'The Claw' on the White House Lawn

'The Claw' on the White House Lawn

When President Donald J. Trump was asked recently about the UFC arena rising on the South Lawn of the White House, he reached for an unexpected historical comparison [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-compares-white-house-ufc-cage-to-eiffel-tower-says-maybe-well-never-ever-take-it-down]. The Eiffel Tower, he noted, was originally intended to be temporary. Built for the 1889 World’s Fair in Paris, the structure was supposed to be dismantled after the exposition ended. Instead, it remained, eventually becoming perhaps the most recognizable symbol of France itself. Then Trump turned to the arena being constructed outside the Executive Mansion. “Maybe we’ll never ever take it down, [https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2026/jun/03/donald-trump-ufc-arena-white-house-permanent]” he said. Whether the remark was serious, sarcastic, or simply another improvisational Trumpian riff hardly matters. What matters is that his mind instinctively connected a temporary UFC arena nicknamed “The Claw” to one of the world’s great national monuments. Such comparison is absolutely absurd. Strangely, it’s also revealing. “…you know we’re building something in front of the White House that’s quite attractive to a lot of people….and I’m looking at it and maybe we’ll never ever take it down.” President Donald Trump likening “The Claw” to the Eiffel Tower. [https://www.tiktok.com/@realdonaldtrump/video/7646865974712470815?lang=en] The Eiffel Tower was built to showcase French engineering, industrial achievement, and national ambition at the height of the nineteenth century. The structure rising on the White House lawn was designed by UFC CEO Dana White to host a cage fight. Yet both, in Trump’s telling, belonged to the same category: spectacles that attract attention. [https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/inside-ufc-white-house-fight-dana-white-details-1236611686/] That distinction may explain why the image of a UFC cage standing beside the White House has generated such strong reactions. The fight itself is almost beside the point. The more interesting question is what Americans believe the White House is supposed to represent. I found myself thinking about that question after making what I assumed was an innocuous joke on Facebook. News reports about the UFC event had already saturated social media, and the story seemed almost impossible to parody. There would be thousands of spectators, military guests, enormous television audiences, and enough staging equipment to transform one of the country’s most recognizable civic spaces into something resembling a championship fight venue. So I wondered aloud whether we should simply embrace the concept. Why Stop At UFC? “Honestly,” I posted on Facebook, “there’s a lot of untapped potential here. If we’re going all in, why stop at UFC?” Why not stock the newly renovated Reflecting Pool [https://apnews.com/photo-gallery/lincoln-memorial-reflecting-pool-renovation-photo-gallery-ad66a11c12cd17d2a92deb6a312585ac] with bass and allow Bass Pro Shops to sponsor a fishing tournament. Or maybe, we can hold a monster-truck rally near the Rose Garden. “What other events should we turn the White House into?” I asked my Facebook audience. The first responses arrived exactly as intended. Friends offered increasingly ridiculous suggestions. Someone proposed sprint-car races around the Washington Monument. Another transformed the White House into a carnival midway through a digitally altered image. For a brief moment, Americans were doing what Americans have traditionally done best: laughing at themselves. Then the mood changed. As evidenced by the screen grab posted above from my Facebook page, ,ore than one hundred people responded to the post, with a surprising number of them quite furious. Not about the UFC fight itself but about the joke. The comments quickly migrated from fishing tournaments and monster trucks to drag queens, Joe Biden, cultural elites, patriotism, and the grievances of the past decade. One commenter informed me that my post was the dumbest thing he had read all day. Another suggested that liberals should die. What fascinated me was not the caustic anger directed at what appeared to be a humorous post. Rather, tt was the target of the anger. Almost nobody wanted to discuss the UFC event. The cage was everywhere in the conversation and nowhere in it at the same time. The real argument over “The Claw” concerned identity. For some Americans, the White House hosting a UFC fight represents the democratization of an institution long associated with elite culture. For others, it represents the conversion of a civic symbol into entertainment. What appeared at first to be a debate about a sporting event quickly revealed itself to be a debate about belonging, status, and who gets to define American culture. The UFC fight is not the story. The story is what Americans see when they look at it. Some see a celebration, while others see a warning, and still others see a joke. What almost everyone sees is themselves. That may be why Trump’s Eiffel Tower comparison lingered in my mind long after I first read it. Monuments tell us something about the societies that build them. They reveal what a culture admires, what it values, and what it hopes future generations will remember. The Eiffel Tower became a monument because France wanted the world to see its ingenuity. The question raised by “The Claw” on the South Lawn of White House is simpler and more unsettling. What does America want the world to see now? Thanks for reading BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

The First Amendment Warning America Is Ignoring

At first glance, this may look like a conversation about religion and politics. I think it’s actually a much bigger conversation about democracy itself and what happens when political power starts sounding sacred. I’ve been thinking a lot about the role of religion in public life, especially in a free society that cherishes freedom of expression. Not because I’m uncomfortable with religion in public life. I’m not. In fact, I think the First Amendment strongly protects religious expression, and I think the Supreme Court has often been right to push back when governments become openly hostile to faith. But I do think there’s a dangerous line democracies can cross when political leaders begin sounding spiritually untouchable; when criticizing politicians starts feeling almost immoral, disloyal or dare I say, blasphemous. That’s very different from religious freedom. And historically, free societies get into trouble when political power starts wrapping itself too tightly in sacred language and imagery. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion. But it also protects the freedom to question power, disagree openly, and live as equal citizens even when we believe radically different things. That tension—between faith, freedom, and political power—may be one of the most important conversations America needs to have right now. Thanks for reading BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

TikTok, Porn-gating and the First Amendment: How 2025 Rewired Free Speech

Beyond the First Podcast, with First Amendment scholar Chris Terry. I’m going to say something that sounds dramatic, but I mean it plainly: 2025 is the year the internet’s First Amendment footing started to shift. It’s not because speech disappeared or because the government passed one giant “censorship law.” But because the Supreme Court signaled - quietly and almost politely - that the internet may no longer get the kind of “newspaper-level” protection many of us have assumed since the late 1990s. And once that protection starts wobbling, everything else gets easier to regulate. If you felt this year like free speech became less “a right” and more “terms and conditions apply,” you’re not crazy. What you’re noticing is a structural change. In my latest Beyond the First podcast episode, I talk with my friend, and University of Minnesota media law scholar, Chris Terry about why the Supreme Court’s decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is being mis-sold to the public. Most people hear: “Oh, that’s the porn case.” Texas passed an age verification law so kids can’t access adult sites. End of story, right? Common sense. Protect children. Move on. But that’s not what makes this case consequential. So if you want to understand what actually changed in 2025, and what’s about to get tested in 2026, sit down and listen. This episode will give you the framework, not just the headlines. And I promise: you’ll walk away with better questions. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Beyond the First: The Hollywood Spin Machine – Who Controls the Truth?

Hollywood isn’t just about making movies—it’s about crafting narratives, both on-screen and off. In previous episodes of Beyond the First, we’ve explored the Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni legal battle [https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuit-court-documents-text-messages-b2686766.html] and the larger implications of defamation in the digital age. * In [https://open.substack.com/pub/israelbalderas/p/beyond-the-first-suing-for-the-spotlight?r=dxco9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false]Episode 4 [https://open.substack.com/pub/israelbalderas/p/beyond-the-first-suing-for-the-spotlight?r=dxco9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false], we analyzed the legal mechanics of defamation, breaking down the claims at the heart of Lively and Baldoni’s lawsuit and discussing how courts determine reputation harm in high-profile cases. * In [https://open.substack.com/pub/israelbalderas/p/beyond-the-first-the-it-ends-with-us-lawsuit?r=dxco9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false]Episode 7 [https://open.substack.com/pub/israelbalderas/p/beyond-the-first-the-it-ends-with-us-lawsuit?r=dxco9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false], we shifted focus to the power of social media, examining how viral narratives can sway public perception long before a judge or jury ever weighs in. Now, in Episode 10, we take the conversation further—diving into Hollywood’s PR machine [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-lawsuits-celebrity-pr-tactics_n_678ad1d6e4b0aa5a1d95cb24] and how public relations strategies often matter more than legal arguments in shaping the outcome of celebrity scandals. The Power of the PR Machine Joining me for this discussion are Lily M. Shall, Georgia Brucato, and special guest Jennifer Nassour [https://www.pocketbookproject.org/team-member/jennifer-a-nassour-esq], a political analyst [https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2024-07-09/republican-never-trump-voters-lack-good-options-former-mass-gop-chair-says], former journalist [https://www.newsmax.com/politics/economy-income-jeffries/2024/06/11/id/1168320/], and host of the Political Contessa [https://www.politicalcontessa.com/] podcast [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-contessa/id1588917810]. Together, we unpack how crisis PR, media manipulation, and social media algorithms shape what the public perceives as truth. We examine how viral narratives—often driven by snippets of interviews, selectively edited videos, and carefully placed leaks [https://www.threads.net/@sanikakelkar/post/DD_XT0sIwtg/social-media-has-transformed-pr-from-a-behind-the-scenes-function-into-a-highly-]—can make or break a celebrity’s reputation. As Georgia and Lily point out, social media platforms like TikTok have become the primary news source for many young audiences, making it easier than ever for PR teams to control narratives while bypassing traditional journalism. Jennifer brings a political perspective, drawing parallels between Hollywood’s PR machine and the spin tactics used in political campaigns [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html]. [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/21/business/media/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-it-ends-with-us.html] She argues that as journalism budgets shrink and social media platforms amplify selective messaging, the line between [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/]fact [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/] and [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/]framing [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/] continues to blur [https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/fake-news-conspiracy-theories-journalism-research/]. From Depp v. Heard to Lively v. Baldoni – The Evolution of Media Trials The Blake Lively v. Justin Baldoni legal dispute echoes themes we’ve seen before—most notably in the Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard [https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/04/blake-lively-justin-baldoni-depp-heard] trial. As Lily reflects, social media was flooded with content favoring Depp, painting Heard as a manipulative villain. However, when she later watched the Netflix documentary Depp v. Heard, she realized how much evidence had been omitted from her TikTok feed. This raises an unsettling question: Are celebrity lawsuits still about justice, or are they media spectacles designed to sway public opinion? And if social media users are consuming only curated versions of events, is there any room for an objective truth [https://www.nytco.com/press/journalisms-essential-value/]? The Legal and Ethical Stakes Beyond the PR battle, this case also raises critical legal questions about defamation law in the digital era [https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/683]. As Jennifer points out, former President Donald Trump has made loosening defamation protections a priority, and some Supreme Court justices have signaled interest in reconsidering [https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/the-enduring-significance-of-new-york-times-v-sullivan#:~:text=Sarah%20Palin's%20Fight%20Against%20the,reconsider%20Sullivan%20and%20its%20progeny.]New York Times v. Sullivan [https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/the-enduring-significance-of-new-york-times-v-sullivan#:~:text=Sarah%20Palin's%20Fight%20Against%20the,reconsider%20Sullivan%20and%20its%20progeny.], the landmark ruling that makes it harder for public figures to win defamation lawsuits. Meanwhile, Georgia questions whether celebrity defamation cases should be treated differently from those involving private individuals—since the damage to a public figure’s career can be immense, even if the legal standard for proving defamation remains high. Who Wins in the Court of Public Opinion? At the heart of the discussion is a bigger concern: In a world where perception is power, does the truth still matter? Hollywood and political elites have long known how to shape narratives, but social media algorithms have taken reputation management to an entirely new level [https://www.fastcompany.com/91204923/the-future-of-online-reputation-management-in-the-ai-era]. Lily argues that cancel culture has left celebrities with little room for error—where a single viral moment can redefine their public image overnight. Meanwhile, Jennifer warns that journalism itself is at risk, as fewer reporters engage in investigative work [https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/07/12/news-reporters-journalism-jobs-census/], instead relying on social media trends to drive coverage. How This Episode Expands the Conversation Our previous discussions on defamation law and the social media impact on reputation set the foundation for understanding the legal stakes of the Lively v. Baldoni case. But this episode takes the conversation further by exploring: * The influence of Hollywood PR firms in shaping media coverage * How social media amplifies crisis PR narratives while limiting investigative journalism * The lasting impact of media trials on defamation law and celebrity culture As Jennifer notes, “whichever PR machine is bigger and better—that’s the side that wins.” And in today’s digital media landscape, where TikTok trends replace courtroom facts [https://www.tiktok.com/@rob_law_kc/video/7437411447124004128], public figures can often weaponize public perception as a legal strategy [https://blog.vinesight.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-managing-public-perception-and-protecting-your-brand-identity]. [https://blog.vinesight.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-managing-public-perception-and-protecting-your-brand-identity] Join the Conversation Hollywood’s PR machine isn’t slowing down—and neither is the public’s appetite for scandal. But if we want to be informed consumers of news and entertainment, we need to think critically about who is shaping the narratives we believe. Listen to the full episode of Beyond the First as we wrap up Season 1, where we explored the intersection of media, law, and influence. Be sure to subscribe for future discussions on the evolving media landscape. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Beyond the First: Art vs. Algorithm – Is AI Killing Human Imagination?

The rise of artificial intelligence has sparked a revolution in creative industries [https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/google/creator-economy/3959/], from film and music to digital art and design. AI can generate stunning images, compose music, and even write scripts in mere seconds. But as these technologies advance, so do the ethical and legal dilemmas surrounding them. When human expression meets machine learning, fundamental questions emerge: Is AI expanding artistic possibilities [https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/12/art-of-being-human-creativity-digital-age/], or is it merely mimicking and repackaging human creativity? In this episode of Beyond the First, I sit down with two students from my Media Law and Ethics class, to explore how AI is reshaping creative fields [https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbescommunicationscouncil/2024/06/28/creative-economy-20-how-ai-is-reshaping-the-role-of-creative-agencies/]. We discuss whether AI-generated works deserve copyright protection, the threat automation poses to artists, and whether these tools are empowering or erasing human ingenuity. When AI Holds the Brush, Who Signs the Canvas?" 🎨 Originality Redefined [https://eudoxuspress.com/index.php/pub/article/view/1739?articlesBySimilarityPage=3] – AI-generated art, film, and music flood creative industries, but is it truly original or just an advanced form of imitation? ⚖️ Authorship on Trial [https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2024/05/dueling-briefs-filed-over-human-authorship-requirement-for-us-copyright-registration] – Copyright law assumes human intent and creative expression. But when machines remix existing works, who deserves credit— the programmer, the AI, or no one at all? 🚨 The Future of Creativity [https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/artificial-intelligence-must-serve-human-creativity-not-replace-it/] – As AI reshapes artistic production, industries face a choice: embrace AI as a tool or fight to preserve human artistry in a world increasingly dominated by algorithms. 💬 Where do we draw the line between innovation and artistic theft? And if AI can create, what does that mean for the future of human expression? At the heart of this debate lies a core legal principle: Copyright law is built on the idea that an original work of authorship is entitled to protection [https://www.copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-authorship.pdf]. But in an era where AI generates paintings, films, and even music at the click of a button, what counts as "originality"—and who qualifies as the author? Traditional copyright frameworks assume human intent, skill, and creative expression—elements that AI challenges by remixing vast datasets of existing works. As AI-generated content floods creative industries, the legal and ethical boundaries of authorship are becoming increasingly blurred, raising urgent questions about ownership, attribution, and artistic value [https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2024/05/21/beyond-imagination-ai-art-and-the-ownership-dilemma/]. Meanwhile, artists and designers are grappling with an unsettling reality—companies are already replacing human creators with AI, raising concerns about fair compensation and the devaluation of original work. Tech developers argue that AI is just another tool, no different than a camera or a paintbrush. But where do we draw the line between inspiration and imitation? And can creative industries survive if AI-generated content saturates the market? Join us as we unpack the legal, ethical, and philosophical tensions at the heart of this debate. In a world where machines can now “create,” we ask: What is the future of art, and who gets to define it? Listen, Subscribe, and Join the Conversation. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit israelbalderas.substack.com [https://israelbalderas.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]