Corporate social responsibility acts as an insurance policy when companies cut jobs and benefits during the times of crisis

Employees tend to fault organizations that don’t support charitable or environmental courses — and forgive them if they do

Stevens Institute of Technology

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

From shifting economic policy to disrupted supply chains, there seems to be no lack of challenges for businesses nowadays. Rising inflation, shifting interest rates, labor shortages and geopolitical tensions can make things worse, pushing businesses into a crisis mode. To survive, companies sometimes must resort to extreme measures such as freezing salary increases, changing benefits, cutting employees’ perks or reducing headcount.

For employees, such drastic changes can give rise to a phenomenon known as the “psychological contract breach,” a perception that an organization has failed to meet its obligations and promises. “To employees, it could mean that the organization didn't deliver on the promise it has made to them, such as salary increases, reliable benefits, and overall long-term stability of their job,” says Assistant Professor Haoying (Howie) Xu who studies organizational behavior and human resource management at Stevens School of Business. 

These upheavals may affect employees’ morale and trigger counterproductive behaviors, including “punishing” the company for its contract breach. “Some people may come to work late or become less involved with their duties,” Xu says. Others may “quiet quit,” which means that while they aren’t resigning, they don’t engage in work efforts beyond what’s absolutely necessary. “It’s the ideology of ‘I come in because I am required to come in, I do the bare minimum, and then I just go home,’” explains Xu. 

In some extreme cases, the effects of the psychological contract breach can be more severe and more damaging. Some employees may speak negatively and pejoratively about their employers outside the organization. “That may destroy the organization's external reputation,” Xu says. 

With crises becoming more common, Xu wanted to investigate how companies can minimize the negative consequences on their relationship with workforce. So Xu and his collaborators, Meng Zhong at the University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Sandy Wayne at the University of Illinois Chicago, and Eric Michel at Northern Illinois University, conducted a research work to understand how employees react to psychological contract breaches and what shapes their perception of whether the company is at fault — or not. 

Xu and his colleagues conducted a survey of employees based in the United States across various industries, asking questions about their reaction to a psychological contract breach in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The collaborators also created a hypothetical psychological contract breach scenario and asked participants how they would react if faced with such a situation. 

The study found that corporate social responsibility played a major role in shaping employees’ perception. Corporate social responsibility is a practice in which companies integrate social and environmental concerns into their operations to have a positive impact on society. “For example, corporations may give money to nonprofits, raise funds for specific groups, sponsor environmental initiatives or support other charitable causes,” says Xu.

The study found that when companies actively engage in corporate social responsibility, employees are more likely to forgive their employer for such breaches. That’s because when employees think of their company as conscientious, kind and socially responsible, they believe that the company didn’t intentionally commit the breach but was forced to do so due to circumstances beyond its control. “As the proverb goes,” Xu says. “‘a good deed is never lost’— and it applies to the companies’ reputation too.”  

Titled Insurance-like Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility in Understanding Employees’ Responses to Psychological Contract Breach During a Crisis, the study was published on November 30, 2025, in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 

Xu clarifies that while corporate social responsibility is essential, it’s not the only thing that matters during crises. Companies also must figure out a plan to repair the psychological contract breach. “Organizations should find ways to make it up to the employees, compensate for their sacrifices, and figure out a feasible way to help them through the crisis. And companies have to engage employees into this plan, so that they feel part of the effort and part of the solution.”   

What’s important, however, is that the investment into corporate social responsibility is ideally to be done before the crisis to shape the employee’s opinion of the company as kind and conscientious. It helps organizations gain positive moral capital. “It’s like an insurance policy,” Xu says. 

“We buy insurance for so many other aspects of life—car insurance, health insurance, life insurance,” he points out. “So investing into corporate social responsibility is like buying an insurance for your reputation among your employees.” And he adds, “In today’s world that insurance policy will go a long way.”

About Stevens Institute of Technology 

Stevens is a premier, private research university situated in Hoboken, New Jersey. Since our founding in 1870, technological innovation has been the hallmark of Stevens’ education and research. Within the university’s three schools and one college, more than 8,000 undergraduate and graduate students collaborate closely with faculty in an interdisciplinary, student-centric, entrepreneurial environment. Academic and research programs spanning business, computing, engineering, the arts and other disciplines actively advance the frontiers of science and leverage technology to confront our most pressing global challenges. The university continues to be consistently ranked among the nation’s leaders in career services, post-graduation salaries of alumni and return on tuition investment. 

---

Journal

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology

Article Title

Insurance-like Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility in Understanding Employees’ Responses to Psychological Contract Breach During a Crisis

Article Publication Date

30-Nov-2025

 

Clinical use of nitrous oxide could help treat depression, major study shows

Largest analysis of global trial data shows clinical nitrous oxide as a promising rapid-acting treatment for depressive disorders

University of Birmingham

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Patients with major depressive disorder, including those who have not responded to first-line antidepressants, may benefit from short-term nitrous oxide treatment, a major meta-analysis led by the University of Birmingham has found.

The new paper published in eBioMedicine today has assessed the best available clinical information to show how clinically administered nitrous oxide (N2O) can offer fast-acting depressive symptom relief for adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) and treatment-resistant depression (TRD). 

TRD is characterised as depression that isn’t effectively managed after a patient tries two different antidepressants. It affects approximately 48% of UK patients who experience limited benefit from standard treatments, according to a previous study* led by the research team. 

Researchers from the University of Birmingham, University of Oxford, and Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust assessed seven clinical trials and four protocol papers published by investigators from around the world. Each research study looked at the use of nitrous oxide, also used as pain relief in a range of medical situations, for treating depressive disorders, including MDD, TRD and bipolar depression.

The team found that a single treatment of inhaled clinical nitrous oxide at 50% concentration (in three trials), produced rapid and significant reductions in depressive symptoms within 24 hours, although these effects were not sustained at one week. In contrast, repeated dosing over several weeks led to more durable improvements, suggesting that multiple treatment sessions (compared to a single dose) may be required to maintain clinical benefit. It is thought to target glutamate receptors in a similar way to ketamine, another rapid-acting antidepressant, and this may help explain why improvements in mood can be observed soon after inhalation. 

Kiranpreet Gill, a PhD researcher funded by the Medical Research Council at the University of Birmingham and first author of the study, said: “Depression is a debilitating illness, made even more so by the fact that antidepressants make no meaningful difference for almost half of all patients diagnosed with it. There is a growing body of research on repurposing treatments from other clinical domains to alleviate low mood. This study brings together the best possible evidence indicating that nitrous oxide has the potential to provide swift and clinically significant short-term improvements in patients with severe depression. 

“Our analyses show that nitrous oxide could form part of a new generation of rapid-acting treatments for depression. Importantly, it provides a foundation for future trials to investigate repeated and carefully managed dosing strategies that can further determine how best to use this treatment in clinical practice for patients who don’t respond to conventional interventions.”

Strong evidence, but limited numbers of trials currently

The meta-analysis of studies found strong evidence for short-term improvements in mood following nitrous oxide administration. Due to the limited number of existing trials, there was notable variability in how depressive symptoms were measured and reported, as well as in the timing of these assessments. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal dose, nitrous oxide’s long-term safety, and the best way to integrate it into existing treatment pathways. 

The team also examined the safety and potential side effects of nitrous oxide. Some patients experienced side effects such as nausea, dizziness and headaches, all of which passed quickly and resolved without medical intervention. While higher dosing (at 50% concentration) increased the likelihood of these side effects, none of the studies reported any short-term safety concerns. The researchers emphasised that longer-term safety must be assessed through future studies with extended follow-up periods. 

Professor Steven Marwaha from the University of Birmingham, Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist at Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health Foundation Trust, and senior author of the study said: "This is a significant milestone in understanding the potential of nitrous oxide as an added treatment option for patients with depression who have been failed by current treatments. This population has often lost hope of recovery, making the results of this study particularly exciting. These findings highlight the urgent need for new treatments that can complement existing care pathways, and further evidence is needed to understand how this approach can best support people living with severe depression.”

The study was conducted by researchers at the Mental Health Mission Midlands Translational Centre, led by the University of Birmingham and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research through the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The team are working on improving treatment options for treatment-resistant depression in superdiverse and deprived populations. The Centre aims to accelerate the development and delivery of innovative, evidence-based interventions to improve outcomes and reduce disparities in mental health care.

This work also aligns with ongoing efforts within the Birmingham Clinic for Advanced Mood Disorder Management (CALM), where innovative, evidence-based treatments such as ketamine and neuromodulation are being delivered to people with severe or treatment-resistant depression. 

Building on this translational pathway from discovery to clinical practice, the team is now preparing the first NHS trial in the UK to assess whether nitrous oxide can be delivered safely and acceptably as a treatment for major depression. The findings will help determine how nitrous oxide could be integrated into NHS care and may expand the range of innovative options available for patients who have not benefited from standard approaches.
 

---

Journal

EBioMedicine

DOI

10.1016/j.ebiom.2025.106023 

Method of Research

Meta-analysis

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Nitrous oxide for the treatment of depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Article Publication Date

30-Nov-2025

 

Report reveals potential of AI to help Higher Education sector assess its research more efficiently and fairly

University of Bristol

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Topline summary

* Study indicates generative AI tools are being used widely by UK Universities for the REF

* Findings show disparate level and nature of usage

* Results highlight need for national oversight and guidelines

* With innovative mindset and structured support…scope to improve efficiency and equitable access

Full release

A new national report has shown for the first time how generative AI (GenAI) is already being used by some universities to assess the quality of their research – and it could be scaled up to help all higher education institutions (HEIs) save huge amounts of time and money.

But the report, led by the University of Bristol and funded by Research England, also reveals widespread scepticism among academics and professionals working in the sector about its usage for this purpose, and highlights the need for national oversight and governance.

The UK’s system for assessing the quality of research in higher education institutions (HEIs) is known as The Research Excellence Framework (REF). Its outcomes influence how around £2 billion annually of public funding is allocated for universities’ research.

Lead author Richard Watermeyer, Professor of Higher Education at the University of Bristol, said: “GenAI could be a game-changer for national-level research assessment, helping to create a more efficient and equitable playing field. Although there is a lot of vocal opposition to the incorporation of it into the REF, our report uncovers how GenAI tools are nevertheless being widely – if currently, quietly – used, and that expectation of their use by REF panellists is high.”

The last REF took place in 2021 and, following a review, changes to guidance for the next one – REF2029 – are expected to be announced this month. Total costs of REF2021 are estimated to be around £471million, with an average of £3million per participating HEI, and REF2029 finances are anticipated to be much higher.

Prof Watermeyer said: “The report is timely given the immense financial pressures facing the sector. It’s widely accepted that the regulatory burden of the REF is high and will, in all likelihood, only increase. Our report demonstrates that GenAI has the potential to alleviate some of this, but offers no complete solution. It could also create new bureaucratic challenges of its own, including establishing new requirements and protocols for its appropriate use.”

Key findings

The report investigated the usage of GenAI at 16 HEIs, including Russell Group universities and more recently established universities, across the UK. Findings indicated evidence of GenAI being widely deployed to prepare REF submissions in some capacity. But the extent and way it was being used greatly differed.

For instance, some universities were using the tools to gather evidence of their research impact in the wider world and to help craft related stories. In others, there was evidence of in-house tools being developed to streamline REF processes or GenAI being used to review, assess, and score their research.

Prof Watermeyer added: “There is clear variation, in fact, disparity in how HEIs can and might use these tools for competitive advantage in the REF. The extent to which institutions might profit from these tools is, as you might expect, linked to their level of resourcing and local expertise.”

The study also included a survey of nearly 400 academics and professional services staff, which asked how they felt about GenAI tools being used for various aspects of REF2029.

For all aspects the majority of academics and professional services staff were shown to strongly disagree, with the level of strong opposition varying between 54% and 75% of respondents for different parts of the REF process. There was most support for GenAI tools being deployed, among almost a quarter (23%) of respondents, to support universities in the development of impact case studies.

What participants said

The study also included interviews with 16 university Pro Vice-Chancellors. Some were very positive and regarded its usage as inevitable: “This is the future…We need to lead into it…We’ve got to understand it and experiment a bit,” and “I do think that just to put our heads in the sand and say it’s not going to happen or not on our watch I think is very limiting of what the future might look like…I think there’s a lot of moral panic about I think we’re not going to stop it happening.”

Other feedback voiced doubt, mistrust, and raised the possible limitations of AI: “I do just wonder if we’re just in a bit of an AI bubble at the moment, where we think everything’s going to be driven by AI and suddenly over the next six, seven years, actually we’re going to have a much greater clarity of what the limitations of AI are.” Another respondent commented: “We don’t trust them enough in order to really start backing away from conventional tools and supplementing them with AI tools…there are still very large numbers of administrators and researchers who have had no real experience of AI yet.”

Prof Watermeyer said: “Our findings show that opposition to the tools is concentrated among certain academic disciplines, chiefly arts and humanities and social sciences, and non-users. Professional services staff tend to be much more enthusiastic about the potential of GenAI for REF as are those in post-92 institutions, which have considerably less resource to devote to REF processes.”

Several HEI REF Lead respondents were receptive, or at least resigned to its usage. Comments included: “I think AI is here to stay and so we need to work out how we adopt it in a way that we’re comfortable with” and “I think, certainly from a professional services point of view, the best way to keep your job and not get replaced by AI is to be the person that can manage AI.”

Co-author Professor Lawrie Phipps, Senior Research Lead at Jisc, said: “The focus group findings highlight an urgent need for strong governance and shared standards. It is clear without institutional policies and national guidance, universities risk fragmented approaches, uneven capacity, and growing inequity between those able to develop bespoke systems and those reliant on public tools.

“Participants consistently called for transparent REF guidelines to define what constitutes responsible AI use and how such use should be disclosed. Equally, there is consensus that human oversight must remain central to all evaluative processes.”

Next steps and closing remarks

The report makes a host of recommendations, including that all universities should establish and publish a policy on the use of GenAI for research purposes, encompassing REF; relevant staff should receive full training on the responsible and effective use of AI tools; and appropriate security and risk management measures should be implemented.

It also calls for robust national oversight, comprising sector-wide guidance on usage for REF29 and a comprehensive REF AI Governance Framework. To help achieve equitable access to the technology among all HEIs, it advises that a shared, high-quality AI platform for REF could be developed and made accessible to all institutions.

Co-author Tom Crick, Professor of Digital at Swansea University, said: “The current disparate use of these tools needs clearer co-ordination into a standardised framework through which the sector can adopt and develop open, transparent and responsible practice. This will be critical to mitigating inequitable practice by HEIs and across disciplines, and for even possibly levelling the playing the field for this and future national research assessment exercises.”

From a global perspective, other comparable performance-based research funding models have recently been discontinued, namely Excellence Research Australia and the Performance Based Research Fund in New Zealand. 

Prof Watermeyer said: “We can see that methods of national research assessment are no longer fit for purpose and fail to meet the needs of the datafied age. GenAI might not be the solution, but it also cannot be discounted from the necessary reform the UK is in prime position to lead on.”

Dr Steven Hill, Director of Research at Research England, said: “These findings offer both a caution and a call to action. It warns against haste and complacency alike, while inviting the sector to lead with principle, collaboration, and well-informed critique. With the right safeguards, the integration of GenAI can help us uphold excellence, fairness, and trust in the assessment of UK research.”

Professor Guy Poppy, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Innovation at the University of Bristol, said: “It’s vital that UK research excellence can be robustly identified and measured, which is the primary purpose of the REF. This is a key report which sheds important new light on how AI tools are currently being deployed in the process, as well as the wider potential for its future application.

“As global leaders in AI research and expertise, it’s great that Bristol is playing a pivotal role in raising both the opportunities and challenges presented by this rapidly advancing technology at a sector-wide level. The work will no doubt fuel balanced, evidence-based discussions concerning REF, and inform carefully considered decisions about how UK university research is assessed and evaluated so processes remain rigorous, responsible and transparent.”

Report

‘REF-AI: Exploring the potential of generative AI for REF2029’ by Richard Watermeyer, Lawrie Phipps, Rodolfo Benites, and Tom Crick

---

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

‘REF-AI: Exploring the potential of generative AI for REF2029’

Article Publication Date

30-Nov-2025

Trump Grants Clemency To Private Equity Executive Who Defrauded Thousands

President Donald Trump granted clemency to David Gentile, a private equity executive, after he was convicted of defrauding thousands of victims in a $1.6 billion scheme.

Paige Skinner
Sun, November 30, 2025


Gentile, 59, was granted clemency just a few days into his seven-year prison sentence, according to The New York Times, and was released from prison Wednesday, according to prison records. Gentile’s conviction will not be erased.

Gentile and his co-defendant, Jeffry Schneider, were convicted in August 2024 on conspiracy to commit securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and securities fraud.

Prosecutors said Gentile and Schneider participated in a yearslong scheme to defraud more than 10,000 investors by using Gentile’s private equity firm, GPB Capital, to misrepresent the source of the funds and how they were performing to make monthly distribution payments. The GPB funds raised more than $1.6 billion collectively from investors. Gentile was sentenced in May to seven years in prison, and Schneider was sentenced to six. It appears Schneider is still in prison.

Joseph Nocella Jr., United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said in a statement at the time Gentile and Schneider built a “foundation of lies.”

“The defendants built GPB Capital on a foundation of lies,” Nocella said. “They raised approximately $1.6 billion from individual investors based on false promises of generating investment returns from the profits of portfolio companies, all while using investor capital to pay distributions and create a false appearance of success. The sentences imposed today are well deserved and should serve as a warning to would-be fraudsters that seeking to get rich by taking advantage of investors gets you only a one-way ticket to jail.”

FBI Assistant Director in Charge Christopher G. Raia echoed the same sentiment. “For years, David Gentile and Jeffry Schneider wove a web of lies to steal more than one billion dollars from investors through empty promises of guaranteed profits and unlawfully rerouting funds to provide an illusion of success. The defendants abused their high-ranking positions within their company to exploit the trust of their investors and directly manipulate payments to perpetuate this scheme.”


A White House spokesperson confirmed Trump issued a commutation for Gentile.


“David Gentile was the CEO and cofounder of GPB Capital Holdings, which pooled investors’ funds to acquire stakes in mature companies in the automotive, retail, healthcare, housing, and other industries,” the spokesperson said in a statement to HuffPost. “Following its founding in 2013, GPB collected more than $1.8 billion in capital.

“Unlike similar companies, GPB paid regular annualized distributions to its investors. In 2015, GPB disclosed to investors the possibility of using investor capital to pay some of these distributions rather than funding them from current operations. Even though this was disclosed to investors the Biden Department of Justice claimed this was a Ponzi scheme. This claim was profoundly undercut by the fact that GPB had explicitly told investors what would happen. At trial, the government was unable to tie any supposedly fraudulent representations to Mr. Gentile. Mr. Gentile also raised serious concerns that the government had elicited false testimony and failed to correct such testimony.”

TRUMPISM

Netanyahu requests a pardon to end his ongoing corruption trial in Israel

SAM MEDNICK
Sun, November 30, 2025 


Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses lawmakers in the Knesset, Israel's parliament, in Jerusalem, Monday, Nov. 10 2025. (AP Photo/Ohad Zwigenberg)


TEL AVIV (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday asked the country’s president to grant him a pardon from corruption charges, seeking to end a long-running trial that has bitterly divided the nation.

Netanyahu, who has been at war against Israel’s legal system over the charges, said the request would help unify the country at a time of momentous change in the region. But it immediately triggered denunciations from opponents, who said a pardon would weaken democratic institutions and send a dangerous message that he's above the rule of law.

Netanyahu had submitted a request for a pardon to the legal department of the Office of the President, the prime minister’s office said in a statement. The president's office called it an “extraordinary request,” carrying with it “significant implications.”

Netanyahu is the only sitting prime minister in Israeli history to stand trial, after being charged with fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in three separate cases accusing him of exchanging favors with wealthy political supporters. He hasn't been convicted of anything.

Netanyahu rejects the allegations and has described the case as a witch hunt orchestrated by the media, police and judiciary.

Trump's request

His request comes weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump publicly urged Israel to pardon Netanyahu, turning to President Isaac Herzog during his speech to Israel's parliament last month. Earlier this month, Trump also sent a letter to Herzog calling the corruption case "political, unjustified prosecution.”

Herzog is a former political rival of Netanyahu, but the men have a good working relationship. Later Sunday, Israeli media reported a small protest outside Herzog’s home, including a pile of bananas with a sign saying a pardon equals a banana republic.

In a videotaped statement, Netanyahu said the trial has divided the country. He also said the requirement that he appear in court three times a week is a distraction that makes it difficult for him to lead.

“The continuation of the trial tears us apart from within, stirs up this division, and deepens rifts. I am sure, like many others in the nation, that an immediate conclusion of the trial would greatly help to lower the flames and promote the broad reconciliation that our country so desperately needs," he said.

Case delays

Netanyahu has taken the stand multiple times over the past year. But the case has been repeatedly delayed as he has dealt with wars and unrest stemming from the Hamas-led militant attacks on southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Netanyahu's pardon request consisted of two documents: a detailed letter signed by his lawyer and a letter signed by Netanyahu. They'll be sent to the Justice Ministry for opinions and will then be transferred to the legal adviser at the president's office, which will formulate additional opinions for the president.

Legal experts say the pardon request isn't able to stop the trial.

“It’s impossible,” said Emi Palmor, former director-general of the Justice Ministry.

“You cannot claim that you’re innocent while the trial is going on and come to the president and ask him to intervene,” she said. The only way to stop the trial is to ask the attorney general to withhold the proceedings, she said.

In rare cases, the system could pardon Netanyahu. Experts say the president has broad discretion to grant one, and oversight is limited.

However, "as a rule, the president reviews a pardon request only after all legal proceedings have ended. The possibility of a preconviction pardon ... is extremely rare,” the Israel Democracy Institute wrote earlier this month. “A pardon before conviction, while legal proceedings are ongoing, threatens the rule of law and seriously undermines the principle of equality before the law.”

Netanyahu portrays himself as victim

In 2008, as opposition leader, Netanyahu called on then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to step down as he faced a growing corruption scandal. At the time, Netanyahu said that a prime minister “up to his neck” in scandal did not have a mandate to lead the country, and there was a risk that Olmert would make decisions that served his personal interests and not those of the nation.

Olmert resigned even before he was indicted that year and would later serve 16 months in prison.

Netanyahu has struck a different, defiant tone since his own legal problems began. He has portrayed himself as the victim of a “deep state” conspiracy trying to oust him from office.

Shortly after forming his current government in late 2022, Netanyahu launched a plan to overhaul Israel’s justice system.

Netanyahu presented the plan as a much-needed reform. But his opponents accused him of trying to weaken the justice system, damaging the country’s system of checks and balances and having a conflict of interest at a time when he was on trial.

The plan triggered large street protests against the government, and critics have said the deep divisions sent a message of weakness to Israel’s enemies that encouraged Hamas to launch its 2023 attacks.

Netanyahu's request also sparked backlash on Sunday, with an immediate response from the opposition and advocacy groups urging the president not to give in to his request.

“You cannot grant him a pardon without an admission of guilt, an expression of remorse and an immediate retirement from political life," opposition leader Yair Lapid said.

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel said that granting a pardon to a prime minister accused of serious offenses of fraud and breach of trust would send a clear message that there are citizens who are above the law.

But some Israelis expressed support for Netanyahu's request.

“Bibi Netanyahu did totally the right thing requesting the pardon," said Lior Gal, a Jerusalem resident, referring to the prime minister by his nickname. "He deserves to be pardoned. This chapter should be over and to remain united people and carry on.”

___

Josef Federman contributed to this report from Jerusalem.

Jim Acosta Says Trump’s ‘Media Offender’ Site Has ‘Cracked the Code on How to Hurt the Press’ | Video

"What they're basically trying to do is just sort of feed red meat to the base," he insists on MS NOW

Stephanie Kaloi

Sat, November 29, 2025 
TheWrap.

Jim Acosta and April Ryan (Credit: MS NOW)


The Trump administration’s new “Media Offender of the Week” website has “cracked the code on how to hurt the press in this country,” Jim Acosta told Charles F. Coleman, Jr. on MS NOW’s “Velshi” Saturday, adding that the administration is essentially trying to “feed red meat to the base.”

Trump announced the new website Friday. The page currently accuses CBS News, along with The Boston Globe and The Independent of misrepresenting Trump’s response to Sen. Mark Kelly telling service members they can refuse illegal orders.

“The media misrepresented President Trump’s call for Members of Congress to be held accountable for inciting sedition by saying that he called for their ‘execution,’” the site stated.

“I think Donald Trump has cracked the code on how to hurt the press in this country with these lawsuits that have been settled,” the former CNN anchor said on MS NOW. “It’s done terrible damage to the industry, I think, by and large when he puts that kind of stuff up on the White House website.”

“What they’re basically trying to do is just sort of feed red meat to the base,” he continued. “If you look at his poll numbers, he is down in what the mid-30s right now according to the latest public approval polls.

He added: “The rest of the country has sort of written him off. And the other thing that I think he does when he’s lashing out in this fashion, I will say I think it’s gotten worse. This is worse than what I saw during the first administration in terms of the way he’s ramping up these attacks. And it may have something to do with just a state of decline on his part. It seems to me to be kind of a symptom of the cognitive decline.”

The solution to this website and Trump’s frequent habit of attacking the press and specifically targeting female reporters is “collective action,” Acosta said.

“Imagine, you know, the boss in your office talking to a female reporter in that way,” he said of Trump’s continued verbal assaults on female journalists. “It wouldn’t be tolerated, [and] that boss would be fired at any company.”

“Imagine if this were your daughter or your sister or your mother being spoken to in this fashion,” Acosta added. “That’s why, you know, I strongly believe, and there are people who disagree with me on this, that other folks in the press in the room should speak up in that moment and say, ‘Mr. President, that is not appropriate.'”

“I think the only solution to all of this is collective action,” he continued. “We need to see the networks get together, perhaps with some of the major newspapers, [and] send a letter to the White House, send it to Karoline Leavitt and say, ‘Listen, if the president does not stop these attacks, we’re not coming into your Oval Office sprays, we’re not going to ride with you on Air Force One, you can have Fox and all these other sycophantic outlets covering you, but we’re just not going to do it.”

Watch the full interview with Jim Acosta and April Ryan in the video

NORDSTREAM BOMBING

Opinion - A German court may have just shattered one of the Biden era’s biggest lies

Jonathan Turley,

FOX NEWS  opinion contributor

Sat, November 29, 2025






It is often said that “the first casualty when war comes is truth.” A criminal warrant just issued in Germany shows that war continues to claim its victims. However, this warrant could prove to be as great an indictment not just of the government of Volodymyr Zelensky, but also of former President Joe Biden.

This week, a German court issued an arrest warrant for Ukrainian Serhii Kuznietsov, which may finally confirm what was long suspected: that Ukraine was responsible for the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in the waters near Denmark and Sweden.

The Biden administration may have been given prior warning. It was allegedly told years ago by a Ukrainian whistleblower that a six-person team of Ukrainian special forces was planning to rent a boat, dive to the sea floor and blow up the Nord Stream project. The operation was reportedly led by Gen. Valerii Zaluzhnyi, commander-in-chief of Ukraine’s armed forces.

Nevertheless, after the attack, the Biden administration and many in the media fueled speculation that Russia had destroyed its own pipeline, despite evidence and logic to the contrary. It was another convenient claim of a Russian false-flag operation that allowed the Biden administration to ignore the possibility that Ukraine had not only engaged in environmental crimes but had also knowingly lied to its allies.

For years, some of us have questioned the official account from the Biden administration about the available evidence of those responsible.

The suggestion of a Russian attack on a Russian pipeline never seemed logical. However, the administration was funneling billions in support for Ukraine, funding that has now exceeds an estimated $180 billion. Having Ukraine sabotage pipelines to our allies would hardly be opportune when many were questioning the costs to U.S. citizens.

The Biden administration was not alone in running interference for Ukraine, as Zelensky denied responsibility despite mounting evidence to the contrary. When another alleged Ukrainian saboteur was found in Poland, a Polish court blocked the extradition to Germany and ordered his release. The reason? The judge did base the decision on Ukrainian denials. Instead, he declared that the act had been committed in the name of a just war. (Poland remains the frontline against Russian aggression in Europe).

An Italian court did not engage in such rationalization. It ordered the extradition of Kuznietsov, believed to be a key figure in the conspiracy. The attack involved leasing a yacht in the German port of Rostock, using forged IDs and a screen of intermediaries. Kuznietsov insists that he was an army captain serving in Ukraine at the time.

If the investigators are correct, it was not just the Ukrainian government that was lying to us. Biden was also presumably informed by the intelligence agencies of this evidence. Yet Biden kept suggesting anyway that the Russians were covering up the truth. He told the public, “The Russians are pumping out disinformation and lies. We will work with our allies to get to the bottom [of) precisely what happened] Just don’t listen to what Putin’s saying. What he’s saying we know is not true.”

Ironically, even if we were told about this evidence, the public might still have supported the commitment to Ukraine. After all, Ukraine is the victim of a horrendous invasion that has involved repeated charges of war crimes against the Russian forces. However, the public has a legitimate expectation that a country that is receiving billions in support will not engage in environmental attacks on our allies. These pipelines were in the economic zone of two NATO countries.

As the Germans work to find the truth, the question is whether the American public will ever be given transparency on our own government’s complicity or knowledge. The public was asked to pump billions into a war while the administration allegedly covered up an attack by Ukraine on a Western pipeline — and then may have misled the public.

The public also has a right to know if the CIA was told in advance that this attack was coming and either gave tacit approval or said nothing to our allies.

While Johnson is often quoted on his 1929 line about truth in war, the line following was equally poignant: “this mode of propaganda whereby … people become war hungry in their patriotism and are lied into a desire to fight. We have seen it in the past; it will happen again in the future.”

It may have happened in the U.S., and truth was not the only casualty. The American people were treated as chumps who could not handle the truth.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”