NPR Public Editor by Poynter's Kelly McBride

A Steve Inskeep interview with a Donald Trump supporter, turned detractor, turned supporter again, brought in a handful of objections from NPR listeners.

The letter writers wondered if the interview subject was important enough to merit seven minutes of airtime, and if his ever-changing opinions or past allegations of misconduct erased any relevance he might have once had.

If you think of NPR as that place where you hear great conversations with fascinating people, this interview wasn’t exactly that. The subject, Gordon Sondland, is a rich political donor who, after donating to Trump’s 2016 campaign, was rewarded with an ambassadorship. After Jan. 6, 2021, however, he changed course, becoming a never-Trumper. That is, until recently, when he reemerged in the eleventh hour of the election to once again support Trump.

Looking back on this interview after the election, the relevance was clearer. Sondland is one of few Trump supporters who is still critical of Jan. 6. Hearing his reasoning for going back to the Trump camp wasn’t exactly satisfying, but it did capture the sentiment of many Trump voters — they excuse shortcomings because they believe he got results for the country.

Still, it’s important for Inskeep and NPR to consider how the interview would be received by their entire audience and to take steps to explain why they believed it was worth a listen. Read on to see what these audience members found so objectionable and my analysis of the interview.

Also this week, we spotlight an NPR investigation that further exposes the failures of a Veterans Affairs’ home loan program that trapped veterans in high-cost loans.

Finally, if you’re not following us on social media, I invite you to do so now. The Public Editor’s Office is active on Facebook, Instagram and Threads. — Kelly McBride

Illustration by Carlos Carmonamedina

Here are a few quotes from the Public Editor's inbox that resonated with us. Letters are edited for length and clarity. You can share your questions and concerns with us through the NPR Contact page.

Why did NPR interview a dubious Trump supporter?

Michael Bernstein wrote on Oct. 15: While Mr. Inskeep did an admirable job live fact-checking Mr. Sondland in this interview, what newsworthy reasons were there to publish this story? Why give any airtime to a relatively minor figure — a GOP-donor-turned-ambassador — who is merely attempting to “sanewash” the former president’s behavior after having 15 minutes of fame testifying against him in 2019? Despite Mr. Inskeep’s valiant attempts to contextualize Sondland’s unsupported statements while maintaining some neutrality, Sondland was allowed to dismiss Trump’s impeached behavior as “hyperbole,” “not his finest hour,” or simply shrugging, “That’s Trump!” and make sweeping statements that [the] Biden-Harris administration is “destroying our cities.” NPR has been better than many media outlets at calling out such bulls--t, but this time did not go far enough.

Natalie Sept wrote on Oct. 22: I am writing in regards to the interview you conducted with Gordon Sondland on October 15, 2024. I am an avid NPR, and specifically, [Oregon Public Broadcasting] listener. As Trump re-enters the international stage … I am haunted by the memories of my experience, and many others, with Gordon Sondland. … While I was dismayed to see Sondland given the privilege and honor of an interview to share his perspective, I was furthermore surprised to see this story was provided without any context. I have provided several major news outlets’ stories, including your own OPB/NPR as reference. I want to remind you that he has a history of [alleged] sexual abuse. Much like Trump, Sondland, who willingly signed up to be a part of that administration and all it represents, appears to share Trump’s immunity from any past actions. … By giving him this platform, you are erasing his behavior and showing to everyone that his power and privilege shadows any accountability. … This interview shows an incredible lack of integrity on the part of OPB and NPR.

While I couldn’t confirm the intended journalistic purpose from Inskeep and his team, it appears that the goal was to converse with someone who had reservations about former President Donald Trump in the past but was nonetheless supporting him in the current election, which, when the segment aired, was three weeks away.

Public radio journalists had been interviewing Trump supporters like Sondland during the run-up to the election. Listening to this interview now, it could be described as prescient.

But I can’t know for sure why Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep did this interview, because he didn’t return my emails and Slack messages. Morning Edition executive producer Erika Aguilar also declined to discuss this story. I did confirm that this interview was not arranged by the team that seeks out big interviews. That means that it’s likely that Inskeep himself landed the interview.

Here’s what I do know: Sondland’s history is complicated.

As the former ambassador to the European Union, a post that he was appointed to after he donated to Trump’s first campaign, Sondland had a closer view than most voters to Trump’s leadership style.

Sondland testified during Congress’ first attempt to impeach Trump that he witnessed a “quid pro quo” as the president threatened to withhold support for Ukraine until President Volodymyr Zelenskyy produced evidence of corruption against Joe Biden, then a candidate for president.

Three women, including one of our letter writers today, accused Sondland in 2019 of past unwanted sexual advances and assaults. The story was reported by journalists at ProPublica and Portland Monthly. Sondland has denied the accusations.

Sondland was interviewed on MSNBC and Fox News a few weeks before the Inskeep interview. Since then, he’s been on CNN. All three interviews focused on political flip-flopping. None mentioned the previous accusations.

With those facts in mind, it’s fair to question how this interview came to be and how it was delivered.

Did the interview need to be seven minutes long? There was probably no way to make it shorter, given the complexities of Sondland’s position. And Inskeep did a solid job delving into the shortcomings in his interview subject’s arguments. Sondland complained that hybrid work arrangements were harming the economy in large cities; Inskeep pointed out that the president doesn’t control that. Sondland suggested that some of the scary things Trump says are just hyperbole; Inskeep pointed out that Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 riots that disrupted Congress seemed like more than simple bluster.

Should the interview have mentioned that three women have accused Sondland of unwanted kissing and touching, and abusing his power? Yes, that seems relevant.

In the end, this interview provided NPR listeners the opportunity to hear from a man who has journeyed from Trump supporter to detractor to supporter again about his reasons for voting for Trump. It may not have been pleasant to listen to, but it was an insightful window into the then-pending election. Part of NPR’s mandate is to reflect the diversity of views across America.

Given Sondland’s complicated history and that most listeners probably did not remember much about him at all, the setup for the interview should have explained why the journalists at Morning Edition believed his point of view was worth airing. — Kelly McBride with Amaris Castillo and Nicole Slaughter Graham

The Public Editor spends a lot of time examining moments where NPR fell short. Yet we also learn a lot about NPR by looking at work that we find to be compelling and excellent journalism. Here we share a line or two about the pieces where NPR shines.

An investigation into a troubled VA program

An NPR investigation exposes the extent of the harm that a home loan program backed by the Department of Veterans Affairs has caused American veterans. NPR journalists found that at least 1,300 veterans ended up in loans that raised their monthly mortgage payments by more than 50%. This story (a follow-up to a 2023 investigation) details how the mortgage forbearance program was supposed to help veterans, and how the shutting down of a key aspect of the program led to thousands of veterans being placed in this difficult position. Through data analysis and the testimony of one Army veteran who is under tremendous strain to keep her house out of foreclosure, this story is an exemplary demonstration of NPR journalists holding power to account. — Amaris Castillo

The Office of the Public Editor is a team. Reporters Amaris Castillo and Nicole Slaughter Graham and copy editor Merrill Perlman make this newsletter possible. Illustrations are by Carlos Carmonamedina. We are still reading all of your messages on Facebook, Threads, Instagram and from our inbox. As always, keep them coming.

Kelly McBride
NPR Public Editor
Chair, Craig Newmark Center for Ethics & Leadership at the Poynter Institute

Kelly McBride
Public Editor

Amaris Castillo
Poynter Institute

Nicole Slaughter Graham
Poynter Institute

The Public Editor stands as a source of independent accountability. Created by NPR's board of directors, the Public Editor serves as a bridge between the newsroom and the audience, striving to both listen to the audience's concerns and explain the newsroom's work and ambitions. The office ensures NPR remains steadfast in its mission to present fair, accurate and comprehensive information in service of democracy.

Read more from the NPR Public Editor, contact us, or follow us on X.

You received this message because you're subscribed to Public Editor emails. This email was sent by National Public Radio, Inc., 1111 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20002

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy