Loading record
Public disputes concerning news and entertainment media, ownership, mergers, editorial decisions, reporting, and media institutions.
Counts show individual statements. They do not assign an overall position.
3 statements on this page. Dates: November 16, 2025 to October 9, 2026
3 matching statements. Dates: November 16, 2025 to October 9, 2026
3 published statements. Dates: November 16, 2025 to October 9, 2026
2 published statements. Dates: September 21, 2026 to October 9, 2026
2 statements on this page. Dates: September 21, 2026 to October 9, 2026
Role at the time: Political commentator, in a post on X
Statement summary
Laura Loomer said every execution of every terrorist should be live streamed because Americans should rejoice in killing the enemies of America, and called for watch parties for Hasan's execution.
“Every single execution of every single terrorist should be live streamed because the American people should rejoice in killing the enemies of America.”
Laura Loomer's own post on X.
The case asks whether Pete Hegseth should livestream Nidal Hasan's execution; it concerns the broadcast proposal, not Hasan's conviction or capital punishment. Loomer says executions of terrorists "should be live streamed" and calls for "watch parties for the execution of Nidal Hasan". That supports the broadcast, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional; it loses because she attaches no reservation.
Role at the time: Founder of Loomered and host of Loomer Unleashed, in a post on X
Statement summary
Laura Loomer said the television networks' joint withdrawal of pool coverage was the kind of concerted action a serious Justice Department antitrust division would examine, and said a lawsuit should have been filed that day.
“This coordinated withdrawal of news coverage is exactly the kind of concerted action a serious antitrust division at the DOJ would examine: whether competing news organizations agreed among themselves to withhold a product the public expects to see.”
Post on Loomer's own X account, published the day the television pool suspended coverage.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)The case asks whether the Justice Department is justified in investigating the television networks' White House press-pool boycott under antitrust law. Nearly three weeks before the inquiry was reported, Loomer says the networks' "coordinated withdrawal of news coverage" is the kind of concerted action the Antitrust Division should examine, and writes: "A lawsuit should have been filed today". That supports an antitrust investigation of the networks, so we labeled it Defended or excused. The closest competing label is Mixed or conditional, since she criticizes the division's leadership; it loses because her complaint is that the department was not acting against the networks, not a reservation about doing so.
1 published statement. Dates: November 16, 2025
1 statement on this page. Dates: November 16, 2025
Role at the time: Political activist and commentator, on her X account
Response to this claim
Wilkins's complaint against Seraphin says she "is not now and never has been an agent for any intelligence agency" and "has never set foot in Israel."
“That’s not Kash Patel. That’s his girlfriend. And how is it insane if she was defamed? People can’t just go around calling everyone they don’t like “Mossad” spies.”
Loomer's reply to an Alex Jones post that called the suit against Elijah Schaffer "Kash Patel's insane anti-first amendment lawsuit."
The reference point is the proposition that Alexis Wilkins is, or was, a foreign intelligence agent, specifically an Israeli or Mossad "honeypot" in a relationship with Kash Patel to compromise him. Loomer defends Wilkins's suit and treats the Mossad label as a smear, which rejects the accusation, but she does not say in terms that Wilkins is not an agent, so we used Challenged the characterization. The closest competing label is Denied, because calling it defamation implies the label is false. It loses because her point is about name-calling rather than an explicit statement about Wilkins. Evidence level: her own post on X.
