Trump THREATENS Murdoch paper over BOMBSHELL LEAK

追加: 2026-05-24

[00:00:00]President Trump wants an end to the media leaks. So much so that he personally urged his acting attorney general Todd Blanche to aggressively investigate the leaks, including issuing subpoenas to reporters who cover the Iran war. It's clear Trump is panicking because he's threatening legal action against a newspaper that's usually favorable to him.

[00:00:24]Is reporting leaked information treason or is it protected under the First Amendment? President appears to think it's the former. His administration is cracking down on leaks and now going after reporters and outlets who reported them. At one point, the Wall Street Journal uh said that Trump passed a stack of news articles that he thought threatened national security to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, on top of which was a sticky note that just read treason.

[00:00:49]The crackdown took another turn this week. The Journal says that the DOJ served the outlet with several subpoenas Monday demanding its reporters' records related to an article published in February before Operation Epic Fury began. The Wall Street Journal has just revealed that they have been targeted by Trump. Yes, a Murdoch-owned newspaper that's flagrantly printing glowing pieces to Trump. Well, Trump is targeting them by issuing subpoenas against their reporters for daring to print that a general was questioning whether or not going into Iran was a good idea days before that war started.

[00:01:33]So, let's get into it. I mean, this kind of reporting, this article that came out back in February, was pretty innocuous, all things considered. It said that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Cain, raised the question of whether or not we had a strategy, whether or not this was going to reduce our stockpile, whether or not it was going to overextend our military.

[00:01:56]All of those things are bearing out to be correct for him to have raised. Well, Trump evidently was so upset at the mere mention that there was a robust discussion before sending our military into harm's way.

[00:02:13]The fact that anybody had a question about that, he's so upset he's issuing these subpoenas. I mean, could you imagine if they had actually reported something like the Pentagon Papers? Now, if you remember, the Pentagon Papers were reprinted back in 1971. This went all the way up to the Supreme Court. It was 7,000 pages of classified material that revealed how much the government was basically lying to the American people about the Vietnam War. 7,000 pages of national security. Here, this is just a report about the fact of some general who was literally in charge of making sure our military is used appropriately is questioning whether or not we have thought of every potential problem with this war. I take the point that government agencies have a interest in prohibiting leaks and in punishing leaks where they appear. I take the point that the government has an interest in that.

[00:03:12]Now, that obviously clashes with what is often the right of the citizenry to know as much as possible as to what is happening by with their government.

[00:03:21]Whether the measures are taken by Trump or by Biden or Obama, I think one of the dangers is that you have a chilling effect on journalism by even if you accept, and some people don't, but even if you accept that it is a good faith or legitimate effort to try to find a leaker. When you have, for example, as happened with a Washington Post journalist a few months ago, her home being searched, or where you have subpoenas that are being directed here at journalists, at reporters, then I think it is legitimate to argue that that has an intimidatory effect or could be intended to have an intimidatory effect on journalism. Of course, the Supreme Court sided with the New York Times and allowed them to print the Pentagon Papers. Now, the thing is about going after journalists who print sources, anonymous sources, who may have leaked classified information to them is that they have a First Amendment right to print. Under Biden in 2022, Biden policy enacted a very robust protection saying that the DOJ can't go after journalists for printing this exact thing. Of course, Trump rescinded that. Most states in our country have shield laws that protects report reporters from printing this. The federal government does not have it.

[00:04:43]They always have a First Amendment right, but often they will have to go to court and either sometimes go to jail for not revealing their sources or the judge will agree with them to not reveal the source. The thing is if Trump really cared about the leaks, he would go after the government official who is leaking it. Let's think of one person who maybe leaked to a reporter, Hegseth, using the Signal chat, and top brass going out there and saying that they are going to make sure that there aren't leaks and they are going to come after any reporter or anybody in that government who's leaking and yet Hegseth is still in charge of the Pentagon. The hypocrisy. They don't care actually about information being leaked or not being leaked. They just don't want criticism or any question of what they're doing, and that is exactly what the First Amendment is meant to protect.

[00:05:40]The Washington Post demanded in a court filing Wednesday that federal law enforcement officials return electronic devices that the government seized from a staff reporter's home last week.

[00:05:51]The FBI executed a search warrant on January 14th at the Virginia home of Hanna Natanson as part of an investigation of a government contractor charged with illegally retaining classified government materials.

[00:06:06]According to post reports, federal agents seized a phone, two laptops, and other devices from Natanson.

[00:06:13]In a statement on Wednesday, the post said, "Quote, the outrageous seizure of our reporter's confidential newsgathering materials chills speech, cripples reporting, and inflicts irreparable harm every day the government keeps its hands on these materials." According to first amendment advocacy groups, the search marked the first time the US government has raided a journalist's home as part of a national security leak investigation.

[00:06:38]Trump is also going after the Washington Post and specifically a reporter there, Hanna Natanson. All of her devices received by the FBI because Trump didn't like her reporting. Right now, they are not able to look through the devices, a judge has stopped that, but she hasn't even gotten her devices yet. That may be part of the reason why the Pulitzer Prize committee just awarded her and her team at the Washington Post a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting of Trump. At the end of the day, Trump is going after journalists and trying to silence them.

[00:07:12]And when you go after your own Republican-backed Murdoch paper, it is because things are very bad for you.

[00:07:25]Mr. President, why wait for Congress to release the Epstein files? Why not just do it now?

[00:07:30]It's not the question that I'm on, it's your attitude.

[00:07:33]I think you are a terrible reporter.

[00:07:36]Uh it's the way you ask these questions.

[00:07:38]You start off with a man who's highly respected asking him a horrible uh insubordinate and and just a terrible question. People are wise to your hoax and ABC's is your company, your crappy company is one of the the perpetrators.

[00:07:52]And I'll tell you something, I'll tell you something.

[00:07:55]I think the license should be taken away from ABC.

[00:07:59]Because your news is so fake and it's so wrong. And we have a great commissioner, chairman, who should look at that because I think when you come in and when you're 97% negative to Trump and then Trump wins the election in a landslide, that means obviously your news is not credible.

[00:08:19]Um we watch you almost daily with the media and I think you enjoy it. You bring them in, they have gaggles, you keep them there for a long period of time, probably >> that I enjoy it. You don't enjoy it?

[00:08:30]>> No. I enjoy Well, every question's a kill, you know, they're always going for the kill. Every question, you see these people with the hatred. I said, "You have such hatred when you ask the question, why? Because they have a strong border? Because they have a good military? Why do you have such hatred?"

[00:08:43]It's the whole thing is crazy.

[00:08:45]It's not that I enjoy it.

[00:08:47]It's that I can get the word out because I don't get the word out. I mean, look, Fox is great and you know, we have some that are good, but overall, if you read the New York Times, you actually think we're losing or not doing well in Iran. They have no navy, they have no air force. It's all It's It's gone. It's just a question of time. If we want we stopped. Could have gone for another few weeks, it would have been over.

[00:09:14]I did that at the request of a lot of leaders that are friendly with them.

[00:09:19]It's not going to matter for them.

[00:09:21]They're finished.

[00:09:23]Now they can make a deal or they get annihilated. I don't want to do that. But we have the greatest military and you know, when you uh when you do news conferences, you're getting the word out that you're not going to read in the New York Times. I mean, I read these things. I see some of your other networks the way they cover they will take a massive military victory and make it like we should have done it faster.

[00:09:49]Thanks for watching. Be sure to add the Midas Touch Podcast on Apple Podcast, [music] Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast for new updates every single day.