Latest news with #GeorgePolkAward
San Francisco Chronicle
2 days ago
- Politics
- San Francisco Chronicle
Sara DiNatale joins S.F. Chronicle to report on Trump's impact on the Bay Area
Sara DiNatale has joined the San Francisco Chronicle as a reporter on the politics team. In her new role, DiNatale will chronicle the ways in which the Trump administration is shaping life in the Bay Area, including impacts its policies and decisions are having on local governments, businesses, nonprofits, individuals and communities. She will report to Politics Editor Sara Libby. 'Sara has done incredible work examining the ways in which government systems are impacting people's day-to-day lives,' said Libby. 'As the Trump administration continues to target California's leaders and seeks to override policies it disagrees with, it's more important than ever to dig into the ways these tensions are playing out on the ground.' DiNatale has spent the last decade reporting on a mix of business and breaking news topics across the southern United States. She has worked for the Tampa Bay Times, Mississippi Today and, most recently, the San Antonio Express-News, which is also owned by Hearst, the Chronicle's parent company. DiNatale was the recipient of a 2024 George Polk Award for her investigation on the Texas residential solar industry as an energy reporter at the San Antonio Express-News. The four-part series led Texas to adopt new state laws and licensing requirements to regulate bad actors and door-to-door scammers. In addition to energy, she has reported extensively on labor, health care and retail. She got her start as a night cops reporter in Tampa after graduating from the University at Buffalo with an English degree in 2015. DiNatale's storytelling has spanned power tool theft-driven drug rings, Delta farmworkers fighting racist hiring practices and the complexities of Texas' troubled electric grid. Her reporting has been recognized by a series of state-level and national awards, including top honors from the Headliner Foundation, Best of the West and Bill Minor Prize for Investigative Reporting. She's a native of Western New York. 'I'm so excited to begin this next chapter of my career in the Bay Area,' DiNatale said. 'I look forward to being on the ground, meeting Californians and reporting how they see their lives changing under the Trump administration.' The San Francisco Chronicle ( is the largest newspaper in Northern California and the second largest on the West Coast. Acquired by Hearst in 2000, The San Francisco Chronicle was founded in 1865 by Charles and Michael de Young and has been awarded six Pulitzer Prizes for journalistic excellence. Follow us on Twitter at @SFChronicle
Globe and Mail
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
The Iraq war may have ended, but its lingering impact – on the Middle East and beyond
Rania Abouzeid has won the Michael Kelly Award and George Polk Award for foreign reporting, among many other prizes for international journalism. A former Harvard Nieman fellow, her books include No Turning Back: Life, Loss, and Hope in Wartime Syria. The past 25 years have been momentously eventful in the Middle East, even by the standards of a region whose many states have frequently experienced domestic turmoil and foreign interference, including military aggression. There were moments so bright they felt like supernovas, most notably the 2011 Arab uprisings that unseated dictators in Yemen, Libya, Egypt and Tunisia. The protesters around me on the streets of several Arab capitals who braved tear gas and more lethal projectiles didn't call their movement a 'spring.' Instead, they roared 'revolution!' It was a contagious, indigenous Arab democratic fervour born of raw outrage and courage. It briefly swept across the region until some of those decapitated regimes rebounded, installing even stronger strongmen than those deposed, with the backing of Western and Gulf states that prefer iron-fisted stability to the messiness of democratic transitions that might empower forces they disapprove of or can't control. Other revolutions descended into war. In Libya and Syria, militias birthed to confront the counter-revolutionary violence of reeling regimes soon also turned their weapons on each other. Along the Arabian peninsula, Yemen's internal divides were blown open, precipitating a civil conflict in one of the poorest countries in the Middle East that was exacerbated and influenced by the mega-wealth and militaries of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (and Iran on the other side of the political divide). Petro-fuelled Gulf states, meanwhile, continued to build their futuristic bubbles, seemingly oblivious but not immune or independent of troubles some also had a hand in fomenting and sustaining. There have been two wars between Israel and Lebanon since 2000, the year that Hezbollah forced Israel to retreat from a vast swath of southern Lebanon, becoming the first and only armed Arab force to oust Israeli troops from occupied Arab territory. The foes met in battle in 2006 as well as last year after Hezbollah opened what it called a 'support front' to aid its Palestinian ally Hamas and draw Israeli military resources away from a beleaguered Gaza Strip. In 2023, after decades of Israeli subjugation of Palestinians, on Oct. 7, Hamas brazenly attacked Israel. The Israeli war on Gaza (and now the West Bank) that followed has placed Israel in the dock at The Hague on charges of genocide. During the recent conflict in Lebanon, Israel dealt Hezbollah a series of unprecedented, painful blows through the assassination of dozens of its most senior commanders, including the group's long-time leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Despite the abundance of historic moments to choose from this past quarter century, it's not difficult to pinpoint one event – America's invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003, and the lies underpinning it – as perhaps the single most significant development that has had the greatest impact on the Middle East. There are actually two key dates to consider: Before March 20, 2003, there was Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations Security Council laying out the supposed evidence of Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The speech was a prelude to a war that reshaped the Middle East, shattered America's credibility, and mainstreamed gaslighting as a foreign policy instrument. And even at the time, it was an objective failure. It did not persuade the Council to pass a second resolution backing military action against Iraq, prompting the U.S. and its partners in the 'coalition of the willing' to illegally invade a country without UN support, and in so doing, cemented the cornerstone of an American-led rules-based order that made it clear that America does as America pleases, and that its rules apply to others but not to itself or its friends. I watched Mr. Powell's 76-minute speech in a Beirut newsroom with colleagues gathered around a television set suspended from the ceiling. The secretary of state's opening claims, backed by intercepted telephone conversations of Iraqi Republican Guard officers supposedly discussing where to hide a modified vehicle and other items from UN inspectors, were ambiguous, open to interpretation and as evidence, surprisingly thin. I remember the confusion and general sentiment of disbelief in the newsroom: Was that it? Was that mighty America's opening gambit? 'My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources,' Mr. Powell told the Council. 'These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.' Except they weren't, a reality that years later, after all the damage was done, Mr. Powell publicly regretted. By the time the decorated former general dramatically waved a vial of 'anthrax' in the Security Council chamber during his presentation, warning of the dangers that 'about this amount' could unleash, some of my colleagues had returned to their desks. The Americans, it seemed, had very little in the way of convincing evidence, an assertion only strengthened by Mr. Powell's insistence of a 'sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network.' It was an emotive claim in a world still reeling from al-Qaeda's 9/11 attacks in 2001, but most of us knew it wasn't true. Although Saddam Hussein had instituted a so-called 'Faith Campaign' in the 1990s aimed at fostering a Saddam-centred religiosity in the wake of the devastating Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the crushing UN-enforced economic sanctions that impoverished Iraqis, the dictator detested any Islamism, particularly militant, that might threaten his one-man rule. Although there was no love for Saddam's tyrannical regime in that Lebanese newsroom, many of us still believed that in the 21st century, a country couldn't simply be invaded on such flimsy pretenses, and that solid evidence and the backing of the UN were required. How naive. On March 20, 2003, the U.S. unleashed its ferocious 'shock and awe' bombing campaign of Baghdad, an attack whose ramifications continue to reverberate across the Middle East. America's war unseated a despised leader, but it also destroyed Iraq, installed a sectarian governance system that planted the seeds of future conflicts, gave rise to ISIS, directly strengthened Iran and its regional allies, changed Syria, and shaped the conduct of Israel's war in Gaza. It created the first major cracks in the foundations of political, legal and journalistic institutions entrusted with telling the truth and upholding international law that post-Oct. 7, 2023, are crumbling and discredited in the eyes of many. Regionally, Saddam's demise accelerated the rise of his arch nemesis in Tehran, strengthening Iran's hand in Iraq via its newly empowered Shiite allies, many of whom had armed and mobilized to confront the U.S. occupation. Before the U.S. invasion, there were no Shia militias in Iraq. Saddam was in many ways a counterbalance to the ayatollah's regional ambitions and his removal helped embolden Iran's anti-American and anti-Israeli Axis of Resistance grouping Tehran and its partners in Iraq with long-time allies in Lebanon's Hezbollah, the Houthis of Yemen, Syria's Bashar al-Assad, and the Palestinian group Hamas among others. To be clear, Saddam was also anti-Israel, lobbing Scud missiles into Israel during the 1991 Gulf War, and although he was supported by the United States in his war against Iran, after invading neighbouring Kuwait in 1990 he went from U.S. ally to U.S. enemy. Iran's ascendance, however, shifted the regional balance of power. In 2004, Jordan's King Abdullah coined the term 'Shiite Crescent' to describe what he saw as an Iranian threat to the traditional Arab Sunni elites led by Saudi Arabia. Iran's ideological belt of influence was superficially sectarian (although Hamas is Sunni and Mr. al-Assad is Alawite, a sect considered heretics by some Shiites), the deeper divide was between a Western-influenced Saudi axis and the Iranian project countering it. Tehran propped up Mr. al-Assad's Syria, a lynchpin state in its supply route to Hezbollah. It supported Yemen's Houthis against their Saudi-backed foes, and strengthened some Iraqi militant factions that also had vibrant political wings including members of parliament. More recently, the Iranian axis was dealt a debilitating – but not deadly – blow by Israel and its Western allies through military strikes on its members during a Gaza war that has drawn in most of the players in the axis. Back in 2003, the ill-fated decision of Baghdad's new American overlords to disband its military and purge its civil service of members of Saddam's Baath Party, not knowing or understanding that nominal party membership was usually a prerequisite to even the most mundane of administrative positions, collapsed the state and its security apparatus, fomenting chaos and deep resentment. American officials sequestered themselves in a walled-off bubble of Baghdad they called the Green Zone, dubbing everything outside it – that is, Iraq – a no-go Red Zone. Their interactions with Iraqis were largely limited to those allowed into their fortress, to exiles with self-interested agendas, and an English-speaking Western-friendly elite. The Green Zone wasn't Iraq any more than post-Taliban Kabul was Afghanistan. It was a self-selecting echo chamber. Republican Party political appointees, in many cases young graduates whose loyalty was more important than their (in)competence, were tasked with remodelling Iraq's bureaucracy including major sectors such as legal and financial. The Americans installed a governance system in Iraq that apportioned senior political positions based on sect, replicating a Lebanese system that had contributed to a civil war in the 1970s and '80s, and in so doing, elevated a sectarian identity above a national one. Iraqi friends who told me they grew up not knowing their own sectarian affiliation, let alone that of their friends, were now pigeonholed and catalogued by Americans who presumptuously and erroneously referred to 'the Sunnis,' 'the Shiites,' 'the Christians' and other religious groups as monolithic political blocs (many still do). In the years to come, the Lebanonization of Iraq would play a role in the Iraqization of Syria, but in the early post-Saddam era, the new power system – underpinned, determined and divided by sect – helped incite a sectarian war. Militias proliferated. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, just a small band of ultraconservative Sunni Islamist Kurdish separatists called Ansar al-Islam near Halabja, a city in the predominantly Kurdish north. The group was said to have ties to both Iran and al-Qaeda, as well as to a two-bit Jordanian gangster known as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Some time after the U.S. war on Afghanistan post-9/11 began, Mr. al-Zarqawi moved into parts of northern Iraq that pre-2003 were protected by a U.S-enforced No Fly Zone, and hence outside the dictator's control. After the U.S. invasion, Mr. al-Zarqawi formed and led a group that became Al-Qaeda in Iraq, responsible for suicide bombings in markets, churches and mosques as well as on United Nations and Iraqi government facilities, and American troops. Mr. al-Zarqawi was killed in 2006, but his group lived on. Al-Qaeda in Iraq became the Islamic State of Iraq which in 2013 became ISIS, exporting its terror across the world. In those formative early years (and well beyond) al-Qaeda drew recruits from across Iraq as well as foreign Islamist fighters from the region, including one Ahmed al-Sharaa, the current president of Syria, who most recently went by the nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Golani. Mr. al-Golani fought with Al-Qaeda in Iraq before being captured by the Americans, who misclassified him as an Iraqi from the city of Mosul, and tossed him into the Camp Bucca detention centre in Iraq's southern desert near Kuwait. The future ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and men who would become his senior lieutenants were also in Camp Bucca, although my reporting revealed that Mr. al-Golani didn't know Mr. al-Baghdadi inside the wire. They would meet later. Mr. al-Golani was released months before the Syrian revolution began in March, 2011. With Mr. al-Baghdadi's blessing, in August of that year, Mr. al-Golani clandestinely crossed back into Syria with a handful of men to establish the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda. His group fought the regime as well as the rebels. After 14 years, Mr. al-Assad fled to Russia and Mr. al-Golani swapped his military fatigues for clean-cut suits, dropping his nom de guerre, to lead Syria into an uncertain future. But during those brutal years of the Syrian war, which I covered intensely, hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed and disappeared, and the country splintered into slivers of influence drawing in Turkey, Jordan, the Gulf states, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia, Iraqi militias, the U.S. and other Western powers. The Syrian conflict propelled millions of refugees into neighbouring countries, in some cases destabilizing or otherwise significantly burdening them, as well as into a Europe that after initially welcoming the newcomers, declared their influx a crisis, feeding the rise of the political right and its xenophobia. (In 2015, all of Europe absorbed a million refugees, most of whom were Syrian. Lebanon alone, a country of about five million people, hosted more Syrian refugees than that while Turkey became home to more than three million.) America's war on Iraq, dubbed 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' was supposed to liberate Iraqis from a leader who robbed citizens of their basic human and democratic rights. Not for the first time in history, the disconnect between America's stated ideals and its actions were soon laid bare in the horrors of Abu Ghraib, which exposed the hypocrisy of a superpower whose soldiers were not above torturing and sexually abusing detainees, or committing war crimes including the extrajudicial killing of men, women and children in Haditha, the 'free-fire zones' of Fallujah, and the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus. None of the architects of the war, from U.S. President George W. Bush, to Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and their British counterparts and accomplices including Prime Minister Tony Blair (and their dodgy intelligence dossier), paid a price for contravening the UN Charter, destroying a country and killing hundreds of thousands of people. Instead, they enjoyed lucrative retirements. The message was clear: America, the world's self-designated policeman, and its friends, were above being policed, a doctrine taken to its zenith in the Gaza war with America and the West providing diplomatic cover (and military hardware) to support Israeli transgressions that legal scholars and human-rights groups (including Israeli) have deemed war crimes. The same United States and its Western allies that a few short years ago welcomed warrants issued by the International Criminal Court against their enemies (principally Russian President Vladimir Putin), are now openly undermining the court, and other tenets of international law, for indicting their Israeli allies. The crack in the Western edifice of international order and its lofty principles struck in Iraq has collapsed in Gaza. And it is not just restricted to institutions of international law and politics. Colin Powell's gaslighting was enabled by a journalistic community that, with a few commendable exceptions, suspended its skepticism to cheerlead and parrot rather than interrogate what were official lies. And who paid the price? A prominent female journalist lost her job and was practically hounded out of a career, while the men who peddled falsehoods, including the al-Qaeda link to Saddam, were promoted and remain respected industry leaders. Instead of learning from the mistakes of its Iraq coverage, much of Western journalism as an industry has superseded them in its reporting on Gaza, uncritically repeating claims, however flimsy, that align with an Israeli narrative while demonizing, denying or ignoring others, including evidence of atrocities live-streamed to our phones. Future generations will no doubt look back at Gaza just as we look back at Iraq, and wonder how it was allowed to happen. The Iraq war may have ended, but its lingering impact – on the Middle East and beyond – has not.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Mike Hogan, Longtime Vanity Fair Editor, Exits After 25 Years
Michael Hogan, Vanity Fair's executive digital director, is leaving after 25 years with the publication. The news comes weeks after editor-in-chief Radhika Jones stepped down. 'Some news! After 25 wonderful years—literally half my life—at Vanity Fair, I'm finally ready to call it a night,' Hogan posted to his LinkedIn on Monday. 'Looking back, I can say two things with absolute confidence: my colleagues and I did some excellent work, and we had a ridiculously good time doing it. From answering Wayne Lawson's phone and doing Dominick Dunne's expenses to editing the Jen Aniston and Suri Cruise cover stories, turbo-charging and launching three verticals, covering five presidents and six predidencies, co-hosting Little Gold Men and the Oscar Party livestream, writing about my Twin Peaks obsession for the upcoming June issue, and accompanying Katherine Eban to collect a George Polk Award, it's been one pinch-me moment after another. I'll miss working with the best in the business, but I'm psyched for what's next—starting with a little time off while my amazing wife, Elise Jordan, embarks on an exciting new venture as co-host of MSNBC's The Weekend: Primetime. Onward!' Hogan's exit comes on the heels of editor-in-chief Radhika Jones' exit in early April. Jones told staff in a memo obtained by TheWrap. 'At the end of every year, I look over the memo I wrote back in 2017 when I was interviewing to be the editor of Vanity Fair, as a way to remember the goals I had and check my progress. Last year, somewhat to my surprise, I realized that — with your help — I had accomplished virtually all of those goals,' she began her message. 'Vanity Fair is a thriving modern publication with incisive, lively reporting; a vast and highly engaging social media audience; a studio business with terrific projects under our belt and in the works on FX, Amazon, Netflix and more; a video powerhouse; and an epic party machine, to which this year's Oscar party (my seventh!) was testament. We are fully at home in our worlds.' 'It was gratifying, but also a little jarring, to feel like I could check off those boxes. And simultaneously I began to feel, more powerfully, the pull of new goals in my life, around family and friends and writing and other ways to make an impact,' Jones continued. 'Those of you who know me well know that I can be a little restless, once a mission is accomplished. And I have always had a horror of staying too long at the party. So I've made the decision to leave Vanity Fair this spring.' The post Mike Hogan, Longtime Vanity Fair Editor, Exits After 25 Years appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Mike Hogan, Longtime Vanity Fair Editor, Exits After 25 Years
Michael Hogan, Vanity Fair's executive digital director, is leaving after 25 years with the publication. The news comes weeks after editor-in-chief Radhika Jones stepped down. 'Some news! After 25 wonderful years—literally half my life—at Vanity Fair, I'm finally ready to call it a night,' Hogan posted to his LinkedIn on Monday. 'Looking back, I can say two things with absolute confidence: my colleagues and I did some excellent work, and we had a ridiculously good time doing it. From answering Wayne Lawson's phone and doing Dominick Dunne's expenses to editing the Jen Aniston and Suri Cruise cover stories, turbo-charging and launching three verticals, covering five presidents and six predidencies, co-hosting Little Gold Men and the Oscar Party livestream, writing about my Twin Peaks obsession for the upcoming June issue, and accompanying Katherine Eban to collect a George Polk Award, it's been one pinch-me moment after another. I'll miss working with the best in the business, but I'm psyched for what's next—starting with a little time off while my amazing wife, Elise Jordan, embarks on an exciting new venture as co-host of MSNBC's The Weekend: Primetime. Onward!' Hogan's exit comes on the heels of editor-in-chief Radhika Jones' exit in early April. Jones told staff in a memo obtained by TheWrap. 'At the end of every year, I look over the memo I wrote back in 2017 when I was interviewing to be the editor of Vanity Fair, as a way to remember the goals I had and check my progress. Last year, somewhat to my surprise, I realized that — with your help — I had accomplished virtually all of those goals,' she began her message. 'Vanity Fair is a thriving modern publication with incisive, lively reporting; a vast and highly engaging social media audience; a studio business with terrific projects under our belt and in the works on FX, Amazon, Netflix and more; a video powerhouse; and an epic party machine, to which this year's Oscar party (my seventh!) was testament. We are fully at home in our worlds.' 'It was gratifying, but also a little jarring, to feel like I could check off those boxes. And simultaneously I began to feel, more powerfully, the pull of new goals in my life, around family and friends and writing and other ways to make an impact,' Jones continued. 'Those of you who know me well know that I can be a little restless, once a mission is accomplished. And I have always had a horror of staying too long at the party. So I've made the decision to leave Vanity Fair this spring.' The post Mike Hogan, Longtime Vanity Fair Editor, Exits After 25 Years appeared first on TheWrap.
USA Today
20-02-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Musk's math isn't adding up. DOGE lies about federal cuts and focuses on grudges.
Musk's math isn't adding up. DOGE lies about federal cuts and focuses on grudges. | Opinion Musk is in charge of policing his conflicts of interest while Trump, known for squeezing the presidency for every dime he can pocket, doesn't care. And Republicans seem happy to just let it happen. Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk and President Trump interview together on Fox News Elon Musk described the federal workforce as an "unelected bureaucracy" during the interview on Fox News Channel. Imagine constantly craving attention and conflict and then landing a flashy new job with almost unlimited power that you can unleash on people you have long cast as enemies. Now imagine those perceived enemies claiming that your new power creates conspicuous conflicts of interest. Finally, imagine a big part of your new job is ruling on whether conflict-of-interest claims are accurate. That's what its like these days to be Elon Musk, the multibillionaire empowered by President Donald Trump and Republicans to slash and burn the federal government while firing all sorts of low-level employees, even as Musk's cluster of corporations rake in your tax dollars through fat federal contracts. It was completely predictable that Musk, one of those public provocateurs who reflexively plays the victim of any critical reaction, would use his newfound power atop the "Department of Government Efficiency," or DOGE, to exact revenge on journalistic institutions that examine his businesses while rejoicing in cuts to federal regulators that have done their jobs, fielding complaints from Musk's customers. It is equally predictable that Trump would play so convincingly dumb when asked about Musk's conflicts of interest, after putting Musk in charge of policing his conflicts of interest. Trump, known for squeezing the presidency for every dime he can pocket, doesn't care about any of that. Republicans seem happy to just let it happen. He's basking in the reflected attention created by Musk. They share the same addiction. It's called "Look at me!" Details be damned. Musk has been busy erasing glaring conflicts of interest. Trump shrugs. Reuters, an international news service, drew Musk's ire last week when it reported that his DOGE appeared to be driven more by "political ideology" than by concern about costs. This was a natural target for Musk since Reuters last year won a respected journalism prize, the George Polk Award, for reporting on how his manufacturing enterprises had harmed employees and consumers. Musk pounced, deriding a federal contract awarded to the news service's parent company, Thompson Reuters, which has a technical division apart from the company's journalism endeavors. As The Washington Post noted Saturday, the $9 million four-year contract was awarded for helping prevent cyberattacks in America. Opinion: Trump has AG Bondi targeting 'anti-Christian bias.' One problem: There's no bias. But that's accurate context. Musk and Trump shrug that off with ease. Trump climbed up on Musk's shoulders to decry "Radical Left Reuters" working on a federal contract. One big problem with that – Thomson Reuters pointed out that the contract was awarded during Trump's first term as president. So Trump's claim amounts to his confession that he's in cahoots with the "radical left." CFPB was investigating Tesla. So, obviously, it had to go. Musk has also reveled in the Trump administration attacks on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, a federal agency that offers safeguards for American taxpayers against "unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices" by taking actions against companies that break the law. "CFPB RIP," Musk posted on his disinformation-riddled social media site two weeks ago as the agency came under attack. Opinion: Donald Trump is dismantling election safeguards while musing about a third term Those condescending condolences turned out to be premature. A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to stop for now layoffs and funding cuts at the agency. That order also protected CFPB data from being deleted. Go to the agency's website. Use the search engine to ask about Tesla, the electric car manufacturer owned by Musk. Peruse the nearly 400 complaints filed with CFPB by Tesla customers. Read up while you can. And let the buyer beware! DOGE is making claims not backed up by facts Musk has repeatedly claimed that DOGE is being transparent in all things, which Trump has backed up, despite weeks of the new agency offering little to no substantive detail about what it was doing. The agency posted "evidence" of $55 billion in cuts made so far. One problem there: DOGE is really bad at math and the evidence showed big, honking mistakes, making it immediately clear the agency had really cut closer to $8.5 billion – or 85% less than what DOGE had claimed. Who could blame them? Trump spent months talking about how Musk was running the DOGE, only for them to back all the way off, in the face of legal challenges to the agency's actions. The White House now just shrugs when asked who is in charge at DOGE. Maybe DOGE really stands for: Deny Organization Guided by Elon? Or maybe Trump and Musk are full of bluster that blows away when pressed for facts. Maybe the big claims are the whole point and truth was never part of the plan. Musk's misinformation is part of the Republican messaging On Fox News Monday, talking head Jesse Watters said the quiet part out loud, clearly enamored with what he touted as "a 21st century information warfare campaign." He was gleeful that this warfare started on Musk's social media platform X, a cesspool of disinformation. "What you're seeing on the right is asymmetrical," Watters bragged. "Someone says something on social media. Musk retweets it. (Joe) Rogan podcasts it. Fox broadcasts it. And by the time it reaches everybody, millions of people have seen it." I'm sure Trump and Musk, like their fan boy Watters, are all about audience share. Accuracy? Integrity? Who needs that when you can reach "millions of people" with misinformation that fits your messaging? Follow USA TODAY columnist Chris Brennan on X, formerly known as Twitter: @ByChrisBrennan
