Jon Stewart Slams ABC News as ‘So Stupid' for Firing Reporter Terry Moran Over Criticizing Trump's Chief of Staff: ‘They're a F—ing Joke'
John Stewart is taking aim at ABC News for firing veteran news reporter Terry Moran after 28 years. Moran used X to speak out against Donald Trump's chief of staff Stephen Miller and called him a 'world-class hater.' Stewart lambasted ABC News' decision on the 'Weekly Show' podcast (via The Daily Beast) and called it 'so stupid.'
'For God's sake. They shouldn't have fired him,' Stewart said in response to a listener asking whether or not the network made the right call in firing Moran. 'The entire thing is because ABC clings to this facade that they somehow exist in a bubble outside all of this. It's a joke. They're a fucking joke.'
More from Variety
Terry Moran Out at ABC News Following Social-Media Clash With Trump White House
Trump Military Parade May Not Get Much Coverage on CBS, NBC, ABC
Denise Rehrig Named Executive Producer, ABC News' 'Prime With Linsey Davis'
Moran was initially suspended because of his anti-Miller X post, but ABC News announced two days into the suspension that the anchor's contract would not be renewed.
'We are at the end of our agreement with Terry Moran and based on his recent post — which was a clear violation of ABC News policies — we have made the decision to not renew,' ABC News said in a statement. 'At ABC News, we hold all of our reporters to the highest standards of objectivity, fairness and professionalism, and we remain committed to delivering straightforward, trusted journalism.'
Moran was one of ABC News' top national correspondents. In his criticism of Miller, the reporter wrote that Trump's chief of staff is 'one of the people who conceptualizes the impulses of the Trumpist movement and translates them into policy' and operates not on 'brains' but on 'bile.' He added that Miller was 'a world-class hater. You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.'
Stewart said Moran didn't write anything about Miller that was inaccurate and noted Moran's firing was the latest ABC News blunder when it comes to the network bending the knee to Trump.
'They shouldn't have paid the $15 million,' Stewart said, referring to ABC News settling with Trump over George Stephanopoulos' comments. 'Literally, every day on Fox News, they're taking stuff out of context or their people are saying utterly vicious things about Democratic politicians and all kinds of other things.'
Since his exit from ABC News, Moran has announced he will launch his own Substack channel
Best of Variety
New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week
'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
25 Hollywood Legends Who Deserve an Honorary Oscar
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
22 minutes ago
'This Week' Transcript 6-22-25: Vice President of the United States JD Vance, Sen. Tom Cotton & Rep. Jim Himes
A rush transcript of "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" airing on Sunday, June 22, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the "This Week" transcript archive. JONATHAN KARL, ABC "THIS WEEK" CO-ANCHOR: Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us. The big question right now is the United States -- J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Thanks, Jon. Thanks for having me. KARL: Sure thing. The big question, is the United States now at war with Iran? VANCE: No, we're not at war with Iran, Jon. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program. And I think the president took decisive action to destroy that program last night. If I could step back a little bit. We have to give an incredible amount of gratitude to the troops who did an amazing thing last night. Think about this, Jon, they threw -- they flew thousands of miles away, a 30-hour non-stop flight. They never touched down on the ground. And they dropped a 30,000-pound bomb on a target about the size of a washing machine. No military in the world has the training, the skills and the equipment to do what these guys did last night. I know the president and I are both very proud of them. And I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program. The president's been very clear about this. And thanks to the bravery and competence and skill of our great pilots and everybody who supported this mission, we took a major step forward for that national objective last night. KARL: It certainly was a complex and overwhelming mission, 125 aircraft involved, we are told. Can you say definitely that Iran's nuclear program has -- has now been destroyed? VANCE: Well, Jon, I don't want to get into the sensitive intelligence here, but we know that we've set the Iranian nuclear program back substantially last night. Whether we -- whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to. But I actually think that raises the most important question. The president talked about this last night. We want Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program peacefully. But there is no way that the United States is going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon. And so, they really have to choose a pathway, Jon, are they going to go down the path of continued war, of funding terrorism, of seeking a nuclear weapon, or are they going to work with us to give up nuclear weapons permanently. If they're willing to choose the smart path, they're certainly going to find a willing partner in the United States to dismantle that nuclear weapons program. But if they decide they're going to attack our troops, if they decide they're going to continue to try to build a nuclear weapon, then we are going to respond to that with overwhelming force. So really what happens next is up to the Iranians. KARL: So -- but -- but let me drill down on what was accomplished, because there's a -- there's a report this morning in 'The New York Times' that Fordo, that deep, underground enrichment facility, was severely damaged, but not fully destroyed. But the president said last night the enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Can -- can we say that definitively, or are we just not sure yet? I mean, have those facilities been obliterated? VANCE: Well, Jon, severely damaged versus obliterated, I'm not exactly sure what the difference is. What we know is we set their nucleal program back substantially. KAR: Well -- well, one -- I mean -- VANCE: And I -- again, Jon, I don't want to get into very sensitive intelligence about what we know, but I feel extremely confident, and I can say to the American people with great confidence that they are much further away from the nuclear program today than they were 24 hours ago. That was the objective of the mission, to destroy that Fordo nuclear site and, of course, do some damage to the other sites as well. But we feel very confident that the Fordo nuclear site was substantially set back, and that was our goal. KARL: The -- the UN's atomic energy watchdog said that Iran had 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium. What -- do we know what has become of that? Is -- was it destroyed in this attack? Do we know? That's a big stockpile. VANCE: Well, we're going to work in the coming weeks -- yes, Jon, we're going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel. And that's one of the things that we're going to have conversations with the Iranians about. But what we know, Jon, is they no longer have the capacity to turn that stockpile of highly enriched uranium to weapons grade uranium. And that was really the goal here. Uranium is not that difficult to come by, Jon, but enriching uranium up to the point of a nuclear weapon, that is what the president put a stop to last night. KARL: This morning, the Russian reaction caught -- caught my eye. Dmitri Medvedev, of course, the former president, prime minister of Russia, now, the deputy chairman of Russia's security council, said the enrichment of nuclear material, and now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons will continue. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads. What do you make of that Russian response? And are they -- they off base? I mean they're -- they're saying that the nuclear program in Iran is -- is still well underway. VANCE: Well, first of all, I think it's a bizarre response, but I also don't know that that guy speaks for President Putin or for the Russian government. One of the things that we've picked up, Jon, in our conversations with the Russians over the last few months, despite our many disagreements, of course, with the state of Russia, they've been very consistent that they don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon. And -- and this is what I think many commentators underappreciated about what the president did last night. Iran having a nuclear weapon, nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, is a disaster for pretty much everybody. It's one of the few issues where Russia, China and the United States have broad agreement is that we don't want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. So, what the president did was very important. I'll -- I'll let President Putin speak to what the official Russian position on this is. But I feel very confident that both for Russia, for China, and most importantly, of course, for us, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And I think that that goal is going to continue to animate American policy for the next few years. KARL: Well, President Trump, last night, also threatened additional military action if Iran retaliates or if peace does not come quickly. How quickly are we talking about? Are we talking about days? Are we talking about weeks? VANCE: Well, look, Jon, I'll let the president make those determinations, actually. But we're now going to have a serious conversation about how to get rid of Iran's nuclear weapons program permanently, meaning they have to choose not to have a nuclear weapons program, and they have to give this thing up. Now, if you go back a little bit, Jon, what we have said consistently and repeatedly is, they cannot have a nuclear weapon. We accomplished the goal of putting them back substantially last night. But there are two big things that the Iranians are going to have to choose from here. Number one, do they attack American troops in the region? If they do, as the president said, you're going to see overwhelming force from the Americans. If they continue to pursue a nuclear weapon, you're also going to see overwhelming force from the American people. So, we've got really the ball in Iran's court here. If they make smart decisions, I think they're going to find us willing to work with them. If they continue to support terrorism, nuclear weapons programs, then they're going to find overwhelming American force from the American military. That is really the choice before the Iranians. And that's a choice only they can make. KARL: So, what retaliation are you expecting? I mean I know what you're hoping for, but they have vowed retaliation. What are you prepared for? What are you expecting from the Iranians? VANCE: Well, it's always hard to guess what the other side is going to do. But what we're prepared for is, if they attack us in a maximal direction, first of all, we have got maximum defensive posture. I think that we're going to be able to defend as many of our people as possible. And, of course, I'd encourage Americans to pray for our guys in the Middle East because, yes, they are under a significant amount of duress and a significant amount of threat right now. But then, of course, Jon, if the Iranians attack us, they're going to be met with overwhelming force. And I don't think the president could be clearer about this. If -- if you look at what we did yesterday, Jon, we did not attack the nation of Iran. We did not attack any civilian targets. We didn't even attack military targets outside of the three nuclear weapons facilities that we thought were important to accomplish our goal of preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon. So, how Iran responds, I think, is ultimately the ball is in their court. But if you look at what we did, it was very precise, very narrowly tailored to our objective. And if the Iranians decide to expand this, then that's ultimately their decision. And the president of the United States will respond in kind. KARL: So -- so you're raising the real possibility that this is not the end of this conflict, but the beginning of this conflict. You know, U.S. response to -- to Iranian retaliation. There's one thing the president has been really consistent about throughout his entire life in politics, and that is the idea of no more wars. Let me play you what he said on election night and, of course, at his inauguration. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not going to start a war. I'm going to stop wars. We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars that we end, and perhaps, most importantly, the wars we never get into. (END VIDEO CLIP) KARL: So -- so let me ask you, what do you say to those, including some of the president's strongest supporters who were really worried this morning that the United States is now involved in yet another protracted war, conflict, whatever you want to call it, in the Middle East? VANCE: Well, first of all, Jon, I think the president has been very clear that we are not interested in protracted conflicts in the Middle East. But there's a question about, how do you achieve peace? And we believe the way that you achieve peace is through strength. We took a very narrow and limited approach to destroying the Iranian nuclear program, Jon. That's what the president did. And I think that, more than anything, is going to ensure a peaceful resolution in that region of the world. You can't be weak. You can't sit there and allow the Iranians to achieve a nuclear weapon, Jon, and expect that's going to lead to peace. It would lead to absolutely disastrous military conflict all over the Middle East. We don't want that. Our Gulf Arab nation allies don't want that. Israel doesn't want that. And it's one of the few issues, frankly, that unites the Arabians to the Israelis is none of them want the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon, because they know that it would lead to the opposite of peace. And so, I'd say to people who are worried about a protracted military conflict is, number one, the president, more than anybody, is worried about protracted military conflicts. That is not what we're getting ourselves involved in. What we're getting ourselves involved in is a very targeted effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. That will continue to be the goal of American foreign policy. And it's that goal that is going to motivate our action in the -- in the weeks and months to come. KARL: But -- but this was, as we discussed, a complex and overwhelming military action last night. And the president is vowing something bigger if the Iranians respond by retaliating. He's also raised the specter of targeting the supreme leader himself. As you know, earlier in the week he said he knew where this -- where the ayatollah is hiding and that he would be an easy target. Has the U.S. ruled out targeting the -- the supreme leader in Iran? Has the U.S. ruled out trying to achieve regime change? VANCE: Well, first of all, we don't want to achieve regime change. We want to achieve the end of the Iranian nuclear program. Jon. That's America's objective. And that's what the president has set us out to do. The president, in the very tweet you mentioned, or the Truth that you mentioned, Jon, said explicitly that he's not trying to take out the Iranian supreme leader. He's trying to take out their nuclear program. And, of course, we took a major step forward with that last night. And again, Jon, I think we have to back up and -- and -- and test some premises here. How do you achieve long term peace? How do you prevent spiraling Middle Eastern conflict? Is it through overwhelming military power targeted to an American objective, or is it by sort of walking yourself into these long-term, protracted military conflicts? I think by choosing overwhelming force and overwhelming force tied to something that is important to the American people, that is the end of the Iranian nuclear program, we can achieve peace much more fully than if we sort of sit on our hands and hope that somehow, if the Iranians get a nuclear weapon, they're going to be more peaceful. That is a stupid approach, and the president rejected it.
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's support keeps growing while Democrats howl at the moon
California Sen. Alex Padilla recently crashed a press conference by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. He deliberately wore no identification. He gave no advance warning that he would disrupt her briefing. Instead, Padilla barged forward to the podium, shouting about the deportation of illegal aliens. Advertisement Immediately, Padilla got his media-moment wish — once Secret Service agents, who had no idea who he was, forcibly removed him. Alex Padilla unsuccessfully attempted to push past law enforcement to reach Noem's lectern. AP Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) recently attempted a pseudo-filibuster, speaking nonstop for 25 hours straight — not to delay legislation, but to fixate on President Donald Trump. Advertisement South Carolina Democratic state Rep. Julie von Haefen posted on social media an image of a bloody guillotine. It bore the title 'In these difficult times, some cuts may be necessary' and was juxtaposed with an image of a hanging, beheaded Trump, who, a year ago, was the target of two failed assassination attempts. The more Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom scream at Trump for nationalizing the California Guard to stop LA's nightly violent anti-ICE protests, the more the two appear on the side of those who riot, destroy property and attack police. Yet who really wants to side with illegal aliens who spit on and burn American flags while waving Mexican flags? Former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, along with other prominent Democrats, mocked the recent Washington, DC, military parade commemorating the 250th anniversary of the army, comparing it unfavorably with their own concurrent 'No Kings' anti-Trump protests. Advertisement Those demonstrations — subsidized by left-wing billionaire donors — were utterly incoherent. No other president has faced more lower federal court injunctions blocking executive orders than Trump. People march down Fifth Avenue at the No Kings protest against Trump on June 14, 2025 in New York. Zuma / Indeed, dozens of cherry-picked, left-wing district judges — the real unchecked 'kings' — now routinely block almost every one of Trump's executive orders. Advertisement Why are opposition Democrats not offering alternative agendas and compromises? Could they partner with Trump to allow green cards to illegal aliens who have no criminal records, have not been on public assistance, are now employed and have resided in the United States for over five years? Could Democrats meet with the president to express bipartisan support for democratic Israel in its existential war with theocratic Iran? Instead, why do Democrats throw two-year-old temper tantrums to howl nihilistically at everything Trump says and does? One, exasperated Democrats lack all levers of political power — the Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. So, they take to the media and the streets. Two, Democrats are permanently frustrated that the more they scream and stomp, the more polls show radical declines in public support for their party. Three, their nemesis, 79-year-old Trump, seems impervious to Democratic lawfare, threats and smears. Advertisement Despite the hysterical attacks, he is still polling now about where prior presidents like George Bush and Barack Obama were at similar junctures in their second terms. The more Trump is smeared as a fascist or dictator, the more polls — like the latest liberal Economist/YouGov survey — show him gaining public support for securing the border and deportation. And the more the Left damns Trump as a racist, the more he wins unprecedented black and Hispanic support. Advertisement In recent Rasmussen tracking polls, Trump garnered 54% approval from black voters and 53% from Hispanics. Four, Trump proves a hard-to-hit, moving target for the frustrated left. He cannot quite be pigeonholed as a predictable right-wing bogeyman. Unlike the Left, when Trump weighs in on the Ukraine war, he first begins by deploring the tragic waste of over a million lives. No one is more pro-Israel. Yet he has offered a losing Iran a chance to negotiate its way out of total and humiliating defeat. Advertisement Trump talks nonstop about protecting the middle class. Unions like him; Wall Street mostly despises him. Trump wants to deport as many illegal alien criminals as possible. But he is willing to consider green cards for unlawful aliens who are working, crime-free and with long residence in the US. The Trump counterrevolution barrels ahead. The people cheer. And Democrats keep barking at the moon. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
28 minutes ago
Vance: 'We're not at war with Iran, we're at war with Iran's nuclear program'
Vice President JD Vance said Sunday that despite the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites last night, the U.S. is not at war with Iran. "No, we're not at war with Iran, Jon. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program," Vance told ABC News' "This Week" co-anchor Jonathan Karl. "And I think the president took decisive action to destroy that program last night." When asked if he could definitively say that Iran's nuclear program has now been destroyed, Vance said that the U.S. has set Iran's nuclear program back "substantially." "Whether it's years or beyond that, we know it's going to be a very long time before Iran can even build a nuclear weapon if they want to," Vance said.
