Rob Reiner: ‘Bruce Springsteen Is 100 Percent Right' About Trump
But Reiner says that Americans still need to fight against what he sees as an effort to 'take a 250-year democracy and turn it into an autocracy. We're gonna have to fight like crazy to preserve this… Millions of people died so that fascism wouldn't come to our shores, so that we'd preserve our democracy, and 80 years later, we're faced with a possible fascist takeover. We're gonna fight hard to make sure that that doesn't happen… We have to keep Trump's feet to the fire, because for the countries that have become autocracies, for the most part, it takes years to start changing the constitution, to start changing the electorate, to make the disinformation take hold.'
More from Rolling Stone
Hear Bruce Springsteen's Lost Nineties Mariachi Song 'Adelita'
Bruce Springsteen Is Under Attack by Trump. These Are All the Artists Supporting Him
Bono Backs Bruce Springsteen in Trump's Musician Battle: 'There's Only One Boss in America'
Meanwhile, Reiner says he's 'really mad' at Jake Tapper for Original Sin, his new book with Alex Thompson about Joe Biden's decline. The book features a dramatic scene during a star-studded Los Angeles debate party as Biden implodes: In its telling, Reiner begins yelling 'We're fucked! We're going to lose our fucking democracy because of you,' directing the latter remark at another VIP guest: Doug Emhoff, Kamala Harris' husband, who is said to be taken aback.
Reiner says it's absolutely true that he was yelling 'we're fucked' — 'I did say that. There's no question about it.' But he says he was 'yelling at the wind,' not at Emhoff, and didn't say 'because of you.' A spokesperson for the book responds: 'Jake and Alex stand by the reporting that has been confirmed by numerous sources in the room.' Representatives for the book also shared a screenshot from what they said was one of the sources, who wrote, 'from what I remember, he did say, 'because of you.''
'I wasn't yelling at Doug Emhoff,' Reiner insists. 'What am I gonna do? I'm gonna yell at Doug Emhoff and say 'it's all your fault?' What does that mean, even? It makes me look like an idiot. Yes, I was so frustrated. That part is true. I was frustrated and I did yell, and I was talking to J.B. Pritzker afterwards [too], and I said, 'we're really fucked.' There's a lot of blame to go around, but I certainly would not blame Doug Emhoff for the fact that Joe Biden had a crappy debate.'Reiner recently finished a sequel to 1984's classic Spinal Tap, reuniting the original cast — it's due in theaters Sept. 12. A 4k restoration of the original film is also set for a limited run in theaters this summer, from July 5 to 7.
Best of Rolling Stone
The 50 Best 'Saturday Night Live' Characters of All Time
Denzel Washington's Movies Ranked, From Worst to Best
70 Greatest Comedies of the 21st Century
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's attack on in-state tuition for Dreamers is bad law — and worse policy
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Other surveys — by the Advertisement Among the targets of the administration's hostility, none elicits more sympathy from the public than the so‑called Dreamers — young people brought here unlawfully as children, who have grown up as Americans in everything but paperwork. (According to Gallup, Advertisement In lawsuits filed this spring against Texas, Minnesota, and Kentucky, the Justice Department maintains that offering in‑state tuition to students without legal immigration status — even if they were brought here as small children and essentially grew up American — violates federal law. In reality, it is the administration's assault that distorts federal law. It is also a brazen power grab that tramples states' rights, to say nothing of basic decency. Beginning in 2001, Democratic and Republican legislatures decided that if young people grow up in a state, are educated in its schools, and want to pursue higher education within its borders, it makes no sense to penalize them financially merely because of their immigration status. If there are good reasons to give a break on tuition to local students who want to go to a local college, what difference does it make whether they have a passport, a green card, or neither? Yet on April 28, President Trump Advertisement But that isn't true. Federal law does not say that undocumented immigrants must be excluded from any in-state tuition benefit. It Accordingly, the states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants condition the offer on criteria other than residency. States that offer in‑state tuition to undocumented students are acting not just humanely but rationally. Such policies reflect the common-sense principle that justifies giving a tuition break to any local student: It is in every state's interest to help its homegrown young people be as successful and well educated as possible. Lower tuition makes higher education more affordable, which in turn boosts the number of local families that can send their kids to college, which in turn expands the state's population of educated adults. A more educated population strengthens the state's economy, since college graduates are more likely to be employed and to earn higher incomes. For states like Massachusetts, which suffers from high outmigration, a particularly strong argument for the in-state tuition break is that graduates of public institutions are more likely to Advertisement None of these arguments has any logical connection to immigration or citizenship. They apply with equal force to those born abroad and to those born locally. And it is irrelevant whether those born abroad were brought to America by parents who had immigration visas or by parents who didn't. Dreamers aren't freeloaders. Like their families, they pay taxes — property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, and even the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, for which they are ineligible. (In 2022, according to the latest estimate from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, undocumented immigrants Aside from the Trumpian hard core, most Americans sympathize with the plight of undocumented immigrants who grew up in this country and have known no other home. That explains why (as Gallup reports) 85 percent of them would like Congress to make it possible for them to acquire citizenship. It also explains why in-state tuition for Dreamers has bipartisan support: The states that have enacted such policies include Oklahoma, Kentucky, California, and New York. Advertisement The Trump administration's lawsuits deserve to be dismissed on their legal merits, but they also deserve to be reviled as one more example of MAGA malevolence, which is grounded in nothing except a desire to hurt immigrants — Few Americans have any desire to punish young people who have done nothing wrong. The cruelty at the heart of Trump's immigration policy may thrill his base, but it repels a far larger America unwilling to abandon its values. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How Meghan Markle's US Popularity Compares to Royals
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Meghan Markle's popularity in the United States has had highs and lows in the five years since she moved back to America from Britain. Currently, she has a positive net favorability score, but it has not always been that way after backlash in the aftermath of Prince Harry's book Spare and their Netflix show Harry & Meghan. Markle still has not recovered the level of popularity she enjoyed before the couple's 2021 Oprah Winfrey interview, but she is broadly on positive terms with the U.S. public. Meghan Markle's Popularity Before Oprah U.S. polling on the popularity of the royals is rare compared to Britain, but not non-existent. YouGov has conducted a number of surveys over the years, including in November 2020. Markle was liked by 57 percent and disliked by 30 percent, giving her a net approval rating of plus 27. This compared to Prince Harry at +40, Princess Kate at +49, Prince William at +54 and King Charles III at -13. The couple's rift with the monarchy had not yet fully exploded into the public domain and they had only recently signed their Netflix deal that September. There had, though, been public backlash after Markle called for the "change we all need and deserve" on behalf of former first lady Michelle Obama's "When All Women Vote" initiative in the run-up to the presidential election that toppled President Donald Trump that month. In January 2020, YouGov asked Americans whether they supported or opposed Harry and Meghan stepping back from the monarchy. Exactly half supported the move, 7 percent opposed it and 43 percent answered "don't know." On March 5, 2021, as teasers from Oprah's interview began to drop, YouGov asked whether people were mostly sympathetic to the royals or the Sussexes. At that point, 29 percent backed the Sussexes and 13 percent backed Queen Elizabeth II and the royals, while most said either "both," "neither," "don't know" or "not applicable." Meghan Markle at The Paley Center for Media fall gala at the Beverly Wilshire, a Four Seasons hotel, in Beverly Hills, California, on December 4, 2024. Meghan Markle at The Paley Center for Media fall gala at the Beverly Wilshire, a Four Seasons hotel, in Beverly Hills, California, on December 4, 2024. Leon Bennett/FilmMagic Meghan's Popularity After Oprah On March 8, 2021, YouGov conducted a snap poll immediately after its broadcast that showed 68 percent of Americans had sympathy for Harry and Meghan compared to 27 percent who had either not very much or none. This compared to 28 percent who had sympathy for the royals and 68 percent who had either not very much or none. In other words, Americans initially appeared to take Harry and Meghan's side in the immediate aftermath of the interview. By, May 2022, however, YouGov ran further polling that showed a slump in Meghan's net favorability ratings. Meghan was liked by 45 percent of Americans and disliked by 36 percent, giving her a net approval rating of +9. A drop of 18 points compared to November 2020 may seem sharp, but she remained in positive numbers and the slump was significantly less severe than in Britain, where she dropped deep into negative territory. Meanwhile, Harry dropped to plus 18, a 22-point slide, Kate slipped to plus 36, William to plus 31 and Charles crept up to minus 7. Queen Camilla was at minus 13. Meghan's Popularity Around Spare and Netflix Redfield & Wilton conducted further polling on behalf of Newsweek on December 5, 2022, days out from the release of the couple's Harry & Meghan biopic and three months after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. At that time, 43 percent of Americans liked Meghan and she was disliked by 20 percent, meaning a net approval rating of plus 23. Harry was at plus 38, Kate plus 43 and William plus 40, while Charles was at plus 12 and Camilla minus 2. However, the couple crashed in the aftermath of Prince Harry's memoir Spare and Netflix in the eyes of the U.S. public. Further polling by Redfield & Wilton for Newsweek on January 16 showed Meghan dropped 36 points, after she was liked by 26 percent of Americans and disliked by 39 percent, giving her a net approval rating of -13. Harry dropped 45 points to minus 7, while Kate slipped to plus 26, William to plus 21, Charles to plus 8 and Camilla to minus 8. Meghan's Popularity in 2025 YouGov's most recent polling of Americans came in April, when 41 percent liked Meghan and 26 percent disliked her, giving a net rating of plus 15. Meanwhile, Harry was at plus 35, Kate was at plus 43, William was at plus 53, Charles was at plus 21 and Camilla was at minus seven. In summary, Meghan has consistently polled behind William, Kate and Harry and in front of Camilla. She has mostly polled ahead of King Charles except in the most recent poll, in which he did unusually well. While she may not command figures as strong as her brother-in-law and sister-in-law, she has substantially bounced back from her lowest point in the aftermath of Spare. She has not, though, regained the high ratings she enjoyed before Oprah, in November 2020. Jack Royston is chief royal correspondent for Newsweek, based in London. You can find him on X, formerly Twitter, at @jack_royston and read his stories on Newsweek's The Royals Facebook page. Do you have a question about King Charles III, William and Kate, Meghan and Harry, or their family that you would like our experienced royal correspondents to answer? Email royals@ We'd love to hear from you.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's cuts threaten to rip research up by the roots
The chain saw approach to medical research funding is not just reckless — it's shortsighted. The families of the richest 2 percent also get cancer and other deadly diseases, and no amount of money can buy a cure that doesn't exist. Advertisement Dennis E. Noonan Wellesley Thank you for Kara Miller's article on the challenges of long-term research in the face of the Trump administration's cuts ( Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up While only a small fraction of original ideas achieve success as envisioned, scientists consistently persevere with passion for their ideas. The research environment overall, however, brings waves of advances. Unlike the business and dealmaking mind-set of the current administration's so-called leaders, scientists are not self-promoters by type. They struggle for funding over years, driven by their passion for making a difference for the world. Advertisement The most telling risk inherent in the Trump cuts is the potential impact on global competition. As Miller points out, for decades some of the world's best minds have come here, with the United States having benefited. But more recently, greater global tools and competition have prompted serious foreign competition for the best minds — and for the opportunities to control future technologies. The administration's cuts would put the United States more than a generation behind in our children's and grandchildren's future world. Larry Kennedy Jacksonville, Fla. I weep when I see what the Trump administration is doing to our country and our world. Kara Miller's article on the savaging of basic science — 'research aimed at understanding rather than commercializing' — is but one example. This type of research may have no application right away. However, over 20 or 30 years, many dozens of applications may emerge, often covering many different fields. The original development rarely occurs in business laboratories because there is no immediate payoff. It is therefore essential that government continue to fund basic science. As Miller points out, a stable flow of funding is essential for the production of a continuing stream of research results. Disruption of the Trumpian kind has several undesirable results: Besides stopping the flow of original ideas, over the long term it will reduce our capacity to learn from and absorb ideas produced in other countries. We have seen mid-career scientists being welcomed by other countries while the paths of early-career scientists have been demolished. American politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, must stand up to the president and say, 'Basic research is the seed corn for 'Making America Great Again.' It must not be destroyed.' They should then act and vote accordingly in Congress. Advertisement Martin G. Evans Cambridge The writer is a professor emeritus at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.
