 90 percent federal match. And the blind disabled, the sickest and poorest among us, they get 65 percent on average. So, the entire health system is oriented around giving better care and better access to able-bodied Obamacare expansion populations. So there’s a lot of ways to make it work better and make it more efficiently.

Amna Nawaz: Chairman, I will just point out, I’m not hearing a guarantee in there, but I think our conversation on this will continue.

Rep. Jodey Arrington: Sure.

Amna Nawaz: I do want to ask you about some of the federal worker firings that we have seen from Elon Musk’s DOGE team. The latest figures that I saw show some 130,000 federal employees who live in the state of Texas, in your district about 8,000 or so. Do you know if any of those federal workers have lost their jobs as a result of this team’s cuts?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: I don’t know any personally who have, but I can tell you…

Amna Nawaz: Do you know of any in your district?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: Do I know of any who’ve been cut?

Amna Nawaz: Yes, sir, anyone who’s lost — any federal employees in your district who have lost their jobs as a result of the DOGE team’s cuts?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: I don’t know of any, but there may be people who have had their jobs terminated. And I can tell you, after having worked in the administration of President Bush, being in the administration, there’s a lot of unnecessary jobs. There’s a lot of waste. We had about half the work force not even going to work the last four or five years. So, look, where there is value added, where there are people who are being productive and advancing the federal government’s mission and serving the American people, I don’t think there’s a problem there, but I think we have a lot of bloat and a lot of waste. So I support the efforts that are being taken under President Trump by Elon Musk and by his Cabinet officials.

Amna Nawaz: If I may, among the DOGE team’s listings of cuts, they do list a DHS office closure in Abilene, Texas, which is in your district, for an estimated savings of $340,000. I’m unsure how many people were cut there. But are you concerned that if hundreds of people in your district lose their jobs, it will impact your community?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: I’m concerned that our federal budget went from $4.5 trillion before COVID to $7 trillion. I’m concerned that, during the Biden administration, $8 trillion was added to the national debt, that we’re borrowing $2 trillion.

Amna Nawaz: But are you concerned about people losing their jobs in your district?

Rep. Jodey Arrington: I’m concerned about bankrupting the country, and I’m also trusting this president to make sure that where we need the human resources, where they are productive and can justify the value added to advancing the federal government’s mission, that will happen. But we’re long overdue for an audit from top to bottom, and we need to make sure that the taxpayers are getting a return on their investment and that we’re securing their money. And that doesn’t happen in this town enough, so I support what the president and Elon Musk are doing 100 percent.

Amna Nawaz: That is the House Budget chairman, Jodey Arrington, joining us tonight.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. We appreciate it.

Rep. Jodey Arrington: Thank you, Amna. Appreciate — you too. Bye-bye.

On Thursday’s Morning Joe, former Congressman and embittered ex-Republican Joe Scarborough again sounded like he’s never been a conservative as he railed against the possibility of Republicans cutting Medicaid and recalled lecturing his Republican colleagues when he was in Congress.

He went on to accuse Republicans of “voting against their own constituents’ interests.”

As Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) appeared as a guest and was answering a question from Scarborough about Congressman Mike Lawler (R-NY) criticizing her over the issue of congestion pricing, she began ranting about how Republicans have voted on Medicaid in Congress:

HOCHUL: I’d be happier if someone like a Mike Lawler and his six colleagues in Congress, the Republicans, instead of making sure that we have people in our state without health care, taking away thousands of individuals’ — millions of individuals’ right to be able to get chemo treatments and insulin and to be able to get the health care that they need like they voted on the other day, saying, “We don’t care about Medicaid,” I’d rather they focus on that. But let me get back to congestion pricing —

Scarborough, who sometimes still claims to be a fiscal conservative, jumped back in and picked up on her attack on Republicans to pile on, sounding like a Democrat:

SCARBOROUOGH: Since you talked about that — I’m really glad you talked about that because this is a common misperception among Republicans — and I know because I used to be one — most Republicans don’t understand how much rural health care is controlled — is powered — is supported by Medicaid. Hospitals are shutting down when there are Medicaid cuts. Providers massively underserved in rural communities like Upstate New York and areas where I’ve lived in Upstate New York. Medicaid often is where people send their parents in Upstate New York if they need long-term care.

Scarborough’s family lived in Elmira, New York for a few years when he was a child. He then posed:

And so I am curious — you look at a map of America, and you see the dark blue spots where Medicaid is used. Upstate New York is one of those places. I’m wondering: What would these Medicaid cuts that Republicans are promising right now — what would these Medicaid cuts do to people who lived in communities like I lived in in Upstate New York?

Hochul eagerly continued her trashing of Republicans, and claimed that, back in 2011, she was elected to Congress because then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) “declared war on Medicare.” After she concluded her rant accusing Republicans of threatening health care, the MSNBC host resumed going after his former party:

…again, I don’t think most Republicans that voted this way know — or, if they do know, man, it sure is a vote against their own constituents. If they’re from rural areas and they represent Upstate New York, in rural America, almost 50 percent of children get their health care through Medicaid. About 20 percent of adults under the age of 65 get their health care from Medicaid. More people, especially children — a higher percentage of children and adults get their health care in rural America from Medicaid than do people in urban areas. So they are specifically going after their own constituents whether it’s Upstate New York, whether it’s upstate in Michigan. I mean, it is — it is — it’s remarkable that they’re voting against their own constituents’ interests.

Governor Hochul charged that Republicans “betrayed” their constituents, and then, even though President Donald Trump has only been in office for one month, she complained that he has not yet fixed the problem of inflated egg prices.

Transcript follows:

MSNBC’s Morning Joe

February 27, 2025

7:26 a.m. Eastern

GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL (D-NY): Well, first of all, I’d be happier if someone like a Mike Lawler and his six colleagues in Congress, the Republicans, instead of making sure that we have people in our state without health care, taking away thousands of individuals’ — millions of individuals’ right to be able to get chemo treatments and insulin and to be able to get the health care that they need like they voted on the other day, saying, “We don’t care about Medicaid,” I’d rather they focus on that. But let me get back to congestion pricing —

SCARBOROUGH: Governor, can I — since you talked about that — I’m really glad you talked about that because this is a common misperception among Republicans — and I know because I used to be one — most Republicans don’t understand how much rural health care is controlled — is powered — is supported by Medicaid. Hospitals are shutting down when there are Medicaid cuts. Providers massively underserved in rural communities like Upstate New York and areas where I’ve lived in Upstate New York. Medicaid often is where people send their parents in Upstate New York if they need long-term care. And so I am curious — you look at a map of America, and you see the dark blue spots where Medicaid is used. Upstate New York is one of those places. I’m wondering: What would these Medicaid cuts that Republicans are promising right now — what would these Medicaid cuts do to people who lived in communities like I lived in in Upstate New York?

GOVERNOR HOCHUL: Joe, you hit on something that is so profound, is that the red parts of even New York and across America — these are the people that will be hit hardest by what the Republican members of Congress did. And by drinking the kool-aid and not even questioning the merits of destroying the program that so many of their own constituents — their own constituents rely on. If go back, memory lane, 2011, I got elected to Congress in the most Republican district in the state of New York — large swaths of Upstate New York.

You know how I did that? The Paul Ryan budget came out and declared war on Medicare, and I was able to take that as a long-shot Democrat that no one thought I had a chance to win and weaponize that and say, “You did this to these seniors up in Wyoming County and Orleans County and Niagara County. You’ve hurt the health care system. You’ve made sure this little child who’s got leukemia can never get treatment again because now the insurance company can drop them.”

That’s how I won by a fairly good margin in a district that I had no chance. That’s what we have to remember. These Republicans need to own that vote starting now. Show up at their offices and say, “Did you ask what the impact is, Joe? I have hospitals on the verge of collapse. Doctors don’t want to go there, but that does not mean I don’t have high pockets of poverty. I have people with major dental problems. I’m trying so hard to eradicate this, and I’ve got my own Republicans from New York working against me — against their constituents.

This is all about basic health care, maternal health care. This is about getting your insulin treatments. This is about trying to take care of your cancer. And this is about your grandma and grandpa and maybe your parents sitting in a nursing home because that’s the largest expense for Medicaid. So that’s what they need to own. As I’ve said before, Joe, “They break it — they own it.” And you now own this.

SCARBOROUGH: And we’re going to get to congestion pricing. I just want to finish on one thought that, again, I don’t think most Republicans that voted this way know — or, if they do know, man, it sure is a vote against their own constituents. If they’re from rural areas and they represent Upstate New York, in rural America, almost 50 percent of children get their health care through Medicaid. About 20 percent of adults under the age of 65 get their health care from Medicaid. More people, especially children — a higher percentage of children and adults get their health care in rural America from Medicaid than do people in urban areas. So they are specifically going after their own constituents whether it’s Upstate New York, whether it’s upstate in Michigan. I mean, it is — it is — it’s remarkable that they’re voting against their own constituents’ interests.

GOVERNOR HOCHUL: And I’m very happy to remind their constituents of that very fact — that their own elected leaders have betrayed them. And everything that was promised — remember how on day one of the Trump administration, prices are going to go down. You know what the cost of eggs is in New York City or if you can even find them? It went up 40 percent since Donald Trump was elected. So, instead of going down, they’re going up even higher, so people are starting to wake up. They’re saying, “Wait a minute, this is not what I thought I was voting for.” But it’s happening even sooner than I thought. I mean, literally, in the first few months here. I thought this would take a little longer, but, my God, they’re self-destructing so fast.