As the Iran strikes stretch into a third week, the Trump administration has threatened legacy media outlets over their coverage of the conflict.
On Sunday, President Trump took to Truth Social to blast the legacy media for their "FAKE NEWS" coverage of the last two weeks, suggesting a degree of cooperation between some American media outlets and the Iranian propaganda machine.
'The Radical Leftwing Press knows this full well, but continues to go forward with false stories and LIES.'
"Iran has long been known as a Master of Media Manipulation and Public Relations. They are Militarily ineffective and weak, but are really good at 'feeding' the very appreciative Fake News Media false information. Now, A.I. has become another Disinformation weapon that Iran uses, quite well, considering they are being annihilated by the day," Trump wrote.
Trump gave several examples of the types of imagery and videos he claims are generated by artificial intelligence, including Iranian "Kamikaze Boats shooting at various Ships at Sea," several U.S. refueling planes having been "struck down and badly damaged," and the "USS Abraham Lincoln Aircraft Carrier, one of the largest and most prestigious Ships in the World, burning uncontrollably in the Ocean."
Trump called these stories "FAKE NEWS, generated by A.I." He further explained of the USS Abraham Lincoln: "Not only was it not burning, it was not even shot at — Iran knows better than to do that!"
RELATED: Trump demands other nations clear Strait of Hormuz, claims NATO's future at stake
Citing two U.S. officials, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday that "five U.S. Air Force refueling planes were struck and damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia." The article, which appears to have been updated on Saturday at 12:18 p.m. ET, went on to say that the tankers were "damaged but not fully destroyed."
Trump went on to suggest the severity of punishment that he believes is warranted for the "dissemination of false information": "In a certain way, you can say that those Media Outlets that generated it should be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information! The fact is, Iran is being decimated, and the only battles they 'win' are those that they create through AI, and are distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets. The Radical Leftwing Press knows this full well, but continues to go forward with false stories and LIES."
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr made similar statements Saturday, stressing that it was time for the media to "correct course." He also reposted a previous Truth Social post from Trump insisting that "the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal (In particular), and other Lowlife 'Papers' and Media actually want us to lose the War. Their terrible reporting is the exact opposite of the actual facts!"
Carr wrote: "Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not."
"Time for change!" he added.
Many of Trump's Democrat opponents and members of the media have since spoken out against his calls for punishing the "fake news" media.
On Friday, CNN chairman and CEO Mark Thompson issued a statement about the outlet's reporting:
We stand by our journalism. Politicians have an obvious motive for claiming that journalism which raises questions about their decisions is false. At CNN our only interest is in telling the truth to our audiences in the U.S. and around the world and no amount of political threats or insults is going to change that.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) weighed in on Carr's post on Saturday: "If Trump doesn't like your coverage of the war, his FCC will pull your broadcast license. That is flagrantly unconstitutional."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has been under fire for months over his involvement in a video encouraging military service members and intelligence personnel to "refuse illegal orders," likewise criticized the threats from the Trump administration: "When our nation is at war it is critical that the press is free to report without government interference. It is literally in the Constitution. This is overreach by the FCC because this Administration doesn’t like the microscope and doesn’t want to be held accountable."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) told Carr: "Take your fascist s**t and shove it."
The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Trump will deliver the first State of the Union of his second term on Tuesday, an address that lands near the 250th anniversary of a nation built on freedom and enterprise. He will likely highlight ending foreign conflicts, restoring border security, reasserting American strength, and advancing his legislative agenda. He will point to economic gains — growth returning, inflation easing, energy prices falling, tax relief delivered, and markets responding. He will argue that the Trump economy is putting Americans back in charge of their own prosperity.
But one success story may not make the headlines: Under pro-investment, pro-competition policies, America’s wireless market has delivered lower prices, better service, and more choice — without mandates, price controls, or government-run networks.
Wireless shows free markets still work when Washington lets them.
Since Trump took office, wireless prices are down 4%. The White House even lists it as Win No. 132 in “365 Wins in 365 Days.” Backed by Bureau of Labor Statistics data, wireless plans and smartphones cost less in real dollars today than they did decades ago — while delivering hundreds of times faster speeds and vastly more data.
Twenty years ago, wireless networks mostly carried voice calls. Today they power work, school, health care, navigation, banking, entertainment, and small business. A wireless subscription also takes a declining share of the household budget.
That didn’t happen by accident. Competition, private investment, and smart policy drove it.
Plans now deliver more data, faster speeds, and wider coverage than most people imagined 20 years ago. What once required a wired connection at home now works almost anywhere.
Fixed wireless access has helped drive that shift — home internet delivered over wireless networks. Nearly 15 million households now use wireless service instead of a fixed line, giving families a new, often cheaper alternative.
Americans also benefit from real choice. Most people are covered by three or more national wireless networks, each offering multiple brands, including lower-cost and prepaid options for families, seniors, students, and budget-conscious users. Dozens of smaller carriers and resellers add even more price competition. Companies need to earn customers’ business.
Wireless doesn’t just connect people — it cuts costs.
Parents save time and fuel by working remotely. Seniors can use telehealth instead of driving long distances. Students can learn from anywhere. Small businesses can reach customers without expensive storefronts or phone systems.
No other essential service — housing, health care, food, or energy — has improved this much while becoming more affordable. Wireless quietly delivers more value every year.
None of this works without investment. U.S. wireless companies invest about $30 billion a year to build and upgrade networks. Per person, that’s nearly double what Europe invests.
As a result, the United States leads the world in wireless performance, coverage, and innovation. That leadership didn’t come from government-run networks or price controls. It came from letting companies compete, invest, and take risks.
President Trump’s first-term spectrum auction raised a record $90 billion and helped fuel today’s 5G networks. Now FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is moving quickly toward another auction to free up more airwaves — the raw material wireless networks need to grow.
Wireless runs on spectrum, and America is running tight.
Large blocks of valuable spectrum remain locked up by federal agencies, even when lightly used. Other countries — China, South Korea, and Japan — have moved faster to free spectrum for commercial use.
More spectrum means better service, more competition, and lower costs. Without it, growth slows and prices rise. That makes unlocking spectrum a national priority.
RELATED: Phones and drones expose the cracks in America’s defenses
Another problem stays mostly invisible to consumers.
The Universal Service Fund is meant to support rural connectivity and essential communications. But instead of being funded broadly, it gets tacked onto phone bills, often as a separate line item. Seniors and working families pay about $9 a month without ever voting on it.
Meanwhile, the biggest users of America’s networks — massive internet platforms — pay little or nothing into the system. They generate enormous traffic, earn billions, and rely on wireless infrastructure built by others.
President Trump has argued that Big Tech should pay its own way when it comes to energy-hungry AI data centers. The same principle should apply here. If you benefit from the network, you should help pay for it.
Wireless shows free markets still work when Washington lets them. Competition pushed prices down. Private investment built world-leading networks. Smart spectrum policy unlocked innovation.
Now policymakers face a choice: Protect what’s working, or burden it with bureaucracy and political favoritism. Free up more spectrum. Preserve real competition. End Big Tech’s free ride on infrastructure funded by American consumers.
If President Trump wants a model of American strength and market-driven success in his State of the Union, he doesn’t have to look far. It’s already in the hands of nearly every American holding a cell phone.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr accused "The Late Show" host Stephen Colbert and Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico of spreading a "hoax" about their interview segment.
Colbert claimed during his Monday-night show that the FCC's new guidance on the equal time rule forced CBS to block Talarico from appearing on his program.
'This was a decision by Colbert, by Talarico to put a hoax out there that they knew the media would run for purposes of Talarico, apparently, scoring political points against Jasmine Crockett.'
"[Talarico] was supposed to be here, but we were told in no uncertain terms by our network's lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast," Colbert told his viewers.
CBS released a statement explaining that Colbert's show was "provided legal guidance" that broadcasting the interview "could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates" running against Talarico for the U.S. Senate seat in Texas. The network stated that it "presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled," but that Colbert's team instead "decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel."
During a Thursday episode of "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn Beck asked Carr whether the FCC had provided any legal guidance to CBS concerning the interview. Carr insisted the FCC had not.
He told Beck, "I woke up Tuesday morning and logged onto social media, and that was the first time that I'd even heard about this. And I woke up to a politician claiming that the FCC had somehow not aired — is what they said — the FCC refused to air this segment, and that wasn't true at all."
"Not only was that not true, but the subsequent claim that it was CBS that refused to air it was also proved to be a hoax as well," Carr continued. "In fact, CBS, apparently, had advised Colbert they could run the exact interview that they wanted, and they just needed to be mindful that it could trigger an equal time obligation for other candidates."
RELATED: Stephen Colbert melts down after CBS pulls interview with Democrat just months before his show ends
He accused Colbert of running a "hoax," arguing that "he knew he could fool ... the legacy media by claiming he was censored."
Carr speculated that the alleged trick aimed to give Talarico "a leg up" on his Democrat opponent, Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas.
"This was a decision by Colbert, by Talarico to put a hoax out there that they knew the media would run for purposes of Talarico, apparently, scoring political points against Jasmine Crockett," Carr told Beck.
RELATED: 'The View' under investigation for potential violations, says Trump's FCC chief
Beck also questioned Carr about "The View" after reports surfaced that the show is facing an FCC investigation for possible equal time violations.
Carr explained that "The View" has argued that it is a "bona fide" news program, meaning that it should be exempt from the equal time rule, which would allow the ABC program to have a political candidate on the show without providing an equal opportunity to other candidates running in the same election.
Carr insisted that "The View" has "not made the case to the FCC that they do, in fact, qualify for the exception to the rule."
"And so we have started an enforcement inquiry, taking enforcement actions to explore this issue with them and move forward," he stated, adding that the FCC is "actively looking" at the show's claim that it is a bona fide news program.
CBS, ABC, Talarico's campaign, and representatives for "The Late Show," "The View," and Colbert did not respond to a request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Democratic Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas is taking aim at late-night talk show host Stephen Colbert for pulling an interview with her opponent.
Colbert lashed out at President Donald Trump after CBS pulled an interview with James Talarico, another Democratic candidate running for Senate against Crockett, citing new FCC guidelines. While Colbert pointed the finger at the government, Crockett was quick to push back on the narrative, insisting that the federal government had nothing to do with the decision to pull Talarico's interview.
'This was because of a fear that the FCC may say something to them.'
"We did receive information suggesting that the federal government did not shut down the segment, number one," Crockett said.
"That is my understanding that the federal government did not shut this down, and we will do an official statement once we get another official statement that we anticipate is going to be coming from Paramount," Crockett added. "So we will read what they say, and then we'll go from there."
RELATED: Stephen Colbert melts down after CBS pulls interview with Democrat just months before his show ends
Crockett's assessment was counter to CBS' official statement, which claimed that Colbert's show was "provided legal guidance" by the FCC.
"The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled," the statement read. "THE LATE SHOW decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options."
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr reiterated these guidelines in late January, reminding networks of their "obligation" to provide candidates equal airtime.
"For years, legacy TV networks assumed that their late night & daytime talk shows qualify as 'bona fide news' programs — even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes," Carr said in a post on X. "Today, the FCC reminded them of their obligation to provide all candidates with equal opportunities."
RELATED: Trump says Colbert is to blame for his show's cancellation — but adds Kimmel and Fallon are next
As CBS' statement said, Colbert opted to post the interview on social media rather than broadcasting it live on the program in order to work around the FCC's new guidance requiring shows to provide competing candidates equal time on air. Although Crockett has been on Colbert's show multiple times, she noted that she "did not get a request" to appear on his show.
"It is our understanding that Colbert, either Mr. Colbert or CBS, decided that they just didn't want to air it," Crockett said of the Talarico interview. "And this was because of a fear that the FCC may say something to them and that there may have been advice to just have me on and then they could clear the issue."
"It was my understanding that someone somewhere decided we just don't want to do that and instead, we're going to just do it this way."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Donald Trump called on Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr to investigate ABC News and consider pulling its license for its “fake” reporting.
'I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it’s so wrong.'
During Trump’s bilateral meeting with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, an ABC News reporter pressed the president about the delayed release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein.
“Why wait for Congress to release the Epstein files? Why not just do it now?” the ABC reporter asked.
“It’s not the question that I mind; it’s your attitude,” Trump replied.
“It’s the way you ask these questions. You start off with a man who’s highly respected, asking him a horrible, insubordinate, and just a terrible question. You could even ask that same exact question nicely.”
“You’re a terrible person and a terrible reporter,” the president remarked.
Trump reiterated that he had “nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein,” adding, “I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert.”
He slammed the legacy media outlet for ignoring the relationships liberal political figures had with the sex predator.
“All these guys were friends of his. You don’t even talk about those people,” Trump said.
“I just got a little report, and I put it in my pocket, of all the money [Epstein has] given to Democrats. He gave me none. Zero.”
He called ABC a “crappy company.”
“I think the license should be taken away from ABC because your news is so fake and it’s so wrong,” Trump declared, presumably referring to the news outlet’s broadcasting license obtained through the Federal Communications Commission.
“We have a great … chairman, who should look at that,” he added.
“I think when you come in and when you’re 97% negative to Trump and then Trump wins the election in a landslide, that means obviously your news is not credible and you’re not credible as a reporter.”
Trump told the ABC News reporter that she could not ask any more questions during the bilateral meeting.
ABC and the FCC did not respond to a request for comment.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Anyone who drives America’s highways knows the story: potholes, cracked pavement, and endless construction zones. States pour billions of tax dollars into road maintenance every year, yet the pavement always seems to crumble faster than it can be repaired. What most motorists don’t realize is that heavy trucks cause much of the damage — and pay almost nothing to fix it.
Federal estimates show that a single fully loaded 18-wheeler can inflict as much pavement damage as nearly 10,000 passenger cars. Fuel taxes and highway user fees from trucking companies cover only a small fraction of the destruction they cause. Taxpayers pick up the rest, footing the bill for constant repaving, bridge work, and the cycle of crumbling roads.
Every additional ton of freight shifted to rail represents pavement preserved and taxpayer dollars saved.
Trucking keeps the economy moving, and freight rail, shipping, and trucking together form the backbone of America’s supply chain. But shifting more freight to rail makes sense. The rail network is self-maintained by the companies that use it, and trains move goods more safely and efficiently than trucks. The more freight we move by rail, the less damage we’ll have to repair on the nation’s roads.
The recently proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern offers an opportunity to improve both our roads and our supply chains simultaneously. By creating a more efficient coast-to-coast rail network, the merger would allow railroads to capture more freight that currently travels by truck — relieving taxpayers of billions of dollars in hidden subsidies for road repair.
Merging Union Pacific’s vast western network with Norfolk Southern’s eastern lines would create the nation’s first true transcontinental railroad — from the Pacific to the Atlantic. For shippers, that means single-line pricing instead of juggling multiple operators to move goods from point A to point B.
It also means faster delivery, fewer interchanges, and lower costs.
Railroads, unlike trucking companies, build and maintain their own infrastructure. Every mile of track, every bridge, and every switching yard comes from private capital, not public funds.
When freight moves from trucks to trains, taxpayers win twice: less highway damage to repair and more freight handled by a system that pays its own way.
The savings aren’t theoretical. Heavy trucks cause roughly 40% of the wear on America’s roads while accounting for only about 10% of total miles driven.
A North Carolina Department of Transportation study found that trucks with four or more axles underpay for road damage by anywhere from 37% to 92%. State budgets from Texas to Pennsylvania tell the same story: Highway repair costs soar while trucking fees barely make a dent.
Every ton of freight shifted to rail means less pavement destroyed and more tax dollars saved.
Naturally, critics of the merger will cry “monopoly,” as they always do when industries consolidate. But that misses the real competitive landscape. In addition to competing with other railroads, rail competes vigorously with trucks, which dominate American freight today.
Trucks control roughly 70% of domestic freight volume — subsidized in part by taxpayer-funded roads. Allowing railroads to offer a stronger alternative isn’t anti-competitive — on the contrary, it’s pro-market. It creates stronger competition for taxpayer-subsidized trucking.
RELATED: DOT withholds $40M from blue state for flouting English requirements for truckers
At its heart, this merger is a test of whether the Trump administration trusts the free market to deliver solutions. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are not asking taxpayers to fund their merger. They are not asking for subsidies, grants, or carve-outs. They are investing their own capital to create a system that reduces public costs, strengthens supply chains, and keeps America competitive.
If policymakers are serious about preserving America’s battered roads, as well as strengthening our supply chain infrastructure, the choice is obvious. Let the free market work, and let railroads take more freight off the highways.
Human cheeseball and CNN content creator Brian Stelter is very concerned this week after Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr publicly reminded TV broadcast stations that they in fact do not have a right to deliberately lie to voters using the public airwaves. Three times in as many days, Stelter has referred to a “threat” […]
When it gave them an excuse to grouse about a Republican on late-night, Democrats were all for the equal-time rule.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com