By DAVID BAUDER, AP Media Writer

NEW YORK (AP) — During a contentious exchange about deportations in his interview with ABC News’ Terry Moran this week, President Donald Trump brought up — from his perspective — how Moran had gotten into the White House in the first place.

“They’re giving you the break of a lifetime, you know,” Trump said in Tuesday’s prime-time broadcast. “You’re doing the interview. I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you, but that’s OK.”

Emphasizing again that it was his choice that Moran was there, the president scolded, “You’re not being very nice.”

From an ethics perspective, it’s considered a breach for a news organization to let a newsmaker dictate who will conduct an interview. In the real world of competitive journalism, things aren’t always so simple.

Did ABC News let President Trump decide who would do the interview?

We don’t know. ABC on Thursday would not talk publicly about what arrangements were discussed after Trump agreed to speak to the network about the first 100 days of his administration. ABC privately pushes back against the notion that Trump was given a list of potential interviewers, but it’s unclear whether other names came up.

On its face, Moran would seem an unexpected choice. At 65, he’s been with the network since 1997 and was chief White House correspondent during George W. Bush’s first term. He had nine one-on-one interviews with Barack Obama.

But his profile at ABC News has diminished. He’s an anchor for the “ABC News Live” streaming service and covers the Supreme Court for the network.

Related Articles

Army plans for a potential parade on Trump’s birthday call for 6,600 soldiers, AP learns

Hegseth orders Army to cut costs by merging some commands and slashing jobs

Trump says it’s Biden’s economy, but businesses and economists beg to differ

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelan migrants

Justice Department sues Hawaii, Michigan, Vermont and New York over state climate actions

There would seem to be more obvious alternatives, like “World News Tonight” anchor David Muir, effectively the face of the news division. Mary Bruce is the current chief White House correspondent. Jonathan Karl has written three books about Trump and rotates as a host of the “This Week” Sunday show with Martha Raddatz.

Only George Stephanopoulos would seem off the table, since Trump sued him for defamation in a case settled last December.

Why would a news organization not want to cede the choice of an interviewer to the president? “It undermines our independence as journalists,” said Kelly McBride, a media ethics expert and senior vice president at the Poynter Institute. “When we make decisions of what questions are going to be asked, who’s doing the interview and how we edit the interview, we do it in service to the audience.”

“If we let the powerful person that we are attempting to get information from choose who does the interview or select the questions, we’re breaking our promise to the audience that we would be acting on their behalf,” she said.

The power of a president

Practically speaking, however, a president has a great deal of power in these dynamics.

Whatever the well-established challenges inherent in interviewing Trump, news organizations prize an exclusive interview with the president, any president. At any given moment, his press office likely has many requests for interviews, usually with a specific journalist’s name attached. He already has choices.

The Trump administration has made no secret of its desire to wield more control over who questions the president. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has invited new, mostly friendly, journalists into the White House briefing room and talked about further changes in who is allowed there. The administration sparked a court fight with The Associated Press over access to the Oval Office.

When he worked as a news executive at CNN and NBC News, Mark Whitaker said he would discuss interviews with the White House involving certain journalists, but “the idea of giving a choice is not something I ever saw.” he said.

Andrew Heyward, a former CBS News president, said he understands the principle of not ceding the decision of who asks the questions, “but as a practical matter, it’s often a negotiation.” Heyward stressed he had no inside information about what happened with ABC News this week.

The ‘Wild West’ days of competition for celebrity interviews

In some cases, the importance of landing an interview ahead of a competitor can take precedence over the principle of controlling who does the asking. Its value is illustrated in the ratings: nearly 4 million people watched Moran’s interview with Trump on Tuesday, the largest audience of anything on television that night, the Nielsen company said.

There was even more at stake during the “Wild West” days of television networks competing for big celebrity interviews, primarily at the end of the last century.

“Shamefully, the interviewee was in the driver’s seat whenever it came to the flavor-of-the-week or the most sought-after new interview,” said veteran broadcast journalist Connie Chung. “It was one of the reasons why I despised getting the so-called ‘get.’ It was a matter of who could grovel better.”

On many of those occasions, news organizations didn’t always speak with one voice; Diane Sawyer and Barbara Walters often competed fiercely for the same interviews when they both worked at ABC News. In 2001, Chung recalled that Walters was designated by ABC to interview scandal-scarred U.S. Rep. Gary Condit, but the congressman’s representative said they were going to another network unless Chung did the story. Chung got the interview.

So what if the day’s big celebrity is the president of the United States?

“It is a bit of a gray area,” Heyward said.

David Bauder writes about the intersection of media and entertainment for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social.

CLEVELAND — It’s starting to feel like Progressive Field has become a house of horrors for the Minnesota Twins. Over the past few years, they’ve been treated to a myriad of frustrating, disappointing close losses, many of the walk-off variety.

The Twins were walked off on Thursday in the series finale for the second time in three games, falling 4-3 to the Cleveland Guardians in 10 innings following a pair of rain delays that kept them at the park for most of the day.

The Twins came into Cleveland riding high after winning five of six games at Target Field last week, playing some of their best baseball. After blowing out the Guardians on Monday, they faltered, scoring a combined six runs across the next three games, all losses.

“The Guardians push you in different ways,” manager Rocco Baldelli said. “They play a certain brand of baseball and you end up in those types of games. You’ve got to find your way through these games and find ways to score and win.”

The Twins had a glimmer of hope late on Thursday when Mickey Gasper scored the go-ahead run on Jonah Bride’s sacrifice fly in the top of the 10th inning, giving them their first lead of the day. It didn’t last long.

Guardians star José Ramírez brought home the team’s automatic runner, singling off reliever Justin Topa. He then swiped second and came around to score the game-winning run on an Angel Martínez single.

The Twins outhit the Guardians 13-6 on the day, but were unable to make the most of their opportunities, finishing the day 3 for 14 with runners in scoring position and leaving 12 runners on base.

“Opportunities were abundant today,” Baldelli said. “We were on the bases basically the whole day and we’ve been here all day. … Of course it’s going to get a little frustrating at times when you’re not bringing them home.”

The Twins (13-19) were blanked by Guardians (18-13) starter Ben Lively, who lasted 5 2/3 innings. It wasn’t until the seventh inning, after the first rain delay of the game — this one just 17 minutes — that their offense broke through.

Harrison Bader’s infield single sparked a game-tying rally. Catcher Christian Vázquez singled him in and hits from Edouard Julien and Carlos Correa followed, helping produce the team’s second run of the game.

The Twins had another good opportunity in the eighth inning putting two runners on before the rain really started coming down. When the game resumed after a lengthy delay, Ryan Jeffers walked to load the bases before shortstop Correa popped up to end the threat.

The loss marked the 10th time that the Twins have gotten walked off in Cleveland over the last five seasons.

“It just seems like we keep falling short playing here,” Correa said. “We know they’ve got a great team and we know every time we come here there’s going to be close games. We’re failing to play just good enough to close them out and get the win.”

Related Articles

Twins center fielder Byron Buxton joins exclusive company with latest feat

Pablo López’s strong start spoiled late as Twins fall to Guardians

Twins reliever Griffin Jax won’t let two weeks define his season

Twins walked off after extended weather delay — and little rain

Twins win fourth straight as offense goes off against Guardians

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — Detailed Army plans for a potential military parade on President Donald Trump’s birthday in June call for more than 6,600 soldiers, at least 150 vehicles, 50 helicopters, seven bands and possibly a couple thousand civilians, The Associated Press has learned.

Related Articles

Hegseth orders Army to cut costs by merging some commands and slashing jobs

Trump says it’s Biden’s economy, but businesses and economists beg to differ

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelan migrants

Justice Department sues Hawaii, Michigan, Vermont and New York over state climate actions

Homeland Security pushes back against criticism of immigration raid at Oklahoma home

The planning documents, obtained by the AP, are dated April 29 and 30 and have not been publicly released. They represent the Army’s most recent blueprint for its long-planned 250th birthday festival on the National Mall and the newly added element — a large military parade that Trump has long wanted but is still being discussed.

While the slides do not include any price estimates, it would likely cost tens of millions of dollars to put on a parade of that size. Costs would include the movement of military vehicles, equipment, aircraft and troops from across the country to Washington and the need to feed and house thousands of service members.

High costs halted Trump’s push for a parade in his first term, and the tanks and other heavy vehicles that are part of the Army’s latest plans have raised concerns from city officials about damage to roads.

Asked about plans for a parade, Army spokesman Steve Warren said Thursday that no final decisions have been made.

Col. Dave Butler, another Army spokesman, added that the Army is excited about the plans for the birthday festival..

“We want to make it into an event that the entire nation can celebrate with us,” said Butler. “We want Americans to know their Army and their soldiers. A parade might become part of that, and we think that will be an excellent addition to what we already have planned.”

Others familiar with the documents, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been finalized, said they represent the Army’s plans as it prepares for any White House approval of the parade. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

There has been no formal approval yet. Changes to the plans have been made in recent weeks and more are likely.

What would go into the potential Army parade

Much of the equipment would have to be brought in by train or flown in.

Some equipment and troops were already going to be included in the Army’s birthday celebration, which has been in the works for more than a year. The festival was set to involve an array of activities and displays on the National Mall, including a fitness competition, climbing wall, armored vehicles, Humvees, helicopters and other equipment.

A parade, however, would increase the equipment and troops involved. According to the plans, as many as 6,300 of the service members would be marching in the parade, while the remainder would be responsible for other tasks and support.

The Army’s early festival plans did not include a parade. But its 250th birthday celebration on June 14 happens to coincide with Trump’s 79th birthday, and officials confirmed last month that the Army had started discussions about adding a parade.

The plans say the parade would showcase the Army’s 250 years of service and foresee bringing in soldiers from at least 11 corps and divisions nationwide. Those could include a Stryker battalion with two companies of Stryker vehicles, a tank battalion and two companies of tanks, an infantry battalion with Bradley vehicles, Paladin artillery vehicles, Howitzers and infantry vehicles.

There would be seven Army bands and a parachute jump by the Golden Knights. And documents suggest that civilian participants would include historical vehicles and aircraft and two bands, along with people from veterans groups, military colleges and reenactor organizations.

According to the plan, the parade would be classified as a national special security event, and that request has been submitted by the National Park Service and is under review.

And it is expected that the evening parade would be followed by a concert and fireworks.

One of the documents raises concerns about some limitations, which include where troops would be housed and “significant concerns regarding security requirements” as equipment flows into the city. It says the biggest unknown so far is which units would be participating.

Trump has long wanted a big military parade

In his first term, he proposed having a parade after seeing one in France on Bastille Day in 2017. Trump said that after watching the two-hour procession along the famed Champs-Elysees that he wanted an even grander one on Pennsylvania Avenue.

That plan was ultimately dumped due to the huge costs — with one estimate of a $92 million price tag — and other logistical issues. Among those were objections from city officials who said including tanks and other heavy armored vehicles would tear up the roads.

Trump said in a social media post in 2018 that he was canceling the event over the costs and accused local politicians of price gouging.

This year, as plans progressed for the Army to host its birthday festival in Washington, talk about a parade began anew.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser acknowledged in April that the administration reached out to the city about holding a parade on June 14 that would stretch from Arlington, Virginia, where the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery are located, across the Potomac River and into Washington.

Bowser at the time said she didn’t know if the event was being “characterized as a military parade” but added that tanks rolling through the city’s streets “would not be good.”

“If military tanks were used, they should be accompanied with many millions of dollars to repair the roads,” she said.

In 2018, the Pentagon appeared to agree. A memo from the defense secretary’s staff said plans for the parade — at that time — would include only wheeled vehicles and no tanks to minimize damage to local infrastructure.

By LOLITA C. BALDOR

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Army is planning a sweeping transformation that will merge or close headquarters, dump outdated vehicles and aircraft, slash as many as 1,000 headquarters staff in the Pentagon and shift personnel to units in the field, according to a new memo and U.S. officials familiar with the changes.

Related Articles

Trump says it’s Biden’s economy, but businesses and economists beg to differ

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to strip legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelan migrants

Justice Department sues Hawaii, Michigan, Vermont and New York over state climate actions

Federal official says Oklahoma family was wrongly targeted during immigration raid

Judge bars deportations of Venezuelans from South Texas under the Alien Enemies Act

In a memo released Thursday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the transformation to “build a leaner, more lethal force.” Discussions about the changes have been going on for weeks, including decisions to combine a number of Army commands.

U.S. officials said as many as 40 general officer slots could be cut as a result of the restructuring. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss personnel issues.

The changes come as the Pentagon is under pressure to slash spending and personnel as part of the broader federal government cuts pushed by President Donald Trump’s administration and ally Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

In his memo, Hegseth said the Army must eliminate wasteful spending and prioritize improvements to air and missile defense, long-range fires, cyber, electronic warfare and counter-space capabilities.

Specifically, he said the Army must merge Army Futures Command and Training and Doctrine Command into one entity and merge Forces Command, Army North and Army South into a single headquarters “focused on homeland defense and partnership with our Western Hemisphere allies.”

In addition, he called for the Army to consolidate units, including Joint Munitions Command and Sustainment Command, as well as operations at various depots and arsenals.

Officials said that while the mergers will result in fewer staff positions, there won’t be a decrease in the Army’s overall size. Instead, soldiers would be shifted to other posts.

On the chopping block would be legacy weapons and equipment programs, such as the Humvee and some helicopter formations, along with a number of armor and aviation units across the active duty, National Guard and Reserve. The units were not identified.

A key issue, however, will be Congress.

For years, lawmakers have rejected Army and Pentagon efforts to kill a wide range of programs, often because they are located in members’ home districts.

Defense Department and service leaders learned long ago to spread headquarters, depots, troops and installations across the country to maximize congressional support. But those efforts also have stymied later moves to chop programs with such support.

It’s unclear whether the House and Senate will allow all of the cuts or simply add money back to the budget to keep some intact.