Emily Horne knows spin when she sees it

"When everything is a scandal, nothing is a scandal."

May 27, 2026

Too long for your inbox? Read the full interview here.

Emily Horne has the wildly impressive resume of a Keri Russell character: National Security Council Spokesperson and Senior Press Director (Biden Administration), State Dept. Spokesperson and Press Advisor (Obama Administration), aaaand Head of Global Policy Communications at Twitter (not X, never X), among many other cool as hell roles. She has since founded her own strategic comms firm and writes Spin Class on Substack, theoretically also finding time to eat, sleep, parent, and generously answer questions for us here about how the fuck we wade through the mess of information we wake up to–often in the middle of the night, in a cold sweat.

Thank you so much for being here. I can’t wait to talk about our (dying? resurrectable?) media ecosystem with you–and how we make sense of it all.

I’m so glad to be here! I’m a big Hot Tip fan.

Trump 2 is very different from Trump 1, which was deeply insane and horrible, but had some adults at the table to force a tiny side of vegetables with all the bullshit. But now it’s just deep fried Big Macs and Kash Patel-branded whiskey. How different does the quality of information we’re getting feel to you, as someone whose job it was to communicate with the press and the public?

It’s utterly overwhelming and so gross. The infamous Steve Bannon edict to “flood the zone” with shit has become standard operating procedure, and as a result so many people have given up trying to make sense of it and are tuning out—which, as someone who spends an unhealthy amount of time consuming news, I get. And it’s not just quality of information: the scale of what constitutes news or outrage has been completely upended. When everything is a scandal, nothing is a scandal.
To put it another way: Picture a bedroom where everything is tidy and clean, but the bed is unmade. Your eyes go straight to it, and all you can see is the unmade bed. But imagine a second bedroom where, yes, the bed is unmade, but there are also dirty clothes piled everywhere, old crusty dishes on the floor, water leaking from the ceiling, a dead bear cub’s corpse in the corner, and a bunch of screaming people being set on fire atop said unmade bed.
In both cases, the reporter’s job is to go in and cover what’s messy in that bedroom at that exact moment. They can’t say of the first room, “here’s all the stuff that isn’t on fire,” even if the bed is unmade. Yet that’s exactly the context that people need.

Yup. As VP Kamala Harris would say, these things “exist in the context of all in which [they] live.” So why is CNN calling them RFK’s “new initiatives to help Americans get off anti-depressants” and not just “man with toilet bowl cocaine habit expresses opinions about which he knows objectively nothing”?

Reporters run on scoops. Scoops can only exist when people keep secrets. And a lot of secrets, especially personal ones, are based in shame.
But when the people reporters cover simply refuse to experience shame, baldly lie to your face, and operate with total impunity, reporters need to change how they do their job. Repeat relevant facts and context, and don’t assume that audiences have all the necessary backstory as to why this is all deeply abnormal. It’s not possible to list every cocaine toilet or Epstein encounter, but if something is relevant to the story they’re reporting, it needs to be included.
For example: every single article that notes Jared Kushner’s role in Iran or Israel diplomacy should also be clear that he runs a $6 billion hedge fund paid for by the same Gulf monarchies with whom he’s supposedly negotiating. That’s not editorializing, that’s a relevant fact!
Jared openly operates as both hedge fund manager and unconfirmed diplomat. He has simply decided the rules don’t apply to him, and refuses to be shamed by it. And while there has been some good standalone reporting into his obvious conflicts of interest, most beat journalists now cover his role in Middle East peace negotiations as they would any other envoy, because the fact of his corruption is old news, and reporters report new news. The horse race reporting of most political beat journalism normalizes the abnormal.

And it’s abnormal as hell out there right now!!!

I recently did a story that forced me to read lots of recent Trump transcripts—press gaggles, briefings, remarks at Oval Office events, etc. It was such a powerful reminder of how regularly mainstream political press sanewashes his actual words by summarizing or clipping something out of context. You really do get a completely different picture of what’s actually happening by reading or watching the raw feed versus consuming the political press coverage.
We’re all fairly numb to the ways Trump communicates: the ugliness, the insults, the AI slop memes and middle-of-the-night Truth Social rampages. But it’s clearly getting worse as he ages/decompensates, and that’s a marked difference from Trump 1. Jonathan Lemire recently pointed out that because Trump is physically imposing, loud, and dominates every conversation, he gets covered as an aging president differently than Biden, whose voice and physical presence both diminished over the course of his presidency. There are other factors at play, but it’s a solid point.

It doesn’t help that legacy media is now dominated by Bari Weisses and tech CEOs who care less about editorial integrity and more about flattering our naked-ass emperor and sending Katy Perry to space in a penis-shaped rocket.

We’re in a Wild West moment. Legacy media is under massive threat from corporate consolidation, political interference, and declining audience trust and attention (these things are likely related). We also don’t talk enough about the collapse of local news, even though 50 million Americans live in news deserts with little to no access to local reporting. That’s a crisis.
But at the same time, we’re living amidst an explosion of content creators, influencers, and independent journalists breaking news, providing vital analysis, and connecting with audiences in ways legacy media can’t or won’t. There are a lot of risks, but I’m overall optimistic: Break down the silos and barriers to entry!
Institutional backing doesn’t necessarily produce higher-quality coverage. The recent revelations about Eric Swalwell are an interesting case study: when Arielle Fodor (aka Mrs. Frazzled) received tips about Swalwell’s predatory behavior, she worked closely with his victims and their legal teams, vetted and corralled their stories, and helped them find legal representation and prepare for the fallout. Only then did everyone go to legacy media outlets with the kind of reach that really makes a story break through.
Meanwhile, there are still a lot of legacy outlets with high standards, diligent reporters, and resources to do solid reporting and analysis. And it’s not always the obvious ones: When I was in government, some of the best producers and fact checkers with whom I worked were with comedy shows! Last Week Tonight with John Oliver is sneakily one of my favorite platforms for policy news: they care about getting the details factually accurate because they have to have a solid foundation on which to make jokes, and they do longform TV like practically no one else. Show me another American show that will do a 15-minute segment on the President of Turkmenistan!

Is part of the solution moving towards these independent journalists and content creators? Hungary recently ousted its authoritarian leader with the help of political influencers. You’ve talked about “begging [your] colleagues in national security and foreign affairs to take content creation seriously” and reaching people where they are. Which is, for better and worse, their phones.

Even as audiences are increasingly distrustful of institutions like political parties, that doesn’t take away the human desire to have trust in something. So, where does that trust go? People are finding that trust not just in their IRL communities, but in influencers who mirror and validate their audiences: yes, this is happening, I see it too, you’re not crazy.
Audiences trust influencers because they recommend products we like, or validate our frustrations as a parent, or remind us of someone we know. They sit in between aspirational and accessible. We see them in living rooms or walking down the street on our phones, hear them in our headphones while we clean the apartment. They’re not at podiums or sitting behind imposing cable TV desks. It’s a completely different relationship, and so the intimacy and trust levels are different.
But. Trying to convince the donor class that the future lies in something that they don’t understand and don’t personally value, despite all the evidence of its reach and power, has been…challenging.
Dems want to see ROI on absolutely everything by the next cycle. They are not comfortable with experimenting, losing their grip on the key messages, or ceding control of the brand to non-elites. They are more likely to purity test and find reasons to exclude nontraditional messengers and validators, where MAGA will associate with pretty much anyone, for any reason. They’ve been throwing money at influencers for a over decade.

Not to mention that mainstream journalists are now being called–and I’m barely paraphrasing here–stupid, annoying bitches by the president.

It’s shameful that the White House Correspondents Association hasn’t pushed back harder against the way this administration regularly insults and abuses individual reporters, and the press generally. In any other workplace, that kind of treatment would be immediate grounds for HR discipline. Nobody should have to put up with being called a traitor or a bitch while doing their job. And reporters should worry more about audiences seeing journalists all taking this abuse without pushback, which reads like permission for it to continue.
But when White House reporters refused to band together in support of the AP immediately after the “Gulf of America” nonsense, it was game over. They’re concerned that pushing back would further curtail their access. And it’s true that they would face more retaliation, potentially even being kicked out of the room. But that’s already happening, anyways!
Contrast that with the Pentagon press corps’ refusal to comply with restrictive policies that would have severely curtailed their reporting. That’s what backbone looks like. Defense reporters getting their press passes yanked hasn’t really impacted their ability to do their jobs. If anything, several of them have told me, it’s brought in new sources eager to share what’s really happening. And, hilariously, many of the reporters whose passes were revoked still regularly come back for briefings, because Hegseth wants a full house for the cameras and the new crop of right-wing influencers aren’t super-reliable about attending 8AM pressers.
Pushback works. Journalists can do it professionally, without making themselves the story. Bullies almost always back down when confronted, especially when it’s a collective pushback.

Now, onto Iran. You recently wrote that “from the Iranian perspective, the more Trump threatens but doesn’t follow through, the weaker he appears.” You’ve–correctly, in this publication’s opinion–read his nonstop bravado as an admission of failure. How should we interpret this current moment, wherein we’re both being told that we’re moments away from a resolution, but have also just restarted bombing them during a “ceasefire?”

As my colleague Ariane Tabatabai noted, U.S. media tends to overfocus on what Trump officials say is happening vs. what’s actually happening. Part of the reason is U.S. outlets have large teams covering the administration, the Pentagon, etc. but comparatively smaller reporting on the ground from the region, Iran itself, etc.
The key point to remember is that there’s no going back to a pre-March 2026 world, where the Strait of Hormuz was fully open. The best-case scenario is that the current war ends in something like refried JCPOA (Obama’s Iran deal), but with Iran having learned that it can control the global economy by de facto closing the Strait of Hormuz. He’ll say it’s the strongest deal that anyone has ever negotiated, ever. But that will all be spin. He knows if he’s filling the space with drama of deal or no deal, everyone will be waiting for that decision.

In addition to banning journalists from the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth is known for his penchant for rhyming and riddling his way through press briefings. Do you wish you’d used more slam poetry when you were at the NSC?

I’m an elder Millennial, so my thing is more dumb Friends memes. I’d caption this one: “The Chinese PLA breaching the Taiwan Strait median line.”

The Houses as “Friends” Gifs – @hogwartswelcomesyou on Tumblr

We are less than six months out from the midterms, but Democratic comms feel so unhelpful and out of touch. Is there anyone you think is doing a good job communicating with voters right now who–and I’m just spitballing here–Hakeem Jeffries could copy? He’s so bad at it.

Good comms follows the rules of good improv: You “yes, and” with your audience. But Dems so often premise their communications on “I have something to inform you about.” Which, no. Think about it: would you rather listen to someone who tells you you’re right, or someone who tells you “you’re wrong, and I’m here to tell you why?” Spencer Pratt, God help us, may well become the next mayor of Los Angeles because he is savvy about this and his Dem competition is… not.
The most successful communicators win trust with their audiences by validating where their audiences already are, and using that as a springboard to “and here’s what I’m gonna do about it.” Dems like James Talarico, AOC, Jon Ossoff, and Mamdani are all phenomenal at making their audiences feel seen and validating where they are. It also doesn’t hurt that these Dems are all young, optimistic, and conventionally attractive at a moment where decrepit, venal, and tacky is dominant.

Also, Ilana Glazer’s “Explain It To Me Like I’m High” housing policy video with Brad Lander was adorable and needs to become a regular series. Ilana, call me! I have so many policy nerds for you!

I’d love your analysis on some Trump talking ranting points. He regularly screams about immigrants from “insane asylums” entering the US with–obviously–nothing to back it up. In your professional opinion, what is the likelihood someone told him that these people are seeking asylum, he misunderstood what that meant, and no one corrected him?

That’s clearly what happened. No doubt in my mind. And now everyone is running around praising the Emperor’s new suit.

Do you think the ballroom is really about a ballroom, or about what he’s purportedly building underneath it? (A massive military bunker.)

I think it’s about the ballroom! Truly. Trump and Putin have lots in common, but one of them is that they often directly say what it is they want (a big ballroom, Ukraine, military parades, etc.) and well-intentioned, very smart people search for deeper meaning or purpose, because they need it to make sense on their own terms. If it means something else, then we didn’t elect a President of the United States who spends this much time on a freaking ballroom.
Alas, that’s exactly what we did.

How do we ever recover trust between the White House and the American public, and the White House and the rest of the world? Maybe we melt the gaudy gold in the Oval Office and use it for some kintsugi?

This is what keeps me up at 3AM (that and Googling “[X] perimenopause symptom”). Our kids’ kids will likely still be dealing with the fallout from Trump’s second term.
I’d personally like to see a new administration prioritize tackling the self-dealing and corruption that’s flowed like boxed wine at a sorority house during Trump 2. There have to be meaningful, swift consequences for people who have been openly flouting the law and self-dealing. I think this would actually be pretty popular across the political spectrum—show me the rural Ohio diner where everyone’s main issue is “the Trump sons should never get audited.”
We’ve got to get ourselves in order if we want to be trusted to lead again on the world stage. In retrospect, we didn’t do nearly enough of this when Biden came in and it was a mistake (to be fair, we were in the middle of a fucking pandemic and global economic collapse, so—)
On the comms side, I doubt the US will ever be able to meaningfully teach media literacy at scale in my lifetime. Our politics are too toxic for it and the technology is evolving too quickly. But greater transparency and public understanding of how algorithms work, how media works, and diverse sourcing can help us all be better media consumers, and build trust between media and its audiences.

Which gets harder when we live in a world where we’re regularly getting duped by videos of puppies choosing their own owners at a shelter. Not that that’s ever happened to me.

I’m not a default AI hater, but we gotta all be honest that AI is a massive driver of distrust with many audiences, and as the technology becomes ubiquitous that will likely intensify. There’s a lot of vectors to AI skepticism (jobs displacement, environmental impact) but for these purposes I’m most worried about the trust aspect—the violation humans feel when we learn we’ve been fooled is a powerful emotion. Done right, it can incite delight (“A surprise party! For me?!”) or visceral, furious disgust (“you used ChatGPT to write our wedding vows, DANIEL?”).
When in doubt: put down the screen, walk away, and talk with a real person, even if you disagree. No one has ever said on their deathbed “I should have fought in the comments more.”

What inspired you to start your newsletter, Spin Class?

I launched Spin Class to explore how media and comms actually function in our current hellscape: a relentless deluge of information that somehow keeps us trapped in our own information bubbles, which are curated by a messy mix of algorithmic agendas and powerful humans. I was also tired of operating only in Very Serious™️ DC spaces, where people are more likely to use Clausewitz than Real Housewives as a frame for understanding our world. Both are valid, but we’re living in a reality TV show presidency! Stupid times need stupid rubrics.
Some of my favorite Spin Class pieces are about how to spot a White House-planted story in the wild, how a right-wing slop factory tweet got laundered into the New York Times, and how Trump insiders are leaking against his Iran War. I love questions that get at how the sausage gets made: “why am I seeing this,” “why am I seeing this NOW,” “who wants me to see this,” and “what am I not seeing?”
I’m super bullish on audience appetites for going deep on how news gets made, and why our media is the way it is. When GRWM and unboxing videos are a legit genre of media and deep-dive podcasts on niche subjects pull huge numbers, it says to me that people want to literally unpack the world around them, and understand why they’re seeing what they’re seeing.