Speaker 1You can't entertain Americans when you actually hate the average American. Their values, their belief systems, you know, the country that they love. Enter The Daily Wire. Our newest release, Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels, is finally streaming. Radical jihadists will destroy our freedom, but only if we let them. If you're a fan of those over-the-top action-packed films from the 80s and 90s, Red Dawn, Toy Soldiers, this is a movie you're not going to want to miss. Red-blooded American good guys taking on the radical Islamic terrorists to regain their freedom. Watch Run, Hide, Fight, Infidels. It's streaming now, only on The Daily Wire.
Speaker 2Well, polls tell you what voters said at one moment. But Calshi gives you another way to follow a race. A live market that moves as traders respond to new information. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers are competing in one of Calshi's most traded midterm matchups. You can visit Calshi's midterms hub to track how the market views the race and then trade an event contract on the outcome you think is going to happen. If you're right at settlement, each winning contract is worth $1. See the market. Make your call. Trade what happens next on Calshi. Use code DAILY, D-A-I-L-Y, to get up to $25 when you trade $25. That's Calshi, K-A-L-S-H-I, Calshi. Trade on anything. 18 plus only. Restrictions and eligibility requirements apply. Event contracts trading involves risk and may not be suitable for all investors. Calshi products are not available in all jurisdictions. Prices, values, and available markets may differ from those mentioned. For more information, you can go see Calshi.com. Tired of your car insurance
Speaker 3rate going up even with a clean driving record? You're not alone. That's why there's Jerry, your proactive insurance assistant. Jerry compares rates side-by-side from over 50 top insurers and helps you switch with ease. Jerry even tracks market rates and alerts you when it's best to shop. No spam calls, no hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Switch with confidence. Download the Jerry app or visit Jerry.ai. Fanduel is now
Speaker 4available everywhere in the U.S. So you can get in on the sports action no matter where you are. Including these places. Make this your most rewarding season ever with Fanduel. Age and location restrictions apply. Product availability varies by market. See Fanduel.com for eligibility. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER.
Speaker 1Okay, so President Trump just banned CNN, Politico, and MSNOW from the White House. And I could not care less. Why? Well, because for decades, Democratic White Houses have worked hand-in-glove with compliant media while targeting right-wing media. And nobody said a word because, you know, they were polite about it. They checked all of the proper boxes. Well, President Trump doesn't do quiet and he doesn't check boxes. He just does the thing out loud. Is it ideal? Not really. We've been way past ideal. However, for a long time now. I'll explain it all in just a moment. Plus, we'll get to a New York Times Pulitzer Prize winner explaining that she betrayed her own child for the sake of political correctness. Ms. Rachel's and Zoran Mamdani's favorite photojournalist simply loves terrorism. And Patrick Clancy speaks out. This is The Ben Shapiro Show. Okay, so on Friday, President Trump put out a statement on Truth Social in which he said he was essentially banning CNN, MSNOW, and Politico from the White House. Here's what he said. Quote, I'm proud to announce that effective immediately, I'm banning fake news CNN, MSNOW, who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility and Politico. The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 million subscription in all-time records directly from the U.S. government under crooked Joe Biden in order to keep them alive. Seems like corruption to me from the White House as a result of their constant reporting fake news. Media outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report fiction and lies when they're covering the president of the United States, the Trump administration, or the United States of America. Other fake news media outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter. President Donald J. Trump. All right, so what access did the administration actually pull? Let's start with that. Well, they're not like going to the CNN headquarters and just pulling the plug or occupying the building over at MSNOW or something. Here's what they actually did. They deactivated the press badges from entry to the White House. If you had a press badge from MSNOW, they pulled your press badge. That included the briefing and workspaces in the lower press offices in the White House. Just like a press badge. Or some of the journalists and pseudo-journalists work. Outlets were also removed from the presidential press pool. Okay, that is where basically there's essentially one stringer who works for all of these outlets and then puts a microphone and a camera aimed at the president. And then all of these various outlets share the feed. And that's basically what was happening here. So let's start at the very beginning here. This is not exactly a ban on press. It certainly doesn't violate the Constitution. There's no institution called the press. There's no institution called the press that gets special rights in America. We all as American citizens have the same rights. I'm going to read you the First Amendment because people never refer back to the text when they talk about this stuff. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Okay, so again, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. You want to know what that means? That means the government can't shut down press outlets. It can't censor press outlets. This does not mean that if you label yourself a member of the press as sort of a vocation, then you get to waltz into the White House and sit down and ask the president questions or the press secretary questions. So in other words, the First Amendment protects acts of journalism just as it protects acts of free speech and acts of free exercise of religion. There are institutions that embody those acts. So for example, the government shouldn't shut down churches because it embodies free exercise of religion and the government should not shut down newspapers because that is not a religion. It should not shut down newspapers because that is not a religion. That embodies freedom of the press. But there is no special class of individuals who get special protections under the law. Like if you wear a journalist badge around, you don't get magical special protections and privileges. But journalists have decided that they get these special protections and special privileges. That's wrong. Now, let's start again at the beginning here. Let's talk about the role of the press in America and how the press perceive themselves because that disconnect between how the press perceive themselves now and how the press really operate is the big deal. It's the big disconnect. There's a gigantic lie about journalism in America that has prevailed for some decades in the United States. That lie is that journalism is the exercise of an objective search for truth and facts rather than what it really always has been, which is the narrative-driven uncovering of some truth and some facts. Okay, so our first journalists in the United States were people like James Callender, a political pamphleteer who used to work for Thomas Jefferson and he worked for the Republicans against the Federalists. He went after George Washington. He went after John Adams, who was the first person in the United States who was the first person in the United States. He was the first person in the United States. He famously went after Alexander Hamilton. He's the guy who exposed the affair between Alexander Hamilton and Maria Reynolds. He ended up actually being prosecuted by the Adams administration. And when Jefferson didn't appoint him to a patronage position, he then turned around and targeted Jefferson. He was the first person to report on Jefferson having an affair with Sally Hemings. Or other journalists, famous journalists in American history include people like Elijah Lovejoy, abolitionist journalist. Now again, a journalist who covered news events but was obviously politically motivated. We would all say in the right direction, but certainly politically motivated. He was not objective. He located his abolitionist newspaper in Illinois. His press was actually attacked by a gun-wielding mob and he was murdered. Or try Horace Greeley. Again, these are some of the most famous names in the history of American journalism. All partisan. He was founder and editor of the New York Tribune. He encouraged Lincoln to emancipate the slaves before Lincoln did so. He actually ended up running for president against Ulysses S. Grant in 1872. He's the one who famously told Americans go west, young man. Again, very, very partisan. And he moved forward in time to the Muckrakers, Ida Tarbell, and Upton Sinclair, and Ida B. Wells. These are the people who were clearly motivated by economic grievances to target the supposed robber barons for destruction. And they worked hand in hand with the Teddy Roosevelt administration and the Wilson administration later to do all of that. Or there were yellow journalists like William Randolph Hearst, who apocryphally telegraphed regarding the Spanish-American War. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war. So again, everyone at this point understood that the United States Journalists are political creatures. They have a narrative and then they search for facts to support that narrative. So where did this kind of image of journalists as an objective class of expert administrators come from? As usual, from the elite. It took until the early 20th century for journalists to start seeing themselves as a special class with special training and special rights. This is how journalists turned from the guys who were wearing kind of battered hats and walking around in 1930s movies, digging up the scoops, to the people who were graduates of, Journalism School. So Joseph Pulitzer in 1912 found the Columbia School of Journalism to train journalists. And then Walter Lippmann, again, a sort of elite journalist and an elite opinion writer in 1920, he pushed forward the idea of objective journalism. He argued that journalism was a process and that journalists, quote, ought not to be serving a cause no matter how good. But again, this is where the idea of you have a special group of journalists and they are the objective truth tellers comes from. He said that the journalists, quote, ought not to be serving a cause, no matter how good. In his professional activity, it is no business of his to care whose ox is gored. As the observer of the signs of change, his value to society depends upon the prophetic discrimination with which he selects those signs. Again, it's kind of like a godlike figure sitting above all of the facts and determining the objective truth. And it sounds awesome, okay, but it was never reality. Journalists were always partisan. It never stopped. It never stopped. Woodward and Bernstein, partisan. Huntley and Brinkley, partisan. Edward R. Murrow, partisan. Walter Cronkite, who basically helped us lose the Vietnam War, partisan. So why did this myth last so long? Well, first of all, this was an era of high institutional trust and also heavily controlled media distribution mechanism, right? You had three networks on TV for most of this time, and the opinions basically mirrored one another. ABC, CBS, and NBC all had the same elite opinion. You want to talk about a uniparty, this was the time of a uniparty where there was broad national consensus on a wide variety of issues. This is why the Republican Party was maybe slightly to the right of the Democratic Party, but there was huge diversity inside both parties and huge crossover between the parties. And then came the internet, and everybody realized the media weren't subjective. They were just on the left. Now, everyone already knew that. They just didn't say it out loud. So I'll tell you a story. Okay, so back during the 2012 Republican National Convention, I was wandering what's called Radio Row. It still exists, which is where all the radio shows line up. I had a press pass, so I'm walking around Radio Row, and I see Sam Donaldson. Sam Donaldson was a reporter back in the 1980s. He was in the 1980s for ABC News, and his job was to basically bother Ronald Reagan. He would go into the White House press office, or in the press room, and then he would ask badgering questions to Ronald Reagan and his press secretaries. And he was considered, again, an objective journalist. Well, now, as of 2012, Sam Donaldson had this radio show where he would give his take of the day, and his take of the day was reliably of the left. No surprise there. So I walk up to Sam Donaldson, a man who, by the way, had eyebrows that, I will say, as a man who's an aficionado of thick eyebrows. Sam Donaldson put me to shame. Anyway, Sam Donaldson is sitting there, and I walk up to him, and I say, you know, Mr. Donaldson, I just want to ask you a question. You're obviously quite partisan in your viewpoints. Did you believe the same things when you were objectively journalism-ing over for ABC News during the 1980s? He said, of course. And I said, well, doesn't that mean that you were sort of fibbing to your viewers? Because obviously, all of your questions were from those angles. And he got very grumpy, and he said, you think you're better than me? And I said, well, yeah. I mean, I'm honest about my own. I'm not lying to the people who actually watch my content. But the reality is that all the objective journalismers know that they are pursuing a particular political purpose. None of them are doing the Walter Lippman thing. How many journalists do you believe, actually believe, that it is no business of theirs to care whose ox is gored, the way Walter Lippman said? Do you think that anyone on CNN, any of these objective journalismers, you think that they really believe that they don't care whose ox is gored? Of course they care whose ox is gored. So here is the thing. Here is the sad reality. There is no objective press in the U.S. that asks tough questions of all the parties. No one does that, at least not in the equivalent way. We believe things at The Daily Wire. So we're openly conservative. It's one of the reasons that people trust us. It's one of the reasons that people know that we are who we say we are, because we're open about what we are. It's why you subscribe, so that we'll go ask the tough questions that you want answered. We're not going to go ask dumb questions of the Trump administration. We'll ask smart questions of the Trump administration from a particular point of view. We're honest about who we are. You know who's not CNN, Politico. I'll give it to MSNOW, by the way. They have the virtue of honesty. You know when you turn on MSNOW, it's going to be a bunch of leftists. Now, White Houses have known all of this forever as well. Forever. GOP White Houses knew the media were opposed to them. Ronald Reagan knew that. George H.W. Bush and George W. both knew that. Meanwhile, Democrats like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, they knew that overall the legacy media loved them. And let's be real. Democratic White Houses have pretended to abide by objective rules. While promoting left-wing outlets and denying access to right-wing outlets for legitimately my entire lifetime. So all that Trump did is actually just do the quiet part out loud. As we will see, we'll talk about the precedent in a second. Left-wing White Houses have been going after conservative outlets for quite a while and boosting left-wing outlets at the same exact time. They've just been pretending they're neutral while they do it. We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, at a certain point, overpaying, it starts to become a choice, especially when there's a better option sitting right there in front of you. I use Pure Talk. I make calls, send texts, watch videos, use unlimited data. The coverage is awesome. This isn't just my experience. In a recent industry survey of more than 120,000 wireless customers, Pure Talk was the only wireless company to get five out of five stars in coverage, support, value, and data. Every category. Meanwhile, unlimited high-speed data is just $34.99 a month. So I'm not sure exactly what it is you're waiting for. Visit puretalk.com slash Shapiro to receive 50% off your initial month. Switch over today. Plus, with unlimited high-speed data at only $34.99 per month, the total savings really, really add up. You don't have to rely solely on my word when more than 120,000 wireless customers agree. But you should, by the way, because, you know, I've been using Pure Talk myself for years. It's great. And again, you're not getting charged an arm and a leg. Head on over to puretalk.com slash Shapiro now. Get half off that first month. puretalk.com slash Shapiro. Experience the difference for yourself. That's puretalk.com slash Shapiro to get started right now. So let's start with what Trump did not do here. Okay? He did not make himself inaccessible to media. That's nonsense. He's easily. The most accessible president ever. And you know who admits this? The journalismers. Here are Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman talking in June 2026. Again, they have a bestselling book all based on access to the White House, saying that the White House is significantly more accessible under Donald Trump than it was under Joe Biden.
Speaker 5But when he has an Oval Office meeting and says, do you have any questions? You could ask him anything you wanted, correct? If I'm in the pool. If we're in the pool, which they. The White House now decides who's in the pool. So, yeah, if I'm. Yeah. If I'm selected in the pool, sure, but the composition of the pool has changed from what it used to be. There are more friendly reporters there. Yeah. It is true. Let, let me be clear about something. He answers more questions than Joe Biden. No question. There's no question. He's more available to. I mean, there are reporters in there asking him questions, you know, when they're in the pool. There's, there's no question about that.
Speaker 1And
Speaker 5again, half the stories
Speaker 1that are printed in the press are coming directly from Donald Trump. This is the reality about Trump. Trump has a cell phone number. Yeah. They call him up on his cell phone and he picks up. Okay. This is wild. But that is a reality. Okay. So what didn't Trump do? He did not stop full access for these places. The idea that they're not going to have any materials report is nonsense. Also, President Trump did not violate the First Amendment. He is not censoring CNN or censoring Politico. He's not stopping them from printing or even reporting. He just said, you're not coming to the White House. So the White House put out a statement, quote, Last week, President Donald J. Trump removed CNN MSN on Politico from the White House grounds after years of false reporting. The First Amendment protects. They're right to publish. It does not entitle them to a hard pass briefing room seat or place in the press pool. Access changes are nothing new. What is new, however, is the sudden claim that it becomes sacred only when the outlets are friendly to the radical left. The rule was never every outlet gets in. It was always our side stays in. Okay. That is true. That is true. Right. There are a bunch of outlets that are now in the White House press room that were never there before, including the Daily Wire. Right. We have a reporter, Mary Margaret Olihan, who's in the White House press room. Are we under any illusion that if a Democrat wins in twenty twenty nine, a reporter from the Daily Wire will be allowed in the White House press room or are they just going to come up with some neutral fake reason to boot us out? And I think we all know the answer to all of this. And let's be clear, Donald Trump's rips on the left wing media, they are largely true. It is just true that CNN and Politico and MSN are wildly biased. Of course, that's true. And President Trump put out another one of his statements on Truth Social, quote, as expected, fake news, CNN, Politico pay back the eight million dollar contribution. Made by the US government to keep them afloat. And MSNL, formerly known as MSDNC, have brought suits to gain access to the White House and your president, me. They've drawn a great judge for them, a man who ruled in favor of Jim Acosta, who now seems to have disappeared from the planet. The judge's name is Tim Kelly, and he was sadly appointed by Trump. In other words, almost without question and as usual, we'll go for appeal because fake news people and publications that only write negatively and who violate our national security by writing false and defamatory stories with unknown sources shouldn't be allowed access to the most important office anywhere in the world. It is called the Oval Office and it should. Be treated with decorum, respect and dignity, not defiled by third right clowns who purposefully distort, twist and degrade with everything they write or publish. Virtually every story about me or anything having to do with me is negative, wrong, in many cases dangerous for our country. No matter how great my achievements, they trivialize and demean. Fake news is a threat to democracy. I'll do whatever is necessary to make sure the USA thrives. Make America great again. Again, it's Festivus and Trump is airing his grievances. But it is also true that obviously these are partisan news outlets. And I'll get to the legality. Of all this in a moment, because again, that's a little bit less with the administration. But here is the vice president explaining all the news that they cover is negative, which, of course, this is true. I mean, this is just inarguably true.
Speaker 6I take some issue with the premise. So he's not banning media outlets. What he's doing is saying we're not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda. We have to remember those three outlets account about 92 percent of the stories that they have on the president, United States on the administration are negative. That's not. It's not representative of the American people. It's not representative of public opinion. So if you're going to engage in what is effectively far left propaganda, why would a Republican White House give you special access?
Speaker 1OK, now, again, the idea here is not that these outlets are being shut down. They're not being shut down when the administration says, by the way, that CNN is, quote, unquote, fake news. It is obviously true that every error at CNN moves in the same direction. All outlets make errors and all outlets correct their errors, but every single error at CNN moves in the same direction. And some of these have been pretty egregious. I mean, go back to the five year old clinging to his father during the ICE arrest and the CNN headline about all of that. Right. Or the report that Hegseth was going to kill everybody that he said to kill everybody, which turns out there was no support for or MSNOW's headline saying that Israel was starving Gaza and the U.S. was complicit. And they put up a photo of a Gazan baby with a genetic disorder, making it look as though the effects of starvation in Gaza, which, by the way, did not happen. happen. There was no mass starvation in Gaza. It is just a lie. It was always a lie. There are no statistics to back it. It is not true. Every prediction made about starvation in Gaza was a lie. Israel shipped in more food to a wartime population than any population any time in the history of warfare. It was reported by the media as a starvation campaign. These again, fake news. CNN putting out headlines about Harris was never made Biden's border czar, or we may never know what happened to Jussie Smollett. Or Politico suggesting that Elon Musk had put up a Nazi salute. So again, all the errors always move in the same exact direction. And so yes, these are all left-wing outlets. And yes, the Trump administration is just stripping off the mask. Because we'll explore in a moment. Democrats have done the exact same stuff. They just pretend it's neutral when they do it. Right? They use all the niceties and they check all the boxes. And President Trump doesn't do niceties and he doesn't do boxes. So he just says out loud, I don't like these outlets. So they're gone. They're fake news. And then just kicks them out. But the reality is, again, Democratic White Houses have been doing this for literally decades, while pretending to be the same. And they're not. And they're not. And they're not. And they're not. But they are, in fact, not doing it. Now, the media themselves, they love this stuff. Because now that they get to play the righteously indignant members of the press, we have been insulted. Our journalism has been insulted. Oh, okay, guys, I'm sorry. No one believes you. No one. Your approval ratings with the American public are worse than cancer. Truly, like the last approval ratings. The trust ratings for the American media are in the 20s. It's worse than certain forms of cancer. Okay, so the joint statement from CNN, MSNOW, and Politico, quote, this morning, we notified the government we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights. Again, there is no First Amendment right to go to the White House press office. There just isn't. You can't do it. I can't do it. You have to be granted a special press pass and defend the principle government does not decide what the press reports or publishes. Now, again, they are not deciding what the press reports or publishes. You can publish whatever you want. You just can't go to the White House. Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalist credentials because it objected to our reporting. That's a challenge. This threatens press freedom and the public's right to independent journalism free from government interference. Does it, though? Does it? I mean, that's that's the real question. I mean, because, you know, it wouldn't have violated their press freedom. Let's say that the White House has simply said, you guys can all still come. You can come to the press room. We just don't answer any of your questions. So every single time you come to the press room, we just ignore you. No questions from CNN, none from MSNOW, none from Politico. Could they sue? Do they have a right to ask questions? Like, how far do these supposed rights go? The answer is, in reality, not very far. As we'll explore, courts have come up with kind of a bizarre framework for how to adjudicate all of this. But now the television networks have decided to suspend coverage of President Trump after these bans. We'll get to more on that in just one moment. First, central banks, not exactly known for impulse purchases. Nobody accidentally adds 289 tons of gold to the shopping cart. That is how much gold central banks around the world bought last quarter. That is a record amount. It's a 62 percent increase year over year because people are worried about inflation and government debt and all the rest. Gold has now overtaken U.S. treasuries as the top global reserve asset. So while governments publicly insist everything is under control, they're privately moving enormous amounts of money into an asset that governments can't manufacture and they can't manipulate. Washington can add another trillion dollars to the national debt and the Fed can just print more currency, but nobody can print more gold at a press conference, which is why I recommend Golden Crest Metals. They offer widely recognized, highly liquid gold and silver, not overpriced collector sales. You know, the ones that say, you know, it's a it's a special presidential special and then it's a print of something you can't get rid of it. Instead, with Golden Crest, you can get transparent pricing, zero buyback fees and a real person when you call. Right now, get a free 2026 info kit or free portfolio review, plus up to 25 grand in free silver on qualifying purchases. Call 888-429-3999. Text Ben to Metals at 638-257 or head on over to GoldenCrestMetals.com slash Ben. Apparently, the central banks have already gotten the memo. According to The Wall Street Journal, Brian Bouton, the president of the Wall Street Journal, said, the Washington bureau chief at Fox News is joining them. Now, again, Fox News is doing this to preserve, I assume, their own press spot if a Democrat becomes president. Is it effective today the TV pool will not be covering events designated as pool coverage of the president? This follows the White House's position preventing CNN from assigning its fulfilled duties. Now, again, the press pool is not, you know, the press room. The press pool is basically a rotation of reporters and videographers and such that cover the president when he travels. And then everybody uses the press to report off of. White House television pool members, Fox News, ABC News, CBS News, CNN, and NBC News said in a statement, the public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government. No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting. Okay, so there are still outlets, like Real America's Voice is scheduled to travel with the president to New York ahead of the UN General Assembly. So it's not as though there will be no coverage. There will be coverage. And again, all of these self-righteous outlets, including ones that have not been banned, by the way, are out there talking about how important they are. Grasping their pearls, the Atlantic put out a statement, the Trump administration's decision to ban three news organizations from the White House represents a weak attempt to influence coverage of the presidency and is an outrageous attack on press freedom. The Atlantic has demonstrated for nearly 170 years we are committed to values of democracy, accountability, and transparency. Are you, though? Is that what you've demonstrated for 170 years, the Atlantic? Your current editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, was a stenographer for Barack Obama. Legitimately a stenographer. Just reflected whatever Barack Obama wanted to tell him or whatever Ben Rhodes was selling that day. Now, of course, Barack Obama himself is speaking out about all this. Here he was Friday at Colgate University. President Obama said it's unimaginable what Trump is doing. Just totally unimaginable, as we'll talk about in a second. It is not only not unimaginable, it has happened before many, many, many times under both Obama and Biden.
Speaker 7I believe there was just an announcement that the White House decided. You know what? CNN, MSN, MSNOW, maybe the New York Times was included. You just can't come to the White House press briefings anymore because you're giving the current president unfavorable coverage. I'm trying to think what would have happened if I had said, you know what, Fox News, get out of here.
Speaker 1It's unimaginable. Is it unimaginable? It's unimaginable, actually. So in 2009, one Barack Obama branded Fox News a, quote, research and communications arm of the GOP and barred Fox from Sunday show interviews with anyone in the administration. All the agencies were instructed to skip Fox reporters in the pool coverage. So again, what I suggested before, do you have a right to ask questions of the administration? According to Barack Obama, no. So as long as we just let you into the White House press room, you've fulfilled what you needed to do. But you can just skip over all Fox News and never allow them to ask a question and never allow anyone from your administration to speak with them. And that's totally fine. Again, as long as you do the niceties, then everyone will pretend that it's totally fine. In 2010, Obama went further. He labeled Fox correspondent James Rosen a possible co-conspirator in a criminal leak. And then the administration, according to CBS, secretly monitored his emails and phone calls, according to court documents released three years later. In 2011, Barack Obama restricted the Boston Herald because the paper ran a front page Romney op-ed and officials wrote the press pool slots depended on covering Obama fairly. That was in 2011. Same year, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter recorded protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser. The Obama White House threatened to strip their access and retaliate if the incident was reported on. Same year, the media was blocked from an event with the Freedom of Information Day conference, where Obama was privately given an award by transparency advocates, according to Forbes. In 2012, the Obama administration seized two months of phone records from 20-plus AP journalists in a probe about leaked information. In 2013, 40 outlets, including the White House Correspondents Association, accused the Obama administration of limiting access to photojournalists while allowing free reign to the White House's photographers. Actually, the White House basically attempted to set up its own social media channel where all photos would come via the Obama administration. And it was not unique to Obama. This is why, again, all of your outrage and your umbrage, I don't believe you. I don't believe you for one half a second. It's just that does the quiet part out loud. And you guys already did it. As ever and always, Donald Trump is very rarely the murderer. He's almost always the coroner. He is just noting out loud what everyone has known for decades. The Biden administration was even worse. In 2023, Joe Biden restricted more than 440 reporters from White House access after they revised their credentialing process. In 2023, Biden banned the New York Post reporters from Joe Biden's only daytime event because the Post correctly reported on Hunter Biden and his Hunter Biden laptop in their in their coverage of China and Ukraine. And you'll recall that in April 2023, caught on tape, members of the press had pre-submitted their questions to the administration with the pictures of the reporter so that Joe Biden knew precisely what was going to be asked. So we're talking like full scale coordination between these supposed objective journalists who don't care whose ox is gored and the Biden White House. Remember this? What happened?
Speaker 8President Biden was photographed holding a cheat sheet during his press conference yesterday. Look, it has a photo of Los Angeles Times reporter Courtney Subramanian, along with a pronunciation of her name. But there's more. The card also includes her question. You can also see someone's handwriting telling the president that she will ask the first question.
Speaker 1Again, unbelievable, right? And all of that was just the way things worked. That's the way things worked. And so, again, your objective journalism and press missed. They totally missed the actual stories for the last eight years in the country, minimum. They totally missed BLM. They totally missed COVID. They totally missed, they totally missed Joe Biden being senile and obscured it. And we're supposed to believe that these are the fighters for your freedom. These are the people where if they don't get White House press pool access, then suddenly we have all been wronged. Again, Democrats are fine with regulating media. They would love to regulate media, like truly regulate it, like actually stop outlets from publishing. And here was Senator Chris Murphy suggesting the government should regulate social media outright so that outlets he doesn't like will just be like actually banned. OK, that's a different thing. That's way worse than anything that Trump is doing. Trump is not talking about actually shutting down CNN. Chris Murphy is actively talking about shutting down outlets he does not like via social media regulation.
Speaker 9So government should build a set of rules in which people feel more powerful. That's why the minimum wage is so important. And people feel more connected. That's why, you know, rebuilding healthy institutions in your town should be a project that government is involved in. That's why regulating the Internet so that you're spending less time alone on Instagram should be an important government project. And if people are feeling more powerful and less lonely, then they are going to be less likely to fall for a bull demagogue like Donald Trump.
Speaker 1Regulate social media so that you won't fall for Donald Trump. The Democrats have always been in favor of this sort of regulation. Let us be clear. We've experienced this at Daily Wire. We've experienced this. OK, the combined focus of the media, people at The New York Times, people at CNN, people who actively spent their days about a decade ago going after the Daily Wire for being successful on Facebook, the combined pressure from the White House and from those institutional outlets caused Facebook to literally shut down their entire political algorithm just to prevent criticism of Facebook for dissemination of journalistic information that the left didn't like. They tried to destroy our business. By going after the social media companies. Through a form of soft censorship. OK, that's what they actually tried to do. So am I going to cry for them right now? Am I going to cry for CNN and Politico and MSNL because they don't get to go to the vaunted White House press office? Let's just be clear. Very few actual headlines break from there. It's all leaks anyway. But am I going to weep for them? Not one single solitary moment. Not for a single solitary moment. So again, all Trump is doing here is the quiet part out loud. Now, is it going to be upheld in court? Probably it'll end up being stopped because the courts have their own bizarre standards. So back in 1977, there was a decision called Sherrill versus Knight from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And they held that Robert Sherrill, who was a correspondent for the left wing news outlet, The Nation, was denied a White House press pass after the Secret Service actually investigated him. They said that for security reasons, he was denied the press pass. And the D.C. Circuit held the First Amendment does not give every reporter an absolute right to enter the White House. But once the government establishes press facilities and makes them available to journalists, you can't deny access arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons. So the idea is that if you check the box and come with some neutral criteria for banning CNN, MSNBC, whatever, then you could do it. But if you just say, I don't like them, I'm banning them, then you can't do it. Now, again, I think that this is a nonsense decision. I do, because I think it all amounts to the same thing. I promise you, I promise you, if a Democrat wins office in twenty twenty eight, they will come up with some nonsense way to ban all the outlets that are currently sitting in the White House press room right now, including the Daily Wire. They will do that. And then the entire press that is going insane right now will pretend that that's just neutrality. That's just neutrality. When Daily Wire gets banned from the White House press office and when it gets replaced by MSNOW, they will claim that that's just neutrality at work. And we'll all know that isn't true. Because, again, the complicity is in the fake neutrality. So, no, I'm not going to I'm not going to play this game with them. I'm not going to play this game. Now, Trump isn't really playing a game. He's just doing what he wants to do pretty overtly. Now, is that smart? Well, again, I think they should have thought out how they rolled this out a little bit better if they were going to do it. The press can fight back. And they did yesterday. So yesterday, President Trump was doing a presser and the press pool just decided to absent itself. And so he started talking and essentially there was no one there to cover it. So all it came out, it sounded like Charlie Brown's teacher.
Speaker 5But again, as for the outlandish alarmism, death
Speaker 1of the free press, death of the First Amendment, who will cover the president now? This outlandish alarmism. The American people don't really care about this. No one really should care about this. This is not the end of democracy or anything like that. It is just a recognition of a reality that preexisted from. The biggest problem for the press is not President Trump. Honestly, he's kind of their market solution, given the fact that when they cover him, their ratings go up. The biggest problem for the press is that they have been lying for literally decades that they are objective journalismers when they all have a narrative to push, which is why they have an approval rating that is currently lower than the president's. They're ripping on President Trump and their approval rating is lower than President Trump's. Again, there's a reason for that. There's a reason for that. And now, by the way, it is likely this will be adjudicated in court, according to our sponsors over at Kalashnikov, Kalashnikov market on when the White House will announce an end to its press ban. So before October 1st, 2026, people are saying 21 percent chance before November, 56 percent chance. So, again, people think this is going to get adjudicated in court. All right. So speaking of the journalismers want to know why people don't trust the journalismers, because, again, they have an agenda and they masquerade it as objective journalism. So remember the 1619 project from The New York Times? That was the B.S. project to try to recast all of American history. As fruit of the poisonous tree, all of American history was born in slavery. Nicole Hannah-Jones is one of the journalismers who won a Pulitzer for attempting to rewrite American history falsely with a bunch of actual bad information. Question, does she have a right to a White House seat? Apparently, apparently, yes. Well, now, again, all the masks come off over time. Just as Sam Donaldson's mask came off with me, Nicole Hannah-Jones' mask was barely ever on. So back in 2016, Nicole Hannah-Jones wrote an entire op-ed about how she was going to choose a black school in order to make the point that black schools in the New York City area are discriminated against. So she claimed that essentially the reason that largely black schools sucked in the New York City area was because of discrimination. The evidence for this claim was basically nonexistent, but she claimed it anyway. She said back then that she was going to put her daughter, Naya, in a high-poverty, all-black school. And she said, that while suburban parents were mostly white, so they are selecting schools based on test scores, the racial makeup of the school actually plays a larger role in their school decision, according to a 2009 study published in the American Journal of Education. So she claims that the reason that people don't send their kids to crappy schools is because there are too many black kids there, as opposed to the idea that they are crappy schools. And to prove this, she was going to put her own child, Naya, in a crappy, high-poverty, all-black school. And she wrote, quote, are we experimenting with our child based on our idealism about public schools? Are we putting her at a disadvantage? This is what her husband asked her. She said, I had moments when I couldn't ignore the nagging fear that in my quest for fairness, I was being unfair to my own daughter. I worried, I worry still about whether I made the right decision for our little girl, but I knew I made the just one. True integration, true equality requires a surrendering of advantage. And when it comes to our own children, that can feel almost unnatural. So basically, you need to send your kid to a crappy school in order to make the point that some schools are crappy. Because again, she has this premise, and the premise is, is that the crappy schools are crappy because of racism. And so she was going to solve that somehow by taking her own black child and putting her in an all-black crappy school in New York City. Well, now it's 10 years later, and it turns out the crappy school was crappy. So she took the stick and she stuck it in her own bicycle spokes, and now she's crying about it. She has a piece in the New York Times basically complaining about the New York City public school system and saying that she might have betrayed her own child by doing this. By the way, her husband, Hannah Jones, is currently the New York City Public Schools Contracts Committee chair. So if she's going to blame somebody, I mean, she could look inside her own house. But here is what she writes in her op-ed today, which again, these are your journalismers, gang. Not objective. They care very much who's ox's gourd. She says, quote, toward the end of first grade, Naja started sometimes saying she didn't like her school and complained how chaotic it was at lunch. I decided to visit during the lunch period and was shocked by what I saw. Naja's class and another class were sitting at their tables in the cafeteria with no lunch. I was shocked by what I saw. I was shocked by what and no adult supervision. Children were running wild, chasing, hitting and pushing each other while the teachers, aides and cafeteria workers stood by looking bored. Several times I had to instruct children to stop striking each other and to sit down at one point, physically pulling two boys apart. When I asked one of the aides why the children were being supervised, she told me the lunch period was short staffed. After I sat back down with Naja, she told me it's always like this and that's why I don't want to go to the school. So did mommy pull her from the crappy school? Absolutely not. Of course not. She just left her there to suffer. Naja's principal regularly would engage with us or wasn't in the building at all. In Naja's third grade year, her teacher missed a significant number of days, leading Naja to complain about the substitute teachers who rarely taught and how sometimes there was no substitute at all. On those days, she and the other students would be sent to the second grade or sometimes the kindergarten class where they would be made to work on their own. And I would have to once again call the principal only to wait for days for a response. Naja believes herself to be good at math. It was her favorite subject. But now I understood she thought she was correctly solving all her problems because her teacher was not checking her work. Similarly, Naja's writing assignments were rife with uncorrected punctuation, capitalization, and grammar. errors. So, of course, she's attributing this to lack of funding and the school choice system, because it turns out that the only way apparently to make these high poverty, all black schools better is to force other people into those high poverty, all black schools who don't want to be there. OK, or maybe there is a confound here. Maybe the problem with these schools doesn't have to do predominantly with funding and with race. Maybe it has to do with the behavior of the parents of students. And one of the most robust social science findings is that behavior of parents is predictive of behavior of children in schools. That it turns out that impoverished Asian schools are going to behave differently than impoverished black schools, depending on the number of single parents in the home. For example, these are confounds. These are statistical confounds, not racial dependent, but parental behavior dependent. And that confound totally escapes Nicole Hannah-Jones. She seems to think that if you just dump more money into these schools, they fix themselves. Wrong, wrong. Or that if you kill the school choice system so more kids can escape these bad schools and you force them into crappy schools, then it will fix the school. But she forced her own kids into this crappy school. Hell, her husband is involved in the New York City school system and she couldn't fix the school in any way. So what does she do naturally? She blames the system. I felt overcome with regret. Now she deserved better. They all did, but she was mine. This girl, my only child, looked to me to protect her, to give her what she needed because I had chosen her. I almost cannot type the words because when I do, an image of her in her blue school uniform, her hair and beaded cornrows that clicked when she swung them with her sweet baby tooth smile springs to mind and the tears come. Now again, the normal reaction of a parent is to put your kid in the best school possible and then fight for the school. But that's not true for all parents. And when you put your kids in schools where parents are not involved, this is what tends to happen. But instead, she just blames the system. Quote, instead of fortifying our determination to school integration, again, segregation is illegal in the United States. Illegal. It has been for half a century and more. Instead of that, she's going to claim that it's all about racial segregation. We've instead chosen, she says, to succumb to a collective apathy in the face of a system so devastatingly unequal that it puts at odds trying to be a good person with trying to be a good parent. As long as we continue to rescue our own children from the failing schools where we allow other people's children to languish simply because those children have been born black and poor in a nation of racism and riches, there's no absolution here. Well, hold up. I don't believe that we are allowing people's children to languish because they're born black and poor. In fact, I don't think I'm allowing anyone's child to languish. The only children that I can control are my own. And I don't allow them to languish. And that's true for Nicole Hannah-Jones as well. And me putting my kid in a crappy school does not fix the school. It doesn't. That's not how any of this works. The failed premise here is the one that she refuses to acknowledge. This is why the best thing a parent can do. This is why whenever you hear a politician talk about they're all our children. No, they are not. They are your child. Your child is your child. If you got your priorities straight, your child comes first. That is the way that it ought to work. Otherwise, you end up with crappy policy. Like, for example, one of the reasons why presumably nausea was doing so well in math despite not knowing math is because when you shift the incentive structures for government to get people to just pass through and you earn more money by passing people through, you pass more people through. And now New York is ending. It's a long-standing requirement that high school students pass a prescribed set of regents exams to graduate. So starting with the class of 2028, students will no longer be required to pass a specific set of regents exams to earn a diploma. So again, their solution to underachievement is going to be get rid of the testing. Genius level stuff. That's from Spectrum Local News in New York. Remember, she was one of your prize journalists. She was an activist. She still is an activist, but she was a journalist. And guess what? The failure to pass a specific set of regents exams failures of journalism, they span the gamut. It is particularly true in the Middle East. In the Middle East, let us be clear on how journalism is done in the Middle East. In the Gaza Strip, the people whose pseudo-journalism you're reading are stringers for Hamas. That is why you are allowed into the Gaza Strip. All the fake news that you're reading about the Middle East is just that, fake news. There was no genocide in Gaza by any standard of the word genocide. Zero genocide in Gaza. The Israeli Defense Forces had the best combatant to civilian kill ratio in the history of urban warfare. There was no genocide in Gaza. More food was shipped into Gaza than into any wartime environment in the history of mankind. And yet the predominant view in America is that there probably was a genocide in Gaza. Why? Because there were a lot of ugly pictures on TV, and people think ugly pictures are genocide. Or you will get a photo, an aerial photo of destroyed buildings, and people will say, this is what a genocide looked like. No, actually, what a genocide looks like is the mass killing of innocent human beings at scale in an attempt to exterminate the entire population. That's what a genocide looks like. A bombed out building is what a bombed out building looks like. Again, about 70,000 people were killed in the Gaza Strip. The number of buildings destroyed in the Gaza Strip was far higher than that. If there was a genocide, the numbers of people would be higher killed than the number of buildings destroyed, because buildings are usually filled with people. The Israeli government made an attempt to move all those people out of the buildings before they destroyed the buildings. They could then fight the terrorists. Anyway, the people who pushed all of this are liars and propagandists, and many of them are pushed by some of America's most prominent cultural figures, who then hide behind their sort of clickbait popularity in order to promote their political agenda. So for example, Ms. Rachel. So Ms. Rachel is a sort of Blue's Clues, Mr. Rogers knockoff, who cosplays as a child with her cutesy voice in order to promote idiot slop on YouTube for children. That's her show. She also happens to be a radical political activist. So here she was on her Instagram, introducing a pseudo-journalist named Motaz Aziza, introducing the letter "M" for her friend Motaz, the letter "T" is for terrorism, gang. Here she was in an original Instagram collab video posted July 2025. Hi, friends. What's the letter of the day? It's "M." Hi, Ms.
Speaker 10Rachel.
Speaker 1Hi, yes, it's "M" for my friend Motaz. Yay! Yay! Hi!
Speaker 10Motaz loves
Speaker 1terrorism. I love it. I love it. I love it. As it turns out, Motaz loves terrorism. He was named, again, and it's not just her. I don't want to blame just Ms. Rachel, who's a dullard. It was literally all of mainstream media promoting this person, Motaz Aziza. He was named one of Time Magazine's 100 Most Influential People in 2024. He received the Lucy Award in 2023. He was named GQ's Middle East Man of the Year in 2023. He was awarded the Prix Liberté in France for fighting for human rights. He has met with Zoran Mamdani. He has met with Greta Thunberg. He has met with Macklemore, of course, Rashida Tlaib, Mahmoud Abbas, diplomats from the UNRWA at the UN in New York, Mehdi Hassan, and visited Colombia in the time since October 7th. Well, now it turns out that this pseudo-journalist was working with Hamas. Oh, there's a shock. Oh, there's a shock. It turns out that he has now admitted he buried footage of Israeli hostages being beaten by a Palestinian mob on October 7th in order to protect the terrorists. He also revealed that all media in Gaza was controlled by Hamas through a single WhatsApp group, according to the New York Post. So here is an interview that he did where he talks about how he got goosebumps when he saw the 10-7 video. He got goosebumps. That's how excited he was when he saw this stuff happening. He says, I woke up. No, there was no fear. We still didn't understand. I didn't understand. He's smiling, by the way. Motaz, get up. It looks like the war has started. So I got up and went to the roof. Like every time there is shelling. Rockets were coming out from everywhere. I thought, could something have happened to that rocket system? Did it malfunction?
Speaker 11Could spies have done this? Could a special force have entered? What happened? Suddenly, I was standing at home listening to Daev's speech when he came out and
Speaker 1gave it. When
Speaker 11he spoke and I saw what I saw in the videos, honestly, I won't hide it.
Speaker 1I got goosebumps. I was getting goosebumps
Speaker 11from what was happening.
Speaker 1He's smiling while it's happening, by the way. That day was very big, very big.
Speaker 107th. They stopped everywhere and people saw the kidnapped soldiers. People are filming.
Speaker 1Some are hitting them. Some are doing this. I'm spitting on them and I'm filming. Now, as a Palestinian, you want to vent your anger. I mean, these are dogs. They killed us and destroyed us and burned us. And he's smiling. He's smiling and laughing. I'm afraid of the phones, the people filming. I know how that will be used afterward. I don't want to seem hostile to these people. But M, is from Motaz, according to Ms. Rachel. Again, these were the journalismers. You have been lied to. You've been bamboozled. They were lying to you. Motaz Aziza admitted in podcast that the Gazans were hoping for the war to start so that they could get NGOs and media to talk to them and push out their propaganda.
Speaker 10Let me tell you a secret.
Speaker 1I don't know if you'll keep it in.
Speaker 10A lot of people in Gaza were
Speaker 1wishing the war
Speaker 10would come. You want the truth? One of them, I'll arrest him. From all the pressure he'd say to me.
Speaker 1Allah willing, a war will come and change the whole situation. Things had reached the point in Gaza where the situation was frozen.
Speaker 10A lot of young men sitting around, sitting at home doing
Speaker 1nothing in the street.
Speaker 10When a war or an escalation comes,
Speaker 1the NGOs talk to you. There's a job opportunity. Murder Jews, it's a job opportunity.
Speaker 10People only know us through war.
Speaker 1Well, I wonder why. I wonder why people only know Gazans through war. Could it be because they elected Hamas, an actual terrorist group, which then pursued the greatest slaughter of civilians since 9-11 and the greatest attack on Jews since the Holocaust? Could it be that? And again, Mu'tazza Zayza admits, I mean, like, it's amazing. This person, his real journalism is stuff he's saying now. All the stuff I'm playing for you, that's real journalism because he's telling the truth. But that was the stuff he hid. That was the stuff he hid. He admitted that men would burn themselves and create fake wounds to get stipends from Hamas. Do you think that didn't happen during the Gaza war to get members of the media to cover it? Literally, the entire media covered a starvation narrative that was totally false because people were taking their children who had genetic conditions and having them photographed as though they were starving to death in the Gaza Strip. Here again is Mu'tazza Zayza in January. disparity between the number of people killed on each side. By that metric, you can never win a war ever. It turns out the Allies during World War II killed a hell of a lot more Germans than the Germans killed of the Allies. Except for the Russians who got slaughtered at scale. Okay, but it turns out that in any war, the goal is to kill more of your enemy than they kill of you. Is that disproportionate? Is that how this works? This is really stupid. There's no reason that Ed Sheeran had it. Because again, he had a packed stadium. It was a packed stadium. Everybody was just there to have a good time. At the end of the show, he said the actual real thing that he should have said at the beginning of the show. And I hope Ed Sheeran just goes back to this. Because this is what all of these artists should be doing. Shut up and sing, as Laura Ingraham once suggested, is a good piece of advice. It is a good piece of advice. I mean, you can speak out. It's a free country. You can do whatever you want. But you're going to feel the heat politically when you get into issues you know nothing about. And the best thing for artists to do would be to play their songs for all the people who want to listen to their songs. Here's Ed Sheeran saying the thing he should have said at the beginning of his concert, at the end of the concert.
Speaker 12"For years and years and years, people just kind of backing away. And in the back of my mind, I saw the ticket sales for this gig and you know, I didn't see cancellations. I saw people buying tickets for this gig." "And then, you know, I'm there and everyone's telling me to cancel. And I'm feeling all of my friends and family and people. I know abandoned me. And I look at the end of the week and I see 50,000 people who haven't abandoned me."
Speaker 1Okay, again, he could have just said that. Instead, he decided not to. Alrighty, folks, you think the show is over? Wrong you are. We have the footage of Patrick Clancy being interviewed, the husband of Lindsey Clancy. What he has to say is chilling and upsetting and telling. If you're a Daily Wire member, you get even more analysis, more news coverage, access to the mailbag. It's all coming up next. It's all coming up right now. If you're not a member, now is a great time. More people than ever before becoming members at Daily Wire. Use code Shapiro at checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us. ♪ ♪
PodcastTranscript AI