{{ site.specific_data.Twitter }}
Fox News Ignores Bombshell Reports Of $500M Emirati Payoff To Trump Family

Fox News Ignores Bombshell Reports Of $500M Emirati Payoff To Trump Family

Fox News has not covered bombshell reports revealing that an Emirati royal known as the “spy sheikh” secretly purchased a major stake in a company controlled by President Donald Trump’s family for $500 million just four days before Trump’s inauguration, according to a Media Matters review through Monday night.

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times both reported over the weekend on what the Journal described as a deal “unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.” Such deals are unprecedented because they open up obvious channels for presidential corruption, and that seems to be what happened here.

The foreign government official, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, reportedly sought “access to tightly guarded artificial intelligence chips,” though the previous administration had blocked such access due to “fears that the sensitive technology could be diverted to China.” But after Tahnoon lined the Trump family pockets by purchasing 49 percent of their nascent cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial — which “had no products” at the time of the investment — the Trump administration “committed to give the tiny Gulf monarchy access to around 500,000 of the most advanced AI chips a year.”

But the president’s apparent participation in a quid pro scheme scheme in which U.S. national security interests were sold out in return for a sizable payment to his family has not been mentioned a single time on Fox News, the Journal’s corporate cousin. The pro-Trump network’s propagandists were instead fixated Monday night on criticism of Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement crackdown by attendees at Sunday’s Grammy Awards.

You may recall that Fox's stars spent years claiming to be very disturbed by the foreign business dealings of members of former President Joe Biden’s family. Those dealings, which involved comically tiny amounts of money compared to the Tahnoon payoff and no compelling nexus to any policy decision by Biden or his administration, were the subject of endless coverage and commentary dating back to before Biden launched his 2020 presidential campaign, and deemed so serious as to require Biden’s impeachment.

Fox host Sean Hannity alone devoted hundreds of segments to the president’s son Hunter in 2023 as he argued that the president had been “very credibly accused of public corruption on a scale this country has never seen before.”

But after the right-wing propaganda machine helped Trump back into office, he promptly began cashing in. And in turn, we've seen Fox stars seem to have developed a strange new respect for obvious malfeasance.

Bill Melugin Fox

After 36 Hours Spent Excusing Alex Pretti Killing, Fox News Suddenly Spins Around

On Sunday evening, Fox News correspondent Bill Melugin published a lengthy report detailing internal dissent among his federal immigration enforcement sources regarding the narrative pushed by Department of Homeland Security leaders after Border Patrol officers gunned down Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse who had been videotaping their activities, in Minneapolis on Saturday morning.

Amid the several hundred words describing an internal schism over how DHS is messaging masked agents of the state opening fire on a man who had already been restrained, Melugin slipped in the following statement: “There is no indication Pretti was there to murder law enforcement, as videos appear to show he never drew his holstered firearm.”

Melugin’s stark acknowledgement was whiplash-inducing for anyone who had been following Fox’s on-air coverage of Pretti’s killing up to that point, and it marked the start of a dramatic shift in the network’s treatment of the case.

Fox spent Saturday and much of Sunday blaming the victim and local Democrats for his death while excusing and even valorizing his executioners. In doing so the network was following in the footsteps of the high-ranking administration officials who baselessly argued that Pretti was a “would-be assassin” engaged in “domestic terrorism.” Melugin himself was the vehicle DHS used to launder its excuse that Pretti “was armed.”

And notably, some Fox contributors repeatedly justified Pretti’s killing by going beyond the official comment to allege that he had drawn the gun he was reportedly legally carrying and that he even pointed it at the Border Patrol officers — the very claim Melugin said Sunday night had been disproved by videos.

The fallacy of the DHS smear of Pretti had long been clear to anyone who had reviewed videos of the shooting, triggering widespread outrage over his killing. But Melugin’s admission — and his reporting on a schism within immigration enforcement over the case — apparently provided his colleagues the permission structure they needed to abandon their narrative.

“Tomi, speak plainly with the audience right now,” Fox host Johnny Joey Jones told his co-host Tomi Lahren on Sunday night. “What we're getting from Bill — and as he cited, many of his sources are pro-what's happening as far as enforcing immigration and mass deportation — but what they're concerned with is every video we've seen so far doesn’t show him brandishing a gun, it doesn’t show him — it doesn’t substantiate the idea that he was there to commit a massacre or that he was a domestic terrorist.”

“Usually, when those words are used you usually have more than the fact that he had a gun on him as evidence, and that is what at least some officials are taking issue with,” he added.

Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade on Monday morning followed the editorial boards of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post and Wall Street Journal in urging President Donald Trump to change course.

“I would love to see Tom Homan just be asked to go in there and settle things down,” Kilmeade said, referencing his former Fox colleague turned White House border czar, who has stressed the need for “collateral arrests” of immigrants without criminal backgrounds.

“He understands the president’s objective. He could come in with a fresh set of eyes,” Kilmeade added. “For some reason he’s been sidelined of late, and I think we could use someone to come in there and settle everything down from the Trump perspective.”

And Dana Perino, who served as press secretary to President George W. Bush and now anchors Fox’s morning “straight news” hours, stressed the need for the White House to get its facts in order and find a way to make adjustments.

She said that current White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt needed to be “very clear to the officials that we have a gigantic problem and, yes, we can say that the media is biased, and we can say that the Democrats are crazy and that they're radical and that they're ginning everything up, but we have a problem and I need better answers for you before we go to the briefing room at 1 o’clock.”

Perino added that Trump should take credit for having “arrested a lot of illegal immigrants” in Minneapolis and then send presidential envoy Steve Witkoff to the city “because I believe they need somebody that can be trusted on both sides to say, I hear you, I hear you, and here's where we're going.”

Co-host Griff Jenkins noted in response that Trump, who regularly watches Fox & Friends and often implements ideas he sees on it, had just announced that he was sending Homan to Minneapolis that night.

Perino praised Trump’s “good decision,” adding that the president understood “it’s unsustainable.” Apparently, he wasn’t the only one who came to that conclusion.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters


Far-Right Influencers Promote 'Great White Hope' In Florida GOP Primary

Far-Right Influencers Promote 'Great White Hope' In Florida GOP Primary

Far-right media figures including Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes are rallying around the Florida gubernatorial campaign of James Fishback, a hedge fund manager who rails against “white genocide,” praises the extremist “groyper” movement, and is currently polling at about five percent in the GOP primary.

Fox News has been the key media venue for would-be GOP candidates seeking to reach right-wing voters and attract support over several election cycles. Current Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis broke through in the 2018 primary by making himself a Fox fixture, and the front-runner to succeed him, network favorite and GOP Rep. Byron Donalds, has adopted the same political strategy, with at least 40 weekday appearances last year.

Fishback, the 31-year old CEO of the anti-“woke” investment firm he co-founded, has been on a tour of the right-wing political factions in recent years, from writing pieces for Bari Weiss’ site The Free Press to backing Vivek Ramaswamy’s presidential campaign before trying to get himself named to a seat on the Federal Reserve Board by promising to be President Donald Trump’s “bulldog.” After launching his gubernatorial campaign in November by painting himself as aligned with DeSantis, Fishback subsequently positioned himself as what The Bulwark’s Will Sommer described as “the first groyper candidate” — with a media profile to match.

Fishback worked his way up through interviews with “white nationalist influencer Ella Maulding,” “groyper leader Beardson Beardly,” “a Youtube show run by white nationalists in northern Idaho,” and “former Infowars host Owen Shroyer,” before breaking through with a fawning treatment from Carlson, as right-wing extremism expert Ben Lorber documented for The Nation.

Lorber reported that Fishback — along with groyper leader Fuentes — represents “an ascendant, Gen-Z America First wing of MAGA openly suspicious of Israel, economically populist and steeped in a white Christian nationalist worldview that scorns Jews, women, and nonwhite immigrants.”

Far-right media figures host, endorse Fishback

Carlson, a GOP power broker and White House regular who once used his Fox show to lift up Republican candidates like Vice President JD Vance, is currently focused on promoting such ideas and the noxious pundits and would-be GOP officeholders who espouse them on his streaming program. His hourlong interview with Fishback was published January 9.

“James Fishback is running for governor in Florida,” Carlson said as he promoted the interview. “Pretty soon, all winning Republican politicians will talk like this.” The landing image for the interview’s YouTube video featured text reading “WHO REALLY RUNS FLORIDA?” over photos of DeSantis — and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Discussing why he is running for governor as Carlson nodded along, Fishback railed against foreign students taking university slots from Floridians, “white guilt lessons” in schools, and H-1B “slave labor,” declaring that “the only systemic racism in America is against white Christian men.”

“I’m aware,” Carlson replied.

Fishback won Carlson’s support by promising that Florida would divest from Israeli government bonds and use the funds to help provide down payment assistance to married first-time homebuyers.

“You’ve got my vote,” he responded after Fishback laid out the proposal. “That’s all I needed to hear. Amen. Amen.”

Fishback’s turn on Carlson’s podcast spurred an outpouring of interest from higher-profile far-right media figures.

The following week, Fishback did a joint interview with antisemitic misogynist streamer “Sneako” (real name: Nico Kenn De Balinthazy) and “looksmaxxing” influencer “Clavicular” (real name: Braden Peters).

Fishback discussed his proposal to, as he put it, implement a 50 percent tax on women who “hoe out on OnlyFans” to disincentivize them from doing so. (“Say what you want about Saudi Arabia — there are no women hoeing out on the internet in Saudi Arabia,” Fishback said). He also alluded to an antisemitic conspiracy theory, saying of OnlyFans, “Let’s not get in trouble talking about who owns that platform.” Sneako endorsed Fishback later in the interview, while Clavicular praised his “insane reaction-baiting” but repeatedly poked holes in his policy proposals.

On Wednesday, Fishback appeared on the podcast of Patrick Bet-David, who often provides a friendly platform for far-right extremists like white nationalist streamer Fuentes to spread their messages unimpeded. Bet-David praised Fishback for his “bold ideas.”

Fuentes himself has also taken notice of the campaign, praising Fishback on his show while stressing that he didn’t want to damage the candidate’s chances with an endorsement.

“I really like what I've seen from Fishback,” he said on his January 12 stream in response to a question from “FloridaGroyper” about the candidate’s Carlson interview. “I have to say I'm a bit conflicted still for a few reasons. I don't want to hurt him. That's kind of my first thing is I don't want to speak out of turn and hurt a politician by association if they're an ally. And the other thing is I didn't vet him myself.”

Fuentes commented that Fishback “seems really smart,” and said he was “really impressed” with the interview as well as with Fishback’s social media presence, adding that it had been “hilarious” when Fishback said that Donalds, who is Black, wanted to “turn Florida into a Section 8 ghetto.”

He later told Sneako and Clavicular that Fishback is “solid on the issues,” adding, “I watched him on Tucker — I don't think I disagreed with anything he said.”

And even before his appearance with Carlson, Fishback counted in his corner the gaming streamer Zack Hoyt, better known as Asmongold, who had more than 2 billion views on YouTube alone last year. In December, Hoyt endorsed Fishback as “my guy,” cheering along with one of the candidate’s videos, praising his proposals as “based,” and urging his fans to “vote for people like this.”

Is this actually going anywhere?

Each of these far-right media figures have large followings — but trying to elect Fishback governor of Florida will put their influence to the test. The candidate is polling at or below 5% in recent surveys and had raised “just under $19,000” according to his most recent campaign filing.

While Fuentes is reportedly seeking to build a political movement — and recent reports suggest that his message is resonating with younger Republicans — this election cycle may be too soon for such candidates to succeed.

But for his part, Fishback says that his alternative media play will pay dividends.

“Ultimately, we are in an attention economy,” he told Carlson near the end of their interview. “And the attention is going to go to the person who is going to connect and show up and earn the trust of voters.”

“You don’t get to earn the trust of voters in that Fox News studio in Washington, D.C.,” he added.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

State-Run Media Or Media-Run State? On Fox & Friends, The Answer Is Yes

State-Run Media Or Media-Run State? On Fox & Friends, The Answer Is Yes

A year into President Donald Trump’s second turn in the Oval Office, it has become virtually impossible to tell where his administration ends and Fox News begins.

Trump arrived for the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday morning amid alarm from U.S. allies over his manic, unhinged, and unnerving demands for NATO member Denmark to hand over Greenland. At a Davos speech the day before, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned of a “rupture” in the world order, in which international rules are being replaced by the mantra that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Here’s how Fox & Friends co-host Rachel Campos-Duffy put it as a helicopter bearing the president touched down in Davos: “It feels like even though this meeting has been going on for a couple days and speeches have been made and interviews have been done, it feels like nothing starts until President Trump arrives — until daddy's home, as so many people say.”

“Just think about the anticipation, the stakes that are going to be made here, just with the presence of President Trump,” she glowed, adding: “Here you have this global conference where President Trump is about to blow it up in terms of his negotiations and stands, and yet nothing starts until he arrives.”

“It is a new day,” she concluded. “America is the center of everything. President Trump is the leader that everything hinges on.”

Campos-Duffy isn’t just a typically sycophantic Fox host with a penchant for conspiracy theories. Her husband, former Fox contributor and Fox Business host Sean Duffy, is one of 24 former network employees who went through the revolving door between the network and the second Trump administration, and he is now the secretary of transportation (Fox & Friends’ former weekend co-host Pete Hegseth is Duffy’s Cabinet colleague as secretary of defense).

At a normal news outlet, employing the wife of a Cabinet secretary for a role which allowed her to shower the president with praise would be an unheard-of ethical disaster. But at Fox, it may not have even been the biggest such calamity of the day.

Less than 15 minutes before Campos-Duffy proclaimed Trump the world’s “daddy,” Fox & Friends brought on the president’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump. The network hired Lara Trump as a commentator after the president took office last year in an absurdly corrupt deal which put a lantern on Fox’s reemergence as a Trump propaganda outlet.

Lara Trump, who Fox employs as the host of a weekly program which she uses to give top Trump officials like Campos-Duffy’s husband soft-focus interviews about the great jobs they are doing for the American people, was there to take issue with the tenor of The View’s Tuesday sitdown with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

“Lara, listen, obviously they’re going to like Zohran Mamdani, that’s The View,” said Fox & Friends guest co-host Johnny “Joey” Jones. “But when you see them just gushing over him like that — I mean, he’s been in office for a couple of days, but still.”

“Yeah, well, this is surprising to absolutely nobody,” Lara Trump replied, mocking the “hard-hitting hosts there” for being “obsessed with people like” Mamdani. Because if there’s one thing they won’t stand for on Fox & Friends, it’s shoddy journalism and hosts gushing over their favorite politicians.

All of this happened on the program where Donald Trump built his political following with regular appearances, then watched obsessively throughout his first term for tips on how to govern the country while posting hundreds of times on social media about what he saw on the show.

Is it state-run media, or a media-run state? Yes.

By Targeting Powell, Pirro Didn't 'Go Rogue' -- She's The Tip Of Trump Spear

By Targeting Powell, Pirro Didn't 'Go Rogue' -- She's The Tip Of Trump Spear

White House officials are reportedly experiencing “significant frustration” and “heaping blame” on U.S. attorney and former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro over the firestorm surrounding her office’s criminal probe of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, which drew severe backlash this week from Republican members of Congress and a broad spectrum of right-wing media. But it would be a mistake to treat Pirro’s nakedly pretextual bid to punish Powell and curtail the Fed’s independence as the actions of a rogue actor — she is a committed Trumpist operative carrying out President Donald Trump’s instructions to use state power to punish his enemies.

Trump has made clear that he wants federal prosecutors and investigators (and indeed, all administration officials) to forcefully wield their authority against people and entities who defy him. Pirro’s actions against Powell — whether she acted on orders from above or her own initiative — are fully in keeping with that assignment. Indeed, she has the job in the first place in no small part because she was in the vanguard of Trumpist media figures calling for criminal charges against Trump’s foes during her Fox tenure.

Trump reportedly “criticized a group of U.S. attorneys at a White House event last week, calling them weak and complaining they weren’t moving fast enough to prosecute his favored targets.” Pirro, who was present at the event, is surely doing whatever she can to remain on his good list.

Pirro’s Powell probe followed years of Trump invective targeting the Fed chair and came amid his threats of legal action, and the president has repeatedly defended the probe this week. Pirro’s office is also reportedly investigating Democratic legislators who released a video urging service members and intelligence officers not to follow illegal orders, which Trump characterized as “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!”

And she does not shrink from critics who say she is overseeing politicized investigations. On Tuesday night, Pirro went on Fox host and chief Trump propagandist Sean Hannity’s show (one of the president’s favorite watches) to not only defend her pursuit of Powell but to blast Republican legislators who have taken issue with it.

..These actions are exactly what the president wants to see from his underlings.

Trump ran on “retribution” and assembled a team eager to protect his interests and target his political foes, including loyalists like Pirro, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, and FBI Director Kash Patel. Less than a year into his tenure, the Justice Department has pursued cases at the president’s behest against a litany of Trump foils, including former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA).

Trump wants these cases brought, so more are coming. There’s a Trumpist U.S. attorney in Miami reportedly pursuing an absurd but sprawling investigation into the right-wing fantasy that former President Barack Obama led a “deep state” conspiracy against Trump; a newly-announced assistant attorney general post slated to purportedly target fraud under the president’s direct oversight, which could be a vehicle to go after Democratic governors like Minnesota’s Tim Walz and California’s Gavin Newsom; and a broad, all-of-government effort to criminalize progressive groups and their funders by smearing them as domestic terrorists.

But Trump needs prosecutors willing to do his dirty work; several have preferred to resign or be fired rather than pursue such weak and pretextual efforts. He surely knows from watching her on television over the years that in Pirro, he has a loyalist who won’t say no.

Pirro, a former judge and prosecutor who joined Fox after a failed 2006 U.S. Senate bid, emerged during the 2016 campaign as one of the most abjectly sycophantic Trump fanatics on TV — which made the president a regular viewer of her Saturday evening show. She spent much of his first presidency as a key cog in the right-wing media machine that encouraged the president to target his political foes through authoritarian tactics.

Pirro made headlines by demanding a “cleansing” of the FBI and DOJ, with the purportedly disloyal to be “taken out in handcuffs,” and spuriously accused Democrats like Hillary Clinton of various crimes. She lobbied for the ouster of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, calling for his dismissal on Fox and lashing out at his tenure to Trump in the White House, over Sessions’ unwillingness to turn Foxy fantasies into criminal indictments. Her support of Trumpian voter fraud conspiracy theories following the 2020 election led to her brief removal from Fox’s airwaves — and to her executive producer describing her as a “reckless maniac.”

The Fox host did show some concern about the prospect of prosecutorial overreach — when she perceived it as harming Trump’s interests. Pirro described Trump’s conviction by a New York jury as the result of “warfare” (because “lawfare is far too soft” a term) and suggested it could spark “a revolution” because it “was not a case that should've been brought.” She also suggested that the FBI agents searching Mar-A-Lago may have “wanted” to “engage in deadly physical force,” and said that the lack of media coverage of Hunter Biden’s laptop meant that “we are living in a fascist state.”

Pirro’s “blind obedience to President Trump,” as Schiff put it, was readily observable when her nomination came up for a Senate vote in August — but Republicans voted in lockstep for her confirmation. Now Republican senators like Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) are saying that the Powell probe goes too far — but as with Sen. Bill Cassidy’s (R-LA) criticism of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s antivax moves, they’ve already yielded their strongest card by supporting the nomination in the first place.

The probes of Powell and Democratic legislators won’t be Pirro’s last investigations into the president’s foes. She seems more likely to end up a special counsel focused solely on such cases than drummed out of government for excessive partisanship. Her Fox catalog may hint at future targets, from Democratic governors who won’t comply with ICE to FBI and DOJ officials purportedly engaged in “election interference” against the president to the undocumented immigrants she says should be “presum[ed]” as violent criminals.

None of this is to say that Pirro’s authoritarian pursuit of the president’s critics will succeed — her relevant legal experience is decades old, and cases brought by her office have sputtered before D.C. juries at an historic rate. But she has the job because Trump knows that unlike more honorable federal prosecutors, she will keep trying.

Even Fox's Maria Bartiromo Is Troubled By Trump Bullying Of Fed Chair

Even Fox's Maria Bartiromo Is Troubled By Trump Bullying Of Fed Chair

Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo is among President Donald Trump’s most zealous propagandists, so much so that he reportedly considered making her his 2024 running mate. But even she seems hesitant to fall in line with the Trump administration’s apparent effort to strong-arm Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Powell, in an extraordinary video message released on Sunday night, said that the Fed had received Justice Department subpoenas on Friday which threatened a criminal indictment over his congressional testimony regarding ongoing renovations of its headquarters. He portrayed the move as pretextual, part of Trump’s long-running effort to pressure Powell to drastically lower interest rates and diminish the Fed’s independence.

Trump and his appointees have spent the last year refashioning the Justice Department into an institution that punishes his enemies and protects his friends, demolishing safeguards and purging dissidents along the way. The Powell investigation is in keeping with that trend, reportedly overseen by Jeanine Pirro, the longtime Fox host and fervent Trump ally whom he appointed as U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

Bartiromo, who typically demonstrates lockstep support for the president’s initiatives, seemed unusually skeptical of the Powell probe in a Monday morning discussion on her Fox Business show.

“It just feels like most on Wall Street do not want to see this kind of fight,” Bartiromo said. “I mean, you know, you’ve got a chairman who is at odds with the president of the United States. The president has very good points, certainly. But Wall Street doesn’t want to see this kind of investigation because it looks like the president is actually, you know, shoehorning rates, and now doing it through the DOJ.”

Bartiromo’s panelists were even more open in decrying the move.

Fox contributor Liz Peek said of the probe, “I don't like it. I think it's a unforced error by the Trump administration,” She explained that she agreed with the president on the cost of the Fed renovations and Powell’s performance, but added, “I don't really know what this is supposed to accomplish.”

“The president needs to kind of step back, quite honestly,” offered financial services consultant Kenny Polcari. “It's not in his job description to control interest rates. The Fed is an independent agency. We understand that. We know that. And I think that's what's causing a little bit of nervousness in the markets this morning, just about the fact that what could he really do, how could he really push this? I think he needs to back off and leave the Fed alone.”

Bartiromo then hedged, saying, “I know, but if he lied, he lied,” and suggesting it was important to get to the bottom of Powell’s comments to Congress.

Ken Mahoney, a financial asset manager, replied that while the cost of the renovations is sizable, this is “bad timing” given “the president’s other priorities,” noting that “most people probably wake up hoping that [Minnesota Gov.] Tim Walz was the one that was being indicted, not Jerome Powell.”

While Bartiromo’s willingness to use her Fox News and Fox Business shows to peddle insane conspiracy theories on Trump’s behalf has cost her network dearly, the president has rewarded her with multiple interviews and personal access, including an invitation to a splashy White House banquet honoring Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in November.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters


Who's Afraid Of Antisemitic Conspiracist Candace Owens? It's A Long List

Who's Afraid Of Antisemitic Conspiracist Candace Owens? It's A Long List

Long-simmering feuds among right-wing influencers reached a boiling point this week when Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s widow Erika used an appearance on Fox News to denounce people she said were “making hundreds of thousands of dollars” by pushing conspiracy theories about her husband’s killing. Her plea for those individuals “to stop,” obviously intended for her husband's former colleague, the popular streamer Candace Owens, triggered an outpouring of criticism on the right against “extremists” promoting “hateful conspiracy theories” who had somehow been allowed into the movement.

But in a sign of the durable position such conspiracy theorists hold within the movement — and the immense demand for their work — many of the high-level pundits trying to lay down guardrails did not mention by name either Owens or her primary ally in the MAGA schism, Tucker Carlson.

“The Right’s media apparatus is how the Right teaches its followers how to think, and it’s currently getting consumed by conspiracy, psychodrama, and tabloid conflicts,” The Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo said in one such salvo. “If left unchecked, it will turn the audience into the equivalent of a Third World click farm.”

Can you imagine?

It is patently absurd to claim that right-wing media figures injecting deranged lies into their audience is somehow a new phenomenon. The right is dominated by President Donald Trump, the poster child for “conspiracy, psychodrama, and tabloid conflicts.” And Rufo’s ilk were happy to foster such insanity as long as it was pointed at the left in the service of electing Republicans.

But now the same tools are being turned inward, against other right-wingers, and while they’re furious that this is happening, the apparatus they helped build is so powerful that they are unable to name their foes.

A fight over Charlie Kirk’s legacy — and the Jews

Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack on Israel caused a split in a right-wing commentariat otherwise united around Trump. One side includes conservative Jews like Ben Shapiro and Laura Loomer, who supported Israel’s subsequent brutal campaign in Gaza and traffic in anti-Muslim invective. On the other side are “America First” figures like Owens and Carlson who both opposed the campaign and used it as an opportunity to revive noxious antisemitic conspiracism. The divide has repeatedly made headlines, particularly in November when Carlson gave a friendly interview to Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist streamer who regularly rails against “the Jews,” who he has claimed “are destroying this country.”

Owens has been claiming since Charlie Kirk’s tragic killing in September that at the time of his death, he was coming around to her view of Israel. Based on that premise (which Kirk allies deny), she has speculated that Kirk may have been assassinated by pro-Israel henchmen worried that he was turning on them, perhaps with help from elements within TPUSA and the U.S. military. These sorts of wild claims are typical of Owens’ oeuvre: She is currently being sued for claiming that the first lady of France is secretly a transgender woman, and has told her followers that she has been targeted for death by an assassination squad composed of French law enforcement and “at least one Israeli.” Her claims have been denounced by the likes of Shapiro and Loomer, but cheered on by Carlson and fellow traveler Alex Jones.

Erika Kirk appeared on Fox’s Outnumbered on Wednesday to address in part what host Harris Faulker described as “hate” and “conspiracies” in the wake of her husband’s death.

“Come after me, call me names, I don't care,” she said. “Call me what you want, go down that rabbit hole, whatever. But…when you go after the people that I love and you're making hundreds of thousands of dollars every single episode going after the people that I love because somehow they're in on this? No.”

“My message to them is to stop — to stop,” she concluded.

Neither Erika Kirk nor Faulkner mentioned Owens’ name. But Owens immediately recognized that the segment had been “about me.” And rather than stopping at the widow’s request, she doubled down.

The Fox segment encouraged other right-wing pundits who typically avoid weighing in on intramovement controversies to speak out — albeit without mentioning who they were talking about.

Fox star Sean Hannity used his radio show on Wednesday to call out online commentators for “saying the most incendiary, outrageous, bizarre, conspiratorial, in some cases, outright racist, white nationalist, virulent antisemitism, and they make money off the, quote, clicks that they can then monetize because, you know, people like the shock value of it.” After praising Erika Kirk’s Fox appearance, he lashed out at “people with no evidence spreading the most vile, hateful conspiracy theories about Charlie's assassination,” calling them “grifters” who are “not MAGA.”

The hosts of Fox & Friends likewise aired Erika Kirk’s remarks and criticized unnamed persons pushing conspiracy theories about her husband’s death on Thursday. “People are making money. They have unsubstantiated theories and are running with it,” Brian Kilmeade said.

MAGA slop king Benny Johnson also posted the video of Erika Kirk going “absolutely SCORCHED EARTH against evil people monetizing Charlie Kirk's death and attacking her family and the families of those close to Charlie and TPUSA,” adding: “Thank God we are finally here. The Demons are Screaming.” He has not mentioned Owens by name on X since posting in April 2024 about a potential Owens/Shapiro debate over antisemitism.

For Fox contributor Hugh Hewitt, meanwhile, this is a tempest in a teapot. Responding to a discussion started by Rufo’s post on Wednesday, he claimed that such (unnamed, of course) “grifters” only have the “illusion of influence,” while “center-right to conservative media is flourishing.” Citing podcasts with relatively small audiences and Fox’s Special Report, “the most watched news show by serious people in the country,” he commented, “A handful of extremists cannot pollute the sea of offerings but it’s still best just to ignore them.”

It is certainly possible in a fractured media environment for a Republican apparatchik with intellectual pretensions to find some voices who will make him feel good about the choices he’s made. But Owens and Carlson both host podcasts on Spotify’s top-10 list, and the latter spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention after shepherding the selection of JD Vance as the next vice president.

The guardrails are gone and all the conspiracy theorists are here

The MAGA movement that everyone on both sides of the divide supported during the 2024 presidential election worships a notorious fabulist who emerged in GOP politics thanks to his role as the nation’s chief birther, reshaped his party around the twin lies that he actually won the 2020 election and that the ensuing January 6 riots by his supporters were righteous, and is constantly lifting up the most noxious online slop imaginable.

Trump’s emergence speaks to both the willingness of mainstream right-wing institutions to accept a conspiracy theorist at the highest level of power, and the eagerness of the right-wing audience to buy the sort of lies he was selling. And his ascension has made it virtually impossible for the resulting movement to draw lines and fully cut loose people who promote deranged falsehoods and bigotries.

Owens and Carlson became right-wing stars by promoting the same types of feverish claims while climbing established institutional pathways. New York magazine detailed Owens’ conspiratorial habits of thinking all the way back in 2016, before her tenure at TPUSA, her nearly 200 appearances on Fox weekday shows over a five year span, or her time as Shapiro’s colleague at The Daily Wire. And Carlson had spent years mainstreaming white nationalist talking points as a Fox host before the network finally showed him the door. The pair assembled loyal audiences thanks to those right-wing institutions, which have found themselves able to take away their jobs but not able to stop viewers from following them to their new spaces.

And Carlson and Owens profited not in spite of their conspiracy theories, but because they fit neatly within a right-wing echo chamber that seemed purpose-built for their generation and propagation. People like Rufo and Hannity were happy to play along with bullshit about Haitian immigrants eating pets or the Democrats assassinating a party staffer when they could use such claims for the benefit of Trump and the GOP. But now that the same habits of mind that made a swath of the right into QAnon adherents are turned inside the tent, they are deeply concerned.

Meanwhile, neither Trump nor Vance seem at all interested in trying to reestablish guardrails. Indeed, their administration is filled with conspiracy theorists seemingly picked for that very reason, indicative of a political movement that is marbled through with crackpots and extremists. And the worst is surely yet to come.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Blasting Democratic 'Support' For Alleged Smugglers, Fox Ignores Hernandez Pardon

Blasting Democratic 'Support' For Alleged Smugglers, Fox Ignores Hernandez Pardon

How do you spin the president you support pardoning a notorious drug trafficker amid your weekslong campaign to convince viewers that your political enemies are pro-trafficker? For the propagandists at Fox News, the answer is just to pretend it didn't happen.

President Donald Trump announced on November 28 his intention to pardon former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernández, who had been serving a 45-year sentence in federal prison after a U.S. court convicted him of “helping drug traffickers send tons of cocaine to the United States in exchange for millions of dollars in bribes that fueled his political career.” Trump claimed Hernández had been “treated very harshly and unfairly,” though he later said he knew “very little” beyond what he had been told by “very good people that I know.” (Axios credited, in part, a “persistent lobbying campaign” by former Trump adviser and fellow pardon recipient Roger Stone, who touted his role in securing the pardon.) Hernández was released following the pardon’s issuance on December 1.

Fox has devoted just over six minutes of airtime to the Hernández pardon, according to a Media Matters review of the network’s programming from November 28, when Trump announced his intention to pardon Hernández, through Monday. Special Report, the flagship “straight news” show anchored by Trump golfing buddy Bret Baier, and the weekend daytime shows The Sunday Briefing and Fox News Live provided the bulk of the network’s coverage. Fox & Friends Weekend also ran a headline read.

The only other mentions of the story on Fox came when Democratic co-hosts on the panel show The Five raised the issue during segments about the Trump administration’s purported counternarcotics effort aimed at alleged drug trafficking from Venezuela, which Trump claims is directed by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Since early September, U.S. military strikes undertaken at Trump’s behest, aimed at what the administration claims are boats trafficking drugs in the Caribbean, have killed at least 87 people and destroyed 23 boats.

Co-host Jessica Tarlov pointed out on December 2 that Trump’s pardon of Hernández disproves “the story about this administration being focused on eradicating American society of drugs.” On Monday, co-host Harold Ford Jr. similarly challenged his colleagues to state whether or not they approved of the president granting clemency to a convicted drug trafficker (Fox contributor Tyrus and co-host Dana Perino responded that they did not, while co-host Kayleigh McEnany mocked Ford for landing on a “niche issue” she said she hoped Democrats would “hang on” in the midterm campaigns).

Fox’s chyron as Ford began talking — “Dems stick up for narco terrorists” — speaks to the tenor of Fox’s coverage of the U.S. strikes off Venezuela. While experts have described the U.S. campaign of extrajudicial killings as “patently illegal,” the strikes have been widely praised on Fox, where hosts and anchors regularly accuse Democrats who raise legal questions about them of supporting the traffickers.

“It's either you're pro drug dealers, drugs going throughout Europe and throughout this country, or you're for taking out those boats,” host Brian Kilmeade said on Friday’s Fox & Friends — a program which has so far not covered Trump’s pardon of a man actually convicted of helping traffic drugs “throughout this country.”

Likewise, Fox host Will Cain has said of Democratic criticism of the strikes, “Maybe it’s that they are against law and order,” while anchor Harris Faulkner asked of those questioning the strikes, “Are they working against America and for the drug cartels?” Neither has addressed the Hernández pardon on their program or questioned whether it shows Trump to be “against law and order” or working “for the drug cartels.”

And Fox stars Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, and Sean Hannity have not told their viewers about the pardon, even as all three have praised Trump for authorizing the Caribbean boat strikes.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Bomb Suspect Bust Makes Bongino Squeal On Right-Wing Media Grift

Bomb Suspect Bust Makes Bongino Squeal On Right-Wing Media Grift

Sean Hannity's interview last week with his former Fox News colleague — and now FBI deputy director — Dan Bongino was remarkable, but not for any details Bongino relayed about the arrest of a suspect in the long-simmering January 6 pipe bomb investigation. Instead, the interview hinged on a stunning admission from Bongino that laid bare the core grift at the heart of the right-wing media complex: that people like Bongino — and by extension, Hannity — make their money by tossing off reckless speculations that confirm their right-wing audience’s biases, and face no perceptible consequences if their claims turn out to be false.

Earlier in the day, the Justice Department announced the arrest of the man who allegedly placed pipe bombs outside the offices of the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee on the night of January 5, 2021; the explosive devices were found during the Trumpist revolt at the U.S. Capitol the following day. While the government has publicly revealed little information about the suspect or his alleged motive, it’s clear that he is not, as some right-wing media figures had suggested over the years, part of an inside job perpetrated by the FBI to malign President Donald Trump’s supporters.

Hannity, during his interview with his former colleague, gave Bongino an opportunity to criticize prior iterations of the Justice Department and FBI for failing to arrest anyone in the case, and praise his own colleagues for getting the job done. But then he asked Bongino about the FBI deputy director’s own role in promoting conspiracy theories about the bomber during Bongino’s past career as a right-wing commentator.

“You know, I don't know if you remember this — this is before you became the deputy FBI director,” Hannity said. “You put a post on X right after this happened and you said there's a massive cover-up because the person that planted those pipe bombs, they don't want you to know who it is because it's either a connected anti-Trump insider or an inside job. You said that, you know, long before you were even thought of as deputy FBI director.”

Bongino’s response was astounding. He looked down, as if embarrassed, and replied: “Yeah, that's why I said to you this investigation's just begun.” But after hemming and hawing about the confidence he and FBI Director Kash Patel have that they arrested the right person, he got real.

“Listen, I was paid in the past, Sean, for my opinions,” he explained. “That's clear. And one day, I'll be back in that space. But that's not what I'm paid for now. I'm paid to be your deputy director, and we base investigations on facts.”

Bongino then quickly pivoted to attacking reporters at the day’s press conference, suggesting that he and others on the right are willing to “evolve” when they learn contradictory facts, while mainstream journalists probably “still believe in this collusion fairy tale hoax.” He offered some obsequious praise for Trump, and Hannity moved on.

Bongino is offering the most charitable gloss on his past actions possible. Another way to put it is that his job, as a commentator at Fox and elsewhere in the right-wing media, was to provide chum for the viewers. They wanted conspiracy theories, so he gave them conspiracy theories. Now, he claims, he’s at the FBI, and his job is to provide facts instead.

But there’s an entire ecosystem Bongino left behind (but to which he expects to return in the future) that is still filled with conspiracy-mongers who concoct and disseminate lies to keep their audiences content and coming back for more.

And as Bongino suggested, and as we saw in internal documents and testimony that election technology companies filed in lawsuits against Fox, those right-wing media figures don’t necessarily believe what they’re saying. Hannity, for example, said in a deposition that he had not believed “for one second” that the 2020 election had been rigged against Trump, even though he spent weeks publicly promoting that lie to his viewers following the vote.

These lies have consequences. While right-wing commentators may not believe what they're saying, some fraction of viewers believe what they’re told. And sometimes, the people inculcated with conspiracy theories end up taking action — even if that means storming the U.S. Capitol in an effort to overturn the election they’ve been assured was rigged.

Indeed, on Friday morning, CNN reported that during FBI interviews, the alleged pipe bomber “told investigators that he believed the 2020 election was stolen.” Perhaps he listened to too many people who were paid for their “opinions”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters


Jesse Watters

Pentagon Inspector General Report Demolishes Excuses For Hegseth's 'Signalgate'

A forthcoming report from the Defense Department’s watchdog dismantles the excuses that Pete Hegseth’s former Fox News colleagues offered in March after The Atlantic reported that the secretary of defense had shared plans for an imminent U.S. strike against Houthi targets in Yemen on a Signal chain with other top Trump administration officials — and, inadvertently, Atlantic editor-in-dhief Jeffrey Goldberg.

The Atlantic and CNN reported Wednesday that the DOD inspector general concluded after a monthslong probe into Hegseth’s conduct that the information Hegseth shared had been classified at the time he received it, and that sending the attack plans through unsecured networks had endangered U.S. national security and the lives of the military service members tasked to the mission. An unclassified version of the report is scheduled for release Thursday.

Fox’s right-wing stars scrambled to downplay Hegseth’s actions in the days after The Atlantic first reported on his text messages, denying that the information had been classified or that its transmission through unsecured channels carried risks and generally mocking the notion that anything untoward had occurred beyond Goldberg’s addition to the chain.

“It's abundantly clear that none of this put national security at risk,” Fox host Laura Ingraham claimed of the texts. “And there was no risk to our troops, and the entire world is safer because of the actions that our troops took. Now, some of us are actually happier about that, others are rooting for the United States to fail.”

Sean Hannity insisted to his prime-time viewers that “there was no classified material revealed in those texts,” later adding, “I would spend more time on this Signal issue, but it's such a nonissue, I don't even think it's worth talking about at this point.” On his radio show, Hannity expanded on his argument: “The distinction between sensitive and top secret classification information is very critical because we're dealing with sensitive information. The administration has reiterated no classified material was discussed, and, more importantly, the mission was operationally a complete success.”

Jesse Watters initially treated the story as a joke, asking his viewers: “Did you ever try to start a group text? You’re adding people and you accidentally add the wrong person? All of a sudden your Aunt Mary knows all your raunchy plans for the bachelor party? Well, that kind of happened today with the Trump administration.” After Goldberg released the texts, Watters declared the scandal “dead in 48 hours,” saying that all they showed was that officials “accidentally leaked to a reporter. It was a mistake. Hopefully it doesn’t happen again.”

Will Cain, Hegseth’s former co-host on Fox & Friends’ weekend edition, claimed on his eponymous show that while “it is incredibly concerning that sensitive information would be sent with a journalist included in the thread.” With that out of the way, he explained why this was actually good: “But the bigger takeaway from me is it is an insight, a transparent insight, into the thought process and dialog of our national leaders.”

And for Greg Gutfeld, texting battle plans over unsecured channels is simply “how winners live their lives.”

While Hegseth’s old buddies at Fox News were bloviating on his behalf, legal and military experts were explaining to journalists — including Fox’s own Jennifer Griffin — the grave risks of Hegseth’s actions. As more evidence arose of Hegseth’s malfeasance, including reports that Hegseth’s messages were derived from a classified email labeled “SECRET/NOFORN” and that he had also shared attack plans in a second text chain that included members of his family, they went quiet rather than either admit fault or double down on their support for the defense secretary’s actions.

The IG report’s release comes as Hegseth faces media and congressional scrutiny for reportedly ordering extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean that legal experts argue would constitute “at best, a war crime under federal law.”

It turns out there are downsides to promoting a second-tier Fox pundit best known for his defenses of alleged war criminals to lead the most powerful military in the history of the world and a sprawling bureaucracy with millions of employees.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

No, The Times Didn't 'Debunk' Post Report On Alleged War Crime In Missile Strike

No, The Times Didn't 'Debunk' Post Report On Alleged War Crime In Missile Strike

Right-wing commentators have seized upon a New York Times report on the U.S. military’s September 2 extrajudicial killing of 11 people on board a boat the Trump administration alleged was carrying drugs in the Caribbean, claiming that the article “DEBUNKED” a previous Washington Post report that triggered congressional scrutiny over potential war crimes. But the Times actually confirmed, rather than undermined, the Post’s account.

The Post reported Friday that according to its sources, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken order “to kill everybody” on board the boat before the attack, and that after confirming that the first strike left two survivors, the Navy special operations commander overseeing the action, Adm. Frank Bradley, “ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions,” killing them. Lawmakers of both parties quickly vowed to aggressively scrutinize the attack, which legal experts argued would constitute, “at best, a war crime under federal law.”

Hegseth, in his prior career as co-host of Fox News’ Fox & Friends Weekend, championed U.S. service members accused or convicted of war crimes. In one 2019 segment discussing a soldier charged over the extrajudicial killing of an Afghan man accused of making bombs for the Taliban, Hegseth said, “If he committed premeditated murder … then I did as well. What do you think you do in war?”

Top Trump administration officials over the weekend denounced the “fake news” Post’s “entire narrative” as “fabricated” with “NO FACTS.” But at Monday’s briefing, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt effectively confirmed — and defended — the actions the Post had reported, including the second strike.

This confusion left President Donald Trump’s most zealous propagandists with few clear pathways to defend the administration’s actions. But after the Times published its own account of the attack on Monday, “plenty of conservatives are now declaring this case closed,” as Politico reported. Indeed, right-wing commentators have claimed that the Times “quietly DEBUNKED” the Post’s “hoax hit piece,” which they said has been exposed as “a genuinely vile slander of both Hegseth and Bradley.”

“Disgrace to journalism that [Post reporters] @AlexHortonTX and @nakashimae got so many details of this story wrong just to smear @PeteHegseth,” posted RedState's R.C. Maxwell, a member of the new Pentagon press corps composed of MAGA shills.

Fox News, Hegseth’s former employer, had devoted 53 minutes of airtime to the story across the four days from Friday through Monday. The bulk of that coverage came from purported “news side” shows; Jesse Watters was the only prime-time host to address the story, while the defense secretary’s old program ignored it altogether. Coverage picked up on Tuesday morning, however: Apparently armed with new marching orders at last, Fox & Friends finally found an angle and reported on how the “New York Times report backs Trump admin’s account of strike on suspected drug boat.”

In reality, the timeline of the September 2 attack laid out in the Times article matches the one provided by the Post.

First, after U.S. intelligence operatives determined that the boat was carrying drugs, Hegseth issued his order to destroy it and kill those onboard.

From The Washington Post:

The longer the U.S. surveillance aircraft followed the boat, the more confident intelligence analysts watching from command centers became that the 11 people on board were ferrying drugs.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gave a spoken directive, according to two people with direct knowledge of the operation. “The order was to kill everybody,” one of them said.

From The New York Times:

According to five U.S. officials, who spoke separately and on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter that is under investigation, Mr. Hegseth, ahead of the Sept. 2 attack, ordered a strike that would kill the people on the boat and destroy the vessel and its purported cargo of drugs.
...

In interviews on Monday, two U.S. officials — both of whom were supportive of the administration’s boat strikes — described a meeting before the attack at which Mr. Hegseth had briefed Special Operations Forces commanders on his execute order to engage the boat with lethal force.

Then, the Navy launched an initial strike, which left two survivors, who were killed after Bradley ordered further strikes.

From The Washington Post:

A missile screamed off the Trinidad coast, striking the vessel and igniting a blaze from bow to stern. For minutes, commanders watched the boat burning on a live drone feed. As the smoke cleared, they got a jolt: Two survivors were clinging to the smoldering wreck.
The Special Operations commander overseeing the Sept. 2 attack — the opening salvo in the Trump administration’s war on suspected drug traffickers in the Western Hemisphere — ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions, two people familiar with the matter said. The two men were blown apart in the water.

From The New York Times:

Admiral Bradley ordered the initial missile strike and then several follow-up strikes that killed the initial survivors and sank the disabled boat.

The Times account stresses that Hegseth’s “order was not a response to surveillance footage showing that at least two people on the boat survived the first blast,” and that the defense secretary “did not give any further orders” to Bradley following the first strike — but the Post’s account does not say otherwise.

It is unclear whether the Post’s reporting that Hegseth issued a “spoken directive” to kill those onboard the boat is describing something different from the Times’ reporting that Hegseth briefed commanders on his order to “engage the boat with lethal force.” But both agree that Bradley ordered a second U.S. strike which killed shipwrecked survivors.

That second strike, experts say, constitutes “at best” a textbook war crime (if you accept the administration’s dubious claims that this constitutes a lawful conflict in the first place; otherwise, both strikes are simply murder). Trump said Sunday he “wouldn’t have wanted … a second strike,” though Leavitt defended Bradley ordering one on Monday.

The right-wing complaints amount to hair-splitting over the exact extent of MAGA favorite Hegseth’s responsibility for the allegedly unlawful killings — and it's based on two reports that paint a consistent picture. Did Hegseth cause the second strike with his initial order, or did he merely watch Bradley order it in real time with no apparent qualms about it, then promote Bradley, give a speech urging military leaders to “untie the hands of our warfighters” to ensure “maximum lethality,” and then defend the attack and mock its critics?

Either way, the Times article doesn't vindicate him.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

'Stupid Rules': Hegseth Endorsed Summary Execution Of Military Captives In 2019

'Stupid Rules': Hegseth Endorsed Summary Execution Of Military Captives In 2019

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, currently under scrutiny for reportedly overseeing “at best” an alleged war crime in the Caribbean, argued from his Fox News perch in 2019 of an American soldier who admitted to the extrajudicial execution of an alleged Taliban bombmaker: “If he committed premeditated murder … then I did as well. What do you think you do in war?”

The Washington Post reported Friday that on September 2, Hegseth gave a spoken order “to kill everybody” on board a boat that U.S. intelligence analysts suspected was carrying drugs off the coast of Trinidad. After confirmation that the first strike left two survivors “clinging to the smoldering wreck,” the Navy special operations commander overseeing the action “ordered a second strike to comply with Hegseth’s instructions,” according to the Post’s sources. The paper further reported that “current and former officials within the U.S. military and DEA have expressed doubt that all 11 people aboard the first vessel were complicit in trafficking.”

The bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees quickly issued statements promising investigations into the report. Legal experts argue the ordered killings would constitute “at best, a war crime under federal law,” as Hegseth’s former Fox colleague Andy McCarthy put it.

“Even if you buy the untenable claim that they are combatants, it is a war crime to intentionally kill combatants who have been rendered unable to fight,” McCarthy wrote Saturday at National Review. “It is not permitted, under the laws and customs of honorable warfare, to order that no quarter be given — to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight.”

Indeed, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked” are the textbook example of “Clearly Illegal Orders to Commit Law of War Violations” provided in the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual.

(McCarthy further states that beyond Hegseth’s specific alleged order, “the attacks on these suspected drug boats — without congressional authorization, under circumstances in which the boat operators pose no military threat to the United States, and given that narcotics trafficking is defined in federal law as a crime rather than as terrorist activity, much less an act of war — are lawless and therefore that the killings are not legitimate under the law or armed conflict.”)

Hegseth said Friday that the Post’s story was “fabricated” and that the U.S. operations in the Caribbean “are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the law of armed conflict,” but also bragged that “Biden coddled terrorists, we kill them,” and subsequently appeared to make light of the allegations. On Sunday, President Donald Trump said he “wouldn’t have wanted … a second strike” and claimed Hegseth “said he didn’t do it.”

Such weak denials are not terribly credible given Hegseth’s infamous support for U.S. service members accused of war crimes in his previous job as co-host of Fox’s weekend editions of its Fox & Friends morning show.

“Put us all in jail”: Hegseth rejects war crimes as a legitimate category

Hegseth, in one particularly striking example, vigorously defended Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn during a February 2019 Fox & Friends appearance.

Golsteyn, who had been charged with murdering a captured Afghan man who was allegedly a Taliban bombmaker during a 2010 deployment, had “allegedly told CIA interviewers that he and another soldier took the alleged bomb-maker off base, shot him and buried his remains,” and replied “yes” during a 2016 Fox interview when asked if he had killed the man.

Referring to Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a fellow veteran who supported Golsteyn, Hegseth said: “If he committed premeditated murder, then Duncan did as well, then I did as well. What do you think you do in war?” He added: “Put us all in jail.”

When Pete Hegseth endorsed soldiers executing captured alleged combatants www.mediamatters.org

Hegseth repeatedly used his Fox post to endorse presidential pardons for Golsteyn and other U.S. service members accused or convicted of war crimes, hosting their family members or lawyers for softball interviews and vigorously defending their conduct. (At one point, he expressed his disdain for describing such individuals as “service members accused of war crimes,” saying, “They’re not war criminals. They’re warriors who have now been accused of certain things that are under review.”)

- YouTube youtu.be

The Fox & Friends Weekend co-host also lobbied Trump directly behind the scenes, and the president issued pardons for several of the individuals Hegseth championed and even forced out the secretary of the Navy over his handling of one of their cases.

Hegseth also questioned whether the U.S. military should adhere to international law in his 2024 book, The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free, musing that doing so constituted “fighting with one hand behind our back.”

“Should we follow the Geneva Conventions?” Hegseth wrote. “What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us? Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism?”

“Makes me wonder, in 2024 — if you want to win — how can anyone write universal rules about killing other people in open conflict?” he continued. “Especially against enemies who fight like savages, disregarding human life in every single instance.”

Hegseth had the opportunity to implement this strategy after Trump plucked him from Fox’s green room and appointed him to lead the Pentagon and his right-wing media allies helped muscle him through Senate confirmation. Amid the chaos that resulted from putting a wildly underqualified individual in charge of the Defense Department, Hegseth has made clear that he views any restrictions of the ability of service members to kill “the enemies of our country” as “politically correct.”

“We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement,” he said in his September 30 speech to the country’s assembled military leaders. “We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement, just common sense, maximum lethality and authority for warfighters.”

“Today is another liberation day, the liberation of America's warriors, in name, in deed and in authorities,” he added. “You kill people and break things for a living. You are not politically correct and don't necessarily belong always in polite society.”

The address came just four weeks after Hegseth reportedly committed “at best” a war crime.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

In MAGA Media Hierarchy, Benny Johnson Is Trump's Top Turd Polisher

In MAGA Media Hierarchy, Benny Johnson Is Trump's Top Turd Polisher

The top tier of the MAGA influencer ecosystem is a clownshow.

Tucker Carlson is warring with Ben Shapiro over just how much antisemitism right-wing audiences should be willing to tolerate. Candace Owens is being sued (and, she claims without evidence, targeted for death) over her debunked conspiracy theory that the first lady of France is secretly a transgender woman. Laura Loomer, a self-described “proud Islamophobe” who once handcuffed herself to the doors of Twitter HQ to protest her banning by the service, is now a credentialed member of the Pentagon press corps and keeps getting Trump officials fired for insufficient loyalty. And Megyn Kelly has gone in just a few short years from anchoring a newsmagazine show for NBC to debating whether Jeffrey Epstein’s victims were young enough for him to be described as a pedophile.

But Benny Johnson stands out, even among this collection of cranks, grifters, propagandists, and sycophants. He is the Jesse Watters of the streaming set, someone who has parlayed having absolutely nothing to add to any conversation into a lucrative career as a shill for President Donald Trump.

Johnson has had perhaps the best 2025 of any streamer on the right. His YouTube videos have amassed more than 1 billion views in total this year — only Kelly compares among right-wing news and politics hosts, while Joe Rogan garnered 890 million views over the same period. Johnson's YouTube subscriber base grew by nearly 120%, with his 3.3 million new subscribers representing the largest total increase among the 400+ channels we track that are affiliated with right-leaning and left-leaning online shows. (Analysis of new YouTube subscribers and total channel views is based on data collected from Social Blade.)

All the while he hobnobbed with Trump administration power players and GOP elites, flying with Vice President JD Vance, broadcasting from House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) office during a joint session of Congress, and boasting of his contacts with White House officials.

Johnson’s rise demonstrates that what drives influence within the MAGAsphere is not diligent reporting or willingness to speak truth to power, but a willingness to loudly say whatever will make the president happy.

The streamer’s backstory is a testament to the complete lack of ethical standards within right-wing media. After getting his start at The Blaze, the right-wing outlet founded by Glenn Beck, Johnson made a foray into mainstream media in 2012 when he joined Buzzfeed News. Though he built a reputation there for viral content, he was fired after two years for serial plagiarism. That journalistic crime is often career-ending in mainstream outlets — but Johnson was swiftly welcomed back to the right-wing ecosystem, with subsequent jobs at National Review, Independent Journal Review (where he again faced plagiarism allegations), The Daily Caller, Turning Point USA, and Newsmax.

Johnson went independent in 2023, focusing on his personal podcast, streaming, and social media platforms. The following year, the Justice Department charged two individuals with covertly channeling $8.7 million from a Russian state-controlled propaganda outlet to the production companies of three U.S.-based right-wing YouTube stars in return for videos prosecutors said supported the Russian government’s goals. One of those beneficiaries of the Kremlin propaganda plot was Johnson, who described himself as an unwitting “victim” of the scheme. He was not charged with wrongdoing.

If Johnson’s conduct was not criminal, it does suggest that he was either stupid or venal enough to take millions of dollars without wondering where it came from. But a year later, it turns out no one on the right cares: He retains a fast-growing viewership and what appears to be a voice at the highest levels of Trump’s regime.

On The Benny Show, no Trump turd goes unpolished

Trump’s right-wing media coalition, united by his cult of personality and their shared hatred of the left, powered his return to the White House. But fissures soon emerged, as commentators split with the president — and each other — over his handling of issues like the Russia-Ukraine war, tariffs, U.S. strikes on Iran, immigration enforcement and reforms, and, most of all, the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Johnson tends to stay out of such squabbles. While he has some policy preferences — he hates food stamps, claims that “every single thing you hate about your life right now” could be “fixed by mass deportations,” and wants to “destroy” Social Security, for example — Trump is his top priority.

Any time Trump needs someone to move his bullshit, he can count on Johnson to show up with a shovel, a wheelbarrow, and a smile. There’s no lie too absurd for him to parrot, no corruption he won’t defend, if it will help the president achieve his aims.

Want a rationale to send troops into cities like Portland or Washington? Benny will declare to his audience that the former “has been conquered by antifa” and the latter has “entire neighborhoods” that “need to be bulldozed.”

The stiff tariffs you unilaterally implemented causing chaos in the markets? Benny will explain to his viewers that the economic “pain” is the result of “demonic possession,” and assure them that “losing money costs you absolutely nothing.”

Got a problem with a journalist getting accidentally added to the administration group chat in which your underqualified defense secretary is sharing attack plans? Benny will shift the blame to “a backdoor splinter cell group inside the CIA” and the reporter, who should be arrested.

Taking heat because the Qatari government gave you a jet described as a “flying palace” to replace Air Force One? Fret not — Benny says that is “totally permissible” and “normal.”

Need someone to carry water for your administration’s comically inept claim that President Barack Obama directed a “treasonous conspiracy”? Benny will host a discussion about whether Obama should face a “military tribunal.”

On the rare occasions when Johnson strays, he is quick to return to the MAGA fold. When the Justice Department and FBI triggered a right-wing media meltdown in July by debunking some of its cherished Epstein claims, Johnson initially joined in. But even then, he made clear that his complaint was not with Trump, claiming that his “love” for the president was “without question.”

And when Trump needed someone to clean up after new reporting detailed his own close relationship with the convicted sex offender later that month, Benny reverted to form, claiming that the reporting was “a hoax” and “the scandal is in who wrote the story.”

Johnson’s mutually beneficial relationship with the Trump GOP

Sometimes Republicans who might actually have principles consider acting on them and defying Trump in some way. All year long, when that has happened, Johnson has stepped in to keep them in line. And the Trump administration has rewarded him with access.

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vaccine extremism jeopardized his Senate confirmation in January, for example, Johnson warned recalcitrant Republicans that they were courting annihilation. “Senators must confirm RFK or face the absolute whirlwind of some very, very powerful forces of MAHA and MAGA that will absolutely torch them and will destroy their careers because you've proven to us what you actually believe and who you actually are,” he said.

When Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said she would oppose Fox News host Pete Hegseth’s nomination to lead the Pentagon, citing in part the “allegations of sexual assault and excessive drinking” that had dogged his nomination, Johnson said that he would make an example of the “vengeful witch.” Declaring a “jihad” against the senator, he said he would “physically travel to Alaska. Expect a massive, well-funded primary challenge for Lisa Murkowski.”

Johnson credited his own work with helping to keep Republicans from abandoning Hegseth amid the Signalgate scandal.

“Well, just like the — just like at the Pentagon, and you saw the same op run against Hegseth — and we think that RFK is going to obviously survive the same way that Hegseth did, and we're going to help him do it, obviously,” he explained in September. “We're going to make sure that we stiffen the backbone of anybody who would come against him.”

The Trump administration and GOP appreciate the existence of a toady with Johnson’s reach.

  • In late October, Johnson accompanied JD Vance for the vice president’s appearance at a TPUSA event in Mississippi, flying with him on Air Force Two and getting “one on one time” to “sit and chill” with the vice president.
  • In October, Johnson went on a ride-along with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers as they raided a Walmart and visited a detention facility. He also toured Portland ICE facilities with Noem.
  • Brendan Carr, the Trumpy chair of the Federal Communications Committee, issued his threat to ABC and its affiliates over Jimmy Kimmel’s jokes during a September appearance on Johnson’s show.
  • Benny kicked off an August White House press briefing from the “new media” seat, at one point asking Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt: “Will the president consider giving the Presidential Medal of Freedom to ‘Big Balls?’’
  • He received an invitation to stream about Trump’s March congressional address from Mike Johnson’s office, where he interviewed the speaker to celebrate passage of Trump’s signature economic bill.

Johnson also frequently mentions what his “little birdies” in the Trump administration — including the president himself — are telling him about events.

No one has lashed themselves to Trump and his administration more than Johnson. But as the president’s poll numbers circle the drain and his allies launch proxy fights over who will be the GOP’s standard-bearer in 2028, where does that leave Benny?

Republicans Fold On Epstein Files, But MAGA Media Insist Trump 'Won'

Republicans Fold On Epstein Files, But MAGA Media Insist Trump 'Won'

President Donald Trump has spent the last four months trying to tamp down MAGA dissent over his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, only to finally fold to congressional demands for more federal records related to the late convicted sex offender. According to some of his most sycophantic supporters on right-wing TV, everything is going according to plan.

“Trump’s calling their bluff on the Epstein files,” Fox News host Laura Ingraham said on Monday night. She then aired footage from earlier in the day in which the president, in a major reversal, said he would sign a bill the House of Representatives is taking up on Tuesday that mandates the release of Justice Department documents related to its sex-trafficking investigations into Epstein.

“Trump’s not hiding anything. He just said he’ll release everything the government has on Epstein," her colleague Jesse Watters crowed on the network’s next hour.

He then touted the House resolution, saying that it gives the DOJ “30 days to release everything they have on the dead pedophile. That includes the flight logs, his connections to powerful people, DOJ and FBI investigation files, and information about his 2008 sweetheart deal.”

Carl Higbie, a host of Fox competitor Newsmax, also got into the act, asking at the top of his broadcast: “Did Trump just pull like a UNO reverse on Democrats over the Epstein files?” He went on to say that “Democrats just got played” by the president saying he’d sign the Epstein bill.

“Now they have to release it,” he continued, “because all 214 Democratic Congress members signed on to the release to force the vote to release the Epstein files — against [House Speaker] Mike Johnson’s wishes, by the way, which was weird. But Trump comes out over the weekend, after months of telling people, ‘Drop it,’ and says, ‘You know what, guys, let’s just get them out there,’ and now no Democrats can hide, because last week they unanimously voted for it.”

If you’re following: Trump didn’t want the Epstein files released; Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and the Democrats did; Johnson failed to stop House Republicans from supporting the disclosure bill; Trump was about to lose, so he caved; now the records are on track to be released; and according to Ingraham, Watters, and Higbie, that adds up to a win for … Trump?

Portraying Trump’s cave as a masterful strategic gambit requires total contempt for the MAGA audience — but that’s nothing new for either Trump or his right-wing media supporters.

Back in July, the Trump DOJ and FBI roiled the right with a memo repudiating various claims that MAGA influencers — including, in years past, the current top leadership of the FBI — had offered about the disgraced financier’s life and death. Ever since then, the president has been trying to get his followers to focus elsewhere, and his zealous supporters at outlets like Fox have been happy to help.

But as new document releases provided more evidence of Trump’s own former close relationship with Epstein, Democrats and a handful of House Republicans signed on to a discharge petition to force a vote on the Epstein disclosure bill. And after Johnson’s stall tactics and Trump’s lobbying failed, the president reversed himself and got behind the bill he had fought to kill.

Trump’s decision is elsewhere being cast as a “capitulation" and a “debacle.” But within parts of the MAGA bubble, every Trump move has to be a brilliant victory.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Amid Fuentes Blowup, Tucker Carlson Targets Lindsey Graham's Senate Seat

Amid Fuentes Blowup, Tucker Carlson Targets Lindsey Graham's Senate Seat

Tucker Carlson’s friendly interview with prominent white nationalist streamer Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust-denying Hitler fan, has triggered a right-wing civil war over the last week, drawing in Republican politicians and reportedly triggering a meltdown at the Heritage Foundation, the conservative movement’s most prominent think tank.

On Wednesday, Carlson opened up a new front in that conflict that seems likely to put him in direct opposition to his former colleagues at Fox News.

Carlson’s latest program features an interview with and endorsement of Paul Dans, a candidate for U.S. Senate who is widely regarded as the “architect” of the politically toxic right-wing manifesto Project 2025. Dans is mounting a primary campaign against Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who is one of Fox’s most frequent guests.

Both candidates have spoken out on opposite sides of the Fuentes firestorm in recent days, with Graham identifying himself as a member of “the ‘Hitler sucks’ wing of the Republican Party” and Dans declaring: “Tucker Carlson is a leading light of America First, and anyone taking out after him is not America First by definition.”

Fox has championed Graham for years

Graham has appeared on Fox’s weekday programs at least 565 times since Media Matters began tabulating cable news guest appearances in August 2017 — more than any other member of Congress except for Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR). Fox hosts regularly praise Graham, who repeats the network’s talking points and has used the network’s stars as a sounding board for his policy ideas.

The South Carolina Republican is a particular favorite of Sean Hannity, President Donald Trump’s political operative who also hosts a propaganda show on the network. Hannity hosted Graham 270 times over that period — more than any other congressional guest by more than 40 appearances.

Fox founder Rupert Murdoch is personally invested in Graham’s political success, as messages made public during the Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuit against the network show. In October 2020, when Graham was last on the ballot, Murdoch emailed Fox CEO Suzanne Scott: “You probably know about the Lou Dobbs outburst against Lindsey Graham. Could Sean say something supportive? ... We cannot lose the Senate if at all possible.” Scott later followed up to confirm she had “addressed the Dobbs outburst.”

Murdoch was apparently referring to Dobbs, then a Fox Business host, saying during an October 23, 2020, rant: “I don’t know why anyone in the great state of South Carolina would ever vote for Lindsey Graham. … Graham has betrayed President Trump at almost every turn.” Hannity did a friendly interview with Graham three days later and stressed to viewers that the senator’s reelection was critical.

Carlson’s brand of ethnonationalist isolationism, meanwhile, put him in conflict with Graham even when he was still at that network.

Carlson attacks Graham as an extension of the Fuentes firestorm

On Wednesday, Carlson addressed the ongoing debate spurred by his effort to launder a toxic antisemite’s bigotry into the mainstream right. In a monologue at the top of his show, the host positioned himself and his faction as the true heirs to Trump and the America First movement, claimed that his critics are seeking “a return to the Republican Party that we had before, which is a party that has all kinds of other agendas, most of which are never publicly revealed, and that spends a lot of its time policing its own members.”

Carlson went on to accuse his opponents of dishonestly invoking the Holocaust as a ploy to bolster their effort to take control of the GOP after Trump leaves office:

The people who are benefiting from the old arrangement, which only continued because it was maintained by threats and silence, those people are going absolutely bonkers. And they have been all week, and they're claiming it's about one thing, the Holocaust or something like that.
But, no, really it's about who controls the Republican Party after Donald Trump. That's what it's really about. So ignore the moral posturing. This is a power struggle as all political parties have from time to time, and this one just happens to have a lot of emotionally unbalanced hysterical people with no limits who have access to social media, so they're scaring the crap out of everybody.

But Carlson didn’t only give his viewers and supporters a reason to disregard the complaints of his critics — he also offered them a target.

Graham, Carlson told them, “symbolizes what we're actually debating and the stakes of this conversation.” And for the remaining half-hour of his monologue, he attacked Graham’s views on Israel, immigration, the Russia-Ukraine war, Trump’s Russiagate scandal, the murder of George Floyd, and more, presenting the South Carolina senator’s positions as anathema to the MAGA movement.

Carlson then introduced Dans and praised him for taking on Graham, who he said “is very obviously evil. And if he is the face of the Republican Party, normal people can't support it, including me. So it's so important to send the statement that we are not for killing of innocence or bloodlust or whatever weird demonic trip Lindsey is on.” Carlson added that he is “really praying for your victory.”

Dans — who described Graham upon launching his campaign as “a 70-year-old childless warmonger” who “has no stake in the future of this country” — told Carlson's audience that he is “original MAGA” and his race “is about the future of the movement, whether MAGA, America First, lives or dies.”

The remainder of the show was a typical Carlson special. The host gave Dans space to lay out his biography and make his pitch, and he egged on Dans' attacks on Graham. At one point, Carlson mocked Graham for being “scared shitless” during the January 6 insurrection, leading Dans to explain that Graham “knows that 2020 was infirm, it was a rigged and stolen election, and he did nothing really for it,” which Dans contrasted with what he described as his own “battle scars” from aiding Trump’s election subversion plot.

Carlson concluded the interview by asking Dans, “How can people who support the program you just described and think that it's so essential to stop this insanity before we have, like, World War 6 — how can they support your campaign?” Dans urged viewers to go to his campaign’s website and donate.

It’s worth thinking of Carlson’s latest program as a response to The Daily Wire’s Ben Shapiro. Shapiro devoted his entire show on Monday to a withering critique of Fuentes and his “groyper” supporters — whom he termed “neo-Nazis” — as well as Carlson and the Heritage Foundation, which he said had “facilitated and normalized” that faction “within the mainstream Republican Party.” Shapiro’s program featured numerous video clips of Fuentes, Carlson, and Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts to build his arguments.

Carlson, by contrast, never mentioned the names of any of his critics. Rather than address their arguments directly, he positioned them as lying about their motives in order to steal Trump’s legacy. Instead of playing defense he went on the attack, targeting for defeat Graham, a politician whom he views as supporting that project. In doing so he suggested his viewers should back that politician’s opponent, Dans, to demonstrate their loyalty to the president.

Fox is the biggest weapon Graham has in response, other than Trump himself, and the senator was on Hannity’s show the hour after the Dans interview dropped. But it remains to be seen how eager Fox’s stars really are about getting down in the muck with their former colleague.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Hannity's Campaign For New Jersey Republican Nominee Comes Up Way Short

Hannity's Campaign For New Jersey Republican Nominee Comes Up Way Short

It was a bad night for Sean Hannity.

By the time President Donald Trump’s chief on-air propagandist took over Fox News’ election coverage at 9 p.m. ET, it was already clear that Democrats were on pace to sweep races across the country. And in perhaps the ultimate indignity, it was left for him to announce that his network’s decision desk had called the New Jersey gubernatorial race for Democratic Rep. Mikie Sherrill over Jack Ciattarelli, a Trump-supporting Republican businessman whom Hannity had spent weeks trying to pull over the finish line.

Hannity revealed Fox’s projection for the race and noted that “the GOP had hoped that Ciattarelli could deliver an upset after a very close loss four years ago” before pivoting to what he termed the “math problem” for the party’s efforts to flip the state: According to Hannity, “nearly a quarter of a million people in New Jersey left that state” in recent years.

The Fox host repeatedly returned to that figure over the course of the broadcast, suggesting this posed an “overwhelming” hurdle for the GOP because “a great majority of those people are probably Republicans, probably seeking lower taxes, probably seeking law and order.” Per the Trump propagandist, Democrats should win such a “deep blue state” in a landslide, and “the fact that this is anywhere close in any way is fascinating to me.”

Hannity’s analysis has two fundamental problems.

First, New Jersey wasn’t “close in any way” — while the Republican pollsters Hannity hosted over the last month predicted a tight race, Sherrill ended up winning by a dominant 56 to 43 percent margin. By contrast, outgoing Gov. Philip Murphy beat Ciattarelli by only 51 to 48 percent in 2021. Indeed, Sherrill’s win was so large that even if all 250,000 people Hannity says left the state had remained, and voted as a block for Ciattarelli, he still would have lost — his deficit is currently more than 416,000 votes.

Second, Hannity had spent recent weeks urgently focusing the attention of his viewers on the New Jersey race; interviewing Ciattarelli several times to talk up his campaign; putting on a town hall for him last week that functioned as an on-air pep rally; and repeatedly hosting GOP pollsters who stressed that the race was very close and Republicans needed to get out and vote.

What a Trumpist zealot like Hannity cannot accept — and relate to his viewers — is the possibility that voters have soured on the president and are punishing Republicans up and down the ticket for his economic failures, corruption, malfeasance, and authoritarian conduct.

Hannity’s campaign to put Ciattarelli in the New Jersey statehouse

“New Jersey's gubernatorial race, it is heating up and heating up big time,” Hannity explained on his September 25 show. “Trump-endorsed Republican Jack Ciattarelli fights to turn New Jersey red. It looks like it is possible.”

Hyping an Emerson poll he said had the race in a “dead heat” and a new “bombshell” about Sherrill’s college days, Hannity told Ciattarelli that night that he planned to work to help him win his race.

“I told you the last time you were on, I'm not going to make the same mistake again,” the Fox host said. “I did not see how close it would be the last time you ran. You could have won if people paid more attention to it. I'm not making that mistake.”

“New Jersey is in play,” he concluded the interview. “We'll watch it closely. Thanks for being with us.”

Hannity again touted Ciattarelli’s chances while introducing him for an October 2 interview.

“The American public, they're fed up with the left and their antics and political stunts,” he explained. “And nowhere now is this more important than the great blue state of New Jersey. Democrats are in serious peril — this is real — of losing the gubernatorial race next month.”

“I just want to tell my friends in New Jersey, this is very real,” Hannity said at the end of the interview. “And I know other pollsters that are in the field that have you even up by one, but it's a very close race. It's a very blue state. The people of your state of New Jersey are fed up. This is a winnable race. It's going to be fun to watch.”

On October 16, Hannity brought on GOP pollsters Matt Towery of Insider Advantage and Trafalgar Group’s Robert Cahaly — credentialed by Hannity as “the guys I trust” — to discuss their new polls showing Ciattarelli trailing Sherrill by only one point and Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger leading Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears by only two points in the Virginia gubernatorial race (Spanberger currently leads by 15 points with 95 percent of results in).

“In New Jersey, there's been a shift in politics in New Jersey,” Towery told Hannity’s audience. “The northern portion of New Jersey that used to be big-time Democrat is now more Republican. It's all — it's all flipped. … I happen to think New Jersey is exceptionally competitive. I think that race is closing very fast. ”

“I don't want to raise false hope in people but it seems — my interpretation of your polls, Matt Towery, is if people get out and vote in New Jersey, if they want change, they have a shot. In Virginia, they have a shot,” Hannity responded.

Towery and Cahaly returned to the program on October 30 as part of the full-hour town hall Hannity put on for Ciattarelli from the state. After declaring that “the enthusiasm is squarely behind Ciattarelli” and calling the race “tighter than ever,” Hannity touted them for having “nailed the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential election” and being “the first to pick up this race is way closer than anybody knows.” The pollsters, in turn, stressed that Ciattarelli’s victory was possible and that turnout would be crucial, as Fox’s chyron declared, “Polls Show Tight Race In New Jersey.”

The pair were back on Hannity’s show to give their final analysis on the eve of Election Day.

“New Jersey, there's a lot of energy up there,” Towery offered. “That's different than the rest of these races I'm looking at. There's a lot of energy and I think New Jersey could be a shocker tomorrow.”

If you had been getting your analysis of the race solely from Hannity and the Republican pollsters he offered up to his viewers, the results were, in fact, “a shocker.” But Ciattarelli’s crushing defeat doesn’t seem to have dissipated the Fox host’s confidence in Towery and Cahaly.

They were back on his show on Tuesday night to try to explain why a blue wave that they had apparently missed was cresting over the country, blaming the government shutdown and the need to figure out how to turn out Republican voters without Trump on the ballot. But while they found time to discuss Democratic wins in Virginia, New York City, and Georgia, New Jersey went curiously unmentioned.

At least they can take solace from the fact that the president was watching them tap-dance around his failures.

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters