Newsbusters

ABC White House correspondent Selina Wang tried to emotionally manipulate viewers of Saturday’s Good Morning America by suggesting that the Trump Administration’s effort to trim the size of the government’s bureaucracy is an attack on veterans.

In studio, Wang declared, “First of all, this news is sending shock waves throughout the system, and the Trump Administration is firing tens of thousands of federal workers across the country, and workers who have suddenly been laid off tell me it’s not just their livelihoods that are at stake here, but also the people they serve.”

 

 

Now doing a voiceover for a recorded report, Wang added, “This morning, the Pentagon bracing for potential cuts with tens of thousands of federal workers from the Department of Health, Homeland Security, and Energy already in shock after they were suddenly fired from their jobs.”

The first person Wang featured was Chelsea Milburn, who declared that “I was definitely upset” at the news.

Wang then filled in some biographical details, “Chelsea Millburn, a disabled veteran terminated from the Department of Education, says she fears for her financial future left to juggle her disability and her family’s well-being.”

Milburn continued, “It kind of felt like having that piece of myself that was given to me yanked back out from under me.”

Teeing up one final snippet from Milburn, Wang announced, “Milburn says she hopes Americans realize that an attack on civil servants is an attack on veterans.”

Milburn concluded her portion of the segment by addressing the audience, “To the American people, I think they don’t recognize that almost 30 percent of the federal workforce are veterans.”

According to a USA Today profile, Milburn has worked remotely since she was hired in November and has been “diagnosed with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome or POTS, a chronic condition that often leaves her dizzy when she stands, breathless and exhausted.” 

That means Wang found one sympathetic example to paint the administration as heartless. What she didn’t mention was that Milburn’s status as a recent hire meant she was still on probation, and that is probably why she was part of the recent round of layoffs. Saying 30 percent of federal workers are veterans is another way of saying 70 percent are not. While it is all well and good that the government can find employment for those who served, those jobs should be 100 percent necessary (Milburn was a public affairs specialist). The federal government is not a jobs program. It is a gross appeal to emotion to say you either support an ever-increasing bureaucracy or you don’t support veterans.

Here is a transcript for the February 15 show:

ABC Good Morning America

2/15/2025

7:08 AM ET

SELINA WANG: First of all, this news is sending shock waves throughout the system, and the Trump Administration is firing tens of thousands of federal workers across the country, and workers who have suddenly been laid off tell me it’s not just their livelihoods that are at stake here, but also the people they serve. 

This morning, the Pentagon bracing for potential cuts with tens of thousands of federal workers from the Department of Health, Homeland Security, and Energy already in shock after they were suddenly fired from their jobs.

CHELSEA MILBURN: I was definitely upset.

WANG: Chelsea Millburn, a disabled veteran terminated from the Department of Education, says she fears for her financial future left to juggle her disability and her family’s well-being.

MILBURN: It kind of felt like having that piece of myself that was given to me yanked back out from under me.

WANG: Milburn says she hopes Americans realize that an attack on civil servants is an attack on veterans.

MILBURN: To the American people, I think they don’t recognize that almost 30 percent of the federal workforce are veterans. 

Oscar scandals are now an inevitable part of awards season.

Remember suggestions that the man chronicled in “A Beautiful Mind” made antisemitic slurs to colleagues? Or, more recently, how Adrien Brody’s bravura turn in “The Brutalist” got an A.I. boost?

This scandal is different, and the timing couldn’t be worse for an industry staring into the cultural abyss. The gala’s dwindling ratings may be the least of the Academy’s problems following GascónGate.

The masses may finally tune out Oscar night as a cultural institution.

 

Even without the scandal that’s now engulfed Emilia Pérez, Katey Rich and The Atlantic film critic @davidlsims can’t help but wonder if the Netflix of it all impacted perception of the film. Full conversation: https://t.co/Vh5XsLm9Nz pic.twitter.com/gQ44qBG0yG
— The Ankler (@TheAnkler) February 8, 2025
 

The first part of the scandal is less explosive but more damaging in the big picture. The Netflix musical “Emilia Pérez” earned a whopping 13 Oscar nominations last month. That’s more than some of the most beloved films of all time.

Think “The Godfather,” “Raging Bull” and “Citizen Kane.” Heck, only three films have ever earned more than 13 nominations – “All About Eve,” “La La Land” and “Titanic.” (all had 14 nods)

The French musical follows a murderous cartel kingpin (Karla Sofía Gascón) who undergoes sex change surgery to become a nonprofit dynamo eager to start a new life.

 

 

The film hasn’t generated the kind of universal acclaim that might explain the crush of nominations. The film’s 72 percent “fresh” Rotten Tomatoes score tells part of the story. That 17 percent “rotten” rating (and falling) from consumers hints at something more profound.

Why would a film with less than glowing reviews snag so many nominations? Oscar watches quickly supplied some answers. The film’s progressive spirit, from the protagonist’s (trans)formation to the feminist complaints aired by co-star Zoe Saldaña, made it catnip for voters.

Both sides of the ideological aisle agreed for a change.

Vulture:

By voting for Emilia Pérez, and nominating [Karla Sofia] Gascón for Best Actress in particular, they felt they were taking a stand against the Trump administration’s efforts to erase transgender identity. Though she was a long shot to win her category, Gascón became the campaign’s ace in the hole. No matter what anyone else said, here was one trans woman who could credibly speak of Emilia Pérez as a beacon of light in the darkness.

John Nolte at Breitbart.com:

With a 73 percent Rotten Tomato critics’ score and a pathetic 17 percent audience score, it’s no secret that merit had nothing to do with its 13 Oscar nominations.

Remember merit? Do Oscar voters?

Once again, politics trumped artistry on the Oscar stage. That might have gone unnoticed some years, but not in 2025. President Donald Trump, with acolytes like Robby Starbuck and Christopher Rufo, has been shredding DEI like so many dicey documents.

That cultural tide is washing over this year’s awards ceremony. Audiences already suspect politics weighs heavily in the minds of Academy voters prior to “Emilia Pérez.” That gaudy nomination count solidified those fears.

And that was before a journalist “resurfaced” Gascón’s old, problematic Tweets. The trans performer, one of five actresses up for an Oscar, has overshared on social media.

Some quick examples:

“Islam is marvelous, without any machismo. Women are respected, and when they are so respected they are left with a little squared hole on their faces for their eyes to be visible and their mouths, but only if she behaves. Although they dress this way for their own enjoyment. How DEEPLY DISGUSTING OF HUMANITY.”

“I really think that very few people ever cared about George Floyd, a drug addict swindler, but his death has served to once again demonstrate that there are people who still consider black people to be monkeys Without rights and consider policemen to be assassins … they’re all wrong.”

The reaction to those messages was swift and unrelenting. The legacy press, which might otherwise downplay a scandal plaguing a progressive starlet, went into Battle Mode. The story caught fire and has yet to cool down.

“Emilia Pérez” director Jacques Audiard threw Gascón under the bus. So did co-star Saldaña, sensing her Best Supporting Actress chances might implode.

Now, Gascón is going radio silent hoping not to stain “Emilia Perez” any further.

 

Netflix has stopped communicating directly with Karla Sofía Gascón and will not cover any expenses for her travel during awards season, @Variety reports.
The actress will have to pay for everything from her airfare to her accommodations in the future. pic.twitter.com/bm5tSLGsZp
— Pop Crave (@PopCrave) February 4, 2025
 

The Karmic angle is impossible to ignore. Hollywood watched by as Cancel Culture ravaged the entertainment industry. The stars stood by as predators (Harvey Weinstein) and problematic Tweeters (Roseanne Barr) alike saw their careers implode.

They cheered the former and let the latter happen without a response.

Today, Cancel Culture appears to be receding, but it’s still strong enough to take down Gascón’s Oscar hopes.

A third issue plaguing “Emilia Pérez” may be the hardest to wish away. Film writer Giancarlo Sopo noted how much the musical gets wrong regarding Mexican culture. These aren’t minor quibbles gleaned from a second or third viewing.

Hardly. Sopo’s essay highlighted the linguistic gaffes plaguing the film, cultural missteps suggesting the filmmakers didn’t do their homework.

They failed to crack the books, to be kind. It’s the ultimate diversity fail.

Even the film’s Oscar-nominated songs are grating. For example, “Mi Camino” includes stiff, unnatural references to “séptimo cielo,” a clunky, literal translation of “Seventh Heaven,” an anglophone expression that doesn’t exist in Spanish. “El Mal” suffers from similar issues, with lines like “Los llevan afuera…” — a direct rendering of “They take them out” when native speakers would say “Los sacan…”

The Academy, which has expanded its voting pool following the “OscarsSoWhite” campaign, failed to snuff out these glaring errors. That’s another black eye for the brand.

So where does that leave the Oscars?

The institution previously hurt its cause by demanding diversity requirements for Best Picture candidates. The gala let liberal stars rage against conservatives on show after show, chasing Red State viewers away.

Likely for good.

The Academy hired far-Left comedian Jimmy Kimmel to host the show for multiple years, cementing the show’s baked-in biases.

Is it a shock to see the event’s ratings shrink over the years?

2014: 43.7 million
2023: 18.8 million
2024: 19.5 million
Even the so-called Oscar bounce happens less frequently now. Nominated films once watched their box office fortunes soar post-announcement.

Now? Most films are already available for streaming and others see modest gains.

The gala has shared other body blows in recent years. The “La La Land” / “Moonlight” Best Picture confusion rushes to mind. So does Will Smith smacking presenter Chris Rock mid-show, only to accept a Best Actor Oscar minutes later.

 

 

The March 2 ceremonies should have been a chance to restore that ol’ Oscar magic. Perhaps Jack Nicholson could break his quasi-retirement and give the fans a wave from the front row.

Who wouldn’t love to see that?

This year’s host, Conan O’Brien, is less political than Kimmel or other recent emcees. The LA wildfires ravaged the industry in recent weeks. Much of the night will be dedicated to honoring local fire fighters and vowing to rebuild the City of Angels.

That sentiment could lure a few reluctant viewers back to the ceremony. Goodwill matters.

Instead, we’ll be reminded that the most nominated film of the night essentially cut the line for ideological reasons.

Worse-case scenario? The assembled stars turn Oscar Night into ResistanceTM Theater, chasing away anyone who so much as considered voting for Trump.

HBO’s Bill Maher doubled down on Friday’s episode of Real Time on his fallacious appeal to the center argument that President Donald Trump “has gone way too far” in issuing an executive order that says there are only two sexes.

Lamenting to his panel of former Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan and New York Times columnist Pamela Paul, Maher wondered, “Trump has gone way too far on this. He’s at that place—this is what I say, nobody can ever be in the middle; it has to go from one pendulum swing all the way to the other, so now we are back at there’s only two sexes, which is ridiculous, although I’m glad I’m in one of the ones we’re keeping. Is that a hill worth dying on?”

 

 

Like his earlier protests against the order, Maher never cared to explain why he thinks it is “ridiculous,” most likely because it isn’t. Still, Ryan gave a long-winded answer that could be summarized as saying the best way to protect transgender people is to get Democrats elected who “are going to be compassionate towards your views,” but “that doesn’t mean you run a campaign on that.”

Maher wasn’t the only one with fallacious arguments. Paul’s big problem seemed to be that Trump was the one issuing the order:

I think the effort to, you know, erase transgender people from, out of existence, to deny that they exist and they deserve rights, the same as anyone else, they should not be discriminated against. What’s troubling about this is the idea that Donald Trump is taking a position that is to protect women, this is a sexual predator, and he supposedly is protecting women and girls? That he’s the one who is supposed to be in favor of, you know, really evidence-based health care, in favor of science, in favor of gay rights, in favor of mental health care, in favor of protecting, you know, different people who differ from him. That, all of that—

Maher interrupted, “No, he’s a terrible messenger, but penises do not belong in women’s prisons. He’s not wrong about that. Penises do not belong in women’s shelters.”

 

 

Paul then backtracked, “Right, but this is one of the issues that’s become so ridiculously politicized and polarized. That there is no room and most Americans I think, you know, deserve credit. Most Americans are reasonable on this issue and on the issue of biological boys playing on girls’ sports teams or biological men being in women’s prisons, most Americans in both parties agree.”

Yes, it has “become so ridiculously politicized and polarized,” but it was done so by the left because, in case viewers didn’t get it, most Americans agree with Trump and conservatives on the issues Paul raised.

Here is a transcript for the February 14 show:

HBO Real Time with Bill Maher

2/14/2025

10:41 PM ET

BILL MAHER: So, okay, let me go to one more semi-related thing about the hill to die on, it’s my last one: trans. Because, Trump has gone way too far on this. He’s at that place—this is what I say, nobody can ever be in the middle—

PAMELA PAUL: No.

MAHER: It has to go from one pendulum swing all the way to the other, so now we are back at there’s only two sexes, which is ridiculous, although I’m glad I’m in one of the ones we’re keeping. Is that a hill worth dying on?

TIM RYAN: No, you can’t. I mean, you can’t. And again, like it you can be for everyone having rights. You could be for people not getting bullied, you can approach these things in a compassionate way. But if you recognize that that is such a very small, small, one-tenth of one percent of the population and that’s dominating the conversation and you’re not talking about economics, and lunch bucket issues and pensions and wages and unions and all that good stuff. 

Then you are defending one-tenth of one part of the population. Trump gets into my Republicans control the House and the Senate, you get someone who is cruel and mean-spirited and someone who didn’t agree with the first part of what I said protecting rights and making sure they are not bullied, all of that stuff, you don’t get any of that because you failed to make the strategic argument and the question is, get people in office who are going to be compassionate towards your views and be inclusive and care about you even if you may not agree with everything, they’re not, you know, a president should be saying “no trans kid should ever get bullied in the United States, that’s bullshit,” right. That doesn’t mean you run a campaign on that.

PAUL: I think the effort to, you know, erase transgender people from, out of existence, to deny that they exist and they deserve rights, the same as anyone else, they should not be discriminated against. What’s troubling about this is the idea that Donald Trump is taking a position that is to protect women, this is a sexual predator, and he supposedly is protecting women and girls? That he’s the one who is supposed to be in favor of, you know, really evidence-based health care, in favor of science, in favor of gay rights, in favor of mental health care, in favor of protecting, you know, different people who differ from him. That, all of that—

MAHER: No, he’s a terrible messenger, but penises do not belong in women’s prisons. He’s not wrong about that. Penises do not belong in women’s shelters.

PAUL: Right, but this is one of the issues that’s become so ridiculously politicized and polarized—

MAHER: Yes.

PAUL: — That there is no room and most Americans I think, you know, deserve credit. Most Americans are reasonable on this issue and on the issue of biological boys playing on girls’ sports teams or biological men being in women’s prisons, most Americans in both parties agree.

PBS News Hour host Amna Nawaz, Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart, and New York Times columnist David Brooks came together on Friday to mourn the first month of Donald Trump 2.0. Together, the trio would lament the supposed lack of “guardrails” that is allowing Trump to run “roughshod” over the government in pursuit of “Ivy League right-wing nihilism.”

Nawaz began with Capehart, “Can I just get both of you to briefly weigh in on this? Because we’re nearing one month into the Trump presidency. Is it clear to you where the guardrails are, Jonathan?”

 

 

Capehart was naturally a doomer, “No. No. In a perfect world, Republicans on the Hill would be the guardrails, the rails. They would do things like, I don’t know, maybe not approve some of these unqualified people to the Cabinet. But they haven’t done it. And in the case of Speaker Johnson, he’s not a guardrail. He’s an enabler. He’s a true believer. And so without that resistance from one of the branches of government, the executive is, I think, running roughshod.”

A solemn Nawaz then wondered, “David, do you agree with that?”

Brooks was less gloomy about “guardrails,” but still intensely critical:

Yeah, I think the courts will stand up. Even the Trump appointees, they have very firm opinions about executive power. They believe in the independent judiciary. They believe in the — that we have three branches of government. I think that those guardrails will be there. What I object to is, Donald Trump was elected mostly by working-class people who have real problems. They have health disparities with the rest of us. They have educational disparities. They have workplace — they live in communities that have — where social capital is low.

Brooks further accused Trump of being concerned with the wrong things, “Donald Trump was elected by those people. You’d think he’d care enough about them to do something on behalf of the people who elected him. Instead, he’s going after, you know, USAID. He’s going after any place he thinks there might be liberal people with college degrees.”

The idea of trimming the bureaucracy is a Republican idea that predates Trump, but Brooks has never been completely onboard with even that pre-Trump version of the GOP, so it was hard to take his next point too seriously, “And so what we’re seeing is not populism. What we’re seeing is a sort of Ivy League right-wing nihilism. And, to me, that is so disorienting and so shocking and so appalling that you can’t even serve the legitimate needs of the people who put you in power. They’re totally off the board this last month.”

The sad truth is USAID lost the trust of half the country, but if Trump can cut the liberal culture war bits and make USAID great again, is that really nihilism?

Here is a transcript for the February 14 show:

PBS News Hour

2/15/2025

7:43 PM ET

AMNA NAWAZ: Can I just get both of you to briefly weigh in on this? Because we’re nearing one month into the Trump presidency. Is it clear to you where the guardrails are, Jonathan?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: No. No. In a perfect world, Republicans on the Hill would be the guardrails, the rails. They would do things like, I don’t know, maybe not approve some of these unqualified people to the Cabinet. But they haven’t done it. And in the case of Speaker Johnson, he’s not a guardrail. He’s an enabler. He’s a true believer. And so without that resistance from one of the branches of government, the executive is, I think, running roughshod.

NAWAZ: David, do you agree with that?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, I think the courts will stand up. Even the Trump appointees, they have very firm opinions about executive power. They believe in the independent judiciary. They believe in the — that we have three branches of government.

I think that those guardrails will be there. What I object to is, Donald Trump was elected mostly by working-class people who have real problems. They have health disparities with the rest of us. They have educational disparities. They have workplace — they live in communities that have — where social capital is low.

Donald Trump was elected by those people. You’d think he’d care enough about them to do something on behalf of the people who elected him. Instead, he’s going after, you know, USAID. He’s going after any place he thinks there might be liberal people with college degrees.

And so what we’re seeing is not populism. What we’re seeing is a sort of Ivy League right-wing nihilism. And, to me, that is so disorienting and so shocking and so appalling that you can’t even serve the legitimate needs of the people who put you in power. They’re totally off the board this last month.

Donald Trump never gets any credit for granting broad access to the press. Team Biden was never blamed for avoiding them. That’s because journalists don’t care about their own access. They care about the Democrats winning. They’re partisan team players, not nonpartisan watchdogs. 

This week’s Exhibit A, brought to us by Jorge Bonilla, was CNN’s Scott Jennings thwacking Brian Stelter. He said, “The Biden administration treated the press as poorly as any president has ever treated them, gave them less access, answered no questions, no transparency at any given time. Donald Trump has answered more questions in three weeks than Joe Biden answered in four years.”

“That’s not true,” Stelter protested. “And also a lot of the answers are not true and accurate.”

Later, Stelter responded to Jorge Bonilla’s tweet with this: “Because it’s not possible. Obviously Biden didn’t hold nearly as many Q&As as Trump does. But over the course of 4 years, Biden fielded thousands of questions.” He did? How do we know? Why should we accept a guesstimate? 

Jennings might be exaggerating on the raw numbers, maybe. But he’s not wrong on the big picture. Biden averaged nine pressers a year, and that’s in part because he had four in 2024 plus the first 3 weeks of 2025. He vanished from scrutiny.

We noted before than Reagan Reese at the Daily Caller found President Biden took just six questions from the White House press corps during his first week in office — and some of those were answered with just one word.  Comparatively, the Daily Caller’s analysis shows that Trump surpassed that number just several hours after being sworn in as he took 75 total questions and follow-ups over a 48-minute period in the Oval Office while signing executive orders. He took questions from the press 11 times during his first week in office — more than Biden took in his last year.

Now the other obvious point here is the Difference in Attitude of the press. Even when Biden took questions, they were much gentler than the ferocious grilling Trump would receive. Trump fended off angry crusades like Screaming Jim Acosta. Biden was treated with kid gloves, and that’s saying it mildly. The same goes for interviews with the networks. We would throw Erin Burnett’s soft-serve vanilla cone interview with Biden from last spring at Stelter. The questions Republicans get are much tougher, and then the reporters feel like they have to follow up with the so-called Fact Check. Erin Burnett wasn’t going to fact-check Biden as he mangled his record on inflation.

There was another moment on CNN that shouldn’t be missed, and that’s when Anderson Cooper got upset with former New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, who we recall backed Nikki Haley last year, not Trump. When Sununu gave him some GOP lip, Cooper told him “don’t be a dick.” He quickly retreated and apologized. But it tells you just how much tolerance they have. Sununu was needling Cooper about how much FEMA was spending on illegal immigrants. This is a topic they don’t want to discuss. At all. They call themselves the News networks, but some bits of news they want to strangle to death, never to be heard from. That’s why they have a trust problem.

Enjoy the podcast below, or wherever you listen to podcasts. 

CNN’s outrageously biased ongoing treatment of Elon Musk took a turn Thursday that was so over-the-top it was actually a little funny. On that day’s episode of Inside Politics, Dana Bash hosted two of Musk’s especially vitriolic detractors, and her attempts to cover for them were so ridiculous, it was actually a little more than the pair could just sit there and take.

While opening up what was apparently meant to be a fairly routine session of anti-Musk deprecation, Bash introduced her two guests, Kara Swisher, host of the podcast On, and Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at NYU who also hosts his own podcast. 

It was worth noting, for context, that these two were well known for their vitriolic and angry expression of their views. Swisher had, for example, promoted the idea of the Biden campaign attacking Trump with the slogan “Rapist, racist, fascist.”

 

 

Bash, though, was eager to help her guests show a kinder and gentler face, and as she introduced them, she eagerly gushed: “I just want to fact check something. Musk called you cruel and deceitful human beings. I know you both-You are neither-So- fact check: False. So, let’s get that out of the way.”

“Uh,” responded Swisher, apparently a little uneasy, which put Bash in a tight spot as her guests took to up ending the “fact check” she attempted on their behalf:

BASH: Oh, you want to disagree with me?

SWISHER: OK. All right, we’re a little mean. He said we were mean and that- that’s not in- inaccurate. Correct. Scott, don’t you think?

GALLOWAY: Uh- mean-ish. [Laughter]

SWISHER: Mean-ish.

“Mean, adjacent,” Bash quipped, ending the awkward moment, then hastily turned the conversation back around to Musk.

Evidently, CNN has taken their notorious bias to the point where they will go so far to cover for and sugarcoat their own side, it can be a bit much even for some of those they think they’re doing a favor.

To read the full transcript, click “expand”:

CNN Inside Politics
02/13/2025
12:40 PM

BASH: What motivates the man who hopes the computers are nice to us and is actively trying to replace humans who work for the federal government with computers? Well, who better to talk to than two people plugged into Musk world for years: Kara Swisher, the host of the podcast On and co-host of Pivot and the other Pivot co-host Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at NYU and the host of another podcast, the Prof G Pod.

Okay, before we start, thank you so much for being here, but I just want to fact check something. Musk —

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Sure.

BASH: — called you cruel and deceitful human beings. I know you both-

SWISHER: Yes.

BASH: You are neither-

SWISHER: Yes.

BASH: So- fact check: False. So, let’s get that out of the way. 

SWISHER: Uh-

BASH: Oh, you want to disagree with me?

SWISHER: OK. All right, we’re a little mean. He said we were mean and that- that’s not in- inaccurate. Correct. Scott, don’t you think?

SCOTT GALLOWAY, CO-HOST, “PIVOT”: Uh- mean-ish (laughter)

SWISHER: Mean-ish.

BASH: Mean, adjacent. OK. But let’s talk about why he called you this.

Vice President JD Vance tore into Europe’s abandonment of free speech and authoritarian approach to defending democracy. 

Vance spoke at the 2025 Munich Security Conference on Feb. 14, warning the audience that “in Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” Vance used the occasion of the security conference to ask what had happened to the victorious free nations that won the Cold War. He even noted that while the NATO and EU countries gathered to discuss how to defend against national security threats, domestically countries like Germany and the United Kingdom punish people for praying silently near abortion clinics, censor and criminalize speech. Vance challenged the EU to explain what democratic values are being protected by nations that take these actions. 

[Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America] 

Fox national correspondent Bill Melugin — arguably the country’s foremost border reporter (alongside NewsNation’s Ali Bradley and the New York Post’s Jennie Taer) — absolutely cooked Axios’s Russell Contreras on Friday morning in reaction to this toolish X post seeking to defend President Biden’s handling of the border crisis:

Melugin quote tweeted over this X post and laid waste, starting with exasperation of “I cannot believe this was printed” and then noting Contreras was “the same guy who wrote Biden had the most secure border ever,” which we (and many, many others) dunked on back in August 2023.

His headline on that particular day? “Axios Explains: The myth of a U.S.-Mexico ‘open border.’”

Melugin added Contreras came along and decided to it’s “a ‘scoop’ that Biden’s Border Patrol in November arrested more illegal migrants than Trump’s is now.”

He then leveled the kill shot of a fact-check: “Yes, because illegal crossings have fallen to microscopic levels since Trump took office. There are far fewer people to arrest. And if you want to talk ICE data, the Trump admin ICE made more interior arrests in two weeks than Biden did in the entire month of November.”

In a second X post, Melugin reminded followers of the 2023 “gem” that “aged like milk”:

Contreras himself provided the perfect ending as, instead of engaging with Melugin, he blocked him.

A further examination of the NewsBusters archives revealed Jorge Bonilla tagged Contreras back in October 2021 for painting the murderous communist dictatorship of Fidel Castro should be billed as “Hispanic heritage.”

Back in the present, two of Contreras’s colleagues — Marc Caputo and spokesman Jake Wilkins — came to his defense by citing a passage from the article that made a similar point to Melugin in his fact-check.

In Wilkins’s case, Melugin clapped back: “So you knew that – and this was the headline and framing you went with?”

Jeremy Redfern from Governor Ron DeSantis’s (R-FL) team blasted this attempt to have everyone look past the headline: “Meanwhile, the rage-bait headline still exists. And he doesn’t have to pretend it’s a ‘possible reason.’ It’s rather obvious it’s true to anyone with eyes. This isn’t quantum chemistry. Reporters don’t have to ignore the obvious.”

If you come at the king, you better not miss!

If PBS wants to combat accusations that the tax-funded news network is a haven for smug elitist politics (PBS, where even the conservatives are liberal!), Thursday night’s segment featuring former New York Times columnist and (once) respected economist Paul Krugman wasn’t the way to go about it.

Krugman really leaned into his natural unlikability in the remote interview with PBS’s resident economics reporter Paul Solman, who drew Krugman out on the stupidity of his now-former newspaper and low-income Trump voters

Reminder: Here are just a couple of past Krugman lowlights (besides his ongoing insistence in the face of evidence that Joe Biden had a good economic record):

— Krugman lied about Florida’s successful Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis record on COVID, and resenting DeSantis’s ability to balance freedom and health

— Krugman has been on a pathetic, years’-long crusade to find the killer social-media app that will finally take down Musk’s X.

First, he recounted the good old days of Clinton: 

Paul Krugman, Former Columnist, The New York Times: When I began writing the column [during the Clinton years], people were extremely optimistic. I was hired basically to talk about all the good news and maybe funny stuff that was happening in this glorious late-1990s economic boom. And it’s been a very troubled world since then.

Paul Solman: By trouble, he means, at least domestically, Donald Trump’s policies. But Americans voted for them, didn’t they?

Krugman, directly blamed stupidity on the part of voters for that oversight — even most media Democrats only do that indirectly.

Krugman: Most voters have very little idea of policy. I mean, you look at the polling, ask people, do you approve of Obamacare, and it’s still pretty negative. And you ask, do you approve of the Affordable Care Act, and it’s very positive. So that’s telling you something about what voters understand about policy.

He admitted to being frustrated by voters continuing to consider Bidenflation a problem, though of course he didn’t call it that.

Solman: Did most economists, including yourself, not appreciate how huge a factor the cost-of-living-change pre-COVID to today was–is?

Krugman grumbled in reply.

Krugman: ….I even looked at statistical analyses that said that most of the discontent over inflation, which inflation peaked in the middle of 2022 and has come way down, and I would have expected people to have largely gotten over it by now. And they haven’t.

When Solman sensibly asked why low-income voters went for Trump over Kamala Harris, Krugman responded with an overbearing, elite petulance wholly lacking in self-awareness.

Krugman: ….there’s a lot of confounding of income and education and paying attention. We know that Trump won heavily among people who pay very little attention to the news.

Solman: One great burden of a low income, besides not affording things, says Krugman–

Krugman: Is the cognitive burden it places on people. The biggest benefit once I started earning a nice income was not having to worry all the time about what things cost, whether I could afford this or that. So, asking people to have a sophisticated view on what economic policy can and can’t do is going to be correlated with income, unfortunately.

How patronizing! Krugman has been bragging about his income for decades.

The interview concluded with Krugman explaining in self-serving terms his departure from the paper, accusing his editors of “trying to tone things down.” (If a New York Times editor is telling you to tone things down….)

Krugman made one last patently paranoid prediction:

Paul Solman: And, finally, what is he most worried about at the moment with Trump now back at the helm?

Paul Krugman: Well, I’m most worried about that 2024 may have been our last real election, I mean, given that what appears to be a loyalty purge of the federal bureaucracy, what appears to be unwillingness of the Trump administration to obey court orders, maybe historians will look back and say that American democracy ended in January 2025. That’s top of the list.

Krugman has been calling out Trump’s “rigged” 2016 election for years.

This segment has been brought to you in part by Cunard.

A transcript is available, click “Expand.”

PBS News Hour
2/13/25
7:38:10 p.m. (ET)

Amna Nawaz: Let’s dig a little deeper on how the public mood and political attitudes have shifted over time, tied in no small part to economic shifts and dislocation.

Geoff Bennett: Paul Solman recently spoke with economist and columnist Paul Krugman about his career and how the combination of polarization, globalization and job loss changed the way many Americans see the economy.

Paul Solman: For just short of 25 years, Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman was a New York Times columnist. He began the column in the Clinton years. Krugman left The Times just before Donald Trump was inaugurated.

I asked him back then what has changed in 25 years.

Paul Krugman, Former Columnist, The New York Times: When I began writing the column, people were extremely optimistic. I was hired basically to talk about all the good news and maybe funny stuff that was happening in this glorious late 1990s economic boom. And it’s been a very troubled world since then.

Paul Solman: By trouble, he means, at least domestically, Donald Trump’s policies. But Americans voted for them, didn’t they?

Paul Krugman: Most voters have very little idea of policy. I mean, you look at the polling, ask people, do you approve of Obamacare, and it’s still pretty negative. And you ask, do you approve of the Affordable Care Act, and it’s very positive. So that’s telling you something about what voters understand about policy.

Paul Solman: Krugman pointed to this recent Michigan consumer confidence survey question.

Paul Krugman: Are you personally better off than you were five years ago? In October, a clear plurality of Americans said, no, we’re worse off. In November, a clear plurality of Americans said, yes, we’re better off than we were five years ago.

So, people’s assessment of their own financial situation turns out to be kind of driven by narratives that are floating out there.

Paul Solman: Krugman supported President Biden’s policy of manufacturing investment to help regions hurt by trade and China. But voters in those regions went for Donald Trump. Did they reject the policy?

Paul Krugman: Maybe, or maybe they just didn’t really attribute it to Biden or whatever, although I think we are seeing a dynamic now, which is that it’s going to be harder than some Republicans think to reverse those policies, that people may not have given Biden credit for that new battery factory in your town, but they will get really angry if the battery factory closes because we have cut off the subsidies.

Paul Solman: Did most economists, including yourself, not appreciate how huge a factor the cost of living change pre-COVID to today was, is?

Paul Krugman: I would have thought — I did think — I even looked at statistical analyses that said that most of the discontent over inflation, which inflation peaked in the middle of 2022 and has come way down, and I would have expected people to have largely gotten over it by now. And they haven’t.

Paul Solman: Do you have an explanation for it?

Paul Krugman: I think that part of it is just that the shock of this coming for the first time after decades of price stability was part of it. And then part of it is just that we are — our political discourse has become much more fragmented, much more polarized.

Paul Solman: For voters with incomes under $50,000 a year, household incomes, Donald Trump actually did better than Kamala Harris. Why do you suppose that was?

Paul Krugman: Trump promised to bring prices down, which is a promise that he immediately abandoned as soon as he won. But that — so, that would have appealed to low-income voters as a promise.

And, also, there’s a lot of confounding of income and education and paying attention. We know that Trump won heavily among people who pay very little attention to the news.

Paul Solman: One great burden of a low income, besides not affording things, says Krugman.

Paul Krugman: Is the cognitive burden it places on people. The biggest benefit once I started earning a nice income was not having to worry all the time about what things cost, whether I could afford this or that.

So, asking people to have a sophisticated view on what economic policy can and can’t do is going to be correlated with income, unfortunately.

Paul Solman: Krugman not only made a good living. He also advised various administrations on economic policy. Advice taken?

Paul Krugman: The thing that I have learned in real life is that, no matter how much you know, no matter how right you have been, your ability to actually influence policy is very, very limited.

I mean, if you ask, how many times has somebody with actual power actually taken advice that I gave them, the answer is once my whole life.

Paul Solman: What are you least proud of?

Paul Krugman: I think maybe the thing I’m least proud of is that I missed one of the important problems of globalization. I thought it was on the whole a good thing, but that it would be problematic.

But what I missed was the way that the impact would be concentrated on particular communities. So we can look and say that the China shock displaced maybe one or two million U.S. manufacturing workers. A million-and-a-half people are laid off every month, so what’s that?

But what I missed was that there would be individual towns that would be in the path of this tidal wave of imports from China that would have their reason for existence gutted.

Paul Solman: Yesterday, I caught up with him again for two final questions, first why he left The Times and moved to Substack, where more than 200,000 followers now read whatever’s on his mind.

Paul Krugman: It’s very important to me, given my sort of dual career, to be able to weigh in on ongoing discussions of economics in a way that you can’t do in an 800-word column written for a general audience. And so I had a newsletter at The Times, which was summarily canceled. They said I was writing too much.

That was when I decided I needed to leave, but also that I had always been very, very lightly edited at The Times, until the last year. And then the editing became extremely intrusive. And I felt that I was putting in an enormous amount of effort trying to undo the damage and that everything was coming out bland and colorless as a result of the fight over the editors trying to tone things down.

Paul Solman: And, finally, what is he most worried about at the moment with Trump now back at the helm?

Paul Krugman: Well, I’m most worried about that 2024 may have been our last real election, I mean, given that the — what appears to be a loyalty purge of the federal bureaucracy, what appears to be unwillingness of the Trump administration to obey court orders, maybe historians will look back and say that American democracy ended in January 2025.

That’s top of the list.

Paul Solman: Well, like his Substack, not bland, not toned down. For the “PBS News Hour,” Paul Solman working from home outside Boston.

Three days after CBS Mornings Plus shacked up with the rest of the liberal media’s manufactured narrative about the country either in the midst of or about to enter “a constitutional crisis,” CBS’s longtime Supreme Court correspondent Jan Crawford showed up on Friday’s show to burst the bubble of liberals that we are not, in fact, in a state of chaos.

Co-host Tony Dokoupil didn’t mention his own show in the open, but at least laid out both sides of the coin, starting with the left:

Depending on where you get your news, you may have started the week hearing this phrase. Constitutional crisis. There are concerns out there for some as the president continues to issue executive orders. Those orders have then faced lawsuits and those lawsuits have then faced pushback from the President and his allies. To no surprise, the perception of these battles, their legitimacy likely depends on her politics. 

After playing a clip of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt laying waste to this on Wednesday and then citing a few of Trump’s moves to shrink government, Crawford didn’t mince words.

WATCH: CBS’s Jan Crawford delivers some bad news to the crowd who spend this week declaring America’s in a “constitutional crisis”…
“[W]e kind of have to take a breath and try to meet in the middle here. I mean, obviously there is no question that Trump is really pushing that… pic.twitter.com/0IStoTtiS9
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 14, 2025
Crawford explained everyone needs “to take a breath and meet the in middle” by recognizing Trump’s moves are “pushing that legal envelope” and “some of” his actions will be struck down, yet “there’s also no question that some of the judges are going a little too far in putting the brakes on actions that Trump clearly has the authority to do.”

She then dropped the kicker that there’s not, in fact, a “constitutional crisis” in our midst: 

[W]hat does this mean? I think this shows that at least here the system is working like it is supposed to. There’s no constitutional crisis right now. People are suing over these programs, these actions. Judges are blocking them. Trump is then appealing that. He is not ignoring judicial orders. He is filing court papers, saying that he has the authority. And, on some of these, he is going to win.

Co-host Adriana Diaz moved to a specific example of Trump “trying to freeze federal spending” and asked Crawford to predict how that’d shake out.

Crawford disappointed Diaz by saying “it depends” because presidents “can take a pause for some of this stuff and get stock of some of these — take stock of some of these programs” such as President Biden dragging his feet on border wall funding while it might not be legal if “there are deadlines” attached.

“I know we all love to talk about the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but that is a problem because that law says that the President, honestly, cannot withhold these kind of funds. Trump is going to argue that is unconstitutional,” she explained.

Crawford closed with another jab at the doomsday crowd that, contrary to what some of them likely believe, the Trump administration has been “very strategic” and thought out in their executive orders and moves t  o downsize the executive branch with some likely to make it and others struck down.

.@JanCBS Crawford explains on @CBSMornings Plus that, contrary to what some liberals and Trump critics have been arguing, there has been, in fact, a lot of thought put into the Trump team’s executive orders:
“I think it’s very strategic. I mean, look, these executive orders, and… pic.twitter.com/6UPMwjHNtx
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 14, 2025
“[L]ook, these executive orders…were not written overnight. I mean, they — they spent months on these executive orders and they targeted unpopular political programs or issues and they also targeted areas of the law that they thought the Supreme Court may be about to head towards,” she stated, citing withholding money for government agencies and firing heads of government agencies like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

To see the relevant CBS transcript from February 14, click here.