Media

Home Media

Controversial Republicans Join New Pentagon Press Corps For Rare Briefing

0
David B. Gleason from Chicago, IL, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Right-wing media personality Laura Loomer and former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) were among the press invited to a rare Pentagon briefing Tuesday, a meeting that underscored the Defense Departmentโ€™s shifting approach to media access and messaging.

Gaetzโ€”once floated for attorney general and now a host at the pro-Trump outlet One America News Networkโ€”was called on early and asked what role the U.S. military could play in Venezuela if the countryโ€™s leader, Nicolรกs Maduro, flees amid a Trump administration pressure campaign tied to allegations of drug trafficking.

โ€œThe department has a contingency plan for everything,โ€ Pentagon press secretary Kingsley Wilson replied. โ€œOur focus is taking out narco terrorists โ€ฆ every single boat we strike is saving American lives.โ€

The briefing comes as the Pentagon is facing backlash, including from some Republican lawmakers, over two U.S. military strikes in September on an alleged drug-trafficking boat in the Caribbean. The second strike reportedly killed survivors of the initial hit, raising fresh questions on Capitol Hill about rules of engagement and oversight.

When Loomer was recognized, she asked about reported plans for the United States to sell fighter jets to Qatar.

Wilson responded that the Pentagon โ€œlooks forward to continuing its partnership with Qatar.โ€ Loomer pushed back, calling Qatar the โ€œlargest sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood,โ€ and asked whether the U.S. would โ€œreevaluateโ€ its relationship with the country.

Wilson declined to suggest any policy shift, saying the Defense Department โ€œprioritizes national securityโ€ and that he was not aware of changes to U.S.-Qatari military agreements.

The exchange unfolded against broader turmoil over Pentagon press access. Earlier this fall, the department announced a major revamp of operating procedures for journalists covering the Pentagon, including a requirement that reporters sign a more restrictive press policyโ€”an overhaul that reportedly contributed to a mass departure of several mainstream outlets from the building.

In response, the Trump administration has credentialed a number of right-leaning or MAGA-aligned figures, including some who have not previously attended Pentagon press briefings in person, signaling an effort to broaden access beyond the traditional media establishment.

Florida Judge Tosses Truth Social Lawsuit Against The Guardian

0

A Florida judge has dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Truth Socialโ€™s parent company, Truth Media & Technology Group Corp. (TMTG), against The Guardian, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, and several reportersโ€”marking another instance in which legal actions connected to President Donald Trumpโ€™s media interests have faced significant hurdles in court.

The case stemmed from two articles published by the UK-based Guardian in March 2023. According to Judge Hunter Carroll of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court for Sarasota County, the reporting focused on โ€œa federal criminal investigation related to TMTGโ€™s receipt of two payments totaling $8 million.โ€ The articles described claimsโ€”sourced to individuals familiar with the matterโ€”that โ€œfederal prosecutors in New York were conducting a money laundering investigation related to the payments, which were wired through the Caribbean from Paxum Bank and ES Family Trust, entities with ties to an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin and a history of providing banking services to the sex worker industry.โ€ The reporting also said the origins of the loans raised internal concerns at TMTG, including that its then-CFO considered returning the funds before the company โ€œultimately did not.โ€

The Guardianโ€™s reporting was later referenced by other outlets, including the Herald-Tribune. TMTG filed suit, arguing the articles were false and defamatory and asserting that TMTG โ€œis not, and never was, under investigation for money laundering,โ€ and that neither the company nor its executives โ€œhave been the focus of any investigation.โ€

Judge Carroll noted in his ruling that TMTG acknowledged it is a public figure, which requires a higher standard of proofโ€”โ€œactual maliceโ€โ€”to prevail on a defamation claim. After reviewing the allegations, the court concluded that TMTG had not met that threshold. The judge also cited Floridaโ€™s anti-SLAPP statute, intended to stop lawsuits โ€œwithout merit and primarily because such person or entity has exercised the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue.โ€ Under the statute, defendants may recover attorneysโ€™ fees when targeted by meritless suits aimed at discouraging public participation.

Carroll emphasized that โ€œmerely reporting on negative information is not enough to establish actual malice,โ€ adding that the law โ€œrequires more than a departure from journalistic standards or a mere failure to investigate.โ€

The articles, he wrote, were grounded in โ€œmultiple sources familiar with the investigation, review of internal TMTG communications, investigation of the entities who made the loans, and fruitless requests for further information from the Department of Justice, the investigatorsโ€™ office, and outside counsel for TMTG.โ€

TMTGโ€™s CEO Devin Nunesโ€”formerly a Republican congressmanโ€”had publicly denied that the company was aware of any issues related to the loans, and the Guardian included his denial in its reporting. But Carroll found that the denial did not demonstrate malice, writing: โ€œThis denial is not germane to the existence or nature of the investigation, and even if it was, such commonplace denials do not establish actual malice.โ€


Broader Context: Trump-Affiliated Defamation Suits Face Legal Barriers

The dismissal is the latest example of how defamation cases brought by Trump or entities connected to him have struggled to move forward, largely due to high legal standards for public figures and strong protections for political and investigative reporting.

Key related examples include:

Trump v. CNN (2022โ€“2023)

President Trump sued CNN for $475 million, arguing the network defamed him by comparing some of his statements about the 2020 election to rhetoric used by authoritarian regimes. A federal judge dismissed the suit in 2023, finding that the comparisons were protected opinion rather than factual claims.

Trump Campaign v. The New York Times (2020โ€“2021)

The Trump campaign sued The New York Times over an opinion piece suggesting Trump had welcomed Russian election interference. A New York judge dismissed the case, emphasizing that opinion columnsโ€”especially on political mattersโ€”receive robust First Amendment protection.

Trump Campaign v. The Washington Post (2020โ€“2021)

A similar lawsuit against The Washington Post over opinion articles discussing the campaignโ€™s contacts with Russia was also dismissed for lack of actionable factual claims.

Trump v. The New York Times and Mary Trump (2019 publication; lawsuit filed 2021; dismissed 2022)

President Trump filed suit against the newspaper and his niece Mary Trump over reporting that relied on family tax records. A judge dismissed the case in 2022, finding that newsgathering activitiesโ€”even aggressive onesโ€”are protected under the First Amendment.

Bill Maher Open To Voting Republican – But With Some Changes

2
Missvain, CC BY 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Comedian and longtime liberal commentator Bill Maher told Fareed Zakaria on CNNโ€™s GPS that he could โ€œof courseโ€ envision voting Republican โ€” but only if the party becomes something markedly different than what it has been.

Maher, who has been a longtime critic of Donald Trump and a traditional supporter of Democrats, laid out a number of caveats before making such a move. โ€œThey would have to certainly lose the idea of โ€˜we donโ€™t concede elections,โ€™โ€ he said.

He added his biggest concern:

โ€œAnd my biggest worry is that they feel that the excesses of the left are so great, that they are so antiโ€common sense. And again, theyโ€™re not completely wrong about that โ€” that they are so โ€” never met something that was counterintuitive that they didnโ€™t embrace. That they just canโ€™t let these people take power and, therefore, even if there has to โ€” if democracy has to be sacrificed for hanging on to power,โ€ Maher said.

Maher also questioned the GOPโ€™s longโ€term commitment to democratic norms after Trump:

โ€œWill they still keep that idea that we cannot let these people take power? These people who just do not have any idea of common sense, they want to reinvent everything. They are revolutionaries in a country that is not asking for [a] revolution โ€” theyโ€™re just asking for politicians to fix things. That is my biggest concern.โ€ He noted a hope for a โ€œreturn to normalcyโ€ after Trump โ€” though he expressed skepticism.

At the same time, Maher acknowledged areas where he believes Trump was right:

He pointed out the border, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) initiatives, and NATO contributions. โ€œHe showed that you can close the border. It wasnโ€™t something you needed congressional help for. You could just do it, and he did it. He just did it too far. And people don’t like to see people tackled at Home Depot and people they know who have been in this country for a long time.โ€

He wrapped up by hitting both parties:

โ€œWhy canโ€™t either one be normal?โ€ he asked rhetorically.


Why this matters for Republicans

Maherโ€™s comments underscore a key opportunity and challenge for the GOP: there are nonโ€traditional voices who might vote Republican โ€” but only if the party reaffirms core democratic norms and commonโ€sense governance rather than radical transformation. If Republicans continue to be associated with election denial, extreme rhetoric, or sweeping change beyond what voters ask for, they risk alienating such swing voices.

For Republican-leaning audiences focused on policy, governance, and institutional credibility, Maherโ€™s remarks are a reminder that expanding the partyโ€™s appeal may hinge more on tone and norms than just raw policy wins.

Appeals Court Tosses Out ‘Meritless’ Trump Lawsuit Against CNN

1

A federal appeals court panel has rejected President Donald Trumpโ€™s attempt to revive his lawsuit against CNN over the networkโ€™s repeated use of the term โ€œBig Lieโ€ to characterize his claims about irregularities in the 2020 election. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that CNNโ€™s wordingโ€”despite its historical connotations and its association with Adolf Hitlerโ€”falls under First Amendment-protected opinion rather than a provable factual assertion.

The three-judge panel, which notably included two judges appointed by Trump, concluded that CNNโ€™s choice of language, while controversial, could not sustain a defamation claim.

โ€œTrumpโ€™s argument hinges on the fact that his own interpretation of his conduct โ€” i.e., that he was exercising a constitutional right to identify his concerns with the integrity of elections โ€” is true and that CNNโ€™s interpretation โ€” i.e., that Trump was peddling his โ€˜Big Lieโ€™ โ€” is false,โ€ the unanimous panel wrote. โ€œHowever, his conduct is susceptible to multiple subjective interpretations, including CNNโ€™s.โ€

Because statements of opinion cannot be proven true or false, the court determined CNNโ€™s phrasing did not meet the legal threshold for defamation.

โ€œCNNโ€™s subjective assessment of Trumpโ€™s conduct is not readily capable of being proven true or False,โ€ wrote Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee, joined by Trump appointees Kevin Newsom and Elizabeth Branch.

Trump now has the option to request a rehearing by the full 11th Circuit or appeal to the Supreme Court. A spokesperson for Trumpโ€™s legal team indicated he plans to continue challenging the ruling, saying he โ€œwill pursue this case against CNN to its just and deserved conclusion.โ€ CNN declined to comment.

The appeals courtโ€™s decision affirms a July ruling by U.S. District Judge Raag Singhalโ€”also appointed by Trumpโ€”who dismissed Trumpโ€™s $475 million lawsuit last year. That lawsuit argued that CNN used the phrase โ€œBig Lieโ€ to intentionally evoke Nazi comparisons, but Singhal found that even harsh or offensive opinions are protected unless they include false statements of fact.

The appellate judges agreed, writing: โ€œTrumpโ€™s argument is unpersuasive. Although he concedes that CNNโ€™s use of the term โ€˜Big Lieโ€™ is, to some extent, ambiguous, he assumes that it is unambiguous enough to constitute a statement of fact. This assumption is untenable.โ€

This decision represents another setback in Trumpโ€™s broader effort to challenge major media outlets he says have misrepresented him. While he has secured some favorable settlementsโ€”including from ABC and CBSโ€™s parent companyโ€”his lawsuits against the New York Times and CNN have faced significant resistance in court. Most recently, Trump criticized and threatened legal action against the BBC over edits made to his January 6, 2021, speech on the Ellipse.

BBC Officially Apologizes To Trump For Deceptive Edit

0

The British broadcaster BBC has formally apologized to the White House for the way it edited a clip of President Trumpโ€™s speech on January 6, 2021 โ€” the day before the Capitol attack. The apology comes just days after President Trumpโ€™s legal team threatened the BBC with a $1 billion lawsuit over the segment, which appeared in a documentary.

According to a BBC spokesperson, โ€œLawyers for the BBC have written to President Trumpโ€™s legal team in response to a letter received on Sunday.โ€ The BBC added: โ€œChair [Samir Shah] has separately sent a personal letter to the White House making clear to President Trump that he and the Corporation are sorry for the edit of the Presidentโ€™s speech on 6 January 2021, which featured in the programme.โ€ The BBC also confirmed that there are no plans to rebroadcast the documentary Trump: A Second Chance? on any of its platforms.

The broadcaster acknowledged that โ€œthe way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action,โ€ and referred to it as โ€œan error in judgement.โ€ The BBC nonetheless stated that it strongly disagrees there is a valid defamation claim.

The specific clip in question showed Trump saying to his rally crowd: โ€œWeโ€™re going to walk down to the Capitol, and Iโ€™ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.โ€ A fuller official transcript and video, however, show that Trump also told his supporters to march โ€œpeacefully and patrioticallyโ€ to the Capitol.

President Trumpโ€™s lawsuit accuses the BBC of defamation, alleging the broadcaster caused โ€œoverwhelming financial and reputational harmโ€ with the editing. With this apology, the BBC has taken a step toward mollifying the matter โ€” but the threat of litigation remains.

President Trump has a well-documented history of filing lawsuits (or threatening them) against major media outlets. Here are a few notable examples:

  • Trumpโ€™s legal team recently filed a $15 billion defamation and libel lawsuit against The New York Times, four of its journalists, and publisher Penguin Random House. He accuses them of publishing false allegations about his business and political career, saying they harmed his brand and business interests.
  • Earlier in 2025 he filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and its owner (including Rupert Murdoch) over an article about alleged ties between Trump and the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
  • In 2024, a settlement was reached when parent company Paramount Global (of CBS) paid $16 million to resolve a suit Trump brought over purportedly misleading editing of a 2024 interview on 60 Minutes.
  • Legal-watchers note that by mid-2025 Trump was involved in as many new media and defamation lawsuits as he was in all of 2024 โ€” reflecting a significant escalation of his willingness to use litigation in his media disputes

Tucker Carlson Says He Was Attacked By A Demon, Sparking Debate Over His Fitness For Leadership

0

Leaving him with bleeding claw marks andโ€ฆ

Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson says he was the victim of what he describes as a โ€œdemonic attack,โ€ an incident he claims left him with bleeding claw marks and struggling to breathe. The account, shared publicly for the first time during a Megyn Kelly Live Tour event in New York, has prompted concerns about his mental health and overall fitness for leadership.

Carlsonโ€™s Account

Carlson said the episode occurred about 18 months ago, around 2:30 a.m., while he and his wife were asleep with their four hunting dogs. He said he woke up unable to breathe and felt as though he was โ€œgraying out.โ€ Moments later, he experienced sharp pain under his arms and along his ribs, โ€œas if ripped with a knife.โ€

When he turned on the light, Carlson said, he saw bleeding claw marks on both sides of his chest. His wife awoke and, according to Carlson, immediately concluded that โ€œsomething attacked you.โ€ None of the dogs stirred during the incident, a detail he said made it even more unsettling.

Aftermath and Reflection

Carlson described feeling an overwhelming urge to read the Bible before falling asleep for a few minutes and waking to believe it had been a dream โ€” until he discovered blood on the bedsheets and noticed the same marks again.

He told Kelly that an assistant later suggested the incident was a form of โ€œspiritual warfare,โ€ echoing his wifeโ€™s interpretation. Carlson said he does not expect skeptics to believe him but remains convinced that โ€œsomething realโ€ took place.

โ€œI canโ€™t explain it, but it was not a dream,โ€ he told Megyn Kelly. โ€œIt was something that happened in the physical world.โ€

Reaction and Ridicule

Critics, including Project 2025 contributor and The Origins of Woke author Richard Hanania, questioned Carlsonโ€™s mental state and credibility. โ€œThis is not the kind of thing a stable person says publicly,โ€ Hanania wrote on X.

Observers suggested the incident described by Carlson is consistent with a โ€œnocturnal panic attack,โ€ a phenomenon that occurs during deep sleep and can cause sudden awakenings marked by intense fear and physical distress. Unlike nightmares, these episodes are not typically tied to a specific dream or outside stimulus.

Medical experts note that while panic attacks do not usually cause self-harm, people may inadvertently injure themselves if they move violently or attempt to โ€œescapeโ€ a perceived threat while half-awake and disoriented.

Other scientific explanations for self-inflicted marks during sleep include severe anxiety, night terrors, and REM behavior disorder โ€” in which people act out dreams โ€” and coexisting mental health conditions such as obsessive-compulsive or trauma-related disorders.

Other conservative critics were equally bemused, relying on the principle of Ockhamโ€™s Razor โ€” the idea that the simplest explanation is usually correct.

Supporters, many of them evangelical Christians, framed Carlsonโ€™s experience as evidence of the spiritual conflict they believe lies at the heart of Americaโ€™s cultural and political divide. They praised his willingness to speak openly about faith, calling it a sign of moral courage.

Implications for Carlsonโ€™s Role

Even after the controversy surrounding his friendly interview with white nationalist Nick Fuentes, Carlson remains one of the most influential figures in digital media, commanding a broad following across multiple platforms. However, critics argue that promoting claims of a demonic attack risks alienating mainstream voters and undermining the credibility of both the conservative movement and conservative journalism.

Carlson also claimed in an interview during the final day before the 2024 election that demonic forces created nuclear technology, linking the dropping of the atomic bomb that forced Japanโ€™s unconditional surrender to the rise of secularism.

Carlson did not address how the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki โ€” combined with Russiaโ€™s declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria โ€” eliminated the need for a costly invasion of Japanโ€™s home islands (Operations Olympic and Coronet) or a prolonged blockade, actions that historians widely agree would have caused millions of additional deaths.

He also did not mention that in the early 1900s, church membership and attendance were relatively modest. In 1890, the census found that 33% of Americans identified as belonging to a church.

After World War II, however, the United States experienced a remarkable religious revival. Church membership grew from ~43% attended church before the war to โ€œmore than 55%โ€ by 1950, rising to 69% by the end of the 1950s. Gallup polls from the era show about 45% of adults reported attending church or synagogue weekly, a sharp increase from earlier decades.

The revival spanned denominations: Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish congregations all saw dramatic growth. Many Americans tied this renewed faith to national identity โ€” a Cold War-era contrast with โ€œgodless communism.โ€

Despite the backlash, Tucker Carlsonโ€™s fans arenโ€™t backing down. They say his openness about faith isnโ€™t weakness โ€” itโ€™s courage.

To them, his honesty reflects humility and conviction โ€” the very traits America needs in an age that has grown increasingly secular in recent decades.

Whatโ€™s Next

Carlson has not provided photos or medical documentation of the alleged injuries, and there is no verifiable evidence to support his account.

Whether the story ultimately strengthens or weakens his influence may depend less on the broader electorate than on how conservative audiences interpret it โ€” as a test of faith or a question of credibility.

Republicans Uncover Epsteinโ€™s Coordination With Reporters To Smear Trump

2
By Ralph Alswang, White House photographer - https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-epstein-maxwell/, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=143417695

Just hours after the White House publicly accused congressional Democrats of selectively leaking emails related to Jeffrey Epstein on Wednesday, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee released tens of thousands of additional pages of documents. These include email exchanges between Epstein and prominent journalists.

A significant portion of the new material shows correspondence between Epstein and writer-turned-biographer Michael Wolff. Wolff reached out to Epstein multiple times, discussing not only Epsteinโ€™s public image but how to leverage criticism of Donald Trump for strategic benefit.

In February 2016, Wolff wrote to Epstein:

โ€œNYT called me about you and Trump,โ€
โ€œAlso, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting.โ€

A month later they discussed plans ahead of the release of Filthy Rich โ€” a true-crime book by James Patterson about Epstein, who was Pattersonโ€™s neighbor in Palm Beach. Wolff suggested to Epstein:

โ€œBecoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly donโ€™t have now.โ€
And he added:
โ€œPatterson can be counted on to produce a bestseller, and while he isn’t regarded as a serious writer, he’ll surely be unloading a lot of tabloid copy โ€ฆ Because this will be tied to the election, the Trump-Clinton angle will amp up the attention 10-fold, in fact, possibly, a hundred fold. Possibly more than anything you’ve encountered before.โ€

When Epstein asked Wolff what he should say publicly about his relationship with Trump, Wolffโ€™s advice was pointed:

โ€œIf he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,โ€
โ€œYou can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.โ€

In further correspondence, Wolff requested introductions for Epstein to two figures close to Trump: business leader and inaugural-committee chair Tom Barrack and former federal prosecutor Kathy Ruemmler. He told Epstein he sought โ€œan off-the-record perspective on White House procedures,โ€ while researching his book about Trumpโ€™s first 100 days in office. He also asked whether former President Bill Clinton would confirm he had never been to Epsteinโ€™s private U.S. Virgin Islands island, Little St. John โ€” a place Clinton has publicly denied visiting. Epsteinโ€™s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell has also denied seeing Clinton there.

The documents show that Epstein and Wolff planned to meet as recently as May 2019 โ€” months before Epstein died in a federal jail cell while awaiting trial.

Read some of the emails below:

Some of the newly released material included a short video of a dog and what appear to be chew toys modeled after Trump and the 2016 presidential rival Hillary Clinton. Others appear to be slides from an adviser working to generate positive search-engine results for Epstein following his 2008 conviction for child-sex crimes.

Earlier, Democrats had released documents that included an especially cryptic email from Epstein to Maxwell โ€” one that mentions Trump by name, and refers to an unnamed victim of Epsteinโ€™s trafficking network. The email read:

โ€œI want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump,โ€ Epstein wrote on April 2, 2011.
โ€œ[VICTIM] spent hours at my house with himโ€ฆhe has never once been mentioned. Police chief. etc. I’m 75% there.โ€

Officials later identified the โ€œunnamed victimโ€ as well-known Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide earlier this year. Giuffre repeatedly stated that Trump was not involved in wrongdoing and โ€œcouldnโ€™t have been friendlierโ€ to her in their limited interactions. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, responded:

โ€œThe fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre.โ€

In his own post on Truth Social, Trump weighed in:

โ€œThe Democrats cost our Country $1.5 Trillion Dollars with their recent antics of viciously closing our Country, while at the same time putting many at risk โ€” and they should pay a fair price,โ€ he wrote.
โ€œThere should be no deflections to Epstein or anything else, and any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our Country, and fixing the massive damage caused by the Democrats!โ€

As a reminder: Epstein secured a highly-controversial so-called โ€œsweetheartโ€ deal in 2008 for child-sex crimes. He was arrested again in 2019 on more serious trafficking charges โ€” but died before the case went to trial. Maxwell was convicted of grooming and procuring girls and young women for Epstein; she is appealing and continues to assert her innocence.


Key Takeaways for a Republican Audience

  • The timing of the document releases and allegations of selective leaking by Democrats raises questions about political motive and media stratagem.
  • The correspondence shows efforts to frame Epsteinโ€™s narrative around Trump โ€” part of a broader attempt to tie the story to the 2016 presidential election and cast Trump in a negative light.
  • Trumpโ€™s defenders argue the documents reinforce his long-standing disassociation from Epstein, as well as serve to remind voters of Democratsโ€™ role in political maneuvering, rather than holding criminals accountable.
  • For Republicans focused on institutional integrity and media accountability, the episode reinforces concerns about selective exposure of documents, agenda-driven leaks, and manipulation of public perception.

Trump Ups The Ante On Imminent BBC Lawsuit

1
Tyler Merbler, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump is threatening to sue the BBC for at least $1 billion, accusing the British broadcaster of defamation after it aired a misleadingly edited clip in its pre-election documentary, โ€œTrump: A Second Chance?โ€

The film, which aired ahead of the November 2024 election, includes footage from Trumpโ€™s January 6, 2021 โ€œStop the Stealโ€ rally, just before Congress certified Joe Bidenโ€™s 2020 victory. The BBCโ€™s version of Trumpโ€™s remarks spliced together two separate parts of his speech to make it appear more inflammatory.

The documentary quoted Trump as saying:

โ€œWeโ€™re going to walk down to the Capitol, and Iโ€™ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.โ€

However, in reality, Trumpโ€™s words were more measured. He told supporters:

โ€œWeโ€™re going to walk down, and Iโ€™ll be there with you, weโ€™re going to walk down, weโ€™re going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, weโ€™re going to walk down to the Capitol, and weโ€™re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and weโ€™re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. Because youโ€™ll never take back our country with weakness.โ€

He continued:

โ€œYou have to show strength, and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.โ€

Trump also explicitly called for peaceful protest, adding:

โ€œI know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.โ€

It wasnโ€™t until about an hour later in his remarks that Trump said the second part of the BBCโ€™s edited clip:

โ€œAnd we fight. We fight like hell. And if you donโ€™t fight like hell, youโ€™re not going to have a country anymore.โ€

BBC Leaders Step Down Amid Backlash

The controversy was first exposed by The Daily Telegraph, which published an internal BBC memo acknowledging the editing issue. Following the uproar, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness both resigned.

In a message to staff, Turness admitted that โ€œmistakes have been madeโ€ but denied claims that the BBC is โ€œinstitutionally biased.โ€

Trumpโ€™s Legal Response

Trumpโ€™s attorney, Alejandro Britt, sent the BBC a legal letter demanding a full apology and retraction. The letter accuses the broadcaster of โ€œdefrauding the publicโ€ and misrepresenting Trumpโ€™s words to paint him in a negative light.

โ€œWell, I guess I have to,โ€ Trump told Fox Newsโ€™s Laura Ingraham on Tuesday, confirming his intent to sue. โ€œWhy not? Because they defrauded the public, and theyโ€™ve admitted it.โ€

A Pattern of Media Accountability

This is not the first time the President has successfully taken on major media outlets.

Last year, ABC News settled with Trump for $15 million after anchor George Stephanopoulos falsely claimed on-air that Trump was found civilly liable for rape in the E. Jean Carroll case. The jury had, in fact, found him liable only for sexual abuse.

In July 2024, Trump won another $16 million settlement from Paramount, following claims that a โ€œ60 Minutesโ€ interview with Kamala Harris was heavily edited to favor her during the election season.

Trump also has an ongoing $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, accusing it of defamation after it published a supposed birthday note he allegedly wrote to Jeffrey Epsteinโ€”a note Trump denies ever writing.

BBC Chiefs Quit After Accusations Of Deep-Rooted Bias

1
The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

LONDON โ€” The BBCโ€™s top two executives are stepping down amid mounting pressure over editorial credibility, shaking confidence in the U.K.โ€™s national broadcaster just as it faces critical decisions on funding and governance.

On Sunday, BBC Director-General Tim Davie and BBC News chief Deborah Turness announced their resignations. The dual departure follows weeks of mounting backlash over allegations of systemic bias in the networkโ€™s coverage โ€” from President Donald Trump and the war in Gaza to debates over transgender rights.

Pressure Built After Leaked Memo

The tipping point came with a leaked internal memo from former BBC adviser Michael Prescott. The memo accused the broadcaster of โ€œserious and systemic biasโ€ across a range of politically charged topics.

Chief among them: an episode of Panorama that aired selectively edited footage of Trumpโ€™s Jan. 6, 2021, speech. Critics said the edits gave the false impression that Trump directly called on supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol. The full version of the speech did not support that claim.

Controversy also surrounded the BBCโ€™s coverage of the Gaza conflict. Accusations included overreliance on anti-Israel voices, sourcing from extremists on its Arabic service, and distorted portrayals of children and wartime suffering.

In a separate thread of concern, BBC staff raised red flags over the networkโ€™s handling of trans-related issues, arguing its reporting often lacked balance and downplayed the contested nature of the debates.

Davie and Turness Respond

In a message to BBC staff, Davie acknowledged the broadcasterโ€™s imperfections.

โ€œLike all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect,โ€ he wrote. โ€œWhile not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision.โ€

Turness, while taking responsibility for the news division, rejected claims of structural bias.

โ€œWhile mistakes have been made,โ€ she wrote, โ€œI want to be absolutely clear: recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.โ€

BBC Chairman Samir Shah called it a โ€œsad day,โ€ affirming the boardโ€™s support for Davie but conceding the strain he had been under.

A Deeper Governance Crisis

The BBC, funded by the public through license fees, is required by charter to deliver impartial journalism. The resignations expose a deeper institutional crisis at a time when the broadcasterโ€™s mandate and funding model are under review.

The current Royal Charter is set to expire in 2027. Debates about the future of the license fee, the role of public media, and political interference are already in motion. The timing of this leadership vacuum could have significant downstream effects.

What Comes Next

The BBC board now faces the task of finding replacements for two of its most senior posts. The outcome will shape the editorial tone and strategic direction of the broadcaster for years to come.

Internal reviews are expected, especially around how the Panorama episode was handled and whether internal warnings were ignored. Broader investigations may follow, probing the extent of bias across the BBCโ€™s output.

In the near term, the corporation faces reputational damage. With over 100 BBC employees and 200 industry professionals having signed an open letter last year criticizing Gaza coverage, pressure is mounting not just from the public but also from within.

Regulators and government officials may push for increased oversight, new editorial controls, or funding reforms as part of the charter renewal debate.

Looking Ahead

Davie, who took over in 2020, exits during one of the BBCโ€™s most fraught moments in recent history. His successor will inherit a broadcaster under siege โ€” from all sides โ€” and with a shrinking window to restore public trust before the next charter review begins in earnest.

What happens next at the BBC wonโ€™t just shape a news organization โ€” it will help define the future of public broadcasting in a divided media landscape.

Fox News Host Clashes With Trump In Tense Interview

1

President Donald Trumpโ€™s latest appearance on The Ingraham Angle turned out to be anything but routine. In a Monday night interview filmed in the Oval Office, Fox News host Laura Ingraham pressed the president repeatedlyโ€”on housing, the economy, foreign policy, and the MAGA movement itselfโ€”leading to one of Trumpโ€™s most combative televised exchanges in recent memory.

Before the interview even aired, a preview clip posted to Ingrahamโ€™s Facebook page hinted at the unusual tone. Filming amid Trumpโ€™s famously gold-adorned surroundings, she teased, โ€œSo these arenโ€™t from Home Depot?โ€ The moment didnโ€™t make it to air, but it set the stage for what followed: a testy back-and-forth between two of the most influential voices in conservative politics.

Trump on Housing and the Economy

Ingraham began by raising concerns about housing affordability and the average age of first-time homebuyers now hitting 40. Trump interrupted, โ€œWe inherited that, you have to understand,โ€ but Ingraham shot back, โ€œLet me get to the question, though.โ€

She challenged Trump on his proposal for a 50-year mortgageโ€”a concept some in the MAGA base criticized as prolonging debt. โ€œIs that really a good idea?โ€ she asked.

โ€œItโ€™s not even a big deal,โ€ Trump said. โ€œI mean, you go from 40 to 50 years.โ€ Ingraham corrected him: โ€œ30 to 50 years.โ€ Trump deflected, blaming โ€œJoe Biden and his lousy Fed person, Jerome Powell,โ€ before asserting, โ€œIf we had a normal person, the Fed would have really low interest rates.โ€

Ingraham pressed further: โ€œWhy are people saying they are anxious about the economy?โ€ Trump dismissed the premise. โ€œI donโ€™t know that they are saying [that]. I think polls are fake. We have the greatest economy we ever had.โ€

Her question came as Republicans are still reeling from setbacks in the New Jersey and Virginia elections. โ€œDo you think voters have the wrong perception?โ€ Ingraham asked. Trump responded, โ€œMore than anything else, itโ€™s a con job by the Democrats. Costs are way down.โ€

The $10,000 Bonus Controversy

Ingraham also questioned Trumpโ€™s Truth Social post offering a $10,000 bonus to air traffic controllers working through the government shutdown. โ€œThere are a lot of delays now, sir,โ€ she noted.

Trump replied, โ€œIโ€™m not happy when I saw people refusing to do unpaid work during the shutdown. Look, life is not so easy for anybody. Our country has never done better. We should not have had people leaving their jobs. What I basically saidโ€”the ones that stayed, there were a lot of themโ€”Iโ€™m sending them a $10,000 bonus.โ€

When Ingraham pressed, โ€œWhere is that money coming from?โ€ Trump quipped, โ€œI donโ€™t know. I will get it from some place. I always get the money from some place, regardless. It doesnโ€™t matter.โ€

Sparring Over China and Foreign Students

The discussion turned global when Ingraham cited a CNN report on China expanding its missile facilities. โ€œChina are not our friends, sir,โ€ she said.

โ€œThey donโ€™t want to mess around with us,โ€ Trump countered. When Ingraham noted Chinaโ€™s theft of U.S. intellectual property, Trump asked, โ€œDo you think the French are better?โ€ Ingraham said yes. Trump shot back, โ€œIโ€™m not so sure.โ€

The tension deepened when Ingraham raised the issue of foreign students. โ€œA lot of MAGA folks are not thrilled about this idea of hundreds of thousands of foreign students in the United States,โ€ she said. โ€œWhy, sir, is that a pro-MAGA position?โ€

Trump defended the policy: โ€œWithout foreign students, you would have half the colleges in the United States go out of business.โ€

โ€œSo what?โ€ Ingraham said bluntly. Trump replied, โ€œI think thatโ€™s a big deal.โ€

The MAGA Movementโ€”and Media Dynamics

Ingraham repeatedly framed questions around the โ€œMAGA folksโ€ critical of Trumpโ€™s ideas. Trump pushed back: โ€œMAGA was my idea. It was nobody elseโ€™s idea. I know better than anybody else MAGA wants to see our country thrive.โ€

That line captured Trumpโ€™s increasingly defensive postureโ€”not just toward Democrats, but toward members of the conservative media who now challenge him more openly. While The Ingraham Angle once provided friendly ground, Mondayโ€™s interview underscored the shifting balance between Trump and right-leaning outlets seeking to assert independence ahead of the 2024 election.

Observers note that Trumpโ€™s prickly demeanor may reflect deeper frustrations: inflationary pressures remain despite his attacks on Bidenโ€™s policies; conservative pundits are fracturing over strategy; and Trumpโ€™s own polling among independent voters has shown volatility. Within this context, even mild criticism from longtime allies can provoke his ire.

A Tense Exchange Symbolizing a Larger Rift

The Oval Office encounter stood in stark contrast to Ingrahamโ€™s earlier visit in March, when Trump jovially showed off his โ€œCoke buttonโ€ and griped about paving over the Rose Garden. This time, there were no laughsโ€”just sharp exchanges between two seasoned figures who have long shaped Republican discourse.