Scott Jennings’ appointment as White House press secretary would not be a surprising turn in Donald Trump’s second administration. If the reports and rumors turn out to be right, the choice would say as much about our modern political media as it would about the CNN pundit himself. His is a particular kind of American grift that only cable news could have produced: the professional Trump apologist who spends years building a brand on “reasonable conservative who’ll push back a little,” cashes it in for a White House podium and never once has to explain how those two roles were supposed to coexist. 

Jennings has been auditioning for that grift since the day he first told a CNN panel in 2017 that Trump deserved a fair hearing. Now, with Karoline Leavitt’s departure at the end of August, he may finally get taxpayers to fund his propaganda by way of a federal salary.

Leavitt, who has served as press secretary since Trump’s second term began in January 2025, recently announced she would be stepping down to spend more time with her family after the birth of her second child. Her impending exit has kicked off a telling scramble inside Trumpworld, one that has led to a shortlist that apparently includes former George W. Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, Trump aide Natalie Harp, White House communications director Steven Cheung, Breitbart’s Matthew Boyle and former Trump attorney Alina Habba. But the name that keeps rising to the top, and the one CNN itself has now confirmed as the “early favorite,” is Jennings. 

CNN reported that White House chief of staff Susie Wiles met privately with Jennings at Mastro’s Steakhouse in Washington, with one senior administration official explaining the interest bluntly: Jennings is “competent and good on TV.” Multiple Trump staffers reportedly believe he already has Wiles’ backing. A separate report by POLITICO revealed that Jennings had been sending clips of his CNN appearances directly to senior White House staffers, seemingly campaigning for the job in real time. 

Jennings is almost comically suited to the part. Anyone who has watched him on CNN knows the routine. He occupies the familiar cable news position of conservative contrarian, the lone Republican supposedly willing to enter hostile territory and calmly dismantle the liberals around him. While the network presents his presence as ideological friction, Jennings presents it as sober common sense. The result is often that of a major cable news network treating the indefensible as merely another side of a good-faith argument. CNN has unquestionably helped turn Jennings into a national brand.

Over the course of Trump’s second presidency, Jennings’ television role has increasingly become defined by outright aggression in his defense of the administration. “I think every president deserves a good, solid defense and someone who can go out there and explain what they’re doing,” he said on CNN this week, calling the press secretary’s work “the conduit to transparency in front of the camera and also behind the scenes.” But Jennings’ behavior on CNN, particularly on “CNN Newsnight with Abby Phillip,” is especially combative. He often snaps at his co-panelists and displays a hostility to truth, twisting reality to promulgate the administration’s given narrative.

His defense of the president is particularly naked careerism because Jennings was once an outspoken critic of Trump.

On Jan. 6, 2021, Jennings wrote an op-ed for CNN with a headline that could not have been less ambiguous: Trump caused this insurrection, and every Republican must condemn it. “This is literally an insurrection,” he wrote, adding that the failure to secure the Capitol was nothing less than “a failure of leadership by the commander in chief.” He went further, writing that Trump had caused the violence with his lies and conspiracy theories about a stolen presidential election. Jennings said he was ashamed and embarrassed for his country — and for any Republican who failed to condemn what had happened. On CNN the following day, he stated unequivocally that Trump had caused the insurrection and criticized Republican senators who continued challenging the election results after the Capitol had been attacked. Nearly six years later, those remarks could be a political problem for Jennings as he seeks employment inside the Trump coalition.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

But a capacity for rapid transformation is the premier currency in Trump’s orbit. The president has long surrounded himself with people who initially condemned him before bending the knee. Figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio to Vice President JD Vance have calculated that proximity to power and the adulation of the MAGA base outweigh any lingering attachment to personal dignity. Jennings has played this game with cunning precision, much like his mentor and fellow Kentuckian Sen. Mitch McConnell, who himself condemned Trump after Jan. 6, and described him as practically and morally responsible for provoking the attack.

Neither man’s fury translated into action. McConnell voted the following month to acquit the president of inciting the riot. Trump, for his part, mass-pardoned the Jan. 6 defendants on his first day back in office. Confronted on air in January 2026 about the administration’s recasting of rioters as patriotic protesters unfairly targeted by an overzealous Capitol Police force, Jennings allowed only that he has “a somewhat different” view than the president’s, before pivoting to complain that Democrats treat the anniversary like “a national holiday.”

Jennings’ Jan. 6 flip-flop is not an isolated point of friction for the pundit. Just this month on his nationally syndicated Salem Media radio show, he aired a heavily edited compilation of clips from the leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker, accusing Piker of “calling for Black voters to be lynched” and warning listeners that “beneath all the smiles and dancing videos, there’s nothing but hate and violence in the heart of these communists.” Snopes reviewed the original streams and found the clip had been stitched together out of order and stripped of context; Piker’s remarks about lynching were sarcastic reactions to something someone else had said, not an endorsement of anything. By his own account, Piker is now preparing a defamation suit against Jennings and Salem Media, and possibly Fox News, which cited the same debunked compilation. Piker has said the fallout has brought a wave of death threats serious enough that he has tightened his security and cut back on public appearances. 

Perhaps that’s why Trump reportedly remains “not quite sold” on Jennings. Despite the president’s apparent misgivings, it makes perfect sense for a man who is facing a defamation lawsuit for airing a doctored video to simultaneously be the frontrunner to become Trump’s official voice to the American public. Scott Jennings’ potential appointment to White House press secretary would be yet another triumphant coup for a MAGA apparatus that demands complete moral surrender from its acolytes.

The post Scott Jennings as press secretary could be Trump’s final coup appeared first on Salon.com.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. repeatedly clashed with CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday’s “State of the Union” over vaccines, COVID-19, autism research and the nation’s growing measles outbreak, with the veteran anchor challenging the health secretary’s claims by citing decades of scientific research and public health data.

The contentious interview came as the United States experiences its second consecutive record-breaking year for measles cases, with Bash noting on-air that infections have reached a 35-year high and that roughly 93% of cases have occurred among unvaccinated people.

Asked whether he accepted any responsibility for the resurgence after years as one of the country’s most prominent vaccine skeptics, Kennedy responded, “Absolutely not,” arguing the outbreak is part of a broader international trend and pointing to higher per-capita case rates in several other countries.

Kennedy instead blamed the COVID-19 lockdown period for reduced childhood vaccination rates, arguing that missed immunizations during the pandemic created today’s vulnerable populations. He also maintained that his department has responded quickly to outbreaks by deploying federal public health teams to affected states.

Throughout the interview, Bash repeatedly interrupted Kennedy to challenge claims she said conflicted with the broader scientific consensus, particularly on COVID-19 vaccines and autism research. At one point, she told Kennedy that “study after study after study” has found no link between vaccines and autism, citing findings from the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Kennedy rejected those conclusions, arguing existing research has not adequately examined vaccines administered during the first six months of life and accusing Bash of relying too heavily on experts rather than the underlying research.

The exchange grew increasingly tense after Kennedy accused CNN of contributing to misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggested Bash was repeating claims without independently examining the evidence. Bash pushed back, defending her role as a journalist.

“My job is to find out and tell the truth,” she said.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The interview also touched on a Wall Street Journal report that President Donald Trump has encouraged Kennedy to pursue additional research examining possible links between vaccines and autism. Kennedy confirmed Trump supports further study while also saying his department is investigating a broader range of potential environmental factors that may contribute to autism.

The nearly 20-minute interview ended with Bash defending the role of scientific expertise in public health reporting while Kennedy maintained that federal health agencies should continue reexamining longstanding assumptions about vaccine safety and other medical issues.

A statement was released by a CNN spokeperson to Salon regarding this interview.

Dana Bash is a veteran journalist who conducted a newsmaking interview with Secretary Kennedy in which he stated that he supports parents getting their children vaccinated against measles and addressed President Trump’s push for further study into autism and vaccines. Asking tough, substantive questions to those in power is the job of every journalist, and Dana did hers incredibly well today. We stand behind Dana, her reporting, and CNN’s overall coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

UPDATED: Aug. 2, 2026 at 2:12 p.m. to include statement from CNN.

The post “My job is to find out the truth”: Dana Bash grills RFK Jr. over vaccines appeared first on Salon.com.

For an hour and four minutes on Friday night, the president stood at a podium in a hotel he used to own and used the White House press corps as a prop. The irony of staging a White House Correspondents’ Dinner in the presence of a man actively working to dismantle the First Amendment protections of the very press he was ostensibly there to honor is almost too thick. To no one’s surprise, Donald Trump used the event as a campaign rally and personal vendetta, targeting CNN’s chief White House correspondent and anchor Kaitlan Collins with misogynistic, transphobic “jokes,” and capping the night with a “Trump 2028” hat — an authoritarian flourish masquerading as humor. 

The press stayed seated and silent. 

A press corps with any genuine values would have walked out. They would have recognized that attention is what fuels Trump’s authoritarian political strategy. Instead, reporters sat in their black-tie attire and behaved like sycophants. For an institution that loves to preen about its courage, the WHCD was a profile in cowardice. The people in that ballroom knew that Trump and administration officials have barred reporters from briefings, pursued subpoenas against journalists and threatened outlets with legal action, and that he routinely labels unfavorable coverage “fake news” to discredit any check on his power. It would have been absurdly simple for the White House Correspondents’ Association to issue a straightforward, principled declaration: “We cannot in good conscience allow a president who does not believe in the First Amendment protections this night celebrates to attend this event. Accordingly, we have rescinded our invitation.” But they refused to make a stand, apparently terrified of losing their access.

Even some of the president’s usual sympathizers on television couldn’t pretend the choice made sense. The hosts of MS NOW’s “Morning Joe,” who once sprinted to Mar‑a‑Lago in the early days of Trump’s presidency, called the decision to host him “tone‑deaf,” saying the event should never have been held in its current form and highlighting the absurdity of platforming him while his Justice Department subpoenas New York Times journalists for doing their jobs. (On July 23, the department rescinded the subpoenas after a federal judge said it hadn’t followed appropriate procedures in its investigation of how reporters obtained information on the new Air Force One’s security capabilities.) The television hosts were right about the tone‑deafness, but wrong about the scale. This wasn’t merely tone‑deaf; it was a dereliction of duty.

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins had won the WHCA’s Award for Excellence in Presidential News Coverage Under Deadline Pressure for her reporting on the tense February 2025 Oval Office confrontation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In his address, Trump could not let the opportunity pass. “I want to personally congratulate CNN’s Kaitlan Collins on receiving her award,” he told the room, then spent the next several minutes insisting the award was “fake,” that she “shouldn’t get” it, and that she “never smiles.” Trump told her to smile. Then he built to the joke he’d clearly been saving: that he thought Collins had landed a lucrative new endorsement deal with Bud Light, only to learn the face on the beer can actually belonged to Dylan Mulvaney, the transgender actress whose 2023 partnership with the brand triggered a right-wing boycott. 

It’s an old joke often shared by conservatives on X. The only problem is that there was no Bud Light commercial starring Mulvaney. But factual accuracy was never really the point. The point was to shame a reporter by misidentifying and weaponizing a person’s identity, using two women’s faces to deliver one insult: that neither of them is quite what she claims to be, and neither is pretty, feminine or smiley enough to matter. 

Multiple reports described the room’s reaction to that bit as silence. Even a post-event panel on CNN’s “State of the Union,” which featured a Republican congressman and a former Trump administration aide, unanimously agreed the president had bombed with his speech. It did not stop Trump. On Truth Social over the weekend, he had a second try at delivering his joke, using an image generated by artificial intelligence that placed Collins’ face onto Mulvaney’s body on a mock Bud Light can. 

Collins didn’t take the bait. On Instagram, she posted an Eleanor Roosevelt line about nobody being able to make you feel inferior without your consent, alongside a note thanking her mentor Wolf Blitzer for the award with a reminder of why asking uncomfortable questions matters. On Monday’s “Daily Show,” she told host Jon Stewart she’d rather keep the focus on the reporting than on her own reaction, because turning it into a personal feud with the president is exactly the trap he wants her to fall into.

Collins has long been known for getting under his skin. During his first term, Trump clashed with her on numerous occasions in the briefing room and on social media, almost always after she challenged him for dodging questions or making false statements. In 2018, Collins was famously barred from attending an open-press event in the Rose Garden after daring to ask pointed questions about Michael Cohen and Russian President Vladimir Putin while serving as the pool reporter.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When Stewart pressed her on the president’s fixation, Collins defended her record, emphasizing that she refuses to serve only one political audience. “I want anyone, from my family in Alabama to people in the White House to people in Washington, to be able to hear that answer or hear that question and think, ‘What is the answer to that?’” she said. “In terms of my reaction . . . it’s really not about me. And I don’t want it to be about my reaction. If you let it become about that, then it becomes a back-and-forth between the two of us. Instead, I think it’s more effective to remind people in those moments, when he is insulting me or when he is criticizing me, about the question I asked or the reporting that I did that he was so angry about. And the fact that I got an award for it really bothered him, clearly.”

On one level, watching Collins navigate these attacks offers a masterclass in professional composure. Regardless of political perspective, one has to acknowledge she is remarkably unflappable. Yet beneath this narrative of journalistic fortitude lies a far more transactional reality that defines modern Washington media. Collins has profited quite handsomely from her singular access to and conflict with power. In the mutually beneficial ecosystem of outrage that has come to define Donald Trump’s Washington, one hand washes the other.

Collins did not enter the dinner unaware of what was coming. In truth, from a brand-building perspective, such attacks are pure gold. She emerged from the weekend with half the media world and a chorus of Hollywood celebrities wildly applauding her bravery. This dynamic highlights the core problem with the era of the celebrity reporter, one of the most paradoxical developments in modern political media. We have built an ecosystem where personal confrontation with authority is parlayed into network stardom and lucrative contracts, all while the systemic threat to democratic norms continues unabated.

Look no further than Megyn Kelly, who famously parlayed a high-profile clash with Trump in 2016 as a Fox News reporter into a massive, multi-million-dollar (and short-lived) NBC contract only months later. Now a right-wing podcaster, Kelly went on her podcast this week and rationalized the attacks on Collins while complaining that the CNN star is “never nice to the president.” Using Trumpian language, Kelly argued that Collins is “always nasty” and that her questions carry “the most negative bent you could possibly go into the questioning with,” dismissing the president’s vulgar insults as mere “jazz” that all leaders throw around. 

Then there is Collins’ own network. Semafor’s Max Tani reported that CNN leadership was “furious” over the president’s remarks and has discussed scaling back its footprint at next year’s dinner, or skipping it altogether — with one internal conversation reportedly framing the event as having become “a platform for making crude remarks at their employees’ expense.”

Such a move would be a step in the right direction. But where was that fury in the room, when it could have mattered? Where was the immediate pronouncement that they will not sit quietly while their journalists are demeaned in front of their colleagues?

Far from defending one of their own, they sat as participants.

The post Kaitlan Collins and CNN are complicit in the Trump circus appeared first on Salon.com.