Connect with us

Politics

Column: What I learned from watching Fox News after the New Orleans terrorist attack

Published

on

Column: What I learned from watching Fox News after the New Orleans terrorist attack

I usually kick off every Jan. 1 with the Rose Parade broadcast on Channel 5, then college football in the afternoon and evening. It’s one of the few days I honestly, truly try to relax and do something that’s next to impossible for me: not work.

Sadly, that’s not how I began my 2025.

I woke up to the news that an ISIS sympathizer had driven a truck onto Bourbon Street in New Orleans earlier that morning, killing 14 people and injuring dozens more. Shortly after, a family member texted that they were safe after a Tesla Cybertruck blew up in front of the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas.

Whenever national tragedies like these happen, I immediately switch my television to CNN. The cable channel’s team of on-the-ground correspondents is without peer, and its anchors and commentators leave the opining and speculation to a minimum as they stick to the facts with a tone that tries to be authoritative. That’s what I watched for hours on Wednesday, instead of flower-festooned floats and read-option offenses, as I tried to make sense of the horrible start to the new year.

Maybe I was groggy from the previous night’s festivities. Maybe I was too full on breakfast tamales. But at some point, I decided to ditch CNN and tune into a channel I rarely watch:

Advertisement

Fox News.

I don’t live in a liberal bubble. I listen to Ben Shapiro’s and Rep. Dan Crenshaw’s podcasts when I can, receive dozens of conservative newsletters ranging from libertarian to white nationalist and subscribe to orthodox Catholic newspapers like the Wanderer and New Oxford Review. Right-leaning friends love to debate me, because they know I’m not a knee-jerk ideologue. I have tracked the rise of Trump-loving Latinos in this columna for years, and have long warned liberals they ignore and ridicule Republicans at their own peril.

A well-informed American listens to all views and makes up their mind while always following the newspaper adage that if your mom tells you she loves you, go check it out. That’s why Fox News has always been a bridge too far for me.

A parade of demagogic hosts through the years — Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Tucker Carlson and Bill O’Reilly being among the most notorious — has corroded public discourse like rust eating through a sink. When it comes to breaking news on serious matters, I don’t care for rants and slants — that’s why I rarely watch MSNBC, either. Besides, my viewing habits have always been resolutely local — Channel 5 in the morning, KCAL-TV Channel 9’s nightly three-hour news block, then the 11 p.m. half-hour newscast on KNBC-TV Channel 4.

I’m always willing to give things I oppose a chance. I don’t regret my decision to turn on Fox News on New Year’s Day, because it was a sobering, necessary reminder of the fetid information ecosystem that put Donald Trump in the White House, created a majority in both chambers of Congress and paints critics like me as the enemy.

Advertisement

Former White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany appears on “Hannity” at Fox News’ studio in Manhattan in 2023.

(Roy Rochlin / Getty Images)

I watched Fox News for four straight hours, with anchors Kayleigh McEnany (a former White House secretary under Donald Trump), Tammy Bruce and Trace Gallagher following each other. Their broadcasts led with segments from the scenes of the deadly attacks that told viewers what was known at the time and included footage of press conferences by the law enforcement agencies investigating the crimes. Those short bits at least offered the pretense of objectivity — the “fair and balanced” mantra Fox News has long insisted is its modus operandi.

But once the anchors brought in Fox News contributors, their shows reflected the unhinged worldview that now holds power in this country.

Advertisement

Guest after guest blamed the attacks on the FBI for supposedly preferring diversity initiatives and investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection and conservatives over stopping terrorist attacks. Buzzwords flew around like confetti that had nothing to do with the crimes at hand: Antifa. Open borders. Police haters. The far left.

McEnany, Bruce and Gallagher didn’t imply that the perpetrator had recently entered the country, as Trump and their own network initially did. But they kept referring to the attacker as a “U.S. citizen,” as if they couldn’t believe that a man with a name like Shamsud-Din Jabbar could possibly be an American. The same term was not used on Fox News to describe the Las Vegas Cybertruck exploder, Matthew Livelsberger, according to a review of transcripts.

Ex-Green Beret Jim Hanson called President Biden a “dementia-addled, barely animated carcass.” California Republican Party chair Jessica Milan Patterson demanded that all of Trump’s nominees “be confirmed immediately” so the incoming president could more easily accomplish his agenda. Counterterrorism commentator Aaron Cohen mentioned a pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square that day and tied it to the New Orleans attack, claiming, “You don’t shut this stuff down. This is what happens.”

The Fox News I remembered was in full force: Frothing. Paranoid. Vengeful. Seeking not to inform viewers but to inflame.

But the most wacko commentary came from former San Bernardino County sheriff’s Deputy Meagan McCarthy. Earlier in the day, Fox News published — and then walked back — a report that the truck Jabbar used to kill so many had crossed into the U.S. from Mexico a few days earlier. Following that erroneous piece, an avalanche of politicians demanded that the southern border be shut down, and Trump claimed on social media that “the criminals coming in are far worse than the criminals we have in our country.”

Advertisement

Gallagher aired an interview with New Orleans-area Republican Rep. Steve Scalise in which Scalise referenced Fox News’ original border crossing claim.

“We don’t know why,” Gallagher told McCarthy. “We don’t know what the link is. We’re not pointing fingers. We’re just saying that it’s interesting that we are at this point.”

“Where there’s smoke, there’s fire,” she replied. “And two things can be true at the same time. You can have an individual who was infiltrated while he was an American citizen, and you can have a problem at the southern border that maybe influenced this attack.”

That’s why McCarthy suggested that the FBI allow the American public “to be a part of the investigation” — something I doubt she would have advocated for back when she was a sheriff’s deputy.

“I understand as a law enforcement officer, you’re privy to certain things you want to keep close to the chest,” she said. “But I think we have seen the destruction at our southern border for four years. We know that there’s some correlation.”

Advertisement

Later, Gallagher mentioned a police officer who had remarked earlier that day that not going after shoplifters made it “tougher to go after the big fish, the bigger criminals.”

McCarthy agreed.

“Back when I was a cop, you would do those traffic stops to get those moving violations because it would lead to a bigger crime,” she said before adding, “We need to start getting back to defending people and not being afraid of offending people, and that starts with having some hard conversations and saying some hard truths.”

From ripping off a Walgreens to a terrorist attack in New Orleans? Fox News used to have another slogan: We report, you decide. Given that its ratings are the highest in a decade and that it was the highest-rated cable network for the ninth consecutive year, too many Americans have decided that Fox News’ whine-world is reality and have voted into office fellow true believers.

Buckle up your seat belts, everyone else: It’s going to be a hell of a next four years.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Published

on

Video: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

new video loaded: Trump’s War of Choice With Iran

Our national security correspondent David E. Sanger examines the war of choice that President Trump has initiated with Iran.

By David E. Sanger, Gilad Thaler, Thomas Vollkommer and Laura Salaberry

March 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

Published

on

Dems’ potential 2028 hopefuls come out against US strikes on Iran

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Some of the top rumored Democratic potential candidates for president in 2028 are showing a united front in opposing U.S. strikes on Iran, with several high-profile figures accusing President Donald Trump of launching an unnecessary and unconstitutional war.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris said Trump was “dragging the United States into a war the American people do not want.”

“Let me be clear: I am opposed to a regime-change war in Iran, and our troops are being put in harm’s way for the sake of Trump’s war of choice,” Harris said in a statement Saturday following the joint U.S. and Israeli strikes throughout Iran.

“This is a dangerous and unnecessary gamble with American lives that also jeopardizes stability in the region and our standing in the world,” she continued. “What we are witnessing is not strength. It is recklessness dressed up as resolve.”

Advertisement

Former Vice President Kamala Harris, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Gov. Gavin Newsom are leading Democratic 2028 hopefuls who spoke out against U.S. strikes on Iran. (Big Event Media/Getty Images for HumanX Conference; Reuters/Liesa Johannssen; Mario Tama/Getty Images)

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered some of his sharpest criticism during a book tour stop Saturday night in San Francisco, accusing Trump of manufacturing a crisis.

“It stems from weakness masquerading as strength,” Newsom said. “He lied to you. So reckless is the only way to describe this.”

“He didn’t describe to the American people what the endgame is here,” Newsom added. “There wasn’t one. He manufactured it.”

Newsom is currently promoting his memoir, “Young Man in a Hurry,” with recent and upcoming stops in South Carolina, New Hampshire and Nevada — three key early voting states in the Democratic presidential calendar.

Advertisement

Earlier in the day, Newsom said Iran’s “corrupt and repressive” regime must never obtain nuclear weapons and that the “leadership of Iran must go.”

“But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war that will risk the lives of our American service members and our friends without justification to the American people,” Newsom wrote on X.

California is home to more than half of the roughly 400,000 Iranian immigrants in the United States, including a large community in West Los Angeles often referred to as “Tehrangeles.”

DEMOCRATS BUCK PARTY LEADERS TO DEFEND TRUMP’S ‘DECISIVE ACTION’ ON IRAN

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a leading progressive voice and “Squad” member, accused Trump of dragging Americans into a conflict they did not support.

Advertisement

“The American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions. This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

“Just this week, Iran and the United States were negotiating key measures that could have staved off war. The President walked away from these discussions and chose war instead,” she continued.

“In moments of war, our Constitution is unambiguous: Congress authorizes war. The President does not,” she said, pledging to vote “YES on Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s War Powers Resolution.”

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress. (Daniel Boczarski/Getty Images for Vox Media)

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, another Democrat often mentioned as a potential 2028 contender, also criticized the strikes and accused Trump of ignoring Congress.

Advertisement

“No justification, no authorization from Congress, and no clear objective,” Pritzker wrote on X.

“Donald Trump is once again sidestepping the Constitution and once again failing to explain why he’s taking us into another war,” he continued. “Americans asked for affordable housing and health care, not another potentially endless conflict.”

“God protect our troops,” Pritzker added.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails.

“In our democracy, the American people — through our elected representatives — decide when our nation goes to war,” Shapiro said, adding that Trump “acted unilaterally — without Congressional approval.”

Advertisement

JONATHAN TURLEY: TRUMP STRIKES IRAN — PRECEDENT AND HISTORY ARE ON HIS SIDE

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro focused his criticism on war powers, arguing Trump acted outside constitutional guardrails. (Rachel Wisniewski/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Make no mistake, the Iranian regime represses its own people… they must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons,” he said. “But that does not justify the President of the United States engaging in an illegal, dangerous war.”

Shapiro added that “Congress must use all available power” to prevent further escalation.

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg also accused Trump of launching a “war of choice.”

Advertisement

“The President has launched our nation and our great military into a war of choice, risking American lives and resources, ignoring American law, and endangering our allies and partners,” Buttigieg wrote on X. “This nation learned the hard way that an unnecessary war, with no plan for what comes next, can lead to years of chaos and put America in still greater danger.”

Buttigieg has been hitting early voting states, stopping in New Hampshire and Nevada in recent weeks to campaign for Democrats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who has been floated as a rising national figure within the party, said he lost friends in Iraq to an illegal war and opposed the strikes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Young working-class kids should not pay the ultimate price for regime change and a war that hasn’t been explained or justified to the American people. We can support the democracy movement and the Iranian people without sending our troops to die,” Gallego wrote on X. 

Advertisement

Fox News’ Daniel Scully and Alex Nitzberg contributed to this report.

Related Article

From hostage crisis to assassination plots: Iran’s near half-century war on Americans
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Published

on

Commentary: With midterm vote starting, here’s where things stand in national redistricting fight

Donald Trump has never been one to play by the rules.

Whether it’s stiffing contractors as a real estate developer, defying court orders he doesn’t like as president or leveraging the Oval Office to vastly inflate his family’s fortune, Trump’s guiding principle can be distilled to a simple, unswerving calculation: What’s in it for me?

Trump is no student of history. He’s famously allergic to books. But he knows enough to know that midterm elections like the one in November have, with few exceptions, been ugly for the party holding the presidency.

With control of the House — and Trump’s virtually unchecked authority — dangling by a gossamer thread, he reckoned correctly that Republicans were all but certain to lose power this fall unless something unusual happened.

So he effectively broke the rules.

Advertisement

Normally, the redrawing of the country’s congressional districts takes place once every 10 years, following the census and accounting for population changes over the previous decade. Instead, Trump prevailed upon the Republican governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, to throw out the state’s political map and refashion congressional lines to wipe out Democrats and boost GOP chances of winning as many as five additional House seats.

The intention was to create a bit of breathing room, as Democrats need a gain of just three seats to seize control of the House.

In relatively short order, California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, responded with his own partisan gerrymander. He rallied voters to pass a tit-for-tat ballot measure, Proposition 50, which revised the state’s political map to wipe out Republicans and boost Democratic prospects of winning as many as five additional seats.

Then came the deluge.

In more than a dozen states, lawmakers looked at ways to tinker with their congressional maps to lift their candidates, stick it to the other party and gain House seats in November.

Advertisement

Some of those efforts continue, including in Virginia where, as in California, voters are being asked to amend the state Constitution to let majority Democrats redraw political lines ahead of the midterm. A special election is set for April 21.

But as the first ballots of 2026 are cast on Tuesday — in Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas — the broad contours of the House map have become clearer, along with the result of all those partisan machinations. The likely upshot is a nationwide partisan shift of fewer than a handful of seats.

The independent, nonpartisan Cook Political Report, which has a sterling decades-long record of election forecasting, said the most probable outcome is a wash. “At the end of the day,” said Erin Covey, who analyzes House races for the Cook Report, “this doesn’t really benefit either party in a real way.”

Well.

That was a lot of wasted time and energy.

Advertisement

Let’s take a quick spin through the map and the math, knowing that, of course, there are no election guarantees.

In Texas, for instance, new House districts were drawn assuming Latinos would back Republican candidates by the same large percentage they supported Trump in 2024. But that’s become much less certain, given the backlash against his draconian immigration enforcement policies; numerous polls show a significant falloff in Latino support for the president, which could hurt GOP candidates up and down the ballot.

But suppose Texas Republicans gain five seats as hoped for and California Democrats pick up the five seats they’ve hand-crafted. The result would be no net change.

Elsewhere, under the best case for each party, a gain of four Democratic House seats in Virginia would be offset by a gain of four Republican House seats in Florida.

That leaves a smattering of partisan gains here and there. A combined pickup of four or so Republican seats in Ohio, North Carolina and Missouri could be mostly offset by Democratic gains of a seat apiece in New York, Maryland and Utah.

Advertisement

(The latter is not a result of legislative high jinks, but rather a judge throwing out the gerrymandered map passed by Utah Republicans, who ignored a voter-approved ballot measure intended to prevent such heavy-handed partisanship. A newly created district, contained entirely within Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County, seems certain to go Democrats’ way in November.)

In short, it’s easy to characterize the political exertions of Trump, Abbott, Newsom and others as so much sound and fury producing, at bottom, little to nothing.

But that’s not necessarily so.

The campaign surrounding Proposition 50 delivered a huge political boost to Newsom, shoring up his standing with Democrats, significantly raising his profile across the country and, not least for his 2028 presidential hopes, helping the governor build a significant nationwide fundraising base.

In crimson-colored Indiana, Republicans refused to buckle under tremendous pressure from Trump, Vice President JD Vance and other party leaders, rejecting an effort to redraw the state’s congressional map and give the GOP a hold on all nine House seats. That showed even Trump’s Svengali-like hold on his party has its limits.

Advertisement

But the biggest impact is also the most corrosive.

By redrawing political lines to predetermine the outcome of House races, politicians rendered many of their voters irrelevant and obsolete. Millions of Democrats in Texas, Republicans in California and partisans in other states have been effectively disenfranchised, their voices rendered mute. Their ballots spindled and nullified.

In short, the politicians — starting with Trump — extended a big middle finger to a large portion of the American electorate.

Is it any wonder, then, so many voters hold politicians and our political system in contempt?

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending