CNN Caught Covering Up Trump Official's Terrifying Admission

Watch as corporate media’s complicity in executive overreach exposed

I published an article earlier today discussing corporate media’s role in promoting and enabling Trump’s political rise.

I argued that corporate media, driven by profit and sensationalism, is not just failing in its duty to inform the public; it is actively undermining democracy and, metaphorically, “trying to kill us.”

I detailed how mainstream outlets routinely prioritize controversy over truth, amplify divisive narratives, and, most dangerously, fail to hold those in power accountable.

This pattern, I warned, poses a real threat to both the health of our democracy and the safety of the public.

But recent revelations suggest the situation is even worse than I feared. The latest example comes from CNN, which has been caught in a moment that perfectly encapsulates the dangers of mainstream media complicity with those in power.

The Incident: CNN and the “Plenary Authority” Claim

On live television, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller was asked by CNN’s Boris Sanchez about the Trump administration’s plans to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon, despite a court order prohibiting such action.

Miller responded:

“Well, the administration filed an appeal this morning with the Ninth Circuit. I would note the administration won an identical case in the Ninth Circuit just a few months ago with respect to the federalizing of the California National Guard. Under Title 10 of the US Code, the president has plenary authority.”

At that moment, Miller abruptly stopped mid-sentence and appeared to freeze on camera.

Sanchez interjected after several awkward seconds, citing “technical difficulties” and cutting to a commercial break.

However, viewers on social media immediately noticed that Miller was still blinking, suggesting he had not actually lost connection but had deliberately stopped speaking.

When the interview resumed, Sanchez repeated his question. This time, Miller avoided the term “plenary” altogether, instead referencing federal law and Title 10 of the US Code in more general terms.

Notably, the official video posted by CNN omitted the initial exchange where “plenary authority” was mentioned, fueling suspicions of media complicity or, at the very least, a failure to press for clarification.

Why “Plenary Authority” Matters, and Why CNN’s Handling Is Troubling

The phrase “plenary authority” is not just a legal technicality. In constitutional law, “plenary” means full, complete, and unrestricted power.

While Congress has been recognized as having plenary authority in certain areas (like immigration), the presidency is not generally considered to have such unchecked power, especially when it comes to deploying military forces domestically.

Miller’s assertion that the president has “plenary authority” under Title 10 to federalize the National Guard is highly controversial and, according to most legal scholars, misleading.

The U.S. Constitution and federal law place significant checks on presidential power, particularly regarding the use of military force within the United States.

The courts have recently ruled against the Trump administration’s attempts to federalize state National Guard units without clear justification, and the Insurrection Act - another legal avenue for domestic military deployment - is rarely invoked and subject to strict limitations.

By failing to challenge Miller’s claim, and by editing out the most controversial part of the exchange, CNN missed a critical opportunity to hold a powerful official accountable.

Instead, the network’s actions have fueled suspicions that it is more interested in managing optics and keeping in the administration’s good graces than in pursuing the truth.

A Pattern of Media Complicity

This incident is not an isolated case. As I discussed in my previous article, mainstream media outlets have a documented history of misrepresenting information, amplifying misleading narratives, and failing to challenge those in power:

• Misleading Headlines: Mainstream outlets have published suggestive headlines that, while technically accurate, have had outsized negative impacts—such as reducing vaccine uptake during the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Omitting Critical Context: Government agencies have had to publicly correct media narratives that omitted key facts or misrepresented legal details, further eroding public trust.

• Amplifying Distrust: Media recirculation of trust-reducing content from social media has contributed to public skepticism and the erosion of confidence in democratic institutions.

The CNN-Miller episode is a textbook example of how the media’s focus on viral moments and sensationalism can distract from substantive policy discussions and investigative journalism.

Instead of pressing Miller on the constitutional and legal limits of presidential power, CNN allowed a misleading claim to go unchallenged—and then quietly edited it out of the official record.

⭐ Get the real story, not media hype. Your support keeps this space open and ad-free. ⭐

The Stakes: Democracy and Accountability

The American system is built on checks and balances. No branch of government, including the presidency, is meant to wield unlimited power.

The media’s role as a watchdog is essential to maintaining this balance. When corporate media fails in this duty - whether through negligence, complicity, or a desire to avoid controversy - it enables abuses of power and leaves the public less informed and more vulnerable.

The events of the past week are a stark reminder: the threat posed by corporate media is not just theoretical. It is real, it is ongoing, and it is getting worse.

If we do not demand better from our media, from our government, and from ourselves - we risk losing the very foundations of our democracy.