Daily Wire investigative reporter Spencer Lindquist took home a 2025 Media Research Center Bulldog Award for excellence in conservative media.
The Media Research Center (MRC) presents the <a href="https://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nb-staff/2025/05/06/mrc-announces-fourth-annual-bulldog-award-winners-sowell-musk-kelly" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bulldog Awards</a> to conservative journalists, columnists, and podcast hosts each year as an alternative to the left-leaning Pulitzer Prize. Lindquist received the MRC Bulldog Award for Outstanding Blogger for his reporting on Colony Ridge, a housing development in Texas that advertises to illegal immigrants and has become a hotbed of illegal alien crime.
Lindquist has “documented rising crime in the greater Colony Ridge area, including a child abduction, drug overdoses, drug trafficking, drunk driving, murders, and hideouts for criminal illegal immigrants,” the MRC announced this week.
“Despite that, Lindquist reported that developers view mass immigration as a business opportunity, including the systematic targeting of illegal immigrants by allowing them to purchase land without a Social Security number.”
The MRC further notes that “thanks to Lindquist’s reporting, Colony Ridge has been put squarely in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, including immigration operations that have nabbed over 100 illegal aliens and MS-13 gang members.”
Other Bulldog Award recipients this year include the economist Thomas Sowell, who received the Lifetime Achievement Award; Elon Musk, who was named Outstanding Social Media Personality; the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel, Outstanding Columnist; and CNN contributor Scott Jennings, who was honored for Outstanding Achievement Behind Enemy Lines.
Beyond Colony Ridge, Lindquist has reported on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/baltimore-judge-gets-in-the-way-of-another-trump-gang-member-deportation?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=10&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Baltimore+Judge+Gets+In+The+Way+Of+Another+Trump+Gang+Member+Deportation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">judicial efforts</a> to stymie the Trump administration’s immigration policies and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-nearly-freed-a-twice-deported-illegal-alien-drunk-driver-now-newsom-is-backtracking?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=12&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=California+Nearly+Freed+A+Twice-Deported+Illegal+Alien+Drunk+Driver+%E2%80%94+Now+Newsom+Is+Backtracking" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cataloged</a> instances of illegal immigrant crime. Just this week, he <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-trump-dhs-partners-with-100s-of-police-departments-to-supercharge-deportation-campaign?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=EXCLUSIVE%3A+Trump+Makes+Move+To+Super-Charge+Deportations+Using+Local+Cops" target="_blank" rel="noopener">broke the news</a> that the Trump administration was deputizing local law enforcement agencies to carry out certain ICE duties, including deportations.
Outside of immigration, Lindquist has also reported extensively on the transgender lobby and left-wing environmental policies, among other issues.
“As trust in left-wing media continues to collapse, independent news sources featuring fearless truth-tellers are on the rise,” MRC Vice President for Research and Publications Brent Baker said. “This year’s MRC Bulldog winners are replacing discredited leftists who claim to report the news, yet failed the American people when it came to stories like the Russiagate scandal and Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.&#8221;
Lindquist joins a number of his Daily Wire colleagues in the ranks of MRC Bulldog Award winners. Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro and host Matt Walsh have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-daily-wires-ben-shapiro-and-kassy-akiva-win-conservative-media-awards" target="_blank" rel="noopener">each received</a> the Outstanding Podcast Award. Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan and video journalist Kassy Akiva have previously been named Outstanding Blogger. And Daily Wire investigative reporter Luke Rosiak was the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wires-luke-rosiak-wins-award-for-outstanding-investigative-journalist" target="_blank" rel="noopener">first-ever recipient</a> of the MRC’s Bulldog Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalist.

Untitled design (30)

Daily Wire Investigative Reporter Spencer Lindquist Honored For Colony Ridge Reporting

Awards

Colony Ridge

Daily Wire

Journalism

Media Research Center

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid into legacy media outlets after data compiled by The Media Research Center (MRC) revealed that he had received 100% negative coverage from the three major networks: ABC News, CBS News, and NBC News.
Hegseth responded to the report with a post on X showing the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/major-network-trump-coverage-92-negative-in-first-100-days" target="_blank" rel="noopener">tone of his coverage</a> compared to that of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) adviser Elon Musk — who received 89% negative coverage and 96% negative coverage, respectively.
&#8220;In case you wonder what we — and President Trump — are up against. 100% NEGATIVE coverage from so-call[ed] &#8216;mainstream&#8217; press in the first 100 days. PERFECT SCORE,&#8221; Hegseth quipped. &#8220;(Come on @RobertKennedyJr &amp; @elonmusk, you guys can do better!)&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
In case you wonder what we — and President Trump — are up against.
100% NEGATIVE coverage from so-call “mainstream” press in the first 100 days. PERFECT SCORE.
(Come on <a href="https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RobertKennedyJr</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@elonmusk</a> , you guys can do better!) <a href="https://t.co/uYi2ebI0RG">pic.twitter.com/uYi2ebI0RG</a>
— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/1917535623709155730?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hegseth offered a guess as to why the coverage was so overwhelmingly negative when he spoke at Wednesday&#8217;s cabinet meeting, where he told the president and other members of the administration, &#8220;We’re controversial because we’re OVER the target!&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
. <a href="https://twitter.com/SecDef?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecDef</a> presented <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> with all the accomplishments that the DOD have achieved in the last 100 days:
&#8220;I think we’re controversial because we’re OVER the target!&#8221; <a href="https://t.co/GnznUoK1UE">pic.twitter.com/GnznUoK1UE</a>
— DOD Rapid Response (@DODResponse) <a href="https://twitter.com/DODResponse/status/1917608013684261369?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Hegseth laid out a number of things that the military had already improved since the Trump administration began — and noted that recruitment numbers were setting records — suggesting that the military&#8217;s response to Hegseth was far more positive than the media&#8217;s.
The data compiled by MRC covered the time frame from January 20 to April 9 and excluded comments made by expressly partisan guests, only including evaluative statements made by people who were expected to be nonpartisan: anchors, reporters, and experts. In addition to finding that Hegseth&#8217;s coverage — beginning even before he was confirmed as Defense Secretary — was 100% negative, the same data revealed that coverage of President Donald Trump was 92% negative. Based on the same criteria, coverage of former President Joe Biden — during the first several months of his presidency in 2021 — was 59% positive.

Pete Hegseth

‘PERFECT SCORE!’: Pete Hegseth Obliterates Legacy Media Over New Study On Bias

Donald Trump

Media

Media Bias

Politics

According to data compiled by the Media Research Center, 92% of the major network media coverage — throughout the first 100 days of President Donald Trump&#8217;s second term — has been negative.
The MRC looked at coverage across the three major broadcast companies — ABC, CBS, and NBC — and set aside comments made by expressly partisan guests, whether they were in support of or opposition to the Trump administration. Instead, they only recorded &#8220;evaluative comments&#8221; made by those whose role with the networks suggests they are to behave in a non-partisan fashion: anchors, reporters, and experts.
This is the same rubric by which MRC graded the bias of networks covering former President Joe Biden in 2021 and of networks covering Trump during his first term in 2017 — and based on the data, Trump&#8217;s coverage has been even more negative during his second term than it was during his first.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨 BREAKING STUDY: The Trump-hating media gives President Trump 92% negative coverage in his first 100 days in office. <a href="https://t.co/fr3XUB8eWS">https://t.co/fr3XUB8eWS</a>
— MRC NewsBusters (@newsbusters) <a href="https://twitter.com/newsbusters/status/1916820547415003383?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 28, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;MRC analysts tallied 1,841 explicitly evaluative statements about  President Trump and his Trump administration, of which 1,698 (92.2%) were negative vs. a mere 143 (7.8%) which were positive,&#8221; the report stated, noting that the data were pulled from some 899 stories about President Trump or his administration that aired during evening news broadcasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC between January 20 and April 9.
The biggest takeaway, according to the report, was the dramatic shift from the 59% positive coverage the same three networks offered former President Biden.
Another change of note was the focus on policies rather than Trump&#8217;s personality, which drove the 89% negative coverage Trump received in 2017. Major story topics included tariffs (361 minutes of coverage), the Department Of Government Efficiency (310 minutes) and illegal immigration (233 minutes) — and all showcased networks that stood in opposition to Trump&#8217;s positions and policies on those issues.
The data also pointed to a disparity between the way the public views President Trump and his policies — particularly with regard to illegal immigration, where <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cnn-pollster-admits-most-americans-side-with-trump-on-illegals-want-them-all-deported" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent polling</a> indicates the majority of Americans largely favor Trump&#8217;s deportation plan. Despite that, the legacy networks&#8217; messaging on the issue of illegal immigration has been 93% negative.
Trump fared better than a few associated with his administration, however. Elon Musk and DOGE saw 96% negative coverage, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth&#8217;s coverage was 100% negative.

Untitled design (22)

Major Network Trump Coverage 92% Negative In First 100 Days

ABC News

CBS News

NBC News

A conservative media watchdog has a new top priority — defunding NPR and PBS.
The Media Research Center (MRC) is leading a push to defund both public media outlets, urging President Donald Trump, congressional leaders, and governors to strip taxpayer subsidies to these &#8220;far-left media outlets,&#8221; the group revealed exclusively to The Daily Wire.
The watchdog urged the Trump administration to include the &#8220;complete defunding&#8221; of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and its affiliates, PBS and NPR, in a rescission package that could soon be sent to Congress.
&#8220;Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize a media entity that has outlived its original purpose and refuses to operate in a transparent manner,&#8221; the MRC wrote in its letter to Trump.
The watchdog is calling on the CEOs of NPR and PBS to subject themselves to public audits and asking members of Congress to refuse to meet with their lobbyists until those audits are done.
The MRC is also calling on congressional leaders to repeal the legislation that created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Finally, the group is calling on state governors and federal agencies to halt all discretionary grants to PBS and NPR until the outlets are audited.
A coalition of critics joined the MRC in signing letters to elected officials, including Seth Dillon, owner of the Babylon Bee; Mike Gonzalez, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project; Steven Ertelt, editor at LifeNews.com; and Austin Ruse, president of the Center for Family and Human Rights.
&#8220;This action is in concert with your historic promise and rapid delivery of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse across the federal government,&#8221; the coalition wrote to Trump.
The group argued that the &#8220;original justification&#8221; for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting &#8220;no longer holds.&#8221;
&#8220;In today’s media-rich environment, Americans have unlimited access to news, entertainment, and educational programming,&#8221; they wrote in their letter to Trump.
&#8220;NPR’s and PBS’s demonstrable, documented bias further erodes CPB’s credibility,&#8221; the group wrote. &#8220;NPR’s audience overwhelmingly identifies as liberal, reinforcing the reality that public broadcasting is not a neutral service but a taxpayer-funded ideological platform. Americans should not be forced to finance a network that caters to one side of the political spectrum.&#8221;
Dan Schneider, vice president of the MRC, told The Daily Wire that defunding PBS and NPR is his organization&#8217;s &#8220;top priority right now.&#8221;
The goal is to &#8220;eliminate every dime of taxpayer money that subsidizes these liberal media behemoths,&#8221; Schneider said.
&#8220;This is the most focused and aggressive takedown these outlets have ever faced. It may be the last, best chance taxpayers will ever have to unburden themselves from these leftist propaganda outlets once and for all,&#8221; he said.

In this photo illustration, National Public Radio (NPR) logo

EXCLUSIVE: Media Watchdog Goes Full Throttle On Defunding NPR, PBS With Letters To Trump, Congress

Legacy Media

Mainstream Media

National Public Radio (NPR)

Wikipedia, once heralded as the internet’s neutral hub for knowledge, has taken a hard turn to the Left. Initially constructed to be the digital public square where ideas, history, and current events were to be explained in a balanced fashion, the online encyclopedia has emerged as yet another battleground in the war against President Trump, his administration officials and conservatives writ large.
The latest report from the <a href="https://www.mrc.org/">Media Research Center’s</a> (MRC) <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/">Free Speech America</a> division exposes a systematic blacklisting of right-leaning media outlets, further cementing the leftist control over online information. The bottom line: 84% of Left-leaning outlets have Wikipedia’s stamp of approval, while 0% of right-leaning outlets even get a wink from the tech giant.
The implications of this bias cannot be overstated as Wikipedia’s self-proclaimed &#8220;neutral point of view&#8221; (NPOV) policy is supposed to guarantee objectivity. Yet, in practice, the policy is being selectively applied to sideline conservative viewpoints.
Wikipedia’s cutting room floor includes influential right-leaning outlets such as The Daily Wire, Breitbart, Newsmax, One America News, The Daily Caller, and even the MRC. Meanwhile, Left-leaning publications such as Jacobin, Mother Jones, Pro-Publica, NPR, The Atlantic, and The Guardian are deemed “reliable,” despite their documented history of inaccurate reporting and radical ideology.
This imbalanced treatment is intentional and tactical. It is a deliberate effort to exclude right-of-center perspectives from the online discourse, with the obvious goal of disparaging, slandering and maligning anyone who opposes the radical Left agenda.
The evidence of this malicious treatment comes from Wikipedia itself. Its “Reliable Sources/Perennial Sources” page confesses its culpability like a guilt-torn defendant who blurts out in the courtroom, “I did it, I did it, I killed the victim!”
This page serves as Wikipedia’s gatekeeping tool that literally “blacklists” some of the most popular media on the right. Any outlet on Wikipedia’s naughty list is not allowed to help shape Wikipedia’s content.
This manipulation of information extends beyond just blacklisting certain sources — it actively distorts political narratives. Due to the systemic bias in Wikipedia’s sourcing policies, the pages on Trump’s appointees are overwhelmingly shaped by Left-leaning media, presenting a skewed, and often hostile, portrayal of these individuals. The same treatment is not applied to Democratic figures, whose pages benefit from friendlier coverage and selective omission of controversies.
The MRC report found that out of 44 media outlets classified as Left-leaning by AllSides, a staggering 84% are deemed reliable by Wikipedia. Meanwhile, virtually every prominent conservative outlet has been blacklisted or labeled unreliable.
The bias extends beyond media sources to broader political issues. The Hunter Biden laptop scandal is a glaring example. Initially dismissed by Left-wing outlets as “Russian disinformation,” the story was later verified by mainstream publications. Yet, Wikipedia’s coverage continues to reference the debunked narrative while downplaying the legitimacy of conservative outlets that reported the truth from the outset.
Similarly, the Wuhan lab leak theory — once ridiculed by Left-leaning media but now considered the most likely source of COVID-19—has not been accurately updated on Wikipedia. This selective curation of facts ensures that Wikipedia remains a tool for leftist narrative control rather than a genuine information repository.
One of the key figures responsible for this shift is Katherine Maher, who led Wikipedia&#8217;s parent company Wikimedia, from 2016 to 2021. Under her tenure, Wikipedia moved further into ideological bias, enforcing sourcing policies that favored leftist perspectives while suppressing conservative viewpoints. Maher’s public statements indicate an embrace of Left-wing activism, further solidifying Wikipedia’s transformation from a neutral information source to a partisan tool.
The consequences of this bias are severe. Wikipedia is one of the most visited websites in the world, and it is regularly produced by Google as one of its highest ranked search results. So, its content influences not just your average Joe but journalists, researchers, and policymakers. The site’s Left-wing slant ensures that students, voters, and the general public are consistently fed a one-sided perspective, warping public perception and reinforcing media narratives that favor the political Left.
This should alarm anyone who values intellectual diversity and open debate. The internet was supposed to democratize information, allowing users to access multiple viewpoints and reach their own conclusions. Instead, Wikipedia’s editorial policies are steering the online discourse toward a singular ideological perspective, eliminating the voices of half the country in the process.
It is time for accountability. Wikimedia, Wikipedia’s parent company, is a 501(C)(3) not-for-profit. Trump’s IRS should investigate it and end its tax-free status if it does not immediately come into compliance with the law. Every federal agency should also terminate all contracts and grants they have been awarded to Wikipedia. American taxpayers should never be forced to turn over their hard-earned income to politicized organizations.
The battle against censorship and for free speech is one of the most critical fights of our time. Nobody is saying that Wikipedia cannot have a radical point of view. But conservatives should never confuse Wikipedia for what it once was, and Americans should never have to subsidize the radical arm of a radical political organization.
* * *
Dan Schneider is the Vice President of Media Research Center&#8217;s Free Speech America.
Luis Cornelio is Associate Editor of Media Research Center&#8217;s Free Speech America.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Wikipedia Imposes A 24 Hour Shutdown To Protest Over Web Piracy Bill

Wikipedia’s Blacklist: Smearing Trump, Conservatives, And The GOP

Wikipedia's Blacklist: Smearing Trump, Conservatives, And The GOP

Big Tech

Censorship

Conservatives

Democrats

Leftists

Opinion

President Trump

Wikipedia

President Donald Trump’s inauguration is just around the corner. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg donated $1 million to the inauguration fund. Jeff Bezos and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman did the same. Zuckerberg, however, has gone further, actually announcing <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meta-axes-dei-programs-in-the-lead-up-to-trumps-inauguration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">real policy change</a> that the incoming Trump administration will approve of.
Many conservatives are dismissive of Zuckerberg’s announcement that Meta will no longer censor political speech, mute conversations about hot-button social issues, and discontinue its egregious “fact-checking” program. They ought not to be. I believe the change is real and the motivation genuine.
Meta’s censorship sins run very, very deep.
As early as 2015, Meta (then Facebook) was putting its thumb on the scale in favor of Left-wing politicians. It interfered in the 2016 election by suppressing stories critical of Hillary Clinton. In 2018, the company was actively working to prevent Republican candidates from communicating with their constituents. In 2020, it was secretly colluding with the Justice Department to keep the American people from learning about the Hunter Biden laptop. That action alone may have cost Donald Trump his reelection.
On issue after issue, Facebook has deliberately attempted to suppress free speech. Conservatives questioning COVID and its origins have found themselves censored, even banned from the platform. Ditto for anyone questioning climate change. Ditto for anyone questioning child mutilation.
<ul>
<li>Condemn illegal immigration — censored.</li>
<li>Promote the pro-life cause — censored.</li>
<li>State that Biden was putting America into a recession — censored.</li>
<li>Object to federally-funded crack pipes — censored.</li>
<li>Criticize the “Zuckerbucks” scheme to hijack local elections — adios.</li>
</ul>
The list is seemingly endless. At <a href="https://www.mrc.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the MRC</a> we have tabulated 1,725 times Meta has censored conservatives. Tens of thousands of conservatives have been banned — and that includes the president of the United States.
Some have suggested that the president-elect put the fear of the Lord into Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-zuckerberg-have-dinner-together-at-mar-a-lago" target="_blank" rel="noopener">when they met</a> at Mar-a-Lago recently, and perhaps that’s true. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to simply conclude that Meta’s “about-face” this week was motivated merely out of fear of reprisals.
Consider: Zuckerberg could have resolved the problem by just putting an end to it. No video, no public humiliation. Just a four word memo to his staff: “You censor, you’re out.” It was as simple as not giving cause for future complaints.
But that’s not what he did. He released a video he knew would become front page news nationwide. In it, he unequivocally admitted conservatives had been right all along; unequivocally acknowledged Meta had violated the public trust by suppressing free speech; and unequivocally committed to a new policy championing the First Amendment.
He also fired his entire so-called “fact-checking” operation. These were the hardened leftists responsible for the bulk of that fascistic censorship. They were the fuel behind the killing machine of any user’s account that posted stories about election interference, Joe Biden’s mental acuity, or the origins of the Wuhan virus.
But then he added something else. He announced he is moving the remainder of the content team out of Palo Alto, which he once described to me as the “heart of leftism in America,” and into the heart of freedom — Texas.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN &#8217;25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a></h3>
Conservatives should consider that if there were anything like a Christmas card list in Palo Alto, his name has been scratched off. In the eyes of Silicon Valley, Zuckerberg is a traitor.
Let’s be clear: Zuckerberg is a leftist, of the hard Left variety. So why put out that video? Because one can be on the far-Left of the political spectrum and still be a champion of free speech. Ironically, it has historically been this community, driven by libertine impulses, that most embraced free speech.
I have met and corresponded with Zuckerberg several times. I believe he’s in this camp. I also believe that within the Meta universe, there will be plenty of employees who will try to undermine him, just as Twitter employees tried with Elon Musk. Censorship will continue; leftists who understand the power of social media are not about to relinquish it. But maybe, just maybe, it will be the exception to the rule. Maybe, just maybe, the rules have changed.
Time will tell. Trust, but verify.
But let the conversation continue. If you thought Meta was bad, it has been angelic compared to Google. That company is out of control with its efforts to undermine democracy and Congressional hearings are in order to investigate their activities. TikTok is a tool of the Chinese government, the greatest threat to the United States, and has no business being in business in our country.
There are many other ventures on the rise in the emerging AI world that will certainly threaten conservatives’ ability to communicate in the public square. All must be confronted.
But for the moment, let’s consider that maybe, just maybe, Mark Zuckerberg has done something good.
* * *
L. Brent Bozell III is the founder and president of the Media Research Center and founder of the Free Speech Alliance.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Social Media App Photo Illustration

Why Facebook’s About-Face Is Turning Heads

Facebook

Free Speech

Silicon Valley

Social Media Censorship

The district attorney who refused to seek the maximum sentence for Laken Riley’s killer is one of three Soros-backed prosecutors to lose re-election this month.
District Attorney (DA) Deborah Gonzalez of Georgia’s Western Judicial Circuit, who made headlines for her soft treatment of convicted murderer Jose Ibarra, lost her re-election to challenger Kalki Yalamanchili by over 75% of the vote. 
Gonzalez was an active member of the organization Fair &amp; Just Prosecution (FJP), a Leftist advocacy group funded by billionaire George Soros, which dictates both the public policy and private staffing of prosecutorial offices around the country.
FJP’s efforts to hijack American justice were detailed in <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/business/tim-kilcullen-joseph-vazquez-tom-olohan-dan-schneider/2024/08/12/law-dis-order-how" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Media Research Center’s August exposé</a>: “How The Soros Machine Directs and Controls Prosecutors Across America to Implement His Leftist Agenda.”
Gonzalez was joined in defeat by fellow FJP members including Los Angeles County DA George Gascón and Alameda County DA Pamela Price. Gascón and Price were two of the last three remaining members of another Soros group, the censorship-obsessed Prosecutors Alliance of California, which worked closely with Governor Gavin Newsom to push an anti-police and anti-free speech agenda.
Gascón, one of the founders of Prosecutors Alliance, lost to challenger Nathan Hochman by <a href="https://results.lavote.gov/#year=2024&amp;election=4324" target="_blank" rel="noopener">over 600,000 votes</a>. Similarly, Prosecutors Alliance member Price lost her recall election by <a href="https://www.kqed.org/elections/results/alameda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">over 30%</a>. Their defeat has dealt a crushing blow to the organization and the Soros Machine backing it. Contra Costa County DA Diana Becton remains, and is arguably now <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/diana-becton-prosecutor-da-19895432.php" target="_blank" rel="noopener">California’s most radically Left-wing prosecutor</a>.
Ibarra, a Venezuelan national released into the United States by the Biden-Harris Department of Homeland Security (DHS), beat Augusta University nursing student Laken Riley to death on February 22 of this year. Gonzalez chose not to pursue the death penalty, even though Ibarra had also attempted to rape Riley in broad daylight and had previously been charged with assaulting a child. Ibarra was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-jose-ibarra-found-guilty-of-killing-georgia-nursing-student-laken-riley" target="_blank" rel="noopener">convicted of Riley’s murder</a> on November 20, just weeks after Yalamanchili’s victory.
Gascón, who was previously San Francisco DA, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240507003211/https://www.thenation.com/article/society/prosecutors-alliance-california/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">created the Prosecutors Alliance of California in 2020</a> with Cristine Soto Deberry, a Marin County politician and Newsom’s former deputy chief of staff. The Prosecutors Alliance, which was backed by the Soros-funded Tides Advocacy, was designed to be a far-Left replacement for the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), which Gascón had <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240507003731/https://theappeal.org/politicalreport/george-gascon-leaves-californias-district-attorney-association/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">very publicly quit</a>. 
In August 2024, the Media Research Center (MRC) <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/blogs/business/tim-kilcullen-joseph-vazquez-tom-olohan-dan-schneider/2024/08/12/law-dis-order-how" target="_blank" rel="noopener">published detailed communications</a> between the Prosecutors Alliance members showing their <a href="https://cdn.mrc.org/static/pdfuploads/Soros+Report_Law%26DisOrder.pdf-1723647180299.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">close relationship</a> with Newsom and FJP. FJP pressured the Alliance’s members to sign pledges vowing to refuse to enforce certain laws that ran afoul of leftist political positions.
In one instance, FJP got Prosecutor Alliance attorneys to pledge that it was a “<a href="https://cdn.mrc.org/static/pdfuploads/CommsBrady-List-Sign-On-Release-FINAL.pdf-1719622302665.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prosecutor’s obligation</a>” to create blacklists of police officers who would not be permitted to testify in court — thereby undermining the officers’ careers. To implement the blacklist for Los Angeles County, Gascón’s director for ethics has been accused of <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-da-aide-arraigned-on-improper-confidential-law-enforcement-records-use-charges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">illegally accessing private county personnel database files</a> to obtain the records of “over 1,600 statutorily-protected peace officer files” — a serious crime for which she was indicted.
Gascón was sued separately for over $1.5 million for retaliation against attorneys who objected to his unlawful order that they not pursue prosecutions under certain California “criminal cases involving minors, including his blanket ban on trying juveniles as adults,” <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-da-aide-arraigned-on-improper-confidential-law-enforcement-records-use-charges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to the Los Angeles Times</a>. The lawsuit was successful.
The Prosecutors Alliance successfully lobbied the California State Senate to pass a police censorship bill which mandated that elected prosecutors who accept campaign contributions from organizations supporting law enforcement (including unions) give up their authority to prosecute police officers. Had the censorship bill been enacted, police would effectively have been forbidden from using their own money for political advocacy against the millions in propaganda against them.
When the California State Assembly refused to pass the Prosecutors Alliance’s censorship legislation, the group’s attorneys lobbied the state bar association to bypass the legislature and impose the speech restrictions via their own byzantine internal procedure.
<h3><a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-da-aide-arraigned-on-improper-confidential-law-enforcement-records-use-charges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a></h3>
The Prosecutors Alliance’s members were Gascón, Price, Contra Costa County DA Diana Becton, San Francisco City &amp; County DA Chesa Boudin and San Joaquin County DA Tori Verber Salazar. Berkeley, Long Beach, Glendale, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco and Stockton were among the many cities under the Prosecutors Alliance attorneys’ jurisdiction.
In 2022, Boudin lost his recall election and Verber Salazar <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-da-aide-arraigned-on-improper-confidential-law-enforcement-records-use-charges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lost her primary re-election bid</a>. Becton’s term is set to expire in 2026, but she may be <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-da-aide-arraigned-on-improper-confidential-law-enforcement-records-use-charges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">removed from office early</a> via a recall election.
Remaining Soros prosecutors like Becton face a new foe in tech entrepreneur Elon Musk. Musk has pledged to use his patriotic advocacy group America PAC to further combat Soros’s influence over America’s justice system.
“Something has to be done to kind of counter the damage that Soros has done to the American system,” Musk pledged in an <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-da-aide-arraigned-on-improper-confidential-law-enforcement-records-use-charges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">election day video</a> uploaded to his social media platform, X. “America PAC&#8217;s going [t] aim to weigh in heavily on the midterms and intermediate elections, as well as just doing common sense stuff like having DAs who prosecute violent criminals who are obviously a danger to people.”
* * *
Conservatives are under attack. Contact Governor Gavin Newsom and tell him to renounce his support for the Prosecutors Alliance of California. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/los-angeles-da-aide-arraigned-on-improper-confidential-law-enforcement-records-use-charges/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">contact form</a>, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
* * *
Tim Kilcullen is Counsel for Investigations at the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón will announce his decision regarding the potential resentencing of Erik and Lyle Menendez.

Post-Election Fallout For Soros-Backed Prosecutors

California

District Attorneys

George Gascon

George Soros

Los Angeles

prosecutors

Today&#8217;s Democrats, led by Kamala Harris, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, are not just tiptoeing around the edges of censorship; they&#8217;re creating an Orwellian nightmare where the state is being called upon to regulate speech and to determine what is fit to be heard in the public square.
The Media Research Center took a stroll down <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/every-21st-century-democratic-presidential-nominee-supports-restricting-free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">memory lane</a> to measure the seismic shift in attitudes toward the First Amendment for Harris and the other Democratic nominees of the 21st century, including Biden, Hillary Clinton, Obama, John Kerry and Al Gore.
According to the MRC study, each of these six candidates previously stood for free speech rights. Now, they claim that constitutionally protected speech is a threat to democracy. Their tortuous logic is inexplicable, but their previous quotes have not yet been whitewashed by the Left’s ever-faithful tech behemoth, Google.
In 2006, Gore <a href="https://youtu.be/ZNuEKePNCgw?si=p-UifGYw5A7Fzl9c&amp;t=2643" target="_blank" rel="noopener">scolded</a> the Bush administration for allegedly trying to “silence dissenting views” by censoring information “inconsistent with its stated ideological goals.” Fast forward to 2023, and Gore <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4344366-al-gore-calls-social-media-algorithms-digital-ar-15s/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suggests</a> social media algorithms should be “banned,” calling them the “digital equivalent of AR-15s.”
In 2011, Clinton <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acDcUQoeFxY">vowed</a> to protect free speech &#8220;with the force of law.&#8221; But just last month, <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2024/09/17/hillary-maddow-americans-who-boost-trump-propaganda-are-criminals" target="_blank" rel="noopener">she said</a> that Americans should be “criminally charged” for spreading what she dubbed “propaganda.” She later warned, “[i]f they don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control.”
In 2015, Obama <a href="https://youtu.be/mi5da2AhDCY?si=o22sDubaS4hTFrSq&amp;t=190" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affirmed</a> that government propaganda “runs contrary to everything we believe.” Yet, in <a href="https://archive.is/k29vX#selection-2011.0-2014.0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2022</a>, Obama called on Americans to “pick a side” regarding whether social media companies should be forced to censor Americans.
In 2015, Kerry rebuked censorship, affirming that “freedom must win out over censorship.” A year earlier, he <a href="https://youtu.be/X2JrqxACZp8?si=siES2GzodJEg2GRg&amp;t=304" target="_blank" rel="noopener">condemned</a> the very acts committed by his own party today: “Imagine if I couldn&#8217;t talk to you today simply because my government had shut down or censored the internet.” But now Kerry unashamedly attacks the First Amendment “as a major block.”
In 2017, Biden passionately <a href="https://youtu.be/fe8iSYHOg5A?si=6HlO0KKTuQihJ4Wo&amp;t=4555" target="_blank" rel="noopener">defended</a> free speech rights for all: “[W]e hurt ourselves badly when we don&#8217;t allow the speech to take place. … The First Amendment is one of the defining features of who we are in the Bill of Rights. And to shut it down in the name of what is appropriate is simply wrong.” In that same year, Harris similarly tweeted, “The free and open internet is a cornerstone of our society and must be protected at all costs.”
But like their predecessors, Biden and Harris have flip-flopped, deciding instead that the best way to combat ideas they dislike is not through debate, but through deletion. In the guise of combatting mis- and dis-information, they created the largest censorship regime in U.S. history, spanning 10 federal departments and six additional regulatory agencies.
For example, the State and Homeland Security Departments have partnered repeatedly to censor conservatives in the media. The Pentagon has also used our tax dollars to bludgeon advertisers, cajoling them not to work with conservative media outlets.
Independent agencies are at it, too. The Federal Communications Commission is punishing free-speech advocate Elon Musk while rewarding anti-free speech zealot George Soros. And the National Science Foundation is competing with the Energy Department to be the wizard behind the censorship curtain.
This isn&#8217;t about mis-information; it&#8217;s about power. Democratic leaders have traded the mantle of freedom for the chains of control, embracing the tech titans as partners and enforcers of their narrative. Once heralded as the new public square, social media platforms have become a digital dungeon where speech is policed not by law, but by algorithm.
<h3><a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH&#8217;S &#8216;AM I RACIST?&#8217; COMING TO DAILYWIRE+ OCT. 28</a></h3>
While elites in the Democratic Party play the role of speech censors, conservatives have joined with traditional Democrats in a coalition to protect speech rights. This coalition is led mostly by former Democrats, including Donald Trump, Elon Musk and two former presidential candidates, Robert F. Kennedy and Tulsi Gabbard.
Trump’s running mate JD Vance <a href="https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/free-speech/tom-olohan/2024/10/02/vp-debate-cbs-jd-vance-denounces-true-threat-democracy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">articulated</a> the correct perspective on speech in the vice presidential debate: “I believe we actually do have a threat to democracy in this country, but unfortunately, it&#8217;s not the threat to democracy that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz want to talk about: It is the threat of censorship.”
Vance is sounding a wake-up call that resonates like the siren many of us heard as school children during nuclear-war fallout drills. We&#8217;re not just at risk of losing an argument; we&#8217;re at risk of losing America.
The next president of the United States will take the oath of office, swearing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The media must do their job and ask each of the candidates whether they can take this oath, without snickering and crossing fingers.
* * *
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center.
Dan Schneider is the vice president of Media Research Center&#8217;s Free Speech America.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu