‘The Interview’: Megyn Kelly Embraces Her Bias and Breaks Free from ‘Old Norms’

Last year, on the eve of the election, Megyn Kelly made a momentous decision. “Hi, everybody.” She took the stage at Donald Trump’s final campaign rally and voiced her endorsement for him. “Vote Trump and get 10 friends to vote Trump, too.” [cheering] Kelly, who spent nearly 15 years at Fox News, cultivated a reputation as one of its most incisive interviewers — “Welcome to the very first broadcast of ‘The Kelly Files.’” — and left her mark with questions like, “What do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?” before briefly joining NBC. However, that rally speech marked a pivotal point, signaling her transition into a new phase of her career. In recent years, she has carved out a niche in podcasting and YouTube, hosting a daily talk show that squarely aligns with the MAGA-loving media landscape. “That’s fake news. It’s not reality.” “That was a bad question.” “That was a great question.” “Oh, no, it was a nasty question.” “Awesome.” “We will close the border. He will keep boys out of girls’ sports.” This evolution in her career is why I was keen to converse with her about her transitions — “I had been rendered entirely toxic.” — her tumultuous relationship with President Trump — “It was useful to him to have me as a foil.” — and the lasting changes in media that some, including myself, may fail to grasp. “I just think that mode of journalism is dying, if not dead.” “I’m Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and here’s my interview with Megyn Kelly.” “Megyn, one of the reasons I wanted to talk to you is that you’re really pioneering a new path. To understand your career fully, I’d like to start from the beginning. Before you became a journalist, you were a lawyer at Jones Day, a firm notorious for its cutthroat reputation and high standards. When you walked through those doors, were you tough?” “The practice of law definitely toughened me up because, while I was comfortable with public speaking, I wasn’t necessarily adept at arguing and defending myself against attacks. Law school played a significant role in that development. Before joining Jones Day, I spent two years at Bickel and Brewer, which had a similar mentality — kill or be killed — and was infamous for its ‘Rambo litigation tactics.’ At a young age, I found that highly appealing. I loved the idea of being toughened up, taking what I learned in law school to the next level. And they certainly did that for me.” “I understand there was a time when you balanced working as a lawyer during the day and learning TV journalism in the evenings and on weekends. What made journalism appealing to you compared to litigation?” “It was fun, for one. It felt like —” “What did you enjoy about it?” “Oh, everything! I loved the storytelling, uncovering a story and obtaining that elusive nugget that no one else had. The excitement and pressure, the adrenaline rush of being live and having to perform in that moment — you only get one shot at it. It made me feel incredibly alive. I also felt my work mattered. One of the driving forces behind my choice to pursue journalism was the impact of 9/11. At 30 years old, watching the reports unfold and feeling an unfamiliar emotion while seeing reporters covering the event, I felt envy. Ashleigh Banfield stood out to me — she remained composed under immense pressure, providing a vital service to the public without appearing fazed. I wanted to do that.” “In 2004, you joined Fox News. What were your political views at that time? Did you feel inclined toward the network because of its conservative stance, or was your focus more on the opportunity it presented?” “The latter. My political views weren’t fully formed. I was raised in a predominantly Democratic household, although politics was rarely discussed. I knew my parents were Democrats, and my Nana, bless her heart, lived to be 101. She’d say, ‘Republicans are for the wealthy. We’re not wealthy.’ That New Jersey accent sticks in my mind. As I began practicing law and noticed the changes in my paychecks, I became a bit more fiscally conservative. My time at Jones Day introduced me to more Republicans than I’d encountered before, which opened my mind to new ideas. When I started in journalism, I met Bill Sammon from the D.C. office of Fox News, who advised me to send my tape to Kim Hume. I hesitated, thinking I was too inexperienced. He assured me I wasn’t, and if I were, she would let me know. I had never considered the network’s politics at that point. Roger Ailes was the first person to ask how a child of two Democrats, a nurse and a college professor, ended up being fair and balanced. He wasn’t looking for a Republican to do the news their way. In fact, he encouraged my contentious interviews with Republicans; he told others, ‘You should watch Megyn. Do more of that.’” “Why do you think that was? Was it good television, or did he want his anchors challenged?” “Probably both. Roger enjoyed Republicans, but he wasn’t fond of the Democrats. He would remind me, ‘Make sure you smile a lot.’ He was correct about that, as sharp elbows can be off-putting. When I had contentious interviews, I approached them with a sort of prosecutorial demeanor, even though I had never been a prosecutor. People often misinterpret that about me; it’s simply my nature, especially when I see someone as a villain. Each time I took that approach, I was rewarded. Roger never reprimanded me for it. He believed it produced good television, which is what broadcast journalism is about. It’s advantageous to be dynamic on air and create electric moments. Look at Donald Trump; he instinctively knows this. I would trust my instincts, and if someone irritated me, like Anthony Weiner or Dick Cheney, I knew it was time to go all in.” “This approach became a hallmark of your work, especially for calling balls and strikes in a conservative network against conservatives, which was unusual. In 2015, during the notable Republican primary debate, you posed a straightforward question to Donald Trump regarding his derogatory comments towards women. He reacted harshly with relentless attacks against you post-debate. In hindsight, why do you think he targeted you?” “Initially, he was annoyed. He sincerely disliked that question and felt a sense of betrayal, believing we were friends.” “Why did he believe you were friends?” “We had friendly interactions at Fox. He invited me to some ‘Apprentice’ events, and I had interviewed him several times early in my career. I remember a humorous exchange in 2010 where he let me touch his hair to check if it was real. I think he assumed I was a fan and expected me to be on his side. However, once he entered the political arena, my role as a straight news journalist shifted to being more adversarial toward him, which he probably didn’t anticipate. Before the debate, I had critiqued Michael Cohen’s claim regarding marital rape, expressing my astonishment at such a statement. Trump called me up after hearing it, demanding I refrain from similar segments on ‘The Kelly File.’ I made it clear he didn’t control the editorial direction of the show, and that confrontation infuriated him. He kept calling Fox executives to complain about me, sensing my shift away from the ‘friend’ category and worrying about how the debate might unfold.” “Initially, he reacted with genuine anger, but did he later come to enjoy the narrative of being targeted?” “I think he realized it played well and resonated with Republican voters who felt overlooked. He showed that no one, even his allies at Fox, was immune from his criticism.” “You’ve said that year was stressful, having to go everywhere with armed guards due to the backlash from his supporters. Do you carry any emotional toll from that period?” “No, it was a long nine months, far from enjoyable. I resented having to deal with armed security at places like Disney World. It was clear that the ongoing hostility was doing no favors for me as a journalist, Fox host, or individual. I desperately wished he would ease off.” “In 2016, you and other female Fox employees came forward with accusations of sexual harassment against Roger Ailes, ultimately leading to his dismissal. Did you feel resentment from colleagues for not supporting Roger?” “Very much so. The anger stemmed not from the Trump situation but from my decision to speak out against Roger. Many at Fox couldn’t comprehend it, almost like a cult mentality, where you don’t turn on the cult leader.” “What was the conversation with Lachlan Murdoch like when you revealed your experiences with Roger?” “That moment gives me chills; it was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. I genuinely cared about Roger, and while he had harassed me, I never submitted to any advances, and I had forgiven him. It felt complicated because I didn’t want to hurt him, especially with Gretchen Carlson’s accusations on the table. I wrestled with the decision for some time. Finally, while looking at a portrait of my daughter recovering from an injury, I realized I had to call Lachlan Murdoch. It was a moment that changed many lives, including mine, mostly not for the better.” “What do you think shifted for you afterward?” “It changed almost every friendship I had at Fox. The backlash was overwhelming, and I was surprised by how widespread it was. I thought I could navigate the situation, but I underestimated its impact. After everything under the Trump umbrella, I knew I needed to leave and sought refuge at NBC.” “In 2017, you joined NBC to host a daytime show, which ended poorly due to the backlash over your comments on blackface during Halloween. What sparked that controversy?” “Correct. The incident involving a Bravo housewife dressing in blackface ignited discussions. I asked when it became socially unacceptable, recalling that I grew up in an era when it was seen as acceptable. I hadn’t anticipated the intensity of the backlash.” “You were surprised that blackface was viewed as so offensive?” “Yes, it didn’t occur to me that it had shifted to such an extreme level where discussing it would lead to my downfall. The toll of that NBC year overshadowed my experiences at Fox. The media industry felt like a toxic environment, and I questioned whether I wanted to return.” “During that tumultuous time, did it feel like people were distancing themselves from you?” “Absolutely. I felt entirely toxic. I wasn’t actively seeking new opportunities, but I realized I had become unmarketable.” “That’s when you recognized that mainstream media was no longer for you.” “I realized I wasn’t easy to manage as an employee anymore. The landscape had transformed. The country was spiraling into peak wokeism, and I’m not a woke person. I felt driven to dismantle it. I couldn’t envision working for another outlet that mirrored NBC’s approach.” “Ben Shapiro reached out during this time. How did that define your current direction?” “He recognized my struggles and suggested I explore a new avenue. I initially hesitated but soon realized he was right and decided to return to the spotlight.” “What appealed to you about this new venture?” “It allowed me to be my own boss and control my editorial direction. I could engage in longer conversations about pressing issues instead of being confined to short segments. It was liberating.” “You’ve mentioned finding a ‘third version’ of yourself with your new show on YouTube. Initially, it mirrored your anchoring days, but now you appear more relaxed.” “I feel much less restrained. However, to thrive in this individual space, there needs to be a genuine connection with the audience. I started to share my own opinions, leading me to form new perspectives.” “Can you elaborate on that process?” “Since I wasn’t deeply political growing up, I focused on understanding both sides at Fox. Now, on this show, my audience desires my perspective, compelling me to contemplate my stance on various topics.” “Recently, you endorsed Trump at a rally. Once that public endorsement happened, how do you see your independence moving forward?” “I still believe I can maintain some independence. I accept that I crossed a line, and it marked a shift in my role. It’s a hybrid space I find myself in, allowing me to express beliefs I previously bottled up. I maintain a commitment to challenging Trump, which is crucial for credibility.” “Yet, actively campaigning for him may compromise that independence. Some saw it as aligning with power.” “I don’t view it as caving; it’s my truth. I’m glad he won and believe his leadership matters significantly in preventing detrimental outcomes for the country. I felt an obligation to use my unique perspective to support him because I could truly reach certain demographics who were skeptical.” “Though you support some of his policies, you have shared concerns regarding his past behaviors and allegations.” “Personally, I don’t believe the most serious allegations against him. Although I acknowledge he has taken inappropriate actions with women, I refuse to label him with the same urgency many in the media have.” “Do you still identify as a journalist?” “Absolutely. I continually break news and maintain tough conversations with prominent figures. I addressed concerns with Trump even in September ‘23, resulting in him not speaking to me for some time. Journalistic integrity necessitates challenging those in power, including those you admire.” “Can you envisage returning to Fox in the capacity you held before?” “I could, but I have no desire to. I think that model is extinct.” “What do you mean?” “That journalism style seems outdated. The future entails direct relationships between journalists or media personalities and their audiences.” “What’s at stake if that occurs?” “The current structure has siloed people into left-leaning perspectives. There’s a prevailing monopoly on opinion and political bias in media. The conservative voices emerged out of necessity, given that many Americans lean right. The old model is slowly becoming irrelevant; it’s tragic since we still need news gatherers.” “After the break, I reconnect with Megyn.” “Thank you for joining us once more. Reflecting on our earlier conversation, you mentioned considering yourself a journalist even as your approach has evolved. As a Trump supporter, how do you perceive his criticism of the press, labeling them as ‘the enemy of the people’ and promoting the term ‘fake news’?” “I support that stance. Many right-leaning individuals share a valid disdain for much of the media, which is often disingenuous. Trump effectively showcased this reality, as the media was uniformly against him, leaving him with little choice but to call them out.” “Many individuals from the media have transitioned into the Trump administration. What are your thoughts?” “I find it exciting. Pete Hegseth is an excellent example of someone who can approach reporting with facts while also being politically involved. While he faced serious allegations, we broke down the accusations openly. Finding others who do the same is rare.” “During your interview with him, your introduction expressed dismay at the media’s treatment of him. Does that approach differ from traditional journalism?” “Absolutely. The landscape has shifted. I operate in an environment where all rules can be redefined. I’m part of a larger world of content creators. Authenticity is now paramount; audiences want genuine and unfiltered communication.” “Gavin Newsom has recently launched a podcast, attempting to engage in this new media landscape. What’s your take on this development?” “It’s a smart move for him. He could thrive in this setting and potentially benefit from confronting his ideas. It’s a strategy many left-leaning individuals could adopt, as they often argue in tighter circles.” “Understanding the dynamics of this media landscape, are you developing these rules as you go, or do you adhere to some traditional values from your past?” “Success in this medium often requires the elimination of former journalism rules, embracing a new paradigm. I believe in drawing upon both old values and new authenticity. We’ll find ways to adapt and thrive.” “Have there ever been discussions about you joining the Trump administration?” “No comment.” “What type of involvement were they considering?” “Those details remain unconfirmed. However, I genuinely relish my current role and enjoy the life I’ve established.” That’s Megyn Kelly. She recently announced the expansion of her media venture with the launch of MK Media. “Today, we are announcing the inauguration of MK Media.” In addition, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has made headlines this week for sharing military details over Signal with White House advisors and inadvertently, a journalist. We recorded this interview before that story broke.