Controversial conservative Charlie Kirk tapped to guest host 'Fox & Friends Weekend'
The 31-year-old controversial conservative announced the news on social media July 23, telling fans that he had a "quick personal update" in an Instagram Story.
"I'll be guest hosting Fox & Friends this weekend! Tune in a 6 a.m. Eastern Saturday & Sunday," Kirk wrote, sharing that he would be joining regular cohosts Rachel Campos-Duffy and Charlie Hurt. A Fox News spokesperson confirmed an earlier Axios report in a statement to USA TODAY.
The move comes as Fox tries to target Gen Z and millennial viewers (Kirk's main audience) after President Donald Trump made gains with younger voters, including white young men, in the 2024 presidential election.
Who is Charlie Kirk? Here's what he had to say on Day 1 of the RNC.
At 18, Kirk emerged on the national stage in 2012 after co-founding the nonprofit Turning Point USA, which promotes conservative politics on high school and college campuses. Among its efforts is a watch list aimed at "unmasking radical professors." It also has a political action committee called Turning Point Action.
He earned headlines earlier this month after he revealed on his popular podcast "The Charlie Kirk Show" that he was "done talking" about convicted child sex offender (Jeffrey) Epstein amid pressure from some Republicans.
The former wunderkind firebrand is best known for making statements considered by some to be intentionally provocative. He said last year that he might assume a Black airline pilot is less qualified than a white pilot because of DEI initiatives. In 2023, he also said on his podcast "The Charlie Kirk Show" that only straight married couples should be allowed to adopt children.
During last year's Republican National Convention, Kirk spoke directly to younger voters, courting them by seeking to relate to their economic and cultural complaints. He also spoke in January at Trump's second inaugural events.
Kirk follows in the footsteps of his fellow right-leaning influencer and new Fox contributor Brett Cooper, 23, who debuted as a commentator on the network in June.
Less combative than Kirk and the young women who rose to stardom on the right, Cooper found a loyal audience by discussing issues of culture relevance that matter to young women.
Contributing: George Fabe Russell, Sarah Gleason
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
How reliable is the jobs data? Economists and Wall Street still trust it
WASHINGTON (AP) — The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were 'RIGGED' to make him and other Republicans 'look bad.' Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large — the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. 'The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable,' Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. 'We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing,' Boushey said. 'Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market.' Here are some things to know about the jobs report: Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to 'liven it up', but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says 'it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid.' The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. Trump and his White House have a long track record of celebrating the jobs numbers — when they are good. These are the figures is Trump attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' Vice President Kamala Harris's 'chances of Victory,' yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations — including multiple locations for the same business — covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest — outside recessions — since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday and said, 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers.' Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: 'When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed.' Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. 'We are at an inflection point,' the report said. 'To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment … In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future.
San Francisco Chronicle
25 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How reliable is the jobs data? Economists and Wall Street still trust it
WASHINGTON (AP) — The monthly jobs report is already closely-watched on Wall Street and in Washington but has taken on a new importance after President Donald Trump on Friday fired the official who oversees it. Trump claimed that June's employment figures were 'RIGGED' to make him and other Republicans 'look bad.' Yet he provided no evidence and even the official Trump had appointed in his first term to oversee the report, William Beach, condemned the firing of Erika McEntarfer, the director of the Bureau of Labor Statistics appointed by former President Joe Biden. The firing followed Friday's jobs report that showed hiring was weak in July and had come to nearly a standstill in May and June, right after Trump rolled out sweeping tariffs. Economists and Wall Street investors have long considered the job figures reliable, with share prices and bond yields often reacting sharply when they are released. Yet Friday's revisions were unusually large — the largest, outside of a recession, in five decades. And the surveys used to compile the report are facing challenges from declining response rates, particularly since COVID, as fewer companies complete the surveys. Nonetheless, that hasn't led most economists to doubt them. 'The bottom line for me is, I wouldn't take the low collection rate as any evidence that the numbers are less reliable,' Omair Sharif, founder and chief economist at Inflation Insights, a consulting firm, said. Many academics, statisticians and economists have warned for some time that declining budgets were straining the government's ability to gather economic data. There were several government commissions studying ways to improve things like survey response rates, but the Trump administration disbanded them earlier this year. Heather Boushey, a top economic adviser in the Biden White House, noted that without Trump's firing of McEntarfer, there would be more focus on last week's data, which points to a slowing economy. 'We're having this conversation about made-up issues to distract us from what the data is showing," Boushey said. 'Revisions of this magnitude in a negative direction may indicate bad things to come for the labor market.' Economists and Wall Street trust the data Most economists say that the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a nonpolitical agency staffed by people obsessed with getting the numbers right. The only political appointee is the commissioner, who doesn't see the data until it's finalized, two days before it is issued to the public. Erica Groshen, the BLS commissioner from 2013 to 2017, said she suggested different language in the report to "liven it up", but was shot down. She was told that if asked to describe a cup as half-empty or half-full, BLS says 'it is an eight ounce cup with four ounces of liquid.' The revised jobs data that has attracted Trump's ire is actually more in line with other figures than before the revision. For example, payroll processor ADP uses data from its millions of clients to calculate its own jobs report, and it showed a sharp hiring slowdown in May and June that is closer to the revised BLS data. These are the figures is Trump attacking Trump has focused on the revisions to the May and June data, which on Friday were revised lower, with job gains in May reduced to 19,000 from 144,000, and for June to just 14,000 from 147,000. Every month's jobs data is revised in the following two months. Trump also repeated a largely inaccurate attack from the campaign about an annual revision last August, which reduced total employment in the United States by 818,000, or about 0.5%. The government also revises employment figures every year. Trump charged the annual revision was released before the 2024 presidential election to 'boost' Vice President Kamala Harris's "chances of Victory," yet it was two months before the election and widely reported at the time that the revision lowered hiring during the Biden-Harris administration and pointed to a weaker economy. Here's why the government revises the data The monthly revisions occur because many companies that respond to the government's surveys send their data in late, or correct the figures they've already submitted. The proportion of companies sending in their data later has risen in the past decade. Every year, the BLS does an additional revision based on actual job counts that are derived from state unemployment insurance records. Those figures cover 95% of U.S. businesses and aren't derived from a survey but are not available in real time. These are the factors that cause revisions Figuring out how many new jobs have been added or lost each month is more complicated than it may sound. For example, if one person takes a second job, should you focus on the number of jobs, which has increased, or the number of employed people, which hasn't? (The government measures both: The unemployment rate is based on how many people either have or don't have jobs, while the number of jobs added or lost is counted separately). Each month, the government surveys about 121,000 businesses and government agencies at over 630,000 locations — including multiple locations for the same business — covering about one-third of all workers. Still, the government also has to make estimates: What if a company goes out of business? It likely won't fill out any forms showing the jobs lost. And what about new businesses? They can take a while to get on the government's radar. The BLS seeks to capture these trends by estimating their impact on employment. Those estimates can be wrong, of course, until they are fixed by the annual revisions. The revisions are often larger around turning points in the economy. For example, when the economy is growing, there may be more startups than the government expects, so revisions will be higher. If the economy is slowing or slipping into a recession, the revisions may be larger on the downside. Here's why the May and June revisions may have been so large Ernie Tedeschi, an economic adviser to the Biden administration, points to the current dynamics of the labor market: Both hiring and firing have sharply declined, and fewer Americans are quitting their jobs to take other work. As a result, most of the job gains or losses each month are probably occurring at new companies, or those going out of business. And those are the ones the government uses models to estimate, which can make them more volatile. Groshen also points out that since the pandemic there has been a surge of new start-up companies, after many Americans lost their jobs or sought more independence. Yet they may not have created as many jobs as startups did pre-COVID, which throws off the government's models. Revisions seem to be getting bigger The revisions to May and June's job totals, which reduced hiring by a total of 258,000, were the largest — outside recessions — since 1967, according to economists at Goldman Sachs. Kevin Hassett, Trump's top economic adviser, went on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday and said, 'What we've seen over the last few years is massive revisions to the jobs numbers.' Hassett blamed a sharp drop in response rates to the government's surveys during and after the pandemic: 'When COVID happened, because response rates went down a lot, then revision rates skyrocketed.' Yet calculations by Tedeschi show that while revisions spiked after the pandemic, they have since declined and are much smaller than in the 1960s and 1970s. Other concerns about the government's data Many economists and statisticians have sounded the alarm about things like declining response rates for years. A decade ago, about 60% of companies surveyed by BLS responded. Now, only about 40% do. The decline has been an international phenomenon, particularly since COVID. The United Kingdom has even suspended publication of an official unemployment rate because of falling responses. And earlier this year the BLS said that it was cutting back on its collection of inflation data because of the Trump administration's hiring freeze, raising concerns about the robustness of price data just as economists are trying to gauge the impact of tariffs on inflation. U.S. government statistical agencies have seen an inflation-adjusted 16% drop in funding since 2009, according to a July report from the American Statistical Association. 'We are at an inflection point,' the report said. 'To meet current and future challenges requires thoughtful, well-planned investment ... In contrast, what we have observed is uncoordinated and unplanned reductions with no visible plan for the future.
NBC News
26 minutes ago
- NBC News
Redistricting reprisals: From the Politics Desk
Welcome to the online version of From the Politics Desk, an evening newsletter that brings you the NBC News Politics team's latest reporting and analysis from the White House, Capitol Hill and the campaign trail. Happy Monday, readers! In today's edition, NBC News reporters in Austin, Boston, Chicago and Washington bring you the latest from the redistricting standoff in Texas, after Democrats fled the state to deny Republicans a quorum to move forward with legislation. Then, our team in Washington digs into the fallout from President Donald Trump's dismissal of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. — Scott Bland Redistricting clash escalates in Texas after Democrats scatter, denying state House a quorum By Ben Kamisar, Natasha Korecki, Ryan Chandler and Adam Edelman The Texas state House briefly reconvened this afternoon amid a nationally watched clash over the GOP majority's plan to redraw the state's congressional lines, with Republican lawmakers voting to approve civil arrest warrants targeting the dozens of Democrats who fled the state, blocking Republicans from proceeding with the plan. The bulk of the 50-plus Democrats who left the state are in Illinois, where they've been welcomed by Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker. Others are in Boston and in Albany, New York, where Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul, in response to Texas, is pushing for a change in state law to allow redistricting in future years. There, beyond the reach of the state sergeant-at-arms and the Texas Department of Public Safety, the warrants may have little practical effect. But back home, the Democrats face mounting fines, and Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is threatening to boot the Democratic lawmakers from office or send law enforcement to force them to return to the state. Because House business requires a quorum, 51 out of the state's 62 Democratic House members can, by remaining out of state, prevent the Republican-led state House from moving forward with legislation. The absences deprived the House of its quorum, a reality confirmed quickly after legislators gaveled in this afternoon. Republican Speaker Dustin Burrows admonished the dozens of Democrats who fled the state as having 'abandoned their post and turned their backs on the constituents they swore to represent.' Democrats have decried Republicans' redistricting move as a power play and criticized them for moving on the redistricting bill before having responded legislatively to the devastating floods this summer that killed more than 100 people in Kerr County, outside San Antonio. Today, Burrows shot back by arguing that Democrats are delaying their ability to move on other legislative priorities, like addressing the floods. Democratic state Rep. Ann Johnson of Houston, speaking yesterday evening after she arrived at a news conference at a strip mall about 30 miles west of Chicago, said the redistricting bill is happening only because Trump is 'afraid of the electorate next November.' By Jonathan Allen, Katherine Doyle and Peter Nicholas White House officials began the week scrambling to find a permanent replacement after President Donald Trump fired Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Friday, following a weaker-than-expected July jobs report and drastic downward revisions of employment for the prior two months. Steve Bannon, a senior White House adviser in Trump's first term who is influential with the MAGA wing of the GOP, is pushing hard for E.J. Antoni, the chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Antoni, a contributor to the Project 2025 policy rubric, has been a longtime skeptic of BLS data. On Bannon's podcast last week, Antoni called for McEntarfer to be fired shortly before Trump pulled the trigger. In an interview with NBC News this afternoon, Antoni said he had not been contacted by anyone in the White House about the job. West Wing officials are 'still running traps' on candidates for the Senate-confirmed position, one White House aide said. The White House did not return a request for comment on whether Antoni is under consideration. Trump yesterday said that he plans to announce a pick in the next three or four days. 'It's going to have to be somebody that has tremendous credibility and experience,' said a senior White House official who noted that Trump would likely listen to the thoughts of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett and Stephen Miran, the chair of the National Economic Council. Hiring such a person could potentially be a challenge for Trump. In ousting McEntarfer, he baselessly claimed that jobs numbers are subject to political manipulation — 'RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad,' he said — raising the specter that a new commissioner would not release numbers that made Trump look bad. 'I find it so hard to believe that your average person hears Trump fired someone because he claimed that they manipulated data and whoever he's replaced them with is going to produce trustworthy data,' Kathryn Anne Edwards, an independent economic consultant and host of a podcast called The Optimist, said.
