The trio of PBS News Hour anchor Amna Nawaz, New York Times columnist David Brooks, and MS NOW host Jonathan Capehart assembled on Friday to attack President Trump for allegedly using “overtly racist rhetoric” at a recent speech, but nobody cared to actually specify what they found so objectionable.
Nawaz, who just won a Walter Cronkite Award for supposedly being able to bring diverse viewpoints to the show, began with Brooks and rattled off a list of things she considered setbacks for the administration before turning the speech, “At the same time, we're seeing a ramping up of the president's overtly racist rhetoric. That affordability speech in Pennsylvania just devolved into an anti-immigrant, racist rant. David, are those things related?”
Trump said many things in that speech, but two things he brought up that nobody at PBS wanted to talk about were the Somali welfare fraud scandal rocking Minnesota and the fact that Rep. Ilhan Omar “does nothing but bitch. She's always complaining.” The welfare fraud scandal is real, and even if one wants to demand presidents use G-rated language in public, it is still true that Omar is always complaining and running down the country that granted her asylum—not to mention her frequent descents into anti-Semitism.
As for Brooks, he replied, “Unclear. It could be just he's getting crankier and older. He's not — he's always talked about certain kind of countries when referring to certain developing world countries. That was first term. He's always used this kind of language. Is he using it more nastily? Yes. Is it tied to his falling approvals? I'm not sure.”
Brooks then referenced the recently released National Security Strategy, “This is taking some of that idea that we're — we in the West have to fight off the hordes from the rest of the world. That's not only in a speech. That is the official foreign policy of the United States of America. And so that culture war mind-set is now from maybe back of mind or medium of mind, now it's front of mind, both in random rhetoric, but also in policy.”
Capehart lamented, “I don't think it's random rhetoric. This is something that the president has done time and time again, when he was running for president the first time, when he became president, when he ran for president, especially the second time. And now that he's president a second time, it is right there.”
He also claimed, “And when we have seen him go all in on racist rhetoric, it's when he's trying to scratch at that itch, that emotional, fearful itch to get people, I think, to get away from affordability and what's happening to them in their budgets and their pocketbooks, and get them to fearing and being afraid of their neighbors, being afraid of people around them as just a distraction.”
Capehart concluded by insisting that “I think the more we talk about it, the more we shine light on it, the more we don't let him get away with saying what he said in Scranton. I think the better it is for all of us. It's not easy to hear the president of the United States say the things that he's been saying, not just in Scranton, but during this presidency. We have to hold a mirror up to him just so that we are forced to contend with what he's saying.”
In that case, “we” should also look at his claim that immigration without assimilation is destined to end badly, but again, nobody at PBS wanted to discuss that.
Here is a transcript for the December 12 show:
PBS News Hour
12/12/2025
7:50 PM ET
AMNA NAWAZ: At the same time, we're seeing a ramping up of the president's overtly racist rhetoric. That affordability speech in Pennsylvania just devolved into an anti-immigrant, racist rant. David, are those things related?
DAVID BROOKS: Unclear. It could be just he's getting crankier and older. He's not — he's always talked about certain kind of countries when referring to certain developing world countries. That was first term. He's always used this kind of language. Is he using it more nastily? Yes. Is it tied to his falling approvals? I'm not sure.
I think there's been a shift in the mind-set of the administration compared to Trump One. And we saw it not only in what he says in some random speech. We saw it in the most important event of the week, which was the release of the national security strategy, where they talked about civilizational erasure.
This is taking some of that idea that we're — we in the West have to fight off the hordes from the rest of the world. That's not only in a speech. That is the official foreign policy of the United States of America. And so that culture war mind-set is now from maybe back of mind or medium of mind, now it's front of mind, both in random rhetoric, but also in policy.
JONATHAN CAPEHART: I don't think it's random rhetoric. This is something that the president has done time and time again, when he was running for president the first time, when he became president, when he ran for president, especially the second time. And now that he's president a second time, it is right there.
And when we have seen him go all in on racist rhetoric, it's when he's trying to scratch at that itch, that emotional, fearful itch to get people, I think, to get away from affordability and what's happening to them in their budgets and their pocketbooks, and get them to fearing and being afraid of their neighbors, being afraid of people around them as just a distraction.
And I think the more we talk about it, the more we shine light on it, the more we don't let him get away with saying what he said in Scranton. I think the better it is for all of us. It's not easy to hear the president of the United States say the things that he's been saying, not just in Scranton, but during this presidency.
We have to hold a mirror up to him just so that we are forced to contend with what he's saying.
