2,500 reasons 'The View' is pure leftist propaganda — and 1 reason the FCC should leave it alone anyway
This just in from ABC: "The View" is a news program.
Yes, that’s the same “View” that traffics in more conspiracy theories than a tinfoil salesman at an Alex Jones convention.
In 2022, Goldberg claimed without evidence that the GOP planned to take select Americans’ voting rights away as well as a woman’s right to vote.
Ridiculous? Of course it is.
The surprising part isn't that ABC is saying it. It's that, for decades, the FCC has effectively treated it that way by exempting programs like "The View" from the agency's equal-time rules.
Now that long-standing interpretation is under attack — and while it's hard to argue with mocking the gynocentric gabfest's journalistic standards, the government shouldn't be deciding which shows qualify as "real" journalism.
News flush
The dispute traces back to January, when FCC Chairman Brendan Carr announced that late-night and daytime talk shows could no longer rely on a decades-old interpretation of the "bona fide news interview" exemption to the equal-time rule. Carr argued that broadcasters had stretched the exemption beyond recognition, saying legacy networks had treated their talk shows as news programs "even when motivated by purely partisan political purposes."
Congress created that exemption in 1959 after broadcasters warned that forcing equal time for every candidate interview would discourage political coverage altogether. Lawmakers ultimately concluded that preserving editorial discretion better served the public than having regulators second-guess programming decisions.
The first major test came a few weeks later. Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico appeared on "The View" months before his expected primary against Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). Under Carr's new interpretation, ABC could no longer simply assume the interview qualified for the exemption, prompting the FCC to investigate whether the appearance should have triggered equal-time obligations.
The effects were almost immediate. Citing the same regulatory uncertainty, CBS lawyers advised Stephen Colbert not to air a scheduled interview with Talarico on "The Late Show." Rather than risk an FCC dispute, Colbert released the interview on YouTube instead, where the agency has no jurisdiction. Whether you sympathize with Colbert or not, the episode demonstrated how quickly regulatory uncertainty can begin shaping editorial decisions.
Narrow 'View'
Carr's criticism wasn't pulled from thin air. The show's guest lineup is notoriously one-sided. According to the Media Research Center, last year "The View" hosted 128 liberal-leaning guests compared with just two conservatives. One of those two, actress Cheryl Hines, is generally considered "conservative" only because her husband, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., serves in the Trump administration.
The guest tally merely scratches the surface. The Media Research Center has also cataloged nearly 2,500 examples of bias, misinformation and one-sided commentary on "The View." If Carr wanted evidence that the show resembles partisan advocacy more than journalism, he hardly had to look far.
The latest examples don't require a fact-checking degree to decipher — just functioning eyes and ears (a sense of humor doesn't hurt, either).
Whoopi world
Let’s start with Whoopi Goldberg. The Oscar winner has used her “View” pulpit to suggest President Donald Trump planned to separate interracial couples. Her proof? Zip … zero … nada. Nobody tell Usha Vance, an Indian-American woman and the second lady.
That kind of commentary is disqualifying on the surface. It’s doubly damning for a verifiable “news” outlet.
More recently, Goldberg and co-host Joy Behar railed against the GOP’s SAVE Act legislation, saying it’s deeply unpopular. Or as both Goldberg and Behar said into their live mics, “nobody wants it.”
Multiple recent polls show that more than 80% of the public want voters to show ID before voting, the thrust of the legislation.
Good luck finding more than 80% of Americans to agree on, well, anything (beyond a white-hot hatred for robocalls).
That’s not just a little bit off. It’s a major embarrassment, particularly for a “news” program.
RELATED: VEEP TV: JD slays in 'View' ratings coup
Fact-chuckers
“The View” hosts also sit silently as guests utter the most unhinged comments without a fact-check or pushback. Earlier this year, Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) claimed the modern GOP was hell-bent on bringing back slavery.
The four “View” hosts couldn’t raise a single objection, nor ask the veteran Democrat to back up his outlandish claim. Would Walter Cronkite sit still while a guest uttered something so outrageous?
“And that’s the way it isn’t.”
The show’s coverage of Austin Metcalf’s shocking 2025 murder proved how dangerous — yes, dangerous — “The View’s” misinformation can be. Co-host Sunny Hostin lied about the weight disparity between Metcalf and his killer, Karmelo Anthony.
She also lied that Anthony was the only black person in the team’s tent area where the fatal stabbing occurred. Multiple black students were there at the time. Some even testified on behalf of the prosecution.
Some news program. Is it any wonder TikTok accounts repeat misinformation tied to the case?
Fake news fever
And this isn’t a recent problem. “The View” has been twisting the truth like a Bavarian pretzel for years. In 2022, Goldberg claimed without evidence that the GOP planned to take select Americans’ voting rights away as well as a woman’s right to vote.
Evidence? Proof? Hey, Goldberg starred in that adorable “Sister Act” series. That’s enough, apparently.
Two years ago, the same Goldberg said President Trump would throw Americans into camps, including gay Americans, and “disappear” them. Any update on that claim?
In other words, Carr has identified a real problem. His solution is the dangerous part.
Butt out
Treating "The View" as the equivalent of a bona fide news interview program stretches the term beyond recognition. But the government has no business deciding otherwise.
Those slopes can be mighty slippery.
The Twitter Files offered a preview of how quickly government officials can move from combatting misinformation to shaping public debate itself. The power to decide which outlets qualify as "real" journalism won't remain in the hands of today's regulators forever. Eventually it will belong to another administration with very different political priorities.
Conservatives, of all people, should understand that lesson. The power you give your friends today will eventually belong to your opponents.
More voices, not fewer. Even if some of those voices would make Cronkite spin like a top in his grave.
The Second Amendment stops at too many tollbooths
On June 23, standing before a crowd in Pennsylvania, President Trump was asked where he stood on a national right to carry.
His answer was four words: “Yeah, we’re working on it.”
The crowd roared.
For millions of law-abiding gun owners, those words pointed toward something they have awaited for decades: an end to a system that treats a constitutional right like a privilege that must be renewed at every state line.
Let’s be honest about where things stand.
The president has not signed anything, and no national reciprocity law exists today. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act cleared a House committee last fall but has stalled in the Senate.
Our rights are only as strong as our willingness to defend them.
This is the starting line, not the finish line. But it is the right race to run, because the issue reaches far beyond the convenience of carrying a firearm across state borders.
I think about that every time I drive from my home in upstate New York to North Carolina to visit my son, daughter-in-law, and grandson.
I travel through New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and North Carolina. Four states. Four sets of gun laws. Four different answers to the same question: What rights does a free citizen carry when he crosses an invisible line on a map?
We accept this with almost no other right.
My driver’s license is honored in all 50 states. My freedom to speak, worship, and remain secure in my home does not evaporate at a tollbooth.
President Trump has made the same point since 2015, comparing a carry permit to a driver’s license: If one works in every state, so should the other.
The argument is common sense. The principle beneath it runs deeper.
The Second Amendment does not create the right to self-defense. It recognizes a natural right the founders understood to be endowed by God.
The right to keep and bear arms is not a permission slip issued by the government. It is the people’s right of self-preservation.
The founders knew what they were guarding against because they had lived under it.
Strip people of the means to defend themselves, and every other freedom becomes a favor granted by those in power. Free speech becomes a suggestion. Religious liberty becomes a privilege.
History is brutally consistent on this point: Disarmament often comes before oppression, not after it.
RELATED: ‘Shall not be infringed’ — even if you’re high, Supreme Court rules
Yet over the past century, America has moved from treating the right to bear arms as a birthright of citizenship to treating it, in too many places, as a government-granted privilege hedged in by fees, waiting periods, and paperwork.
The result is a maze of state and local laws so inconsistent that the same citizen, with the same clean record and character, can be legal in one state and a criminal the moment he crosses into another.
That is not the rule of law. That is a trap for honest people.
National reciprocity would cut through that maze. It would recognize a simple principle: Your right to carry should travel with you.
Twenty-nine states already recognize that citizens should not need government permission to carry. The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision also affirmed that the Constitution protects the right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense rather than leaving it to the discretion of local officials.
Reciprocity would extend that logic across state lines.
So yes, the president’s words in Pennsylvania were encouraging. But encouragement is not law, and the bill remains stalled in the Senate. It will stay there unless the people who care about this issue make themselves heard.
I have often said that elections are only victories in individual battles. The fight for freedom continues long after the votes are counted.
This is one of those fights.
If you believe your God-given rights should not change the moment you cross a state line, say so. Call your senators. Talk to your neighbors. Make the national right to carry a question every candidate must answer.
Our rights are only as strong as our willingness to defend them.
The founders did their part. The question is whether we will do ours.
Baby's first stock portfolio: Trump marks 'Trump Accounts' launch with historic bell-ringing
For the first time ever, the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq have jointly rung their bells from the White House.
President Trump rang the opening bells of both exchanges from the Oval Office on Monday, marking the official launch of Trump Accounts for children.
'Children, at the age of 18 and after, become very wealthy people, come into the world with essentially no money and end up, at a pretty young age, being very rich.'
The accounts, created under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, became available for contributions starting July 4 and are open to children who won't turn 18 by year's end.
Every eligible child gets a one-time $1,000 seed contribution from the federal government, and family or employers can add more, up to annual limits. The money is invested — by default in an S&P 500 ETF, with more options coming — and grows, tax-advantaged, until the child turns 18. Parents can enroll for free at TrumpAccounts.gov.
Attendees included Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Michael Dell of Dell Technologies and his wife, and NYSE President Lynn Martin, along with executives from Nasdaq and other major firms. Michael and Susan Dell pledged a $6.25 billion commitment — $250 each to the first 25 million qualifying children signed up for Trump Accounts.
At the event, Trump urged attendees to "go out and buy a Dell computer" — and Dell stock jumped more than 7% following his remarks.
Numerous companies including Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, and Robinhood also pledged to match the government's initial contribution for employees' children's accounts, while SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell said she would give company stock to Trump Accounts for more than 2 million children nationwide.
Trump touted the accounts as a way for children to "become very wealthy people ... come into the world with essentially no money and end up, at a pretty young age, being very rich" by adulthood, adding that between individual contributions and seed funding, roughly $800 million in new capital would flow into the stock market for children this week alone.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
No slaughter for the CIA's DEI office — yet
President Trump won the 2024 election promising to gut Biden-era DEI across the federal government, calling it "illegal and immoral." The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence tried to do exactly that — moving to fire 19 career officers who had spent their time on diversity, equity, and inclusion assignments instead of actual intelligence work.
Two Democrat-appointed judges said not so fast.
'As long as the employee subject to termination chooses to pursue reassignment, the agencies must attempt to reassign her.'
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 Thursday that the CIA and ODNI have to let the 19 DEI-linked officers appeal their firings and, in some cases, apply for reassignment before they can be shown the door, the Washington Times reported.
The panel found the agencies skipped procedural steps required for a reduction in force — a technicality that's now kept the firings frozen for well over a year, according to Bloomberg Government.
Writing for the majority, Biden-appointee Judge Nicole Berner — joined by Obama-appointee Judge Stephanie Thacker — ruled the officers had enough of a claim to their jobs to sue in the first place.
Berner wrote: "As long as the employee subject to termination chooses to pursue reassignment, the agencies must attempt to reassign her."
RELATED: 'BIG WIN': Trump calls SCOTUS 'Slaughter' ruling the greatest increase of presidential power in 100 years
In a blistering dissent, Judge Paul Niemeyer, a George H.W. Bush appointee, argued that Congress gave intelligence directors "unfettered discretion" to fire employees precisely so courts couldn't micromanage personnel decisions at agencies handling national security.
He called the injunction unlawful and urged the Supreme Court to step in, calling it a serious separation-of-powers problem: judges telling the CIA how to run its own house.
The ruling lands days after the Supreme Court handed Trump a win affirming his broad authority to fire employees, with a separate case providing a narrow carve-out for officials like Federal Reserve board members.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'Common sense': Trump's new memo promises 'freedom to fix' your own car
President Trump has initiated the end of a high-profile, bureaucratic nightmare related to your own car.
During the Monday signing of a memorandum on "the freedom to fix," President Trump himself expressed his disbelief at the ridiculousness of the problems the government creates.
'If you own it, you should have the freedom to fix it!'
"It came to my attention because I noticed they were arresting people for fixing their car. ... That's not even believable," Trump said before he signed the memorandum.
After signing the memo, Trump added, "We rule by common sense, to a large extent."
RELATED: Exclusive: Trump’s EPA takes major step to end animal testing after Fauci’s cruel beagle experiments
The memo will begin the process of giving car owners greater flexibility to fix their own car. One of the primary limitations at the moment is the harsh restrictions on tampering with emissions controls: "To further ensure vehicle affordability, it is the policy of my Administration that consumers should be able to fix their vehicles with affordable parts without being deemed to have circumvented emissions controls."
The presidential action will attempt to bring greater peace of mind to consumers and after-market parts manufacturers, which are in regulatory limbo as things stand.
It also takes back federal control from the de facto regulatory control taken by California by loosening restrictions and making the costs of repair more affordable. California's system is apparently bloated and time-consuming for owners to receive the necessary certifications for their vehicles.
If it is any indication of the current regulatory environment around this issue, the California Air Resources Board "has the only certification process for after-market parts currently recognized as sufficient under the [Clean Air Act]," the memorandum states.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, who is tasked with loosening the restrictions, touted this memorandum as a win for consumers.
"If you own it, you should have the freedom to fix it!" Zeldin wrote on X. "President Trump just signed a new Presidential Memo protecting Americans’ freedom to fix their own vehicle if they so desire. The President's action also combats cheap foreign aftermarket vehicle parts while also breaking up the monopoly the California Air Resources Board has had over certifying aftermarket parts."
"This is an idea from the top when President Trump called me one recent Saturday night saying he wants this Memo drafted, signed and implemented at Trump Speed instantly," he added.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
'No American flags': Calls for remigration intensify after latest Muslim demonstration in Dearborn, Michigan
In a recent demonstration, the Muslim community of Dearborn, Michigan, took to the streets, marching and chanting in a way that has renewed many Americans' concerns about immigration in this country.
Videos of the scene in Dearborn, Michigan, a town which has found itself near the center of the national debate about immigration due to its high concentration of Muslims, began emerging Sunday morning.
'There are no American flags, but there are flags of many other countries.'
The march was described as an "Ashura procession."
In a video originally posted by Brendan Gutenschwager and later circulated by other accounts, hundreds of Shia Muslims can be seen marching down the street, making hand gestures and salutes, chanting, and waving a number of flags.
RELATED: Comedian infiltrates Dearborn, Michigan — and the stories he returns with are WILD
None of the flags, as some people observed, were American flags. All appeared to be foreign flags, some of which have words written in a foreign script.
Many observers were distressed by this demonstration of apparently unassimilated Muslims who have gained a foothold in America.
Ned Ryun, the CEO of American Majority, wrote, "If you look at this and don't immediately conclude that mass remigration must happen, and happen quickly, you are a moron guilty of suicidal empathy."
Replying to Ned Ryun, Elon Musk voiced similar thoughts on the video and made a chilling observation: "There are no American flags, but there are flags of many other countries. Those whose loyalty is to another country over America are, by definition, traitors and must be expelled immediately."
Gad Saad addressed President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, saying, "Does this concern you at all? If yes, what are the remedies?"
Eric Daugherty pointed out that this is not what assimilation looks like: "TERRIFYING: Dearborn Michigan just went maximum Islam, flooding the streets and making clear they're here to conquer, not assimilate. This is why Islam needs to be repelled! Islamist flags waving, THEY WANT TO END THE WEST."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Why are automakers so afraid of you fixing your own car?
When President Trump emerged from a recent meeting with automotive executives and said he found it strange that some industry leaders oppose Americans repairing their own vehicles, most coverage focused on the politics.
I was more interested in what happened afterward.
If manufacturers truly support independent repairs, why remove provisions governing the very data modern repairs increasingly depend upon?
Because the deeper you dig into the latest right-to-repair fight, the more one question keeps surfacing: Why are automakers fighting so hard to control information generated by vehicles consumers already own?
Follow the money
Follow the money, and the picture becomes much clearer.
The U.S. automotive service market generates roughly $200 billion annually. Service departments are among the industry's most reliable profit centers. As vehicles become more software-driven and connected, automakers have discovered that selling the car no longer has to end the customer relationship. Software subscriptions, connected services, maintenance plans, warranty work, and dealership repairs all create recurring revenue long after the vehicle leaves the showroom.
There's nothing wrong with companies pursuing new revenue streams. The problem begins when protecting those revenue streams limits consumer choice.
That's why the latest legislative fight deserves attention.
Stripped for parts
The debate centers on H.R. 7389, the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026. Supporters describe it as a way to modernize regulations while preserving independent repair access. On the surface, that sounds like good news for consumers.
Then something interesting happened. One of the most important parts of the broader right-to-repair debate disappeared.
Language covering telematics — the wireless vehicle data increasingly needed for diagnostics, calibrations, software updates, and repairs — was stripped from the bill before it advanced through committee. For many independent repair advocates, that wasn't a technical detail. It was the entire fight.
That raises an obvious question. If manufacturers truly support independent repairs, why remove provisions governing the very data modern repairs increasingly depend upon?
The answer may have less to do with repairs than with control. For decades, owning a vehicle meant deciding who repaired it. Consumers chose their mechanic. Independent shops competed with dealerships. Competition kept prices down and choices open.
Modern vehicles work differently.
Data-driven
Today's cars constantly generate data. They monitor component performance, transmit diagnostics, receive software updates, and communicate through manufacturer-controlled networks.
Control the data, and you gain influence over the repair process. That's why automakers, dealers, independent repair shops, aftermarket suppliers, consumer advocates, and lawmakers are all fighting over the same issue.
Manufacturers argue that unrestricted access creates cybersecurity risks. Those concerns shouldn't be dismissed. Modern vehicles are vastly more complex than the cars many of us grew up driving.
But independent repair shops aren't asking for access to nuclear launch codes. They're asking for the information needed to diagnose, repair, calibrate, and maintain vehicles consumers legally purchased. This is key in an era when more and more repairs require access to software rather than simply a wrench.
Viewed alongside other industry trends, the picture becomes even clearer. Vehicle telematics continue expanding. Subscription-based features are becoming common. Driving data has become valuable to insurers and analytics companies. Manufacturers can now change vehicle functionality through over-the-air software updates.
Each development can be defended on its own. Taken together, they suggest an industry steadily increasing its influence over vehicles long after they are sold.
RELATED: Cheap Chinese cars: Trojan horse built to undermine US security?
Taking ownership
That's why the right-to-repair debate increasingly looks less like a repair issue and more like an ownership issue.
Farmers confronted the same problem years ago as manufacturers restricted repairs on modern agricultural equipment. Purchasing expensive machinery no longer guaranteed the ability to fix it without manufacturer involvement.
The auto industry now appears headed toward a similar crossroads.
Technology has unquestionably made vehicles better. They're safer, more efficient, and more capable than ever before. But technology also changes incentives. Every connected system creates opportunities for convenience, recurring revenue, data collection, and greater manufacturer control.
What makes H.R. 7389 so important isn't what remains in the bill — it's what was removed. The fight over telematics reveals where this debate is headed next.
The future isn't really about brake pads or oil changes. It's about who controls vehicle data, who profits from it, and ultimately who decides what owners are allowed to do with products they have already purchased.
The fix is in
For more than a century, vehicle ownership had a simple meaning. You bought the car. You decided who repaired it, how long you kept it, and what modifications you made.
Today, that definition is becoming less clear. The question isn't whether modern vehicles should be secure. Of course they should. The question isn't whether repairs have become more complicated. They have.
The real question is whether ownership still means what consumers think it means. Because if automakers are willing to fight this hard over repair data today, consumers should pay close attention to what comes next.
The right-to-repair battle may ultimately be remembered as the moment Americans discovered that ownership in the connected-car era no longer carries the assumptions previous generations took for granted.
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com