‘It wasn't a drunk tweet': Terry Moran defends Stephen Miller ‘hater' post that led to his ABC News firing
Terry Moran is speaking out not only on the fateful tweets that resulted in ABC News firing him after 28 years of service, but he's also pushing back on the network's claim that his contract was set to expire and therefore made it easier for the news outlet to release him.
In Monday interviews with both The New York Times and The Bulwark, the veteran correspondent was unapologetic over the social media post in which he called Donald Trump's deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, a 'world-class hater,' claiming it was an 'accurate and true' observation. He also swatted away suggestions that he was intoxicated when he sent out his late-night screed about Miller and Trump.
'It wasn't a drunk tweet,' he told the Times while flashing what they described as a 'lopsided grin' during their Zoom call.
According to Moran, who was quickly suspended by ABC News over the since-deleted tweet, the post came about during a 'normal family night' after he took a 'meditative' stroll through the woods with the family dog.
'I was thinking about our country, and what's happening, and just turning it over in my mind,' he said, adding that he decided to send out the tweet following a family dinner and movie. 'I wrote it, and I said, 'That's true.''
Within hours of the post, the White House demanded that the network take action over the 'absolutely vile smear,' urging ABC News to suspend or fire Moran. With right-wing media jumping on board the outrage train, the network announced that it had placed the longtime anchor and reporter on suspension.
Two days later, citing what it said 'was a clear violation of ABC News policies,' the network announced that Moran was out. At the same time, a network spokesperson asserted that Moran was at the end of his contract, and 'based on his recent post' ABC News 'made the decision not to renew.' Moran, however, is disputing that characterization.
Telling the Times it was 'incorrect,' he claimed that the network was 'bailing' on an oral agreement to extend his contract for another three years. 'We had a deal,' he added. Moran said that his lawyers are now in discussions with the network over the terms of his exit and severance package.
A representative for ABC News did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Moran, who announced shortly after his termination that he had joined Substack, said that he's already surpassed 90,000 new subscribers. This also includes thousands who have purchased paid subscriptions, which run $5 a month or $50 annually.
With many of his old ABC News colleagues reportedly shocked and outraged over his tweets, which Miller described as a 'full public meltdown,' Moran didn't directly address whether he felt that his social media posts made it more difficult for them to report on the administration. 'If they want to reach out, I'm happy to talk about that, but I'm not going to speak in the abstract,' he told the Times.
In a separate conversation with The Bulwark's Tim Miller, which was livestreamed Monday morning, Moran continued to defend the post that resulted in his termination while also pushing back on the notion of 'both-sides' journalism. Specifically, he said that journalists shouldn't feel that they have to give up their roles as citizens.
'Your job is not to be objective,' he told Miller. 'What you have to be is fair and accurate. I would say that, while very hot, is an observation that is accurate and true.'
With attention being placed on his political affiliation amid the fiery tweets about the Trump administration, Moran described himself as a 'Hubert Humphrey Democrat' before addressing the backlash to his posts.
'I was rocked, clearly, and full of fear and I realized that this was going to be a very serious situation and had to stand up and deal with it,' he said. In his conversation with the Times, Moran noted that while he 'thought it would hit a nerve,' he was still surprised that it quickly snowballed to him being fired.
'I wrote it because I thought it was true,' he declared to Miller. He also observed that his termination 'looked like a business decision' and he had become 'bad business,' prompting him to contemplate about the network's past capitulation to the president.
Saying that he wasn't initially worried when ABC's parent company Disney paid Trump $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit involving anchor George Stephanopoulos, he conceded he 'should have been' concerned at the time.
Meanwhile, Moran also discussed his high-profile and newsmaking interview with Trump, which took place just six weeks before the network fired him. According to the former Nightline anchor, his selection was 'accidental,' and it was apparent that the administration refused to sit down with other journalists at the network.
'I was kind of low man on the totem pole, and some of the others were knocked off,' he said. 'It was clear that I was not the first choice there.'During that interview, which featured the president demanding that Moran agree with his false assertion that Kilmar Abrego Garcia literally has 'MS-13' tattooed on his hand, Trump repeatedly suggested that he 'chose' Moran in hopes that he wouldn't challenge the president.
'They're giving you the big break of a lifetime, you know, you're doing the interview,' Trump said at one point. 'I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you, but that's OK… but you're not being very nice.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Disastrous Budget Bill Is Even More Expensive Than We Thought
Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' would increase the total U.S. deficit by nearly $2.8 trillion over the next decade, according to a new analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. Previous estimates suggested that the massive spending bill would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years, but a 'dynamic' estimate published Tuesday takes into account how the legislation would affect the U.S. economy—and things got even more dire. The CBO projected that an increase in economic output would decrease the primary deficit by $85 billion over the 2025–2034 period, while also significantly boosting interest rates, which would push the federal debt to a whopping $441 billion. 'Incredible—CBO says the House-passed GOP bill pays for only 3.5% of itself,' Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, wrote on X Tuesday. Despite previous damning reports, MAGA Republicans backing the bill have continued to claim that the CBO is biased, rather than make any concessions, and have claimed that the CBO's evaluations of the legislation's cost don't take the revenue from Trump's sweeping global tariffs into effect. In a letter to Democratic lawmakers earlier this month, the CBO projected that Trump's tariffs, as they were in mid-May, could decrease the deficit by $2.8 trillion—but said any projection came with some uncertainty, as Trump's tariffs are ever-vacillating. The newest analysis suggests that the costs will only go up after taking the economy into account. The CBO estimated that over the next decade, the legislation would affect the economy by increasing gross domestic product by an average of 0.5 percent, increasing the interest rates on 10-year Treasury notes by 14 basis points, and increasing inflation 'by a small amount' through 2030, but not afterward.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Former UK Security Chief Says Bombing Iran 'Is Not Going To Make The World Safer'
A former UK security chief has called on the UK not to back Donald Trump if he decides to bomb Iran – because it will not make the world any safer. Lord Ricketts, who was the government's national security adviser between 2010 and 2012, said air strikes on the Tehran regime would only 'reinforce their determination' to get a nuclear bomb. His comments, on ITV's Peston programme, came as the US president mulls whether to send American planes to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, alongside Israeli jets. CBS News has reported that Trump approved the attack plans on Tuesday night, but has yet to decide whether to put them into action. Speaking at the White House on Wednesday, he said: 'Nobody knows what I'm going to do.' It has also emerged that the British government would have to give America permission if it wanted to use the joint UK-US air base at Diego Garcia in the Chagos Islands to launch its bombing missions. Robert Peston, ITV's political editor, asked Lord Ricketts: 'If he orders an American strike on Iran, what do you think the British prime minister should say? Do you think that we should use British planes to support him?' The crossbench peer said: 'My feeling is we should not, for the simple reason that I think the only way you're going to control Iran's nuclear ambitions in the long term is by having a deal with them. 'I think just coming back and bombing them every few years is not going to make the world safer. In fact it's going to reinforce their determination to keep working on a nuclear weapon when this round of fighting is over. 'Although it's difficult to take a distance from our American ally on this, I think history tells us that you have to be very careful before you get into war, and I would advise not doing so.' 'If Trump orders an American strike…should we use British assets to support him?' 'We should not' Former National Security Adviser @LordRickettsP says bombing Iran will 'only reinforce their determination' for a nuclear weapon and a deal is the only way forward# — Peston (@itvpeston) June 18, 2025 Could The UK Be Dragged Into War As Donald Trump Ponders Bombing Iran? Angela Rayner Hints UK Would Not Join US If Trump Decides To Attack Iran Trump Considers Bombing Iran'As He Demands The Country's 'Unconditional Surrender'
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
The Supreme Court Fails to See Transgender Teens
Imagine you are a transgender teenager. Don't ask me how you know that you are transgender: That question is no more appropriate or relevant than asking people how they know that they are gay or Jewish or Black. Maybe you've always known. Maybe a classmate or a stranger said something that alerted you to it. Maybe you know the way teenagers often know things: As the world came into focus, this thing about yourself became clear as could be. In any case, you know. Like many teenagers, you spend an inordinate amount of time in front of the mirror. You regularly become obsessed with what you perceive as imperfections or, less often, advantages in your appearance. You adopt and abandon hairstyles, items of clothing and affectations. You will shed much of what you are experimenting with now, but some elements will stick. They will form the core of the person you are in the world. Speaking of the world: Moving through it is awkward, because you are a teenager. Being trans can make it more awkward still. Like when you are in a public place — including your school — and you need to use the bathroom. If you want to consider transitioning medically, you have to discuss the most intimate details of your life with doctors and involve your parents. I am asking you to imagine what it's like to be a transgender teenager because that is exactly what the majority of the Supreme Court justices refused to do when they ruled in United States v. Skrmetti on Wednesday, upholding a Tennessee law that bans gender-affirming care for minors. The plaintiffs in the case are three trans teenagers from Tennessee, their parents and a doctor, but there is scarcely a reference to them in the majority or concurring opinions. It's often the case that 'courts enact discrimination through abstraction,' Chase Strangio, a director of the American Civil Liberties Union's L.G.B.T.Q. and H.I.V. Rights Project, who argued the case before the Supreme Court, told me. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case that upheld the legality of racial segregation; in Korematsu v. United States, which in 1944 affirmed the internment of Japanese Americans; in Bowers v. Hardwick, the 1986 case that upheld Georgia's sodomy laws; and in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which three years ago took away the constitutional guarantee of abortion rights, the Supreme Court seemed blind to the existence of the people who would suffer most from the consequences of its decisions. In Skrmetti, the plaintiffs and the Biden administration said that the Tennessee law should be held to a higher level of scrutiny because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. If a state law creates conditions for treating people differently on the basis of sex, the state must prove that the law serves an important purpose that justifies such discrimination. If the differential treatment is based on race, the level of scrutiny is even higher. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
