The Daily Beast Podcast - ‘Waste of Space’ Chuck Schumer Needs to Resign

Episode Date: March 18, 2025

The New Abnormal hosts Andy Levy and Danielle Moodie think it’s time for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to resign after his shocking submission to House Republicans last week. Plus, deputy director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project Esha Bhandari stops by to break down Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil’s controversial arrest by ICE. Then a research director at Media Matters Kayla Gogarty joins the show to discuss her latest study into right-wing media infiltrating streaming platforms and podcasts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi, I'm Andy Levy, former Fox News and CNN-HLN guy, and current cable news conscientious objector. I'm a former libertarian who now sits pretty comfortably on the left. Hi, I'm Danielle Moody, former educator and recovering lobbyist. But today, I'm an unapologetic, woke commentator on America's threats to democracy. And I'm producer Jesse Cannon, and I'm here to make sure things don't go too far off the rails. We're here to have fun, smart conversations with some of the most knowledgeable and entertaining people in politics, media, and beyond. goal is to try and make sense of our current crazy world, our new abnormal, and hopefully even make you laugh through the tears.

One excellent show we have today. Aisha Bundari, deputy director at the ACLU's Speech Privacy and Technology Project, breaks down the alarming case of Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful U.S. resident detained by ICE in a blatant attack on free speech, and she'll tell us what it means for civil liberties and why every American should be paying attention. Then we'll talk to Kayla Gogherty, Research Director of Media Matters, about her latest study on how right-wing media has taken over online streaming and podcasts, what that means for the future of political discourse. But first, let's have some fun. I don't know if you

all know this, but Schumer sucks. That's just that. So, Amy? So Senator Chuck Schumer decided along with eight other Democrats and one independent that they were going to throw representatives of the House under the bus, the Democrats who had all locked arms and said that they were not going to vote for the continuing resolution, the draconian Republican budget that is basically going to gut every single social safety net, that they were going to let the bill fail, let the government shut down so that they could get to the table with Republicans who did not even seek a bipartisan budget. Chuck Schumer, however, disfuss. No, no. I care more about my donors and what's happening on Wall Street than I do about

democracy and any leverage that the Democratic Party could muster in this moment as we're in the midst of an entire coup. And now, as it turns out, the CR has passed thanks to Chuck Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand and Federman and others, just embarrassing the hell out of me as a New Yorker with Jill O'Brien Schumer. And now, lo and behold, guess who's not going on their book tour, Andy? Guess who's book tour? Because this would be the prime time for a senator, the minority leader in the Senate, to go on a fucking book tour, would be in this moment.

But it's been postponed. Aw, shucks. Yeah, really just a hell of a week to be a New Yorker. I was doing some research. I didn't know this. In 1881, both New York senators. two guys named Roscoe Conkling and Thomas Platt resigned. And I really do think Schumer and Jola Brand should honor the past.

Mm-hmm. At this point, it's not enough that he should no longer be minority leader. He needs to go. And he's not up for re-election again until 2028. And that's too long. That's too long. We can't have people like this in the Senate for the next three years. With everything going on with the Trump administration, with the Republicans,

He's worse than worthless. He is actually a hindrance. And I think he should resign. And I think Kathy Hockel should appoint AOC to take his place. And let's get some actual leadership in the Senate from the state of New York because everything he is doing now is counterproductive. And a lot of Democrats are mad at him. I know.

I don't know if the right Democrats are mad at him. In other words, the ones that would actually remove him from his position of minority. leader, I think that's a real long shot. And I think it's clear, at least at this juncture, that he is not going to step down from that position. I mean, this is a position, you know, he's worked his whole life to get to this. And I don't think he gives it up easily. So I don't have a lot of faith that we're going to see any change. But man, do we need it, Danielle. Here's the thing is that I really think that, one, Chuck Schumer is an absolute punk. You want to double down on your support of Republicans and their agenda that is clearly to overthrow our democracy

and wipe away any social safety nets that, by the way, are our tax dollars that go back to paying us for the things that we need. And you then decide that you're not going to face the music. You're not going to face the people. And you want to say that, oh, it's because a quote unquote security concerns. No, it's not. It's because you're a fucking punk. And because you know, that the decision that you made was about your donors, your bottom line, and it had absolutely nothing to do with your constituents or with trying to hold on to our democracy by our fingernails at this moment. And so instead of facing the music, facing the people and telling them to their face why you don't give a fuck about them and this country, you decide to like to hide.

And I hope that the protesters that continue to protest outside of his home and in various offices continue to do so. Because none of these people who voted for this continuing resolution should just be able to casually go about their days. If the rest of us have to live in desperate discomfort because of the manufactured chaos that is being ushered in by this regime, then no one should be comfortable at all, particularly those that are in power and deciding not to use it. The thing is, he's very much in the I know better camp right now. Like everyone is yelling at him. People on the left are yelling at him. Even Democratic senators to his right are yelling at him.

And he is just so sort of serenely convinced that he knows best, which wouldn't bother me, except he doesn't. He very, very clearly doesn't. You know, we're starting to see, I know indivisible, the group has called for him to step down as minority leader. Another group called Pass the Torch has done the same. And he had a quote, I think it was Friday in the New York Times, saying, I'll take some of the bullets as if, oh, now he's the brave guy taking the bullets.

Metaphorically, obviously only, the bullet should be aimed at him. He's the Senate minority leader. He's the one that got the other Democrats who voted to let the CR go forward. he's the one that did that. And he's sitting there saying, I'll take the bullets as if he's being some brave sort of shield. No, you are the cause of this. And if you're not the cause of this, you can't have it both ways. You are the leader.

And so, yes, you'll take the bullets because you are the leader. That's your job. Don't act like you're doing something extraordinarily brave. And as you said, Danielle, you know, they've canceled this book tour, supposedly for security reasons. I think that's code for people. we're going to show up and yell at me. And look, you know, Schumer and the other Democrats who voted for this were basically saying, hey, we can't let the government shut down because that is the excuse that Trump and more to the point, Elon Musk, we're going to use Russell Vought's

playbook and have the government shutdown be an excuse to not rehire any of the workers that have been furloughed. And again, you are playing into their hands and you think you're not, but you are. It's so disturbing to think that, oh, well, now that we let them bring this vote to the floor and pass it, they're not going to do that? Like, how many times are you going to fall for this crap? I just, I don't understand this. You're supposed to be like the most politically savvy people in the world, and you are being curbstomp by Donald Trump, by Russell Vaught, by Elon Musk, by the entire Republican and MAGA apparatus. It's embarrassing. And I don't understand what game they think they're playing.

But regardless of the game, they are losing and losing badly. Yeah, because they don't know how to play it. Because they don't know how to play it. Because what the House Democrats had organized made the most sense. And the fact is, guess what? news flash, the fucking government's been shut down since inauguration day. You've fired tens of thousands of federal workers. You've given over our data to Doge and Elon Musk. You are one executive order away from gutting the Department of Education. You've rolled back regulations for the EPA.

You're ignoring court orders. The government does not function right now. So what would be the difference. Like, you need people that are actually willing to fight in this moment and to use everything, every tool in their toolbox as well as their imagination in this moment. Chuck Schumer is not that person and he needs to resign, as does Jillebrand. Like, you are a waste of space and you've worked your whole life to be in a position to do what? Capitulate to the enemy. So like, you know, when you prove yourself to be useless and the people finally see that, I don't care where he thinks he's going to run. He ain't running from this decision. And if he thinks that people are going to forget, trust me, in moments of trauma, your memory stays real front of mind.

Before we pivot, I just, do you know what it takes at this point to make Hakeem, what can we do Jeffries look better than you? Like, honestly, I wasn't sure it was possible. you know, Chuck proved me wrong. Here we are. So for folks that continue to say that democracy is holding because the courts are holding and are slowing down Donald Trump's agenda, I need you to stop with your delusional thinking because our laws are only as strong as those that are willing to follow it. and what Donald Trump proved over the weekend, once again, is that ain't nobody going to check him,

namely the courts. So 137 immigrants were deported under the 18th century act known as the Alien Enemies Act, which can only be invoked during a time of war. And what we have, is that Donald Trump decided that he was going to deport 137 immigrants against a judge's order who said that he had no grounds to deport those people to Venezuela and to Honduras. Donald Trump, as the judge was making the decision, those planes were already in the air. The judge then turned around and said, those planes need to be turned around. And the Trump regime said, nah, we're good. And so without due process, based on nothing other than what Donald Trump has said about these detainees,

have now been sent to torture camps in Venezuela and El Salvador, never to be seen or heard from again. So tell me again how things are holding here. Tell me again how strong our democracy is when people are being deported left and right out of this country, or they go away for a home to visit family knowing that they have green cards and HB1 visas and are turned away and deported back to another country. This is happening and has been happening every day under this regime. So Andy, you know, for folks that continue to say like, oh, it's going to be okay, I give you exhibit A through Z here.

Yeah. It's going to, I assume, come down to some kind of showdown, and I don't know how the courts are going to win this. I really don't. I mean, people have been throwing around the purported quote from Andrew Jackson, which we think he really didn't actually say. But the quote was John Marshall, who was the Supreme Court Chief Justice. John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. And the Andrew Jackson quote is probably apocryphal. But what's happened is. happening now is for real. And this is exactly what the Trump administration is saying to the courts right now. And they're not even being coy about it. One of the most reprehensible things I've seen was in response to all this, after the judge said, no, these planes have to turn around and then they didn't, and they landed in El Salvador. The president of El Salvador tweeted, oopsie, too late. And as if that's not bad enough, Marco Rubio, our secretary of state, retweeted it, and then a spokesperson for the White House replied to it saying, boom, with a meme attached to it. And it's just they are, you know,

they are giving the finger to the courts. And I honestly don't know what judges are going to do about this, because we're seeing now, time after time, the courts are ruling against things that the Trump administration does, whether it's these deportations, which, as you said, people need to stop saying that we just deported a bunch of Venezuelan gang members, because we don't know that. I was going to say, we have no idea. No, we have no idea. The only people saying that are the Trump administration. And if you are being a stenographer for that, that's not journalism.

That's not reporting. Because the whole point is that these people were deported without due process. So we don't have any proof of who these people are. My point is the courts are fairly consistently ruling against the Trump administration, whether it's the actions of Doge, whether it's these deportations. But none of it seems to be having much of an effect because the response from the Trump administration has been, again, ranges from a shrug to what are you going to do about it? Other than the court instructing marshals to arrest the people working at Doge or to arrest the people in the administration who are ignoring them. and who are violating court orders, which I don't see happening, I don't know what you can do about it. We are now finding out how little the courts matter if the executive branch simply doesn't care.

And enter stage left constitutional crisis. Because why are we here? The lack of imagination by Democrats to believe what this regime would be possible of doing, as if they didn't write a book about it. bound it and published it for the world to see called Project 2025. But everybody moving around right now with their hair on fire, hands up in the air, what do we do, what do we do? As if like there shouldn't have been a plan and plans in operation, what happens if they don't abide by the rule of law?

Just to remind folks as well, how many people Andy voted against Marco Rubio's confirmation? How many Democrats voted against Marco Rubio's confirmation? I believe it was fewer than one. Correct. Zero. Zero Democrats voted against Marco Rubio's confirmation. And the reason that they gave was, we've worked with him. He'll be the adult in the room. Are you stupid? like I just, you know, at this point, when people are saying vocally, you know, I think I'm going to leave the Democratic Party. I think I'm walking away from this party. When my own mother is like, the Democrats are not getting another dime from me and knowing that that sentiment is going around like a wave around this country, they're cooked, right? And frankly, like, the fact that we are here isn't just because of Republicans, you know, autocratic

ambitions. It's because Democrats like Chuck Schumer and others open the door for them and said, have a seat. Can I fluff your fucking pillow for you? It's so sickening. Those are my thoughts. Yeah. And I just want to sort of close with, we're talking about the Alien Enemies Act. I just want to remind people that this was the act that was used to put Japanese Americans

internment camps during World War II, which I imagine there are going to be attempts now to rewrite history and say that was a good thing. But at least as of a few years ago, we pretty much all agreed was one of the more shameful periods of American history, one of the more shameful deeds of American history. And we are now in a position where the current administration is using that same act in a time when we're not at war. But at this point, I don't even know what to say about that. But just the fact that they're using this act, this, this, that has been used for some of the most heinous purposes in the history of this country, just tells you everything about who they are. Folks, I am very happy to welcome to the new abnormal Aisha Bandari, who is the deputy director at ACLU

speech privacy and technology project. And today, I really want to dig into where we find ourselves in the fight for justice as it pertains to a recent case where Mahmoud Khalil, a student who has graduated from Columbia University, was abducted a little over a week ago from his residence, his eight-month pregnant wife threatened by ICE agents. He is a green card holder, which means that he is in the United States legally and has been in the United States legally. And right now, Asia, it is said that the White House has said, oh, we don't have any legal grounds. He didn't do anything criminal. We're just going to resurrect a zombie act from the 1700s that allows the Secretary of State and

this administration, this regime to do whatever the hell they want as it pertains to legal residents of this country. So break it down for us from the beginning. How did we get here? Certainly. And thanks very much for having me. I think we got here because this administration was open from the outset that it was hostile to campus protests and student protesters, and particularly on the issue of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, which obviously ignited a firestorm of protests after October 7th. And the administration was very clear that it was intending to investigate and take action in this regard. But I think until the Mahmoud Khalil case, we weren't sure if they were actually going to implement a plan as extreme as this one. And I want to be clear that this action to seek to deport Mahmoud Khalil, who is a lawful,

permanent resident in the country solely on the basis of his viewpoint, his political ideology, his beliefs is extreme, it is unprecedented, and it does violate the Constitution. And I think this is, you know, this is something that should trouble every American. And it doesn't depend on what your views are on the campus protesters. It doesn't depend on your views on the conflict. Because the principle at stake here is, are people able to express opinions on issues of grave public debate that are being openly discussed not only in the United States but around the world, are they able to express opinions and views, even the most controversial and offensive opinions and views to some people, free from the fear that government agents will show up one day, take them

from their home and lock them up. And that's what's at stake here. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And you say the word that I would need a replacement for because everything these days is unprecedented. It's been unprecedented for the last decade. But in this particular case, to me, it is very compatible with cases and stories that we've heard around the world in authoritarian and dictatorships where, for instance, Mahmoud is a student activist, but where we have seen journalists who are detained, who are criminalized for expressing and offering and that critical analysis on their countries, right? Explain to us why, again, because I think that this regime is very good with regard to picking issues that are lightning rods, picking issues where we only

had 14 Democrats sign on to a letter calling for his release. So they're very good at picking issues that pit us against each other. And so can you explain why this is not an issue about Israel and Palestine, why this is actually an issue about free speech and why all of us, regardless of our political views, should be outraged and activated at this moment? Absolutely. The reason that this is a free speech story is because the reason we have these protections of the First Amendment. The reason that America has always been unique in many ways amongst countries around the world is the strong protection for its speakers rights and particularly political speech. And it's for times of crisis. It's for times when, you know, hot button issues

bubble up, when people are very upset perhaps about the subject of public debate, when there's, in fact, possibly a majority that is upset with the views of a minority of speakers or, you know, when you've got political rhetoric in the public sphere that is going to offend or hurt people, but because people are really engaged on issues that are so deeply personal and so deeply important to them, that's the time when we need the protections of the First Amendment. We don't need the First Amendment to protect speech that is uncontroversial or anodyne or that most people agree with. It is exactly for times like this that we have the protections of the First Amendment. And you noted that other countries around the world don't necessarily afford those same protections.

They don't have the same freedom that Americans do to engage in these kinds of debates. And I think one of the things that's particularly ironic about this case is so many international students, so many international scholars, come to the United States to study and to research and to teach because they have the freedom to do things here that they wouldn't necessarily have had in their home country. They can debate issues. They can publish. They can write. They can speak out. They can explore truth. They can change their views based on the discourse that they have here. But in a way that is, free from government interference and where you're not going to be punished for that process of exploration and debate. And that's something that people come specifically to the United States to seek out. So to see the American government of all governments, turning that back around on people and saying,

well, because you're from another country, you have only a privilege to be here and you don't get the rights that are afforded to everyone in America. Well, that's wrong as a legal matter. But it also is just, you know, a complete misunderstanding of what actually is so important. and special about America's free speech protections. Where is this case right now? Because Mahmoud is still detained in Louisiana, where there is one of the largest, I guess, I have no idea what to call it,

detainment camps, detention. Like, I don't know. Where this administration is rounding up, undocumented people and then placing them. And currently, he is there. Where are we in terms of a release and in terms of court action to be taken, because it also seems as if, while this current administration seems to be slowed by court interventions, it's not as if they're actually following the

Constitution or court mandates. So I'm curious as to how you see this particular case moving. The number one priority for Mr. Hilliol's team is, of course, to have him released. Because the only reason he has been detained, the only reason he has been taken away, from his home, from his wife who was eight months pregnant, and, you know, sent over a thousand miles away from his community is because of retaliation for the speech he engaged in. And that in and of itself is a violation of the First Amendment. So the number one priority is to have him released. The next priority, and along with that, of course, is to end this attempt to strip him of his lawful permanent resident status. Because again, it's impermissible government action. It's solely motivated by the constitutionally

protected speech he engaged in, and that is simply not permitted by the Constitution for the government to take official action, simply motivated by the desire to silence a viewpoint or silence a message that they don't want, you know, Mr. Halil to speak. And also to be clear, they don't want others to engage in the same speech and protest activity or to express the same messages. And his detention and his ongoing detention has the same deterrent effect on others because other people in that position will now be afraid to speak out. So the number one priority is securing his release and ending these proceedings against him. The court in New York is, you know, is going to be making some decisions soon, which will tell us what the course of this litigation. We don't expect this

to be the only case about this. You know, the administration has said Mr. Haleal's will not be the only case. There, you know, there are already other reports of people having immigration consequences because of their speech, I think that the courts are ultimately going to have to get to the heart of the question, which is, what are the limits of executive action to punish people in this way, to use immigration law as a tool to punish and silence speakers? And I think the answer is clear that the First Amendment doesn't permit that. But I think there's likely going to be long litigation over these issues, whether in Mr. Haleel's case or in other cases.

And what is the likelihood? And again, I'm asking you to shake a crystal ball and look at, into a very dark future. But to me, this is only a tipping point. Autocrats do big, bold actions as a way to continue to stir chaos. They're going to start with immigrants. They're going to start with legal residents. But then I believe that this is going to continue with those that are U.S. born citizens, which is something that this regime is also interested in ending so that they can pick and choose who is born here and gets to be a citizen and who is not. Can you speak to the very, and I don't even want to call it a slippery slope because I honestly, I really don't know where

the hell we are at this moment. We're beyond the slippery slope. We're beyond the backsliding. So where are we in terms of making this jump to U.S. citizens and the tempering of free speech and, frankly, the ending of free speech. You're absolutely right that this is not going to be restricted to this issue of campus protesters. It's not going to be restricted to immigrants. And we've already seen this. We've already seen that the administration is using various tools to try to silence viewpoints and ideologies that aren't in line with its own. For example, the funding cutoffs and the restriction on funding for groups or organizations

that don't tow the administration's line on things like diversity, equity, and inclusion or gender ideology. We've seen it with threats to refuse to hire graduates of Georgetown Law School. Again, because of the law school's own programs and policies around diversity, equity, and inclusion, all of which they have a right to engage in.

But this is a pattern of testing the limits to see how far can an executive go? How far can the administration go? and using various levers of government power, not the way they're intended to be used, but to go after people whose viewpoints it disagrees with, whether that's, again, funding cutoffs to organizations and groups in the United States, whether that's investigations of media companies, which we've seen,

and in this case, whether it's abusing immigration law. It's all of a piece of this attempt to erode the protections of the First Amendment, and that's why I think we're going to see this crop up with other issues, and in other contexts outside of immigration. And that's why I think it's really important for the courts to be very unequivocal now, to say that this is not a proper use of governmental power, whether it's using immigration law, whether it's using your funding power, whether it's using your investigatory power.

The goal of state intervention in these ways, the goal of using state power cannot be to silence messages that are opposed to the administration. I'm going to ask you a very ridiculous question, which is, do you see any light in this moment? with regard to this case and how it's unfolding and the protests and pushback that are, that have already begun, but our plan to be nationwide.

Is there any light in this moment, or is this just the beginning of the way that America is going to be run? I do feel light. I am very heartened by the fact that there has been a cross-ideological, cross-partisan outpouring of outrage about this case. I think we've seen, regardless of people's political views,

there are voices out there who are saying that this invocation of governmental power is deeply troubling and unprincipled. And including people who disagree with Mr. Halliol's views and advocacy, who are saying that his detention is wrong. And that gives me a lot of hope that people see this for what it is, that this is not about whether you agree with Mr. Hallil's message.

It is about what the government has the power to do. And that if the government can do this to Mr. Hallil, they can do this to other people and they can do it on other issues. That has been heartening to see. And in your thoughts, you know, this is more of a political question. Again, I had mentioned that only 14 Democrats have signed on to a letter calling for his release and calling for this administration to present any type of evidence of criminal activity and wrongdoing.

And you see, you know, that there is a breakdown that is happening inside of this Democratic party. Where do you think that this issue signals to how we move forward? It's very clear that Republicans are very, you know, clear-eyed about autocracy and where their allegiance lies. Democrats seem a bit fuzzier. I think one focus that I hope is a takeaway for everyone is that there are some principles that people can unite around across parties. And I think also the public is troubled and will be troubled if these dots are connected. It's not about policy preferences. It's not about, you know, what your views are on any particular issue. It's about these fundamental rights that people living in America enjoy. And that's, you know, I think this is a question of liberty

and it's a question of free speech. And I think if we can start talking about it more clearly in that way, it will hopefully resonate across parties and with people, which is that there's a lot of things that people disagree with each other about in America. There's a lot of hot button topics and issues. But one thing about America that's so important is that we have free speech rights. We do live in a, in a society and in a country in which the government is limited in the things it can do to punish dissenting views or to punish critical voices. And in so much discussion, I think, as you noted, about what is happening in other countries and we're seeing an erosion of democratic norms around the world, I really hope that people can be animated and passionate about protecting against that

same trend happening in the United States and that this is a long-term thing that will outlast this administration into the next and into the one after that. We have to work really hard to preserve the freedoms and the protections of the Constitution. They're there, but the whole country and its institutions and the people who live here have to work hard to preserve those. We can't get complacent about them. And this is just one of those moments that calls on us to stand strong for those principles and stay vigilant. To your point, this is about liberty. This is about freedom of speech injustice. What do you think that people, the average person, can do in this moment to err their concerns and their anger? I think speaking out is one of the most important things people can do. And

that takes many forms, whether that's calling your elected representatives, whether that's going to town halls, whether that's writing something, or even just talking to people, you know, if this is an issue that you feel is as important as it is. And I think that everyone here should say, see this for what it is, which is a really critical issue about the rights and liberties that we all have going forward. Even engaging in the conversations with people you know who may not see eye to eye with you, but having those discussions and finding common ground on this issue, I'm really hopeful that can move it forward. I'm really hopeful that people can see that this is really about how much freedom we have from government interference in our opinions and in our viewpoints and that this is

an issue that should resonate across ideology. And so talking to the people who disagree with you on this administration, maybe people who support this administration's policies, but might still be troubled about eroding First Amendment rights. I think having those conversations is really important. Well, we will leave it in there today, Aisha Boundary. I want to thank you so much for the work that you're doing at the ACLU, as well as the time that you took to explain this very important issue to us that we will be keeping an eye on. Really appreciate you. Thank you so much. An interesting new study from Media Matters says that the world of online streaming and podcasts is dominated by the right, and it's not even particularly close. Here to dive into the numbers is Media Matters Research Director Kayla Gogherty.

Kayla, thanks so much for being here. Thank you so much for having me. So before we get into those results, tell us what you did here. How is this study conducted? What exactly did you do? So as online shows have become popular and trusted news sources, their role in shaping the public discourse is pretty undeniable. And we know that people have been talking about podcasts, especially after the election and talking about their role. So we really wanted to show people just how fragmented this landscape is and how much the right is dominating this landscape.

So we gathered a list of popular online shows and whittled it down to shows that are often political and have a clear left-leaning or right-leaning ideological bent. So we then assess two major aspects. We compared how they self-described. So did they describe, you know, as a comedy podcast or show? Did they describe as an entertainment show? Or is it that they said that they were focused on news and politics? And we compared that to whether they actually discussed news and politics or not. And then we wanted to assess the audience size to really show the asymmetry in the right and the left landscape.

So we gathered public data on the number of followers and subscribers of these shows across a variety of stream. platforms and social media platforms as well because they often use social media like Facebook and Instagram and TikTok to clip or repost these shows on other platforms and to gain audience there. And then we also assessed YouTube and Rumble channel views as another way to assess audience size. Okay. And to be clear, you didn't just look at explicitly political shows like the new abnormal or Pod Save America. You looked at, for example, popular comedy podcast. that might have an ideological bent, sports streamers, video game streamers, etc. So things all across podcast, YouTube, Twitch, etc.

Yes, exactly. We wanted to see just how much shows are advertising as one thing, but actually getting into politics and maybe to unwitting audiences. Okay. So let's dig into what you found because you describe it as substantial asymmetry. So explain what that means. Yeah. So I'd say we have two major findings.

in this study. First is that asymmetry that you just mentioned. So we found that right-leaning online shows had nearly five times the total following on a variety of platforms compared to left-leaning online shows. And then secondary, we found that shows self-categorized as comedy, entertainment, sports, and other supposedly non-political categories while actually discussing news in politics. And of that subset, nearly three-quarters are right-leaning. So there was a stat that was just astounding in the study and you said that across streaming platforms, left-leaning online shows had roughly 60 million total followers and subscribers, and the right-leaning shows had around 255 million? Yeah, yeah, the number is pretty staggering. I think part of that is really YouTube. One of the things that we found is that

YouTube has a large number of followers for these shows, and that asymmetry was especially prominent for that platform. For instance, one of the things that I noticed is that right-leaning media outlets, they will have a YouTube channel for every single show that they have rather than just having, you know, a channel for the network, for instance. And I think that helps spread their content even further. What were the top 10 shows that you looked at? So the top 10 shows that we found based on total following across, you know, both the streaming platforms, you know, like kick and Twitch and YouTube, Spotify and the social media platforms, Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, we found that first and foremost was Joe Rogan.

Sure. What he describes as a comedy podcast, but as we found often doves into politics and news. Ben Shapiro, which is a right-wing host, Jordan Peterson, another right-wing media host, Russell Brandt, Theo Vaughn, Charlie Kirk, the Nelke Boys Full Sentent podcast, Candice Owens and Dr. Phil. So some of these shows are, you know, they identify as comedy or entertainment or education even in the case of Jordan Peterson. While there are some of them in that set that do identify as news and politics. So that's nine, if I counted correctly. So nine of the ten shows are, you could say, right-leaning, if not outright MAGA or conservative. What's the tenth?

The tenth was Trevor Noah's podcast. Ah. He has about 21 million total followers in. subscribers across platforms. So it still is not the amount that like Joe Rogan has at almost 40 million, but it is a decent amount and did make it into the top 10. So I'm looking at these and Joe Rogan, as you say, sort of self-identifies as a comedy podcast. Russell Brand, I don't know if he considers himself a comedy podcast, but he was at one point a comedian. Theo Vaughn is a comedian. The Nelk Boys Full Send podcast is comedy. How much of this asymmetry that we're seeing is

driven by comedy or by things that are sort of self-labeled as comedy? So comedy specifically, we found about 15 right-leaning shows that self-described as comedy. And just that subset had over 115 million followers and subscribers, which is actually 20% of the total following of all the shows that we assessed. So that category includes, like you said, a Joe Rogan, a Theo Vaughn, a Fulsen podcast. So that subset is taking up a decent amount of the audience. Wow. That's unbelievable.

And there was another interesting stat that you put in the piece about this, noting that Trump and Vance appeared on six of these right-leaning comedy shows, a total of nine times. And that those appearances have a ton of views on YouTube. Yeah. They had at least 120 million views. So just those six right-leaning shows, a total of nine. times. One of the things that we've heard after the election is just how much Trump used these podcasts to appeal to other audiences besides as usual audience. Well, and that seems to be the key

here is that, or at least one of the keys, is that a lot of these podcasts are not explicitly politics podcasts. The Ben Shapiro's and Charlie Kirk's and Candace Owens, yes, they are. But a lot of these podcasts and streaming sites are, as you point out, they're not mainly politics. They don't get into the weeds about politics. So when politicians go on them, they reach a different audience, right? Yeah. So it's interesting because you'll see, you know, they have celebrities. They have other comedians on the podcast and they're just like hanging out and talking. But then they'll, you know, they'll have this comment about politics or news. And one of the things that I have seen is during Trump's presidency, we have seen some of these hosts praising and defending the administration and their actions.

We've seen Rogan justifying the gutting of USAID, for instance. Though he said that he thinks some programs should be picked up again, he's repeatedly pushed claims about widespread fraud and corruption at USAID and saying that the administration is uncovering all of this corruption. You know, on another show, for instance, flagrant, which was within some of the top shows that we found, you know, we had a host say, you know, make your money in the next four years, you know, once Democrats are back, they're going to reinstate regulations. So really kind of like throwing in a Trump praise here, a Trump praise there, or having some right-wing guests on. That's another way that the right-wing narrative is getting into these spaces. They'll have these right-wing guests on. And they don't push back at them.

It's not like you could say, well, they had them on. to debate them. They don't. Yeah, exactly. How many of these shows that you found actually do have a political bent describe themselves in terms other than political, whether it's sports or comedy or entertainment, like you said, is it a large group? We found about 111 out of our 320, described themselves as, you know, comedy or entertainment, education, but among that, about three quarters was right-leaning. So we're really seeing. the right leaning of narratives and guests really seeping into these other spaces and expanding their audiences. How much does something like Rumble play into this? For people who don't know,

Rumble was sort of founded as a conservative alternative to YouTube with money from Peter Thiel and other places. How much does a place like Rumble figure into these numbers? Yeah, so Rumble, like you said, is a alternative video streaming platform that, you know, has claimed that it's there for free speech and there's no censorship. So we've seen obviously right-leaning shows and guests, you know, join the platform. So what's happening is on the platform, they are gaining additional audiences and they are gaining additional views. So for instance, you know, some right-wing figures will stream on both Rumble and YouTube, for instance. And we have in some cases seen, you know, YouTubers that'll be like, okay, go to my Rumble. I'm going to discuss X, Y, Z there instead to kind

get around different social media platform policies. Gotcha. So Rumble is sort of like the force multiplier in a sense. It's not so much that people on the right left YouTube, for example, in droves to go to Rumble. Rumble is an additional source for them to gain conservative viewers. Yeah, exactly. I mean, there are some figures, I think like Russell Brand, who left YouTube and went to Rumble instead. Generally, what we see is they're on both of them. They're able to, you know, gain that additional audience, gain those additional views. But, you know, it is only a fraction of the views that YouTube has or the following that they have on YouTube. Gotcha. I want to ask you about something that might not be in the purview of the study. Journalist Parker Malloy wrote a piece

on her substack about your report. And she says the discrepancy that you see in the numbers, the asymmetry, are, quote, the result of a deliberate, well-funded strategy to colonize the digital media landscape with conservative voices. Did the study at all look into how much of this is organic? In other words, how much of this is just, oh, these people and platforms are popular simply because they're what people want, as opposed to these things are heavily funded by conservative mega donors. It feels to me like it's a mix. Like certainly the rise of Rogan, someone like Theo Vaughn, that all feels organic to me. But then you look at say, even Rumble that we talked about, funded by Peter Thiel and others. Ben Shapiro's Dailywire had large investments,

from the Wilkes brothers, as Parker points out. Did the study get into all of this or not really? We didn't get into all of that specifically, but what the study, what we wanted to show was this asymmetry and just how much the right has built up a massive media ecosystem. So for decades, they've been building up these media ecosystems to prop up right-wing narratives and politicians. So they expand beyond traditional media into talk radio, for instance, or social media. and now these online shows, whether it be podcast, streams, etc. And they are much better at exploiting these media platforms and building that ecosystem. So for instance, you know, when Facebook was a big source of people's news,

they were very good at, you know, amplifying their content on Facebook to wide swaths of audiences. I mean, content that invokes emotion like outrage and fearmongering, that gets more clicks on these platforms than, you know, facts and statistics, for instance. And the algorithms often weigh engagement. So the more something is clicked, the more it's going to spread to other people. So this right-wing narrative dominance really plays into what we're seeing right now. They have built up this ecosystem that the left doesn't have. They're able to spread their narratives in this fragmented media ecosystem.

Yeah, I suspect what Parker is saying has a lot of truth to it. I don't know in the end if it matters who's funding these sites, as you said, even if a lefty mega donor wanted to fund things, you're just not going to find the people on the left that, as you said, or at least not as many as on the right, that want to appeal to outrage and emotion over facts and stuff like that. But that gets me into something that I saw a guy named Constantine Kissin. It might be Cassine. I honestly don't care. He's one of those phony heterodox thinkers. He said on X about your study. He wrote, they think that right-leaning media creates more right-leaning people, when the reality is that left-leaning media creates more

right-leaning people who are put off by their increasingly deranged behavior, and those people then seek out the only people who aren't pretending men can give birth. And I was wondering what you make of that, if anything. I mean, I stand by the fact that the right-wing media ecosystem is just so much bigger, and they're constantly pushing out content. And that content, people are hearing it over and over again. Maybe they don't believe it the first time they hear it, but if they keep hearing it, they'll either believe it or it's just kind of in their minds.

So that right-wing narrative dominance, that space that people are isolated within that space as well, given our fragmented media ecosystem, and they've also been told not to believe other sources. So they're told not to believe the mainstream media. And so they're steeped into this content and they're, you know, likely to believe it at that point so that the size and the persistence of that ecosystem is really what is taking place here. Yeah, no, I think that's absolutely right.

What the heterodox thinkers, quote unquote, like to do is they do this whole, look, what you made me do thing. To me, it's just, it's absolute garbage. Before we go, I wanted to ask you, you mentioned, you know, how important YouTube is to all of this. Is there any breakout that looks at TikTok? Yes, so we looked at TikTok in the sense that, you know, how were these shows using TikTok to then amplify their content? So we see often, you know, they'll clip the show and then they'll spread it to other audiences

on TikTok or reels. So that was one of the numbers that we assessed. The reason I asked is I try to keep TikTok as by politics-free zone and I just basically block anything political that comes through it because I, That's not why I'm on TikTok. I'm on TikTok to watch TV show bloopers and British TV game shows, whatever, stupid stuff. But anytime something sneaks through, it's always something like Theo Vaughn. And like you said, because they are considered comedy or whatever, it makes it very easy to get into a feed.

If you're, like, if I'm just watching comedy stuff, and then suddenly I've got Theo Vaughn talking about how great Trump is. And I was just wondering if there was any numbers behind the frequency of things. like that. Yeah, we did see more right-leaning shows, have larger audiences on TikTok as well as, you know, we did with the other platforms. But in particular, yeah, like a Theo Vaughn, they'll clip portions that are easy to spread. They're very good at using the algorithms, very good at knowing what's going to get engagement, and they use that to spread their content. And then so maybe a Theo Vaughn is just talking about something, you know, non-political in a clip that you see on TikTok. But maybe then you're going to go on click on his account.

Maybe that's going to lead you to his podcast. And so, you know, it can be a pipeline to get these new audiences to these right-wing narratives. The other bucket that we've been seeing is right-wing media figures like a Candice Owens, for instance, or Megan Kelly, starting to dig into pop culture more. That's another way that they can gain new audiences. You know, you're watching, you know, something about pop culture. and now you're going into Candice Owens' account, and now you're seeing this other right-wing content. So what we found is that there's those two pathways that it's really this right-wing narratives are seeping into this supposedly non-political space, and it gives the opportunity for new audiences

to be, you know, moved into or pushed into the right-wing space. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, you do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to them, but they are very good at that. Kayla, thank you so much for being here. For listeners who want to read more, go to Media Matters.org, and you can find more information about the study there. Kayla, I really appreciate it. Thanks.

Thank you so much for having me. Andy Levy. Danielle Moody. How are you kicking off this week in hell? I'm sorry, America. With your, fuck that guy. I am kicking it off with an absolutely infuriating story about a guy named Charles Calvin Rogers. Bear with me because I'm going to read you a little bit.

Charles Calvin Rogers during Vietnam was a lieutenant colonel. In 1968, his artillery base was overrun. And he ran through a bunch of exploding shells, rallied his crewman into firing back. He was hit. He was wounded several times, kept fighting, refused medical attention, worked to set up a defensive perimeter, directed more artillery fire, held back a third attempt by enemies to overrun the base and eventually ended up in the hospital where his wounds were treated, returned to the U.S., and was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, the nation's highest award for military valor. The reason I'm telling this story, obviously, I hope at least,

Charles Calvin Rogers is not my fuck that guy. My fuck that guy is, I don't even know who my fuck that guy is. I guess I'm going to settle on Pete Hegseth because this all comes from him. But what has happened is the story that I just read you was part of the Department of Defense's Medal of Honor Monday series that was posted on their website. And over the weekend, this story was taken down. And if you go to the website of the DoD now, you will see something interesting. I did not mention that Charles Calvin Rogers is black. But I assume so because, you know, America. The reason I didn't mention it is because it don't matter.

What matters is what he did. And there are a lot of reasons the color of his skin did matter. In the instance that I read, in the story that I told about how this man got the Congressional Medal of Honor, it did not matter what fucking color he was. But if you go try to find this story now, it is gone. If you look at the URL, if you go to the URL where that story was, you get a 404, you know, page not found thing. If you look at what the URL now says, they put the letters DEI in it. And so they are erasing this guy who eventually went on to be a major general.

and at the time, I believe, was the highest ranking black person ever in the Army at the time. They are erasing him from history. They are erasing the fact that he won a Medal of Honor for saving a bunch of American lives because they don't like the fact that he's black. The very idea that someone like Pete Hegseth, who is not and will never be, fit to shine Charles Calvin Rogers' boots, Has the power, has been given the power to erase this man from history? I am so furious about this. And it is part and parcel of what is going on right now in the military.

There were two Japanese battalions that fought and were two Japanese-American battalions, I should say, that were among the most decorated military units in U.S. history. References to those battalions are being erased. again, equated with DEI. This is going on over and over again. It's going on outside the military, too, obviously. I'm just, I'm highlighting the military part because I'm a veteran and this shit really burns me up. The Department of Defense is now being run by people, I'm just going to use the same phrase again, who are not fit to shine the boots of Charles Calvin Rogers, who are not fit to shine the boots of the Japanese American men who served in the 100th Infantry Ballion and in the 442nd Regimental Combat. team. And yet these are the people that are now in charge. I can't say what I'm thinking right now. That's how upset I am. So I'm just going to end with fuck those guys. You know, people want to believe that these things, these erasures don't matter. And they do because the stories that are told go really far into how we think about our society,

how we think about the value of various groups and their contributions to our country. And this white delusional campaign that this regime is on is to ensure that the only people that are ever regarded with any type of valor or courage are white cis heterosexual men. It is erasing black people, women, people of color, people from various ethnic groups, all because of their blatant fragility and inferiority as it has to do with other groups

who have been able to surpass the limitations that white delusional thinking and policies have put in place. and they're disgusted by it. They're outdone by it because their mediocrity doesn't allow them to believe that anyone belongs anywhere unless they say so. And so these stories matter. Uplifting these stories matter. Sharing these stories matter.

Uncovering the truth matters. So for that reason and so many others, fuck those guys. Yeah. And it's not just valor and courage and heroism. They're erasing any and all achievements made by people who aren't white men. Yeah, I need to stop. Danielle, get me out of this. Oh, great.

Give me a fuck that guy that I can laugh at, that I can make jokes about, you know, what you usually do. Wrong show. Oh. But I will get you out of that one place that you were in and bring you someplace else that is also awful. Okay. So as we said, you know, in the main part of the show, we're talking about the people that are being deported that Donald Trump just says, oh, they're criminals, they're this, that, and the other thing, no evidence, no records, no nothing. And we're just kicking people out of the country and sending them to torture prisons and places. And folks think that like, oh, well, it's, you know, we're getting rid of the criminals and that's what we need to be paying attention to. And can't we all agree that criminals shouldn't be here? who gets to designate who the fuck a criminal is. It used to be the courts and the rule of law,

but we're not using those anymore. It's just the vibes that Donald Trump is moving off of. In that bane over the weekend, Dr. Rasha Allouet, a kidney specialist, a kidney transplant doctor, one of the hardest kinds of surgery to do, who did a fellowship at Ohio State, University is on an HB1 visa that does not expire until 2027, went home to visit her family in Lebanon,

only to come back to the United States and be turned away and deported after being held at Boston Logan Airport for several hours. And despite a federal court order to delay her deportation, she was kicked out of the country, sent to Europe. Because apparently somebody, a custom and border official, found, quote, sympathetic photos and videos of Hezbollah leaders on her cell phone, which was actually, I believe, the funeral of one of the biggest leaders that was, you know, the biggest leaders that was, brought out the entire country, which was captured everywhere and by everyone. This is not a crime to have photos on your phone, unless, of course, you are a pedophile, but that seems to be readily cheered by this administration being as how they are deporting

surgeons, but importing sex traffickers like the Tate brothers. So it doesn't matter what legal do. documents you have. It doesn't matter what the courts say. It matters how Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, Hegseth, and the others feel about you. And their feelings matter more than the rule of law. So right now, America is without a kidney transplant doctor. People will in fact die because of this. Her life has been utterly disrupted. And it sends yet another signal to those that are here in this country legally, you better not leave because you may not be welcome back. And if you are deemed to have even a thought in your head that goes against this current regime,

well, we can kidnap you and drop you into detention in Louisiana as they have done to Mahmoud Khalil. Why are they using the aliens enemy act that can only be used during war? Because Maga is at war and has been at war with American. values with our Constitution for the last 10 plus years. So for that reason, and so many others, fuck those guys. Yeah. And I want to bring something up because it goes back to something we were talking about in the main section. She was deported on Friday evening despite a federal court order that her deportation flight be delayed for at least 48 hours so that a judge could look at the evidence, again, the blatant disregarding of a court order. I see all these people saying,

no, she should be let back in the country, which yes, but why the hell would she want to come back here? What we're going to end up with out of all of this, in addition to the rank immorality, is we're going to end up with a huge brain drain. Because I don't understand at this point with everything going on with science and with medicine, why any scientists or doctors would want to come here. I do understand why they would want to leave here. This is a tangent, and so I'm going to cut it off there. But all these horrible deportations, and look, yes, she's a kidney doctor, and yes, she, you know, is a valuable member of society. But it also doesn't matter.

It shouldn't matter. Like she was here legally. It shouldn't matter if she was a store clerk or a, cashier or a podcast host or any other low-level job like that. She should not have been deported in this manner. So, yeah, I just, what they are doing to this country is going to take so long to recover from. It's unthinkable. Fuck these guys. Hope you enjoy checking out this episode of the new abnormal. We're back every Tuesday, Friday, and Sunday. If you enjoyed it, please share it with a friend and keep the conversation going.

This podcast is a Daily Beast production with production by Jesse Cannon and Seamus Calder. Want more great listens? Check out our comedy podcast, The Last Laugh, and our star-studded The Daily Beast podcast at the Daily Beast.com slash podcasts. If you enjoyed this episode, consider becoming a Daily Beast subscriber. Subscribing is the best way to feed the beast and support all of your podcasts as we cover what might become the darkest timeline. Head to the DailyBeast.com slash membership slash podcast and sign up.

today.