White House issues intimidating statement about 'The View' being 'pulled off the air' over 'irrelevant loser' Joy Behar (exclusive)
After The View cohosts clocked Donald Trump's potential jealousy meter amid the president's recent criticism of Barack Obama, the White House issued an intimidating statement to Entertainment Weekly referencing the potential for the talk show to be "pulled off the air."
In the aftermath of Trump making a shocking allegation Tuesday that Obama "was trying to lead a coup" in the past — which even prompted a rare response from the former president — Whoopi Goldberg introduced a Hot Topic on Wednesday's episode in observance of the strange development.
Joy Behar then jumped in with a criticism of her own, saying, "First of all, who tried to overthrow the government on Jan. 6. Who was that again? That was not Obama," referencing the deadly Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection on the United States Capitol, which mostly supporters of Trump participated in.
Behar continued, "The thing about him is he's so jealous of Obama, because Obama is everything that he is not: Trim, smart, handsome, happily married, and can sing Al Green's song 'Let's Stay Together' better than Al Green. And Trump cannot stand it. It's driving him crazy."
In response, White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers tells EW in an email statement that "Joy Behar is an irrelevant loser suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome," and claimed that the show has "hit the lowest ratings" in recent years.
The statement continued, adding that Behar "should self-reflect on her own jealousy of President Trump's historic popularity before her show is the next to be pulled off air."
When reached for comment, a View spokesperson did not address Rogers' statement, but did respond to claims about the show's ratings, pointing to figures noting that The View "is up in total viewers and women 18-49, versus the comparable weeks last season, to its most-watched in four years" and "season to date, The View is ranking No. 1 in households and total viewers among all network daytime talk shows and news programs for the fifth straight season."
The statement comes amid Stephen Colbert's The Late Show being canceled amid CBS parent company Paramount Global's pending sale to Skydance Media, which needs approval by the Federal Communications Commission to move forward.
FCC chair Brendan Carr later said on X that "the partisan left's ritualist wailing and gnashing of teeth over Colbert is quite revealing," adding that "they're acting like they're losing a loyal DNC spokesperson that was entitled to an exemption from the laws of economics."
Elsewhere on Wednesday's episode of The View, Behar later suggested that Obama should sue Trump, while legal expert Sunny Hostin also weighed in to echo the comedian's sentiment.
"I agree with you on that," Hostin said. "Obama still lives rent-free in his head. I think Michelle Obama still lives rent-free in his head, I think the fact that Malia graduated from Harvard still lives rent-free in his head, and it's just the very swag that Obama has that he will never have."
Following Trump's remarks about a coup, Obama's team issued a statement to the New York Times in which he firmly opposed Trump's words.
'These bizarre allegations are ridiculous and a weak attempt at distraction,' said Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesman for Obama, to the publication.
Rodenbush added, 'Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes."
The View airs weekdays at 11 a.m. ET/10 a.m. PT on ABC. Watch Trump accuse Obama of treason in the video above.
Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
a minute ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
The Hill
a minute ago
- The Hill
Most support Trump immigration goal, but say approach goes too far: Survey
Most Americans support President Trump's immigration goals, but they argued that the administration's approach is overreaching, according to a new survey. The Wall Street Journal poll, released Monday, found that 62 percent of U.S. adults said they are supportive of the administration's deportation of migrants who are in the country illegally. Despite the support, many respondents are against two approaches that administration has taken to facilitate Trump's robust crackdown on illegal immigration: Mass deportation without due process and deporting immigrants to jails in countries other than where they are from. Both approaches received 58 percent opposition, the survey shows. Close to 60 percent of independents said the White House has gone too far in deporting migrants without granting them a hearing or sending them back without evidence that they are in the U.S. illegally. GOP voters are strongly supportive of Trump's immigration policies, with 90 percent of them being fully on board. Just 11 percent of Republicans said the administration has gone too far, according to the poll. Around 75 percent of GOP voters also signaled support for deporting migrants without giving them a chance to appear before a judge or sit for a court hearing. Amongst all Americans, the support is at around 39 percent, the poll revealed. Nearly two-thirds of Americans, 62 percent, said the administration is deporting as many people as possible, regardless of whether they have a criminal background. Around a third of U.S. adults said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is mainly deporting migrants who are in the country illegally and have a criminal record, according to the poll. Earlier this month, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 60 percent of voters support Trump's push to close the border. The survey showed that 75 percent of Americans are supportive of the administration's push to deport migrants who are in the country without authorization. The Wall Street Journal survey was conducted from July 16-20 among 1,500 registered voters. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.
Los Angeles Times
a minute ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: ‘Alligator Alcatraz' is ‘Trump's monument to misery and inhumanity'
To the editor: I am revolted by the photo of the grinning visitors flashing a thumbs up in front of President Trump's monument to misery and inhumanity, the so-called 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center ('Deportation flights from Florida's 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center have begun, DeSantis says,' July 25). How did so many people become dismissive and uncaring about rights, both human and those enshrined in the Constitution of this formerly great country? Shame on us. This is happening on our watch. Elizabeth Alexander, Ojai .. To the editor: In regard to the photo of a couple happily posing in front of the 'Alligator Alcatraz' sign — I know the comparison is not completely fair, but I could not help but imagine what it would be like to see the same scene in the 1940s, with a happy couple in front of one of Germany's concentration camps. It is well documented that most people swept up in the immigration raids have no criminal convictions and that raids target businesses and churches; it is not about catching hardened criminals. It is also well documented that the Florida facility has insufficient, even inhumane (and I would suggest un-American) conditions, with a name and location purposefully chosen for harshness. That people can go out of their way to proudly support a facility that isn't up to the standards of a prison, designed as a holding pen for noncriminals picked up at Home Depot and your neighborhood church — this will be another shameful part of American history. David Lynn, Simi Valley
