Terry Moran Insulted Stephen Miller? That's None of the Government's Business.
Terry Moran is a senior national correspondent for ABC News. Over the weekend, his employer suspended him over a statement he posted (and subsequently deleted) on X. In it, Moran described Stephen Miller, deputy White House chief of staff, as "richly endowed with the capacity for hatred."
"You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment," wrote Moran. "He eats his hate."
The tweet drew a fierce rebuke from Vice President J.D. Vance, who described it as an "absolutely vile smear." Vance, of course, is entitled to that opinion. But White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt went a step further, declaring that "we"—i.e., the federal government—would be inquiring with ABC about disciplinary action.
This is a textbook example of "jawboning"—when the government tries to accomplish some censorship by threatening improper government action. It is exactly the sort of thing that conservatives rightly hated about the previous administration: President Joe Biden, his senior advisors, and various federal employees browbeat social media companies into taking down content that the feds deemed wrong, hateful, or dangerous. They didn't just say that they disagreed with major platform moderation policies: They raised the possibility of punitive legislation against Facebook, Google, and Twitter unless they complied.
Leavitt is free to complain about Moran's comment, as Vance did. But her insinuation that she would be speaking with Moran's manager reads like a threat, and thus like an attempt at censorship. As Jenin Younes, a civil liberties attorney, noted in a reply to Leavitt, the Trump administration issued an executive order to prevent the kind of jawboning that took place under the previous White House. To turn around and do the same thing is obviously hypocritical.
"Journalists and everyone else can say what they want about members of the Administration (and anything else) without having to fear reprisal from the government," wrote Younes. "You should delete this tweet and apologize for your attempted act of tyranny and also failure to understand basic constitutional concepts."
As for Moran's post: It probably was unwise for a straight news reporter to share his spicy speculations about Miller's motivations. Mainstream media organizations have different rules for news reporters and opinion commentators, and it's possible that Moran violated his company's social media policy. He has a First Amendment right vis a vis the U.S. government, not with respect to ABC.
That said, these prohibitions on reporters sharing their own opinions on social media seem increasingly outdated. Does anyone harbor doubts that virtually all straight-news journalists possess deeply held ideological convictions, perspectives, and biases? Isn't it better to know what they actually think? Large numbers of Americans now get their news from independent writers, content creators, and influencers on social media, Substack, YouTube, and other places—and the most successful voices tend to be upfront about their opinions. Expecting journalists to conceal their perspectives seems quaint and not exactly useful.
Moran's statement that Miller derives "spiritual nourishment" from feasting on pure hate is a tad dramatic. (Emperor Palpatine, anyone?) But Miller is, in fact, a fanatical supporter of deporting not just violent or gang-connected illegal immigrants but everyone who may be in the country illegally. He recently reportedly yelled at representatives of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because they were prioritizing deportations of violent criminals; Miller reportedly wanted ICE agents to patrol Home Depots and 7-Elevens and arrest anybody who looked like they might not be here legally.
Insults like "fascist" and "Nazi" are frequently overused to describe prominent Republican figures. But it's not exactly insane to say that Miller comes off as kind of hateful.
The post Terry Moran Insulted Stephen Miller? That's None of the Government's Business. appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is Donald Trump An Authentic Leader?
On the performative nature of authenticity, and why Trump exposes the paradoxical and unscientific meaning of the term. In a world obsessed with personal branding, real and deep fake influencers, and AI-fueled persuasion, 'authenticity' seems more valuable than ever, as the distinction between what's real and what isn't transcends everything and everyone. We no longer expect our leaders to be merely competent — a trait that, inconveniently, remains hard for most voters to identify. We want them to be 'real,' too, though no one can quite agree on what that entails in an era where even authenticity can be performative. From viral LinkedIn mantras to inspirational TED Talks, authenticity is praised as the antidote to crooked leaders, political doublespeak, and robotic managerialism, not to mention phony politicians. Indeed, research suggests that people rate 'authentic leaders' as more trustworthy, relatable, and morally grounded. And yet, despite its near-universal appeal, authenticity remains vague and elusive as a concept. We want, admire, demand it — but few can define it, especially in a sensible or cogent way, and even fewer appear to know how we would go about measuring it, at least with some degree of precision or objectivity. In the leadership literature, authenticity is generally associated with transparency, consistency, and self-awareness. In line, leaders who are seen as authentic inspire greater followership, because they appear more predictable and less manipulative. Employees trust them more, and citizens are more likely to forgive their mistakes. Consider why figures like Nelson Mandela or Angela Merkel continue to command admiration — not merely for their achievements, but for the perceived harmony between what they believed, said, and did. They were not just competent, but coherent. Conversely, politicians who appear to shapeshift with every poll are penalized — not always for their views, but for the whiff of inauthenticity. Voters would rather support someone they disagree with than someone they suspect of pandering. Indeed, perceptions of authenticity are less about ideological alignment and more about emotional resonance. People tend to see those they like as authentic — and label those they dislike as fake. Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters view him as the embodiment of authenticity, just as Obama's admirers did with him. Ask their detractors, however, and the verdict flips. In a way, the real litmus test of authenticity is whether even your critics concede that you are 'the real deal.' On that front, Trump may score higher than Obama, unless you deny the possibility that more authentic doesn't always equate to more effective… Therein lies the philosophical catch: authenticity, for all its cultural currency, is not a fixed trait. It is an attribution — something we project onto others. We can't scan a person's soul (Neuralink hasn't cracked that yet) to verify the alignment between their inner essence and their outer behavior. In truth, we struggle to verify even our own. As neuroscientist David Eagleman put it, 'The conscious mind is like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.' Much of what drives us is hidden from ourselves, let alone others. What feels authentic might just be a well-rehearsed act — one we've repeated so often, we've come to believe it ourselves (which, admittedly, sounds great, except for the fact that the most brutal dictators in history were pretty good at it). That's why psychologists argue authenticity is socially constructed. It's not some universal signal — it's context-dependent. A CEO crying in a board meeting might be praised for vulnerability in Silicon Valley, and ridiculed as unfit in Frankfurt. Compare Obama's curated 'cool dad' persona with Merkel's austere pragmatism: both were labeled authentic, but by very different cultural standards. In the end, we judge authenticity not by some Platonic essence of the self, but by how well someone's performance matches our expectations of who they ought to be. Which brings us, inevitably, to Trump. The question is not whether he is authentic — we can't ever truly know — but why he seems authentic to so many. Trump checks all the cultural boxes of 'realness': he's blunt, unfiltered, often incoherent (even when not spontaneously so), and defiantly unrehearsed. He rants on social media at ungodly hours and insults opponents with the fervor of a WWE heel. These are not behaviors traditionally associated with leadership—but to many, that's the point. His refusal to play by the rules of political etiquette is precisely what makes him persuasive. Unlike the focus-grouped politician who triangulates every utterance, Trump performs spontaneity. And for a certain kind of voter, that performance is more persuasive than policy. So how do we assess authenticity more analytically? As I illustrate in my forthcoming book, we can determine this by examining Trump vis-à-vis the four mainstream tenets or mantras for examining authenticity in others (not just leaders), namely: (1) always be honest with yourself and others; (2) always be true to your values, no matter what; (3) don't worry about what people think of you; and (4) bring your whole self to work. 1. Is Trump brutally honest with himself and others? Trump is certainly honest with others — at least in the sense that he says what he thinks. Whether those thoughts are factually accurate is another matter entirely. Although there's little evidence of self-reflection or self-critique, we simply don't know whether his statements are improvised or calculated, even when they seem spontaneous. Furthermore, there's no way to know whether he truly believes some of the over-the-top comments he makes, for instance on his own capabilities. When he tells us that he is 'a very stable genius', does he truly believe it? It would be easier to prove or disprove whether such statements are factually correct than whether he actually believes them himself. Evolutionary psychology shows that truly believing such statements even when they are not factually correct (what psychologists refer to as self-deception) is rather common in humans because it helps us display convincing signs of confidence and be regarded as competent. In other words, the best way to fool others is to fool yourself first. This introduces an interesting paradox: your likelihood of being perceived as authentic increases when you are not honest with yourself. By the same token, if you are honest with yourself, and therefore aware of your limitations, you may not be perceived as confident and therefore competent! In this way, Trump's self-deception may be a powerful tool to come across as genuine and competent – people are more likely to believe you are a stable genius if they see that you truly believe it yourself when you make such statements. 2. Is Trump uncompromisingly true to his values? Trump's values are difficult to pin down ideologically, but he is consistent in tone and temperament. He prizes dominance, loyalty, and personal success — values that appear deeply ingrained across decades of business and political life. He doesn't pivot or play nice to broaden appeal. That may limit his coalition, but it boosts the perception that he 'sticks to his guns.' Also, his decisions seem consistently optimized to enhance self-interest (either at national, party, or individual level), and despite his self-presentation as master deal maker he seems quite transparent in the goals and outcomes he pursues. To be sure, those who don't share his values will not accept that he is acting authentically by 'following his values no matter what'. This is an important reminder of the fact that value-centricity is not inherently beneficial or effective in leaders: what matters is what your values are, whether they are shared by others, and how they impact others (not just your voters, but society at large). In fact, history is replete with examples of leaders who were clearly true to their values, and impressively executed against them, but without having much in the form of positive effects (and often many negative effects) on their followers. 3. Is Trump unbothered by what people think of him? This one seems tailor-made for Trump. He thrives on attention but is often indifferent — when not hostile — to criticism. Most politicians spin, apologize, or moderate. Trump doubles down. Whether it's calling opponents nicknames, attacking journalists, or airing grievances, he seems genuinely unconcerned with being liked by everyone. In the authenticity game, that's a powerful signal: he performs as someone who is beyond calculation. To be sure, breaking prosocial etiquette norms does not make you authentic, just like being controversial doesn't make you right. Still, given that overt and aggressive confrontation tends to be uncharacteristic in a typical politician (and even someone with traditional political skills), it can make you seem authentic regardless of whether this is a calculated self-presentational strategy. It's like being a social media troll: you offend, and some people will celebrate your radical candor! That said, this disregard for what people think of you is also emblematic of a narcissistic personality, whether in its clinical or sub-clinical (highly functioning) form. Research on vulnerable narcissism suggests that those who lash out or seem impervious to criticism may in fact be protecting a fragile ego—especially when rejection threatens their self-image. Trump's combative and adversarial style, far from indicating thick skin, may signal the opposite: a compulsive need to dominate the narrative to avoid feeling diminished. As a result, what looks like radical candor may actually be a meticulously constructed performance of invulnerability. 4. Does Trump bring his whole self to work? Unquestionably. Trump does not compartmentalize. The same persona that tweets 'covfefe' at midnight is the one addressing (and trying to dismantle) the UN General Assembly. His speeches, interviews, and online posts share the same syntax, cadences, and vocabulary. His business brand, political identity, and personal life blur into one. That's the very definition of bringing your whole self to work—for better or worse. In fact, applying one of the most common scientific and popular criteria for defining authenticity, namely consistency between what leaders say and do, there's no question that with Trump (at least his current iteration) what you see is what you get – after nearly 150 days of presidency, he has enacted most of his intended plans and promises. To be sure, unlike Melania, who also has access to the private or personal version of the president, we will never know whether the home version of Trump is radically different from his professional self, which is the norm with most leaders (and people). Conclusion: More Authentic, Less Effective? So, is Trump an authentic leader? From the perspective of public perception, probably yes — at least to those who admire him. Even many critics concede that his rawness makes him 'real.' He stands out precisely because he does not seem like a conventional politician. But here's the irony: the very traits that enhance his reputation for authenticity—lack of filter, abrasiveness, impulsivity — also limit his effectiveness as a leader, particularly in contexts that require diplomacy, coalition-building, and emotional intelligence. Indeed, if you were tasked with coaching Trump, the likely strategy would be to curb his most 'authentic' impulses: inject some tact, broaden his emotional bandwidth, tone down the narcissism, and embrace more perspective-taking. That might make him more effective — but also less 'himself.' Such is the paradox of authenticity in leadership: being too true to yourself can inhibit your leadership talents. Ultimately, the case of Donald Trump reminds us that authenticity is not an unqualified virtue. Like most traits, it is only beneficial in moderation and context. What followers experience as authenticity may simply be a refusal to conform. But in politics — as in life —there's a fine line between being genuine and being a jerk. The best leaders know how to walk that line without losing either their compass or their followers. In other words, they are clear about where their right to be themselves ends, and their obligation to others begins. Importantly, while people seem to genuinely love the concept of 'authenticity' (not just in leaders, but humans in general), we would do well to acknowledge that, alas, there is just no objective way to quantify how authentic someone is, or whether someone is acting in an authentic way or not. Rather, authenticity is retrofitted to affection: we tend to deem people authentic if we like them, and fake if we don't. In politics, this creates a curious paradox. Donald Trump is hailed as the very embodiment of authenticity — by his supporters. So too is Barack Obama — by his own. But ask the other side, and the verdict flips. Same goes for charisma: it is an attribution we make about people we like and admire, because they seem better able to influence and persuade us, because we share their beliefs, values, and personal attributes, to the point of embodying a part of who we are or want to be. In that sense, Freud was onto something when we noted that our connection with leaders is in itself narcissistic: we love people who represent who we are, and when they are also leaders who appear to love us, our love is a subliminal and socially legitimate way of loving ourselves. In the end, authenticity may be less a moral virtue than a psychological illusion —comforting, relatable, and occasionally dangerous. We crave it in leaders because it reassures us that someone, somewhere, is being 'real' in a world that often feels fake. But the paradox is hard to escape: the more someone tries to prove their authenticity, the less authentic they seem. Perhaps the lesson is this: in leadership, as in life, being true to yourself only matters if your 'self' is worth following.
Bloomberg
22 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Tariff Chaos Threatens His Push for Rust Belt Revival
President Donald Trump's signature trade policy is threatening to backfire by upending other top priorities: the revival of US manufacturing and the American Rust Belt. In Illinois, Trump's tariffs prompted a compressor maker to delay a key equipment purchase after an ambitious factory revamp. Rockwell Automation Inc., a Wisconsin-based producer of factory tools, says some manufacturers are putting projects on hold because of uncertainty over costs and future demand. Snap-on Inc. is seeing similar hesitancy among car mechanics.
Washington Post
26 minutes ago
- Washington Post
How a Democrat turned independent could shake up a key governor's race
Good morning, Early Birds. Congrats to the formidable Coco Gauff — and to Spike Lee, who somehow attends every sporting event. Send tips to earlytips@ Thanks for waking up with us. In today's edition … The Detroit mayor looks to go statewide … A ski manufacturer jumps into a run for Congress … Trump's price promises take center stage in a new digital ad campaign … but first … President Donald Trump bypassed California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) this weekend by ordering the deployment of 2,000 California National Guard troops to quell protests against immigration raids in the Los Angeles area. The move was swiftly condemned by political leaders in the state and across the country and is the latest sign of how Trump plans to push the envelope on nearly every power afforded to the presidency. Justin Jouvenal and Alex Horton reported that Trump 'invoked a section of the Armed Forces Act that allows the president to bypass a governor's authority over the National Guard and call those troops into federal service when he considers it necessary to repel an invasion or suppress a rebellion.' Newsom 'formally requested' that the Trump administration return the troops to the governor's command Sunday, labeling its moves 'the acts of a dictator, not a President.' Newsom also said he would file a lawsuit Monday against the Trump administration over the deployment, which he called 'immoral' and 'unconstitutional.' This will probably be the story of the week, with Trump's use of this power increasing the likelihood that he does it again in other cities and jurisdictions. 'We're going to have troops everywhere,' Trump said Sunday when asked about sending soldiers to California. Pressed on 'what's the bar for sending in the Marines,' Trump said, 'The bar is what I think it is.' Michigan's gubernatorial election next year was always going to be one of the most closely watched contests in the nation. And that was before the popular mayor of Detroit, a former Democrat, launched an independent bid. 'I think about the 2016 convention and the whole thing was Love Trumps Hate. And you look at what the Democratic Party has become, it has become a party of intolerance,' said Mike Duggan, the Detroit mayor who left his party late last year to announce a third-party bid. 'If you don't agree with the exact doctrine, you know, you are vilified, you are left out. And I think it has just been turning off more and more Americans, more and more Democrats.' Duggan added that Republicans 'of course have a lot of anger,' too. So it 'felt like a time in this country where people might want a different choice.' Duggan, who was first elected in 2013, has long been seen as a likely candidate for governor. But with a crowded Democratic primary — including Jocelyn Benson, Michigan's secretary of state, and Garlin Gilchrist, the state's lieutenant governor — Duggan opted for a third path, leading Democrats to accuse him of political expediency. (U.S. Rep. John James and Michigan Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt are the leading Republicans in the contest.) No matter his reasons, Duggan could be a threat to shake up the race. 'Right now,' Duggan told us, 'my goal is 20 percent from the Democratic side, 20 percent from the Republican side, and win with 40 percent of the vote.' Duggan's mayoral tenure has been defined by a rebirth of Detroit, with a focus on bringing in new jobs, greening the economy and reversing a decades-long population trend. He told us he 'would have been supportive' of Trump's tariff plan 'if it were done right' by targeting manufacturing jobs that fled to Mexico and China, but that the 'Canada tariffs made no sense.' 'Trump has zeroed in on an issue that needs to be addressed,' he said, but the president went too far in his plan. Duggan was a vocal surrogate for the Joe Biden and Kamala Harris presidential campaigns in 2024, regularly touting the Democratic duo for bringing 'Detroit's recovery back 10 years ahead of time' and even posting weeks before he left the party that 'KAMALA HARRIS is the LEADER we need to build on the progress we've made!' Duggan says he thought at the time that Harris was a 'better choice' and that he still believes it. But he now says he campaigned for her while harboring serious doubts about her and the state of his former party. Democrats are taking note of his campaign. Last month, the Democratic Governors Association timed the release of a digital ad accusing Duggan of corruption to the mayor's keynote speech at the Mackinac Policy Conference. The ad centers on a story from the Detroit News tying the mayor with 'events that outed a confidential FBI informant.' The attack raised eyebrows in Michigan, signaling that his former party is at least mildly concerned about what he could mean to the contest. Duggan hit back at the conference, calling his former party 'predictable.' 'Mike Duggan is already cracking under pressure and lashing out on the campaign trail,' said Sam Newton, a spokesperson for the DGA. 'The DGA beat attention-grabbing third-party candidates in Kansas in 2018 and Oregon in 2022 — and we're confident that we'll do it again in Michigan this cycle.' A spokesperson for the Republican Governors Association declined to comment on Duggan's campaign. Duggan told us he 'couldn't stop laughing' when he first saw the ad. 'It does seem kind of early,' he said. 'They only know one play. This is like the old Michigan football teams that ran the ball up the middle all the time. They only know one thing.' Polls show the mayor pulling support from Democrats and Republicans, something Duggan and his team regularly bring up. It's early, however, and not only has neither party selected a nominee, but the tens of millions of dollars that will be spent on this race have yet to harden voters' partisan preferences. Duggan has a tall hill to climb, both because he is, in his own words, basically unknown by people outside the Detroit metropolitan area and because history does not favor independent candidates for governor. The last time an independent won a governor's mansion was over a decade ago — Bill Walker, a Republican turned independent, won in Alaska in 2014 — and while there are high-profile examples of success, like independent Jesse Ventura in 1998, there are plenty of failures. In 2022, for example, independent Betsy Johnson garnered considerable attention as a possible spoiler for the Democratic candidate in Oregon, typically considered to be a safe blue state. Johnson wound up winning only 8.6 percent of the vote, not enough to stop Democrat Tina Kotek from defeating her Republican opponent by about 3.5 percentage points. 'Voting for an independent hasn't been people's experience, but I am finding … the idea is appealing to people,' Duggan said. He noted that when he declared for mayor ahead of the 2013 campaign, people counted him out before they got to know him because Detroit hadn't had a White mayor since the early 1970s. 'I can feel the same thing happening here. People are now really starting to understand.' Hi, it's Jacob Bogage from the economic policy desk diving into a key question surrounding Trump and Republicans' massive tax and immigration bill. Will this bill really reduce the national deficit? That's been Republican leaders' talking point the past week: There are two issues at play here. The first is Vought and Johnson's claims about spending cuts. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act cuts $1.3 trillion in spending over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office — there's additional savings if you count new revenue, too. Johnson and Vought are asserting that by enacting those budget cuts, Republicans will 'bend the curve' on the national debt, or get the trend line on the debt (it's basically a vertical line now) to flatten out. But spending cuts in and of themselves are not deficit reducers when they are paired with new spending. The bill increases spending by hundreds of billions of dollars and cuts taxes by $2.4 trillion (plus another $500 billion, if you factor in interest costs), according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's more than enough to wipe out the projected savings and add significantly to the deficit. The other issue is Thune's claim about projected growth. That is based on the Laffer curve, a popular conservative economic theory that posits there's a Goldilocks zone for tax rates that maximizes government revenue and private-sector growth. Beyond that zone, high tax rates crowd out growth, according to the theory, and actually diminish government revenue because of smaller economic output. Like every economic theory, there's some truth and some problems with the Laffer curve. The bigger issue is how it's applied to this bill. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was loaded with more growth incentives than the current bill, and it still came up short on paying for itself by stimulating economic activity. Help me cover the tax fight, the IRS, DOGE and more. Follow me on Bluesky: @ And send news tips securely on Signal: jacobbogage.87. Can we make a deal? Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will meet with representatives from the Chinese government today to discuss a possible trade deal between the two superpowers. While the Trump administration promised in April to strike 90 trade deals in 90 days — a goal it is dramatically behind on — no deal would be more significant than one with China. Somos Votantes, an organization focused on civic and voter engagement within Latino communities, tells us it is kicking off a six-figure bilingual digital ad today focused on Trump's failure to live up to his promise of lowering prices. 'Donald Trump promised to lower prices on day one — groceries, health-care costs — but what has he actually delivered?' a narrator asks in the ads titled 'Promised'/'Prometió' that will run on YouTube and digital streaming services in Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin. 'Ridiculous trade wars with allies like Mexico, Canada and now the world, making prices go up for everyone.' The ad also hits Trump for 'letting Elon Musk slash good jobs and destroy cost-saving programs. … This is not what he promised.' 'This isn't about partisanship,' said Melissa Morales, founder and president of Somos Votantes. 'It's about promises that were made and broken.' Many of you are open to voting for candidates outside the traditional two-party system. 'We should all be voting 'Independent,'' said Terri McKenney, a Realtor in Gilbert, Arizona. 'The current two-party system is like a ballgame where the players are only interested in winning. Neither team particularly cares about the fans and their fate. Courtney Marsh, a reader in Springfield, Virginia, remembered studying former independent governor Jesse Ventura when she was in high school in Minneapolis. 'We studied the election in school, and I remember collectively my class was stunned by the results but intrigued by what would happen next,' she wrote. 'It has since made me at least take a deeper look at independent candidates, especially for state-level offices.' And Kristen Smith contributed the viewpoint of the two main parties: 'In a two-party nation like the USA, Independent voters are wasting their votes.' West Central Tribune (Willmar, Minnesota): When the Trump administration put out a list of immigration sanctuary jurisdictions, officials in Stearns County, Minnesota, were surprised to be on it. Las Vegas Review Journal: Nevada's legislative session did not end well, highlighting the partisan divisions in a state that will be home to a competitive gubernatorial contest next year. Ventura County Star (Camarillo, California): The feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk — in addition to playing out like a juicy political drama — could have a dramatic impact on California and the state's electric vehicle market. We plan to write about how cuts to Medicaid could have a dramatic impact on rural hospitals later this week. Do you rely on a rural hospital to get care? Do you worry about the solvency of that hospital? Do you use Medicaid to get care from that hospital? Let us know at earlytips@ Thanks for reading. You can follow Dan and Matthew on X: @merica and @matthewichoi.
