To prove that Donald Trump is a very mean person while journalists are totally compassionate and loving, CNN has aired a sympathetic interview with a member of a Mexican drug cartel. 
Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “Oh, Klavan, you marvelous merchant of magical mirth, only you could invent a scenario in which a Left-wing news outlet sinks so deeply into the bubbling tarpit of its own twisted political hatred that the lunatic idea of legitimizing a death-mongering gangster could wend its way through every level of internal decision-making without one voice of even semi-decency speaking up to say, “Wait, wait, we can’t allow our childish demonization of our political opponents to twist our souls into gnarled burnt offerings fit only for the altars of hell so that we actually call evil good and good evil right there on cable TV in front of our six or seven viewers.”
But no, my friends, I am not making this up.
CNN girl reporter Shapely Nudnick actually traveled to a Mexican hideout where she spoke sympathetically with a masked member of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, whose former boss El Chapo was said to be personally responsible for the deaths of over 34,000 people.
Ms. Nudnick, winner of this year’s Pulitzer prize for most attractive backside, fetchingly leaned forward and asked the masked gangster – and as God is my witness, I am not making this up, “According to the Trump Administration, you are a terrorist … What do you make of that?”
The masked member of the murderous cartel responded, “I don’t like to get overly emotional because my job depends on inspiring terror in anyone who tries to stand in my way, but I must be honest and tell you this slur from your President Trump hurt my feelings very deeply. I am just a man trying to make a living in this crazy world, and when I heard I had been labeled a terrorist, my hands were literally shaking so hard I could barely shove a screwdriver into the face of one of my rivals. I respect President Trump, and respect is very important because people who don’t return my respect are often found inside plastic bags in several different locations. But a man must eat and, to be fair, our customers are mostly in the United States and as any good businessman will tell you, you have to go where the customers are and then slowly poison them to death. I hope the American people will push back against this insult, and if they don’t, I know where they live.”
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Andrew Klavan Show</a> </h3>
CNN has proudly announced that this interview is only the first in a new series of self-degrading acts of pure evil that will appear over the course of the Trump Presidency, and they’ve been airing tantalizing previews of future episodes. In one clip, Shapely Nudnik bravely travels to an undisclosed elementary school to interview a pedophile teacher who says, “I think it’s very cruel for people to demonize someone they don’t even know with ugly words like pervert and evil scum-sucking hell-fiend. I just thank heavens I belong to a teachers’ union where they support the idea that minor attracted persons can work at an elementary school. After all, that’s where the children are, not to mention the porn.” 
In another clip, Miss Nudnick scores an interview with former Nazi torture doctor Joseph Mengele who says, “It’s true I used to perform grotesque and unspeakable medical experiments on children, but I’ve totally reformed, and now I’m supplying kids with gender affirming care, because I’ve had a lot of practice, and that’s what I’m good at.” 
In other Left-wing media news, the Pulitzer committee has awarded its prize for photography to a picture of a bullet flying at President Trump’s head. Committee Chairman Thaddeus Foul-heart said, “We know that other photo of a wounded Trump raising his fist with the American flag in the background is the single most iconic image of the first quarter of this century, but that photo inspired love and admiration for our president, whereas we were rooting for the bullet.”
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
The views expressed in this satirical article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Follow him on X: @andrewklavan
Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fourth installment, “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1613165536?ref_=dbs_m_mng_rwt_calw_thcv_3&amp;storeType=ebooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A Woman Underground.</a>” His most recent nonfiction release is “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Kingdom-Cain-Finding-Literature-Darkness/dp/0310368340/?_encoding=UTF8&amp;pd_rd_w=nMYjR&amp;content-id=amzn1.sym.bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_p=bc3ba8d1-5076-4ab7-9ba8-a5c6211e002d&amp;pf_rd_r=133-8344803-2786917&amp;pd_rd_wg=7a8J3&amp;pd_rd_r=5791ea0f-6d96-4732-9d6a-3a4e6b348bb5&amp;ref_=aufs_ap_sc_dsk" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Kingdom of Cain: Finding God in the Literature of Darkness.</a>” (May 2025, Zondervan/HarperCollins).

CNN Airs Heartfelt Sit-Down With Masked Cartel Hitman

Andrew Klavan

Humor

interview

Legacy Media

Mexico

President Trump

Satire

Sinaloa Cartel

Terrorism

North Carolina Tar Heels head football coach Bill Belichick released a statement on Wednesday about the recent CBS interview that went viral, claiming the network &#8220;selectively edited&#8221; footage to make it appear as though his younger girlfriend was running the show.
Fans have reacted by saying that Jordon Hudson, 24, was overly controlling and refused to allow Belichick, 73, to answer some questions. 
The former general manager and head coach of the New England Patriots claimed the discourse surrounding the interview was a “false narrative.”
&#8220;Prior to this interview, I clearly communicated with my publicist at Simon &amp; Schuster that any promotional interviews I participated in would agree to focus solely on the contents of the book,&#8221; Belichick <a href="https://x.com/BrendanRMarks/status/1917639712530907465">said</a>. &#8220;Unfortunately, that expectation was not honored during the interview.&#8221;
Belichick said he was &#8220;surprised when unrelated topics were introduced&#8221; and claimed interviewer Tony Dokoupil brought up his romantic relationship “several times” when the topic of the interview was supposed to be promoting his new book.  
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
UNC football coach Bill Belichick has released a statement related to his viral CBS interview over the weekend: <a href="https://t.co/rlUysaAggX">pic.twitter.com/rlUysaAggX</a>
&mdash; Brendan Marks (@BrendanRMarks) <a href="https://twitter.com/BrendanRMarks/status/1917639712530907465?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;[Hudson] was not deflecting any specific question or topic but simply doing her job to ensure the interview stayed on track,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;Some of the clips make it appear as though we were avoiding the question of how we met, but we have been open about the fact that Jordon and I met on a flight to Palm Beach in 2021.&#8221;
Belichick added, &#8220;The final eight-minute segment does not reflect the productive 35-minute conversation we had, which covered a wide range of topics related to my career. Instead, it presents selectively edited clips and stills from just a few minutes of the interview to suggest a false narrative — that Jordon was attempting to control the conversation — which is simply not true.&#8221;
The network responded to the statement, saying, &#8220;When we agreed to speak with Mr. Belichick, it was for a wide-ranging interview. There were no preconditions or limitations to this conversation.” 
Belichick has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-belichick-interview-goes-viral-after-his-24-year-old-girlfriend-calls-the-shots">roasted</a> after the release of the interview, which included Hudson snapping a terse, “We’re not talking about this,” when Dokoupil asked how they met. 
Many criticized the interview, which aired on CBS Sunday Morning, with Barstool Sports founder Dave Portnoy writing, “My Sunday morning routine is always coffee and CBS Sunday Morning. It’s a feel good show. The opposite of controversial. So [imagine] my surprise this morning when they had the most awkward Bill Belichick interview I’ve ever seen. Like I was squirming in my seat.”
British broadcaster Piers Morgan wrote, “It was utterly excruciating. Mr Belichick needs a family or friend intervention asap.”
“I actually felt uneasy with his girlfriend,” another X user noted. “If he were my Dad, I’d be watching her very closely. She is definitely controlling the relationship &amp; is securing her financial future. It’s a bit creepy.”

Bill Belichick and Jordon Hudson

Bill Belichick Accuses CBS Of ‘Selectively Editing’ Interview To Make Younger Girlfriend Look Bad

Bill Belichick Accuses CBS Of Editing Interview To Make 24-Year-Old Girlfriend Look Bad

Bill Belichick

Football

Media

U.S.

Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court faces a crucial test: deciding whether states can criminalize undercover journalism simply because those in power dislike being recorded. At stake is more than just one organization’s right to expose wrongdoing — it’s about safeguarding free speech and transparency in an era increasingly defined by censorship and institutional distrust.
Project Veritas, known for undercover exposés revealing abuses within powerful institutions, recently petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge Oregon’s restrictive recording law. This statute demands that anyone recording in even the most public of places notify everyone else that they are being recorded. But there’s a rub: the state doles about permission slips making it easier to record some subjects, but not others. In short, Oregon law says you can easily record police abuse but not a school administrator admitting to indoctrinating students.
This arbitrary distinction represents precisely the kind of content-based speech restriction the First Amendment prohibits. It gives state authorities unchecked power to silence investigative efforts those in power dislike while permitting other investigations deemed politically acceptable.
Daily Wire readers should understand these implications clearly. The conservative movement has seen firsthand how selective enforcement of “privacy” laws punishes those uncovering inconvenient truths. Consider the notorious prosecution of David Daleiden and his investigation into Planned Parenthood. Instead of pursuing Planned Parenthood, California authorities, led by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris, targeted Daleiden himself.
Matt Walsh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-california-prosecuting-journalists-doing-matt-walsh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">aptly warned</a> at the time that such prosecutions could “criminalize all forms of undercover journalism.” Walsh was right: when governments can weaponize privacy laws against whistleblowers, corruption thrives unchecked. We’d like to stop that.
Project Veritas’s case underscores this danger. If Oregon’s law stands, it sets a precedent emboldening other states to enact similarly repressive measures. Such laws don’t merely threaten controversial groups like Project Veritas — they imperil every citizen-journalist, whistleblower, and parent aiming to hold those in power accountable.
Imagine parents secretly recording school officials implementing extremist curricula, or a VA hospital employee documenting abuse against veterans. Under Oregon’s model, these citizen-journalists become criminals rather than heroes. Balderdash.
Critics argue undercover journalism invades privacy. Yet, there’s a critical difference between personal privacy and public accountability. Recording private citizens’ truly private conversations — happening, say in someone’s home or a doctor’s office — is rightly protected against. But public officials and newsworthy figures talking about bad deeds or public policy in public must not be shielded from scrutiny.
The hypocrisy here is glaring. Legacy media applauded secret recordings like the Access Hollywood tapes or Greenpeace’s hidden-camera sting of Exxon executives because these aligned politically with their interests. Yet conservative-leaning investigations face condemnation and criminalization. Oregon’s law codifies this double standard into state policy, echoing Orwell’s chilling warning in &#8220;Animal Farm,&#8221; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The state now decides whose truths may be exposed and whose must remain hidden, a hallmark of dystopian control.
Today, Americans distrust legacy media precisely because traditional reporting methods often fail to reveal the full truth. In our digital age, audiences demand — and deserve — objective evidence. Hidden cameras have become essential tools for accountability journalism, offering unfiltered glimpses into realities otherwise obscured by spin, stonewalling, and hidden agendas.
If the Supreme Court allows Oregon to criminalize this essential method of truth-gathering, it cripples the First Amendment. Citizen-journalism, which Daily Wire audiences rightly value, becomes vulnerable nationwide. The justices must affirm a core constitutional principle: truth doesn’t need permission from those hiding it. Our American guarantee of free speech supports rigorous, bold investigations capable of exposing hidden abuses. In 2025, undercover journalism isn’t a fringe tactic — it’s a fundamental aspect of free inquiry and transparency.
It’s time the Supreme Court rejects Oregon’s unconstitutional censorship. America needs more citizen-journalism, not less. The freedom to expose wrongdoing must remain protected — even if it makes the powerful uncomfortable.
* * *
Benjamin Barr is a partner at Barr &amp; Klein PLLC where his practice engages in a variety of constitutional litigation nationwide. Along with his law partner, Stephen R. Klein, the firm represents Project Veritas in this matter.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

DALLAS, TX – NOVEMBER 29: James OKeefe, founder of Project Veri

Supreme Court Must Protect Citizen-Journalists From Oregon’s Censorship

Supreme Court Must Protect Citizen-Journalists From Oregon's Censorship

Censorship

Journalism

Oregon

Privacy

Project Veritas

SCOTUS

Whistleblowers

The following is a distilled and edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Dan Abrams, ABC News&#8217;s chief legal analyst and host of “On Patrol: Live.” Catch the full interview on a new <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire">weekend edition of Morning Wire</a>.
* * *
1. You have built a career at the intersection of law, media, and entertainment. What led you to create &#8220;<a href="https://www.reelz.com/show/on-patrol-live/">On Patrol: Live&#8221;</a> and why do you think it has resonated so strongly with audiences?
Dan Abrams: I’m a lawyer by training and I used that to quickly pivot into media, where I ended up covering some of the highest-profile criminal cases from the last three decades. That background is, I think, why the producers came to me to host what is now “<a href="https://www.reelz.com/show/on-patrol-live/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">On Patrol: Live</a>,” a live police show where we follow police departments in real time. This is a show that is different from any other police show out there because, unlike “Cops,” where it&#8217;s sort of a highlight reel of crazy moments, we’re actually live in eight or nine departments at once. So we&#8217;ll go to a department and we&#8217;ll see someone responding to a call and the officer doesn&#8217;t know what&#8217;s going to happen next. So, the audience joins the officers in that experience. I think that&#8217;s part of what makes the show so compelling.
<ul>
<li>Why It Matters: Authentic storytelling matters. Live coverage provides a raw, unfiltered look at policing, allowing audiences to see officers as they really are rather than through a scripted or dramatized lens.</li>
</ul>
2. The show was the #1 entertainment program on Friday and Saturday nights in 2024 and was picked up for 90 more episodes. Why do you think audiences are still drawn to &#8216;cop shows,&#8217; especially after efforts to cancel them in 2020?
Dan Abrams: People are interested in policing. There is an element of uncertainty throughout the show. Watching police engage with the community is something people have long been interested in. There&#8217;s no other place where they can see it in real time. As a result, we try to follow a mix of departments around the country to make this a really compelling show year after year. We look for both geographical diversity and diversity of the size of the department. We&#8217;re in everything from Las Vegas – one of the top 10 biggest police departments in America – to Hensley, Arkansas, where we ride with the chief of the department.
<ul>
<li>Why It Matters: Public interest in policing is unwavering. Despite political movements, the demand for real-time law enforcement coverage remains strong, demonstrating that audiences value transparency over ideology.</li>
</ul>
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/how-cop-shows-survived-the-cancel-mob-and-won-2024-3-8-25/id1576594336?i=1000698364951" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
3. &#8216;Live PD&#8217; was canceled in 2020 following the George Floyd protests. You’ve been vocal about your frustration with that decision. What was that experience like, and how did it lead to &#8216;<a href="https://www.reelz.com/show/on-patrol-live/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">On Patrol: Live</a>&#8216;?
Dan Abrams: I thought it was a vast overreaction. That&#8217;s what I said when the show was cancelled – and I maintain it to this day. It&#8217;s important to talk about this because there&#8217;s going to be some other incident where a cop does something the cop shouldn&#8217;t have – and it might be really bad. And any good cop will tell you that the worst thing for good cops is a bad cop. No matter what career you&#8217;re talking about, considering there are hundreds of thousands of police officers around the country, you are going to have some bad cops. That doesn&#8217;t mean that the rest of the cops aren&#8217;t doing really good work.
<ul>
<li>Why It Matters: Balanced perspectives are essential. In an era of quick, reactionary decisions, maintaining a steady and fair approach to evaluating law enforcement is crucial to understanding the complexities of policing.</li>
</ul>
4. What’s your take on shifting public attitudes toward law enforcement in the last few years? Do you think the narrative is changing?
Dan Abrams: I think there’s been a recognition that the “Defund the Police” movement was absurd. It didn&#8217;t work. And that&#8217;s why liberal cities around the country are refunding the police and rehiring police officers. They realized it made no sense. I&#8217;ll tell you, as soon as “Live PD” was canceled, I received outreach from people asking me about the project. So, from a show perspective, I think it was really just a question of when. In the immediate months after the show went off the air, however, to many, the show would have been too hot – couldn&#8217;t do it, can&#8217;t risk it, don&#8217;t want to risk the protests, don&#8217;t want to risk the backlash. I do think that has faded to some degree.
<ul>
<li>Why It Matters: Public safety requires practical solutions. Knee-jerk policy shifts have real-world consequences, and restoring balance between law enforcement and community trust is a vital ongoing effort.</li>
</ul>
5. What’s next for you? Do you have any other projects in the works?
Dan Abrams: Well, I work on a lot of things. I host a daily radio show on Sirius XM on the POTUS channel. I&#8217;m still ABC News&#8217;s chief legal analyst. I own a company called Mediaite. I started &#8220;Law and Crime.&#8221; I&#8217;ve got a spirits company called Bottle Raiders, where we have an app that aggregates ratings of fine spirits and non-alcoholic drinks. So I&#8217;ve got my hand in a lot of projects, but “<a href="https://www.reelz.com/show/on-patrol-live/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">On Patrol: Live</a>” is a passion project for me.
<ul>
<li>Why It Matters: Media influences public perception. Abrams’ dedication to covering law and crime-related content ensures that audiences have access to informed, balanced perspectives on critical legal issues.</li>
</ul>
* * *
That was Dan Abrams, producer of “<a href="https://www.reelz.com/show/on-patrol-live/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">On Patrol: Live</a>” and this has been a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire">weekend edition of Morning Wire</a>.

“Thank You Goodnight: The Bon Jovi Story” Special Screening

5 Questions With Dan Abrams: The Enduring Appeal Of ‘On Patrol: Live’

5 Questions With Dan Abrams: The Enduring Appeal Of 'On Patrol: Live'

ABC News

Defund The Police

Morning Wire

Police

Television

Governor Doug Burgum Visits FOX Business Network’s “The Big Money Show”

Make America Beautiful Again: An Interview With Doug Burgum, Secretary Of The Interior

Cabinet

China

Department of Interior

Doug Burgum

Elon Musk

Energy

Nuclear

Technology

Trump Administration

MixCollage-01-Mar-2025-01-46-PM-7816

‘Brothers After War’: An Interview With Gary Sinise And Jake Rademacher

Afghanistan

Documentaries

Gary Sinise

Iraq War

Marines

Movie Theaters

Movies

PTSD

Soldiers

U.S. Army

U.S. Military

U.S. Navy

The following is an edited transcript of an interview with Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham and Daily Mail columnist Maureen Callahan on the growing, public PR battle between actress Blake Lively and film director Justin Baldoni. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-s-epic-hollywood-battle-2-8-25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Catch the full interview on Morning Wire</a>.
* * *
Actress Blake Lively and director Justin Baldoni are continuing their public feud over their hit film, &#8220;It Ends With Us,&#8221; with both sides filing lawsuits. But even more than a legal battle, this has become an all-out PR war with leaked texts, calls, and film footage, as well as allegations of sexual harassment and spousal jealousy. The first trial date is set for March. Daily Wire culture reporter Megan Basham speaks with award-winning journalist, author and Daily Mail columnist Maureen Callahan to get insight into a drama only Hollywood could produce.
MEGAN: Thanks for being here, Maureen. So, especially for those of us who are kind of catching up with this story, I&#8217;m wondering if you can give us the 10,000 foot summary of this scandal?
MAUREEN: Sure. So about a month ago, the New York Times ran a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html?searchResultPosition=9" target="_blank" rel="noopener">blockbuster</a>, I think 4,000 word piece, in which Blake Lively was alleging her director and co-star Justin Baldoni, on their film “It Ends With Us,” had subjected her to almost ritualistic sexual harassment — and that she suffered so greatly, it was a concerted effort in which he involved multiple people to not only harass her while filming, but then once the movie was about to be released, orchestrated an online smear campaign against her. A couple of weeks later, Baldoni&#8217;s lawyer, Bryan Freedman filed a countersuit in which he alleged that the text messages obtained by the New York Times had been selectively edited. They sort of threw open their document dump, which seemed to absolve Justin of many of the things that Lively has been claiming. Nonetheless, these two are now locked in a bitter, bitter, expensive lawsuit. Baldoni is countersuing Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds for $400 million, which is, I believe, what he thinks their estimated net worth is. And the trial is tentatively set for March 2026.
MEGAN: So, before we get to some of the legal ramifications, there have obviously been a lot of leaks, a lot of shifting in public loyalties back and forth. At least that&#8217;s been my experience. At the outset, I was kind of on Team Justin. And then I thought, “Well, wait a minute. That New York Times piece was really persuasive.” But then Justin Baldoni&#8217;s team released some new audio leaks and they sort of shifted the game a little bit. What&#8217;s your sense right now of who&#8217;s on top in the PR war?
MAUREEN: I think Blake Lively is suffering mightily right now and the collateral fallout is affecting not just her husband, Ryan Reynolds, but her so called “Dragon,” her BFF Taylor Swift, who it&#8217;s reported has been taking a step back from her friendship with Blake because she doesn&#8217;t want any of this runoff affecting her career. Justin&#8217;s team has been very smart in what they&#8217;re leaking and when. They leaked footage of the two of them while filming a scene, rehearsing a scene, in which they were dancing very closely and Justin had his mic on. And so they&#8217;re working out how they&#8217;re going to do this scene. Justin is saying, “I think we should be kissing.” And Blake says, “No, I think we should be talking. I think that&#8217;s even more intimate.” And Justin says, “Okay.” So that sort of takes some wind out of her sails. They also released another lengthy voice memo that Justin had sent to Blake in which he&#8217;s praising her to the high heavens and saying he has let her down by not taking all of her notes, and she&#8217;s so brilliant and so smart, and he&#8217;s going to do everything he can to make her happy. Again, a counter narrative to Lively&#8217;s claims that he was doing everything possible to sabotage her and make her feel unsafe on that set. So I think right now Baldoni&#8217;s team is in the power position, but that of course could shift in another few days.
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/it-ends-with-us-in-court-2-8-25/id1576594336?i=1000690394738" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
MEGAN: Well, you know, it seems like there was a moment where Lively could have disengaged and, and just moved on. And this would have been something of a blip on Hollywood&#8217;s gossip radar. Why do you think she escalated to a lawsuit that opened up so much more of these internal communications?
MAUREEN: This is such a great question, Megan, because if you think about it the damage has already been done to her. Think about it, there are like five female directors working in Hollywood today. What male director is going to put himself and his career and reputation at risk by working with Blake Lively, who launched this all out assault on a guy who is not as well capitalized as she and Ryan are, who doesn&#8217;t have the reputation, the lengthy career — who on earth would risk it? And I have to wonder why she did it, because like you said, it could have just been, you know, a thing where they butted heads, they didn&#8217;t see eye-to-eye, but they each walked away clean to do their next project. I have a theory — and it is just my own theory and supposition — that something went on between these two. Perhaps it was an unrequited crush on Blake&#8217;s part and Justin didn&#8217;t respond in kind; perhaps they did in some way have a physical relationship outside of the filming and that went south. There&#8217;s something about this that just feels way too intense, way too personal. I think the real undergirding, the real story is why she did this.
<div id="attachment_873967" style="width: 860px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-873967" class="size-large wp-image-873967" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1928882045-850x576.jpg" alt="JERSEY CITY, NJ - JANUARY 12: Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively are seen on the set of 'It Ends with Us' on January 12, 2024 in Jersey City, New Jersey. (Photo by Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images)" width="850" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1928882045-850x576.jpg 850w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1928882045-300x203.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1928882045-768x521.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1928882045.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 850px) 100vw, 850px" />Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images</div>
MEGAN: Well, I&#8217;m glad that you bring that up, because I do want to talk a little bit about those messages between Baldoni and Lively. And I know some media outlets characterize them as “flirty,” I don&#8217;t know that I necessarily saw them that way, but I at least saw them as very familiar, let&#8217;s put it that way.
MAUREEN: I kind of read them as flirty — even the text messages between Justin and Ryan Reynolds. Look, if anybody listening wants to get a taste of what it&#8217;s like to deal with Hollywood people, this is it. And it&#8217;s really quite vile because they&#8217;re just mooning over each other. I mean, they&#8217;ve just met and Ryan hasn&#8217;t responded to Justin&#8217;s text for two weeks and then he replies and says, “I happen to adore you, Justin.” It&#8217;s like, buy me dinner first before you start talking to me like this. It&#8217;s disgusting. And, you know, Justin and Blake are having a very familiar texting relationship that, whether they were that familiar, whether it was this sort of hastened intimacy because they were working so closely together so quickly, who knows? But now we&#8217;re going to see. I don&#8217;t think there&#8217;s any slight that&#8217;s not going to be weaponized. I just read an item yesterday that Blake Lively blew a good chunk of the movie&#8217;s budget on her wardrobe. I mean, this is how petty we&#8217;re going to get. I love it, but it is the strangest Hollywood war. I&#8217;m going to say it&#8217;s maybe the biggest one since Brad versus Angie.
MEGAN: Do you think Lively and Reynolds, at least as a couple, their image — like maybe Reynolds individually, Lively individually — do kind of come back from this? Because, you know, Brad and Angelina eventually did. But does their image as this blissful “It” couple bounce back?
MAUREEN: Well, Megan, first of all, when I said Brad versus Angie, I meant like when they divorced, when they separated, and it was like the bombshells were going off: “He was abusive. She was out of her mind.” This will be the thing that shows the strength of their marriage. I&#8217;m very cynical, so I really do believe that if this blowback against Blake gets to be too much, Ryan&#8217;s going to cut her loose. I think Ryan Reynolds has his eyes firmly set on becoming a billionaire, and I believe he&#8217;ll get there. And I don&#8217;t think he&#8217;s going to stand for his reputation getting muddied in all of this, even though he&#8217;s already in it with these lawsuits and all of these text messages and these documents. And he was famously brought in by Blake to write a whole scene in the movie and be some sort of unpaid advisor. So I think that&#8217;s really where you&#8217;re going to see the strength of this countersuit against Justin, if it really does sort of crater their marriage.
MEGAN: Well, maybe just a couple more questions, Maureen. One of them is that The New York Times has come under a lot of scrutiny for the role it played in sort of rehabilitating Lively&#8217;s claims when she was on the outs in terms of public affection. I have seen some claims that they handled the coverage in a biased way, clearly working hand in glove with Blake Lively&#8217;s team. What do you think? Is there any validity to that claim?
MAUREEN: Yes, I think there is. It seems as though, perhaps, they didn&#8217;t do their full due diligence. I think it was probably seen, initially, as a strength, but is now a liability. I forget how many bylines were on that piece, but one, Megan Twohey, was one half of the team at the Times that broke the Harvey Weinstein story and became synonymous with MeToo. They wrote a book. They made a lot of money off of it. And I think the Times is already struggling in many ways reputationaly and this does not help. If I recall correctly, I could be mistaken so forgive me, but if I recall correctly I think they went to Baldoni&#8217;s team and gave them two hours to respond to that laundry list of accusations. So if that&#8217;s true, it&#8217;s not a great look. [NOTE: <a href="https://variety.com/2025/film/news/justin-baldoni-lawsuit-blake-lively-ryan-reynolds-nicepool-new-york-times-metadata-1236293856/">Some outlets</a> report The New York Times gave Baldoni approximately 12 hours to respond.]
<div id="attachment_873969" style="width: 804px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-873969" class="size-large wp-image-873969" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1925904572-794x576.jpg" alt="JERSEY CITY, NJ - JANUARY 12: Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni are seen on the set of &quot;It Ends with Us&quot; on January 12, 2024 in Jersey City, New Jersey. (Photo by Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images)" width="794" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1925904572-794x576.jpg 794w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1925904572-300x218.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1925904572-768x557.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/GettyImages-1925904572.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 794px) 100vw, 794px" />Jose Perez/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images</div>
MEGAN: Well, you kind of intuited where I was going to go next. And that was the role that MeToo has played in this, with these claims, that it was a sexual harassment issue. So, do you think on a broader level, the tide has turned? And maybe this is because of Johnny Depp. Because before, I think there was a period of time when even the public was willing to say, “Hey, I don&#8217;t know that that&#8217;s a MeToo allegation.” I&#8217;m thinking of something like Aziz Ansari where there was a lot of back and forth debate about that. In this case, it seems like some of these men in Hollywood who don&#8217;t even possess the power of some of these women are now willing to challenge these MeToo allegations. So, do you think this sort of shifts the balance on where we are with MeToo?
MAUREEN: Yes, I think this case is very important in terms of where we are and where we&#8217;re going. I agree with you. The Aziz Ansari thing was ridiculous. If that allegation had come out maybe a year later, his career would not have been destroyed. I think we are now seeing a pendulum swing back towards sanity where just because a woman says a man did something to her, it&#8217;s not automatically received as gospel, that the man does get a chance to tell his side of the story and back it up with documents, receipts, screenshots, texts, voicemail, and it certainly helps when you have movie footage. So I think this is going to be an interesting case in terms of the cultural corrective that is underway.
MEGAN: Okay. Well, last question: Any predictions for the March trial?
MAUREEN: You know, I&#8217;ll be amazed if it gets there. Because I would think saner heads would prevail, and both sides should really just drop it and walk away. Justin Baldoni&#8217;s lawyer has already said he&#8217;s pretty much bankrupted by this, financially and emotionally. I don&#8217;t know what good it does for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds to have this be the headline of their careers for the next calendar year, and that&#8217;s just to start. So, I think it&#8217;ll be interesting to see if it ever really comes to fruition, and if there is some sort of settlement reached, who pays who? This is really just Hollywood writ large, right? The egotism, the narcissism, the ridiculous sums of money, the victimization, the weaponization perhaps, we don&#8217;t know yet, but perhaps of MeToo, it&#8217;s such a great, weird stew of stuff.
MEGAN: Well, thank you Maureen. That was enlightening. I kind of can&#8217;t wait to see where this goes next.
MAUREEN: I know, it&#8217;s like every day we get another tidbit. Yes, thanks for having me.
* * *
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/blake-lively-and-justin-baldoni-s-epic-hollywood-battle-2-8-25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Catch the full interview on Morning Wire</a>.

Celebrity Sightings In Jersey City – January 12, 2024

‘Way Too Personal’: The Escalating PR War Between Blake Lively And Justin Baldoni

actress

Blake Lively

Entertainment

Film

Hollywood

MeToo

Ryan Reynolds

Sexual Harassment

The New York Times

Last summer, I went undercover in the West Bank, sneaking in with a Muslim film crew while hiding my Jewish identity to ask Palestinians the kinds of questions no other journalist had dared to since the war broke out. And that’s the real scandal — because before October 7, I wasn’t exactly a journalist. I was a comedian. The fact that it took a comic to go in there and do their jobs for them is outrageous. The mainstream press, with all its resources, all its foreign correspondents, all its Middle East &#8220;experts,&#8221; refused to ask the most basic questions. Arguably the most viral report of the war — what the Palestinian people actually think — wasn’t broken by a major network. It was broken by me.
If you follow my three-part series, you’ll see that <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAYxi4WpYJ4/?igsh=MXVsdXBob2Y3Y2hlMQ==" target="_blank" rel="noopener">I almost died</a> just for asking simple questions. That’s how deeply ingrained the hatred is. That’s how dangerous it is to expose the truth.
My raw, unfiltered interviews — conducted randomly on the streets of Ramallah — exposed the depths of Jew-hatred and propaganda in Palestinian society. But the most chilling encounter came when my Muslim producer arranged a private, <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/C9xWl1ZJshF/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==">one-on-one interview</a> with a man who had been freed from Israeli prison not once, not twice, but four times — an alleged terrorist.
When I released the interview this January, after the first wave of prisoner releases, it went viral for its shocking revelations. In our conversation, Arafat Mudar Mohamed displayed just how deeply the Palestinian people have been indoctrinated. He claimed — with absolute certainty — that Hamas is incapable of killing women and children for &#8220;religious reasons,” that Israel never actually left Gaza in 2005, that no Israel civilians died on October 7, and, perhaps most disturbingly, that the hostages in Hamas captivity were actually enjoying their time there.
To prove this last claim, he pulled up photos from Hamas’s staged propaganda during the 2023 ceasefire — a grotesque spectacle in which hostages were forced to smile as they were paraded before cameras, surrounded by armed terrorists. But we now know that freed hostages have revealed the full extent of this deception: not only were they forced to smile, but they were drugged beforehand to appear happier and more cooperative.
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE2hMsLOKBL/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DE2hMsLOKBL/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Zach Sage Fox (@zach.sage)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script> 
This moment from the interview is what I believe the world must grasp most urgently. Propaganda doesn’t just work on the privileged Ivy League liberals bending over backward to reinforce their absurdly black-and-white principles of DEI — it is most effective on the Palestinian people themselves. DEI has conditioned the West to see the world in terms of the oppressed versus the oppressors, the weak versus the powerful, the dark-skinned versus the white. And this is precisely where Hamas’s propaganda succeeds.
The narrative they are selling to the world is simple: they are David, the small, brown-skinned, slingshot-wielding underdog, standing against the monstrous Goliath of Israel. But in reality, Israel is David. A tiny Jewish state — just the size of New Jersey — surrounded by 54 Muslim and Arab nations, many of whom openly call for its destruction. The real Goliath is the Islamic world, which seeks to erase the one Jewish country from existence, create a caliphate across the Middle East, North Africa, and ultimately extend its rule across the entire world. This is not just a regional conflict — it is a global mission for domination, and Israel is the only thing standing in its way to go after the rest of The West.
The irony, of course, is that Israel is just as brown-skinned as Gaza. While the media works tirelessly to paint Israelis as &#8220;white colonizers,&#8221; in truth, over half of Israel’s Jewish population are Mizrahim — Jews kicked out of Arab and North African countries who look just like their Palestinian neighbors. Many Israelis are darker-skinned than the very Hamas leaders orchestrating these terror attacks. Yet because it doesn’t fit the pre-packaged DEI narrative, the media ignores this truth entirely.
And while Gaza has suffered a year and a half of destruction as Israel tried to find its hostages and destroy terror tunnels and rockets, Hamas’s propaganda machine is somehow bigger and more sophisticated than ever. The cruder, shaky videos of a year ago have now evolved into Hollywood-style productions with drones, stedicams, and professionally built sets with fancy laminated backdrops. They’re not just spreading disinformation — they’re refining it, making it more convincing, more visually compelling, more impossible to argue against. Instead of using their resources to rebuild Gaza, Hamas is pouring money into selling their war narrative to the world, but even worse to convince the Palestinian people that they are winning a war which they are by all measures losing. All Hamas has left is PR.
And with the latest hostage releases playing out like a scene from “The Hunger Games” — a dystopian horror show in which Jewish captives are thrown to the mobs like meat to a pack of hyenas — it’s clear that this continued indoctrination will only fuel the next generation of so-called “martyrs” in Gaza and the West Bank.
The mainstream media refuses to confront the reality behind these disturbing images: innocent women and elderly men, tortured for months, swarmed by thousands of Palestinians clamoring to spit on them, kick them, and take selfies — while their terrorist captors force them to smile and wave like puppets in a twisted performance. The media also won’t show you the child abuse Hamas broadcasts proudly: Palestinian children, dressed in headbands and military gear, brandishing machine guns and chanting “Death to the Jews.” This is clearly not a genocide, but a continued call for genocide from the Palestinian people against the Jewish people.
And one of the biggest reasons the mainstream media won’t show you this? Because it doesn’t fit their narrative — the lie that Palestinians are simply innocent bystanders to Hamas’s crimes. In reality, after years of indoctrination, much of Palestinian society has become Hamas itself. This is not just a war against a terror group but against an ideology that has consumed an entire generation.
Arafat Mudar Mohamed said it himself in our interview: &#8220;The Palestinian people like Hamas.&#8221;
This is what the media refuses to acknowledge. Since they won’t show you this Nazi-level brainwashing, I will. My interview with this freed Palestinian terrorist offers a chilling look inside the mind of a man who fits the pattern we’ve seen time and time again: every time he was released, he went back to terrorism. And with thousands more just like him now walking free, we can be certain — this cycle of terror is far from over.
* * *
Zach Sage Fox is a comic, writer, and CEO of Fat Camp Films. An NYC based production company that has made movies and shows for Disney, Hulu, and Amazon, as well as pioneered viral video marketing for big brands and non-profits.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-07-Feb-2025-10-47-AM-7463

I Went Undercover In The West Bank To Interview A Freed Palestinian Terrorist

Hamas

Instagram

Israel

Jews

Middle East

October 7

Palestinians

Social Media

West Bank

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Jarrett Stepman on a special <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/biden-to-trump-a-tale-of-two-presidencies-1-19-25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday edition of Morning Wire.</a>
* * *
As Joe Biden exits stage left, Donald Trump will be sworn in as the 47th President of the United States. One presidential legacy is now in the books and another – Trump’s remarkable comeback second term – is about to be written. Morning Wire sat down with the author of “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-History-Conspiracy-Rewrite-Americas/dp/1621578097" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The War on History</a>,” Jarrett Stepman to discuss the defining moments of Biden’s presidency and what to expect from Trump’s second term.
JOHN: Joining us to discuss Joe Biden’s legacy and expectations around Trump’s second term is Jarrett Stepman, author of “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/War-History-Conspiracy-Rewrite-Americas/dp/1621578097" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The War on History: The Conspiracy to Rewrite America’s Past</a>.” Jarrett, thanks for coming on.
JARRETT: Thanks for having me.
JOHN: Let’s start by looking back, with a post-mortem on Biden’s presidency. He gave his <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-farewell-address-four-years-too-late" target="_blank" rel="noopener">farewell address</a> on Wednesday evening – what stood out to you?
JARRETT: It really felt like, in this address, that this was the “Friday night news dump.” It was very low energy, which I think defined especially the last part of his presidency. He focused on things like the spread of misinformation and perhaps censorship of online media, which I thought was a very peculiar take for a president trying to define his presidency, his one term in office. And I felt that the speech itself had very little impact, which is very fitting for the Biden presidency that seems to have wound down into nothing very quickly. But it seems to be an outlier, too, because farewell addresses are usually a defining moment of any presidency, how to define his term. And Biden simply faded out, which I think is very appropriate for his presidency.
JOHN: Joe Biden’s presidency was plagued by inflation and a catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan – what else will he be remembered for? 
JARRETT: I actually think that he will be remembered for being a frail man who represented crumbling institutions at the end of history. I think that really is what&#8217;s defined the Biden presidency, he very much came into office. As an institutionalist, he was supposed to represent the third term of Barack Obama, a sort of attempt to create a permanent Democratic majority through the executive branch. That basically ground to a halt at the end of Biden&#8217;s presidency. I think he was a president who was often missing in action, especially when the country was counting on him. When you had incidents like the failed Afghanistan withdrawal that really turned into a shambolic affair, President Biden was often nowhere to be seen and it was unclear where exactly the buck stopped in our executive branch. Nobody at the top seemed to have lost their job and business continued on as usual. I think that these were ominous signs about his presidency — one that was more ruled by the various executive agencies than the man at the top, than the man who was actually elected to be president of the United States. So, I think his legacy was of an institutionalist and institutions that were losing favor from the American people and going in a direction that Americans didn&#8217;t want.
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/biden-to-trump-a-tale-of-two-presidencies-1-19-25/id1576594336?i=1000684559035" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
JOHN: Often, a presidential legacy boils down to just one or two defining moments or developments. What will come to define Biden’s legacy?
JARRETT: Again, I think that Biden was an institutionalist at a time where the confidence in institutions was crumbling, and I think that Biden&#8217;s, behavior, his frailty, his inability to actually be a strong leader in a time of great challenges to an old system that had been in place will define his presidency. I think it was very symbolic, especially given the man who will eventually replace him. These are two men who come from a similar age demographic, but represent two very different directions for the American people. And I think Biden’s legacy will be ushering in the age of Trump at the end of the age of Biden.
JOHN: Now, turning our gaze to the near future – we have the 47th president being inaugurated Monday – and he happens to also have been the 45th president. Non-consecutive terms have only happened one other time in our country’s history. Do you believe the gap will have a positive or negative influence on his second term and how he governs?
JARRETT: I think the gap will actually have a positive effect on his second term. Now everything will be quickened — it&#8217;s almost like he&#8217;ll be very quickly a lame duck president. That&#8217;s obviously something that happens at the end of a presidency. It&#8217;s certainly a unique situation in American history. This has only happened one other time with Grover Cleveland in the late 19th century. But this is actually a unique situation even in comparison to that because Trump didn&#8217;t just lose a presidency, he was really up against many institutions that tried to squeeze him out, to prevent him from ever coming back into office ever again. That Trump was able to triumph over all those forces — both the political institutional forces and also the media forces that tried to keep him out of the White House — the fact that he triumphed given those challenging circumstances makes this a unique journey to the White House. And I think it actually empowers him. It may end up being a blessing in disguise, because I think Trump the first time around you could say that his presidency was maybe a bit of an accident and Democrats had simply gotten lazy or careless in allowing this man to become president. I think especially given the headwinds that were against him and the fact that now Trump comes in more popular than he&#8217;s ever been, he comes in with closer to what you consider an electoral mandate. He actually didn&#8217;t just win the electoral college, he seems to have won the popular vote as well, which he certainly has touted. I think it makes him a lot stronger than in 2016, especially given now his experience actually running the White House and being a statesman. Whereas before, he had very little. He was a complete neophyte. He was a man of business and entertainment, but now he&#8217;s a man with quite a bit of experience in running the executive branch, with his own outlook on how to run things. So, I think he&#8217;s going to hit the ground running faster this time than he did last time and have his own institutional support, as opposed to 2016.
<div id="attachment_861551" style="width: 916px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-861551" class="size-large wp-image-861551" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/GettyImages-2194251751-906x576.jpg" alt="TOPSHOT - Melania Trump watches her husband, US President-elect Donald Trump, speak at a candlelight dinner at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2025, a day before his inauguration ceremony. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP) (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)" width="906" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/GettyImages-2194251751-906x576.jpg 906w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/GettyImages-2194251751-300x191.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/GettyImages-2194251751-768x488.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/01/GettyImages-2194251751.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 906px) 100vw, 906px" />JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images</div>
JOHN: There&#8217;s been a lot made of the resistance movement against Trump over the years – and it was very robust in his first term. When he first took office, there was a huge array of resistance elements in the government and the media – that had a lot of power. And it does seem like this last election, so many of those institutions, as you have pointed out, were failing, and his defeat of them seems to have undermined the idea that there could be as robust of a resistance. What do you see coming in terms of the resistance effort against Trump? Will it be as influential as it was in 2016?
JARRETT: It&#8217;s going to be much more marginalized in comparison to that time. Again, because Trump comes in with so much more of a mandate this time around. Trump is not going to be surprised about the hashtag “resistance” this time around. In fact, I think he&#8217;s keenly aware of it, and it may even become a defining part of his presidency. I think he&#8217;s going to use a lot of cool tools, including something called Schedule F to remove recalcitrant bureaucrats. I think that in many cases, this election was about Trump&#8217;s kind of populist uprising against the White House. I know that Biden Democrats tried to define themselves as standing with democracy, but it really was an uprising against the bureaucratic fiat that they thought was ruling the country during the Biden administration. And I think that they, the bureaucrats who were so empowered during the Biden presidency, I think they&#8217;ve lost a lot of power and I think that there&#8217;s going to be a lot less tolerance within the Trump administration for that kind of resistance. And I think the American people are fed up with it too. So, I do think that there&#8217;s going to be a sort of revival of a kind of popular self-government – and I think that will define the Trump presidency.
JOHN: So, weeding out bad elements in the bureaucracy. What other specific actions or policies do you believe he will pursue, based on his campaign trail rhetoric and the kinds of nominations he&#8217;s made for his cabinet?
JARRETT: Yeah, I think something&#8217;s going to happen immediately. I think he&#8217;s going to restore a lot of the immigration and border policies of his first term, including the Remain in Mexico policy. I think that is going to be absolutely a priority. I think something that&#8217;s going to be worked on in conjunction with the legislature, undoing some of Biden&#8217;s executive decisions in the bureaucratic fight, especially when it came to, redefining gender through Title IX, which was, I think, a very big issue, an underrated issue of the Biden presidency. There&#8217;s already a bill in the House to undo that, to undo those changes that happened under the Biden administration. His first term, his first 100 days in office, he will also re-implement tax cuts from his first administration. I think those will be the big priorities, especially the border, which was a big theme of his first term, but now seems to be even more of a crisis, especially given the fact that under the Biden administration there was a massive surge of illegal immigration. A lot of Biden&#8217;s supporters turned against him given the chaos in American cities and a lot of chaos across the country, not just at the border.
JOHN: What do you make of Trump&#8217;s cabinet picks so far? We&#8217;ve had some days now of confirmation hearings. Is there a unified message we&#8217;re hearing from those cabinet picks?
JARRETT: I think his cabinet picks are very interesting because all of them, while they have some disagreement on various issues, all of them represent a critique of those various institutions. If it&#8217;s somebody like Pete Hegseth at the Defense Department, this is a man who comes in not as a four star general. He comes in as a man who has experience as just a regular soldier criticizing the woke DEI direction of the agency. You have somebody like Cash Patel, a man who was not part of the FBI, now being potentially put at the head of the FBI in criticism of the way that the FBI has operated during the Biden presidency. He really has created a team. Many of whom have very impressive resumes, but they are sort of anti-institutionalists. I think this time around, Trump is less dependent on the sort of conservative Republican infrastructure that exists in Washington D.C. and now has his own team that&#8217;s going to define his presidency. That is a big difference from the first time around. I think Trump has a much more clear and defined different direction for where he wants to take his presidency and the issues that he wants to prioritize. I think all of his cabinet picks represent Trump&#8217;s various feelings about the issues in those various policy areas.
JOHN: In his first term, Trump focused on significant deregulation and judicial appointments based on his rhetoric and policy priorities. What legacy building actions do you think he&#8217;ll focus on this time around?
JARRETT: Interestingly enough, I think a big part of his legacy is actually going to be his foreign policy. It&#8217;s something that&#8217;s an underrated part of Trump. I think he was a very strong president on foreign policy during his first term, but I think you can even see in the days before he actually enters the White House how much he prioritized issues like Greenland, possibly reacquiring the Panama Canal — talking about a revival of a sort of Monroe Doctrine — ending conflicts around the globe. There&#8217;s been a deal to end the war between Israel and Hamas, and potentially in the future, ending the war in Ukraine. And I think that Trump actually will make foreign policy a priority because, I think the way that Trump looks at it, if there is going to be a Golden Era of the United States, and he is going to make a lot of changes, domestically, then that means he must prevent any kind of global catastrophe, any kind of potential war with China. So, I think he is going to create a more realist perspective in American foreign policy and focus on containing the threat of communist China, which represents a real threat to the United States. I think the appointment of Marco Rubio at the State Department really defines that. And I think that will be a huge part of his legacy that is very underrated, especially when people focus on his domestic outlook. I think his foreign policy is actually a huge part of what Trump does as president, what he does best.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/biden-to-trump-a-tale-of-two-presidencies-1-19-25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LISTEN: Catch the full interview with Jarrett Stepman on Morning Wire</a></h3>
JOHN: Yeah, I think you&#8217;re right. Final question, Trump has vowed to make America great again. Do you see things aligning in such a way that he&#8217;ll be able to pull off that very lofty goal?
JARRETT: I think it is a massive challenge. As I said, Biden really represented the last part of the crumbling institutions at the end of history. I think that Trump represents, potentially, a great man and a return to history. Now that means many complicated and dangerous things. I think we&#8217;re returning to an era of great power conflict, something that we haven&#8217;t experienced in a very long time. The United States has had no challenge or peers since the end of the Cold War. Suddenly we have that again. I think there&#8217;s a lot of questions about the end of the Cold War, the Post Cold War consensus that Americans have come to regret some of the things that have happened since that time. I think Trump has an enormous challenge ahead of him. It&#8217;s certainly too much for simply one man to be expected to restore confidence in America and continue into this new American century. But I think Trump is uniquely placed. I think he represents a pivot point in American history. And I think if he does actually pull this off, he will certainly be remembered as one of the great presidents in the country&#8217;s history. There&#8217;s no question that the contrast between him and his predecessor will be enormous. Now, whether that ends up being a spectacular catastrophe or a spectacular revival, I think is really up to him and how he treats issues and how he performs in office. But I think he is at a point in which he could have enormous impact over the trajectory of the United States and really the world.
JOHN: In the meantime, enormous anticipation leading up to the inauguration and what will follow in Trump’s first executive actions. Jarrett, thank you so much for joining us.
JARETT: Thank you for having me.
* * *

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP-INAUGURATION

‘Ushering In The Age Of Trump’: An Interview With The Author Of ‘The War On History’

'Ushering In The Age Of Trump': An Interview With The Author Of 'The War On History'

2024 Election

Books

Conservatives

Donald Trump

Inauguration

Joe Biden

Presidency

U.S. Politics

WSJ. Magazine at WSJ Tech Live

‘They’ve Learned Nothing’: The Legacy Media’s Blind Spots And Trump’s Triumph

'They've Learned Nothing': The Legacy Media's Blind Spots And Trump's Triumph

Democrats

Leftists

Wall Street Journal

Washington Post

US-REPUBLICAN-CONVENTION-PARTIES-ELECTION-POLITICS-VOTE

Gold Star Families Reflect On Veterans Day With Stories Of Service And Sacrifice

Biden Administration

Veterans

The following is an edited transcript of an interview between Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley and Justin Folk, director of the hit comedic documentary &#8220;<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Am I Racist?</a>&#8220;on a special <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/creating-documentaries-that-challenge-narratives-from-what-is-a-woman-to-am-i-racist-10-27-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire</a>.
The Daily Wire’s new Matt Walsh-starring comedy “<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/">Am I Racist?</a>” is now the most successful documentary to hit theaters in a decade — despite major headwinds from legacy media and a hostile Hollywood. We sat down with the director, Justin Folk, to discuss his film’s box office run, its launch on Daily Wire+, and why getting conservative content in theaters is now more crucial than ever.
* * *
JOHN: Joining us to discuss the box office run of the Matt Walsh comedy “<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/">Am I Racist?</a>” is its director Justin Folk. Justin, great to have you on the show.
JUSTIN: Yeah, thanks for having me. It&#8217;s good to be on with you guys. Listen to you guys a lot, actually.
JOHN: We love to hear that. Look, you directed the Daily Wire&#8217;s first big documentary hit, “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman">What Is A Woman?</a>” This film is sort of a sequel in some ways, but it’s also very different on many levels – that includes this time you took your film to theaters. That&#8217;s a major risk, but it appears to have paid off here. First, how much has the film brought in from theaters at this point?
JUSTIN: Well, we&#8217;ve passed the $12 million mark at the box office, which is very, very exciting and actually quite historic for a documentary. I believe we&#8217;re the top documentary of the decade. And to achieve that sort of level of success in the theaters out of the gate for The Daily Wire, I think, was a big achievement and I&#8217;m really proud of it. I know the team is proud of it. Ultimately, there were a lot of people involved in that effort. But at the base of it all, we had to make a good film for that to happen. You mentioned that this film is different than “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman">What is a Woman?</a>,” and that&#8217;s by design. We didn&#8217;t want to come out with a half-hearted sophomore effort, and we knew we had to do something different. We knew we had to kind of go bigger. “What is a Woman?” is a little bit more of a straightforward documentary. This one is much more of a comedy and we felt like the issue of race demanded a different approach. With what we&#8217;re seeing with all the race hustlers and the people who are dividing us as a society, we just felt like ridicule would be one of the best tools we could use when making this film.
JOHN: Right. Speaking of ridicule, describing the film was actually a bit of a struggle sometimes for people. Some called it a “mockumentary,” which is not actually correct, but it did include a lot of mocking of things, as you said. If you could sum up the approach to this film, what were you trying to attain?
JUSTIN: Well, first of all, let&#8217;s start with the category. It would officially be categorized as a comedic documentary, which isn&#8217;t a very sexy term. I don&#8217;t think those two things usually go together. So I think it&#8217;s hard for people to kind of understand what this is. But it&#8217;s comedic and so there&#8217;s a lot of laughs, there&#8217;s a lot of jokes in there, but it&#8217;s a documentary, too, because these are very real situations that we put Matt Walsh in and we wanted things to play out with real people. So that approach was something we basically started with. We knew the success of “What Is Woman?” was achieved by allowing people to kind of talk, to say what they really feel about things, and that was very eye-opening for Americans. In terms of race, same thing here, we wanted these people pushing this race agenda to just say in their own words what they felt and what they wanted for the rest of us as Americans. We felt that would be powerful for Americans just to see and then to decide for themselves if this is the right path. The approach involved taking Matt, dropping him into the situation with these people, and essentially having Matt believe them, then chart the course based on all of their prescriptions. And that&#8217;s what Matt did. He basically became one of them, and in doing so, I think we revealed the ideology underneath and what&#8217;s behind it all. When Matt adopted this character as an anti-racist grifter himself, you got to see what&#8217;s behind it philosophically and what it all leads to. And that was our goal, to have Matt become one of them, essentially.
<div id="attachment_796413" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-796413" class="size-large wp-image-796413" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/MixCollage-15-Sep-2024-07-18-AM-8749-1-1024x576.jpg" alt="Am I Racist? movie starring Matt Walsh. Screenshot courtesy: DailyWire." width="1024" height="576" />The Daily Wire</div>
JOHN: You know, it strikes me that this the “Yes, and&#8230;” approach that you learn in improv – the entire film is Matt performing a “Yes, and&#8230;” which really opens the door for letting some of these DEI “experts” go deeper into their ideology than they normally would if you started to question their approach. And it clearly worked here. Did you expect this kind of reception in theaters, this degree of success?
JUSTIN: You know, I was hoping for this level of success, this reception. The thing that surprised me was how consistent the response was in terms of being positive and in terms of people understanding the humor. If I had a fear, it was that we were making a film that only the demographic males 25 to 55 would really enjoy, but the rest — women and older people — it would maybe just kind of go over their head. But that hasn&#8217;t been the case. I had the fortunate ability to go to some of these pre-screenings before the film came out, and I got to watch the audience react to a lot of the jokes and a lot of the things that were in the film. And it was universal. It was across the board, the reaction that we got from people in the audience – whether they were young or old or male or female. And that just gave me a big sense of pride that we made something that everybody can enjoy. Now some people think some jokes are funnier than others, and some people really love some moments in the film compared to others. But really it was, as a filmmaker, you try to make something that would be universally accepted and liked, and that was just great confirmation for what we did.
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/creating-documentaries-that-challenge-narratives-from/id1576594336?i=1000674596692" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
JOHN: Now one of the controversies for the film early on involved critic reviews. This film has gotten outstanding audience reviews from the start, but was shunned by major media critics. Where did the critic reviews stand at this point? Did you get some of the legacy critics to actually weigh in?
JUSTIN: We had a couple mainstream critics eventually limp in with a review. And I think they did that because they were sort of called out for, for ignoring this film. Initially they were staying away from it. We have our theory why they were staying away from it, and that involves the fact that it was a good film – and I don&#8217;t think they wanted to give Matt Walsh that platform. We did have a lot of, I guess, mid-tier critics review the film, and it was very, very well-accepted by them. And these are people with no ax to grind. These are people who don&#8217;t work for a major media entity, and they were just quite honest with their review and they just were like, “Wow, this is a very, very powerful and very funny film.” Some of them even got backlash for doing so. We can kind of understand why some of these mainstream critics ignored it because we knew they would actually face a lot of backlash.
<div id="attachment_796125" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-796125" class="size-large wp-image-796125" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/MixCollage-13-Sep-2024-06-00-PM-700-1024x576.jpg" alt="Am I Racist? movie starring Matt Walsh. Screenshot courtesy: DailyWire." width="1024" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/MixCollage-13-Sep-2024-06-00-PM-700-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/MixCollage-13-Sep-2024-06-00-PM-700-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/MixCollage-13-Sep-2024-06-00-PM-700-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/MixCollage-13-Sep-2024-06-00-PM-700-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/09/MixCollage-13-Sep-2024-06-00-PM-700-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot courtesy: DailyWire.</div>
JOHN: Yeah. At what stage did you begin to plan for a theater launch? Was this the plan all along or did this sort of become more concrete later on?
JUSTIN: Listen, there&#8217;s a lot of risk involved in going to the theater, and there are a lot of things that need to fall into place. And I&#8217;ve got to give credit to The Daily Wire team. I&#8217;ve got to give credit to Jeremy Boreing for navigating all that – Jon Lewis, Dave Coleman and the whole team. First of all, we had to convince theaters to take us. We had to convince the exhibitors themselves that this is something that they would want to have in their theaters and would actually do good business. And so there was a lot of hurdles along the way, and, meticulously, Daily Wire got over all those hurdles, and positioned this film in such a way that the exhibitors would take it. Also all the marketing that took place, there&#8217;s just so much involved in going to the theater. There&#8217;s a ton of risk, and that risk is something you definitely have to consider when launching into this. But I&#8217;m glad we did. I think we proved what we set out to do. And I just feel very fortunate that we were able to have people see this in theaters, where they could sit together in a group and laugh.
JOHN: About that, how significant is it for conservatives in particular to get content into theaters like this?
JUSTIN: As conservatives, we have to play on the battlefield that the rest of society plays on. We have a tendency to kind of shrink back into our silos and speak to only our people. And, listen, as conservatives, we have the best ideas, we have the winning ideas, and those ideas need to be played out on the main stage. And in the case of theaters, theaters are a main stage. Theaters are a place where a lot of people go for their entertainment. These are people, some of them, that aren&#8217;t really engaged in politics. These are people that have busy lives and don&#8217;t pay attention too much to a lot of the issues. And so we need to reach those people. And so, we need to perform the way the Left does when it comes to getting our ideas out there to the mainstream, and theaters is one way we can do that. And so, listen, not every conservative film is meant for the theaters. Different films have different purposes. In our case, we really went hard. We kind of went hard to the paint with the fact that we wanted to make this an entertaining movie first, and then have our ideas tucked in alongside. And, you know, that makes our film very palatable for a movie theater environment. But, listen, I think it&#8217;s very important that conservatives take some of that ground back from the Left and have our ideas play out on the main stage.
JOHN: Yeah, and seeing this reach over 1,600 theaters was a massive deal, just almost symbolically. The film is now going to be available on demand exclusively on the Daily Wire+ platform. In general, do theater runs help or hurt streaming performance in the industry?
JUSTIN: Theater runs. are extremely helpful. In fact, a lot of distributors refer to theatrical releases as a big marketing campaign. And I think that&#8217;s the truth here because it allows you to get your film out there in the public in a way that you wouldn&#8217;t normally have it out there. And so the theatrical release of “Am I Racist?” I think is only going to help really raise awareness with the general public, and then point those people back to Daily Wire+ to go watch it, if they didn&#8217;t get a chance to see it in theaters. And so, yeah, I think the theatrical release is really going to help this film. I think it&#8217;s going to really drive a lot of attention to it for the home entertainment platform and the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/am-i-racist-official-trailer">Daily Wire+</a> platform. I&#8217;m excited about that because a lot of people didn&#8217;t get a chance to see it. People have busy lives, but at least they heard about it. And now they can go watch it on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/am-i-racist-official-trailer">Daily Wire+</a>. the good news there is they can watch as many times as they want, it&#8217;s not a one time viewing. And I do recommend that with this particular film. This is the type of film that you&#8217;re going to want to watch a couple of times just to catch all the great performances that Matt has throughout.
<div id="attachment_812569" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-812569" class="size-large wp-image-812569" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2024/10/00_AIR_16x9_OCT28_V05-1024x576.jpg" alt="Am I Racist" width="1024" height="576" />DailyWire+</div>
JOHN: Yeah, I found that myself, there&#8217;s so many little details that you miss the first time around. For you personally, this is a unique film. It&#8217;s unorthodox in many ways. As a filmmaker, what did you learn in the making of this particular film?
JUSTIN: There&#8217;s a lot I learned in making any film, and it seems like every time we go out and do something we&#8217;re endeavoring to do something very difficult, and we&#8217;re diving into a topic. And when you dive into a topic, you have to sort of live it while you&#8217;re making it – and in this case, it was even more so, because Matt had to live this character, and so we had to essentially think like the other side. Matt had to adopt their beliefs and let them play out. So I learned a lot about the topic itself. I also learned a lot about America and how we view the issue of race, and how there are actually way more people who think rationally about this issue than I think we realize. It&#8217;s just that they&#8217;ve been taken advantage of. They&#8217;ve been polite. I think these people who are pushing this DEI agenda have taken advantage of so many people in this country who don&#8217;t want to be mean, who don&#8217;t want to be called a bigot. And so one of the things I learned was actually a hopeful thing, which was most people don&#8217;t go along with this stuff. They don&#8217;t go along with this racial division. That was sort of a hopeful thing I learned along the way. We found that common, everyday people don&#8217;t really buy what&#8217;s being sold by these so-called “race experts.” And so that was a very uplifting realization for me.
JOHN: Some of the more powerful moments in the film came from just regular folks dismissing the racially divisive talking points. Final question, what&#8217;s next for you? Any plans to work further with Walsh or any other Daily Wire talent? Can you answer this question?
JUSTIN: Absolutely. I mean, I can say that we are working on stuff and it&#8217;s been a pleasure to work with Matt on these last two films. We have such a great team. It&#8217;s a small, tight knit team of just great professionals who are just the best at what they do. And I&#8217;ll be honest with you, it&#8217;s a lot of fun making these movies with Matt. It&#8217;s not always easy, it&#8217;s a challenging thing to do what we&#8217;ve been doing, but it has been a ton of fun and we would love to keep that going.
JOHN: Well, we hope you do. Justin, thank you so much for talking with us. It&#8217;s been a pleasure.
JUSTIN: Thanks, John. Great to be on.
JOHN: That was Justin Folk, director of “Am I Racist?” available starting this week exclusively on Daily Wire+ – and this has been a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/podcasts/morning-wire/creating-documentaries-that-challenge-narratives-from-what-is-a-woman-to-am-i-racist-10-27-24" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sunday Extra edition of Morning Wire</a>.

Am I Racist? Movie Premiere

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Am I Racist?’ Director Talks Race Hustlers, Ridicule, And Conservatives In Media

EXCLUSIVE: 'Am I Racist?' Director Talks Race Hustlers, Ridicule, And Conservatives In Media

Menu