The New 'State Media.' Plus, Podcasters Are Running the FBI.
50:35 Share

The White House has filled the briefing room with Trump loyalists, and they're asking the hard-hitting questions. Breakback speech from President Trump. Can we expect that pace to continue as the first 100 days moves along here? Absolutely. From WNYC in New York, this is On the Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Loewinger. Also on this week's show, Trump's government of right-wing influencers expands.

with a cop-turned-podcaster joining the FBI. Bongino was smart, using his proximity as a Secret Service agent as a way to suggest that he was in the room and that this proximity birthed in him this desire to root out bureaucratic Washington no-goodness. Plus, three years into Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Trump's still charmed by Putin. If you see how Trump is speaking now...

about global politics. It's very much just like Putin. It's all coming up after this. On the Media is supported by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies.

Try it at Progressive.com, Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states. From WNYC in New York, this is On the Media. I'm Michael Loewinger. And I'm Brooke Gladstone. How about launching the show with Chico Marx? Your Excellency, I thought you left. Oh, no, I don't leave.

I saw you with my own eyes. Well, who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes? I think for many news consumers, what makes this moment so maddening is how the truth has so little bearing on policy. For instance, Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency claims $65 billion in savings. But for all the calamitous chaos it's causing nationwide, it can show receipts for only about $9.6 billion.

As for its claims of rampant corruption, deceased Social Security recipients, and missing federal workers, no receipts at all. No matter. Here are some of the flagrant scams that, as an example, they've spent money on, and we've been able to recapture. $520 million for a consultant to, let's see here, $520 million, $520 million.

The president at the Conservative Political Action Conference last Saturday. But not just there. All month he's been decrying this scam to governors at the White House. $520 million was given for a consultant to do ESG, that's environmental, social and governance investments in Africa. Signing executive orders at Mar-a-Lago. $520 million for a consultant to...

On the environment, it's called environmental, social, and governance. Investments in Africa, $520 million. The Washington Post's fact-checker-in-chief, Glenn Kessler, had a field day on this one. For one thing, he found that much of the contract had already been awarded, so Trump can't brag about getting back $520 million. For another, social and governance activities are not in the contract.

And best of all, the contract was to promote investment and American business under a program started by Trump. But undeterred, he'll repeat what he chooses. His media will repeat it too. And just like his claim that the Capitol riot was a day of peace and love, ultimately, we'll begin to suspect our lying eyes. The important thing is the repetition.

Now, there's been a fair amount of research on something called the illusory truth effect, first identified in 1977. It found that repeated statements are easier to process and so are perceived to be more truthful than follow-up statements. In the press, we call those follow-ups fact checks. So this segment is about repetition in the context of the president's media.

At his administration's first press briefing last month, Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt announced a shakeup in the briefing room. We're also opening up this briefing room to new media voices who produce news-related content and whose outlet is not already represented by one of the seats in this room.

We welcome independent journalists, podcasters, social media influencers, and content creators to apply for credentials to cover this White House. Meanwhile, the White House announced this week that the White House Correspondents Association would no longer be choosing who gets to fill the precious 49 seats in the briefing room.

Or who writes the pool reports when the president is on the road? Moving forward, the White House press pool will be determined by the White House press team. Legacy outlets who have participated in the press pool for decades will still be allowed to join. Fear not.

But we will also be offering the privilege to well-deserving outlets who have never been allowed to share in this awesome responsibility. So who are these new media voices coming in from the cold? Many of the chosen are the very conspiracy theorists, propagandists, and far-right influencers that Anna Merlin covers, a senior reporter at Mother Jones.

She says the seat that's designated especially for new media, and here the occupants rotate, have held actual reporters, but also those who don't report, but merely praise.

Like John Stoll, the head of news at X. I also thank you, Caroline, for opening this seat up to new media. It really is a testament not only to your open-mindedness, but also to innovation that you'd actually think about folks that are not traditionally credentialed to be in this room to be in this room. And here's Rumble podcaster John Ashbrook using his seat to search for truth.

So, is that how this goes?

That's how this goes. I'm sorry. I'm not laughing because it's funny. I'm laughing because these are incredible levels of comment, not a question. If I had asked a question like this of a Democratic administration, I think it would have gone viral on Twitter with people making fun of me.

So let's go through some of these new media names like Jack Posobiec. He's a senior editor of Human Events, a far-right publication, and he recently traveled with Treasury Secretary Scott Vessant to Ukraine. So Jack Posobiec is a far-right activist and podcaster, and he came onto the scene in

First, during the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, which, as you remember, was a false conspiracy theory about child trafficking happening in the basement of a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C. By Democrats and maybe run by Hillary Clinton? Indeed, that was the conspiracy theory, despite the fact that the pizza parlor, as you'll recall, did not have a basement. So Posobiec first came on the scene to promote

Pizzagate. And actually in 2017, as I wrote, he was briefly granted White House press credentials during the first Trump administration when he was working for a Canadian outlet called Rebel Media, a sort of right-wing outlet. And he was

And at the time, that made news, as did the fact that the Trump administration was granting press passes to other places like InfoWars and a conspiratorial outlet called Gateway Pundit. And Posobiec didn't last long in the briefing room then. But this time, he's even skipping being in the briefing room at all, and now he's just traveling with members of the administration. Also on the scene is Natalie Winters, a correspondent for Steve Bannon's War Room. Tell me about her.

Natalie Winters is an interesting figure. She is very young, and she's just been named as an investigative reporter and White House correspondent at Steve Bannon's War Room. As my colleagues at Mother Jones have written, in one of her previous roles, she was paid by the backers of a Chinese businessman accused of fraud to write flattering stories about him.

for various right-wing publications, those stories did not disclose that she was being paid by the backers of that businessman. And we should also note, like Natalie Winters, Carolyn Levitt, the press secretary, was also previously paid by allies of the same Chinese businessman and convicted fraudster that Natalie Winters was paid by to put her name on op-eds in right-wing news outlets praising his work.

Winters went on to falsely accuse Mother Jones of being a Beijing propaganda front in an article for the right-wing headline USA. So I guess she's known for throwing punches back. She did it on Wednesday on the White House lawn. Sure.

She did. Spare me the idea that any of the members of this press corps who are standing right behind me right now give a damn about free speech because they don't. They're the state media. They're the state propagandists that, frankly, the CCP would envy. All they do is carry water and carry the talking points, whether it be the intel community, the Biden regime, the Pentagon, the deep state, you name it. I think the White House needs to strip these people of their seats.

Fill it with new media. I'm so disgusted of these people and their sense of superiority. Now, Mike Lindell, my pillow guy, who is also an election fraud conspiracy theorist, now has the Mike Lindell Media Group that has two White House correspondents, right?

Yes, it is fascinating. One of them is a former professional makeup artist turned political pundit. And the press release about her hiring talks a lot about her patriotism and her belief that God has placed her at the MyPillowGuys TV network. Her name is Allison Steinberg, and in her press release she said...

I will now be on the ground giving live updates from D.C. In this era of fake news, I'm eager and excited to bring truth and shine light into the darkness. Who's the other one? Cara Castro Nova, who is a former reporter for Gateway Pundit and Newsmax, which are both right-wing news sites. And she's identified as an investigative journalist and an athlete. I believe she's a former boxer.

And The Daily Wire has sent Mary Margaret Olihan, who's the author of a book about people who, in the words of a subtitle, escaped the gender ideology cult and who's Instagrammed herself partying at Trump's Mar-a-Lago. Does she have a hard press pass or was she just in one of those rotating seats? I believe she has a hard pass.

Two other Daily Wire figures delivered these remarks talking about needing to be in the briefing room and needing to, quote, bring the American public these stories and sharing with them the truth that legacy media has no intention of ever sharing with them. To date, her work in that department has involved things like tweeting screenshots of executive orders, taking a video of President Trump walking into a room, and tweeting photos of a list of accomplishments that White House staff handed out to reporters. So, you know.

Former ESPN host Sage Steele has gotten a turn in the new media seat. Yes. Sage Steele became...

increasingly involved in right-wing media circles after leaving ESPN and settling a lawsuit with them. So what was interesting about Ms. Steele was that she was in the new media seat on February 5th and asked a question about, quote, men in women's sports, which is clearly a transphobic reference to trans women. And then hours later, she was standing behind President Trump at an event where he was signing an executive order that purported to keep, quote, men out of women's sports.

There was also a shakeup of pool reporters who covered Trump. For people who may not get the significance of that, could you tell me about the White House Correspondents Association and how it came to have that power?

The White House Correspondents Association is over 100 years old. And for decades, people who are part of the Correspondents Association news outlets have been part of the press pool on a rotating basis. So at events like on Air Force One or other places where the full media can't be accommodated, a member of the WHCA is sent and they deliver what are called these pool reports where they just write down a very fact-based, very straightforward message

recounting of whatever happened in these moments when the full press isn't there. Instead, what the White House is doing here is they're saying, we're going to choose who has access to the president. And it's not a stretch to think that outlets like Steve Bannon's War Room are going to approach pool reports differently than NBC or the New York Times does.

One thing we haven't actually spent a lot of time on is the fact that the official White House statements, some of them, were going to be made available not by the White House, but online.

Actually, now you can't see statements on X unless you are logged in and it requires you to have an X account. So as far as transparency goes and basic accessibility goes, it's not great. In a lot of ways, we're seeing access to information narrowing. We're seeing a hostility towards the idea that the administration is accountable to answering questions and giving statements to the press and to the public in ways that people find disturbing.

I guess one thing that we can count on that hasn't changed is that the press secretary continues the long Trump legacy of deriding the legacy media from the podium. That is true. They are continuing to do that. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was certainly full of division. And of course, Sean Spicer infamously chided the legacy media for accurately reporting on the size of Trump's inauguration speech.

Here's a clip of Melissa McCarthy on SNL doing Sean Spicer. We'll do a couple questions. Go. Glenn Thrush, New York Times. Yeah, I wanted to ask about the travel ban on Muslims. Yeah, it's not a ban. I'm sorry? It's not a ban.

The travel ban is not a ban, which makes it not a ban. But you just called it a ban. You said ban. Now I'm saying it back to you. The president tweeted, and I quote, if the ban were announced with a one-week notice... Yeah, exactly. You just said that.

He's quoting you. It's your words. You can make a good case that the relationship between the White House and the press should be fundamentally adversarial, right? And it always has been. Yes, it always has been. And of course, people were critical, for instance, of the Biden administration and of Joe Biden for holding fewer press conferences than previous presidents. These

These are longstanding arguments. And we should note, I'm not a White House reporter. I don't cover the White House in person. I am a reporter who writes about conspiracy theories. And the outlets that I have covered for years are now the ones that are often present for these events.

breaking news, getting a version of exclusives, I guess you could call them, which is very interesting for me to be watching InfoWars as part of my regular coverage and to see quotes from administration officials. It is unusual. But those press conferences never have offered much in the way of facts. And Levitt doesn't ever really answer the media's questions in any case.

And what happens in that briefing room is accessible to all. So I wonder if maybe there's an upside here for the fact-based media. I'm guessing they could spend their time more productively?

Well, here's how I think about it. Investigative reporting, scoops, investigations, those don't happen because you get access to the White House briefing room, right? I think everybody is clear that that's not the role that those things serve. But it is important for a democratic society to have members of the administration up there taking questions from the press, as much of the press as possible. This is about, I'm sorry to be

overstating things here, but this is about preserving fundamental elements of our democracy, you know? So while the fact-based legacy mainstream media, whatever you want to call it, can spend our time doing other things, I think what this says about accountability on the part of the White House is not great.

Anna, thank you very much. Thank you so much for having me. Anna Merlin is a senior reporter at Mother Jones covering disinformation, technology, and extremism. Coming up, podcasters now run the FBI. What could go wrong? This is On The Media. On The Media.

On this Radiolab, people were yelling at each other. The story of a scientific battle waged over millennia. Just a colossal number of people are getting sick. And the scientists who put their lives on the line. I should die in the cause of science like a soldier on the field of honor. Bang! To reveal the secrets of the air all around us. It's fascinating, messy, and in some ways almost cursed. Revenge of the Miasma from Radiolab. Listen wherever you get podcasts.

This is On The Media. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Loewinger. It's a MAGA media world, and we're all just living in it. The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen? It's sitting on my desk right now.

Attorney General Pam Bondi on Fox Wednesday after congressional Republicans sent letters to the DOJ demanding the release of a new trove of classified Epstein records that may or may not exist. I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files.

That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the president from all of these agencies. Then, on Thursday, libs of TikTok, Mike Cernovich, and a group of far-right personalities got special access to the release. Today, the White House made a big show of handing a bunch of conservative influencers binders labeled "The Epstein Files: Phase One." But the whole stunt was a bust.

The binders made for a nice photo op, but they contained nothing that hadn't been disclosed in prior leaks and court records. For a group of influencers who present themselves as the replacement for the White House press corps, they are, in a way, getting what they asked for. Lies and obfuscation straight from the administration. The kind that even spin doctors can't spin. What's interesting is we're all waiting for bombshells, we're all waiting for juicy stuff, and that's not what's in this binder.

That's not what's in this binder at all. It is the biggest disappointment I think that you'll find. I encourage you to do your own homework. The real winner of this farce was the Trump White House, which disclosed nothing new that could harm its own while still driving attention to its far-right echo chamber, a breeding ground for propagandists, conspiracy theories, and now civil servants. Remember Watergate?

We had political operatives break into a building to steal information, which is 100% criminal and people were prosecuted and rightly so. This is Kash Patel, now director of the FBI, speaking on his podcast Kash's Corner in 2022. Now you have a six-year saga of criminal activity from Russiagate to the raid. And

And it's the same people at the FBI DOJ who started and launched Russiagate that are now supervising and doing the Mar-a-Lago raid, the search warrant. In his first full week on the job, Patel announced he planned to move some 1,500 FBI agents out of D.C. and into field offices around the country.

He asked mixed martial arts fighters from the UFC to help train FBI agents. And he broke a big promise about who would fill the deputy director role, his number two. According to the FBI Agents Association, they say that Patel committed to them that he was hoping to and interested in hiring a career FBI agent, as has always been the case in this job. Then on

On Sunday, President Trump has named a former Secret Service agent and conservative podcaster as the new deputy director of the FBI. Dan Bongino will serve as the FBI's second in command to the agency's director, Kash Patel. I get it if you are a political opponent of mine that has been involved with

proudly celebrating a weaponized justice system. Bongino on his podcast Monday. You don't understand how a guy like me who discusses partisan content in an opinion show can go and do a unquestionably nonpartisan job. I'm going to ask you a simple question. Have you seen what I did before I came here?

I'm committed to service. People play different roles. Bongino was pretty smart in terms of using his Secret Service background and really law enforcement background as a New York cop as a way to thrust him into politics.

Brandi Zadrozny is a senior reporter at NBC News, where she covers the internet. She co-authored the recent piece, Dan Bongino's years-long history of FBI criticism and conspiracy theories. He used this proximity as a Secret Service agent to Bush and then Obama as a way to suggest that he was in the room. He was in the room.

He claimed that he was privy to the room where it happened during Obamacare, and he saw the negotiations, and he said it made him want to run so he could do something about it. Some of his Secret Service agent colleagues came forward and said, we don't really get access to the room where those things happen. He didn't win the elections that he ran for. He ran three separate times for different congressional seats.

In 2015, he launched his podcast, The Dan Bongino Show. Initially, you've said it floundered. But then around 2017, he really jumped whole hog onto the Trump train. How did he come to embrace MAGA? And what do you think this did for his following?

Bongino, 2015-2016, had this little podcast. It wasn't really doing so well. But when his audience started to grow, it was clear that he understood the audience that he could sort of scoop up when he hitched his wagon to Trump's star. Then on to 2017, you saw him latch on to these narratives that were really, really pro-Trump narratives.

He became a huge proponent of this conspiracy theory called Spygate, this theory that the FBI was spying on Trump's 2016 campaign in an effort to rig the election for Hillary Clinton. The devastating disclosures of the FBI

implanting confidential informants, spies, inside the Trump team were so devastating that the only way for the Democrats to get away from looking like a bunch of police state tyrants was to insist that they weren't spying or investigating the Trump team, they were investigating the Russians.

Bongino suggested as part of a larger narrative that Democrats and biased members of the FBI were all colluding to steal the election from Trump. And this was kind of a departure for Bongino because prior to this, he had been fairly mild about the FBI on his show, right? Pretty deferential. He was a law and order guy. Remember that law and order? Like that was a thing. What it is now is that the institutions are bad and

They are corrupt. And so someone like Bongino needs to go in and strip them of the DEI and the Democratic ideology and all the rest that has infiltrated and is now weaponized against Donald Trump.

I want to talk a little bit about the infrastructure that allowed Bongino to have an explosively popular show. In 2022, he was banned from YouTube, where he would host the video version of his podcast for his comments about the efficacy of masks during the pandemic. He then moved over to Rumble, which is sort of a right-wing alternative to YouTube. What role did that site play in his ascendance? Huge. Huge.

We in the media, myself included, I remember getting assignments because I was the internet reporter and I would get assignments to look into the alternative media thing happening. And that was fascinating.

Gab and Rumble and a host of other places that I just didn't think would be a thing. And no one really did. But Bongino was really smart. Again, he saw the ascendancy of something that not many other people did. I think he was Rumble's first major creator moving his show over there. And it's, for me, at least someone who monitors right-wing media, it's become sort of a one-stop shop for

for how to monitor what right-wing creators are doing now. And it's really effective in that way. Don Jr. has a show there now. You can watch Steve Bannon to Charlie Kirk to everybody else. Everybody's on Rumble now. Over on Rumble and in this sort of media empire that he's built, which has this video streaming component, he's on radio stations, he has a top 10 podcast, The Dan Bongino Show. As you mentioned, his rhetoric about the FBI has really heated up.

So Bongino and his show really pushed this debunked idea that the FBI helped manipulate the 2020 campaign when it came to Trump. He was this huge fan of the Twitter files. When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he opened up internal documents to a handful of partisan journalists. And in these documents...

Everybody rooted through and what they came out with was that the government and the mainstream media was colluding and forcing social media companies to censor conservative Americans. That's not really what it was, actually. When you really look at the Twitter files, you see really complicated decisions about content moderation that the government, media, and social media were sort of wrestling with.

One example of something that Bongino really glommed onto was the Hunter Biden laptop story, and that is a New York Post story. The government was worried at the time about Russian meddling in the election and the planting of false stories. And they pointed it out to Twitter and Facebook, and Twitter and Facebook leapt on it immediately. Both now say they regret that decision, but they probably shouldn't have strangled the reach of that New York Post story, the Hunter Biden laptop story, because they're

The narrative from that was that two FBI agents have been identified in documents pressuring Facebook to suppress the posts accurate and factual reporting about Hunter Biden.

It sure looks as if the FBI deliberately pre-censored a legitimate story for a political aim. The other thing that he has been quite extreme on surrounding January 6th, he suggested that the FBI played a role in inciting or allowing the Capitol riot to happen. You're going to start asking once you find out who really incited this, quote, insurrection. I'm

telling you this is an inside job. That was all part of a plot to crack down on conservative activism. So he supported these ex-FBI agents who were ousted for supporting January 6th and spreading these January 6th conspiracy theories inside the agency. They were put on leave, and he sort of held them up and had them on his show even, painted them as whistleblowers.

All is sort of, again, evidence that there was this inside job around January 6th and that the FBI was part of some cover-up. Last year or so, he started calling the Bureau a threat to America. And now he will take the mantle as the number two position. And in a recent episode of his podcast, a sort of victory lap where he's making the announcement himself, charting out the future of his program...

He said he would help FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and President Trump realize their vision for the Bureau. What is that vision? It's important to know that he has repeatedly said that he...

that he refuses to move on from the stolen 2020 election because he says that it hasn't been studied thoroughly, it hasn't been investigated thoroughly. And now he's in a position with Kash Patel who says the same thing. The FBI has lost control.

It's broken. Irredeemably corrupt at this point. One would assume if he believes that it's a corrupt organization and it's filled with corrupt agents and needs to be, as he's called it, disbanded, I assume that that is what we will see because that is what he has said. Bongino has made videos targeting you and your reporting as recently as last week. What has he been saying and why is he coming after you? My beat is...

We've talked about this before, but my early beat was, you know, the weirdos on the Internet. And around 2016, those weirdos, including Dan Bongino, became really politically important. Their fealty to Donald Trump and their loyalty to him became politically valuable, right?

I'm not famous, but they know who I am, especially because I report on mis- and disinformation, and a lot of their pet subjects revolve around that. I am often reporting on them. That is a lot of times what Dan Bongino seemingly doesn't like about me is that I'm in his wheelhouse.

Because a lot of reporters haven't found these people so politically important, and I've been along for the ride the whole time. Most recently, he was upset that I quibbled with the idea that USAID funded journalists because people that worked for USAID bought subscriptions to...

to some papers. And so I think he called me a twit or something. What happens when he does this is that you as a reporter are swarmed on social media by people who call themselves Bongino's army and people who say stuff like, you've been Bongino-ed, which is creative. Now he is seemingly privy to the country's intelligence and information all at his fingertips because

And so what does he do with that new power? How does he use that? Are you worried he's going to come after you? Gosh, I really, I don't know what to expect anymore. Again, I think we're in this moment of we're finding out. When you think about this conspiracy theory of the witch hunts against Donald Trump, one pillar of this conspiracy theory is the belief that members of the media are in cahoots with

with all of the other arms of the people that are involved in this plan to steal the election or whatever against Donald Trump. And so it wouldn't surprise me if Bongino and the other loyalists that are now in power move some of their targets to the media itself.

Brendan Dilley, who is a sort of colleague and contemporary of Dan Bongino, recently made a very interesting observation, which is that he and his buddies in this far-right podcaster universe, who were once on the outside conspiracizing about the FBI, are now literally on the inside. So much so that he said... There's going to be nobody left doing podcasts soon because the top people are all going to work for the government.

As somebody who's been along for the ride for so long, Brandy, what is it like to see these people welcomed into the seat of American power? Bananas. Absolutely bananas. I can't believe it. I really can't believe it. And I think it does send a signal to other creators that this is the way to power.

I can name a million creators that started as like nothing, libs of TikTok, nothing, and is now affecting decisions at Doge, which is affecting every piece of our government.

I think that once where Dan Bongino was sort of alone, was one of the few people operating in this way and making this kind of media, now I think there are a long line of successors. People are trying to recreate the magic of that formula, which again is just owning the libs, fealty to Donald Trump, and provocative statements. ♪

Brandi, thank you very much. My pleasure. Brandi Zadrozny is a senior reporter at NBC News covering the internet. Coming up, Russia's two-pronged war in Ukraine involves bombing its people and erasing its history. This is On The Media.

And now a word from our sponsors at Betterment. When investing your money starts to feel like a second job, Betterment steps in with a little work-life balance. They're an automated investing and savings app, which means they do the work. While they build and manage your portfolio, you build and manage your weekend plans. While they make it easy to invest for what matters, you just get to enjoy what matters.

Their automated tools simplify the complex and put your money to work optimizing day after day and again and again.

So go ahead, take your time to rest and recharge because while your money doesn't need a work-life balance, you do. Make your money hustle with Betterment. Get started at Betterment.com. That's B-E-T-T-E-R-M-E-N-T dot com. Investing involves risk, performance not guaranteed.

Next time on the New Yorker Radio Hour, Tim Walsh of Minnesota on losing the race for the White House. An old white guy who ran for vice president, you'll land on your feet pretty well. I still struggle with it. It was my job to get this won. And now when I see Medicaid cuts happening, LGBTQ folks being demonized, that's what weighs on me. Tim Walsh joins me next time on the New Yorker Radio Hour.

This is On The Media. I'm Michael Ellinger. And I'm Brooke Gladstone. This week marks three years since Vladimir Putin sent his army into Ukraine as part of a full-scale invasion. On Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky went to the White House to meet with President Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance in front of the cameras. And I want to get this thing over with. You see the hatred he's got for Putin. It's very tough. Then ensued.

Well, just listen. You have to be thankful. You don't have the cards. You're buried there. Your people are dying. You're running low on soldiers. Listen. This mugging of a supposed American ally went on for more than 10 minutes. You're running low on soldiers. It would be a damn good thing. Then you tell us, I don't want to cease fire. I don't want to cease fire. I want to go and I wanted this. Look,

Afterwards, our president went on Truth Social and said that Zelensky had, quote, "...disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he's ready for peace."

This is obviously a profound shift in especially the Republican Party's once very hawkish stance on Russia and one that reflects the particular preferences of Donald Trump.

Here he is, enthralled by Putin's wily recasting of Russia's initial incursions into Crimea, just two days before he launched a direct attack on the Ukrainian capital Kiev in 2022. I said, this is genius. He loved the rhetorical spin that Putin put on his aggression. Oh, that's wonderful. So Putin is now saying it's independent, a large section of Ukraine.

I said, how smart is that? And he's going to go in and be a peacekeeper. Yaroslav Trofimov is the chief foreign affairs correspondent for The Wall Street Journal and author of No Country for Love, a historical novel about tragedy and survival in Ukraine.

Yaroslav, welcome to the show. Great to be on the show. Take us back to 2018. In July of that year in Helsinki, President Trump and Vladimir Putin had just met behind closed doors, and Trump emerges and says, Our relationship has never been worse. That changed as of about...

four hours ago. The chemistry between Putin and Trump was something remarkable. It was smiles and joy. But then Trump was asked about the finding of American intelligence that the Russians were responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee. I have President Putin,

And the outrage was immediate. The leaders of the American National Security Establishment, who were sitting in the front row in their press conference, complained on a flight back to the U.S. And within 24 hours, President Trump said he had misspoken and he had been misunderstood.

Trump actually ended up appointing Russia hawks like John Bolton, introduced tougher sanctions on Russia, and sold weapons to Ukraine, something that President Obama had refused to do. The pressure was so high at the time that he didn't really have the room for what he wanted.

what he always wanted, which is a warmer relationship with President Putin. He couldn't have that warmer relationship because there were some experienced professionals on his team the first time. Now those guardrails are gone and he can say pretty much whatever he wants, even that Ukraine started the war. Today I heard, oh, we weren't invited. Well, you've been there for three years. You should have ended it three years. You should have never started it. You could have made a deal.

The entire world was watching on February 24th, 2022, as Russian tanks rolled across the border, unprovoked, saying that Ukraine started the war defies not just common sense, you know, your basic sensory faculties. And yet this obvious untruth was not challenged. Why do you think Russia has this special appeal to Trump beyond business opportunities?

If you talk to people who served in his administration, he was fascinated by the power that is wielded by Putin, or for that matter, Xi Jinping. He would always question, why can't I do this? Why can they do so much more?

There is also a shared vision of how the world should be around. If you see how Trump is speaking now about global politics, it's very much just like Putin in 19th century imperialist discourse. It's a view shared also by an ultra-conservative portion of the Republican base, which now regards Russia as a kind of exemplar of traditional values, a social order reminiscent of the 50s,

What is it that they think they see in Russia?

Yeah, that's really bizarre because there is the Russia as it exists, which is a country with one of the world's highest abortion and divorce rates, with a shrinking population, social crisis, massive immigration, by the way, mostly Muslim, and corruption that is endemic. And then there's this imagined Russia, in part because of very skillful propaganda by Putin to cast Russia as this Christian utopia, you know, haven for family values. In fact,

In fact, as he's carrying out the war in Ukraine, where he's killing women and children and destroying cities and breaking families apart, driving millions from their homes and from their country,

He's casting this as the war to preserve the values, to make sure our children are not corrupted by all this perversions imported from the West. And then they will always have only a father and a mother and not two fathers. And this discourse of traditional values is working. But how is he spreading it? How are Americans consuming it? Who are the principal voices out there promoting this vision?

First of all, you had for a long time outlets like Russia Today and Sputnik that were broadcasting in English. And they have a very skillful use of social media now. But also a lot of people that are promoted by Elon Musk on X are also promoting this narrative.

There was something you put in one of your articles that was so fascinating to me, that Russia now has a special immigration program for Americans and others who are fleeing woke values. They have to pack up and put all their stuff in a push cart because of DEI, I guess.

In February of 22, Putin said, "We're fighting so that our children have one mother, one father, and no one is perverted by the decadent West." I have some tape of Joseph Rose, an American YouTuber who moved to Russia in 2022.

Because right now you've got the West that's experimenting with living without traditional family values. And you've got traditional family values type people in the West, Christians, conservatives, people like that going, oh my gosh, what's happening to my world? What do I do? They don't know that there is a place where they could live the life they want to live. And that's over here in Russia. It's remarkable how the language is being weaponized. What are the traditional values? The first traditional values, those shall not kill.

And yet this entire part of the murderous nature of the Russian state is pretty obscure by the fact that, oh, well, they banned gay marriage. They must be very traditional and Christian.

It's a very a la carte way of choosing your traditional values. And of course, to conduct this war, you really have to demonize the enemy. I don't know how many Americans are familiar with Alexander Dugin and the role he plays, but he does play a big role, right? Well, I mean, big enough to be a guest of Tucker Carlson's show. He's a self-described Russian fascist.

He has a very complicated philosophy and view of the world, but it's basically fascism and imperialism and Russian supremacy. He kind of says that, well, you know, we can divide the world with Americans. You know, we get Europe. They can keep maybe the British Isles. Dugin has actually argued that ethnic Russians should take over the land from, quote, Dublin to Vladivostok.

I guess in other statements, he's shown some flexibility and willingness over how to divide the world. But the fact is that what Putin was demanding ahead of the invasion of Ukraine when he was meeting the U.S. in the summer of 2021 was not dramatically different. He was demanding the rollback of NATO to where it was at the end of the Cold War.

and what the Russians called the new security architecture of Europe, which means restoration of Russian control in one shape or another over Central and Eastern Europe. And the only reason that we're not talking about this right now is because Ukraine, which was supposed to be a three-day special military operation, did not collapse. And the Russian army is bogged down and still unable to win the war, which has given this reprieve to the rest of Europe.

You suggest that Russia has served as a great symbol for American politics over the years. Right now, for some, it's serving as a beacon of traditional values. It's been other things at other times. Why is that the place where American politics tends to project its hopes and anxieties?

Well, because it was looming in the popular imagination, kind of the only peer of the United States, for a long time during the Cold War, it was seen as this sort of the other side of the mirror.

Nearly a century ago, a large part of the American, but also European left, was in thrall of Stalin's Russia because it was imagined as this land of equality and feminism and development and flourishing of the arts and the sciences, when in reality it was a brutal, murderous society, killing millions of its own citizens, where famines were widespread and where pretty much everyone was a slave to the state.

And now we have Putin's Russia being idolized by the other side of the political spectrum and for other reasons. But again, I mean, the Russia they imagine is very far removed from the actual Russia that exists. And you say that nowadays the messaging is segmented. For one audience, Ukrainians are portrayed as Nazis. For another, as Trojan horses for woke values and far-left ideology. And

And those things are a bit contradictory, but we do live in a time where plenty of people are capable of believing both those things at once. So, yes, first of all, this was always the way Russian propaganda works. Their idea was that our messages don't have to be cogent. The main goal is not necessarily to convince someone that your message is true. It's to convince someone that the truth doesn't exist, to sow doubt in reality.

You wrote that Russia's war against Ukraine is fundamentally a struggle over historical memory. So how does this fight over historical memory influence the way that the Russian army is conducting this war?

Well, let's start with the fact that Ukrainian history is really not known because until recently, history of Ukraine was written by the butchers of Ukraine. By the butchers of Ukraine. Yes. Ukraine underwent a man-made famine, the Holodomor in the 1930s that killed at least 4 million people.

The world didn't really know about it, in part because some in the West were complicit with it. A man who occupies a very important place in Ukrainian history books is Volodymyr Duranty, the correspondent of the New York Times in Moscow, who won a Pulitzer Prize for writing articles that said Ukrainian peasants are well-fed and happy and there is no famine, as people are literally committing acts of cannibalism in Ukrainian villages.

From the 1930s to 1950s, Ukraine was literally the deadliest place on earth, in a country that had fewer than 30 million people at the end of the 1920s. Around 15 million people were killed between the famine, the Holocaust, the war, and the insurgency that followed the war. So all of us, and all the people who were born in Ukraine, were told by their grandparents, great-grandparents,

about what happened, these hidden secret histories that were not allowed to be told in public until the end of the Soviet Union and that only emerged later in an independent Ukraine. And this is a history that Russia not just denies, but tries to destroy. One of the first things that happened when Russian troops enter a Ukrainian town, they just come in and destroy the monuments to the victims of the autumn or the famine of the 1930s because they say, well, it didn't really exist.

And so Ukrainians are fighting for never again. And the Russians are saying, well, it never happened. Then they built monuments to the people who created this famine and to the people who perpetrated further atrocities. As people don't understand, lots of people in the West are saying, well, why don't you make peace? You lost so many people in Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of young men and women in this fight. And the Ukrainian response right now by the society is that, well, it would love peace. Peace is great. But we know that if we surrender to

They will be killing many more people because this is what they have done in the past. And this is what they say very openly, people like Dugin, but also official Russian media. They will do again. Their plans for a genocidal extermination of the Ukrainians as Ukrainians are out in the open, physically eliminating Ukrainian intellectuals and re-educating the rest. What is happening to the artists and intellectuals in Ukraine right now?

There was a Ukrainian children's writer named Volodymyr Vakulenko, who was pretty famous in Ukraine, who was living in a village that was occupied by the Russians at the very beginning of the war. And as he was living in this village and watching how the Russian power was being exercised, he started writing a diary, a secret diary that he hid in his garden.

But one day he was picked up by the Russian forces at the checkpoint outside his house. And then he was found executed. Executed. By the Russians. Several months later, the Ukrainian army liberates this village.

And a Ukrainian novelist named Victoria Medina finds out that Volodymyr Vakulenko was writing this diary. So she digs in the garden, finds the diary, all soggy, but still legible. And she starts writing a book of her own about all the Ukrainian writers that had been killed by the Russians over the years, since the execution of the entire Ukrainian intellectual class in the 1930s, up to this book by the writer executed by the Russians just now.

And so Victoria herself didn't finish the book because she was killed by a Russian missile strike in the city of Kramatorsk. So you have this cycle of physical elimination of Ukrainian voices, which is why the world doesn't know much about Ukrainian culture, Ukrainian history, because it's a war in which Russia is trying to tell Ukraine, "You do not have a history, you don't have a culture. You have no right to have your own culture."

And just speaking Ukrainian, just writing in Ukrainian is already a crime against the Russian state. You wrote a book called Our Enemies Will Vanish about your experience covering Russia's war in Ukraine after covering other conflicts in the Middle East.

You grew up in Kiev. You were back in Kiev in February 2022, passing by the landmarks of your youth when Russia launched the rockets into the city and started the war. From where you stand, three years into the conflict, what do you think of the coverage? What do you think is missing?

This is not just some sort of geopolitical game of risk. We have to focus on the individuals, on the people. People who have the same aspirations, the same desire to be happy, to fall in love, to see their grandchildren grow up, to have a career, to see the world that everyone else has. How much of a toll this has taken on you? Well, you know, it's not easy. I've been covering wars for a very long time.

But if it's a war in someone else's country, you can go on holiday and check out. And not necessarily think about it all the time. Here, you can't. Yaroslav, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Yaroslav Trofimov is the chief foreign affairs correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. Thank you.

That's it for this week's show. On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark-Calendar, Candice Wong, and Katerina Barton. Our technical director is Jennifer Munson, with engineering help from Jared Paul. This week, we bid farewell to Brendan Dalton. Thanks for everything, Brendan. And we also say goodbye to Katerina Barton. You were invaluable.

Eloise Blondio is our senior producer. And our executive producer is Katya Rogers. On the Media is a production of WNYC Studios. I'm Brooke Gladstone. And I'm Michael Olinger. I'm Ira Flato, host of Science Friday.

For over 30 years, our team has been reporting high-quality news about science, technology, and medicine. News you won't get anywhere else. And now that political news is 24-7, our audience is turning to us to know about the really important stuff in their lives. Cancer, climate change, genetic engineering, childhood diseases. Our sponsors know the value of science and health news.

For more sponsorship information, visit sponsorship.wnyc.org.