Archives for category: Lies

I promise I won’t put up a post every time Trump lies, because he lies multiple times a day. But since CNN considers this lie newsworthy, here goes.

Daniel Dale, the CNN fact-checker, wrote:

Former President Donald Trump has falsely claimed, again, that he had to post a bond in order to appeal a $454 million civil fraud judgment against him – and falsely claimed, again, that Judge Arthur Engoron did something unusual in forcing him to post a bond during the appeal process.

On Tuesday, the morning after Trump posted the $175 million bond necessary to prevent New York’s attorney general from beginning to collect on Engoron’s judgment, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee wrote on social media: “I had to pay New York State in order to appeal a corrupt decision by a biased, crooked and highly overturned judge. It’s supposed to be the other way around – you appeal before you pay. Is a crooked New York Judge allowed to make you pay for the ‘privilege’ of appealing a wrongful & corrupt decision??? NOT IN AMERICA!!!”

Trump made similar claims in March, claiming, for example, that “Engoron wants me to put up the ridiculous fine (I DID NOTHING WRONG!) before I get a chance to Appeal his crazed ruling – A first!”

Facts First: Trump’s claims are comprehensively untrue. He was not required to post a bond in order to appeal Engoron’s ruling; he began the appeal process in February, more than a month before he posted the bond. And the requirement he actually faced – to post a bond to prevent collection during the appeal process – was not “a first” or some unusual requirement created by Engoron. In fact, the requirement is set out by New York state law, and it is regularly applied in civil cases in the state.

“This is literally the way that the NY rules of court are designed to work, and actually work every day,” Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor who is now a litigator in private practice in New York, told CNN in March. He said at the time that the rules being applied to Trump “are applied every day in New York courts, on verdicts of all sizes,” though the size of the judgment against Trump was notably large. Epner added: “Donald Trump is either horribly misinformed or lying.”

And there is no evidence for Trump’s repeated claims that Engoron is “crooked” or “corrupt.”

Under New York law for civil cases, it is standard to have to post a bond (or cash) in the full amount of a judgment in order to secure a stay that prevents collection during the appeal. In March, Trump falsely claimed this was an unprecedented Engoron requirement. Later in March, after Trump’s lawyers told a New York appeals court that it had proven impossible to secure a bond for more than $450 million, the appeals court decided that Trump could put up a lower amount, $175 million.

Epner told CNN at the time that “it’s highly unusual that it would be reduced at all,” and “highly unusual that it would be reduced by this amount,” though not unprecedented.

If Trump had not posted a bond and if New York Attorney General Letitia James had collected on the judgment, and then Trump had eventually won the case on appeal, James would have been required to return any collected money to Trump along with interest.

NBC showed the nation how NOT to hire a conservative commentator. They picked a MAGA firebrand who stood squarely behind Trump’s lies about the election. Their entire stable of in-air stars at MSNBC revolted, along with Chuck Todd of NBC, the network’s chief political honcho.

It was not Ronna McDaniel’s conservative views they rejected, but her lying. Lying is unethical.

Jill Lawrence, a journalist who writes at The Bulwark, a site for anti-Trump Republicans, offered the following advice:

YOU HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE, and where if not at the Big Lie?

If the Ronna McDaniel saga were a miniseries or magazine piece, it would be called “The Five-Day Tenure of a Great Get”: It starts last Friday when NBC News announces that it has hired the former chairwoman of the Republican National Committee as a political commentator. A massive backlash ensues, led by the network’s on-air talent, over McDaniel’s role in trying to reverse the 2020 election results, her year of denying them, and her continued attempts to underminethem. Okay, maybe not that great a get. By Tuesday, she’s out.

We live in complicated media times, and mistakes are constantly made—even now. They’ve been made since 2015 and the struggle will continue as long as Donald Trump is a dominant presence in American life.

I’ve been through it on the inside, and the McDaniel debacle brought back a lot of memories. The hardest journalism job I’ve ever had was being commentary editor of USA Today during “the reign of Donald Trump and his loyalists’ deadly attack on the Capitol to try to keep him in power,” as I called it in a 2021 interview. “Handling op-eds during this period was the challenge of a lifetime. I’ve never been so familiar with the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the criminal code and the unique angst of fact-checking in the Trump era.”

As that era continues to drag on, so do the challenges. And let’s be blunt: This is an asymmetrical problem. With so many Republicans tethered to Trump, MAGA, and their self-serving fictions, how do you showcase conservative voices while maintaining professional standards of truth, reality, and facts that aren’t “alternative”?

At USA Today, our editing team of liberals and conservatives tried like hell to do both. We had conservative regulars, conservative guest columnists, and first-person essays by conservatives. One column I edited mentioned the “liberal mob” and I remember chuckling at the phrase—it was an opinion, and the author was certainly entitled to it. I also remember fact-checking a Joe Biden op-ed during his 2020 campaign, and it was not difficult—because there were facts in it, and they were confirmable.

Most if not all traditional news outlets want very much to publish viewpoints across the ideological spectrum. David Mastio, my center-right editor and immediate boss at USA Today, used to mock-sigh as he told me that “You do ‘wrong’ so well.” He did, too, from my center-left perspective.

A commitment to viewpoint diversity is part of a business model, of course, but it’s also part of a fairness model—and a way to sharpen readers’ thinking, as well as our own. Whatever the motivation for this commitment, it can be difficult to maintain in our fraught media moment: the ongoing clashes over evidence and reality make it easy for a journalist or manager or organization to get into trouble.

I saw it when a conservative friend lost a job over insisting on facts in a commentary about Trump—by a pro-Trump writer. We all saw it when CNN aired a live Trump town hall with a cheering audience and an outgunned moderator, reviewed by the network’s own media writer as “a spectacle of lies.” And don’t even get me started about the time the news section of USA Today fact-checked a high-level Trump official’s “opposing view” to a USA Today editorial. (Spoiler: It was Peter Navarro, who reported to prison last week to serve four months for contempt of Congress.)

The temptation to hire big names like McDaniel is understandable, especially if—like NBC News—you have $300,000 lying around to pay her. Trump himself had the occasional byline on our page, and he was fact-checked. Vice presidential nominee Mike Pence wrote the “opposing view” in 2016 when the editorial board, breaking with USA Today tradition, said Trump was “unfit for the presidency.” Pence also wrote it in 2020 after we went even further and endorsed Biden—the first time in the paper’s history that the board endorsed a presidential candidate.

That election was, or should be, a line of demarcation. Before the Big Lie, and after it. Before the January 6th Capitol attack, and after it.

My 2021 Christmas wish was zero tolerance for the Big Lie, Stop the Steal crowd in Congress. I laid it all out in a column that ran with the headline “Oust Trump coup planners, enablers and provocateurs from public office. They betrayed us.” But they’re still there, from House Speaker Mike Johnson on down.

There’s nothing news organizations can do about that, or about Trump’s current starring roles as presumptive GOP presidential nominee and defendant in his many criminal and civil trials, or about the endless dilemma of when and how and whether to cover him in year nine of his lies and outrages.

What they can do, at the very least, is stop rewarding Big Lie opportunists like McDaniel.

Top brass at NBC thought it was a brilliant idea to hire Ronna McDaniel, former chair of the Republican National Committee, as a paid contributor. They did not check with their on-air commentators, who had taken the brunt of McDaniels’ criticism of the “fake news” on behalf of Trump. They knew she had fiercely defended his lies about election fraud. She has now retracted her lies, but that didn’t erase her history as a liar.

When the on-air commentators lambasted the hiring of McDaniel during their shows on Sunday and Monday, NBC leadership withdrew their offer.

But they had signed a contract to pay McDaniel $300,000 a year for two years, and she’s expecting to be paid in full.

Politico reports that she’s also considering a lawsuit for defamation and a hostile work environment.

If NBC wanted to add a Republican commentator who did not participate in the effort to overthrow the election and subvert the Constitution, they could have hired Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, or Mitt Romney (Ronna McDaniel’s uncle). She used to call herself Ronna Romney McDaniel but Trump insisted that she drop her middle name and she did.

The commentators at NBC and MSNBC are furious that NBC top brass hired Ronna Romney McDaniel as a paid commentator for the network. Presumably, the executives thought it would broaden their audience to bring on someone who had led the Republican National Committee for the past eight years.

They now face an internal rebellion. As Dan Rather explains on his blog Steady, prominent newscasters at NBC were apoplectic. The commentators at MSNBC—where Trump is despised—were assured that they did not have to invite her onto their programs.

Last night, I watched MSNBC, and every commentator lashed out against the hire. Joy Reid, Jen Psaki, Rachel Maddow, and Laurence O’Donnell expressed their outrage. They did not care that she was a Republican. They did not care that she was a conservative. They cared that she was an election denier and a liar. She did whatever Trump wanted, and he booted her anyway. She was actively involved in the fake electors scheme in Michigan. She even dropped her middle name (Romney) to please Trump. She lacks integrity. She insulted the media, as Trump did. As Jen Psaki said, she is not honest.

Dan Rather shared their views:

Journalism Lesson #1 for 2024:

The mainstream media should not normalize Donald Trump’s behavior, nor should they give a platform to his lies or those of his sycophants, who for years have spread disastrous untruths that may have irreparably damaged our nation.

But in one fell swoop, NBC News has managed to do both. By hiring former Republican National Committee chief Ronna McDaniel, NBC has given credence and legitimacy to a Republican who has been in lockstep with the lies, helping spread plenty of the former president’s falsehoods. Allowing McDaniel to be in the same area code as NBC News is a huge mistake and will only further shred the small amount of trust Americans still have in the mainstream media. I don’t blame journalists at NBC. They have long been some of the finest in the business. But one wonders what the hell executives at the network were thinking.

Before she sold her soul, Ronna McDaniel was considered Republican royalty. She’s the granddaughter of George Romney, former GOP governor of Michigan, and niece of Senator Mitt Romney, former Republican presidential nominee and former governor of Massachusetts. She has been the chair of the RNC since the day Donald Trump took office in 2017. And she has been loyal to him at all costs, especially the truth.

During her tenure, she was a prolific fundraiser yet oversaw the net losses of Republican governorships and congressional seats. But her biggest claim to fame during her seven years on the job is that she was a Trump supporter, loyalist, and apologist above all else.

One could argue that this is the role of the head of a political party: to support the highest-ranking member of said party. Yes, that is typically true. But McDaniel spent years repeating Trump’s disinformation, making cases for his lies and paying his legal bills. Here are just a few of her misdeeds:

  • Told CNN’s Chris Wallace of Joe Biden’s election win, “I don’t think he won it fair.”
  • Characterized the January 6 insurrection as “legitimate political discourse.”
  • Orchestrated the censure of Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the two Republican January 6 Committee members.
  • Encouraged Michigan canvassers not to certify the 2020 election results, promising them lawyers.
  • Took part in Trump’s scheme to assemble fake electors.
  • Refused to condemn QAnon to George Stephanopoulos on ABC News.
  • Mocked Senator John Fetterman and President Biden for speech impediments.
  • Warned that those Republicans who didn’t embrace Trump’s policies “will be making a mistake.”

McDaniel made her NBC News debut on this Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” At the top of the broadcast, host Kristen Welker disclosed McDaniel’s new role. She said, “This interview was scheduled weeks before it was announced that McDaniel would become a paid NBC News contributor. This will be a news interview, and I was not involved in her hiring.”

During the interview, McDaniel defended her time as chair with what may be the quote of the year. “When you’re the RNC chair, you kind of take one for the whole team. Now I get to be a little bit more myself, right?”

No, Ms. McDaniel, you don’t get to have it both ways. The truth does not change depending on who signs your paycheck. Whom are we supposed to believe, your RNC or NBC self?

McDaniel walked back some of her more outrageous statements, sort of. As of yesterday, she now admits that Joe Biden won the election “fair and square.” However, she continued to insist there were issues with the election. When pushed, she mentioned the huge increase in mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania and suggested voter fraud. Reminder: No significant fraud of any kind was found in any state in the 2020 election.

In defending their hire, NBC News’s Carrie Budoff Brown, senior vice president of politics, said, “It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team.”

Many on the NBC team vehemently disagreed. “We weren’t asked our opinion of the hiring, but, if we were, we would have strongly objected to it for several reasons,” Joe Scarborough, the “Morning Joe” co-host, said at the top of the broadcast Monday. Mika Brzezinski added, “We hope NBC will reconsider its decision. It goes without saying that she will not be a guest on ‘Morning Joe’ in her capacity as a paid contributor.”

Chuck Todd, NBC’s chief political analyst, could barely contain his anger and disbelief on “Meet the Press.”. “She [McDaniel] wants us to believe that she was speaking for the RNC when the RNC was paying for it. So she has — she has credibility issues that she still has to deal with. Is she speaking for herself or is she speaking on behalf of who’s paying her?”

He continued, “There’s a reason why there’s a lot of journalists at NBC News who are uncomfortable with this because many of our professional dealings with the RNC over the last six years have been met with gaslighting, have been met with character assassination.”

Now we come to the why. Why would NBC News hire someone as controversial as Ronna McDaniel? 

News gathering is a business, as unfortunate as that is. As a business, it needs to make money. In television news, more viewers equals more money. So news organizations feel they need to appeal to the broadest spectrum of viewers possible. We will exempt Fox, which calls itself a news organization but is more of a propaganda outfit for the GOP.  

The mainstream middle is a much more crowded field that is bombarded by accusations of bias and liberalism. So they feel the need to show their Republican bona fides by hiring conservative voices.

But that is the crux of the problem. Which Republicans? Trump loyalists who are election deniers and January 6 apologists? Never-Trumpers who are as likely to appeal to many Republican viewers as progressives? How do they represent the political right without alienating their loyal viewers and their correspondents? These are the new political realities ushered in by Donald Trump. And another reason independent journalism is essential right now, essential to provide unvarnished coverage in one of the most important elections in American history and to hold the mainstream media accountable.

Thom Hartmann wrote an ominous column about the possible origins and consequences of the terrorist attack in Moscow that killed scores of people at a concert.

He fears that Putin may use this horrific event as a pretext to step up his attacks on Ukraine and do to Ukraine what he did to Chechnya, which was to reduce the would-be breakaway region to a wasteland.

In his article, he recalls the Reichstag fire, which Hitler used as a pretext to initiate his dictatorship, crush democratic institutions, and round up dissidents.

He draws other analogies of leaders who were warned of pending catastrophes, but chose to ignore the warnings in order to solidify their hold on the population and secure their power.

In that group, he includes President George W. Bush, who ignored warnings about 9/11, and Benjamin Netanyahu, who ignored warnings about a likely attack by Hamas from the Gaza Strip. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz has written about the IDF “spotters,” the young women who watched activity at the Gaza border and warned their superiors about the military exercises they observed; they were ignored. Almost every one of these unarmed 18-and 19-year-old women were killed or taken hostage.

Hartmann wrote:

Like Hitler, Netanyahu, and Bush all did, Putin just claimed that up is down, that the terrorist attack he knew was coming was an unprovoked surprise, and that it came from Ukraine, not ISIS-K…

Friday, a group of ISIS extremists claimed credit for the attack on a Moscow theater that killed at least 133 people and left the building a smoldering ruin. But Russian President Vladimir Putin, in his public comments today, didn’t mention ISIS-K: instead, he placed the blame on Ukraine….

We’ve seen this movie before, both here, in Israel, and Germany, and it never ends well…

Ukraine, of course, has denied any involvement or knowledge of the attack. But don’t be surprised if Putin uses this as an excuse to massively bomb Kiev the way he utterly destroyed Grozny the capital of Chechnya, to subdue that nation. The attacks could begin as early as this coming week.

If that happens, it could provoke a stronger response from EU countries who see Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Moldova as being next on Putin’s menu: both he and his spokesmen have already said as much. 

And that could lead to a major escalation of the Ukraine war beyond the borders of Ukraine and into Poland or the Baltics, triggering Nato’s Article 5 mutual defense provision, which would instantaneously draw the US directly into the conflict.

All because Republicans have convinced Putin that they can prevent further US aid, so he believes now is a good time to use the time-tested “pretext of an unexpected attack” strategy to go from a “military operation” to an all-out war. 

In fact, just yesterday afternoon his official spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that the country is now officially “at war.”

That Ukrainian conflict, particularly if Putin-aligned Republicans like Rand Paul, Ron Johnson, Mark Johnson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, etc. are able to continue to prevent the US from helping Ukraine push Russia into a stalemate, could make China’s dictator Xi Jinping think it’s a great time to attack Taiwan.

And that, particularly since we recently stationed troops on Taiwanese territory, throws us straight into WWIII, regardless of Republican obstructionism and isolationist rhetoric.

I hope I’m wrong. Praying, frankly, that I’m wrong.

Anand Giridharadas is a brilliant thinker who has a blog called The Ink. In his latest post, he prints whole sections of Trump’s incendiary campaign speech in Vandalia, Ohio, and gives a close reading to his language. (Something oddly appropriate about the location since Trump is the King of Vandals.)

Anand’s parsing of Trump’s words is incisive. I’m posting only part of it, and Anand has made this post available for free. I urge you to open the link and read it all.

He writes:

Former President Donald Trump’s fascist performance art this past weekend in Vandalia, Ohio, was ostensibly a stump speech for someone else. But you could be forgiven for forgetting that. In what was effectively his first real rally since clinching the GOP nomination, Trump offered a grim vision of America and a patchwork of unhinged tirades against his usual targets. Yet there was more to it than that.

There is little value in fact-checking the former president’s words, given that the great majority of them bore so little relationship to reality that you quickly realize their purpose could only be to destabilize reality altogether. They simply restate dozens of well-worn lies, from birtherism up through the Big Lie, interspersed with a smattering of playground insults, projection, and a stew of misunderstood economic schemes and xenophobic delusions that do the work of standing in for policy ideas. This is a hole of lies that cannot be filled with facts.

But that doesn’t mean the speech wasn’t worth paying attention to. And, being of the reading sort, we suggest there is value in reading the text, not just rage-consuming the viral videos everyone has been rehashing.

We think all Americans need to take Trump’s speech both seriously and literally as the what-you-see-is-what-you’ll-get messaging of a would-be dictator. These are things that are actually being said, in public, by a person who has already occupied the world’s most powerful position and seeks to occupy it again. It’s an advertisement for autocracy that — give it this at least — complies with the notion of truth in advertising. And as Masha Gessen has reminded us, “Rule no. 1 is to listen to and believe the autocrat.”

What we look at below is how Trump’s rhetorical performance works, how it functions. In many of these examples, the “meaning” isn’t important, and that’s why the goal here isn’t to question his command of the facts. He’s making these statements without much pretense to knowing the facts in the first place; rather, he’s looking for maximum emotional impact. He fights entirely on the battleground of emotion, and that, Ruth Ben-Ghiat has reminded us, is pretty much what autocrats have always done. 

Trump’s language here — from stabs in the back to dystopian visions of foreign nations seeking to flood the American body politic with their unwanted criminals — has plenty of precedent in the words of the strongmen of the past and present. He goes out of his way to praise Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, perhaps returning thefavor for Orban’s snub of the sitting U.S. government on his recent visit to the U.S. 

And it’s the fact that this speech follows that well-established playbook that demands we pay attention. His words may be murky. What he plans to do to us is clear.

We’ve made this piece free and open to all. We hope it will make you think about these critical issues in new ways, and give you a glimpse of the posts that go out to our supporting subscribers each week. We encourage you to join our community, and to share our work with yours! And we have a rare special offer to entice you: 20% off forever!

The Victim King

Because I’m being indicted for you and never forget our enemies want to take away my freedom because I will never let them take away your freedom.

I’m being persecuted. I think more than anybody, but who the hell knows? You know, all my life…you’ve heard of Andrew Jackson. He was actually a great general and a very good president. They say that he was persecuted as president more than anybody else. Second was Abraham Lincoln. This is just what they said. This is in the history books. They were brutal. Andrew Jackson’s wife actually died over it, they say, died of a broken heart, but she died over it. He was never quite the same.

But they say Andrew Jackson, they say Abraham Lincoln was second, but he had a, you know, in all fairness, he did have a civil war. So you would think that would cause a problem, right? So you could understand it. But nobody comes close to Trump. 

Elementary school historical analysis aside, this passage is a reminder that, more than anything, Trump relishes playing the role of the Victim King. He’s casting attacks on him as attacks on his subjects, and valiantly stepping into the breach to block the slings and arrows so his loyal supporters won’t suffer. It’s part of the personalization of leadership that’s always been at the center of cults of personality — the devotional, movement-building side of authoritarianism.

The notion that the leader acts as both weapon and human shield is a central rhetorical tool in the arsenal of autocrats. And of course he’s done this better — or maybe just “more” — than anybody. More than Lincoln; more than Jackson. 

Trump’s victimhood here is absolute. He’s devoted himself entirely to protecting his flock. An attack on him is an attack on them; a win for him a win for them.

We dig here more deeply into Trump’s pursuit of absolute power through his performance of weakness.

The Horst Wessel song

And you see the spirit from the hostages, and that’s what they are, is hostages. They’ve been treated terribly and very unfairly. And you know that. And everybody knows that. And we’re going to be working on that soon. The first day we get into office, we’re going to save our country, and we’re going to work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots, and they were unbelievable patriots and are. You see the spirit, this cheering. They’re cheering while they’re doing that. And they did that in prison. And it’s a disgrace, in my opinion. 

Here Trump returns the favor, in a sense, to his shock troops. The speech opened with a playback of “Justice for All,” the MAGA fundraising release by the “J6 Prison Choir” that interpolates Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance over a backing track of the inmates singing “The Star-Spangled Banner.” 

The track is meant as a legal defense effort for the January 6 insurrectionists, but the role it plays here is to define those insurrectionists as true patriots, and to link Trump’s own persecution with that endured by his most devoted followers — the ones who’ve demonstrated their willingness to go into battle on his account. It’s a barter of martyrdoms.

This, as with the rest of the rhetoric here, is a classic authoritarian strategy. If you consider the insurrectionists cast in the role of Sturmabteilung(“SA,” the original paramilitary forces of the Nazi Party) martyr Horst Wessel (Ashli Babbitt specifically, though the group as a whole plays the same part generally here), this patriotic mashup recalls the Nazi anthem.

The Big Lie

I happen to think we won most of the country. You want to know the truth. If the voting…if the voting were real, I actually think we won most of the country.

Central to Trump’s identity is infallibility, and, given that, his mass popularity is without question. Again, this is classic autocratic positioning. Thus his obsessions with ratings, with polls, with casting primary victories that were never in doubt as fantastic triumphs.

Jokes about huge numbers aside (and the speech is rife with riffs on poll results), there is simply no way that he could have lost a legitimate electoral contest, and any such contest he might have lost would be, by definition, illegitimate. One need only look to Vladimir Putin’s “landslide” victory this week for an example of the way elections function in an authoritarian state.

The Big Lie is Trump’s truth, and it’s not just a boast. It’s key to the story he’s trying desperately to sell to the crowd, the story of a guy who can’t lose.

I was asking Jim Jordan about it because he was commenting that we have the largest crowds in the history of politics. Nobody comes close. If Ronald Reagan came to a place called Dayton, Ohio — have you heard of it? If he came to Dayton, Ohio, honestly, J.D., if he had three or 400 people in a ballroom, that would be great. We get 25-30,000 people for a small rally…We had 88,000 people show up in South Carolina.

An addendum: In his bid for recognition as the greatest of all Republicans, Trump is even willing to throw Ronald Reagan under the bus if it helps make the case.

Not even people

They’re very smart, very streetwise. And I would do the same thing. If I had prisons that were teeming with MS-13 and all sorts of people that they’ve got to take care of for the next 50 years, right? Young people, they’re in jail for years. If you call them people, I don’t know if you call them people. In some cases, they’re not people, in my opinion. But I’m not allowed to say that because the radical left says that’s a terrible thing to say…

We have so many people being hurt so badly and being killed. They’re sending their prisoners to see us. They’re sending and they’re bringing them right to the border and they’re dropping them off and we’re allowing them to come in. And these are tougher than anybody we’ve got in the country. These are hardened criminals. And we’ve got hundreds of thousands of them. 

If you take Trump at his word here — and we think you should — the leaders of countries around the world are conspiring to conduct an organized invasion, deploying their criminals to the United States in order to submerge it in violence. On one level, there’s nothing here but racism and xenophobia, but this works on the level of the conspiratorial ideas of mysterious foreign threats to the body politic that have long been part and parcel of the autocrat’s appeal. 

Migrants, in this account, aren’t fleeing refugees or people looking for a better life against all odds, but have been mobilized and directed against the U.S., a superhuman and yet subhuman army, “dropped off” by a shadowy cabal of foreign interests who aren’t content merely to sell us cheaper cars and fentanyl precursors.

Just insert “bankers” or “Jews” or “capitalist roaders” or even “globalists” here and you’re on the right track towards understanding what Trump’s trying to do.

Migrant crime

These are the roughest people you’ve ever seen. You know, now we have a new form of crime. I call it Biden migrant crime, but it’s too long. So let’s just call it migrant crime. We have a new category. You know, you have vicious crimes. You have violent crimes. You have all these. Now we have migrant crimes, and they’re rough. They’re rough. And it’s going to double up. And you see what’s happening. 

You know, throughout the world right now, I don’t know if you know this. Crime is way, way down. You know why? Because they sent us their criminals. That’s why. It’s true. It’s true. They sent, you know, Venezuela is down 66 percent because they sent us their gang members and gangsters. They sent us their drug dealers and their murderers. They’re all coming into our country. And Venezuela now, their crime is down 66 percent.

The supposed statistics here are just a “gish gallop,” in which the speaker simply overwhelms the opponent (or in this case the audience) with a flurry of inaccurate statements, knowing that the very attempt to correct them will both derail any reasonable argument and delay a response until the time has run out.

But this, again, is the story of the alien threat, here described as entering at the behest of their domestic collaborator, Joe Biden. It’s a “stab-in-the-back” accusation (there are several in the speech), in which a leader is identified as a secret traitor, betraying the nation to foreign interests.

The truth is that crime rates are down worldwide, and these statistics are pulled out of the air. The fear people have of the loss of control of the border, and of what it means to be “American” is real, however — even if Trump’s helped in its creation — and that’s what he’s playing to so effectively.

Please open the link and continue reading this insightful exegesis of Trump’s rhetoric. He is a talented orator. So was Hitler.

Republicans have followed their cult leader Trump in raising alarms about an “immigrant crime wave.” Which, of course, is Biden’s fault.

But as Judd Legum and Tesnim Zekeria explain at their blog “Popular Information,” these claims are not true. In fact, the crime rate is lower among undocumented immigrants than it is among American citizens.

They write:

Republican politicians and sympathetic media outlets are claiming that America is in the midst of a violent “crime wave,” driven in part by undocumented immigrants. New data, however, demonstrates that there was not a spike in violent crime in 2023. Instead, across America, rates of violent crime are dropping precipitously — and the decline is especially pronounced in border states. 

In January 2024, the Republican National Committee claimed that “crime continues at historic highs in Democrat-run cities.” Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH) declared in February 2024 that “[i]n Joe Biden’s America you get…cities plagued with crime.” These claims, however, are not supported by facts. 

The most comprehensive look at violent crime in the United States in 2023 will come when the FBI publishes its national Uniform Crime Report. But that will not happen until the fall. But, as crime analyst Jeff Asher explains in his newsletter, the FBI report is based on individual Uniform Crime Reports submitted by each state. Asher identified 14 states that have released their Uniform Crime Reports publicly. The data has not been completely finalized and could be adjusted slightly before formally submitting it to the FBI. But this data is the best early look at violent crime trends last year. 

Asher found that both murder and violent crime declined in 12 of 14 states. 

The only states that saw murders increase or stay flat, Rhode Island and Wyoming, had a very small number of total murders relative to other states — 28 and 14, respectively. This confirms previously available data from major cities in 2023 that showed sharp declines in murder and a smaller, but still significant, decline in violent crime. St. Louis and Baltimore saw their lowest murder rates in about a decade. Detroit was on pace for its lowest murder rate since 1966. 

Republicans and aligned media outlets claim that undocumented immigrants are driving the purported increase in crime. In a recent speech at the border, Former President Donald Trump falsely claimedthat the “United States is being overrun by the Biden migrant crime.” Trump has made the issue a central focus of his campaign. 

Other politicians are following Trump’s lead. On a March 3rd appearance on Fox News, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) said that “[w]e face a growing migrant crime wave because Biden has released into America tens of thousands of illegal migrants who were criminals in their own country.” In Arizona, Kari Lake – a Trump ally who is currently running for Senate – claimed Biden was allowing “literal foreign armies” to cross the border. The House GOP also issued a press release this month with the headline: “Joe Biden’s Open Borders Have Unleashed A Catastrophic Crime Wave Across The Country.”

On Fox News, “migrant crime” has emerged as a coverage staple in less than two months. Host Jesse Watters told viewers in late February that “[t]here is a migrant crime spree killing Americans.” According to the Washington Post, “Fox News hosts, guests and video clips have mentioned ‘migrant crime’ nearly 90 times” in the month of February.

Notably, the two border states that have completed their Uniform Crime Reports saw particularly sharp declines in murder in 2023, with 15% drop in Texas and 8.8% drop in Arizona. Both states also saw significant declines in violent crime overall. If undocumented immigrants were driving a violent crime surge, as Republicans and some media outlets suggest, you would expect to see it show up in the data from Texas and Arizona. 

Every act of violent crime is significant, and the modern media environment allows news of individual offenses — like the alleged murder of Laken Riley by an undocumented immigrant — to travel widely. But Asher told Popular Information that “discussion of an increasing violent crime trend driven by migrants is lacking in any factual basis.” He noted that “violent crime rates in Texas border counties have remained relatively low and below both the rest of Texas and the US as a whole” over the last decade. That is not the kind of data one would expect to see “if a surge in violent crime was being driven by migrants.” Therefore, Asher said, “any hypothesized increases in crime committed by migrants is either too small to show up in reported crime data or the hypothesized increases are not occurring.”

Republicans, including the National Republican Campaign Committee (NRCC), are also claiming that “noncitizen crime including, homicide, burglary, battery, and sexual offenses has risen 514.7% since Biden took office.” This is false. 

The data linked to by the NRCC tracks people who are arrested at the border by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that have a prior criminal record in any country. It has nothing to do with new crimes that occurred in the United States. The most common prior convictions for people arrested at the border are illegal crossing and other immigration offenses. As Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an expert at the American Immigration Council, notes, the CBP arrested over 2 million people at the border in Fiscal Year 2023, which covers October 1, 2022 to September 30, 2023. Of those arrestees, just 6,477 (0.3%) had a prior criminal conviction unrelated to their immigration status. 

Researchers who studied the issue have found that undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens. From 2012 to 2022, undocumented immigrants were 14% less likely to be convicted of murder and 41% less likely to be convicted of any criminal offense. Similar research by Michael Light at the University of Wisconsin found lower rates of “homicides, sexual assaults, violent crimes, property crimes, traffic and drug violations” among undocumented immigrants. [Emphasis added.]

Blogger Jay Kuo provides context and detail for Alabama Senator Katie Britt’s lie about a woman who was sex-trafficked in Mexico twenty years ago, which Senator Britt blamed on Biden. Kuo does not mention the irony of pinning sex crimes on President Biden when her own party’s nominee was convicted of sexual assault and accused of sexual assault by another twenty women. Trump just posted a bond of $100 million for the woman whom he sexually assaulted and repeatedly defamed.

Jay Kuo writes:

By now you’ve probably heard the news: Sen. Katie Britt’s rebuttal to President Joe Biden’s State of the Union was not just a painfully bad theatrical performance, one worthy of an SNL cold open by none other than Scarlett Johansson. It also contained at its core a bold-faced lie: that a sex trafficking victim, who was raped repeatedly at age 12, had met with Sen. Britt and was a stark example of Biden’s failed border policies.

The lie was surfaced quickly by freelance journalist Jonathan Katz, a reporter with “years of experience as an Associated Press foreign correspondent in Haiti and Mexico, where he covered things that would make Katie Britt cry real tears,” according to reporting by AL.com. Katz quickly proved that the sexual trafficking and rapes referenced by Senator Britt took place 20 years ago—during the George W. Bush administration. They also took place not in the United States, as Britt had all but declared, but rather in Mexico, and far from the border.

It took a bit of asking from folks online why mainstream media had not picked up such an important story, but in a report finally published on Saturday, the Washington Post was able to confirm the gist of Katz’s reporting. The woman whose story was relayed by Sen. Britt before the entire nation was Karla Jacinto Romero, according to a confirmation by Sean Ross, Britt’s communications director. 

Romero is a sexual trafficking victims’ rights advocate. Her story is widely known. In fact, she testified before Congress in 2015 about being forced to work in Mexican brothels from 2004 to 2008—again, back when George W. Bush was president. Yet Sen. Britt took that story and made it one about the border, which it most certainly was not.

In today’s piece, I’ll focus on three things: 

  • A breakdown of the dangerous deception perpetrated by Sen. Britt, following the analysis of Katz and the Washington Post;
  • The moral depravity it takes not just to lie this way but to actually exploit the story of a sexual trafficking victim for political gain; and
  • The deep irony at the heart of Sen. Britt’s emotional plea that we pay attention to stories like the one she told America.

Sen. Britt willfully scammed the American public

It’s hard to forget the moment when Sen. Britt first brought up the story of a woman who, at the age of 12, had been repeatedly raped by cartels. Here were her words on Thursday night before a national audience of millions, fake emotion crackling in her voice:

We know that President Biden didn’t just create this border crisis. He invited it with 94 executive actions in his first 100 days. When I took office, I took a different approach. I traveled to the Del Rio sector of Texas. That’s where I spoke to a woman who shared her story with me. She had been sex trafficked by the cartels starting at the age of 12. She told me not just that she was raped every day, but how many times a day she was raped. The cartels put her on a mattress in a shoe box of a room, and they sent men through that door over and over again for hours and hours on end. We wouldn’t be okay with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it. President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.

After Sen. Britt was called out for connecting this story somehow to President Biden, reporters began asking her office to confirm a few things. Even with some pressing, her communications director insisted in a written statement that the “story Senator Britt told was 100% correct.” 

That’s why we need to unpack the rhetorical jujitsu Sen. Britt deployed to achieve this deception.

As the Washington Post observed, the story above unfolds in five parts.

• She first blames Biden for the surge of migrants at the border.

• Then she says she visited the border shortly after she took office. That would be 2023.

• At length, she details the story of an unnamed victim that she says she met on her trip. The implication is that the woman recently crossed the border — because of “sex trafficking by the cartels.”

• She strongly suggests that her abuse took place in the United States: “We wouldn’t be okay with this happening in a Third World country. This is the United States of America, and it is past time, in my opinion, that we start acting like it.”

• She ends by reinforcing that such alleged trafficking is Biden’s fault: “President Biden’s border policies are a disgrace.”

And yet, Biden, the border and the cartels had nothing to do with Romero. According to her testimony, cited by the Post, after her mother threw her out of the house, a pimp took advantage of her, and she spent four years in a brothel, escaping at age 16. 

Nor was Romero ever trafficked across the border to the U.S. Instead, she was the victim of sexual tourism, with “foreigners visiting my city looking to have sexual interactions with minors like me.” That is horrifying in its own way, but decidedly not about the border.

As Jonathan Katz noted in his now viral TikTok video about Britt’s lies, the senator had made it seem like she had met the woman “sitting by the banks of the Rio Grande, … holding her hand … getting her to tell her the story that she won’t tell anyone else.” In fact, Britt met Romero at a press conference organized by three GOP women senators, including Britt, and a Fox News reporter known for inflammatory pieces on immigration.

Sen. Britt tried to scam the entire nation by trying to spin a story from two decades ago about a child victim of sexual tourism into a story today about Biden’s failed policies, sex trafficking across the border, and cartels. For that, the Washington Post gave her four Pinocchios—its worst rating, a real whopper.

Stolen pain and fear-mongering

It takes a complete absence of a moral compass to leverage someone else’s tragic story—one she has carried for decades and made her life’s mission to tell others—into a tool for raw and cynical political gain. But that’s what Sen. Britt did, perhaps because, as the New York Times observed in its follow-up piece, “As a rhetorical device, it would be hard [to] conjure up a more powerful and resonant example.”

The Times found Romero and interviewed her directly about how she felt knowing her story was being leveraged by Britt for entirely different, political purposes. Because we as a nation owe Romero an apology for allowing our dysfunctional politics to overtake and derail her important work, I want to highlight what she told the paper:

Ms. Jacinto, who spoke with the Times Saturday from Mexico, said she had not been informed ahead of time that Ms. Britt would be discussing her in the speech and only learned about it after a video pointing out the deceptive framing of the senator’s speech was posted by the independent journalist Jonathan Katz on TikTok on Friday.

“I only found out via social media,” said Ms. Jacinto, who continues to speak frequently about human trafficking and who is supported by a U.S.-based nonprofit, Reintegra, that provides educational grants to victims of sex trafficking in Latin America. “I thought it was very strange.”

She said she preferred to keep politics out of the question of human trafficking. “I am involved in the fight to stop trafficking and I don’t think it should be political,” she said. “The work I do is not a game.” 

Not a game, indeed. U.S. voters, particularly suburbanites who are looking at the question of immigration more closely now and assessing the positions of both parties, may begin to understand the extent to which the GOP is sensationalizing the issue. 

Already, the Republicans have pressed the tragic story of Georgia student Laken Riley, who was killed by a Venezuelan migrant, as far as they can, mentioning her at every opportunity and even inviting her family to meet with Trump at his recent rally in the state. The point of this is clear: The GOP now seeks to paint all migrants with the same broad unfair brush of criminality. This of course defies government statistics showing that migrants commit fewer crimes than non-migrants and that there is no evidence of the “migrant crime wave” that the Republicans and Fox have raised repeatedly. Instead, crime rates in cities where migrants have been heading are actually down, which would be an inconvenient fact for the GOP narrative if facts actually ever mattered to their base.

Republicans also appear to care far more about this one death, horrific as it is, than about the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused by their other policies, from vaccine denialism to their failure to enact sensible gun restrictions. It means, simply put, that they don’t really care about Riley. They just find her death at the hands of a migrant useful.

The cynicism and hypocrisy is breathtaking.

The ultimate irony

I want to close by highlighting a glaring contradiction within Sen. Britt’s rebuttal. On the one hand, she begs us to think of victims like Romero who are suffering, she claims, from being trafficked across our border and sexually assaulted and exploited.

But the logical conclusion of that plea is that we should show more compassion in our asylum laws for women like she described. Instead, Britt supports the kinds of draconian policies that would deny legal protection to sex trafficking victims. 

As former Congressmember Tom Malinowski noted,

It’s not just that Katie Britt’s story was false (since the woman she cited was trafficked by cartels within Mexico). 

It’s that the border policy she supports would be to send victims like that back to Mexico into the hands of the cartels, with no chance to seek asylum.

The recent House election in NY-3, where the positions of the parties on immigration were tested before voters, proved that Republicans don’t automatically have a winning hand when it comes to the border. This is especially true now that the GOP has rejected the only bipartisan solution to the issue, all because Donald Trump wants to keep wielding it as a political weapon. 

It is incumbent upon the media, the public, and our Democratic leaders to call out the cheap ploys and race-baiting that Trump, Britt and the rest of the GOP deploy to rile up the public, all while doing nothing to actually fix the problem.

As President Biden said in his State of the Union, we can fight about fixing the border, or we can fix it. All that GOP officials like Sen. Britt offer are more lies, rank hypocrisy and fear. And those have never led to sound policies or solutions, just more division and anxiety

Jan Resseger reports that the wild expansion of vouchers in Ohio has worked as predicted: they confer public money on students who already attend private and religious schools. They do not benefit children who are poor. The claim that they would “help poor children escape failing schools” was a hoax.

Maybe voucher advocates believed it thirty years ago, when no one knew how vouchers would work. But now we know. The evidence from every state with vouchers shows the same result: the overwhelming majority of vouchers are used by students who never attended public schools. The more states expand vouchers, the more they subsidize affluent families. And the poor kids who take vouchers fall behind their peers in public schools.

She writes:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer placed Laura Hancock’s expose about Ohio’s wildly expanded school voucher program on the front page above the fold in Sunday’s paper. It is good to see this dangerous threat to public schooling—inserted into the state budget with minimal public discussion—receiving the attention it deserves.

Hancock’s message? Ohio isn’t helping poor kids in public schools, the original promise of Ohio’s first voucher program in Cleveland in the 1990s. Instead, the new vouchers are a gift to middle income and wealthy families whose children are already enrolled in private and parochial schools:

“The number of Cuyahoga County students (students in greater Cleveland) receiving state-funded scholarships to attend private schools has skyrocketed this year after state lawmakers expanded a voucher program, but state data suggests that doesn’t necessarily mean more kids have opted out of public schools. Across the county’s 31 districts, the number of students receiving tuition payments in the EdChoice-Expansion scholarship… has increased nearly four-fold, from 2,500 students last year to nearly 9,200 this year. Those districts, however, have not seen a corresponding loss in student population, indicating that most of the families newly benefiting from the vouchers were already enrolled in private schools rather than fleeing a school district.”

Hancock profiles, for example, three of Cleveland’s middle and upper income suburbs where the vouchers now serve as a tuition-reimbursement entitlement for families of students already paying private school tuition: “Enrollment in Rocky River City School District fell by just 22 students between last year and this year, even though the number of kids receiving vouchers shot up from 16 to 309. In Bay Village City School District, there are 30 fewer students despite a voucher jump from 13 to 229. Westlake City School District has 19 fewer students; vouchers in the district spiked from 41 to 581.”

Hancock lists the ten Ohio public school districts with the largest growth in students accepting a voucher under Ohio’s huge expansion of school vouchers this year.  Three are exurbs of Cleveland; one is a shared exurb of Cleveland and Akron; one is an exurb of Akron; one is an exurb of Columbus, and four are exurbs of Cincinnati. In every one of these districts, according to data from the Ohio Department of Education, the median income is far above the state’s median of $41,132.59. In Indian Hill, a Cincinnati suburb, the median income is $96,508.50. Median income in Hudson, part of suburban Cleveland and Akron, is $82,183.00, and in Olentangy, a Columbus exurb, median income is $79,892.50.

Why are the ten school districts with so many students taking vouchers for the first time all wealthy suburbs? Hancock explains: “because the legislature… removed income eligibility caps for EdChoice-Expansion. Last year, the cap was 250% of the federal poverty level for a scholarship, or $75,000 for a family of four. Now there are no income caps, although families only get partial scholarships when they earn above 450% of the poverty level, or above $135,000 for a family of four.”

Hancock adds that the state is giving away a whole lot of money in each voucher: $6,167 for grades K-8 and $8,407 for grades 9-12. Thomas S. Poetter, a professor at Miami University of Ohio, who recently edited the new Vouch for This!, adds that the vouchers are worth more than the state school funding formula has established as the base cost public schools are expected to spend per student—the amount that includes the state and local contributions required by the school funding formula. Poetter writes: “(T)he fact remains that the state will be spending more per pupil on individual children in private high schools with its voucher program… than it will for individual public school students across the state… That has been the case for nearly the entire life of the EdChoice ‘Scholarship’ program (it’s a voucher program) but it really hits home with the high figures coming at us in the new budget. And just think of all that could be done in our public schools to better our offerings… if we weren’t sending more than $1 billion a year into private hands to be used in ways that none of us would ever approve of in public education….” (Vouch for This!, pp. 130-131)

Hancock quotes Troy McIntosh from the Ohio Christian Education Network and the Center for Christian Virtue enthusing about the new voucher expansion. She quotes Senator Andy Brenner, Chair of the Ohio Senate Education Committee, explaining that families ought to get the vouchers because they are paying taxes and therefore ought to get a personal reward for their children. She adds that after the voucher expansion, “the Catholic Diocese of Columbus is looking to potentially build schools in areas that currently don’t have a Catholic school.”

Hancock’s article omits one urgently important issue with Ohio’s new voucher expansion: over half the state’s counties are rural and entirely lack a private school where students might potentially carry a voucher. The expansion of private school tuition vouchers will shift the distribution of money from the state’s school foundation budget away from the state’s rural school districts because private school tuition vouchers can be used only by students in areas where private schools exist—places with larger and more concentrated populations.  In a report last year for the Ohio League of Women Voters (You should scroll down and then download report.), Susan Kaeser explains: “Most of the public school population is concentrated in Ohio’s 8 largest urban counties, and so is the private school population. The 8 largest counties have 46% of the public school population and 71% of the private school students…  Public education is the only consistently available education choice in Ohio’s 46 small counties, those with less than 8,000 public school students… Private schools across these 46 counties serve a total of only about 7,000 students.” “Rural taxpayers underwrite private choice in the state—but not where they live.”

Hancock reminds readers that “over 130 public school districts… are suing the state over the constitutionality of the vouchers.”  Coincidentally on Sunday, the Plain Dealer also published a commentary by William Phillis, Executive Director of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, which is a co-plaintiff with the public school districts in the Vouchers Hurt Ohio lawsuit.  Phillis provides the history, beginning in 1819, of Ohio’s efforts to establish and support public education.  Our system of public common schools, Phillis reminds us, is protected by the language of the 1851 Ohio Constitution in Article VI, section 2: “Convention delegates crafted language that required the legislature to secure, by taxation, a thorough and efficient system of common schools and clarified that religious sects or other sects shall not control any part of school funds of the state.”

The school voucher explosion for the wealthy that was slipped into Ohio’s FY 2024-2025 state budget last summer epitomizes what we were warned about last year in the conclusion to The School Voucher Illusion, edited by experts Kevin Welner, Gary Orfield, and Luis A. Huerta and published by the Teachers College Press: “As currently structured, voucher policies in the United States are unlikely to help the students they claim to support. Instead, these policies have often served as a facade for the far less popular reality of funding relatively advantaged (and largely White) families, many of whom already attended—or would attend—private schools without subsidies. Although vouchers are presented as helping parents choose schools, often the arrangements permit the private schools to do the choosing… Advocacy that began with a focus on equity must not become a justification for increasing inequity. Today’s voucher policies have, by design, created growing financial commitments of taxpayer money to serve a constituency of the relatively advantaged that is redefining their subsidies as rights—often in jurisdictions where neighborhood public schools do not have the resources they need.” (The School Voucher Illusion: Exposing the Pretense of Equity, p. 290)

I served on the National Assessment Governing Board from 1998-2004. NAGB is the governing agency for NAEP, the federal test. I was appointed by President Bill Clinton. I learned about the inner workings of standardized testing, much of which made me skeptical of it.

I have often observed that critics of public schools assume that NAEP Proficient is the same as “grade level,” when in fact NAEP warns readers explicitly in every score report that NAEP Proficient is NOT “grade level.” In fact, NAEP Proficient represents mastery of what was tested, which I would characterize as an A or A-.

In 2010, when the anti-public school documentary “Waiting for ‘Superman’” was released, I reviewed it for The New York Review of Books and criticized it for confusing NAEP Proficiency with grade level, then claiming that most American kids can’t read, all because of their terrible public schools, their terrible teachers and those awful unions. The way to a better future, the documentary claimed, was charter schools. Not true. Even Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona has repeated this erroneous claim. Apparently neither he nor his speech writers reads NAEP reports with care and no one has briefed them.

I have explained this confusion on several occasions on the blog. I even called the Commissioner of the National Center on Education Statistics and proposed that NAEP Proficient be renamed “NAEP Mastery,” to clarify its meaning. She sounded enthusiastic about the idea (which came from a reader of this blog) but nothing changed.

I am very happy to see that Professor Paul Thomas at Furman University in South Carolina has launched a series called “Big lies in Education,” and this claim is one of the Big Lies. It is a lie because the fact that NAEP Proficient is not grade level is stated plainly in every release of NAEP scores.

Thomas begins:

One of the most bearish statistics for the future of the United States is this: Two-thirds of fourth graders in the United States are not proficient in reading,” wrote Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times.

Kristof’s piece in 2023 can be traced back to a similar claim by Emily Hanford in 2018: “More than 60 percent of American fourth-graders are not proficient readers, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and it’s been that way since testing began in the 1990s,” including a surprisingly ineffective graphic.

Open the link to see this and other graphics.

The student reading proficiency Big Lie grounded in misrepresenting or misunderstanding NAEP is likely one of the most complicated Big Lies of Education.

In media and political rhetoric, first, the terms “reading proficiency” and “grade level reading” are commonly jumbled and used inappropriately as synonyms.

Achievement levels such as “basic” and “proficient,” such as used in NAEP for reading, are misleading and complicated for most people not familiar with technical terminology.

NAEP “basic” is approximately grade level (although even that claim is problematic since no standard exists in the US for “proficient” or “grade level”), and “proficient” on NAEP is high: 

Another important graph. Open the link.

Hanford’s and Kristof’s Big Lie, then, is a combination of blurring NAEP achievement levels with grade level reading achievement and manufacturing a reading crisis with that misinformation.

Ironically, NAEP grade 4 reading scores for a decade show that 2/3 of students are reading at or above grade level, the inverse of the false crisis claims of the media:

Open the link for the graph.

This is an excellent expose, which everyone should read. The claim that most kids read below grade level is foundational to the claim that public schools are in crisis. Its a Big Lie.