The New Yorker Radio Hour - Bret Baier On Trump’s Love-Hate Relationship with Fox News

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

The relationship between Fox News and Donald Trump is not just close; it can be profoundly influential. Trump frequently responds to segments in real time online—even to complain about a poll he doesn’t like. He has tapped the network for nearly two dozen roles within his Administration—including the current Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, a former Fox News host. The network is also seen as having an outsized impact on his relationship with his base, and even on his agenda. Most recently, it’s been reported that Fox News’ coverage of the Iran-Israel conflict played a role in Trump’s decision to enter that fight. And while the network’s right-wing commentators—from Sean Hannity to Laura Ingraham to Mark Levin—tend to grab the most headlines and stand as the ideological coloring of the network, “Special Report,” Fox’s 6 P.M. broadcast, anchored by Bret Baier, is essential to the conservative-media complex. Baier draws more than three million viewers a night, at times surpassing legacy brands like “CBS Evening News,” despite being available in half as many homes. Baier insists on his impartiality, but his network’s reputation as an outlet for the right and its connection to President Trump himself can make his job representing the news arm of the network more challenging. And, when it comes to Trump and his relationship to the media, Baier tells David Remnick, “I think it is this cat-and-mouse game. You know, for all of the things he says about the media . . . he’s reaching out and doing interviews with the same people he says are nasty.” New Yorker Radio Hour listeners, we want to hear from you.  We have a few questions about the show and how you listen to it. The survey takes about twenty minutes, and your feedback will help us make our podcast better.  Take the survey here.

This is The New Yorker Radio Hour, a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Welcome to The New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. The relationship between Fox News and Donald Trump is not just close. It can be profoundly influential. Trump frequently responds to segments in real-time online, even if only to complain about a poll that he doesn't like. He's tapped the network for nearly two dozen roles within his attention. administration, including the current Secretary of Defense Pete Hegeseth, who is a former weekend host. The network is seen as having an outsized impact on his relationship with his base and even his agenda. And most recently, it's been reported that Fox News's coverage of the Iran-Israel conflict

influenced Trump's decision to enter that fight. America First is not sitting in a beach chair and using words. It's taking decisive action when we can take out foredough the one swoop of an airplane. And while the network's right-wing commentators from Sean Hannity to Laura Ingram to Mark Levin tend to grab the most headlines and stand as the ideological coloring of the network, special report. It's 6 p.m. broadcast that's anchored by Brett Baer is essential to the conservative media complex. Brett Baer draws over 3 million viewers a night,

at times surpassing legacy brands like CBS Evening News, news despite being available in half as many homes. Now, Bayer insists on his impartiality. But his network's reputation as an outlet for the right and its connection to President Trump himself can sometimes make his job, well, a source of real fascination. We spoke last week. Brett, welcome to the belly of the beast. Thank you.

Thank you. Good to be here. Who knew? Who knew? Right. New Yorker and Fox. So tell me a little bit about that. I want to get a sense of what, when you're at Fox, you think about what's now called the

lamestream media, the New York Times and the New Yorkers of the world, because God knows we're being perfectly honest with each other. On my side of the street, if that's what it is, there's a lot of talk about Fox. Sure. So in the interest of coming to understand each other a little bit better, I wanted to have this conversation because I really respect the interviews you do, and I think it's a lot of probably a complicated role that you play at Fox. I want to talk about that as well. But as it said, we all live in our silos now. It's very, very different than it might have been 25, 30 years ago.

So how do you view it? You know, first of all, it's good to be here. Thanks for having me. I don't view it adversarial in any way. I've worked with all kinds of folks in every different media outlet. I have a lot of friends in the so-called mainstream media. And I like, like to think of myself as doing a lot of the same stories, maybe in different ways sometimes, but trying to keep it fair, in my view. I've been at Fox for 27 years. So the Atlanta Bureau started my apartment with a fax machine and a cell phone. And, you know, I went from covering the Southeast and South America to covering the Pentagon, to covering the White House, and I took over for my mentor and friend, Britt Hume, 16 years ago now. And, you know, I went to, and

January of 2009. So, you know, I've been anchor and executive editor of Special Report, and really my focus is horse blinders on that hour and trying to create an hour of news and analysis that somebody could watch no matter where their political leanings are and come to the end of the hour and say, that was fair. And I know what's going on in the U.S. and around the world. So I don't have any animosity. I really don't towards anybody else. Why did you get into the business? Why did you become a journalist? You know, I was a ham in high school. I was the sports editor of the paper. I'd interned at a local station in Atlanta, W.S.B. With a sports guy, Ernie Johnson Jr., actually, who went on to NBA fame and his coverage.

And I looked over at the news people and said, wow, I like that over there. Was politics on your mind as such? No, it really wasn't. grew up in a political environment? No, not really. I mean, it paid attention to it, but it wasn't really a driving force until I became a general assignment reporter

for a little station in Hilton Head, South Carolina, Rockford, Illinois, Raleigh, North Carolina, and then I started with Fox and Fox started. But I really became interested in politics, really to try to file stories to get on Brigham's show, special report. So I would bounce around the southeast and do political stories to try to get on that show.

The beginning you're describing is the story of God knows how many other journalists and TV journalists as well. Are you saying that you could just as easily have ended up and been comfortable at CBS News or NBC News? Sure, yeah. I mean, I've worked for an NBC affiliate, an ABC affiliate, a CBS affiliate. So, yeah, my trajectory was I got a call from an agent at the time who said, this place,

Fox News would like to hire you. And I said, they want to go for an interview. And I said, no, they want you to be the Atlanta guy. And that's how it started. Would you say that you have politics? Some journalists deny that they do or they tamp them down and maybe put them in a jar over by the door. Yeah. Yeah.

I'd like to think that people don't know what my politics are. But, yeah, of course, I'm not a robot. I have feelings and thoughts about it. So tell me about that. But I really do think in my job, that that's not my role, to get emotionally behind some issue. I'm not saying that it is, but when you go to the boating booth, do you generally pull the lever for blue or red?

I don't vote. You don't vote. This is like my old editor at the Washington Post, Len Downey, he said he didn't vote. I just... You don't do it as a matter of kind of professional hygiene. Yeah, I mean, it's weird. I just don't. You think it would put you in a spot?

I would answer your question. Yeah. And I would answer it, you know, legitimately I would tell you. Right. But I don't, so I don't have to answer that question. So it's a matter of comfort. Yeah, it's a matter of comfort. And it's, listen, I'm listed as an independent.

And I'd like to think that I can think both ways. But, of course, I have feelings about certain things. And when I'm talking to friends, I express that. But what about when you're talking publicly? When I'm talking publicly, I'm really thinking about all sides watching my show that I'm not advocating. I'm not emotional. I'm trying to preside over this hour and give you a sense of what this side says, what that side says.

You make the decision. And it sounds cliche that we report you decide. But I truly believe that. That my job is to lay it out there and let the viewers decide how they think about it. What is the job of an interviewer? when you go in and you've interviewed Trump as many times as anybody I can imagine, certainly on television, what are you aiming to figure out? What are you aiming to do? Ideally, I'm aiming to take them off their talking points, not hear the recited, you know,

thing that we've heard X number of times. I was friends with Tim Russard, the late Tim Russard, and we'd fly back and forth to New York here, and I would sit next to him and say, you know, Tim, I really love your style. You know, what do you think the secret is? And he said, Brett, it's never about the questions. It's always about listening to the answer. And I always took that to heart

because it's always the redirect, listening to the answer, figuring out what the nugget is that's new and then redirecting. And that's what I'm trying to do, no matter what the ideological side is. Is there a particular requirement for interviewing Trump? Get in on the breath?

No, which is his strategy is to overwhelm? A lot of times. But, you know, if you get in the cadence with him and you ask the question and then you follow up, he does, to his credit, answer the question eventually. Sometimes he weaves, as he says. But he gives you an answer as opposed to some politicians. never give you an answer. So Trump comes into the room. The president comes into the room, sits across from you. And, you know, it's a highly artificial environment. There's lights all around. There are cameras. There's an element of occasion. What's the immediate goal in the

first question? Depends on the interview. Because he's going to overwhelm you. Of course. I mean, he's going to try to filibuster or talk about what he wants to talk about. But I'm trying to get to the heart of whatever the news is at the day. It also depends on the interview. I mean, my last interview I had with him was at the Super Bowl. I mean, ahead of the Super Bowl. So it's a different interview at the Super Bowl interview as opposed to the previous interview I did with him as a candidate where we were in the middle of these legal cases and I was pressing on very, you know, pointed things. He didn't like it. We're talking about, if I remember correctly, Brett, the thing that really annoyed him is when you pressed him about the keeping of paper.

that case. He got, let's put it not too fine a point on, he was really pissed. Yeah, he called it a nasty interview afterwards. First of all, I won in 2020 by a lot, okay? Let's get that straight. I won in 2020. And if you look at all of the tapes, if you look at everything that you want to look at, you'd take a look at truth to vote where they have people stuffing the ballot boxes on tapes, or let's go to recent. Well, wait a minute, let's go to recent. FBI Twitter. Let's go to recent.

The 51 agents, all corrupt stuff, Brett. Understand about the Hunter Biden. All fair things. But that's cheating on the election. You lost the 2020 election. Brett, you take a look at all of this stuff. Is that because he expects something from Fox that he might not expect from, I don't know, CNN?

I don't know about that. I don't think so. I've always, in every time I've interviewed him, I think, taken it as a tough but fair effort. and, you know, over time, he's come to expect that. Now, he's called me, you know, I tell you what, Brett, you are, you're a five. Sometimes you're a four. You're nowhere near a seven.

That's my best Trump. That's pretty good. I have to say. I have to say, not bad at all. But what do you do when he lies? Well, you fact check as much as. Can you do it in real time? That's not easy.

As much as you can. Like, in that June 23, interview, which was really at times contentious. I tried to fact-check real time, but it's coming at you, a lot of it. And a lot of interviews, interviewers who have interviewed the president, you know, have that challenge. And to do it real time, you've got to be on your game on a lot of different fronts. I think I did it fairly well in that interview. And others, you know, it's not as not as good. But to be able to get the access

and ask the questions is a big deal. I started life as a reporter at the Washington Post. The editor at that time was Benjamin Bradley, Ben Bradley. And when he was a younger guy, when he was at Newsweek, he wasn't just an nodding acquaintance

of John F. Kennedy. They were close, close friends. And that was something he came to regret because not only did he come to realize that it was wrong, But I think he also felt that on any number of occasions, the president took advantage of that friendship. I'm not by any stretch of the imagination saying you are close friends with or even friends with Donald Trump. But you have played golf with him a number of times.

Is there not some peril in that kind of relationship? I think it's a great question. I answer it this way. Tell me the journalist that won't take the three-hour off the three-hour off-the-reliam. record ability to pick the brain of the commander-in-chief, the president who's making these big decisions in an environment that is more relaxed that perhaps he's more open to talking about different things, to get you a sense of where his head is in the middle of all these big things. Tell me that journalist who doesn't take that.

And I'll say, I don't know who turns it down. And I understand your question. It doesn't run the risk of cozy. so that you, you know, you start giving him the benefit of the doubt. Now, I don't think it's bad to let him say his piece and to hear that side and press respectfully but pointedly in a way that's, you know, maybe he doesn't love the interview, which is the one I had still played golf with him right around the time that I did that interview. Are you talking about politics on the golf course?

Sometimes. Sometimes it's golf. Sometimes it's other things. But I'm getting a few questions that illuminate some aspect of my reporting that I tuck away off the record and I'm able to better report on some things that he's doing. Look, I wrote a book about Barack Obama. I know Barack Obama a bit, but I don't play golf with him. Would you play golf with him? It's a great question.

If he asked you, would you go out for three and a half hours with Barack Obama? It's not even golf. I've had any number of off-the-record conversations with him, and I find it deeply, I'll be very honest. I find the whole off-the-record thing very frustrating. Well, it's conflicting because you want to report what they say. I'm not his friend. But guess what? I've had many off-the-records with Barack Obama and with Joe Biden and with a lot of politicians who are on all sides.

Do you find any of those people distinctly different than they are on the record? 100% all of them all of them to what extent let's talk about joe biden for a second to what extent did the media blow the story of his to be unkind about it really rapid aging the sort of the process that we see all the time in life of slowly slowly and all at once all the all at once being the performance and the debate where did we go wrong or when you look at me are you saying what a why you're saying me, we got it right and you got it wrong. Go ahead. I mean, you said it. I didn't. But I think it was on my show a lot of times. Britt Hume mentioned it in his analysis. Peter Ducey asked questions specifically about the mental, cognitive ability and the critics who were saying he's

losing a step. There were analysis pieces in various papers, media who cover media, who said Fox was just doing this to make the president but look bad. And, you know, it was a giant conspiracy. And it was Fox thing. I can almost hear coming in through my headphones, people telling me, ask him, wait a minute, wait a minute, what about when Trump just goes off as he does what he calls, what is it called? His weave? The weave. I know. Is that a sign of mental discipline?

Well, listen, he obviously has a style. I'm not going to analyze, but I don't think you could say that President Trump is in the same cognizant. of place as Joe Biden. And I think that was evident in that debate. But more importantly, he's taken more questions in the first 30 days of his presidency than Joe Biden did in two years. Totally true. He's talked to every member of the press no matter where they are, ABC, CBS, NBC.

But I'm not defending him. What I'm saying to you is that story, that cognitive story, was a big mess, a big mess. Brett Bear is the anchor for Fox News's special report. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, and we'll continue our conversation in just a moment. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. Brett Bear has made a name for himself in the ideologically divided environment of cable news. He vehemently defends his position as nonpartisan, and at times he's often had to square a version of the facts that his audience prefers with reality. We spoke this past week about how Bear keeps that position amid the attacks that can come from both sides of the political aisle and sometimes directly from President Trump himself.

Our conversation continues now. In at least one interview that I recall, you said to President Trump, you lost the 2020 election. That was the interview that he thought was nasty. He did not love that. No. And yet a lot of people on Fox. not only said the opposite and continue to say the opposite, but they've kept that alive as a talking point.

Are you comfortable with that? I always point out that he lost the 2020 election. He can make the argument that it was stolen because of the coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop. You know, had the media covered the Hunter Biden laptop in that moment and had Biden not said that 51 intelligence, intelligence officers said it was Russian disinformation at that debate. Could it have moved enough votes in each one of these states to make a difference?

I can't make that call. I can't say that that's true or not true. But I do know that— But isn't it an empirical fact as opposed to a matter of opinion? Some things are opinion and some things are facts. Well, the fact was that it was Hunter Biden's laptop. And the fact was that the 51 intelligence agents— But a lot of things, a lot of factors influence the political weather.

Of course. Well, that's what I'm getting to, is that I can't say that that's going to move the needle, but maybe that's the argument that he's making. It's not. He's saying it was more stolen, which is why I said it's not. But what I'm saying to you is that the people who say that there were things that happened that were rigged, including the coverage of that, including this thing, they have, you know, they can make an argument. As far as looking at the actual election, you know, with the votes that they found that, you know, didn't matter. match up or if there were shifts, there were never enough votes to overcome the lead in all of those states. And we made that clear on my show and other shows. Does President Trump call you on the phone a lot? He calls me. And do you call him?

I have called him, but it's more the other way. Okay. First of all, reporters having the president of the United States' cell phone number seems to me without precedent. 100% without precedent. But would you take it? What does it tell you? It tells you that he wants to be front and center in every story. And he is front and center in every story.

And he wants, what I take from it off the record is his perspective, his mindset. It seems to be so strange that the same man that says the press is the enemy of the people is calling, I don't know, Maggie Haberman, Brett. Jonathan Carl, now the Atlantic has the number. Yeah, well, what am I, chop liver? Yeah, I mean, you want it? I'll give it to you, David. Please do. Let me write that down.

He would answer. I guarantee you, you'd answer. But what is that about? His relationship to the press seems obsessive, contemptuous, legalistic. I mean, I don't mind telling you, I'm on the end of a lawsuit on the Pulitzer board. Yeah. It's an incomprehensible lawsuit.

Sure. It's the CBS thing, the ABC. ABC thing. How do you analyze that? I think it's a great question. I think it is part of the man. I think it is part of his time here in New York as a New York real estate mogul and the rough and tumble to punch back. and to characterize your opposition before they can characterize you.

I think that's part of it. I think it is this cat and mouse game, you know, for all of the things he says about the media. Again, he's reaching out and doing interviews with the same people he says are nasty. Not just nasty. Yeah. You got the nice part of it. Yeah, yeah.

It gets a lot worse. Oh, yeah. Well, you should see his supporters when after that interview. my ex-feet. Well, yeah, it's a bombardment. Yeah, it's, you know. What were you called? I was called everything.

It was called everything. Anything you can say even on the podcast version of this conversation? You know, just liberal. Ah, that bad. That bad. Sorry, Brad. You know, super crazy, you know, after your family, the whole thing. But let me ask you this.

All presidents come to, in some way or another, resent. the inquisitiveness and pursuit of the press, enemy of the people is something else, no? I agree, and I wish you wouldn't use it. And I've expressed that. I've expressed publicly. On a golf course? I have.

And what does he say? It's off the record, David. On the record, he said to Leslie Stahl, I do this because it causes disbelief in people. Right. A certain relativism, the thing that the right used to argue about, by the way, cultural relativism and so on.

But you have to admit, you have to admit that he touched accord enough with people who liked, maybe didn't like everything he was doing, but liked what he was talking about, liked the policies he was talking about, enough to get elected in the face of arguably an onslaught of coverage and attacks that came from one side. I mean, the first presidency was all about the Russia investigation for almost six, seven months. That's all we heard about. It was nonstop. I'm not going to accept the premise, but okay, go ahead.

But, I mean, it really was nonstop. Well, you had all the intelligence agencies saying there was election interference. The question was whether or not the president played any role in that other than being the passive recipient. Right. But, I mean, he was characterized as a Russian asset in that. some corners. Although it was made confusing when the President of the United States gets up and says and addresses Russia and says what?

Yeah, I know. Bring it on. Right. And the emails and find the emails. We covered it all. But my point is that that was a big part of the coverage of his first term. Then in this latest effort, all of these legal cases that were going after every element of – now you can argue the –

whether it was right or wrong, but it was characterized as lawfare by the right, and people believed that, that it was over the top. So in the face of all of that, he still touched enough people to get elected twice, and when he first ran, nobody gave him a shot. We just came on the 10-year anniversary of that escalator ride down.

And going back in the media clips saying, Donald Trump will never be president, this is a joke, blah, blah, blah. and now he's been there twice. So he's touching something in the country that some of the media missed. I find you a very straightforward and fair interviewer, nine times out of ten.

I confess to you that I thought when you interviewed Kamala Harris, and maybe you've heard this before, you were, and men can do this, were a little interruptee and maybe more interrupting of her. her than of Donald Trump. I've heard that criticism.

The first bill, practically within hours of taking the oath, was a bill to fix our immigration system. Yes, ma'am. It was called the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021. It was essentially a pathway to citizenship for the... Yes, ma'am. May I finish responding, please? But you have to let me finish.

You had the White House and the House and the Senate, and they didn't bring up that bill. I'm in the middle of responding to the point you're raising. And I'd like to finish. Yes, ma'am. I think that if you look at that June 23 interview of Donald Trump, it was about equal as far as my push. Not an interruption. Definitely in terms of tough questions. I wouldn't argue with that.

I would look back. I did interrupt, to try to redirect. I think the vice president wanted to come very combative to that interview and wanted that. And you want to push her back? Well, I was actually ready to start with something very, you know, what's the most important issue for you, Matt and Vice President. And to be honest, we did a pre-tape. I'll give you the back story quickly. We wanted to do it live at 6 p.m. They wanted to do a pre-tape, which was fine with us. They said 5 o'clock, and we were ready at 4.30. She had to be a an event. She was finished with that event and in the building by about 435. We just told the folks handlers, we needed to start by 515. Otherwise, turning the tape around for the top of the 6 o'clock

would be logistically tough for us to do. So she's in the building. The event's over. I'm there. Lights are ready. We're all ready. 435, 445, 445, 450, 5 o'clock, 50. 5 o'clock, 50. 510, 513. Now, at 515, we have to do it live because we can't physically get the thing. Like Bill O'Reilly. Do it live. No, I wasn't going to do that. It wouldn't be caught in camera.

But 515. So my producers are pulling their hair out. They're sweating. Everybody's running around. 513. 513. 514. Yeah, yeah.

51430, the vice president walks out of that room, sits, down. I try to engage, as you did before I came on in some conversation. It was a great event outside, Matt of Vice President. Good to see you. And she turned to me and said, you ready? You didn't like that? Well, I just thought it was icing the kicker. They were trying to create this pressure moment. And it changed the dynamic. And she was... I'm seeing the kicker for our non-football friends. Oh, yes, yes, yes. Is to call timeout right before a field goal attempt to make the kicker think about it extra hard. Thank you.

You bet. That's good. Try to reach your broad audience. That's really good. That's really good. But anyway, it just started like that. And I knew at that moment that she wanted to be combative. Listen, we gave a lot of time.

She talked about, you know, issues she wanted to talk about. But I think you're telling me she pissed you off a little bit by coming in 15 seconds before. I thought it was a little. Rude. Yes. I did. And, you know, it doesn't emotionally affect me, but as I sat there thinking, what is she trying to do by doing this? Yeah.

And I think it was to create that dynamic. And they admitted it as much later privately. When you watch some of the opinion shows on your network, and I'm not making any inferences about your politics. But tell me this. Do you ever want to throw a shoe at some of your colleagues? Or their flickering images on the screen? Listen, they have a different job than I have. I think they do it very well.

Their opinion, they come from an advocacy point of view or a perspective. They oftentimes stir the pot. We are under one umbrella. We're rowing in the same way, but we do something completely different. Do you not feel implicated in some way by their excesses at times? You know, people paint with a broad brush. the people who have a really, really big problem with Fox, likely haven't watched Fox.

So I tell people, watch my show for three times, drop me a post. Your show. Yes. Drop me a post and say, was this show fair? But they're not just watching your show. They're going to watch Laura Ingram. They're going to watch all of them.

Sean Hannity, the whole thing. So tell me the other opinion side of the cable news verse. You know, show me the news show that's equal to special report on MSNBC. Do you think Rachel, Is the matter is just the equivalent of Mark Levin or Laura Engra? I mean, she obviously is an opinion person who advocates an opinion. I mean, you couldn't call... What I'm saying is...

You can't call it a new show. Is one more fact-based than the other? I think that's the crux of the matter. It depends on your point of view, I suppose. Facts don't depend on necessarily the point of view. Of course. But in the presentation of them, like, they're trying to get the water cooler to go one way or another. Do you ever worry that you are the thing that they can point to and say,

but Brett Baer, fair-minded, straight up the middle, rigorous interviews, whereas the gravy is coming from, the profits are coming from, some of the biggest ratings they're getting is from people who are, let's just say, in another mode. I would argue that if you build it, they will come. Listen, I think the opinion folks do what they do. The five is an amazing lead-in for me. It gets the highest ratings exponentially. But I look at those things where I'm beating network news across the country.

In here in New York, NBC, ABC, CBS. That's a big shift for cable news to be able to say that. So I think about the product. And, again, focus on my product with horse blinders on. Fairly. And what have you got an offer? And they said, hi, I'm from NBC. Yeah.

Come to New York. We'll put you on MSNBC or the executives at CNN called. Come on. We'll give you an even better deal. Would you do that? I'm really happy at Fox. I know you are. And I've been there 27 years.

But would it be something that you would rule out of hand for matters of loyalty or ideology? No. So you'd be comfortable working at MSNBC doing what you do if all things could go the same. If MSNBC had a news show that they would develop and leave the executive editor to make the news decisions about the coverage in that hour, I mean, I have a lot of autonomy in this position. And Fox has been tremendous and has supported the news division so much. But I'm not trying to be tricky here. This is an honest question. If you could do that at a network that's overall politics were different, you'd be fine doing that.

Yeah, I mean, but I'm not thinking about that. I'm not, I have a really great position right now, and I feel like we are driving a lot of news, not just for Fox viewers, but for every viewer. We get picked up in papers and The New York Times and Washington Post, and we are making news. We have reporters breaking news, and they're empowering. us to do that. So listen, again, I'm very happy, but to your question, if there's a news product, I think there should be more news shows, not fewer. And I'm sad that there aren't more news shows like Special Report on other channels. I mean, I'm happy in one business sense because I think people look to that to try to get a straight shot, but they can't really

find it at a lot of places. Brett Bear, thank you so much. Hey, thanks. It's been pleasure. Gret Beyer. He's been at Fox News for nearly three decades, and he anchors the network's special report five nights a week. That's The New Yorker Radio Hour for today. Thanks so much for listening. See you next time.

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co-production of WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of Tune Yards, with additional music by Jared Paul. This episode was produced by Max Balton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul, and Ursula Summer. With guidance from Emily Boutin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Barish, Victor Gwan, and Alejandra Deccett. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.