Month: April 2025

Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA), Chairman of the Task Force on the Attempted Assassination of Donald J. Trump

Guest post by Joe Hoft at JoeHoft.com – republished with permission from AbleChild.

CALL TO ACTION, CALL YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE – KILL BILL HR 2085

Congressman Mike Kelly—the lawmaker blocking access to critical documents about the Butler assassination attempt—must not be allowed to advance a bill that ignores glaring conflicts of interest in behavioral health linked to the Butler, PA assassination attempt of President Trump. KILL THE BILL: HR 2085

Key Connections Being Hidden:

Crooks’ Parents & Behavioral Health Influence: Investigative documents withheld by Kelly’s office may reveal ties between Thomas Crooks’ parents (behavioral health “experts”) and entities like Genesis HealthCare, which employed Crooks at its Bethel Park facility.
Genesis HealthCare’s Reach: A major behavioral health and nursing home provider, Genesis has subsidiaries spanning 19 states and investors linked to behavioral health tech firms.

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP represented Genesis in these matters. What is stunning about the law firm that rescued Bethel Skilled Nursing home from Department of Justice inquiries was that Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP is deeply entrenched in the psychiatric drug sector.

The firm has extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies. In fact, the firm handled one of the largest psychotropic drug settlements in United States history in 2017, M.B. v. Tidball, on behalf of a group of nonprofits that the firm also just happens to represent.

The results of this insider settlement by vested stakeholders, psychotropic drugging continues to skyrocket. Big Pharma and the Behavioral Health Industrial Complex was able to walk away from any accountability without losing access to children in State care.

AGR Building Investors: The AGR Building is reportedly tied to stakeholders in behavioral health technology—a sector incentivized by bills like H.R. 2085, which lacks ethical guardrails.

Roper Technologies retains a 49% minority stake in Indicor, the industrial company that owns the AGR Building in Butler, PA, through its subsidiary AGR International.

Simultaneously, Roper is aggressively expanding into behavioral health with its pending $1.65 billion acquisition of CentralReach, a leading provider of cloud-based software for Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy serving autism and intellectual/developmental disabilities (IDD).

CentralReach is projected to generate $175 million in revenue and $75 million in EBITDA for the fiscal year ending June 2026, reflecting Roper’s focus on high-growth, tech-enabled healthcare solutions.

The acquisition, expected to close by April/May 2025, will operate under Roper’s Application Software segment, distinct from its industrial holdings in Indicor.

H.R. 2085’s Critical Flaws:

Zero Human Rights Protections: The bill funnels tax credits into behavioral health research but fails to address risks of neurotechnology misuse, non-consensual cognitive implants, or data exploitation, as well as psychotropic drug adverse reactions suicide and violence.
Distraction from Transparency: While Kelly’s Task Force subpoenaed agencies like the ATF, they didn’t go far enough. Kelly’s refusal to release autopsy reports, phone records, or evidence about the white van at the rally suggests a pattern of obfuscation.

The post ABLECHILD: Chairman of Assassination Task Force Touts Mental Health Bill, While Withholding Mental Health Information About Alleged Shooter appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The post Tariffs, Bad Days, And Treason? With Sheriff Richard Mack first appeared on Joe Hoft.

The post Tariffs, Bad Days, And Treason? With Sheriff Richard Mack appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

The post Chess Moves? Trump Makes Waves With Enrique Tarrio first appeared on Joe Hoft.

The post Chess Moves? Trump Makes Waves With Enrique Tarrio appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

You singlehandedly changed the debate about institutional capture by the left. But recently, there has been a steady rise of the “fratricidal right”; as you wrote, “The reality is that many of the people in the online right are smart, even brilliant, but not temperamentally equipped for maintaining relationships within an established institution or operating in a very complex, high-conflict public fight.” Could you explain what you meant by that?

The online right has reached a critical moment. From 2015 to 2025, the dissident sphere on the internet was where new ideas were hatched, new memes designed, and new narratives tested. Some of these figures are, in part, responsible for Trump’s victories. But that victory has shifted the calculation and put the online right into a dilemma. Paradoxically, Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter and cessation of censorship, paired with Trump’s electoral victory, have put the online right into an identity crisis. These figures can no longer ride the edge of discourse in the same way they did when the previous Twitter administration had narrowed the terms of debate. The opening of the Overton Window is good, but the downside is that some figures of the online right, lacking a clearly established edge, have gone over a cliff. This is the Candace Owens phenomenon, in which the disappearance of limits leads to conspiracism and shock content beyond the bounds of rationality.

Other more reasonable accounts are struggling to find their footing now that the Trump administration is in power. The online right’s strength was partly based on a feeling of opposition, a different posture from one of administration. Trump is doing in real life what the online right had only done symbolically. This puts a lot of pressure on those figures and diminishes them, as words have less value after others turn them into deeds. The highest-profile figures in the new political order are those who do things rather than simply make arguments. 

There’s also a fundamental question: The dissident does not always make a good institutionalist. So we will see which figures can jump over that gap. In my experience, there will be many who fail to make the transition. The critic, the dissident, the gadfly are often difficult to assimilate within established institutions, something I’ve observed here as well.

How deep is the sense of entitlement and resentment among a certain section of the right? What are the causes of that?

It’s important to understand that online incentives and electoral incentives are not always aligned. Online, it pays to advance conspiracism, racial hatred, and eccentric political ideologies. These garner attention and can be monetized on various platforms. Candace Owens demonstrated this with her conspiracism about Israel and Brigitte Macron’s genitalia. These narratives are not electorally decisive but are attention-grabbing and can be cashed out on YouTube. Electoral incentives, on the other hand, offer a better payout for simple, meritocratic, and race-neutral ideas, which is why the campaign to abolish DEI and establish colorblind equality has been such an electoral success. These kinds of policy ideas create a universal framework and draw in a diverse coalition without resorting to racial pandering.

How big of a risk is it, and what might be a better path to sustain the grand, meritocratic, borderline race-neutral coalition that Trump seemed to achieve for his electoral victory? 

There is a disconnect between the rhetoric of the online right and the coalition of the MAGA electorate. Certain factions within the right have adopted a Third-World style of racial grievance, resentment, and politics. The groypers are a good example. This is in stark contrast with the actual flesh-and-blood coalition that elected Trump president. Although Trump did indeed have strong support from the working class, especially white working-class men, he won partly by increasing his share of the Latino vote, the Asian vote, and, to a lesser extent, the black male vote. His coalition is especially important because it demonstrates that Latinos are not an electoral lock for Democrats, as black voters have been since the 1960s. Latinos and Asians are also the fastest-growing demographics, so a forward-looking political coalition would make overtures to them rather than seek to divide the coalition explicitly along white–nonwhite lines.

Moving on to higher-education, what comes next? 

Although tariffs are dominating the conversation, the fight for higher education reform is a durable sub-theme for this administration. Trump and his excellent education secretary, Linda McMahon, have taken more decisive action on education than all previous Republican administrations combined. They canceled billions in funding for radical left-wing NGOs, have taken steps to dismantle the Department of Education from within, and withheld hundreds of millions of dollars from universities, which have become breeding grounds for pro-Hamas activism and discriminatory DEI policies. I would like to see the administration continue prototyping reforms in higher education and eventually expand the fight through more aggressive regulatory measures. The administration can not only threaten to withhold funds but can also put universities that violate the Civil Rights Act under consent decrees. There are a number of unused tools that could provide leverage for moving higher education away from ideology and back toward educational excellence.

The framing thus far has focused on anti-Semitism, but this should be seen as only the opening move. The administration has the opportunity to expand the fight more broadly so that all groups are protected by American law and all universities comply with the standard of colorblind equality. The administration should also establish contracts with universities that require them to maintain colorblind equality, set rules for civil discourse, uphold standards of free speech, and adopt a policy of institutional neutrality in order to receive federal funding. These ideas are broadly popular and could result in successful short-term reforms.

We have seen a reluctance among the right about newer institutions, as institutions in a country as big as the U.S., by definition, need a certain political compromise and big tent that might often go contrary to both the revolutionary and puritanical moment, as well as libertarian instincts about using power towards certain ends. How do we build institutions on the right?

There’s always a question of what to do about institutions, and there are a few options: reform an existing institution, destroy an existing institution, or build a new institution. Conservatives should get comfortable experimenting with all three approaches. It seems the Trump administration is developing a successful method for dismantling institutions that are beyond reform, such as USAID and the Department of Education. But destroying or dismantling an institution is relatively easy. The real challenge for conservatives is reforming existing institutions and building new ones. This requires a different mindset and skill set. It demands becoming more entrepreneurial, not just in business but also in civic and educational institutions. And it raises the question of whether we have the talent to build and staff these organizations.

In my opinion, we are lacking some of this capacity. By temperament, the right has two kinds of personalities ill-suited for this work. The first is the conservative conformist, essential in good times for maintaining and guiding basically healthy institutions. But this conservative type is reluctant to engage in the political fighting required to dramatically reform institutions. The second temperament is the dissident temperament, discussed earlier. These individuals often make trenchant critics but rarely succeed in maintaining or building new institutions, as this requires fundraising, recruiting staff, and selling a vision.  Therefore, the right must develop a third character type, able to handle political conflict like a dissident but also capable of building and maintaining institutions like the institutionalist. Red states, the Trump administration, and conservative donors are working on this, but it is a long, generational project requiring sustained effort. It won’t be easy.

The post Christopher Rufo: ‘It Won’t Be Easy’ appeared first on The American Conservative.

President Donald Trump has taken a long interest in America’s trade deficit. Before handing out one of his signature red MAGA hats, he spent decades discussing ways to restore America’s manufacturing base. 

While the dust is still settling from Liberation Day, as nations worldwide look for ways to work out a trade agreement that eases reciprocal tariffs on American-made goods and the U.S. levies further tariffs on China, Trump is still laser-focused on bringing jobs back to the states. While tariffs can play a critical part in reshoring American industry, an underused tool is the power of the federal contract.

Government departments spend untold trillions of taxpayer dollars a year buying products from across the globe for their use and the broader public’s well-being. The federal government purchases everything from furniture to computers to medicine every year. Sometimes, this spending gets out of hand. In the 1980s, the Pentagon spent $640 per toilet seat and over $7,600 on coffee machines. As recently as 2018, the military was spending $10,000 on toilet seat covers for airplanes. While those are egregiously overpriced items, the point is that the military doesn’t nickel-and-dime when it comes to expenses.

Given that the federal government is willing to pay above market value for a specific product and is a guaranteed consumer, the Trump administration could use the strength of federal contracts to reshore American manufacturing.

During the darkest days of the COVID pandemic there were regular shortages of baby formula, various brands of acetaminophen and ibuprofen, and even military equipment as many nations continued lockdowns even as parts of the United States had reopened. Our dependency on the global economy for essential products should not be tolerated. Even if we don’t see another global pandemic, we shouldn’t rely on the temperaments of foreign labor to ensure our nation’s well-being and safety.

Federal departments, like the Pentagon, could map out a list of medical and military products that could be produced in the United States but are currently made overseas and announce that beginning in 2027, they will only purchase those products from companies that make them entirely within the 50 states. Giving a date in the future gives the companies time to find a talented workforce and build factories and generates favorable news coverage over a more extended period—when the company makes the deal, when they announce the site, when they hire the workers, and when the jobs report shows positive numbers in manufacturing and distribution.

If the Trump administration wanted, they could even go a step further, using place-based economics, and give preferential treatment to companies that either manufacture, produce, or distribute out of states that have been negatively affected by globalization. Rather than just hoping corporations reshore to the ailing cities of the Rust Belt, they could give preferential treatment to those who consciously decide to bring jobs back to that region. With the United States government and military being guaranteed purchasers of those goods, it would be profitable for the companies, and they could sell and distribute to the greater national marketplace.

This would allow Trump to fulfill multiple campaign promises without aggressively disrupting market forces or negatively affecting the stock market.

Weaponizing federal contracts and ensuring we reindustrialize our nation are in the best interests of both the country and the Trump administration. It can be done without being accused of causing international chaos.

The post The Pentagon Could Help Reshore American Industries appeared first on The American Conservative.

We know why Americans voted to reelect Donald Trump.

After Biden-flation, they wanted lower prices. After Biden-borders, they wanted fewer immigrants. After Biden-wars, they wanted foreign-policy restraint.

That’s what the voters wanted, but they may get just the opposite: sky-high prices, molasses-paced deportations, and avoidable wars.

To be sure, Trump has achieved much success—ending DEI in the federal government, for example, warrants high praise—and he can still fulfill his promises to the American people. 

But, at the moment, Trump’s administration risks heading in the wrong direction. And when it comes to steering the ship of state, even minor deviations can lead to catastrophe.

Consider the cost of living. The president announced last week sweeping tariffs on nearly all U.S. trade partners. After the resulting turmoil in the stock and bond markets, he scaled them down this week.

But even the current tariffs, if they stick, represent a dramatic policy shift and almost certainly will drive up prices. On Wednesday, Trump said he was maintaining a 10 percent global tariff and hitting China even harder than before, raising levies against that country to an astonishing 145 percent.

If these tariffs lead to a recession, millions of Americans will lose their jobs, receive wage cuts, or watch their pensions get hammered—worsening the affordability crisis.

On immigration, Trump’s performance has been nearer the mark. Border crossings have plummeted, and Americans are relieved to have a president who recognizes the stupidity of admitting millions of unvetted men from around the world into the country. That’s why Americans continue to approve of Trump’s handling of immigration, even as they have turned against him on the economy.

Nevertheless, there is a major risk of political backlash—and of failure to reverse mass migration. 

Americans support deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes, but they are wary of removing other types of immigrants. Yet Trump has sent alleged gang members—without due process—to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, from which even the innocent may never be released. Moreover, the administration has targeted legal immigrants, revoking the visas of foreign-born university students who have protested against Israel.

One motive for the splashy deportations may be to distract from an awkward fact: The rate of deportations has slowed since Joe Biden left the White House.

To be fair, a sealed southern border makes deporting large numbers of immigrants more difficult, since turning away new arrivals is easier than locating illegal aliens in the country’s interior. But Trump should have been aware of that challenge on Inauguration Day, when he promised to remove “millions and millions of criminal aliens.” (He’s on track for less than one million deportations.)

What about the third priority of voters in 2024: foreign-policy restraint? As with immigration, the results so far are mixed. But Trump now risks becoming a George W. Bush redux, not the “isolationist” that many experts feared he’d be.

That’s surprising, because Trump 2.0 had gotten off to a promising start. 

In January, before he was even inaugurated, Trump dispatched special envoy Steve Witkoff to secure a Gaza ceasefire. In a single visit to the Middle East, Witkoff put more pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu than Biden’s team had done in four years. The result: Fighting in Gaza was paused as Trump reentered the White House. 

The diplomatic achievement proved fleeting. In March, the ceasefire collapsed. More precisely, Israel violated it with the U.S. president’s acquiescence.

As a result, Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi militants have resumed attacks on Israel and the Red Sea in solidarity with the besieged Palestinians. The Trump administration, in response, has launched massive airstrikes on Houthi-controlled parts of Yemen, killing many civilians.

Trump last year had lamented Biden’s bombing of Yemen and asked why the president couldn’t use diplomacy to resolve international crises. Many peace-loving Americans are asking themselves the same question today.

Years from now, we may see Trump’s own relentless bombing of Yemen as a prelude to war against Iran. Though Tehran does not control the Houthis, Trump has declared he will hold it responsible for the group’s attacks. That’s on top of numerous threats of war that Trump has made against Iran. 

Meanwhile, the administration has deployed stealth bombers and refueling tankers to an island in the Indian Ocean. The bombers carry 30,000-pound bunker busters, which Netanyahu hopes Trump will use to wipe out Iran’s underground nuclear reactors. 

Though Americans tend to pay more attention to bread-and-butter issues than to foreign policy, many Trump voters were motivated by growing fears of global chaos. But if Trump launches a war against Iran—a partner of both Russia and China—he will bring the world closer to World War III than it has been in decades.

Clearly, now is a good time for Trump to chart a new course forward for America. Fortunately, on each of the issues discussed above—trade, immigration, and war—he can take simple steps to bring White House policy more in line with the preferences of the American people.

Trump’s decision Wednesday to reduce tariffs will minimize harm to businesses and consumers, but a continued trade war with China would do significant damage to the U.S. economy. Even the economist Oren Cass, one of the most prominent and insightful supporters of economic protectionism, has warned against decoupling from China too abruptly. 

In the New York Times earlier this week, when Trump’s tariffs on China stood at 54 percent, Cass warned that “going from 0 to almost 60 so fast is unnecessary and unwise” since even the “most determined company could not shift production so quickly.” Cass recommended raising tariffs on China more gradually over a period of years.

To mitigate economic pain, the U.S. could also take up the European Union’s offer of a tariff-free trade pact, an idea that the Trump ally Elon Musk has endorsed. Such a policy, in addition to offsetting the harms of a trade war with China, would help ensure that America’s protectionist turn doesn’t mean a turn away from its allies. 

As for immigration, Trump needs Congress to take action, as your humble columnist wrote last week. Trump should push for the GOP-controlled Congress to increase funds for his deportation program, pass an E-Verify mandate that prevents businesses from hiring illegals, and codify the president’s correct view that universal birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

Lastly, Trump should resist pressure to wage war on Iran. This week brought signs that he is trying to do just that. During an Oval Office meeting with Netanyahu—who has long pushed for a U.S. war with Iran—Trump announced “direct talks” with Tehran scheduled for Saturday. 

The surprise announcement reassured advocates of foreign-policy restraint, not least because it seemed intended to put Bibi in his place. Trump should go even further, nudging Israel to resume compliance with the U.S.-proposed ceasefire that it violated. A lasting Gaza ceasefire would not only put a stop to the Houthis’ attacks, but increase the odds of Israel’s getting back hostages held by Hamas.

If Trump can end the Gaza war and strike an accord with Iran, he will go down not only as a skilled dealmaker but a transformational peacemaker. And if he can reverse mass migration and end unfettered free trade, he will turn back the tide of globalism and inaugurate a new era of sensible nationalism. 

But the president can’t accomplish these goals if he tries to govern more like an elected king than a president in a republican system, or if his actions are so aggressive that they incite a political backlash and economic calamity.

Trump hasn’t yet reached even the three-month mark of his second term, yet he already finds himself at a crossroads. Which direction he heads in now may determine the fate of his administration, his legacy, and ultimately, the country he leads.

The post Trump at the Crossroads appeared first on The American Conservative.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries took to the floor this week and claimed that prices are going up under Trump. This has been a favorite talking point for Democrats over the last several weeks. They started saying this the instant that Trump was sworn in as president.

There’s a problem with that claim, however. Inflation just dropped significantly for the first time in months. Hakeem’s narrative just went up in smoke.

Here’s Jeffries making his claims:

WAKE UP CALL FOR HAKEEM JEFFRIES! pic.twitter.com/XLlxULBIBD

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) April 10, 2025

And here’s reality, per CNBC:

Inflation rate eases to 2.4% in March, lower than expected; core at 4-year low

Consumer price inflation eased more than expected in March as President Donald Trump prepared to launch tariffs against U.S. trading partners, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Thursday.

The consumer price index, a broad measure of goods and services costs across the U.S. economy, fell a seasonally adjusted 0.1% in March, putting the 12-month inflation rate at 2.4%, down from 2.8% in February.

Excluding food and energy, so-called core inflation ran at a 2.8% annual rate, having increased 0.1% for the month. That was the lowest rate for core inflation since March 2021.

Wall Street had been looking for headline inflation of 2.6% and core at 3%, according to the Dow Jones consensus.

OOPS!

Even CNN was forced to report the good news about inflation. Watch:

CNN: “Consumer prices month-over-month, so this was actually a DROP of .1% — that’s the first time we’ve seen that since COVID. Year-over-year, the annual inflation rate was at 2.4%. This was also BETTER THAN EXPECTED and a 6-month low, moving in the right direction.” pic.twitter.com/Hwp7gawKl7

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 10, 2025

Ouch Hakeem. That’s embarrassing. pic.twitter.com/tHIU7fyMQk

— MAZE (@mazemoore) April 10, 2025

There goes another set of Democrat talking points. And as the economy grows stronger, it will get even harder for Democrats. They might even run out of things to complain about.

The post Democrat House Leader Hakeem Jeffries Claims Prices Are Going up as Inflation Drops for First Time in Months (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

During President Trump’s cabinet meeting on Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio repeated the administration’s policy on deporting foreign college students who are found to be radicals and agitators.

Rubio emphasized that despite the liberal media’s preferred narrative, there is no basic human right to a student visa.

He used the analogy of inviting someone into your home, saying that if a guest starts trashing your house, you will make that person leave. This is so basic and logical, it’s amazing that Democrats and people in media continue to pretend not to understand.

Transcript via Real Clear Politics:

These are some of the worst people you’ll ever encounter. And Pam knows this, and Christine knows this from the work they’re doing. And one last point I want to make, Mr. President – and again, it’s under your leadership, it’s actually under your executive order – if you come to this country as a student, we expect you to go to class and study and get a degree. If you come here to, like, vandalize a library, take over a campus, and do all kinds of crazy things, you know, we’re going to get rid of these people. And we’re going to continue to do it. So when we identify lunatics like these, we take away their student visa.

No one’s entitled to a student visa. The press covers student visas like they’re some sort of birthright. No, a student visa is like me inviting you into my home.

If you come into my home and put all kinds of crap on my couch, I’m going to kick you out of my house. And so, you know, that’s what we’re doing with our country, thanks to the president.

Here’s the video:

BREAKING Secretary of State Marco Rubio just dropped the and embarrassed the Fake News

“The press covers student visas like they’re some sort of birthright”

KICK THEM ALL OUT pic.twitter.com/631Rk7jTkI

— MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) April 10, 2025

Here’s a longer clip:

Rubio is doing an outstanding job at the State Department. He has been a pleasant surprise in Trump’s cabinet.

The post Marco Rubio Emphasizes Policy on Deporting Radical Foreign College Students: ‘No One’s Entitled to a Student Visa’ (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been considered a rising star in the Democrat party, possibly even a presidential candidate, but that could be over now.

Whitmer was at the White House this week to meet with Trump to discuss various issues. This should not be a big deal. Governors work with presidents all the time in order to get things done for their states. But Whitmer ended up being photographed in the Oval Office and some Democrats are absolutely furious about this.

Democrats are so purist in their anti-Trump views that you cannot even be seen in the same room as the president, even if it will benefit your constituents in some way.

FOX News reports:

Gretchen Whitmer angers Democrats, suffers ‘huge embarrassment’ with Trump meeting at White House

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is under fire from fellow Democrats after appearing alongside President Donald Trump during a White House signing ceremony, sparking accusations that she was used as a political “prop.”

“Just a f—ing disaster,” said one Democratic operative, who usually supports Whitmer but spoke anonymously to NBC News.

“It feels like it removes some of the momentum she had as a politically savvy swing-state Dem.”…

CNN senior reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere called the moment a “huge embarrassment,” while CNN host Audie Cornish said bluntly, “This does not look like the politics of resistance.”

Dovere also insinuated that the situation was set up by the Trump team, saying, “She [Gov. Whitmer] went for this meeting with the president, and he used her as a prop.”

Critics said the moment undercut Whitmer’s persona as a rising Democratic leader, especially as Trump praised her on camera, calling her a “very good person” who had done “an excellent job” in Michigan.

Whitmer even said that she agrees with Trump on some things. The horror!

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer throws her support behind President Trump’s tariffs:

“I understand the motivation behind the tariffs…We do need to make more stuff in America…We do need fair trade!”
pic.twitter.com/msWjFLF3nI

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) April 10, 2025

The Democrats are not going to be able to get through the next four years without dealing with Trump at all. They had better get used to the idea of meeting and talking with the president.

(Image:Source)

The post Democrats Furious at Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for Meeting With Trump at the White House appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Former Meet the Press host Chuck Todd appeared on the Piers Morgan show this week and admitted something that was obvious to millions of Americans over the last few years.

Todd suggested that people in media avoided pointing out signs of Joe Biden’s decline because they were afraid of being perceived as doing something that helps Trump. Everyone knew this, but it’s nice of Todd to admit it.

Most people in media are on the left, and as a result, they are terrified of angering their viewers on the left. So they will even deny reality if it means keeping their fellow tribe members happy.

The Daily Caller reported:

Chuck Todd Says Legacy Media Downplayed Biden’s Issues Due To ‘Fear’ Of Perception Of ‘Helping Trump’

Corporate media spent years downplaying voters’ and Republicans’ concerns regarding Biden’s mental acuity until his disastrous June 2024 debate against Trump. Todd, on “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” said that legacy media members made an error by not focusing on Biden’s problems.

“I sit here, and I’ll defend a little bit of this in that I would argue the reason people were able to come to their own conclusion on Joe Biden is because of the media coverage,” Todd said. “Look, we were subtle. ‘He’s using the back staircase. He’s not using the front staircase.’ ‘Hey, he’s not doing any interviews.’ So there was this reluctance to draw the conclusion, to say, ‘Is he not doing this?’ And that I agree with. That was held back — held back a lot.”

“The only thing I can chalk it up to is this, whatever you want to call it, this fear that some members of the media had sometimes — that they would be perceived as helping Trump if they somehow diminished Biden,” Todd said. “Right? That it was some sort of zero-sum game. And I think this has been the fundamental mistake that many members of the traditional press have done.”

Here’s the video:

In a shocking moment of honesty, Chuck Todd admits that the media helped cover up Biden’s mental decline because they were afraid of helping Trump win.

Remember: They’d rather lie to you than tell the truth if the truth helps President Trump. pic.twitter.com/oy3CM5YQTc

— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) April 9, 2025

Is there any wonder why trust in the media is at al all time low? These people are not journalists. They’re Democrat party activists playing at being reporters.

The post Chuck Todd Admits Media Covered for Biden’s Condition Because They Were Afraid of Being Seen as Helping Trump (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.