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
CBS News
30 minutes ago
- CBS News
Southern Baptist delegates overwhelmingly back prohibiting same-sex marriage
Dallas — Southern Baptist delegates at their national meeting overwhelmingly endorsed a ban on same-sex marriage - including a call for a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's 10-year-old precedent legalizing it nationwide. They also called for legislators to curtail sports betting and support policies that promote childbearing. The votes Tuesday came at the gathering of more than 10,000 church representatives at the annual meeting of the nation's largest Protestant denomination. The wide-ranging resolution doesn't use the word "ban" but left no room for legal same-sex marriage in calling for the "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family." Further, the resolution affirmatively calls "for laws that affirm marriage between one man and one women." A reversal of the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell decision wouldn't in and of itself amount to a nationwide ban. At the time of that ruling, 36 states had already legalized same-sex marriage, and support remains strong in many areas. However, if the convention got its wish, not only would Obergefell be overturned, but every law and court ruling that affirmed same-sex marriage would, as well. Messengers attending the Southern Baptist Convention participate in worship during the 2025 SBC Annual Meeting on June 10, 2025, in Dallas. Richard W. Rodriguez / AP There was no debate on the marriage resolution. That in itself isn't surprising in the solidly conservative denomination, which has long defined marriage as between one man and one woman. However, it marks an especially assertive step in its call for the reversal of a decade-old Supreme Court ruling, as well as any other legal pillars to same-sex marriage in law and court precedent. The marriage issue was incorporated into a much larger resolution on marriage and family - one that calls for civil law to be based on what the convention says is the divinely created order as stated in the Bible. The resolution says legislators have a duty to "pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law - about marriage, sex, human life, and family" and to oppose laws contradicting "what God has made plain through nature and Scripture." The same resolution calls for recognizing "the biological reality of male and female" and opposes "any law or policy that compels people to speak falsehoods about sex and gender." It urges Christians to "embrace marriage and childbearing" and to see children "as blessings rather than burdens." But it also frames that issue as one of public policy. It calls for "for renewed moral clarity in public discourse regarding the crisis of declining fertility and for policies that support the bearing and raising of children within intact, married families." It laments that modern culture is "pursuing willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate," echoing a growing subject of discourse on the religious and political right. Delegates weigh in on other controversial topics A pornography resolution, which had no debate, calls such material destructive, addictive and exploitive and says governments have the power to ban it. The sports betting resolution draws on Southern Baptists' historic opposition to gambling. It called sports betting "harmful and predatory." One pastor urged an amendment to distinguish between low-stakes, recreational gambling and predatory, addictive gambling activities. But his proposed amendment failed. Andrew Walker, chair of the Committee on Resolutions, said at a news conference that the marriage resolution shows that Southern Baptists aren't going along with the widespread social acceptance of same-sex marriage. But Walker, a professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, acknowledged that a realistic rollback strategy would require incremental steps, such as seeking to overturn Obergefell. "I'm clear-eyed about the difficulties and the headwinds in this resolution," he said. The two-day annual meeting began Tuesday morning with praise sessions and optimistic reports about growing numbers of baptisms. But casting a pall over the gathering is the recent death of one of the most high-profile whistleblowers in the Southern Baptists' scandal of sexual abuse. Jennifer Lyell, a onetime denominational publishing executive who went public in 2019 with allegations that she had been sexually abused by a seminary professor while a student, died Saturday at 47. She "suffered catastrophic strokes," a friend and fellow advocate, Rachael Denhollander, posted Sunday on X. Friends reported that the backlash Lyell received after going public with her report took a devastating toll on her. Several abuse survivors and advocates for reform, who previously had a prominent presence in recent SBC meetings, are skipping this year's gathering, citing lack of progress by the convention. Two people sought to fill that void, standing vigil outside the meeting at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center Dallas as attendees walked by. The pair held up signs with photos of Lyell and of Gareld Duane Rollins, who died earlier this spring and who was among those who accused longtime SBC power broker Paul Pressler of sexual abuse. "It's not a healthy thing for them (survivors) to be here," said Johnna Harris, host of a podcast on abuse in evangelical ministries. "I felt like it was important for someone to show up. I want people to know there are people who care." The SBC Executive Committee, in a 2022 apology, acknowledged "its failure to adequately listen, protect, and care for Jennifer Lyell when she came forward to share her story." It also acknowledged the denomination's official news agency had not accurately reported the situation as "sexual abuse by a trusted minister in a position of power at a Southern Baptist seminary." SBC officials issued statements this week lamenting Lyell's death, but her fellow advocates have denounced what they say is a failure to implement reforms. The SBC's 2022 meeting voted overwhelmingly to create a way to track pastors and other church workers credibly accused of sex abuse. That came shortly after the release of a blockbuster report by an outside consultant, which said Southern Baptist leaders mishandled abuse cases and stonewalled victims for years. But the denomination's Executive Committee president, Jeff Iorg, said earlier this year that creating a database is not a focus and that the committee instead plans to refer churches to existing databases of sex offenders and focus on education about abuse prevention. The committee administers the denomination's day-to-day business. Advocates for reform don't see those approaches as adequate. It is the latest instance of "officials trailing out hollow words, impotent task forces and phony dog-and-pony shows of reform," abuse survivor and longtime advocate Christa Brown wrote on Baptist News Global, which is not SBC-affiliated. In a related action, the Executive Committee will also be seeking $3 million in convention funding for ongoing legal expenses related to abuse cases. As of late Tuesday afternoon, attendance was at 10,541 church representatives (known as messengers). That is less than a quarter of the total that thronged the SBC's annual meeting 40 years ago this month in a Dallas showdown that marked the height of battles over control of the convention, ultimately won by the more conservative-fundamentalist side led by Pressler and his allies. Messengers will also debate whether to institute a constitutional ban on churches with women pastors and to abolish its public-policy arm, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission - which is staunchly conservative but, according to critics, not enough so. Brent Leatherwood, president of the ERLC, said Tuesday he would address the "turbulence" during his scheduled remarks Wednesday but was confident in the messengers' support.
Bloomberg
30 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US, China Inch Toward Plan to Ease Chip and Rare-Earth Controls
The US and China wrapped up two days of high-stakes trade talks in London. The result: a plan to establish a framework for implementing a consensus the two sides had already agreed to last month. US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the Chinese had pledged to speed up shipments of rare-earth metals critical to US auto and defense firms, while Washington would ease some of its own controls on chip design software, jet engines and student visas. The framework is now awaiting the blessing of Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. Markets barely flinched, with the announcement seen as lacking the detail needed to lift markets. US stock futures slipped while European shares and the offshore yuan were little changed.
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
Newsom and California confront Trump with a potential blueprint for Democrats
Democratic politicians have spent the last few months talking about standing up to President Donald Trump in his second term. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is among the first faced with figuring out what standing up actually looks like. Allies and opponents agree how Newsom handles the protests – including Trump's calling in the National Guard and sending in active-duty Marines over the governor's objections – will reverberate far beyond California, and long after this week. That's how Newsom is approaching what has become a fight on the streets and in the courts, only a few days after he was responding to a Trump administration effort to identify federal grants going to the state that can be canceled. Other Democratic governors have been calling Newsom, checking in, ticking through scenarios in their minds of how what's happened in California could play out at home for them, according to multiple people briefed on the conversations. Every Democratic governor signed onto a statement over the weekend calling Trump's call-up of the National Guard an 'alarming abuse of power,' but they have been treading carefully since then, their eyes on both the politics of potentially triggering Trump and on the legal concerns of how their words might be used in lawsuits they might have to bring. Newsom, people familiar with his thinking say, wants California to hold the line after some universities and law firms facing White House pressure reached concession deals with the administration. 'What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty. Your silence. To be complicit in this moment,' Newsom said in remarks released Tuesday evening. 'Do not give into him.' 'If some of us can be snatched off the streets without a warrant – based only on suspicion or skin color – then none of us are safe. Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves. But they do not stop there,' Newsom said, reiterating accusations that Trump officials instigated and inflamed what started as peaceful protests, though there have been skirmishes and occasional violence that Newsom and others have condemned. 'This is about all of us. This is about you,' he said. 'California may be first – but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next.' Prev Next As obvious as Newsom's presidential ambitions are, several top Democrats say this is much more America over the next few months than any talk of the 2028 presidential primary. Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, another potential 2028 candidate, has become one of the most outspoken Democrats calling attention to what he says is Trump's direct threat to democracy in his second term. Trump 'is clearly trying to scare his opposition into silence, and that is definitely one of the ways that democracies die: when people fear that they are going to face physical harm if they turn out for protests, it often causes people to stay home. That is a tried and true path for democracies to be converted into autocracies. Elections still happen, but the opposition can never amount to any kind of numbers because people fear they'll get the shit kicked out of them if they show up,' Murphy told CNN. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, who acknowledged his record-breaking 25-hour Senate speech came during a different phase both for Trump and for Democrats' response, saw the faceoff the same way. 'With this president's clear authoritarian bent, lack of respect for separation of powers and violations of the law, we're in dangerous territory with still three-plus years to go. That's what California has me concerned about,' Booker said. For months, Newsom angered many Democrats by inviting Trump-friendly figures onto his podcast or taking shots at his own party for going too far on the issue of transgender athletes playing in women's sports. He tried to connect with Trump in an effort to get more federal money to rebuild after the devastation of the Los Angeles wildfires at the beginning of the year and suggested he'd work with Trump on tariffs aimed at bucking up the film industry that has been fleeing California, even as other leading Democrats called for more intense pushback, like when Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker said in a fiery speech in New Hampshire in April that, 'never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now.' But the events of the last few days have rekindled the long-simmering rivalry between Trump and Newsom. Newsom dared the Trump administration in one television interview to arrest him rather than targeting immigrant children. Trump then suggested in response to a reporter's question that Newsom should be arrested. The only rationale Trump has offered for making the threat of arresting a sitting governor is because 'his primary crime is running for governor, because he's done such a bad job.' 'I like the fact that when one of Trump's henchmen threatened Newsom with arrest, he said, 'Well, come and get me, here I am.' We're not going to be afraid of Donald Trump because we have the rule of law on our side. We're standing up for the Constitution. The states are not the pawns of the federal government. The states have an independent constitutional and political existence,' said Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, who taught constitutional law before being elected to the House. 'Other governors should stand up for the rule of law and stand up for the rights of their people.' With some looters also taking to the streets while Trump and his deputy chief of staff refer to an 'insurrection,' the situation hasn't gone over well with every Democrat, including those who worry about playing into Trump's hands on a signature issue. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman is among members of the party who have called for a more forceful condemnation of violent protesters. Newsom himself has said that those engaged in violence or attacking police officers would be prosecuted and noted that law enforcement is already reviewing videos of the events to track down more perpetrators. Even before Trump already threatened 'very heavy force' if any protesters disrupt the massive military parade he is hosting this Saturday in Washington on his 79th birthday, leaders in other centers of immigrants were expressing concern about what happens if federal agents target their communities. 'I would hope that New Yorkers will speak up and do whatever they believe is their constitutional right in a non-violent way, and if Trump tried to tamp it up, I think the people would see it for what it is,' said New York Rep. Greg Meeks. 'I would say to New Yorkers and others, 'We know what he's trying to do.'' A few Republicans have joined Democrats in expressing concern, including swing district California GOP Rep. David Valadao, who tweeted Tuesday that he is 'concerned about ongoing ICE operations through CA.' But for now, most Republican leaders have either been expressing support for Trump or staying quiet about the situation. House Speaker Mike Johnson said he couldn't speak to the legal argument about arresting Newsom, but 'he ought to be tarred and feathered.' While some Democratic strategists, including some who have kicked in with advice to Newsom in recent days, have urged a more defensive position that echoes Trump's hardline approach to immigration so that they don't give the president a fight he clearly wants, others are glad to see Newsom taking a more forceful lead on his own terms. 'Democrats need to recognize that voters are appalled by Trump's overreach on immigration – not just Democratic voters, but independent voters, libertarian leaning voters don't believe in arresting random peaceful people and separating families,' said Texas Rep. Greg Casar, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. 'So we shouldn't be scared of going toe-to-toe with Trump on his overreach and abuse of people's rights.'
