NYSE
Consolidation is underway at David Ellison's Skydance just a few weeks after the company closed its $110 billion merger with Warner Bros. Discovery.
Skydance's chief product officer, Dane Glasgow, laid out the product and tech leadership structure of the combined entity in a memo viewed by Business Insider.
Four top WBD executives are leaving, according to the memo.
They include:
Duvall, Saxena, and Whitworth will stay on in an "advisory capacity as we undergo this transition," Glasgow wrote.
The company is mostly keeping Paramount executives in charge of its combined tech and product organization.
These leaders include:
A few WBD executives are staying on in Skydance's post-merger leadership, per Glasgow's memo.
They include Brinton Miller, formerly WBD's media technology and operations lead, who will serve as Skydance's executive vice president of production and studio technology, and James Crossland, formerly head of global content operations at WBD, who will serve as its EVP of global content operations.
Skydance has spent the past year revamping its tech and product team, often recruiting talent from tech companies.
Glasgow joined Paramount from Meta, while Lee joined from Microsoft's AI division. Other team leaders in its post-merger structure include head of design Suzanne Pellican, formerly a Google exec; Hugh Williams, a former Google, eBay, and Microsoft exec; and Barak Turovsky, who came to Paramount after serving as chief AI officer at General Motors and VP of AI at Cisco.
Bringing technical expertise to Paramount has been a priority for Ellison, who wants to turn the century-old media brand into a modern, tech-forward business like Netflix. The company revamped its data and insights strategy in January, and merged some engineering teams in March to bolster its streaming tech.
"We are building a product and tech organization that can compete with anybody coming out of Silicon Valley," Ellison told CNBC earlier this month.
In his memo, Glasgow expressed gratitude for the work of both Paramount and WBD staffers, writing that he was "encouraged by the early collaboration, the bold new ideas you're bringing forward, and your openness to exploring new ways of working with your colleagues."
He also acknowledged the structural changes could be disruptive.
"I know a change of this scale brings questions, especially as we get to know new teams and colleagues," Glasgow wrote. "Your leaders will share more about their organizations in the coming weeks and we'll bring our teams together soon to keep building with and learning from each other."
In 2016, the HBO comedian and political commentator John Oliver produced a terrific segment on how TV pundits routinely cite garbage science. After showing clips of newscasters and commentators making absurd claims such as, "A new study showing that drinking a glass of red wine is just as good as spending an hour at the gym," and The Today Show's Al Roker commenting, "You find the study that sounds best to you, and you go with it," Oliver commented, "No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! You don't just get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway."
Then Oliver added a useful rule: "If they are going to keep saying 'a study says,' they should have to provide sourcing and context or not mention it at all." (Though the segment specifically targeted the misuse of "scientific" studies, all the same principles apply to the social sciences.)
What's so noteworthy about that 2016 segment is that in his other monologues, on issues ranging from SWAT teams to homelessness, Oliver has routinely ignored the principles he laid out. In his overly simplistic takes on complex policy issues (often designed to dunk on his ideological opponents for comedic effect), he often fails to provide appropriate context and appears to be guilty of choosing research "that sounds best," as Roker put it, or at least that supports whatever point he's determined to make.
Oliver is one of America's most influential pundits, so he should be held to the highest of journalistic standards. And Last Week Tonight is indeed more diligent than many TV news programs. The show employs researchers who interview the authors of the studies it cites. Oliver is a comic, not an academic, so we can excuse him for not posting footnotes, and he routinely cites his sources on screen. When we emailed the show's producers to point out problems with their research, to their credit, they sent back a detailed response that we'll quote from in this article. (In a few cases, they pointed to Reason articles using some of the same studies, albeit with full citations and more context. In cases in which their criticisms were correct, we've annotated the original articles.)
Many of the show's researchers are former reporters and editors who abide by journalistic standards. Nevertheless, the show has a long track record of citing social science findings without the appropriate context, massaging them to support whatever point Oliver is trying to make.
In his excellent 2016 segment on scientific studies, Oliver noted: "There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science. Not all scientific studies are equal. Some may appear in less-than-legitimate scientific journals, and others may be subtly biased because of scientists feeling pressured to come up with eye-catching positive results."
Cut to a 2022 segment titled "Rent," and we find Oliver citing a study that his wiser self would have characterized as "bullshit."
"Right now, there is not a single county in the U.S. where a worker earning minimum wage can afford a modest two-bedroom rental home," he said. He was citing a study designed to produce an "eye-catching" result. It was published not by a reputable journal, but by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, an advocacy group that lobbies for government spending on housing and rent subsidies, including expanding the National Housing Trust Fund and increasing federal appropriations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
The biases are not particularly subtle. Why would a minimum-wage worker need a two-bedroom home? In the study, "can afford" doesn't mean "have enough money to buy the cheapest available," as most English speakers would interpret it. The authors use it to mean renting a two-bedroom home at the 40th percentile price point of the local market (that is, a little cheaper than the median unit), using no more than 30 percent of their income, excluding government benefits, pensions, or other nonearned support.
Oliver also didn't mention who these minimum-wage workers are. In 2025, according to the Current Population Survey, a third of hourly workers paid the federal minimum or less lived in a parent's or grandparent's home, a fifth were married and living with a spouse, and only one in eight lived alone.
When we asked the show's producers why they failed to disclose that their source was an advocacy group seeking government funds, they pointed to the onscreen credit and responded: "We trust our viewers' intelligence enough to think they might be able to read it and conclude that the National Low Income Housing Coalition is interested in building low-income housing, nationwide, possibly even as part of a coalition."
I don't share their confidence that most viewers can read the onscreen source line and tell from the organization's name whether it's an advocacy group. There's a double standard here: When Oliver doesn't like what a study says, he's not content to just trust his viewers; he makes it explicit, as he did with the "ethanol lobbying groups" mentioned above.
Oliver's producers wrote us: "When we rely on studies from advocacy groups, we look at the underlying data and speak to researchers to better understand it; we discard many studies as a result."
This one belonged in the trash.
In a 2025 segment, Oliver cited an eye-catching statistic about how sports betting was driving a spike in bankruptcies. "Unsurprisingly, the rise of online sports betting has been found to correlate with a rise in gambling harms, with one study showing that in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase in bankruptcies, translating to about 100,000 extra bankruptcies a year."
I'll give Oliver credit for saying "correlate with" rather than "cause," but the rest of that sentence ("in states that allowed it, there was a 28 percent increase") implies direct causality.
The bigger problem is that the "100,000" figure is clearly wrong. When I contacted the study's authors, they told me they don't know where that figure came from, and it doesn't appear anywhere in the study. Last Week Tonight's producers told us they pulled it from a Business Insider article, but in the video, Oliver said it came from the study.
If Oliver's researchers had done the same calculation as the authors, multiplying the per-person effect by the at-risk population, they'd have found about 30,000 extra bankruptcies a year, not 100,000, and a 6 percent to 7.5 percent increase, not 28 percent.
Oliver also left out important context: He was citing an unpublished working paper. The peer-reviewed version appeared after the Last Week Tonight segment aired, and it included substantive changes. Working papers from credible researchers, like this one, are valuable, but Oliver should have made it clear he was citing a preliminary draft circulated to other researchers for comment, not a published study.
In 2021, Oliver did a segment making a case for a policy called "Housing First," which includes placing more homeless people in permanent supportive housing. The problem is that building and maintaining these units is expensive, so permanent supportive housing doesn't scale easily. Oliver set out to dismiss that objection by citing research showing the alternative is even more costly.
"One study in Florida," Oliver said, "found that, just between money spent on incarceration and emergency medical treatment, their communities and local governments had spent an average of just over $31,000 per person per year, when the estimated cost of providing them with permanent supportive housing would have only been around $10,000 per year."
The Florida study's finding was an outlier. The Central Florida Commission on Homelessness commissioned it, and Housing First advocates promoted it because it produced the headline they wanted. I give Oliver credit for noting that the study "tracked a decade's worth of spending on just 107 chronically homeless people," but he left out additional context.
In 2018, a committee convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine evaluated permanent supportive housing. It concluded that there is "no substantial evidence that [it] contributes to improved health outcomes" and "insufficient evidence" that it's cost-effective.
Studies exist on both sides of this issue, and we can debate whether permanent supportive housing is more cost-effective than the alternative, but Oliver cited one study and implied it was conclusive.
Oliver also neglected to mention that the paper was written by a consulting firm led by a supportive-housing advocate, though if you looked closely, you could see the organization's name on the screen as he delivered his monologue.
Oliver and I agree that the federal government shouldn't be subsidizing ethanol. But in a 2024 segment titled "Corn," Oliver pointed to a study claiming that ethanol is more harmful to the environment than gasoline and implied that only self-interested lobbyists say otherwise.
"While ethanol lobbying groups have long argued that it slashes greenhouse emissions," he said, "one recent study found that corn ethanol produced under the renewable fuel standard has a carbon footprint at least 24 percent higher than regular gasoline."
What Oliver doesn't mention is that the 2022 study he cited was highly contested. It was challenged not only by "ethanol lobbying groups" but also by the U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Biden administration. The study's claim that ethanol has a higher carbon footprint than gasoline also contradicts a 2010 Environmental Protection Agency projection that ethanol would be about 20 percent cleaner than gasoline. Argonne National Laboratory, running the government's standard model, credits ethanol with cutting greenhouse emissions by more than 500 million tons in 15 years.
The problem isn't that Oliver is wrong; it's how he presented this study. Whether ethanol mandates are good or bad for the environment is a complicated, contested issue, with strong studies on both sides (and plenty of weak ones). Plucking one from the pile and reporting its findings is misleading.
Ethanol subsidies are bad because they involve politicians using mandates to buy farmers' votes, and top-down mandates generally lead to less optimal decision-making. But it's not clear that ethanol increases carbon emissions.
In a 2014 segment on police militarization after the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, Oliver said, "There has been a massive rise in both the number and the use of police department SWAT teams," and showed a news clip that stated: "The number of SWAT raids has gone up by 1,400 percent since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year." Instead of mocking the clip, as he often does, Oliver cited it approvingly.
So where did the claim of a 1,400 percent increase come from? It's based on a voluntary mail-in survey, which isn't a reliable way to gather data. No official count of SWAT raids exists, and almost nobody tracks them, then or now, so the figure rests on departments' self-reporting of how often they "deployed," with no shared definition of what that means.
The 1980s figures that form the baseline for the 1,400 percent increase in SWAT raids come from a mid-1990s survey, making them especially unreliable. No one was counting SWAT raids at the time, and there's no way to verify them.
Oliver followed that clip by citing another study: "Just keep that clip in mind," he said, "when I tell you that 79 percent of SWAT deployments are now for executing search warrants, and most of those were for drug investigations."
Again, there's missing context. That 79 percent figure comes from a small, nonrandom sample generated by an American Civil Liberties Union records request; the organization could get data from just 20 of America's roughly 18,000 police agencies.
When we pointed out to Oliver's producers that the data on SWAT teams were stripped of their context, they replied that since this segment aired, "We've become more diligent about critically interrogating the sourcing on studies in our shows." They also argued that more "recent studies," if anything, suggest that the studies they cited "understated the true scope of things." And they pointed to instances of Reason citing the same data.
I agree with Oliver's position on SWAT raids, but he really should be agitating for better data. We're permitting state violence without anyone keeping the detailed records that could help us understand the costs and benefits. But that doesn't excuse citing two studies based on weak data and presenting them as fact.
In a 2025 segment on tipping, Oliver said, "Recent analyses have found that poverty rates for tipped workers are over twice as high as for nontipped workers."
Twice as high as for which nontipped workers? The analysis he's citing included all nontipped workers in the U.S., including CEOs and neurosurgeons. Oliver, who reportedly makes $30 million a year, also pulled up the nontipped average. The right way to evaluate tipping is to match tipped and untipped workers by job: Waiters have about the same poverty rate as fast-food workers, and hotel maids about the same as other cleaners. If you control for job, age, and hours, the gap closes.
It's another study designed to generate a talking point, which isn't surprising since it was published by the Economic Policy Institute, a progressive, left-of-center think tank. The organization's name appeared onscreen as Oliver delivered his monologue, but, once again, viewers would need to hit pause to look it up and figure out what the Economic Policy Institute stands for.
Oliver's 2016 segment on "scientific studies" shows that he should know better. It's possible to construct arguments by citing good research responsibly, while providing the proper context and sourcing. It's possible to follow research where it leads, instead of retrofitting it to preconceived ideas. You just have to be willing to present data that capture reality in all its messiness, even if that means it won't generate an easy laugh line.
To keep up with our video series Wrong Number featuring Aaron Brown, and to receive bonus content and more, click here to enter your email address.
The post John Oliver Warned Against Cherry-Picked Studies. Then He Cherry-Picked His Own. appeared first on Reason Magazine.
A ex-diretora de informação da Lusa, Luísa Meireles, disse esta quinta-feira no Parlamento que o Conselho de Administração (CA) lhe propôs a saída com efeitos imediatos. A proposta foi apresentada dois dias depois da audição parlamentar do presidente da agência e após ter questionado a administração. Luísa Meireles acusou ainda os dois novos administradores de passarem por cima da direção de informação. Ouvido logo a seguir, o presidente da Lusa, Joaquim Carreira, garantiu que a saída foi pedida pela própria e que “nunca” houve ingerência.
As duas audições decorreram na comissão parlamentar de Cultura, Comunicação, Juventude e Desporto, esta quinta-feira, a requerimento do Livre, do PS e do PCP.
Para Luísa Meireles, “o tiro de partida” foi a audição de 29 de setembro. Nesse dia, Joaquim Carreira disse no Parlamento que “não chegou à Lusa qualquer intenção de mudar a Direção da informação”, mas acrescentou que “a atual diretora de Informação está a atingir a idade limite legal [para o cargo] e também tem funções na Comissão da Carteira Profissional de Jornalistas (CCPJ”). Admitiu ainda que “poderá haver alterações”, decorrentes de eventuais “conflitos de interesses”, mas que a situação [não está] completamente esclarecida”.
As palavras foram entendidas como, “numa linguagem mais livre, um despedimento em direto”, e diz que não foi a única, tendo a situação deixado a redação “polvorosa”. A 1 de outubro, a direção de informação foi pedir esclarecimentos ao presidente. Nessa tarde, Luísa Meireles foi chamada a uma reunião “sozinha” e recebeu uma proposta de saída com quitação datada de 30 de setembro. Perguntou quando seria aplicada e a resposta foi “Já”. “Ainda questionei: ‘Mas têm a noção de que estão a decapitar esta agência da Direção de Informação?’ — ‘Sim, sim, mas a gente assume o risco’”, contou.
Pediu tempo para pensar e aceitou a proposta a 6 de outubro, depois de receber um telefonema da administradora com o pelouro financeiro. No dia seguinte, o acordo escrito trazia a saída adiada para 23 de outubro, porque a administração tinha “um problema de interinidade” e achava que a jornalista tinha levado a proposta “muito à letra”. Luísa Meireles recusou: “Eu sou [diretora de informação] na plenitude das minhas funções, ou não sou.” Assinou a 8 de outubro e saiu a 12. “Não discuti os termos do acordo, só discuti a data de saída.”
A diretora faz 70 anos a 23 de novembro e diz que “não tinha a intenção de ficar para além dos 70 anos a dirigir a Lusa, de modo nenhum”. Acrescentou que a administração a questionou sobre isso “nos últimos tempos”. Nessa data, o contrato passaria a contrato a prazo de seis meses, e teria até 3 de novembro para decidir. “Não fui obrigada a sair. Fizeram uma proposta de saída”, disse. Ainda assim, considera que “houve de facto uma precipitação”.
Recusa também a ideia de conflito de interesses com a presidência da CCPJ, uma função pro bono que ocupa desde fevereiro. Considerou “estranho” que essa alegação surgisse sete meses depois. Disse ainda que o assunto não foi invocado na reunião em que lhe propuseram a saída.
A administração conta outra história. A saída “resultou de um acordo entre as partes, na sequência de um pedido da própria ao Conselho de Administração para que fosse apresentada uma proposta de cessação do vínculo laboral”, afirmou Joaquim Carreira. Segundo o presidente, o CA “pretendia que a diretora de informação se mantivesse em funções interinamente por mais algum tempo, mas foi vontade da diretora de informação cessante sair rapidamente”.
A vice-presidente Ana Alves disse que já se falava da saída de Luísa Meireles “antes do verão”. “Essa questão surgia nas reuniões que tínhamos de forma natural. Não de forma imposta”, disse. Lembrou que, aos 70 anos, o contrato passaria a ser de seis meses. A empresa só o poderia rescindir com 60 dias de aviso, mas a diretora poderia fazê-lo com 15. “A direção de informação, para uma empresa como a Lusa, talvez seja a função mais importante que temos, e ter um vínculo que pode ser rescindido com 15 dias não nos dá grande estabilidade.” Mas acrescentou: “Não foi esse o motor da decisão. Foi um pedido de proposta que a própria Luísa fez. As motivações não as conheço.”
Segundo Luísa Meireles, a relação com o CA mudou quando entraram os administradores Luís Ferreira Lopes e Ana Alves. Durante cinco anos, com Joaquim Carreira, cada um respeitou “as suas áreas”. Os novos administradores mostravam “uma grande vontade de tratar diretamente com os jornalistas”, quando a prática era a administração falar com a redação através da direção.
“A situação começou a ficar mesmo estranha a partir da altura em que nos são pedidos contributos para as coisas”, contou. “Para além do agradecimento dos nossos contributos, a situação ficava na mesma e frequentemente não havia resposta aos emails.” Deu o exemplo das estratégias para podcasts e vídeo, pedidas pela nova administração e entregues pela direção, que não tiveram seguimento. “Tornou-se uma relação, de facto, muito custosa.”
Joaquim Carreira disse não saber “do que é que estão a falar” e estranhou a ideia de que os jornalistas não possam ser contactados pela administração. “Sempre falei, mas não pedi nada. Falo para saber o que é que se está a passar”, afirmou, defendendo uma “gestão de proximidade”. Luís Ferreira Lopes, que tem o pelouro da informação, disse ter entrado “três vezes” na redação e não ter “qualquer contacto com jornalistas”.
Luísa Meireles deu três exemplos de situações onde considera ter existido interferência da administração.
Quando a delegação de Évora reabriu, a administração retirou aos dois correspondentes o subsídio de instalação e equipamento, apesar da oposição escrita da DI. “O Alentejo é gigante […] e para cobrir todo o Alentejo são precisas várias piscinas em automóvel”, explicou a ex-diretora. Ana Alves convocou depois diretamente os editores e editores adjuntos para lhes comunicar a medida, que seria alargada a outras delegações reabertas. “Isto foi uma desautorização e, ao mesmo tempo, o tal contacto direto, passar por cima da direção de informação — digamos, numa linguagem mais liberta, atropelando a direção de informação”, disse Luísa Meireles. O caso de Évora não foi levantado pelos deputados na audição da administração.
Luísa Meireles contestou também os contratos dos delegados internacionais. A versão de julho incluía funções comerciais que a direção considerou incompatíveis com o Estatuto do Jornalista. “Não poderia permitir que um jornalista da Lusa assinasse uma coisa daquelas”, disse. Assinou três dos seis e deixou as objeções por escrito, um deles era urgente, por ser necessário para um visto.
Joaquim Carreira garantiu que as alterações “foram feitas em conjunto com a direção de informação”. Acrescentou que “foi a própria diretora de informação que alertou, e bem” para as cláusulas desconformes. “Não existe nenhuma função comercial nem nada que se pareça”, afirmou. Segundo ele, os delegados devem apenas avisar a sede quando alguém se interessa pelos serviços da Lusa. Uma nova minuta começou a ser distribuída esta quinta-feira.
Bruxelas foi o ponto de maior choque. Segundo Luísa Meireles, a administração indicou uma jornalista, amiga e antiga colega de um dos administradores, para um lugar efetivo. A diretora recusou essa modalidade de contratação, alegando que não havia lugar efetivo e que as colocações no estrangeiro se faziam por concurso interno. Propôs antes um contrato de prestação de serviços, ouviu três candidatos e escolheu por escrito outra pessoa. A jornalista indicada pelo CA pediu melhores condições. A seguir, a diretora recebeu um e-mail a informar que o CA “tinha decidido contratar” essa jornalista. Respondeu que era “a primeira vez, em oito anos de trabalho com três administrações”, que passava por uma situação destas.
A versão da administração sobre Bruxelas é outra. Joaquim Carreira disse que “houve sugestões de nomes, tanto de um lado como de outro”. Segundo ele, Luísa Meireles fez a lista curta, entrevistou os candidatos e “escolheu uma determinada pessoa”, com o acordo do CA. “Essa pessoa não entrou ainda”, acrescentou, por “questões de tramitação processual e de burocracia”. Luís Ferreira Lopes garantiu que “nunca houve qualquer imposição de nomes” e que o CA apenas definiu um perfil mais multimédia.
Questionada pelo PSD, Luísa Meireles afastou pressões do Governo: “Não houve qualquer condicionamento político. Sou absolutamente taxativa.” Defendeu, no entanto, que os novos estatutos têm uma “lacuna”, porque não garantem a independência e a autonomia da direção de informação. Pediu também urgência na revisão do contrato de serviço público, “elaborado na primeira década do século XXI”: “O contexto do ecossistema mediático mudou completamente.”
Joaquim Carreira afirmou que “não houve aqui nenhuma intervenção de ninguém fora da Lusa” e que “a independência editorial não é negociável”. “Distinguimos a responsabilidade de gestão do Conselho de Administração da autonomia das decisões editoriais e da direção de informação”, disse.
Para o diretor adjunto Nuno Simas, o clima de confiança entre a administração e os jornalistas “começou a degradar-se no dia em que o Conselho de Administração fez a denúncia do acordo de empresa”, que foi “uma machadada” na relação interna. Joaquim Carreira atribuiu o mal-estar à resistência à mudança: “Queremos sempre reformas, mas quando a reforma vem…”. E admitiu não saber se a confiança está abalada.
Os partidos que pediram as audições saíram insatisfeitos. Porfírio Silva, do PS, disse que “é curto aquilo que aqui foi explicado” e que duvida que a administração tenha enviado ao Parlamento todos os documentos relevantes. “Isto não acaba aqui”, afirmou, antes de pedir a transcrição integral da audição. Joaquim Carreira respondeu que entregou “os contratos que tínhamos no momento” e que ainda tem três pedidos de documentos por responder. Filipa Pinto, do Livre, lamentou que no fim se perceba que “há duas versões da mesma coisa, em que uns têm documentos para mostrar e os outros não”. Paula Santos, do PCP, disse sair “com mais dúvidas do que respostas” e concluiu que a independência da Lusa está “comprometida”.
Nuno Simas e Maria de Deus Rodrigues asseguram a direção interina até 31 de outubro. “Não sabemos quem vai ser [a futura direção]”, disse Nuno Simas, acrescentando que não tem conhecimento de que o Conselho de Redação já tenha sido consultada. Joaquim Carreira prevê ter uma nova direção de informação “até ao final do mês” e garantiu que o Conselho de Redação e a ERC serão ouvidos.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., got defensive in a new interview as she railed against billionaire donations in politics and was asked about Democrat Troy Jackson revealing multiple billionaire donors, as well as a large possible donation from Michael Bloomberg.
CNN's Kaitlan Collins said during an interview with Warren that Bloomberg had given about $80 million to help Democrats win the midterms after noting that Elon Musk had contributed $276 million to Republicans.
Collins asked Warren, "You're someone who has said billionaire donors should not be in politics. Given what you've said, do you want Michael Bloomberg's help here?"
"Look, what I want is to get this kind of money out of politics," Warren said. "Right now, the Republicans know that their only chance, as they see it, to be able to hang on to the House and the Senate and some of these governors' mansions is to be able to just drown people in money, to be able to run all the ads on TV, to lie, to cheat, and that there won't be any opportunity for Democrats to be able to respond."
"We need to push back because, this campaign, this 2026 midterm, really is about the money or the people. Because the Democrats have got the people on their side. The Republicans have got the money, and they think if they can spend it, they can maintain control of this country, and I sure hope they're wrong," Warren said, arguing for a "very different" system.
Collins then raised Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson, who said during a debate against his opponent, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, that he had no billionaires funding him. However, a financial report released by the campaign earlier this month found there were at least four billionaire donors funding him, according to Fox23.
"Do you think that he needs to address that contradiction?" Collins asked Warren.
COLLINS INSISTS SOCIALIST RIVAL WON'T BEAT HER AS MAINE'S MONEY MACHINE: 'YOU'LL LOSE BIG TIME'
"So look, really? That's where we're going to make the focus? So, Susan Collins has all this money coming in against her. Elon Musk has come in and put, I don't know, what are the numbers now, how many tens of millions of dollars? And we're going to say, ‘Oops, Troy Jackson may have gotten one of his numbers wrong. He may have gotten contributions from four billionaires,’" she responded.
She said she wanted all the billionaires out.
"I don't think they ought to be able to control elections," she said. "But understand this: it is the Republicans who are outspending Democrats like crazy. And it's not Republicans who are small-dollar donors. It's billionaires and a trillionaire who think that they can just back up dump truck loads full of money, and they will be able to buy a Senate seat in Maine."
She went on to point a finger at President Donald Trump.
"That's a big part of why so much is broken in this country. It's that billionaires and insiders for Donald Trump are calling all the shots," she said.
Jackson's campaign did not immediately return Fox News Digital's request for comment.
"Elizabeth Warren and Troy Jackson are both morally bankrupt hypocrites who want power at any cost. Warren overlooked Graham Platner's horrendous history in favor of advancing her socialist agenda, and now she's doing the same with his knock-off replacement," RNC spokesperson Kristen Cianci told Fox News Digital in a statement.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE COVERAGE OF MEDIA AND CULTURE
Warren called on Democrats to reject billionaire donations ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 elections in January.
Warren was interviewed about her speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., at the time, where she said Democrats had to "credibly demonstrate" they could take on a "rigged system," which might mean upsetting the wealthy. In the address, she contrasted Democrats who will take on the fight head-on and those who "politely nibble around the edges of change."
"So, look, the Democrats need to build a bigger tent in order to win in 2026, 2028 and beyond. So the question is, how do we do that?" Warren told CNN. While she said he has not managed to follow through, she credited Trump for at least discerning that one of everyday Americans' biggest priorities is wanting basic costs lowered.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Spouses of Trump administration Cabinet members say they lean on one another as they navigate life in Washington, offering a behind-the-scenes look at their friendships on the latest episode of Fox News' "the Girls" podcast.
On Thursday's episode, actress Cheryl Hines, wife of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy, wife of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, discussed how Cabinet spouses lean on one another through occasional lunches, girls' nights out and reunions at crowded White House events.
"We actually get together like once a month or, you know, we have a club that we're part of. It's like an international club and most of us are in it," Campos-Duffy said. "We see each other then, and then sometimes we'll go to lunch or next week I think we're just doing a girls' night out after."
'THE GIRLS' PODCAST DEBUTS AS CO-HOSTS TAKE ON LINDSAY CLANCY CASE, MS RACHEL'S POLITICAL ACTIVISM
Hines, known for her role on HBO's "Curb Your Enthusiasm," said seeing familiar faces at administration events can be comforting, as Cabinet spouses often gravitate toward one another in a crowd.
"As you guys know, there are so many events going on for the White House, for the Cabinet. So, whenever there's a big sea of people at a party, and I use the term loosely, you know, Rachel and I will gravitate and go, ‘How's it going? How's it going?’ It's nice to have a pal," Hines said.
Campos-Duffy added that while the spouses often see one another at events, they find it difficult to have meaningful conversations in a crowded room, so they make time to get together outside official functions.
"We do find that time, which is actually really great," Campos-Duffy said.
The conversation also offered a humorous glimpse into life at home with one of the administration's most outspoken advocates for healthy living. Kennedy has championed the "Make America Healthy Again" movement, urging Americans to cut back on ultra-processed foods and raising concerns about seed oils.
"Well, once in a while, he will catch me eating potato chips, and then I won't stop because, you know, it's okay. I'm not shoplifting. But he'll say, ‘Are you [going to] do this in front of me?’ I was like, ‘Yes.’ But yeah, he definitely makes it … He brings it to the forefront, shall we say," Hines said.
RUBIO REJECTS RFK'S 'CRAZY' DIET, JOKES POP-TARTS ARE 'ONE OF THE GREAT AMERICAN INNOVATIONS'
When Fox News host Harris Faulkner asked whether Kennedy ever gives in to his own cravings, Hines said the health secretary has a hard time stopping at just one bite.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
"If you're eating, like, a piece of cake or something, the problem with Bobby is he can't have a bite. He has to have the whole thing," Hines said, laughing.
Fitness trainer and media personality Jillian Michaels is urging parents to "keep the pressure on" social media companies, warning about the platforms' allegedly "addictive" algorithms and content.
Michaels made the comments during an appearance on "The Faulkner Focus" while promoting her new Fox Nation documentary, "Toxic 2: A Generation on the Brink." Michaels advised parents to limit their children's access to online activities.
"You have to do everything you can," Michaels said. "And that means putting parental controls on your kid's phone, period. Take the phone away at night, limit the sites that they can access, have communications with them regularly about the content that they're seeing online. But you also have to be realistic about what they're going to do when they're not with you."
CHRIS HANSEN URGES PARENTS TO TEACH CHILDREN ABOUT ONLINE PREDATORS BEFORE ALLOWING INTERNET ACCESS
"This is the part where we also have to continue putting pressure on the social media companies to make their algorithms safer for kids," she said. "They created an addictive product, they know it, and we need to keep the pressure on."
In the documentary, Michaels examines the risks she says children face in the modern age, including excessive screen time, mental health issues and over-medicalization.
"The truth is, a lot of parents probably don't realize the scale of what kids are dealing with today," she said. "From day one, the fragile little bodies and brains of the tiniest and most vulnerable among us are being targeted, treated and toxified from all angles."
NATION'S SECOND-LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICT MOVES TO LIMIT KIDS' SCREEN TIME
Michaels is joined by several experts in "Toxic 2: A Generation on the Brink," including psychology researcher Jean Twenge, who argues that individuals who begin using smartphones at an early age are more likely to experience mental health issues later in life.
"In some of the best design studies, the heaviest users of social media are about twice as likely to be depressed as lighter non-users," Twenge said. "Even in other studies, you see at least often a 40% or a 50% increase in depression from not using social media to being a heavy user of social media."
"Gen Z and Gen Alpha know how bad these technologies can be for them," Twenge added. "They're the ones who came up with phrases like 'chronically online,' which make it sound like a disease, 'brain rot,' that it's bad for your attention span and your focus."
FRANCE BECOMES FIRST EU NATION TO BAN SOCIAL MEDIA FOR CHILDREN UNDER 15
Social media companies have faced increasing pressure to be regulated and be held accountable for the potential effects of their platforms. In August, Meta agreed to pay as much as $17.1 billion and implement restrictions on teen accounts to settle claims that it designed Facebook and Instagram to addict children and misled the public about the platforms' safety. Meta denied the allegations.
For more on the potential risks personal tech and other issues pose to young children, make sure to watch "Toxic 2: A Generation on the Brink," now streaming on Fox Nation.
CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE TO FOX NATION
Fox Nation programs are viewable on demand and from your mobile device app but only for FOX Nation subscribers. Go to Fox Nation to start a free trial and watch the extensive library of your favorite FOX Nation personalities.
Once again, a member of President Donald Trump's administration is threatening to punish private citizens for their speech using the power of the government.
Specifically, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) threatened broadcasters who dare to report on polls the president doesn't approve of. Even if the complaint were valid, it would be difficult to enforce without violating the First Amendment.
"During this election season, there has been a significant surge in entirely Fake Polls and Suppression Polls designed to do nothing more than interfere with the regular functioning of the electoral process and alter the normal patterns of voter turnout and enthusiasm," FCC Chairman Brendan Carr wrote on X. "Many journalists and broadcasters have been amplifying or airing these Polls without regard to basic journalistic ethics and without informing the public that those Polls lack a scientific, accurate, or even real basis."
Carr is directly adopting Trump's terminology, in addition to his erratic capitalization: The president often uses the term suppression polls to describe surveys that don't reflect in his favor. The implication is that these polls are manufactured to conceal or downplay enthusiasm for Trump or his preferred candidates, making it less likely that his supporters will turn out if they think it's a lost cause.
Carr doesn't single out any offenders, though there are some likely examples. This week, purported pollster Wedgewood Polls revealed that as part of an "experimental project," it had released surveys with "fabricated numbers" that were printed by outlets like FiftyPlusOne (which sussed out the fraud) and The New York Times.
Similarly, in August, Median Strategies withdrew two polls, then revealed that it had fabricated the results for a "social experiment."
Each scenario is deplorable. And depending on what promises were made, it's possible one firm or the other could face legal consequences.
But it's hard to see how a news outlet could face legal reprisal for just reporting the results of a survey it thought was conducted accurately.
"The FCC takes these issues seriously," Carr added. "Broadcasters are prohibited by the terms of their federal licenses from engaging in News Distortion or promoting Broadcast Hoaxes. It is important that broadcasters comply with their public interest obligations."
There are indeed rules against news distortion and broadcast hoaxes, but they're narrowly tailored to avoid conflicting with the First Amendment.
"News distortion 'must involve a significant event and not merely a minor or incidental aspect of the news report,'" according to the FCC. In addition, "broadcasters are only subject to enforcement if it can be proven that they have deliberately distorted a factual news report. Expressions of opinion or errors stemming from mistakes are not actionable."
The hoax rule, on the other hand, is even less applicable: It involves "broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe," where the broadcaster "knows this information is false" and can foreseeably "cause substantial public harm" but airs it anyway, and the broadcast then "does in fact directly cause substantial public harm."
In other words, neither standard applies to a broadcaster that covered an inaccurate poll, especially without knowing at the time that it was wrong.
"Pollsters who intentionally mislead the public should answer for it, but broadcasters who report publicly available polling data should never be punished when a poll is wrong," Anna Gomez, the lone Democratic FCC commissioner, wrote on X. "FCC rules on news distortion or hoaxes do not apply to a station that reports this data in good faith."
Carr doesn't specify what he thinks should happen to any offenders, though since he tends to define "public interest" as whatever Trump says, we can make an educated guess.
Right before the 2024 presidential election, The Des Moines Register published a poll that found then–Vice President Kamala Harris leading Trump in Iowa by three percentage points. Trump ended up winning the state by 13 percentage points, but he was apparently so upset by the poll that he sued both the Register and pollster Ann Selzer, claiming the inaccurate survey constituted "brazen election interference" that violated the Iowa Consumer Fraud Act.
It was clear at the time that the lawsuit was completely meritless. Just as Carr suggested this week in his social media post, Trump was trying to create an exception to the First Amendment for "fake news."
"In the United States there is no such thing as a claim for 'fraudulent news,'" Robert Corn-Revere, chief counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote in a motion on the defendants' behalf. "No court in any jurisdiction has ever held such a cause of action might be valid, and few plaintiffs have ever attempted to bring such outlandish claims."
A judge agreed and dismissed the lawsuit last month.
"If someone is accurately reporting the results of a poll, that wouldn't be a false statement," UCLA law professor Rick Hasen told The Washington Post at the time. "The poll might have errors in it, but that wouldn't be a false statement."
That's as true then as it is now. Unless he can somehow prove that a broadcaster knew a pollster had faked a survey, there's no way Carr can punish someone for reporting on the results without running afoul of the First Amendment.
"Brendan Carr is not the journalism police. And he is just about the least qualified person in the country to lecture the press about journalistic ethics," Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in an emailed statement. "News broadcasters have a First Amendment right to report polling data, even if it proves to be inaccurate, just like they have a First Amendment right to report on Carr and Trump's own countless lies and distortions, even when they turn out to be inaccurate. FCC policies about hoaxes and distortions must be applied narrowly to avoid clashing with the Constitution, if they can be constitutionally applied at all."
The post FCC Chair Brendan Carr Echoes Trump, Threatens Broadcasters Over 'Fake Polls' appeared first on Reason Magazine.
Left-wing podcaster Jennifer Welch is demanding there be “pistols firing” at “antichrist” JD Vance.
The post Nolte: Podcaster Jennifer Welch Demands ‘Pistols Firing’ at ‘Antichrist’ JD Vance appeared first on Breitbart.
The New York Times referred to Abdul El-Sayed as Dr. El-Sayed 42 times in one story versus zero for actual doctor Rand Paul.
The post Nolte: NY Times Calls El-Sayed ‘Dr.’ 42 Times in 1 Article Versus Not So Much for GOP Doctors appeared first on Breitbart.
“Ci sono immagini che speravamo di non vedere mai nelle nostre comunità” è l’espressione di biasimo che in questi giorni più accomuna i politici di centro destra e di centro sinistra nel commentare i disordini sociali di Milano finiti sui media e sulle prime pagine dei giornali. I fotogrammi in discussione ritraggono sequenze di giovani incappucciati, bambini di dieci anni mascherati, giovani stranieri che si scatenano contro vetrine e forze dell’ordine e corrono in mezzo a lacrimogeni e fumo che sale dalle strade.
Sono immagini che turbano. Non solo perché ritraggono scene di violenza in strada che spaventano. Ma anche per il loro livello di selettività. Fino a un paio di giorni fa, gli scioperi che stanno sconvolgendo il meridione erano deliberatamente occultati. Pochissimi sanno che a Pisa ha sfilato un corteo di ambulanze delle pubbliche assistenze con le sirene accese per denunciare l’aumento dei costi del carburante che rischia di compromettere la continuità dei servizi del trasporto sanitario volontario, mentre in un trafiletto di un paio di agenzie di stampa l’opinione pubblica è stata informata che nelle isole Savlbard l’acqua di rubinetto non si può più bere a causa dello scioglimento del permafrost dovuto al riscaldamento globale che rilascia fortissime concentrazioni di metalli pesanti nell’acqua e sotto il quale giacciono 1700 miliardi di carbonio immagazzinato.
Una immagine che gira in questi giorni sui social media presenta una ‘scala dell’indignazione’ che fotografa con precisione l’importanza data dai media alle diverse notizie da comunicare all’opinione pubblica. In cima alla scala ci sono le vetrine rotte con maranza e ragazzini di dieci anni mascherati a contorno, per fare intenzionalmente risaltare, in contemporanea, la pericolosità e l’infantilismo che anima i nuovi movimenti. In seconda posizione sulla scala molto staccata dalla prima ci sono le notizie sul pericolo imminente di invasione della Russia. Seguono su un gradino sempre più marginale le notizie sull’omicidio di Garlasco e sullo sfruttamento degli animali negli allevamenti intensivi. Ormai derubricata in ultima posizione con la messa in disparte del dibattito sulla transizione green è la crisi climatica causata dalla mano criminale dell’uomo a cui giornali e televisioni da messi ormai invitano a farci l’abitudine investendo su condizionatori e assicurazioni contro di danni climatici.
La domanda più urgente da porsi in una società dove il controllo dell’informazione è ormai diventato un monopolio in mano a pochissimi gruppi economici e persone è come mai in prima pagina non è stata pubblicata la notizia che in tutte le città sono partiti cortei pacifici con migliaia di studenti a sostegno dei docenti che chiedono una retribuzione adeguata per il lavoro educativo svolto nel paese con gli stipendi per l’istruzione più bassi di Europa. Tra le notizie dei media è di mercoledì l’informazione che gli inquirenti hanno sequestrato documenti per ipotesi di corruzione sul ponte di Messina. Perché, oltre a intervistare Salvini per informare i cittadini sul nuovo decreto di fermo dei minorenni, non è stato chiesto al ministro di spiegare atti alla mano cosa sta accadendo nello Stretto: un’opera faraonica dal costo stimato di quasi 14 miliardi di euro che gli osservatori indipendenti sempre più dubitano sarà mai realizzata. E perché non si parla delle misure da adottare per affrontare la più grande contaminazione ambientale registrata dal dopoguerra in Italia: quella da PFAS l’’inquinante eterno’ di cui la metà della popolazione veneta presenta valori fuori media nel sangue?
Si può naturalmente seguire con interesse il dibattito in cui i vari politici Meloni, Renzi, Sala, Crosetto e chi più ne ha più ne metta, si prodigano nel rimarcare l’urgenza della repressione nei confronti dei balordi che hanno spaccato qualche vetrina in centro di Milano. L’immagine plastica che salta agli occhi in questi giorni però va detto con franchezza non sono i disordini milanesi, ma il fatto che in Italia è completamente saltato in aria il rapporto di interdipendenza tra informazione libera e democrazia. Ogni sistema che si possa dire democratico ha bisogno di uno spazio pubblico in cui discutere dei fatti, affinché i cittadini possano prendere posizione sia nell’esercizio del voto che nelle azioni da mettere in campo per partecipare alla vita civile del paese.
Nell’ultimo indice di Reporter senza Frontiere, la situazione in cui i cittadini vivono in una condizione informativa accettabile è passata dal 20% all’1% della popolazione mondiale del 2026, mentre l’Italia è scesa dalla 49° alla 56° posizione tra le nazioni con informazione sana.
Nell’esercitazione Nato Steadfast Noon 2026 iniziata il 13 ottobre in Italia sono stati impiegati aerei capaci di trasportare le nuove bombe nucleari a caduta libera nella versione B61-12 da 50 kilotoni (la bomba lanciata sulla popolazione inerme di Hiroshima aveva per dare una comparazione una potenza di 15 kilotoni). Diversi esperti di controllo degli armamenti sostengono che per precisione, capacità di penetrazione e flessibilità queste nuove bombe sono progettate non solo come deterrente, ma anche come strumento da primo attacco. Nessun approfondimento sul tema è recuperabile dall’informazione dei media dominanti. Quando i cittadini non sanno cosa accade, perché i media tacciono, o selezionano le informazioni per creare consenso e compiacere il potere e i grandi gruppi di interesse, la democrazia muore.
L'articolo La scala dell’indignazione vede in cima le vetrine rotte, poi Garlasco. Silenzio sulle armi nucleari proviene da Il Fatto Quotidiano.
A Christian couple who spent more than a decade caring for foster children is celebrating a major legal victory after Washington state agreed to change its licensing rules following a dispute over requirements that foster parents use children's preferred pronouns and comply with gender identity policies, even when those requirements conflicted with their religious beliefs.
Shane and Jennifer DeGross told Fox News Digital in an interview Wednesday that the dispute began in 2022, when they attempted to renew their foster care license and discovered the state had changed its requirements concerning gender identity.
The couple said they were willing to love and care for any child placed in their home but could not agree to certain state-imposed requirements they believed violated their Christian faith.
"We were made aware that the state had updated and changed some of their requirements," Jennifer DeGross told Fox News Digital. "While we agreed that we would love and care for any child in our home, they had specific things that we could not agree to as Christians."
DOJ BACKS NUNS CARING FOR DYING CANCER PATIENTS IN FIGHT AGAINST NEW YORK TRANS IDEOLOGY MANDATE
Shane DeGross said the state required them to affirm the state's views on gender identity and human sexuality.
"Those views directly conflict with the biblical worldview of human sexuality," Shane DeGross said. "So, as Christians, we just couldn't accept that. Our allegiance is to God and the truth of Scripture. And we just couldn't abide by what they were requiring us to affirm."
Washington's licensing policies required foster parents to affirm and support LGBTQ children, including expectations concerning gender identity and the use of preferred names and pronouns. The DeGross family challenged the requirements on religious freedom grounds. Jennifer said the state eventually partially reinstated their license but restricted the ages of children they could foster.
"We felt like even when they reinstated a partial license to us that they were still discriminating against us," she said.
"When a child reached 5, they had to be removed from our home," Jennifer said. "So not only was that upsetting to us, but that's not good for kids, right?"
Jennifer argued that such a restriction could disrupt a child's placement even if the child had already spent years living with a foster family.
"If we had had a child for a couple of years, and then they have to be removed just because they turned or reached a certain age, it's definitely not in the interest of children," she said.
The legal battle resulted in a settlement under which Washington agreed to revise its foster care licensing rules, addressing the conflict between the state's gender identity requirements and foster parents' religious freedom claims.
Johannes Widmalm-Delphonse, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told Fox News Digital that the DeGross' case should serve as a lesson for the rest of the country.
"These foster care agencies, they have to respect the First Amendment rights of foster parents, as well as the children in the system and everyone that they work with," Widmalm-Delphonse said.
"So, states should be on notice from this settlement, as well as some of the other cases that we've seen like the Bates v. Pakseresht decision, that they have to respect First Amendment rights, they have to respect free speech rights, and the way you do that is you invite as many foster parents into the system as possible on the front end, and then you match at the back end according to children's individual needs or family's abilities, comfort level, things like that, which is what they've been doing for decades, and this settlement shows that they can continue doing that now," Widmalm-Delphonse added.
Widmalm-Delphonse said that since the settlement, Washington State has a new proposed regulation, WSR 26-20-103, currently undergoing the public notice and comment process which would in part give foster parents like Shane and Jennifer DeGross a religious exemption.
"This new rule, in part, would give foster parents like the DeGross's a religious exemption from any rule requiring them to violate their religious beliefs on gender or sexuality," Widmalm-Delphonse said.
Shane DeGross told Fox News Digital, "It's a great victory in the sense that more Christians can be available to love and care for foster kids without fear of being excluded because of their religious beliefs."
"It's a huge victory for kids that need a loving home," he added.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
"We are proud of the diversity of our foster parent and kinship caregiver community who have different cultures, religious beliefs, and lived experience," the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families said in a news release on the settlement. "We are grateful that they all open their doors and provide a loving home to children and youth in foster care."
"This settlement agreement respects the religious beliefs of foster parents, while ensuring LGBTQIA+ youth are placed in an environment that is safe and supports their well-being," DCYF Secretary Tana Senn said.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Washington DCYF for further comment.
MANCHESTER, N.H. - Former White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt says she is helping President Donald Trump choose his next press secretary after his first pick for the job lasted just five days.
"I've offered my help to the president to help him select someone who can serve him and the country well," Leavitt said Wednesday evening in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital.
Leavitt served as Trump's press secretary from the start of the president's second term until Aug. 27, when she stepped down from the demanding role to spend more time with her two young children, including a daughter who was born in May.
Her successor, political commentator Katie Zacharia, took over earlier this month, but lasted just five days in the role, making her the shortest-serving White House press secretary in U.S. history.
TRUMP'S NEW PRESS SECRETARY OUT OF A JOB JUST DAYS AFTER ROCKY DEBUT
"White House press secretary is a tough job. I know that because I did it, obviously for almost two years, and many people say it's one of the hardest jobs in politics," Leavitt emphasized.
She noted that the job "takes a lot of preparation and sometimes you don't know how someone will perform until they go out there."
"We wish Katie the best. The job obviously was not for her, but we wish her and her family well," Leavitt added.
When it comes to whom Trump will choose next for the position, Leavitt said the president "is continuing to look over options. There's a lot of people who want that job. It's an amazing job. It provides you with incredible opportunities."
SIGN UP TO GET THE POLITICS NEWSLETTER
Asked what advice she's offered to Trump, Leavitt said, "I'll keep my private counsel to the president private, but I do obviously talk to him about what the job entails, and he knows it very well."
"Nobody understands the press better than Donald Trump. He knows he needs someone who is tough, who is smart, who understands his policies, who is loyal, and who can go out there and put up a fight," she added.
Leavitt, a New Hampshire native, served as an intern in the Trump White House after graduating from Saint Anselm College in 2019. She later became an assistant White House press secretary at the end of Trump's first term.
After Trump's defeat in the 2020 presidential election, Leavitt worked as communications director for Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York. She then served as spokeswoman for the Trump-aligned super PAC MAGA Inc. before taking over as press secretary for Trump's 2024 presidential campaign.
After being named White House press secretary following the 2024 election, Leavitt made history as the youngest person ever in the role.
DEMOCRACY â26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB
Leavitt also ran for Congress in 2022, winning a heavily contested GOP nomination in New Hampshire's 1st District before losing the general election to incumbent Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas.
Asked if she might make another run for public office in her home state when Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan is up for re-election in 2028, Leavitt quickly said, "No, I'm all set. I don't have any plans to run for office in the near future at all, or in the future at all."
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
"I am home with my family, and we're really excited about that," she explained. "Right now I'm really focused on being a wife and a mother to my two very young children. That's why I made the decision to leave Washington. So we're just happy to be home and enjoying the ride."
Leavitt officially becomes a Fox News contributor at the start of November.
Login