Brendan Carr’s F.C.C. Has Been Busy. Plus, Rewriting the History of Watergate.

And we have to work together to smash the censorship cartel.

The new chairman of the FCC is putting the squeeze on news outlets.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Brooke Gladstone.

And I'm Michael Loenger.

Also on this week's show, there's a reason that some on the right want to reshape our collective memory of Watergate.

The idea that a clear majority of the country could be so repulsed by a president's authoritarianism,

let's make sure that never comes back again.

Plus, for Brian Stevenson, the Trump administration's targeting of the Smithsonian for quote improper ideology makes the case for confronting America's darkest legacies.

I'm not interested in talking about these things because I want to punish America.

I want to liberate us.

There's a thriving democracy waiting for us, but we can't get there if we don't have the courage to be honest about the things that have held us back.

It's all coming up after this.

the media is supported by Progressive Insurance.

Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash?

Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies.

Try it at progressive.com, progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates.

Potential savings will vary, not available in all states.

This message is brought to you by Apple Card.

Some credit card companies sell your spending data.

We don't, because your business is not our business.

If your credit card isn't AppleCard, maybe it should be.

Subject to credit approval, AppleCard issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch.

Terms and more at applecard.com.

From WNYC in New York, this is on the media.

I'm Michael Loewinger.

And I'm Brooke Gladstone.

On Tuesday, amid remembrances of Pope Francis and Earth Day celebrations, the dramatic resignation of a guy named Bill Owens still managed to make the news, for good reason.

This is huge news.

And I mean, this literally shook the media news world today.

The executive producer of CBS News's 60 Minutes, calling it quits today.

He had been with the news program for 24 years, 37 years at CBS.

Now, normally, that would probably not be news that we would bring you, except the circumstances rise to the level of, well, alarm.

Owens said in a letter to his staff that, quote, over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience.

And the context here is key.

60 Minutes is facing a $20 billion lawsuit from President Trump and an FCC investigation into, quote, intentional news distortion.

And the context?

The network's owner wants to expand, which the FCC could obstruct.

It's just one in a series of intimidations, investigations launched or revived under the FCC's FCC's new chairman, Brendan Carr.

Just a quick note here, WNYC, our producing station, is also under investigation by the FCC, along with a bunch of other public TV and radio stations.

Next week marks Carr's first hundred days as chairman.

He's been busy.

Brendan Carr has sent letters to both Comcast and Disney saying that he would be looking into whether or not their diversity hiring initiatives violated rules around fair hiring.

Max Tanney is Semaphore's media editor.

He filled me in on what Brendan Carr's been up to.

The DEI hiring practices were part of what Brendan Carr laid out in Project 2025.

But has he actually done anything on this stuff?

He's just said that he's going to.

And that's another thing that is really important to keep in mind here.

Brendan Carr has sent a lot of signals via Twitter, sent a lot of very threatening legal letters.

He hasn't actually done much other than reopen investigations.

As I mentioned, he's also looking into PBS and NPR, including some NPR member stations, ours among them.

It's the nature of non-commercial public sponsorship messages that Carr is using as his lever.

He's concerned that some of them might be commercials, but actually they're underwriting.

And there are distinctions about what is and isn't allowed in public radio's sponsorship mentions.

From talking to people at NPR, I feel that I can say this confidently.

There is a view that this is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to cut federal funding for public media.

I don't think that's much of a strange.

But obviously, the FCC has to operate within certain regulatory framework.

And the focus of this complaint is not the ideological position that Carr and other Republicans have, which is that the federal government shouldn't be paying to fund public radio.

Their complaint is about, oh, well, you actually violated some of the rules around sponsorships, and these sponsorships are actually ads.

And NPR believes that it's done nothing wrong here.

On to the attacks on the networks.

During the election, CBS aired an interview with Kamala Harris that Trump claimed was unfairly edited to, I don't know, make her sound smart.

Subsequently, the conservative legal group called the Center for American Rights, that's Carr, filed an FCC complaint calling for an investigation into CBS.

It didn't go anywhere, but Brendan Carr revived this complaint along with complaints of bias against ABC and NBC, which were also earlier dismissed.

So what do we know about the complaints against ABC and NBC?

The complaint that's been reopened into ABC is the result of what some on the right see as unfair moderation in favor of Kamala Harris during one presidential debate between Harris and Trump.

The complaint against NBC is essentially a fair time complaint.

I love this one.

Yes, Kamala Harris appeared on Saturday Night Live, right in the weeks before the election.

It is nice to see you, Kamala.

It is nice to see you, Kamala.

And I'm just here to remind you, you got this.

That made Donald Trump very upset.

And so he complained about it, said he wasn't being given equal time.

The former FCC commissioner under Biden, Jessica Rosenwarsal, dismissed the complaint at the end of her term, saying that NBC had made available equivalent time for Trump during other events.

So this week, we learned that Bill Owens is stepping down as executive producer of CBS's 60 Minutes.

That has to do with what seemed like a capitulation because Sherry Redstone, who is the ultimate boss, wants to do a merger.

Yeah, basically what we have found from talking to people within CBS and Paramount is that in recent weeks, as Paramount, the parent company of CBS, is trying to do a merger with Skydance, an entertainment company, that deal has not closed pending some FCC regulation.

President Donald Trump has taken a strong interest in the editorial direction of 60 Minutes.

Just earlier this month, he complained about segments that the broadcaster ran on Ukraine and Greenland.

On True Social, he writes, quote, CBS is out of control at levels never seen before, and they should pay a big price for this.

They should lose their license, he said.

Hopefully, the federal chairman, Brendan Carr, will impose the maximum fines and punishment for their unlawful and illegal behavior.

And the result of that was quite a lot of anxiety within Paramount, which is desperate for this deal to close.

And what we've reported is that Sherry Redstone and Paramount was very interested to know the remaining segments that 60 Minutes was going to be running on Trump for the rest of the the season, which ends in the middle of May.

We journalists don't like having the suits telling us what we can and what we can't report.

And Sherry Redstone's actually been increasingly public in her criticism of 60 Minutes.

In early January, she appointed Susan Zarinski, the former head of CBS News, to act as a standards editor.

Zarinski has been looking over many of the more controversial and sensitive segments that have aired on CBS.

Now, in terms of the editing of the Kamala Harris interview, they decided they'd go ahead and turn over the full transcript and nobody found anything wrong with it?

That's right.

CBS and Paramount made an unusual decision to turn over the unedited transcript to the FCC.

And they did take an additional step to release this publicly.

We see from the transcript, they just took a different part of the same answer to clarify a statement from Harris, which was a little bit unclear.

You would teach this in journalism school, essentially.

Run the most clear answer that gets closest to what the subject is trying to say.

You know, I can't tell you how many times in editing I have dropped the first sentence of a guest's answer.

That's generally the thumb-sucking, time-filling moment where they're thinking.

I'm sure you'll do that for this interview, and I think the audience will thank you for it.

But Carr is still going with it, or is it just to put pressure on Sherry Redstone?

He's left it open.

It does beg the question of what exactly you're investigating if the transcript is out there.

Everyone can judge for themselves whether the news has been distorted.

With regard to the complaint against CBS, Carr did invoke the news distortion policy, which is very rarely used.

You have to provide evidence that the broadcast entity actually intended malice.

One of the things things that I've done over the past few days is look at when has this been used before.

There have only been a handful of complaints in recent years around news distortion, and generally they have not resulted in investigations, and even the ones that have resulted in investigations haven't often resulted in fines.

And so it is very, very unusual for the FCC commissioner to be getting involved in the editorial decisions of broadcasters.

One of the things that I think is really interesting here is the balance that Brendan Carr is trying to strike.

He's talked a lot about the desire for deregulation in the broadcast space, the desire for the government to get out of making some of those decisions.

Wow.

Yeah, yes.

You've recognized the irony that at the same time, he also has been one of the most active commissioners of the FCC in recent memory.

One of my top priorities is trying to smash this censorship cartel.

A lot of censorship that these companies are doing on their own.

You also have, secondarily pressure, particularly the last couple of years from the Biden administration to censor.

But also you've got this cohort of advertising and marketing agencies that are sort of the tip of the spear to enforce.

So if the impact of all of this is fundamentally to strike fear, Bill Owens' departure from CBS seems like a sign that it's already having a chilling effect.

Where else is the temperature dropping?

because of CAR?

He's also opened up an inquiry into Odyssey, the radio broadcaster.

He pointed to a broadcast on one of their California AM stations earlier this year, a Hispanic radio station that was essentially letting listeners know that there were local ICE raids that were happening in the area.

And he said that that violated regulations and that he would be looking into it.

But we should note as well that Carr had singled out Soros-funded media before even becoming FCC chair.

Odyssey is owned by Soros Fund Management and is a large public broadcaster.

So that's one place that we haven't mentioned yet that is certainly seeing additional federal scrutiny.

For the last year and a half, Truth Social has relentlessly pursued a defamation case against 19 media companies that flubbed a story about the platform's earnings, said that it had lost more money than it had actually lost.

Among his targets was the media company Nexstar, which owns a lot of stations and also the Washington political newsletter The Hill, it settled, even though a lot of people said they had a really good case.

Nexstar, which is a large owner of local broadcasters, has been lobbying the Trump administration and the FCC to lift the ownership cap on local stations.

Right now, there is a regulation in place that limits the amount of stations that can be owned by one company.

We reported earlier this month that Nexstar actually in late 2023 reached a settlement with Truth Social to fire one of its reporters in exchange for Truth Social dropping a defamation lawsuit.

This reporter's job was essentially to rewrite news from other organizations.

They were assigned this story from the Hollywood Reporter and kind of just wrote it up.

Under most circumstances, this would be seen as slightly sloppy.

It was obviously a pretty strong signal that Nexstar was willing to make some compromises.

And it should be noted that they were the only media company that was dropped from this suit.

And, you know, since Trump has returned to office, the Hill has said that it's going to make some changes.

They've said that they are going to get rid of their DEI reporter, one of their immigration reporters, one of the reporters on climate change and the environment.

So it does seem like part of a very, very deliberate strategy to send signals to the Trump administration that they don't want to be perceived as too part of the left.

The fact that The Hill is dropping all those beats says an awful lot.

And I wonder what you think the public needs to know about the nature and severity of these pressures on journalists.

I mean, so much is in chaos.

How high should this issue rank on our anxiety list?

Below threats to Medicaid, but above, say, renaming the Gulf of Mexico?

I mean, this is the question about stakes.

You see, over the last four years, Trump and allies of Trump have really thought hard about the levers that they could pull, the pressure that they could put on media organizations.

You're seeing that play out across broadcast news in particular.

The people that lose in this case are the news consumers who do suffer if an organization decides that they're so scared of federal government regulation that they're just going to hold back, not go as far as they might go, or decide to scrap something altogether.

A.J.

Liebling often observed that news is fundamentally a business.

And, you know, there are good parts to that.

That way the government can't control it.

But if the business gets too big,

then it runs into the government all over again.

And its future comes down to

rich people talking to other rich people and the regular people who they serve really don't get a vote.

Yeah, and you really do see that in these big multifaceted corporations that make a lot more money from other parts of the business, whether that is something like theme parks or internet.

Or they just want to grow, grow, grow.

Exactly.

You definitely see over the last several months that news concerns and pursuing the most aggressive journalism possible is taking a backseat.

At just the wrong time, I think.

As a journalist, obviously, my bias is in favor of aggressive and fair reporting, and any situation in which that's impeded, obviously, is deeply concerning to me.

Thank you so much.

Brooke, thank you.

Max Tanney is the media editor at Semaphore and co-host of the podcast Mixed Signals.

Right after we recorded this interview, the Wall Street Journal broke the news that Paramount is in talks with the FCC to make concessions over their DEI initiatives.

Coming up, turns out it's never too late to rewrite history.

This is On the Media.

On the Media is supported by hims and hers.

If you're someone who values choice in your money, your goals, and your future, then you know how frustrating traditional health care can be.

One size fits all treatments, preset dosages, zero flexibility.

It's like trying to budget with a fixed expense you didn't even choose.

But now, there's another way, with HIMS and HERS.

HIMS and HERS is reimagining healthcare with you in mind.

They offer access to personalized care for weight loss, hair loss, sexual health, and mental health, because your goals, your biology, and your lifestyle are anything but average.

No membership fees, no surprise fees, just transparent pricing and real care that you can access from anywhere.

Feel like your best self thanks to quality, convenient care through HIMS and HERS.

Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com slash OTM.

That's HIMS.com slash OTM to find your personalized treatment options.

Not available everywhere.

Prescription products require provider consultation.

See website for full details, important safety information, and restrictions.

This message is brought to you by AppleCard.

Did you know AppleCard is designed to help you pay off your balance faster with smart payment suggestions?

And because fees don't help you, AppleCard doesn't have any.

So if your credit card isn't AppleCard, maybe it should be.

Subject to credit approval: AppleCard issued by Goldman Sachs Bank, USA, Salt Lake City Branch.

Variable APRs range from 18.24% to 28.49% based on creditworthiness.

Rates as of July 1st, 2025.

Terms and more at AppleCard.com.

Star Trek Con.

The untold story of Star Trek's most legendary villain.

Cuck did us a favor.

From this quintessence of dust, we will rise.

Listen to Star Trek Con, wherever you get your podcasts.

I

am

This is on the media.

I'm Brooke Gladstone.

And I'm Michael Loewinger.

Everything old is new again in America.

Now and always.

Can I go back to like what I learned about the Woodward Bernstein Nixon thing at Watergate that was all essentially an intelligence operation?

Have you ever looked into that?

This is podcaster Joe Rogan in an episode of his show released this week.

They tried to get Nixon out of there, the most popular president in the history of the country in terms of the vote.

And they were successful.

Rogan made the same claim last month during his interview with actor Bill Murray.

Like, it was a complete intelligence operation.

Nixon definitely did the things they accused him of, but the whole thing was sort of coordinated by the intelligence agents to get Nixon out of office.

That Rogan has repeated this conspiracy theory three times on his show is a coup for the decades-long movement to rewrite the history of Watergate and rehabilitate the 37th president.

And we're still learning a lot about Watergate, particularly over the last couple of years.

There's been a number of new revelations regarding regarding the Watergate Special Prosecutor's files.

This is a 2024 C-SPAN interview with Jim Byron, who has since been appointed to a senior archivist role at the National Archives by Donald Trump.

The story of Watergate isn't over.

It remains endlessly fascinating.

And I think that what it's revealing is that there is this great thirst for a fuller understanding of President Nixon.

Like I said earlier.

Byron, who is not a historian, was the president and CEO of the Nixon Foundation and its library, one of 16 presidential libraries administered by the National Archives.

But it only joined the non-partisan National Archives system in 2007, at which point a fight broke out around how the Nixon Foundation had been presenting the history of Watergate to the public.

Many observers noticed that even by the standards of presidential libraries, the tone was aggressively partisan.

Historian Michael Konsowicz wrote an article for Time.com about this effort to rescue Nixon's legacy.

There were lines that were critical of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the reporters who uncovered Watergate.

There were lines that attacked John F.

Kennedy and Robert F.

Kennedy.

The tone was more aggressive, and that's because it was a private library.

But that changes in 2007.

Under the leadership of then Director John Taylor, this was a close aide to Richard Nixon in the 1980s and 90s, he strikes a deal with the National Archives to join the federal presidential library system.

You were working there, right?

You witnessed some of the tension between these two institutions firsthand.

I did.

I started working at the Nixon Library in 2010.

Our staff was trying their hardest to create a new exhibit about Watergate to explain the Watergate scandal and Richard Nixon's resignation in a textbook way.

That was a struggle.

because the Nixon Foundation changed their leadership during this time and got rid of the individual who made the deal deal with the National Archives.

And in their places were people who were much more protective of Richard Nixon's legacy.

They pressured the National Archives to not support this exhibit.

Fortunately for our staff, the exhibit went up in 2011 and it's still there to this day.

But the fact that it was such a long process speaks to the fact that the Nixon Foundation and their supporters did not agree that Watergate was a settled subject.

They saw it as a battle in their campaign to rehabilitate Richard Nixon's legacy.

And that battle over the historical memory of Watergate and Richard Nixon is very much still alive.

In mid-February, Trump declared on Truth Social that the president of the Nixon Foundation, Jim Byron, would act as senior advisor to Marco Rubio, the current acting archivist at the National Archives and Records Administration.

This seems to be a big win for the pro-Nixon camp, right?

They're basically running our our nation's archives at this point.

Why is this bigger than just a battle between historians?

We can break this up into two parts.

What's at stake is, for one, an attempt to weaken the National Archives' ability to frame history in a nonpartisan way to the American people.

If you cannot agree on the standard story of Watergate, then what can you agree to?

That's why this battle matters so much.

Richard Nixon still to this day's approval ratings are fairly low.

There was a Gallup poll, I believe, in 2023.

I think he was around 32, 33%.

And so he's still generally seen as an unpopular president.

What has changed, though, is Richard Nixon's crimes were seen as exceptional 50 years ago.

And those crimes are not seen as nearly exceptional as they once were.

Richard Nixon's crimes are instead seen by an increasing number of American people, conservative or otherwise, as sort of run-of-the-mill politics.

In the years immediately following his resignation, most conservatives didn't want to touch Nixon with a 10-foot poll.

But there were a few outspoken voices that tried to clear up his legacy.

What were they saying?

And were they getting any traction at the time?

They were enthusiastic supporters of Richard Nixon.

I mean, Pat Buchanan was one of Richard Nixon's top speechwriters.

G.

Gordon Liddy went to prison for the 37th president of the United States.

Because he was one of the organizers of Watergate himself.

Yes, G.

Gordon Liddy was in the lookout building across the street from the Watergate Hotel.

He's part of the plumbers unit.

He nevertheless, though, sees Richard Nixon as a martyr for the conservative movement that was trying to counter the social movements of the new left, movements for racial justice, for gender equality.

Pat Buchanan, in many ways, Watergate reinforced his views about just how important of a figure Richard Nixon was for the conservative movement.

This is true of other conservatives.

M.

Stanton Evans, longtime conservative activist, told the journalist/slash historian Rick Perlstein in the mid-2000s, I never liked Richard Nixon until Watergate.

Reading the Watergate transcripts actually made him more of a fan.

Prior to that, he saw Nixon as this complicated ideological figure who conservatives could not trust because his domestic record and to a certain extent, even his foreign policy record, did not follow conservative values.

But when he read the Watergate transcripts, he liked the fact that Nixon hated the new left so much, that Nixon's dark side was so much a part of his personality.

And I think for several decades, it's fair to assume that was true of many other conservatives who kept those views secret.

What's happened in the last decade is with the rise of Donald Trump, a lot of those conservatives have come out of the closet as Nixon supporters, or they themselves have rediscovered Nixon and realized that, hey, this is the president that we should focus on.

Not Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, as Christopher Ruffo says, Richard Nixon is the model for counterrevolution.

What about Donald Trump?

What do we know about his views on the 37th president?

The two actually met each other in New York in the 1980s.

They had some mutual friends, people like Roger Stone, Roy Cohn.

Nixon and Trump had several encounters.

There is even a letter that Donald Trump framed from Richard Nixon where Nixon said, you have a future career in politics if you want it.

Donald Trump kept that letter and framed it in his office.

What I think is more important is the people who Trump surrounds himself with.

That suggests that he is at least willing to take Watergate revisionism quite seriously.

Roger Stone, longtime close advisor to Donald Trump.

He has a small museum of Nixon memorabilia.

He has a tattoo of the 37th president on his back.

A giant tattoo.

Yes, yes, yes.

The symbolism isn't exactly subtle here.

And in 2019, he even mentioned Richard Nixon's legacy when he was asked about not firing Robert Mueller.

I learned a lot from Richard Nixon.

Don't fire people.

He did not always follow that advice, but I think it's interesting that he mentioned that during a pivotal moment during his first term.

Here is J.D.

Vance with a bit of foreshadowing speaking at the National Conservative Conference in 2021.

This is how he ended his speech.

And there was a wisdom in what Richard Nixon said approximately 40, 50 years ago.

He said, and I quote, the professors are the enemy.

The quote he includes in his speech comes from the Nixon White House tapes.

This was a source of shame, even among Nixon supporters, for many decades.

And now J.D.

Vance is bragging about this conversation and speaking about it favorably to a crowd of national conservatives.

Tell me about some of the other narratives that conservatives have been pushing about Nixon and Watergate.

You mentioned Christopher Christopher Ruffo before.

How has he been talking about Nixon?

In the summer of 2023, Christopher Ruffo puts out a 10-minute video on his website.

Although Nixon failed to realize his ambitions during his presidency, he still holds the key to understanding America's ongoing cultural revolution and how to defeat it.

And so Ruffo is telling his fans that if you are uncomfortable with today's left, then you need to look to Richard Nixon for inspiration.

In that video, Ruffo Ruffo pointed to Nixon's use of law enforcement to go after political dissidents.

He refers to Nixon's so-called counter-revolution against the New Deal and great society government programs, basically anything in government that could be associated with progressivism.

And ultimately, he argues Nixon wasn't some disgraced leader who chose to resign in scandal, but rather that he was the target of a deep state conspiracy.

Harper's editor Jim Hogan, former Nixon aide Jeff Shepard, and other researchers have uncovered tens of thousands of declassified documents that reveal the black hand of the state as a prime mover in Nixon's demise.

Yeah, what these figures often neglect to even acknowledge is that, well, Richard Nixon committed crimes, and we have taped evidence.

We also have tons of evidence to show that Richard Nixon repeatedly tried to use the IRS for political purposes.

He targeted hundreds and hundreds of individuals whose only crime was opposing Richard Nixon's presidency.

None of these Watergate revisionists will ever fully acknowledge the evidence that is easily accessible to the American people that prove that Richard Nixon was guilty of a crime.

Tucker Carlson, former Fox News host, he's in this Richard Nixon revisionist movement.

Tell me about his role in all of this.

Tucker Carlson seems to start caring about Nixon and Watergate around 2017, 2018, in the middle of the Mueller investigation into Donald Trump and Russia.

And in 2018, Carlson visits the Nixon Library.

He speaks in their replica of the East Room, and he tells the crowd, I have never been here, and I was just stunned by what I'd missed about the Nixon.

Later on, when he loses his show in Fox News and he starts a new show on X, he actually brings on Jeff Shepard, one of the most well-known Watergate revisionists.

He's gone as far to say that the CIA was out to get Richard Nixon.

He apparently has even convinced Joe Rogan of this.

So why did they want to get rid of Nixon?

First of all, we don't need to know motive to know what happened.

They, meaning unelected federal employees, got rid of Richard Nixon, which is the most anti-democratic way to make a leadership change that there is.

Okay.

Back to today.

All of these people, Christopher Ruffo, Tucker Carlson, the people at the National Archives, why are they trying to rewrite the history of Watergate?

What is the modern day political use in changing how Americans think about this moment in the 70s?

The idea that a clear majority of the country could be so repulsed by a president's authoritarianism, well, let's try to throw that out the window.

Let's make sure that never comes back again.

And so if they can poke enough holes in the standard story of Watergate or the American public's understanding of Richard Nixon, if they can get casual consumers of history to understand that, hey, maybe Nixon wasn't as bad as you thought he was,

then what that will do is make it far harder for another Watergate to ever happen again.

There are so many storylines to keep track of, so many

attacks on federal agencies and parts of our government that we've long taken for granted.

What's your pitch to listeners for why they should be paying attention to what's happening at the National Archives?

Why does it matter?

If we can't document our own history, particularly the history of presidential crimes, then almost anything could be manipulated.

If we can't trust the federal government to handle these basic facts of U.S.

history, then what can we trust them with?

Michael, thank you very much.

Thank you, Michael.

Michael Konsowicz is a political historian and the associate director of New York University's Institute for Public Knowledge.

Coming up, yes, there is hope for restoring and preserving the whole American story.

This is On the Media.

On the Media is supported by him's and hers.

If you're someone who values choice in your money, your goals, and your future, then you know how frustrating traditional healthcare can be.

One size fits all treatments, preset dosages, zero flexibility.

It's like trying to budget with a fixed expense you didn't even choose.

But now, there's another way, with HIMS and HERS.

HIMS HERS is reimagining healthcare with you in mind.

They offer access to personalized care for weight loss, hair loss, sexual health, and mental health, because your goals, your biology, and your lifestyle are anything but average.

No membership fees, no surprise fees, just transparent pricing and real care that you can access from anywhere.

Feel like your best self thanks to quality, convenient care through HIMS and HERS.

Start your free online visit today at HIMS.com/slash OTM.

That's hims.com/slash OTM to find your personalized treatment options.

Not available everywhere.

Prescription products require provider consultation.

See website for full details, important safety information, and restrictions.

Oh, watch your step.

Wow, your attic is so dark.

Dark.

I know, right?

It's the perfect place to stream horror movies.

Flame.

What movie is that?

I haven't pressed play yet.

ATT Fiber with Al-Fi covers your whole house, even your really, really creepy attic turned home theater.

Jimmy, what have I told you about scaring your guests?

Get ATT Fiber with Al-Fi and live like a gagillionaire.

Limited availability coverage may require extenders at additional charge.

Star Trek Con.

The untold story of Star Trek's most legendary villain.

Cuck did us a favor.

From this quintessence of dust, we will rise.

Listen to Star Trek Con, wherever you get your podcasts.

I

am

con!

This is on the media.

I'm Michael Lowinger.

And I'm Brooke Gladstone.

Last month, President Trump ambushed the world's largest museum complex with his executive order titled, Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.

Part of the executive order reads, quote, Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.

President Trump fires a broadside at one of America's leading cultural institutions, the Smithsonian, saying wants to deny funding for what he calls improper ideology.

The executive order also lambasts an ongoing exhibit about race and sculpture at the Smithsonian American Art Museum for observing that societies, including ours, quote, have used race to establish and maintain systems of power, privilege, and disenfranchisement.

And that, quote, race is a human invention.

Just a little over a week after that order.

The National Park Service has removed a reference to Harriet Tubman from a webpage about the Underground Railroad.

Several references to enslaved people and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 are also gone.

This is all part of the administration's effort to root out what it calls improper ideology.

But what do these assaults on our museums and memorials imply for our collective understanding of history, especially the darkest parts of our history?

There's no ideology in documenting the history of slavery or lynching or segregation.

Brian Stevenson is a public interest lawyer and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, a human rights organization based in Montgomery, Alabama.

Later, he led the creation of the Legacy Museum and the National Memorial for Peace and Justice and the Freedom Monument Sculpture Park, all of which commemorate our nation's history of slavery and racism.

But what we've seen of the standards of the White House, these institutions would indeed be deemed improper.

I asked him what he thought of the whole idea.

If I present to you the laws that codified racial hierarchy in many parts of this country, they created a racial order that existed for a very long time.

And you cannot understand the achievement of the Tuskegee Airmen or Jackie Robinson if you don't understand

this history.

So what about this history is he so afraid of?

I don't think it's just the president.

We've never fully addressed the legacy of slavery.

Never.

The African American History Museum and Culture in Washington that was the target of some of these orders didn't exist until 2015.

And so we're in the early days of trying to create an honest record.

We opened our National Memorial in 2018.

It was the first time there was a comprehensive memorial in this country about the history of racial violence and lynching.

So for many Americans who grew up with no conversation, nothing in the cultural landscape, this is new.

It's just we're now getting to a full account of this history.

It's not ideological.

It's not intended to be disruptive.

I'm not interested in talking about these things because I want to punish America.

I want to liberate us.

I actually think there's something that feels more like the kind of thriving democracy that we seek waiting for us, but we can't get there if we don't have the courage to be honest about the things that have held us back.

So Trump's order claims that the Smithsonians' rewrite of history, he calls it, deepens societal divides and fosters a sense of national shame.

Conservatives often use national shame as a kind of a cudgel.

What about the children?

If they learn about our racist past, they'll hate themselves.

Or maybe they just don't believe that slavery actually left that legacy you referred to, the inability to amass generational wealth because of housing redlining or bars to higher education.

I mean, Trump's first big lawsuit in the 70s, a loser of a case he was forced to settle, involved keeping black renters out of his father's apartment blocks.

We have a 9-11 memorial in this country.

We built it almost immediately after the tragedy of that day.

We were the victim then.

We weren't the perpetrators.

But hear me out.

What I'm trying to say is that we saw value in acknowledging the suffering that people experienced in this country on the day of that tragedy.

Now, we're not good in this country of memorializing the things that we have done wrong.

But it doesn't mean that we don't believe that memorialization is important.

And I think that's an important distinction to make.

Because if we believe it's important for ourselves, then we have to believe that it's important for us to do when we're on the other side of the stake.

But we haven't applied it historically because we haven't had to.

I think that Trump and the Heritage Foundation that created Project 2025, they all believe very strongly in the power of monuments and in the power of history, which is why they're working so hard to extirpate those memorials to parts of history that they would prefer.

we don't remember.

I know from having spoken to you before that when you were developing your own museums, which powerfully present our history of slavery and racism and the continuing impact, you drew inspiration from how the memory of the horrors of the Holocaust was preserved not just in curricula, but on the streets of Berlin.

Nowadays, however, plenty of people in an increasingly right-leaning Germany have started to grouse.

They don't like it at all.

Well, I don't think we should think that memorialization will save us from all of the challenges that are created when you're in an era governed by the politics of fear and anger.

When people allow themselves to be governed by fear and anger, they start to tolerate things they wouldn't otherwise tolerate.

They start to accept things they wouldn't otherwise accept.

How far you will go, how much pain and suffering you will create, is dependent on how much you still know and understand.

And so if you know and understand that there was a Holocaust in Germany, then maybe there will be some constraints on what happens in that country that honestly we don't have in this country because we haven't done that same kind of reckoning.

It's not a guarantee, but there's a consciousness about the harm of that history that even those people are careful, many of them, to not be completely identified by that era.

According to Nate Freeman, writing in Vanity Fair, the Smithsonian is firewalled from changing administrations because Congress appoints the Smithsonian's governing regents who can serve years, sometimes decades.

It's got some insulation.

So legally, it might be harder for Trump to have his way, at least with the Smithsonian, then again, you know, Congress.

How successful is he likely to be?

There will be tremendous resistance on institutionalizing narratives that are false or that are incomplete.

And we've seen that already.

Immediately when this order went out about what DEI is and the hysteria around DEI, a base in Texas said, oh, we can't talk about the Tuskegee airmen because they were black air pilots who did extraordinary things in the first half of the 20th century.

We can't show a film about the first women who were pilots because they thought that was advancing DEI.

So anything that doesn't involve white men.

Yes.

But people quickly reacted to that.

There was an effort to take Jackie Robinson's history off of a website.

People want the symbols of achievement and freedom, but they don't want the story that makes these achievements so meaningful.

I think there will be tremendous resistance.

That doesn't mean that it won't happen, which then means that we have got to create institutions in this country that allow that truth-telling to take place.

You told me years ago when I visited your then-new museum that you saw as a child the integration of the schools and you thought, wow, the way to justice

is through the courts.

You won multiple landmark cases at the Supreme Court to, say, expand the rights of condemned prisoners.

You worked tirelessly to fund the Equal Justice Initiative, and you created all of these landmarks and memorials.

What do Trump's actions mean in connection with the work that you have been doing all these years to reinforce our collective memory of the worst horrors our country has ever committed.

Has it made you rethink your approach in any way?

No, not at all.

If anything, it's reinforced it.

I mean, I still believe in the rule of law and began my career focusing on using the courts to expand rights for the most disfavored people in our society.

We would not have been able to shield the intellectually disabled from execution if we didn't have a court committed to human rights.

I realized 15 years ago that we were going to have to get outside the courts and begin this narrative work to move forward, that we were going to have to commit to truth telling because the environment outside the court was causing retreat inside the court.

And we see that today.

People used to say, why are you spending time on a museum, in a memorial, in a sculpture park when there's so much need for legal work?

And I said, it's because we have to create this outside environment.

And I've learned from history.

The civil rights movement didn't succeed just through activism on the streets.

There were lawyers in the courts winning these decisions, but those lawyers didn't win by themselves.

There were people engaged in storytelling and narrative work that helped to create that moment.

We're in a moment like that today.

You know,

I never used to talk about my enslaved great-grandparents, never.

Never acknowledged that my people came from Caroline County, Virginia.

Not in the first.

When did you?

I started probably about 10 or 15 years ago.

It's only when I'd gotten in my 40s that I began to appreciate that lineage.

Nobody in my family had gone to college.

There were people near me that had outhouses and no functioning septic systems.

I always thought of that as something that held me back or that was shameful in some ways.

But as I got older, I began to appreciate all that they had given me.

My great-grandfather learned to read, even though it was against the law in Virginia in the 1850s for an enslaved person to learn to read.

He risked his life to learn to read because he had a hope of freedom.

And in the 1850s, he didn't know that a civil war was coming a decade later.

But he used that hope to develop that skill.

And after emancipation, my grandmother said he would read to formerly enslaved people who didn't know how to read once a week.

He'd read the whole newspaper to them so they would know what was going on.

And my grandmother, she was a reader and she insisted that her children be readers and her grandchildren be readers.

My grandmother would greet me sometimes.

When I went to her house with a stack of books, I'd have to read something before she'd let me into the house.

And my mom went into debt when we were children to buy us the World Book Encyclopedia because she knew we didn't see hope outside the door where there was so much poverty and despair, but we could read about it in those books.

And I owe

the enslaved who learn to love in the midst of agony.

I owe the terrorized and the trauma.

I owe the segregated and the disfavored for the justice that we are still seeking more than to give in to an executive order.

I'm disheartened by some of what I see, but I am in no ways dissuaded.

You gave a speech at Monticello earlier this month for Thomas Jefferson's 282nd birthday, in which you said it's easy to lose hope right now, but hopelessness is the enemy of justice.

But in my lifetime, we've never been in such a period of retrenchment.

There's always two steps forward, one step back, but this is just a great leap backwards so what are you hopeful for specifically where do you draw that hope from well i don't know that i agree that we've never seen this before listen in the 1960s after we passed the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965 there was nothing but resistance yeah the world didn't change on a dime but there were great leaps forward legally before they became entrenched societally.

But now we're seeing those things being uprooted.

Argue with me.

Tell me I'm wrong.

Well, I think you are.

You know, at the end of the Civil War, 4 million black people were emancipated.

And there was a moment where we believed we were going to have this new, beautiful America.

Those 4 million enslaved people chose reconciliation to build a better America.

And for a short period of time, they voted.

They built churches and schools.

And then it all collapsed.

The U.S.

Supreme Court preferred states' rights over the constitutional rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of Equal Protection or the 15th Amendment, and they were disenfranchised for a century.

When you think about the glory and the hope of emancipation and the collapse of all of that, and then this era of terror violence that would force millions of black people to leave lands that they own, it was a period of greater retrenchment than what we are seeing now.

And then after decades of struggling to stop that lynching violence, black soldiers went to France during World War I.

They went to Europe during World War II.

They fought courageously.

They came back in their uniforms and they were targeted for lynching.

And then, after passing these civil rights laws in the 1960s, we saw the formation of a new system of control characterized by mass incarceration.

We became the nation with the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

It didn't happen until 2000 that one in three black male babies born in this country became expected to go to jail or prison.

So I don't think it's true that we haven't had to deal with retrenchment and reaction to forward progress.

I stand corrected.

Well, the reason why I am hopeful is because what we're now seeing is the formation of a new narrative struggle.

When you're enslaved, you have to focus on freedom.

When you're being terrorized and lynched, you have to focus on security.

When you're disenfranchised and you don't have any opportunities for education and other businesses, you have to focus on civil rights.

Now we're at a moment where we are in the beginnings of a narrative struggle.

And the reason why I'm hopeful is that earlier, even in my career, we didn't have thousands of committed journalists and professionals and storytellers and filmmakers and writers who could participate in this narrative struggle.

So we have never been better situated to win the next phase of this struggle toward a just America than we are right now.

And while I'm worried, I just can't accept.

that this is unprecedented.

In fact, without some of the optics of 2020, these narratives wouldn't be resonating.

It took seeing black people and white people out on the streets protesting against police violence, seeing people coming together, corporations committing millions of dollars to support racial justice and equity, saying Black Lives Matter.

It took that to trigger the kind of counter-narrative that we're seeing now.

Without that step forward, we wouldn't see this backstep now.

So amidst all of these attacks on the federal agencies that protect our health, that protect human rights, that uphold constitutional protections, and so much more,

you refuse to despair.

Yeah, those institutions are being assaulted, but I don't think this battle is over.

I really don't.

I hope that if the government-funded institutions no longer become places where you can get an honest history, that people will support the private institutions that will take that up.

You know, I boldly claim that we didn't take a penny of state or federal funding in creating our sites.

It's remarkable given how gorgeous it is.

Thank you.

But the truth is, we were never offered a penny of state or federal funding.

We've had over 2 million people come to our sites, many of them skeptically.

How do you know?

Well, because they tell us.

They'll say, I didn't want to come, but now I'm totally aware of things I didn't understand.

We see extraordinary things come out of that, beautiful things.

We have a collection of 800 jars of soil in our museum.

We collect these these soils from lynching sites.

People who are involved in erecting markers collect the soil, put it in a jar that has the name of the victim, the date of the victim, and then they bring it back to the museum.

An older black woman was digging soil at a site in West Alabama.

She was afraid because it was on a dirt road in the middle of nowhere.

And as she was about to dig, a big white man in a pickup truck drove by and stared at her, and it made her anxious.

And then he drove by again and stared some more.

And then he parked his truck, got out, and walked toward her, and she was terrified.

And then the man asked, asked, what are you doing?

And she was going to tell him that she was just getting dirt for her garden, but then she said, Mr.

Stevenson, something got a hold of me.

And I told that man, I'm digging soil here because this is where a black man was lynched in 1937.

And she just looked down and started digging.

And the man surprised her by asking, does that memo you have talk about the lynching?

She said, it does.

And then he asked, can I read it?

And he started reading while she started digging.

And after he finished reading the memo, he said, would it be all right if I I helped you?

And she said, yes.

And the man got down on his knees and she offered him the implement to dig the soil.

He said, no, no, no, no, no.

You keep that.

I'll just use my hands.

And she said, he started picking up the soil and putting it in the jar and throwing his hands into the soil.

And she said, there was something about the conviction with which he was putting his whole body into this that moved her.

And she went from fear to relief to joy so quickly she couldn't help it.

Tears were running down her face.

And the man turned to her and he said, oh, ma'am, I'm so sorry.

I'm upsetting you.

And she said, no, no, no, you're blessing me.

And they kept digging and they were getting near to filling the jar.

And she looked over at the man and she noticed that he had slowed down.

His face had turned red.

And then she saw that there was a tear running down his face.

And she reached over and put her hand on his shoulder.

She said, are you all right?

And that's when the man turned to her and he said, no, ma'am.

He said, I'm just so worried that it might have been my grandfather who helped lynch this man.

And she said, they both sat on that roadside and wept.

And she said, well,

I'm going to go back and put this jar of soil in the museum in Montgomery.

And then the man said, Well, man, would it be all right if I just followed you back?

She said, Sure.

And she called me on the way back.

She said, Mr.

Stevens, I want you to come to the museum and meet my new friend.

And I was there when these two people who met on a roadside in a place of pain and agony and violence and bigotry came in and together did something beautiful by putting that jar of soil in that exhibit.

I'm not naive.

I don't believe that beautiful things like that always happen when we tell the truth, but I do believe that we deny ourselves the beauty of justice when we refuse to tell the truth.

I've seen too much beauty come out of truth-telling, too much restoration, too much redemption to believe that truth-telling doesn't have a kind of power that is greater than the fear and anger that is prompting these orders, prompting some of this retreat.

I worry about people who are already surrendering and waving white flags and running for cover.

I just don't think that's the way we're going to get to the other side.

Brian, thank you so much.

My pleasure.

Brian Stevenson is a public interest lawyer and the founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, a human rights organization in Montgomery, Alabama.

That's it for this week's show.

On the Media is produced by Molly Rosen, Rebecca Clark Callender, and Candice Wong.

Our technical director is Jennifer Munson, with engineering help from Jared Paul and Owen Kaplan.

Eloise Blondio is our senior producer, and our executive producer is Katya Rogers.

On the Media is a production of WNYC Studios.

I'm Brooke Gladstone.

And I'm Micah Loinger.