Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump’s bullying of female journalists isn’t ‘frankness.’ It’s insulting.

Published

on

Trump’s bullying of female journalists isn’t ‘frankness.’ It’s insulting.

ByAri Bernick

It’s upsetting to have to advocate for respect in the workplace. It’s even more upsetting that the main offender is the president of the United States.

The most recent instance of the president directly attacking women in the media happened at the White House on Monday: “You are the most obnoxious reporter in the whole place,” the president said, berating ABC’s Rachel Scott, after she asked about video of the Sept. 2 strikes on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. “Let me just tell you, you are an obnoxious, a terrible ― actually a terrible reporter, and it’s always the same thing with you.”

These public humiliations are outrageous.

Last week, the president diminished CNN’s Kaitlan Collins as “always Stupid and Nasty” in a social media post. Some of his other recent lows:

Remaining silent does a disservice to the women in the media who have come before me, those who stand alongside me and those who want to join the field in the future.

I might still be new to the industry, but I know female reporters deserve better.

It was not lost on me last month, seeing the attack on Rogers after a Times article about the president agingthat the president’s social media post did not scold or even mention the article’s male co-author.

Going after a female reporter’s looks and intelligence reminds me of things I learned in a media history class at Northwestern University: how women were excluded from newsrooms because people did not believe they had the intellectual capacity to be reporters, and how women used to be told to report on lifestyle and culture instead of “hard news” topics such as the economy. They were paid less, harassed more and were essentially told, “this isn’t for you.”

But journalism is for us.

These public humiliations are outrageous. And it’s frustrating to have spent four years studying how to ethically and accurately report only to see past injustices repeated and for the president to disrespect my chosen profession time and again.

But my larger concern is how this rhetoric could turn into action. In this administration, reporters have been turned away from the White House and Pentagon briefing rooms. What’s to stop the president from going even further?

I’m also worried about how the president’s rhetoric raises risks for me in my own work. For my job on the MS NOW social team, I spend a lot of time approaching people on the street for reactions to news stories. In October, for example, I interviewed several Chicagoans about how they felt about the National Guard deployments  in their city. The president’s aggressive behavior gives a green light for people to bash me for simply asking questions.

Asking difficult questions is crucial to journalism. Answering them is a responsibility of holding public office.

Asking difficult questions is crucial to journalism. Answering them is a responsibility of holding public office.

I shouldn’t have to spell this out but: No one should be berated for doing their jobs competently.

I’m standing up for my peers because I’m grateful for the previous generations that made my career path possible; for the journalism professors who encouraged me to speak the truth, boldly; and for female coworkers, producers and managers whose professionalism has mentored me directly and indirectly.

While the number of women going into journalism has increased, a 2024 study from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found that the share of women in leadership positions in the field is still low. I worry that aspiring young journalists might feel reporting is not for them because of how the president treats women in the industry. I also worry that reporters might refrain from asking tough questions to avoid direct attacks from the commander-in-chief.

In 2015, when the president, then a candidate, made disparaging comments about Megyn Kelly after a Republican primary debate, the criticism that followed was widespread. More recently, some fellow reporters have denounced this disrespect of their colleagues and asked about the president’s behavior. Appallingly, the White House press secretary suggested everyone “should appreciate the frankness and the openness.”

Bullying wasn’t okay in a schoolyard, and it’s not okay coming from the Oval Office.

Ari Bernick

Ari Bernick is a production assistant on the MS NOW social team. She studied history and journalism at Northwestern University.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Iran negotiator or private investor? Raskin launches investigation into Jared Kushner.

Published

on

House Judiciary Democrats are launching a new investigation into President Donald Trump’s son-in-law — and Iran ceasefire negotiator — Jared Kushner, citing his “glaring and incurable conflict of interest.”

In a letter obtained first by MS NOW, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., writes that Kushner’s dual roles as Trump administration peace envoy and leader of a private equity firm have “been haunting American foreign policy since President Trump returned to Washington in 2025,” with the Iran war only compounding concerns that Kushner’s financial work could distort his priorities.

“Your client Saudi Arabia,” Raskin writes, “wants to see a continuation and escalation of President Trump’s Iran war, but the American people have an interest in minimizing the loss of American lives and treasure in this conflict.”

“To whom do your professional obligations and fiduciary duties belong?” Raskin asks in the letter, which was sent to Kushner, his firm, and the State Department on Thursday.

Kushner, who is married to Trump’s eldest daughter Ivanka, founded the investment firm Affinity Partners in 2021 after serving as a senior adviser during Trump’s first administration.

Affinity’s largest and earliest investor, according to The New York Timesis Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, which is led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The fund invested roughly $2 billion after the first Trump White House ended. Sovereign wealth funds tied to other Gulf nations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have also invested.

Affinity has earned a 25% rate of return since 2021, according to a person familiar with the firm’s internal dynamics.

Since Trump returned to the White House, Kushner has taken on the role of peace envoy, working on negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas and, most recently, the U.S. and Iran. The latter two, critics note, are in the region that is the source of sizable investments in Kushner’s firm.

“​​You cannot both be a diplomat and a financial pawn of the Saudi monarchy at the same time,” Raskin writes in the letter. “You cannot faithfully represent the United States with billions of dollars in Saudi and Emirati cash burning a hole in every pocket of every suit you own.”

In a statement shared with MS NOW, Ian Brekke, chief legal officer for Affinity, said Kushner “​has complied with ​all applicable laws and ​requirements and has ​always operated ​in the best interests ​of ​the United States.”

“Jared is not raising funds and has not done business in Gaza, Ukraine or Iran and has no intention to do so,” Brekke said.

In response to a March report in The New York Times that Kushner had taken recent steps to raise money for his firm from governments in the Middle East, Brekke wrote, “Affinity had early conversations with its anchor investor and does not intend to take in any additional capital while Jared is volunteering for the government.”

And in a statement to MS NOW, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Kushner had “sacrificed time with his family and livelihood” to work on the Trump administration’s initiatives overseas. She called Raskin “an attention-seeking loser who has saved zero lives and hasn’t accomplished anything.”

As part of the new House Judiciary investigation that Democrats are unilaterally launching, Raskin is asking Kushner to hand over a trove of materials tied to his work for Affinity and with the government.

The documents Raskin wants include: records of his communications with Saudi, Emirati, Qatari, and Israeli officials and their state-linked investment funds dating back to 2022; the financial records detailing all investors in his Affinity investment fund; records of meetings with investors dating back to July2024; and all communications relating to financial investments in Gaza, Ukraine, Iran, and other areas where Kushner has played a role as a negotiator.

Raskin is also requesting Kushner’s communications with the White House and the Trump campaign, including with Trump himself, dating back to July 2024 regarding his role in the new administration.

While Kushner is unlikely to play ball with Democrats — and as long as Republicans don’t side with Democrats, Raskin doesn’t have the unilateral ability to subpoena Kushner — the inquiry is a bit of a preview of the investigations Democrats will launch should their party win control of the House.

As the midterms approach, Democrats are pledging to make rooting out corruption in the Trump administration a central focus. And while Kushner could ignore Raskin now, that would be much more difficult next year if Democrats take back the committee gavels.

For Raskin, this is the latest step in a yearslong effort to review Kushner’s activities.

In 2023, while serving as ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, Raskin wrote to Kushner questioning whether his business interests may have influenced his work during the first Trump administration.

In 2024, Raskin and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., called on the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to review possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for MS NOW.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

House extends surveillance powers until April 30 after late-night revolt sinks GOP plan

Published

on

House extends surveillance powers until April 30 after late-night revolt sinks GOP plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House early Friday approved a short-term renewal until April 30 of a controversial surveillance programused by U.S. spy agencies in a post-midnight vote after Republicans revolted and refused President Donald Trump’s push for a longer extension.

GOP leaders rushed lawmakers back into session to late Thursday with a series of back-to-back votes that collapsed in dramatic failure, before they quickly pushed ahead the stopgap measure as they race to keep the surveillance program running past Monday’s expiration date.

First they unveiled a new plan that would have extended the program for five years, with revisions. Then they tried to salvage a shorter 18-month renewal that Trump had demanded and Speaker Mike Johnson had previously backed. Some 20 Republicans joined most Democrats in blocking its advance.

Shortly after 2 a.m. they quickly agreed to the 10-day extension, which was agreed to on a voice vote without a formal roll call. It next goes to the Senate, which is gaveling for a rare Friday session, as Congress races to keep the surveillance program running.

“We were very close tonight,” said Johnson after the late-night action.

But Democrats blasted the middle-of-the-night voting as amateur hour. “Are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place?” said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., during a fiery floor debate.

At the center of the standoff that has stretched throughout the week is Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,which permits the CIA, National Security Agency, FBI and other agencies to collect and analyze vast amounts of overseas communications without a warrant. In doing so, they can incidentally sweep up communications involving Americans who interact with foreign targets.

U.S. officials say the authority is critical to disrupting terrorist plots, cyber intrusions and foreign espionage.

Surveillance program fight is a debate over privacy and security

Its path to passage has teetered all week in a familiar fight, as lawmakers weigh civil liberties concerns against intelligence officials’ warnings about national security risks.

Opponents of the surveillance tool point to past misuses. FBI officials repeatedly violated their own standards when searching intelligence related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol and racial justice protests in 2020, according to a 2024 court order.

Trump and his allies had lobbied aggressively all week for a clean renewal of the program, without changes.

A group of Republicans traveled to the White House on Tuesday, and on Wednesday CIA Director John Ratcliffe spoke directly with GOP lawmakers. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said Thursday there had “been negotiations late into the night with the White House and some of our members.”

“I am asking Republicans to UNIFY, and vote together on the test vote to bring a clean Bill to the floor,” Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. “We need to stick together.”

The result of days of negotiations

Thursday’s proceedings came to a standstill as lawmakers retreated behind closed doors and Johnson reached for an agreement to resolve the standoff.

Shortly before midnight GOP leaders announced a new proposal, a five-year extension, with revisions. The changes were designed to win over skeptics of the surveillance program who have demanded greater oversight to protect Americans’ privacy.

Among the changes are new provisions to ensure that only FBI attorneys can authorize queries on U.S. persons, and to require the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to review such cases, said Rep. Austin Scott, R-Ga., during the debate.

But the final product, a 14-page amendment, did not go far enough for some holdouts in either party.

With Johnson controlling a slim majority, he has little room for dissent. As the Republicans fell short on both efforts before the short extension, a handful of Democrats stepped in to try to help them advance the longer extensions, but most Democrats were opposed.

“We just defeated Johnson’s efforts to sneak through a 5-year FISA authorization tonight,” said Democratic Rep, Ro Khanna of California. “Now, they will have to fight in daylight.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons resigns

Published

on

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons resigns

Todd Lyons, the acting head of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is resigning from the agency later this spring, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed to MS NOW.

He will remain in his role until May 31. The circumstances surrounding his departure were not immediately clear, and officials have not publicly identified his replacement.

“Director Lyons has been a great leader of ICE and key player in helping the Trump administration remove murderers, rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and gang members from American communities,” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said in a statement.

“He jumpstarted an agency that had not been allowed to do its job for four years. Thanks to his leadership, American communities are safer.”

Lyons, a longtime immigration enforcement official who assumed the acting directorship in 2025, has overseen ICE during a period of expanded deportation operations under President Donald Trump. His tenure has coincided with a sharp increase in enforcement tactics under the administration, including the killings of Renee Good and Alex Prettiby immigration officers in Minnesota in January.

ICE has cycled through multiple acting leaders in recent years and has lacked a Senate-confirmed director. Lyons’ departure comes at a pivotal moment for the agency as it navigates ongoing legal challenges and political divisions tied to the administration’s hardline immigration crackdown agenda. In recent months, Lyons has faced growing scrutiny, including a court order requiring him to appear before a federal judge over concerns that the agency failed to comply with directives related to detainees’ rights.

Earlier Thursday, Lyons testified before a House Appropriations subcommitteewhere he faced questions from lawmakers over ICE’s budget, enforcement priorities and compliance with court orders.

During the hearing, Lyons defended the agency’s recent surge in operations, arguing that increased resources were necessary to carry out its mission, while acknowledging ongoing legal challenges and scrutiny surrounding detainee treatment and due process protections.

Before assuming the top post, Lyons previously held senior roles within ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division, where he helped oversee deportation efforts nationwide.

Following the announcement of his resignation, White House border czar Tom Homan said Lyons “served selflessly as a highly respected and effective” as the acting ICE chief.

“I commend him for a distinguished law enforcement career and the countless contributions he has made to protect our country and advance its interests,” Homan said in a statement.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller praised Lyons as a “phenomenal patriot and dedicated leader.”

Didi Martinez is a freelance field producer for MS NOW.

Ebony Davis is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW based in Washington, D.C. She previously worked at BLN as a campaign reporter covering elections and politics.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending