In 1972, Richard Nixon was re-elected with over 60% of the popular vote. Just a few years later, he left office as the most disgraced president in history.
His resignation cemented his legacy as one of scandal, and for half a century Nixon has been associated with Watergate: “I am not a crook.”
But something’s happening online that may once and for all disprove Fitzgerald’s dictum that there are no second acts in American lives. Across social media, Tricky Dick is blowing up — with memes, edits, and merchandise marketed at Gen Z. Thirty-two years after his death, America’s 37th president is popular again. And for the first time ever, he’s cool.
“It’s frightening and terrifying and sad,” Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/story/richard-nixon-instagram-rebrand?srsltid=AfmBOorjoaPd4liMlRnVUqra1C4G1YthU_2gr9hkeN9gLabyY8n1M1JN" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told Vanity Fair. </a>“It’s part of the whole process of history being rewritten and obliterated.”
The Vanity Fair piece, titled “Richard Nixon’s Instagram Redemption Is Perfect for Our Post-Truth World,” is a pearl-clutching jeremiad straight out of Joe Scarborough’s Id. For 2,000 words, Wine-Banks and Watergate mastermind-turned-informant John Dean assert Nixon’s villainy while cautioning that the Nixon Foundation’s attempt at rehabilitation is some kind of conspiracy to make Donald Trump’s “lies” acceptable.
For those of us who only learned about Nixon as a historical figure — that is to say, at least half of the country — it’s not hard to imagine this conspiracy. After all, that’s what Nixon was about: Watergate, of course, but also the Oval Office recordings, Kissinger’s scheming diplomacy, and the Committee to Re-Elect the President, infamously abbreviated to CREEP. Surely some shadowy cabal of Republican elites were behind this social media blitz.
But the truth is simpler, and to the extent that there is a conspiracy, it’s among Nixon’s opponents. The guys behind the memes are just doing their job. They happen to be really good at it. And like the man whose legacy they steward, they’re now being attacked for their success.
James Byron was named <a href="https://www.nixonfoundation.org/foundation/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">president and CEO</a> of the Nixon Foundation in 2021, at the ripe age of 28. A history major who briefly served as an advisor to the Archivist of the United States, Byron says this is his dream job. It’s clear when you talk to him that this is an understatement.
Byron is hardly alone. The Nixon foundation team is excited to tell the story about America’s most misunderstood president. Nowhere is this clearer than with Chris Barber, the Foundation’s 35-year-old marketing director and the man behind the memes.
Hearing Barber’s age is likely a shock to anyone who’s seen his videos, which are the most Gen Z things of all time. Smash cuts of Nixon speeches overlaid with TikTok rap and strobe light transitions dominate the Foundation’s Instagram page and are frequently shared on X. In the comments section, Zoomer argot abounds in praise of Dick.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Among you young men, there may be a Vice President Nixon! <a href="https://t.co/7tqj0Lltmq">pic.twitter.com/7tqj0Lltmq</a>
— Richard Nixon Foundation (@nixonfoundation) <a href="https://x.com/nixonfoundation/status/2064745211390304270?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 10, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
“Aura farming from the grave is crazy,” writes one commenter. “Someone is on one at the Nixon foundation and I&#8217;m thrilled,” adds another. “This shit is in my Spotify liked list holy moly.”
Thanks to Barber’s edits, the Nixon Foundation has racked up 250 million views across social media platforms since October 2023. Subscribers climbed from 65,000 to 450,000 in that same window. Today, over half of the Foundation’s Instagram audience is under 35.
But the Nixon renaissance is not merely an online phenomenon. Nixon Library attendance is up 30% year-over-year. This May the Foundation sold more merchandise than they’ve sold in 10 years. When the Foundation dropped a line of “Nixon–Maxxing” hats, they sold out in 90 minutes. So did the second order the Foundation scrambled to release. They sold 200 hats in total, completely clearing the shelves.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Nixonmaxxing hats sold out in a few hours.
Restock alerts here → <a href="https://t.co/dh622ATSqx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">https://t.co/dh622ATSqx</a> <a href="https://t.co/lp503q1lEr" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pic.twitter.com/lp503q1lEr</a>
— Richard Nixon Foundation (@nixonfoundation) <a href="https://x.com/nixonfoundation/status/2022481502978843056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">February 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js"></script>
It’s tempting to chalk this whole thing up to Gen Z being ironic. And of course, that’s part of it. But Vanity Fair isn’t dragging out John Dean to sound the alarm on a mere social media bit. Something else is happening here, something deeper — and it has people panicking.
Perhaps the best way to understand this is to migrate over to the Nixon Foundation’s YouTube channel, where memes give way to clips of Nixon’s speeches. Here the videos — which frequently amass more than 3 million views — are not cheeky or funny. They’re just Nixon: Nixon talking about Bill Clinton, Nixon being prescient on Russia and Ukraine, Nixon waxing philosophical about what constitutes a good life.
People may get pulled in by the edits, but Nixon himself is holding their attention. That’s not surprising. If one is interested in Congress, communism, and China, to say nothing of the presidency and the media, one is de facto interested in Nixon. He helped shape and was shaped by all of those institutions. It’s impossible to understand them, or our time, without understanding him.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The Honorable Richard M. Nixon <a href="https://t.co/xjDbQPvqa1">pic.twitter.com/xjDbQPvqa1</a>
— Richard Nixon Foundation (@nixonfoundation) <a href="https://x.com/nixonfoundation/status/2057193199924613252?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 20, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
For Nixon’s critics, this is the problem. Conventional wisdom and AP U.S. History textbooks hold that you’re allowed to say one good thing about Nixon: he opened China. Otherwise, it’s all stagflation, pancake makeup, and burglary. Americans cannot be allowed to appreciate Nixon the man in full because doing so would shatter the totalizing impulse that has dominated American politics since Woodward and Bernstein first went to press.
This point really cannot be overstated: the Nixon revival is a threat not because it gives cover to Trump to lie, cheat and steal, but because it could make Americans realize that the people they trust to render judgement on politicians are not always honest brokers.
And God forbid people start looking at Watergate with fresh eyes. They might learn that Bob Woodward never actually used the codeword “Deep Throat” for Mark Felt, and that his book agent made it up to sell more copies of “All The President’s Men.” They might learn that the reason Woodward and Carl Bernstein never revealed Felt’s identity was because he was a career FBI agent with an axe to grind against Nixon, who passed Felt over for the director job. They might learn that Felt was the mastermind behind COINTELPRO, a controversial FBI program to infiltrate and dismantle radical Left groups.
<div id="attachment_1116183" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1116183" class="wp-image-1116183 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-105334198.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="854" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-105334198.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-105334198-300x250.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-105334198-691x576.jpg 691w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-105334198-768x641.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Ben Bradlee and Bob Woodward (Ron Galella/Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images)</div>
They might also discover that Washington Post publisher Ben Bradlee had serious misgivings about Woodward and Bernstein’s reporting. In 2012, New York Magazine — no Nixonian rag, to be sure — published excerpts from <a href="https://nymag.com/news/features/ben-bradlee-2012-5/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bradlee’s personal papers</a> in which he said “There’s a residual fear in my soul that that isn’t quite straight.”
“Dealing with Woodward and Bernstein became — as they became more skilled in subterfuge, as they became more skilled in double meanings and triple meanings and quadruple, it became quite hard to deal with … Their great habit was to come around about 7:30 at night to say they had a helluva story … because they thought the guard would be down and they could slip it into the paper without the usual sort of grilling.”
The author of that piece, Jeff Himmelman — who discovered the papers while writing Bradlee’s authorized biography — confronted Woodward about the quote. To put it succinctly, Woodward freaked out. Later Himmelman found that the tape containing those comments, one in a series of 13, had disappeared. He asked Bradlee if he thought Woodward had taken it. “Maybe,” Bradlee laughed.
That piece is 14 years old and I can guarantee you most Americans have never read it. The fact is, the media industrial complex has — in an ironic twist, given the subject matter — worked to keep the full truth of Watergate under wraps. Because Watergate is the modern media’s foundational myth. Before Woodward and Bernstein, journalism largely consisted of reporting facts, and investigative journalism meant exposing real scandals in the public interest.
Watergate changed that. From that moment on, investigative journalism became inherently political, and politicians became trophies to hunt. Journalists’ political sympathies being what they are, this necessarily meant that Republicans were always in the crosshairs. To interrogate Watergate is to interrogate the very foundations of our media and the way we see politics. There’s a reason political scandals get the “-gate” suffix. For the status quo to hold, Watergate must be a triumph, and Bob Woodward must be a hero. Which means Nixon must be the villain.
<div id="attachment_1116185" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1116185" class="wp-image-1116185 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-517354418.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="687" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-517354418.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-517354418-300x201.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-517354418-859x576.jpg 859w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/GettyImages-517354418-768x515.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Getty Images</div>
For a while, it seemed that this would always be the case. But then, during the first Trump administration, Americans saw for the first time what the “deep state” really was. Not some imagined rightwing boogeyman but an actual, active network of entrenched bureaucrats willing to subvert a president to push their own political agendas.
The veil dropped. If this happened now, people realized, it could have happened then. Suddenly old doubts became new. The idea that Nixon was targeted by the bureaucracy, which political scientist <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10584609.1992.9962930" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Marini</a> first argued in 1992, was back on the table. The fact that Nixon only set up his wiretaps because he discovered American military commanders were wiretapping the White House — which historian James Hougan first revealed in his 1984 book “Secret Agenda&#8221; — was put into the light earlier this year when <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/08/opinion/trump-nixon-watergate-radford.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">James Rosen exposed</a> the long-buried grand jury hearing where Nixon explained the situation.
In 2025, Bill Murray appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience. Years earlier, Woodward published a book about Murray’s friend, the late comedian John Belushi. Remarking on the book’s myriad falsehoods, <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/03/media/bill-murray-quips-bob-woodward-couldve-framed-nixon-for-watergate-because-of-inaccurate-book-on-john-belushi/">Murray told Rogan</a> “I read like five pages &#8230; and I went, ‘Oh my God. They framed Nixon.'&#8221;
Murray’s joke gets at something real. Pull at one thread and the sweater unravels. Start noticing and it’s hard to stop. The Nixon renaissance is about reevaluating the narrative we’ve been fed about our history, our government, and our media, sure, but it’s also the result of a curious drive that springs up naturally when something that for so long has been off limits is suddenly placed on the table.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
55 years ago, the Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam was observed across the United States. President Nixon’s response was firm: “Under no circumstances will I be affected whatsoever by it.” <a href="https://t.co/6gcUBE729i">pic.twitter.com/6gcUBE729i</a>
— Richard Nixon Foundation (@nixonfoundation) <a href="https://x.com/nixonfoundation/status/1978879148669178163?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 16, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> 
It’s especially clear why Gen Z would be excited about this prospect. They learned the standard “Nixon bad” narrative from teachers who themselves only knew this one-dimensional Nixon. But more generally, Gen Z has every reason to question the “truths” they’ve been fed. They came of age during COVID lockdowns and peak woke, and have now seen those movements and the people who pushed them collapse in disgrace. Their generation’s drive to question authority and push the bounds of acceptable thought has led them to embrace people like Hasan Piker and Nick Fuentes, figures whose ideas threaten the foundation of our democracy.
But this has also led them to praise the aura of a self-made California Quaker who dedicated his life to public service and remained in the arena even after the people and country he fought for rejected him time and again.
Richard Nixon always seemed like something from a bygone age, always just a few steps behind where America was trending. But perhaps, like so much else about Nixon, we got it wrong. Maybe Nixon wasn’t a relic come too late, but a visionary come too early. Maybe his time is now.

Untitled design – 2026-06-20T134717.418

How The Kids Learned To Love Richard Nixon

America 250

Bob Woodward

Deep State

Donald Trump

Journalism

Richard Nixon

Watergate

Over the past decade, the biggest news outlets in our country have resorted to reporting that is tainted by their journalists’ personal beliefs, regardless of political affiliation. Apparently, the virtue of objective reporting has become a thing of the past. Being a student at the Missouri School of Journalism has shown me that the main contributor that often doesn’t get the attention it deserves is the dwindling standards of journalistic ethics.
In one of my core journalism classes this past semester, my professor argued that “objectivity harms,” claiming that the ideal itself is essentially dead in the media today. This claim allowed her to justify the uncritical imposition of her own beliefs on a class of nearly 200 students. The irony was hard to miss. The course, Cross Cultural Journalism, was designed to teach students how to represent different groups fairly and accurately in the media. However, it became clear during the week on International Politics and Conflict that this was not the lesson being taught.
Instead of discussing the various approaches that journalists have taken to represent international powers and explain their conflicts, class was spent watching a biased documentary about a Palestinian mayor. After what can only be described as a <a href="https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-firsthand-look-at-the-anti-israel-bias-in-college-classrooms/">problematic class discussion</a>, in which my professor pushed the genocide libel and allowed classmates to yell at one another to voice opposition, she decided to invite the filmmaker for a Q&amp;A.
At one point in his discussion, the filmmaker said he wouldn’t have been able to make this film after October 7 because it was “made for an audience that no longer exists.”
He explained that the documentary was made for those who were either neutral or uneducated about the complexities of the conflict, and even though many of his scenes presented opinions that demonized Israel, his attempt at objectivity during our discussion was refreshing. I could agree with him that the discourse on the conflict has lost a certain capacity for neutrality, and therefore the audience his film was intended to serve.
Having a person who seemingly has strong opinions critical of Israel restrain himself from pushing his own beliefs onto a group of students gave me a chance to find common ground. My professor, however, took a different approach.
Throughout the dialogue, she repeatedly inserted her own political opinions. When discussing the current status of former Palestinian mayor, Musa Hadid, she asked rhetorically, “There’s still a Ramallah?” She also repeatedly minimized Hamas’s <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47754">part</a> in the beginning of the war, often trying to shift the blame to Israel or oversimplifying the whole issue.
In doing so, she transformed the class into another exercise in reinforcing preconceived anti-Israel beliefs. More importantly, it showcased the extreme bias my professor holds, her disregard for journalistic integrity, and the influence professors wield in their classrooms.
My earlier negative experience of voicing an unpopular opinion convinced me to stay quiet this time around. Expressing my beliefs didn’t seem worth the trouble.
If this class were taught by a responsible professor, it would have allowed for a multitude of ideas and interpretations, capitalizing on the fact that students come from different backgrounds, political ideologies, and socioeconomic statuses to simulate the kind of audience we will be writing for as prospective journalists.
The lesson implicitly being taught here is that if a journalist believes strongly enough in a narrative or a specific side of an issue, the journalistic ethics we’ve been taught can be bent or altogether forgotten to fit that narrative. At best, this kind of subpar journalism produces an uninformed society. At worst, it empowers activist movements that cause more harm than good.
I hope my peers eventually come to understand the power journalists hold and strive to act responsibly. All stories have more than one side, and it’s our duty as journalists to explore each perspective when forming personal beliefs.
***
Leore Tal is a contributing writer for The College Fix, a Journalism and Political Science student at the University of Missouri, and an undergraduate Fellow with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA). Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of CAMERA.

Quill Feather Pen in hand

How Journalism Schools Are Baking Bias Right Into The Cake

DW Opinion

Media Bias

Hamas relies on two strategies to wage its war of annihilation against Israel: heinous brutality and PR from sympathetic Westerners. It tries to make Israelis’ lives hell in hopes that the Jews will simply give up on living in their ancestral homeland, and then maximizes Palestinians’ suffering — real and imagined — so the West will force Israel to stop fighting the terrorists bent on its destruction. Re-arm and repeat.
On those criteria, the State-designated foreign terrorist organization (FTO) had a good week last week. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof preempted a painstakingly researched report on the unfathomably cruel barbarism Hamas inflicted on Israeli civilians on October 7, 2023, by publishing an essay on Israel’s “systematic sexual violence…widely practiced as part of an organized state policy” against Palestinians. If Israel does indeed train dogs to rape Palestinian prisoners, then perhaps it’s fair to conclude, as Kristof did, that “The horrific abuse inflicted on Israeli women on Oct. 7 now happens to Palestinians day after day.”
Such a conclusion does exceptional PR for Hamas. Drawing an explicit moral equivalency between Hamas and Israel, it is designed to cause Americans to abandon their support for the Jewish state, a crucial stratagem for the terrorist group in its long war of attrition.
Perhaps that’s not a coincidence. At least two of Kristof’s sources for the essay appear to be Hamas-affiliated. If so, Kristof has likely committed a serious federal crime.
American anti-terrorism laws are designed to be extremely broad. Congress passed the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 to prohibit the provision of “material support” to designated FTOs. Material support includes many things, including money, personnel, and in-kind benefits known as “services.”
Our material-support laws can even criminalize some behavior you might expect to be protected by the First Amendment. In the famous 2010 case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court ruled that even providing legal advice to a designated FTO could be prosecuted — even if the advice only helped the terrorist group engage in legitimate, non-criminal activity. A 6-3 Court reiterated Congress’s finding that terrorist groups “are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.”
The Court took pains to emphasize that “independent advocacy” for a cause is protected freedom of speech, but not all speech necessarily counts as independent: “a person of ordinary intelligence would understand the term ‘service’ to cover advocacy performed in coordination with, or at the direction of, a foreign terrorist organization.” Such advocacy could be criminally prosecuted.
That appears to describe exactly what Kristof did. His advocacy clearly provides an important service to Hamas — a crucial part of its criminal enterprise, even if the service itself would not be a crime if done independently. That much is clear from Kristof’s reliance on a group called Euro-Med, which provided the quote about Israel’s “state policy” of authorizing “sexual violence” and other grotesque details Kristof retells as fact.
Kristof calls Euro-Med “critical of Israel.” That understates it a bit. Euro-Med has been the source of a host of conspiracy theories about Israel, including the accusation that Israel has been <a href="https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/investigation-must-be-opened-israels-potential-use-banned-thermal-weapons-which-cause-victims-bodies-melt-or-evaporate-enar">vaporizing</a> Palestinians and digging up graves to <a href="https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5982/Int%25E2%2580%2599l-committee-must-investigate-Israel%25E2%2580%2599s-holding-of-dead-bodies-in-Gaza%25E2%2580%258B">harvest</a> Palestinian organs. If that seems like the kind of Big Lie straight out of Hamas’s playbook — and the kind that could start a rumor about Israel training dogs to rape prisoners — that’s no coincidence.
Euro-Med’s current and former chairmen have been <a href="https://nbctf.mod.gov.il/he/Announcements/Documents/%25D7%2599%25D7%259C%25D7%25A7%25D7%2595%25D7%2598%2520%25D7%2594%25D7%25A4%25D7%25A8%25D7%25A1%25D7%2595%25D7%259E%25D7%2599%25D7%259D%25206719%2520-%2520%25D7%25A2%25D7%259E%25D7%2595%25D7%2593%25202234.pdf">listed</a> as Hamas operatives for over a decade. Its founder, Ramy Abdu, has been a regular panelist at Hamas events, often appearing alongside senior Hamas leaders, including Osama Hamdan. Abdu’s brother-in-law was a known Hamas operative; his brother was recently arrested in Italy for funneling money to Hamas.
The repeated uncritical quotations of Euro-Med are suspicious enough. But the kicker is the first-named source in Kristof’s piece. Sami al-Sai claims he was sexually assaulted by Israeli prison guards after he was detained in 2024. What Kristof does not mention is that al-Sai was detained <a href="https://cpj.org/data/people/sami-al-sai/">for being a member of Hamas</a>. Al-Sai has <a href="https://x.com/HonestReporting/status/2054300908637557231?s=20">admitted</a> that he has done projects on Hamas’s behalf. Even other Palestinian groups have accused him of serving as a recruiter for the terrorist group. Not giving readers a sense of al-Sai’s background, which is quite relevant to his reliability, reflects poorly on Kristof’s journalism. But more so, meeting with a member of Hamas before advocating on his, and by extension, his organization’s behalf could be prosecuted as a criminal offense.
To be clear, Kristof does not admit to working together with Euro-Med in any way, so it would be difficult to prove material support for terrorism through Euro-Med on the basis of the existing public record. Further investigation could turn up evidence of closer collaboration. But Kristof’s meetings with al-Sai and subsequent advocacy that explicitly and repeatedly draw moral equivalencies between Hamas and Israel in a way that advances Hamas’s interests may be enough to warrant a material support prosecution. Whether Kristof’s essay constitutes a crime may come down to whether al-Sai is a member or representative of Hamas. The public record suggests there may be enough evidence to convince a jury.
To many Americans, this suggestion will seem like a massive First Amendment violation. How can an essay constitute a crime? The answer is that the First Amendment does not do what so many Americans think it does. It does not protect all expressive conduct, or even all journalism. Significant national security concerns, such as starving terrorist groups of all support, can outweigh protections for speech. Indeed, a hypothetical prosecution of Kristof is not far off from what Holder contemplates. And as the Department of Justice under President Donald Trump has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/13/us/don-lemon-plea-minnesota-church-protest-case.html">made clear</a>, no one gets a free pass to commit illegal activities by claiming journalist immunity.
Aiding the world’s most heinous organizations is illegal, no matter what prestigious institution you work for, or whether your aid came in the form of words. You can engage in independent advocacy, but as soon as you start meeting with apparent members of terrorist groups, you have invited legal trouble. Whether that trouble comes in the form of a criminal indictment remains to be seen — but if it does, no one should be terribly surprised.   
***
Tal Fortgang is a legal policy fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

The New York Times

Is The New York Times Employing A Terrorist Sympathizer?

Hamas

MI x DW

Nick Kristof

Terrorism

The Daily Wire&#8217;s &#8220;Morning Wire&#8221; podcast received the coveted &#8220;Outstanding Podcast&#8221; award, and Daily Wire immigration reporter Jennie Taer won the title of &#8220;Outstanding Reporter,&#8221; the Media Research Center announced on Tuesday.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/morning-wire">Morning Wire</a> was praised for its &#8220;concise, professionally produced alternative to legacy media&#8221; as the daily podcast has remained consistent with its promise to deliver &#8220;15 minutes of what matters, nothing that doesn&#8217;t.&#8221;
&#8220;Featuring reporting from on-the-ground journalists and interviews with expert guests, hosts Georgia Howe and John Bickley guide listeners through the day’s most important stories without the ideological filter common in traditional outlets,&#8221; MRC said.
Since 2021, Morning Wire has covered the biggest stories around the world in a common-sense approach to news. Since then, Morning Wire has expanded into providing evening updates, weekend interviews, and deep dives.
Daily Wire reporter <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/author/jennie-taer">Jennie Taer</a>, who has extensively covered illegal immigrant crime and President Donald Trump&#8217;s deportation operation, was recognized &#8220;as a leading voice in immigration reporting.&#8221; MRC awarded Taer for her coverage of the migrant gang crisis in Aurora, Colorado, which she also <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/09/12/us-news/inside-the-migrant-gang-warzone-of-aurora-colorado/">covered</a> for The New York Post before joining The Daily Wire. Taer was also recognized for her <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-day-in-the-life-of-minneapolis-ice-agents">reporting</a> at the frontlines of Trump&#8217;s deportation effort in Minneapolis, where she <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=4PZjZYETyKI&amp;source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&amp;embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fa-day-in-the-life-of-minneapolis-ice-agents">spent a day</a> with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents during the height of the administration&#8217;s operation in the Twin Cities.
“This year’s Media Research Center Bulldog Award winners stand in stark contrast to the elitist media’s herd mentality,” said MRC President David Bozell. “These courageous journalists refuse to follow the pack, choosing instead to deliver truth over narrative, facts over favoritism, and accountability over activism. They represent the best of American journalism — independent, fearless, and committed to informing the public rather than manipulating it.”
The Media Research Center presents awards to conservative journalists, columnists, and podcast hosts each year. The Daily Wire is the only organization that has won in each of the five years that MRC has handed out MRC Bulldog Awards, NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck <a href="https://x.com/curtishouck/status/2051671557307572530?s=46">pointed out</a>.
In 2025, former Daily Wire investigative reporter Spencer Lindquist won MRC&#8217;s &#8220;Outstanding Blogger&#8221; award for his reporting on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-investigative-reporter-spencer-lindquist-honored-for-colony-ridge-reporting">Colony Ridge</a> in Texas. In 2024, Daily Wire Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro and journalist Kassy Akiva were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-daily-wires-ben-shapiro-and-kassy-akiva-win-conservative-media-awards">named</a> the winners of the &#8220;Outstanding Podcast&#8221; and &#8220;Outstanding Blogger&#8221; awards, respectively. Daily Wire host Matt Walsh was awarded &#8220;Outstanding Podcast&#8221; in 2023, and Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Rosiak won the &#8220;Outstanding Investigative Journalism&#8221; award in 2022.
Other winners for this year&#8217;s MRC Bulldog Awards include Dana Loesch for &#8220;Outstanding Radio Talk Show Host,&#8221; Douglas Murray for &#8220;Outstanding Columnist,&#8221; and Washington, D.C., local news reporter Nick Minock for &#8220;Outstanding Investigative Journalist.&#8221;

Daily Wire Snags Two Awards For ‘Outstanding’ Podcast And News Reporting

Awards

Daily Wire

Media Research Center

A newly introduced California bill meant to &#8220;protect&#8221; immigration support services is instead raising concerns that it could hinder independent journalism. In an era of citizen-driven accountability and viral exposés, some worry the measure could shield companies accused of fraud from public scrutiny.
Nicknamed by critics as the “Stop Nick Shirley Act,” Assembly <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2624/id/3371241">Bill</a> 2624, introduced by Democratic Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, the wife of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, would establish a confidentiality program for immigration service providers who face &#8220;threats of violence or harassment from the public.&#8221; 
The bill would also &#8220;prohibit a person from posting on the internet or social media &#8230; the personal information or image of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or patient, or other individuals residing at the same home address.&#8221; Violations could result in fines up to $10,000 or up to one year in jail.
Critics, including Republican Assembly member Carl DeMaio, believe the bill could be leveraged to block investigative reporting and “silence citizen journalists exposing fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.&#8221;
&#8220;Instead of fixing the fraud problems being uncovered, Sacramento politicians are trying to shut down the people exposing them,&#8221; DeMaio <a href="https://ad75.asmrc.org/2026/04/13/ca-democrats-advance-stop-nick-shirley-act-to-criminalize-investigative-journalism/">said</a>.
&#8220;AB 2624 would allow activists and taxpayer-funded organizations to demand the removal of video evidence — even if it captures misconduct in plain view — and threatens journalists with massive financial penalties,&#8221; he added. &#8220;That’s not about public safety — it’s about protecting powerful interests.&#8221;
Nick Shirley, an independent journalist known for viral videos exposing alleged Somali daycare fraud in Minnesota, recently continued his work in <a href="https://x.com/nickshirleyy/status/2033708929398845886">California</a>, igniting an online <a href="https://x.com/nickshirleyy/status/2042411675307971061">feud</a> with Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.
In response to the bill, Shirley <a href="https://x.com/nickshirleyy/status/2043756610955423782">posted</a> to X, &#8220;Under AB 2624, government-funded entities like the Somali “Learing” Daycare centers would be protected from being exposed if they operated inside California.&#8221;
&#8220;The enemy truly is within. When our politicians would rather protect fraudsters and illegal migrants, it’s time for us to stand up or face mass oppression from the traitors who &#8216;rule&#8217; over us,&#8221; he added.
Bonta, however, rejected claims that the bill targets journalism. In a recent <a href="https://x.com/AsmMiaBonta/status/2044229820968796573">video</a>, she said, “People who work to help immigrant communities should not have to fear being doxxed for doing so.”
She said the bill is designed to shield workers from having their personal information publicly exposed and to provide legal tools to prevent and respond to targeted harassment.
“If MAGA can’t tell the difference between journalism and doxxing, that’s on them, because on my bill, there are no provisions related to journalism or fraud. This bill does not infringe on the First Amendment,” she said.

Activists Demonstrate Against ICE In New York City

California Bill Could Criminalize Fraud Reporting, Republicans Warn

California

Fraud

Democratic Maryland Governor Wes Moore is attacking his state&#8217;s largest newspaper, The Baltimore Sun, for investigating his political record and probing potential falsehoods concerning his upbringing and military service.
The Baltimore Sun is collaborating with sister television station Sinclair to scrutinize Gov. Wes Moore as he gears up for reelection and weighs a 2028 run for the White House, <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/04/05/2026/marylands-biggest-newspaper-is-going-after-the-governors-2028-campaign?utm_medium=media&amp;utm_campaign=flagshipnumbered1&amp;utm_source=newslettercta">Semafor reported</a>.
The investigative series, <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/tag/spotlight-on-maryland/">Spotlight Maryland</a>, includes FOX45 News, WJLA in Washington, D.C., and The Baltimore Sun. These outlets will examine whether Moore exaggerated his military service and investigate the athletic scholarships he received in college.
Reporters with Spotlight Maryland have exchanged tense emails with Wes Moore&#8217;s staff, citing frustration over what they describe as a lack of transparency.
“Our news team will continue pursuing this matter until they are satisfied that there is either no story &#8211; or until further investigation shows that events did not occur as they should have,” the team wrote in one letter to Moore’s office <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/04/05/2026/marylands-biggest-newspaper-is-going-after-the-governors-2028-campaign?utm_medium=media&amp;utm_campaign=flagshipnumbered1&amp;utm_source=newslettercta">obtained by Semafor</a>. “If our team finds the latter, they will report that. … We are also prepared to present our findings and concerns to the Secretary of the Army’s office; and if gets to that point, we fully expect it will have become a national level news story requiring the Army Secretary’s attention.”
Moore’s team has complained that the investigation is &#8220;needlessly hostile and politically motivated,&#8221; according to Semafor.
Then, the liberal governor ran to MS NOW.
&#8220;The Baltimore Sun used to be our paper of record,&#8221; Moore <a href="https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:jutl4tq6nqhumm5exzk52f5t/post/3mixau63lak2m">told former Biden White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki</a>. &#8220;It&#8217;s now become the paper of the right-wing.&#8221;
Moore complained that in 2024, media executive David Smith, the executive chairman of Sinclair Broadcast Group, <a href="https://www.baltimoresun.com/2024/01/15/baltimore-sun-media-sold-david-d-smith/">bought the paper</a>.
&#8220;I think we&#8217;ve seen how their readership continued to decline, but it&#8217;s happened because you&#8217;ve had a MAGA billionaire who is now currying favor for the President of the United States,&#8221; Moore said.
The liberal governor added that he was &#8220;deeply proud&#8221; of his military service and claimed nobody in the U.S. Army questions his integrity.
In 2024, The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/29/us/politics/wes-moore-bronze-star.html">New York Times</a> reported that Moore falsely claimed on a 2006 White House fellowship application that he had been awarded a Bronze Star for his military service while deployed in Afghanistan.
&#8220;The soldiers I served with don&#8217;t question my integrity,&#8221; Moore said. &#8220;But we are seeing how the right wing and these right-wing billionaires like David Smith is then using his wealth to be able to manipulate local media.&#8221;
Spotlight on Maryland executive producer and managing editor <a href="https://x.com/candynotcandace/status/2041903427786068360?s=20">Candy Woodall called out</a> Democrats for &#8220;putting in a lot of work to discredit a series before it&#8217;s even started running.&#8221;
&#8220;This is standard journalism to scrutinize the words and records of elected officials and candidates who hold positions of power and public trust,&#8221; Woodall said. &#8220;If you want to know more, keep reading The Baltimore Sun, a 200-year-old newspaper that has survived many governors.&#8221;

Wes Moore

Dem Presidential Hopeful Flails At Local Newspaper For Daring To Investigate His Record

Corruption

Democratic Party

Elections

Media

Politics

The CEO of The Washington Post has stepped down days after the media company cut roughly 30% of its staff.
The Post announced publisher Will Lewis’ departure on Saturday. Lewis also wrote a short note to staff in which he explained that he was leaving “to ensure” a “sustainable future” for the media outlet.
“After two years of transformation at The Washington Post, now is the right time for me to step aside,” Lewis wrote, according to <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/07/media/washington-post-will-lewis-publisher-resigns">CNN</a>. “I want to thank Jeff Bezos for his support and leadership throughout my tenure as CEO and Publisher. The institution could not have a better owner.”
“During my tenure, difficult decisions have been taken in order to ensure the sustainable future of The Post so it can for many years ahead publish high-quality nonpartisan news to millions of customers each day,” he concluded.
Lewis joined The Washington Post in 2024, brought on board by Bezos to help turn the outlet around after years of shrinking readership and financial losses. Jeff D’Onofrio, the Post’s chief financial officer, will succeed Lewis in the interim.
Post owner Jeff Bezos also wrote a note included in the release announcing the change. The Amazon founder said that The Washington Post has “an essential journalistic mission and an extraordinary opportunity,” according to <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/washington-post-owner-jeff-bezos-gives-first-statement-after-layoffs-2026-2">Business Insider</a>.
&#8220;Each and every day our readers give us a roadmap to success. The data tells us what is valuable and where to focus,” Bezos said.
The Post made major changes this week to reverse its trajectory, cutting roughly 300 jobs as it seeks to strip away parts of the company that it sees as financial liabilities and focus resources on profitable areas. Executives at the company said that the outlet has failed to adapt to a changing media landscape and must make tough decisions to stay relevant and competitive.
“If we are to thrive, not just endure, we must reinvent our journalism and our business model with renewed ambition,” executive editor Matt Murray wrote in a note to staff on Wednesday amid the layoffs.
The major cuts came to the newsroom’s international reporting and sports department, which no longer exists. Some of the sports writers were folded into the features section of the paper. The paper shrunk its international coverage, but will keep reporters on the ground in about a dozen countries.
The Post is also restructuring its metro section and shutting down its Post Reports podcast. The outlet will focus on national news, investigations, and health and wellness.
“Today is about positioning ourselves to become more essential to people’s lives in what has become a more crowded, competitive, and complicated media landscape,” Murray said during a call with staff on Wednesday. “For too long, we&#8217;ve operated with a structure that’s too rooted in the days when we were a quasi-monopoly local newspaper.”

The Washington Post

Washington Post CEO Steps Down Days After Mass Layoffs

Jeff Bezos

U.S.

Washington Post

The Washington Post cut nearly one-third of its workforce on Wednesday, terminating some 300 employees and axing several editorial sections entirely.
According to several reports detailing the situation, executive editor Matt Murray and human resources director Wayne Connell informed employees that they were to work from home on Wednesday and be on hand to attend a Zoom webinar where they&#8217;d be informed of &#8220;some significant actions across the company.&#8221;
The &#8220;significant actions&#8221; mentioned appear to be the abrupt termination of the current sports section, the books section, and the Post Reports podcast — along with hundreds of employees across several different sections.
Several employees shared the news directly on X.
Correspondent Yeganeh Torbati posted, &#8220;I&#8217;m heartbroken to announce that I&#8217;ve been laid off from my position at The Washington Post. Working at this newspaper, and especially being a foreign correspondent covering Iran and Turkey over the last few short months, was a dream come true for me.&#8221;
Sports columnist Barry Svrluga announced the demise of his own section: &#8220;&#8216;First, we will be closing the Sports department in its current form.&#8217; — Matt Murray, editor of the Post.&#8221;
&#8220;Some personal news: I’m among today’s @washingtonpost layoffs. It was a dream 11-year run as an investigative reporter focused on sports—making billionaires tremble (or at least mildly annoying them and their lawyers),&#8221; said sports investigative reporter Will Hobson.
Caroline O&#8217;Donovan, Amazon beat reporter: &#8220;I’m out, along with just a ton of the best in the biz. Horrible.&#8221;
&#8220;I’m among the hundreds of people laid off by The Post,&#8221; race and ethnicity reporter Emmanuel Felton claimed that the move was &#8220;ideological&#8221; because his job had previously been labeled a boon for the outlet. &#8220;This comes six months after hearing in a national meeting that race coverage drives subscriptions. This wasn’t a financial decision, it was an ideological one.&#8221;
Tech columnist Geoffrey Fowler added, &#8220;After 8 years writing the tech column @washingtonpost, I am among folks who were laid off today. I’m grateful for the stories I got to tell and the impact we made on privacy, sustainability &amp; AI.&#8221;
Critics of the move complained that the cuts were a bridge too far.
Retired Washington Post editor Robert McCartney added, &#8220;Apparently The Post has laid off every reporter and editor covering the Middle East. Jerusalem bureau closed. Also Ukraine bureau closed.&#8221;
&#8220;The @WashPost has now laid off its Asia editor, its New Delhi bureau chief, its Sydney bureau chief, its Cairo bureau chief, the entire Middle East reporting team, China correspondents, Iran correspondents, Turkey correspondents, and many more. The world is becoming less America-centric by the minute while the United States is becoming more America-centric than ever. It is just a depressing yet somehow perfect summation of our current moment that one of the most important newspapers in the history of the country — one that has actually shaped the history of the United States &#8211; doesn&#8217;t think reporting on the world is of any use anymore. What an utterly perfect encapsulation of where we have arrived,&#8221; Evan Feigenbaum posted.
But some argued that the cuts were the obvious next step, and people should have seen them coming.
&#8220;Over the last decade at the Washington Post: — A number of major corrections and journalistic scandals. —Major intra-newsroom drama with reporters threatening to sue the paper. — Declining circulation and losing lots of money. Stop acting like the layoffs are shocking,&#8221; Mark Hemingway posted.
Clay Travis added, &#8220;The Washington Post made its business contingent on far left wing subscribers who hated Trump &amp; when Bezos became embarrassed by the far left wing product that created, he tried to fix it by moving closer to the center. But the Post’s subscribers revolted, crushing the business.&#8221;
&#8220;The business lesson here is newspaper subscribers at the WaPo and New York Times don’t want centrist, fair journalism, they want to be told their political opponents are evil Nazis and they are the heroic good guys. That narrative must dominate all coverage,&#8221; he added.

Legacy News Outlet Tells Hundreds To Work From Home On Wednesday, Cuts 300 Jobs In Zoom Meeting

Legacy Media Takes Another Blow As Storied Outlet Cuts 300 Jobs

Jobs

Longtime Daily Wire readers are no doubt familiar with Xi Van Fleet — an activist, scholar, and survivor of Mao&#8217;s Cultural Revolution. Xi has done more than most to shed light on the horrors of Chinese communism and to sound the alarm about the rising threat of socialism in the United States. We were proud to publish her <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/i-lived-in-the-communist-world-zohran-mamdani-dreams-of-its-worse-than-you-could-imagine">scathing portrait</a> of Zohran Mamdani and her <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/erasing-history-the-real-cultural-marxism?author=Xi+Van+Fleet+and+Sasha+Gong&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Erasing+History%3A+The+Real+Cultural+Marxism">five-part series</a> “American Maoists: Warnings From The Cultural Revolution.”
Today, we&#8217;re honored to bring you an exclusive excerpt from her forthcoming book “Made in America: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Enabled Communist China and Created Our Greatest Threat.” Co-authored with Chinese dissident Yu Jie, the book explores how American academics, writers, and politicians helped Communist China become a global superpower.
In the excerpt below, Xi and Yu examine three little-known American journalists who helped sell Mao&#8217;s lies to the world — and warn that Xi Jinping is working to do the same with American journalists today. — Tim Rice
***
Edgar Snow, Agnes Smedley, and Anna Louise Strong — three Americans from the Midwest — were collectively known in China as the “Three S’s,” the leading Western journalists who made an immeasurable contribution to the Chinese communist cause, with Snow regarded as the most influential of the trio.
In 1984, the Smedley-Strong-Snow Society of China was established under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences to honor their contributions. The society organizes commemorative events, preserves archives, and promotes research on their roles in advancing the Chinese Communist movement. And all three of the S’s were individually featured on postage stamps issued in China.
Because Smedley and Strong were openly Communist and connected to the Communist International, their work was often dismissed in the West due to its overt ideological slant. Snow, by contrast, was seen as an independent voice. This perceived neutrality gave his work greater credibility in the West, making it arguably more deceptive and dangerous.
Today, the CCP is actively seeking new “Snows” for Xi Jinping’s “new era,” those who can fulfill a similar role as Edgar Snow in promoting China’s narrative on the global stage. In 2021, the CCP media outlet China Daily launched the Edgar Snow Newsroom, aimed at recruiting foreign reporters to engage in propaganda work for the CCP. Evidently, there is no shortage of candidates for the CCP to choose from.
The widespread popularity of the work of the Three S’s can be attributed to the historical context of the 1930s. During this time, the United States was still recovering from the Great Depression, which had deeply shaken confidence in capitalism. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal introduced socialist policies, reflecting a broader leftward shift in American society.
Interestingly, Edgar Snow noted in Red Star Over China that Mao Zedong held a favorable view of President Roosevelt, even expressing interest in learning about FDR’s New Deal. Mao was likely inspired by FDR’s large-scale government initiatives aimed at rapid economic transformation.
In this historic environment, writings that glorified and promoted Chinese Communism unsurprisingly found a receptive audience among American readers, who were increasingly exploring alternative economic and political ideologies.
Later, Edgar Snow’s 1936 visit to China and extensive interviews conducted with Mao Zedong  marked the beginning of the CCP’s campaign to cultivate allies among American influencers, particularly journalists and writers. From there, the party steadily expanded its network of “old friends” to encompass government officials, military leaders, politicians, policymakers, and, eventually, the upper ranks of major corporations and business elites.
One might argue that these influencers were merely deceived by the Chinese Communists. But the truth is far less forgiving: they were deceived because they wanted to be. They saw not what was real but what they longed to see. They heard not the truth but what confirmed their ideals and fed their convictions.
Though they came from diverse backgrounds, they shared one defining trait: a left-leaning political orientation, ranging from liberal sympathizers like Edgar Snow to committed communists like Agnes Smedley and Anna Louise Strong. History has shown, time and again, that the ideological leap from liberalism to communism is often alarmingly short.
These bleeding-heart liberals helped legitimize and elevate a regime that would go on to unleash unimaginable human suffering. Safely removed from the consequences, they never lived under the tyranny they helped glorify. Many never paused to reflect on the reality that every word they wrote in praise of the Communist Party came at the cost of real human lives — millions of them.
Words can kill, and the pen can be as deadly as any bullet. This tragic chapter of history must not be forgotten.
***
Xi Van Fleet and Yu Jie are authors of the forthcoming <a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/xi-van-fleet/made-in-america/9781546009368/?lens=center-street__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1EyvEl-uC7TIK0rLvarrOO6odKbstFnL9S29IBgVjHSqp0YOI8tvg6cjDHu8PbAkTnVdBtVmyN0Y7CGdUt-84os$" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/xi-van-fleet/made-in-america/9781546009368/?lens%3Dcenter-street__;!!PxibshUo2Yr_Ta5B!1EyvEl-uC7TIK0rLvarrOO6odKbstFnL9S29IBgVjHSqp0YOI8tvg6cjDHu8PbAkTnVdBtVmyN0Y7CGdUt-84os$&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1769179679063000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3JTdRuew3QefD102CqMml8">book</a> “Made in America: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Enabled Communist China and Created Our Greatest Threat.”
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Untitled design (100)

The Three American Journalists Who Fueled The CCP’s Rise 

China

Chinese Communist Party

Leftism

Xi Jinping

A federal judge temporarily blocked the Justice Department from searching Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson&#8217;s devices, which were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/fbi-searches-washington-post-reporters-home-in-classified-docs-probe-leaker-behind-bars">confiscated</a> under an FBI search warrant last week as part of a federal investigation into leaked classified materials.
U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter said on Wednesday that federal prosecutors cannot search Natanson&#8217;s devices as he weighs whether the government must turn the devices back over to the reporter, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-judge-temporarily-blocks-review-material-seized-washington-post-reporter-2026-01-21/">reported</a>. Natanson and the Post argue that the FBI&#8217;s seizure of Natanson&#8217;s devices violate the First Amendment.
Porter said that Natanson and the Post “demonstrated good cause in their filings to maintain the status quo” until he can fully review the case. The judge also ordered the government to respond to the Post&#8217;s legal filing by January 28, with a hearing scheduled for early next month, the Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/01/21/washington-post-hannah-natanson-search-court-filing/">reported</a>.
Journalists who publish classified information are protected under U.S. law, provided they obtained the classified material without coercion and did not ask anyone to break the law.
The FBI seized two laptops, a phone, and a Garmin watch from Natanson as part of an investigation into a government contractor accused of leaking classified government materials. Natanson is not the target of the investigation, which is focused on Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a contractor with top-secret security clearance who allegedly took classified intelligence reports to his home.
Attorney General Pam Bondi said last week that Natanson was reporting on classified information that was “illegally leaked” by a “Pentagon contractor.” Bondi added that the accused leaker, whom she did not publicly identify, is in jail.
Natanson focuses on “covering the Trump administration’s reshaping of the government&#8221; and was part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team at the Post. She has described herself as “the federal government whisperer” and wrote in an article published last month that she connected with more than 1,000 sources within the Trump administration after posting her phone number to an online forum for federal government employees. She said federal workers who reached out to her often expressed frustration with the administration.
The Washington Post condemned the federal government&#8217;s search of Natanson&#8217;s home and seizure of her devices.
“The outrageous seizure of our reporter’s confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials,&#8221; the Post said.
Last year, Bondi ended a policy implemented under former President Joe Biden that prohibited federal agencies from searching reporters’ devices to identify a leaker. Bondi said that under her leadership, federal authorities would search reporters’ devices and records only when necessary and after all other investigative avenues had been exhausted.

Washington Post logo

Federal Judge Blocks DOJ From Searching Washington Post Reporter’s Devices In Classified Docs Probe

Department of Justice

federal judge

Trump Administration

CBS News anchor Tony Dokoupil delivered a New Year&#8217;s Day message promising changes in coverage at the legacy media network, at least as far as he is concerned. Dokoupil, who will helm the outlet&#8217;s iconic &#8220;CBS Evening News,&#8221; said he was ready to pull out all the stops to make viewers trust the news again.
Dokoupil, who appeared regularly on &#8220;CBS Mornings&#8221; alongside hosts Gayle King and former pro-footballer Nate Burleson, is making the move to primetime amid other changes being made by new Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss. He delivered a statement promising to do better via a video posted Thursday to X.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
&#8220;On too many stories, the press has missed the story. Because we&#8217;ve taken into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American. Or we put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you.&#8221;
That changes now. The new CBS Evening News… <a href="https://t.co/NKdvRJjYCS">pic.twitter.com/NKdvRJjYCS</a>
— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/2006696909235171821?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 1, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;A lot has changed since the first person sat in this chair,&#8221; Dokoupil observed. &#8220;But for me, the biggest difference is people do not trust us like they used to. And it&#8217;s not just us. It&#8217;s all of legacy media. And I get it. I get it because I&#8217;ve been hearing about it from just about everybody for more than 20 years as I&#8217;ve traveled America on this assignment or that.&#8221;
Dokoupil went on to list a number of stories with which people on one side of the aisle or the other had taken issue: from COVID lockdowns and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton&#8217;s emails to Hunter Biden&#8217;s laptop, the Iraq War, and former President Joe Biden&#8217;s fitness for office — and he said that he understood why people were so upset.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
&#8220;On too many stories, the press has missed the story. Because we&#8217;ve taken into account the perspective of advocates and not the average American. Or we put too much weight in the analysis of academics or elites, and not enough on you,&#8221; he conceded. &#8220;And I know this because, at certain points, I have been you. I have felt this way, too. I have felt like what I was seeing and hearing on the news didn&#8217;t reflect what I was seeing and hearing in my own life — and that the most urgent questions simply weren&#8217;t being asked.&#8221;
&#8220;So here&#8217;s my promise to you,&#8221; Dokoupil declared. &#8220;You come first. Not advertisers, not politicians, not corporate interests. And yes, that does include the corporate owners of CBS. I report for you — which means I tell you what I know, when I know it, and how I know it. And when I get it wrong, I&#8217;ll tell you that, too.&#8221;
He said that also meant he would hold everyone &#8220;to the very same standard&#8221; and dig in to &#8220;what works in this country and what doesn&#8217;t — and not only what should change, but the good ideas that should never change. I think telling the truth is one of them.&#8221;

CBS Mornings

CBS News Anchor Announces New Direction For 2026: Actual Journalism

Bari Weiss

CBS News

Legacy Media

A lengthy exposé highlighting the negative effects DEI has had on white males, in particular millennials, has gone mega viral on social media.
The Compact <a href="https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-lost-generation/">piece</a> “The Lost Generation” by Jacob Savage goes into detail about how white men have been discriminated against over the past decade, especially in the fields of entertainment and academia. The statistical truths laid out plainly have struck a chord with the general public, leading to the article being viewed on X more than 11 million times.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Beginning in 2014, prestige industries decided they urgently needed to diversify. They didn’t purge established Boomers. Instead, they did everything possible to avoid hiring white millennial men.
This is the story of a generation derailed by DEI. <a href="https://t.co/kUfmpHfaMH">https://t.co/kUfmpHfaMH</a>
— Matthew Schmitz (@matthewschmitz) <a href="https://twitter.com/matthewschmitz/status/2000556991375409159?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 15, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Savage, who tried to make it as a Hollywood writer, reported that in 2011, “white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent.” He further noted that The Atlantic’s editorial staff “went from 53 percent male and 89 percent white in 2013 to 36 percent male and 66 percent white in 2024.” Also, “white men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023.”
The author points to the death of George Floyd as a major turning point for industries that were already trying to “diversify.”
“In 2021, new hires at Condé Nast were just 25 percent male and 49 percent white; at the California Times, parent company of The Los Angeles Times and The San Diego Union-Tribune, they were just 39 percent male and 31 percent white. That year ProPublica hired 66 percent women and 58 percent people of color; at NPR, 78 percent of new hires were people of color,” he wrote.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
A hiring manager told Savage, “For a typical job we’d get a couple hundred applications, probably at least 80 from white guys. It was a given that we weren’t gonna hire the best person. … It was jarring how we would talk about excluding white guys.”
White male writers have been kept out of other major outlets, too, including The New York Times and Buzzfeed. The article noted that Vox Media was 82 percent male and 88 percent white in 2013. By 2022, the company was just 37 percent male and 59 percent white, and by 2025 leadership was 73 percent female.
Savage said while the problem looks less stark in academia, he believes that Boomers are occupying all the tenure positions at elite institutions while millennial white men are being ignored for jobs they’re qualified for.
One notable statistic Savage found was that since 2022, Brown University “has hired forty-five tenure track professors in the humanities and social sciences. Just three were white American men (6.7 percent).”
The article points out similar situations in other industries, such as tech, publishing, and management. Savage notes how white men were pushed to crypto, podcasting, and Substack because “institutional barriers to entry didn’t exist” there.
His exposé was met with support and commiseration on social media.
“The phenomenon of white male dispossession strikes at the core of what’s been going on over the last decade,” one commenter <a href="https://x.com/l0m3z/status/2000976625585021212?s=43">wrote</a>. “Any politician, anyone with any ambition to influence, must take on this fight. The time is now.”
“Truly extraordinary,” <a href="https://x.com/l0m3z/status/2000976625585021212?s=43">said</a> another. “Impossible to fathom all that&#8217;s been lost.”
Some argued that Savage’s piece didn’t go far enough and that it placed too much blame on the established Boomers who were also subject to discrimination.
“People complaining about the rise of radicalism need to realize the number one thing they could do to contain it is to speak up,” political commentator Jeremy Carl <a href="https://x.com/realJeremyCarl/status/2000933766118957247">wrote</a>.

Man is standing

Exposé On Discrimination Against White Millennial Men Goes Viral, Inspires Outrage

Menu