Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Interviewing the Interviewer
Prem Thakker on his Relentless Reporting on Gaza and U.S. Government Accountability
Illustrations by Yassa Almokhamad-Sarkisian
CÉLINE: Hi Prem! I just want to say that what we find particularly interesting in your reporting career are the ways in which you talk about climate, about Gaza, about so many different things. How do you see a subject like climate politics connect to the situation in Gaza?
PREM: A big part of my evolution was just trying to understand power dynamics, trying to understand incentive structures, motivations, broader systems of power and social management. And so I think with all these issues, of course, there are intersectional, material ways in which they all connect, whether it’s arguments regarding capitalism or production or military industrial complex and so on and so forth. But there’s also just this broader sense of the way in which many things seem to happen in a very undemocratic way, in a way that the more these things happen and the more intense scale at which they happen, the easier it is for them to continue happening, because people on an individual scale can only care about so much, can only manage so much, particularly when there’s so much they have to care about in their own personal lives and spheres. And the more these violent systemic issues escalate and intensify, the more overwhelming they are for an individual person, and the less bandwidth they have to care about them, leaving the government and the powers that be more leeway to escalate further. It’s a very cyclical, circular dynamic that understandably alienates people from each other. And so for me, a through-line between all this is that personal aspect of it, of trying to approach all these with a sense of generosity and empathy, in the same way that I can see myself as a subject in these things too.

AFEEF: We have been following your work for a while, but we really know you best from your interactions with the government, pushing Matt Miller into a corner. What does it feel like to face down the government nearly every day and try to hold them to account? Can you give us a bit of a peek behind the curtain?
PREM: I’m still a fairly young journalist; I’m fairly new to a lot of this, especially things like the government briefing rooms, and the way I approach it is just very earnestly. I’ve been trying my best to learn from the veterans in those rooms, because I think they’re all very talented and very good at what they do. But I think I’m just there to ask questions that many people have. There’s this veneer in Washington, for which stem certain assumptions about how things work, and therefore, there’s other questions to be asking that these veterans have been conditioned not to ask. There are a lot of basic tensions and contradictions in Washington, and not just about Gaza, and a lot of things that merit a more basic questioning. So I do this as much as I can in the Capitol briefing rooms. I’m just trying to ask questions that would be reasonable for any observer to be asking. That’s my goal. My general approach is just…if something seems a little confusing or weird or contradictory, or actively antithetical to purported government values, or purported government statements, those should be questioned.
AFEEF: Give us a bit of an understanding of the tension. Any anecdotes or memories that jump out?
PREM: One would just be that it’s been 273 days since the Israeli military killed Hind Rajab and her family members and the paramedics that were sent to save her. That has been a case that I’ve continually asked the government about. She’s just one amongst tens or hundreds of thousands of children who’ve been killed, and those paramedics are amongst hundreds who’ve been killed. Those are family members amongst the tens or hundreds of thousands who have been killed. But it sticks out because this specific case is so prominent. There is such an abundance of material evidence available—the horrifying emergency call, time stamps, locations, emergency workers and unit soldiers to interview and interrogate—that if it were a priority for the Israeli government, for the US government by proxy, that if it were a priority this would not take 273 days to get an accountability resolution. It’s very striking. This case is very emblematic and illustrative of how the US government has responded to how the Israeli government has operated, and how tall the stack is of alleged human rights violations.
CÉLINE: Totally. With all the evidence and all of the ways in which everything has been documented and verified, it seems that you’re always faced with the same sort of robotic answers by these people. What’s the best case scenario in that press room, and what’s the worst case scenario?
PREM: There has definitely been an understandable questioning by a lot of people of the merits of these briefings entirely, about what they’re for. And I understand that, especially for those who just see the videos and see the non- answers. This isn’t necessarily an aberration for government spokespeople, especially for US spokespeople, to operate this way. Their role is to defend the party line. To defend the policy of the US government. Obviously, what’s unique is just how much more visible this is with tools like Twitter and so on. I think I don’t actually have a perfect answer of what these briefings mean, or what the merits are. I’m just there as much as I can to try to find answers and to try to ask questions.
AFEEF: Your profile has probably risen a lot in the last few months, and I wonder what it’s been like personally for you to get TV time and go viral and what, what has that been like personally.
PREM: A difficult aspect of being in journalism, particularly journalism that is focused on politics, corruption, civil rights, foreign policy, the environment and so on, is that oftentimes the reason some journalists’ careers accelerate is because of work that they’re doing that’s focused on very horrific, sad things. I’m glad that people seem to be finding the work we’re doing helpful and beneficial, and that they resonate with it. But it’s a very weird and complex feeling to have your career as a journalist benefit from the work you’re doing when the work you’re doing is actually quite painful.
CÉLINE: How do you sustain your mental health? Do you have a practice? Do you have any rituals to stay afloat?
PREM: I’m surrounded by very, very good people who have hearts of gold and are also very compassionate and caring about the world, but are also compassionate and caring about what’s right in front of them, and so to be something that’s in front of them, and to be a benefactor of that caring compassion is very sustaining. I do like to meditate. I do like to play sports. I feel like a big part of life is just playing. And I feel like as much as we can play and can play with other people and just hang out is very sustaining. It’s understandable for people who are so immersed in these kinds of topics, whether it’s climate change or war or attacks on civil liberties, civil rights, systematic discrimination, racism, you name it, to just feel very hopeless, or to feel very conflicted about removing yourself from that, even for a moment. But it seems like if we’re going to care about the world, you also have to care about not just your own world, but the people who share that world with you, including your loved ones, your friends, your neighbors, and part of that involves enjoying being around them. And so I think it’s not just a philosophical act of resistance to love life and share good times. It’s important because it’s a coherent part of caring about the world. Those reminders that others have shared with me have been very grounding and important.
CÉLINE: What do you hope is the impact on culture from your work? Younger journalists seeing you in these rooms; that alone is an important image. You wearing black nail polish in these rooms. That’s another image. What is the impact that these images have on culture?
PREM: Going back to what we talked about earlier, about the assumptions of the way this place is supposed to work.
There are questions that no one really asks because that’s not the news of the day, that should not be controversial questions. Even very basic ones, like, “Hey, Senator, the world’s on fire. Why are you behaving this way? It’s the world’s hottest year on record. What do you say to your constituents who just suffered from a hurricane made worse by climate change?” I try to pursue those questions and not fall into the understandable tendency to just operate on the assumptions of how this place is supposed to work. Washington is supposed to serve people, so if myself and my colleagues can be a part of encouraging other journalists to embrace that spirit, to be much more empowered, and to see that other people feel that way too, and bring them to be even more engaged. I think that’s a good thing, because a lot of people in this country, for very good reason and in different flavors, are disenchanted, alienated, separated from politics. I empathize with that and sympathize with that, but I think it’s all the more important for them to be here too, to be skeptical, to be present, to be reading and learning.
That is my broader hope with the work we try to do: to listen to the disempowered and give them voice and to make them feel power, and to not make them feel like they’re always spoken down to. With regards to things like me wearing nail polish, or things like that, or just basically looking a little different. The world needs a little more color. What’s wrong with that?
In Conversation:
Illustration by:
For the last year, all of us have watched Prem Thakker. He has consistently interrogated the U.S State Department in their daily press briefings to shed major light on stories coming out of the genocide in Palestine. Always insistent and clear-eyed, Prem has never shied away from asking hard questions of people who are seemingly lying directly to the American public. Prem sat with Céline Semaan and Afeef Nessouli to explain what it has been like to go toe to toe with staffers from the State Department at daily press briefings, what it has been like to be thrust into the spotlight and what it is like to carry this heavy responsibility at a time when honest journalism is needed most.
Topics:
Filed under:
Location:
{
"article":
{
"title" : "Interviewing the Interviewer: Prem Thakker on his Relentless Reporting on Gaza and U.S. Government Accountability",
"author" : "Prem Thakker, Céline Semaan, Afeef Nessouli",
"category" : "interviews",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/prem-thakker-reporting-gaza-us-accountability",
"date" : "2024-12-11 14:33:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/prem-thumb.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Illustrations by Yassa Almokhamad-Sarkisian",
"content" : "Illustrations by Yassa Almokhamad-SarkisianCÉLINE: Hi Prem! I just want to say that what we find particularly interesting in your reporting career are the ways in which you talk about climate, about Gaza, about so many different things. How do you see a subject like climate politics connect to the situation in Gaza?PREM: A big part of my evolution was just trying to understand power dynamics, trying to understand incentive structures, motivations, broader systems of power and social management. And so I think with all these issues, of course, there are intersectional, material ways in which they all connect, whether it’s arguments regarding capitalism or production or military industrial complex and so on and so forth. But there’s also just this broader sense of the way in which many things seem to happen in a very undemocratic way, in a way that the more these things happen and the more intense scale at which they happen, the easier it is for them to continue happening, because people on an individual scale can only care about so much, can only manage so much, particularly when there’s so much they have to care about in their own personal lives and spheres. And the more these violent systemic issues escalate and intensify, the more overwhelming they are for an individual person, and the less bandwidth they have to care about them, leaving the government and the powers that be more leeway to escalate further. It’s a very cyclical, circular dynamic that understandably alienates people from each other. And so for me, a through-line between all this is that personal aspect of it, of trying to approach all these with a sense of generosity and empathy, in the same way that I can see myself as a subject in these things too.AFEEF: We have been following your work for a while, but we really know you best from your interactions with the government, pushing Matt Miller into a corner. What does it feel like to face down the government nearly every day and try to hold them to account? Can you give us a bit of a peek behind the curtain?PREM: I’m still a fairly young journalist; I’m fairly new to a lot of this, especially things like the government briefing rooms, and the way I approach it is just very earnestly. I’ve been trying my best to learn from the veterans in those rooms, because I think they’re all very talented and very good at what they do. But I think I’m just there to ask questions that many people have. There’s this veneer in Washington, for which stem certain assumptions about how things work, and therefore, there’s other questions to be asking that these veterans have been conditioned not to ask. There are a lot of basic tensions and contradictions in Washington, and not just about Gaza, and a lot of things that merit a more basic questioning. So I do this as much as I can in the Capitol briefing rooms. I’m just trying to ask questions that would be reasonable for any observer to be asking. That’s my goal. My general approach is just…if something seems a little confusing or weird or contradictory, or actively antithetical to purported government values, or purported government statements, those should be questioned.AFEEF: Give us a bit of an understanding of the tension. Any anecdotes or memories that jump out?PREM: One would just be that it’s been 273 days since the Israeli military killed Hind Rajab and her family members and the paramedics that were sent to save her. That has been a case that I’ve continually asked the government about. She’s just one amongst tens or hundreds of thousands of children who’ve been killed, and those paramedics are amongst hundreds who’ve been killed. Those are family members amongst the tens or hundreds of thousands who have been killed. But it sticks out because this specific case is so prominent. There is such an abundance of material evidence available—the horrifying emergency call, time stamps, locations, emergency workers and unit soldiers to interview and interrogate—that if it were a priority for the Israeli government, for the US government by proxy, that if it were a priority this would not take 273 days to get an accountability resolution. It’s very striking. This case is very emblematic and illustrative of how the US government has responded to how the Israeli government has operated, and how tall the stack is of alleged human rights violations.CÉLINE: Totally. With all the evidence and all of the ways in which everything has been documented and verified, it seems that you’re always faced with the same sort of robotic answers by these people. What’s the best case scenario in that press room, and what’s the worst case scenario?PREM: There has definitely been an understandable questioning by a lot of people of the merits of these briefings entirely, about what they’re for. And I understand that, especially for those who just see the videos and see the non- answers. This isn’t necessarily an aberration for government spokespeople, especially for US spokespeople, to operate this way. Their role is to defend the party line. To defend the policy of the US government. Obviously, what’s unique is just how much more visible this is with tools like Twitter and so on. I think I don’t actually have a perfect answer of what these briefings mean, or what the merits are. I’m just there as much as I can to try to find answers and to try to ask questions.AFEEF: Your profile has probably risen a lot in the last few months, and I wonder what it’s been like personally for you to get TV time and go viral and what, what has that been like personally.PREM: A difficult aspect of being in journalism, particularly journalism that is focused on politics, corruption, civil rights, foreign policy, the environment and so on, is that oftentimes the reason some journalists’ careers accelerate is because of work that they’re doing that’s focused on very horrific, sad things. I’m glad that people seem to be finding the work we’re doing helpful and beneficial, and that they resonate with it. But it’s a very weird and complex feeling to have your career as a journalist benefit from the work you’re doing when the work you’re doing is actually quite painful.CÉLINE: How do you sustain your mental health? Do you have a practice? Do you have any rituals to stay afloat?PREM: I’m surrounded by very, very good people who have hearts of gold and are also very compassionate and caring about the world, but are also compassionate and caring about what’s right in front of them, and so to be something that’s in front of them, and to be a benefactor of that caring compassion is very sustaining. I do like to meditate. I do like to play sports. I feel like a big part of life is just playing. And I feel like as much as we can play and can play with other people and just hang out is very sustaining. It’s understandable for people who are so immersed in these kinds of topics, whether it’s climate change or war or attacks on civil liberties, civil rights, systematic discrimination, racism, you name it, to just feel very hopeless, or to feel very conflicted about removing yourself from that, even for a moment. But it seems like if we’re going to care about the world, you also have to care about not just your own world, but the people who share that world with you, including your loved ones, your friends, your neighbors, and part of that involves enjoying being around them. And so I think it’s not just a philosophical act of resistance to love life and share good times. It’s important because it’s a coherent part of caring about the world. Those reminders that others have shared with me have been very grounding and important.CÉLINE: What do you hope is the impact on culture from your work? Younger journalists seeing you in these rooms; that alone is an important image. You wearing black nail polish in these rooms. That’s another image. What is the impact that these images have on culture?PREM: Going back to what we talked about earlier, about the assumptions of the way this place is supposed to work.There are questions that no one really asks because that’s not the news of the day, that should not be controversial questions. Even very basic ones, like, “Hey, Senator, the world’s on fire. Why are you behaving this way? It’s the world’s hottest year on record. What do you say to your constituents who just suffered from a hurricane made worse by climate change?” I try to pursue those questions and not fall into the understandable tendency to just operate on the assumptions of how this place is supposed to work. Washington is supposed to serve people, so if myself and my colleagues can be a part of encouraging other journalists to embrace that spirit, to be much more empowered, and to see that other people feel that way too, and bring them to be even more engaged. I think that’s a good thing, because a lot of people in this country, for very good reason and in different flavors, are disenchanted, alienated, separated from politics. I empathize with that and sympathize with that, but I think it’s all the more important for them to be here too, to be skeptical, to be present, to be reading and learning.That is my broader hope with the work we try to do: to listen to the disempowered and give them voice and to make them feel power, and to not make them feel like they’re always spoken down to. With regards to things like me wearing nail polish, or things like that, or just basically looking a little different. The world needs a little more color. What’s wrong with that?"
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Black Liberation Views on Palestine",
"author" : "EIP Editors",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/black-liberation-on-palestine",
"date" : "2025-10-17 09:01:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/mandela-keffiyeh.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "In understanding global politics, it is important to look at Black liberation struggles as one important source of moral perspective. So, when looking at Palestine, we look to Black leaders to see how they perceived the Palestinian struggle in relation to theirs, from the 1960’s to today.Why must we understand where the injustice lies? Because, as Desmond Tutu famously said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”{% for person in site.data.quotes-black-liberation-palestine %}{{ person.name }}{% for quote in person.quotes %}“{{ quote.text }}”{% if quote.source %}— {{ quote.source }}{% endif %}{% endfor %}{% endfor %}"
}
,
{
"title" : "First Anniversary Celebration of EIP",
"author" : "EIP Editors",
"category" : "events",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/1st-anniversary-of-eip",
"date" : "2025-10-14 18:01:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/WSA_EIP_Launch_Cover.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Celebrating One Year of Independent Publishing",
"content" : "Celebrating One Year of Independent PublishingJoin Everything is Political on November 21st for the launch of our End-of-Year Special Edition Magazine.This members-only evening will feature a benefit dinner, cocktails, and live performances in celebration of a year of independent media, critical voices, and collective resistance.The EventNovember 21, 2025, 7-11pmLower Manhattan, New YorkLaunching our End-of-Year Special Edition MagazineSpecial appearances and performancesFood & Drink includedTickets are extremely limited, reserve yours now!Become an annual print member: get x back issues of EIP, receive the End-of-Year Special Edition Magazine, and come to the Anniversary Celebration.$470Already a member? Sign in to get your special offer. Buy Ticket $150 Just $50 ! and get the End-of-Year Special Edition Magazine Buy ticket $150 and get the End-of-Year Special Edition Magazine "
}
,
{
"title" : "Miu Miu Transforms the Apron From Trad Wife to Boss Lady: The sexiest thing in Paris was a work garment",
"author" : "Khaoula Ghanem",
"category" : "",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/miu-miu-transforms-the-apron-from-trad-wife-to-boss-lady",
"date" : "2025-10-14 13:05:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_MiuMiu_Apron.jpg",
"excerpt" : "Miuccia Prada has a habit of taking the least “fashion” thing in the room and making it the argument. For Spring 2026 at Miu Miu, the argument is the apron; staged not as a coy retro flourish but as a total system. The show’s mise-en-scène read like a canteen or factory floor with melamine-like tables, rationalist severity, a whiff of cleaning fluid. In other words, a runway designed to force a conversation about labor before any sparkle could distract us.",
"content" : "Miuccia Prada has a habit of taking the least “fashion” thing in the room and making it the argument. For Spring 2026 at Miu Miu, the argument is the apron; staged not as a coy retro flourish but as a total system. The show’s mise-en-scène read like a canteen or factory floor with melamine-like tables, rationalist severity, a whiff of cleaning fluid. In other words, a runway designed to force a conversation about labor before any sparkle could distract us.From the opening look—German actress Sandra Hüller in a utilitarian deep-blue apron layered over a barn jacket and neat blue shirting—the thesis was loud: the “cover” becomes the thing itself. As silhouettes marched on, aprons multiplied and mutated—industrial drill cotton with front pockets, raw canvas, taffeta and cloqué silk, lace-edged versions that flirted with lingerie, even black leather and crystal-studded incarnations that reframed function as ornament. What the apron traditionally shields (clothes, bodies, “the good dress”) was inverted; the protection became the prized surface. Prada herself spelled it out: “The apron is my favorite piece of clothing… it symbolizes women, from factories through to serving to the home.”Miu Miu Spring 2026 Ready-to-Wear. SuppliedThis inversion matters historically. The apron’s earliest fashion-adjacent life was industrial. It served as a barrier against grease, heat, stain. It was a token of paid and unpaid care. Miu Miu tapped that lineage directly (canvas, work belts, D-ring hardware), then sliced it against domestic codes (florals, ruffles, crochet), and finally pushed into nightlife with bejeweled and leather bibs. The garment’s migration across materials made its social migrations visible. It is a kitchen apron, yes, but also one for labs, hospitals, and factories; the set and styling insisted on that plurality.What makes the apron such a loaded emblem is not just what it covers, but what it reveals about who has always been working. Before industrialization formalized labor into factory shifts and wages, women were already performing invisible labour, the kind that doesn’t exist on payrolls but sits at the foundation of every functioning society. They were cooking, cleaning, raising children, nursing the ill. These tasks were foundational to every economy and yet absent from every ledger. Even when women entered the industrial workforce, from textile plants to wartime assembly lines, their domestic responsibilities did not disappear, they doubled. In that context, the apron here is a quiet manifesto for the strength that goes unrecorded, unthanked, and yet keeps civilization running.The algorithmic rise of the “tradwife,” the influencer economy that packages domesticity as soft power, is the contemporary cultural shadow here. Miu Miu’s apron refuses that rehearsal. In fact, it’s intentionally awkward—oversized, undone, worn over bikinis or with sturdy shoes—so the viewer can’t flatten it into Pinterest-ready nostalgia. Critics noted the collection as a reclamation, a rebuttal to the flattening forces of the feed: the apron as a uniform for endurance rather than submission. The show notes framed it simply as “a consideration of the work of women,” a reminder that the invisible economies of effort—paid, unpaid, emotional—still structure daily life.If that sounds unusually explicit for a luxury runway, consider the designer. Prada trained as a mime at Milan’s Piccolo Teatro, earned a PhD in political science, joined the Italian Communist Party, and was active in the women’s rights movement in 1970s Milan. Those facts are not trivia; they are the grammar of her clothes. Decades of “ugly chic” were, essentially, a slow campaign against easy consumption and default beauty. In 2026, the apron becomes the newest dialect. An emblem drawn from leftist feminist history, recoded into a product that still has to sell. That tension—belief versus business—is the Miuccia paradox, and it’s precisely why these aprons read as statements, not trends.The runway narrative traced a journey from function to fetish. Early looks were squarely utilitarian—thick cottons, pocketed bibs—before migrating toward fragility and sparkle. Lace aprons laid transparently over swimmers; crystal-studded aprons slipped across cocktail territory; leather apron-dresses stiffened posture into armor. The sequencing proposed the same silhouette can encode labor, intimacy, and spectacle depending on fabrication. If most brands smuggle “workwear” in as set dressing, Miu Miu forced it onto the body as the central garment and an unmissable reminder that the feminine is often asked to be both shield and display at once.It’s instructive to read this collection against the house’s last mega-viral object: the micro-mini of Spring 2022, a pleated, raw-hem wafer that colonized timelines and magazine covers. That skirt’s thesis was exposure—hip bones and hemlines as post-lockdown spectacle, Y2K nostalgia framed as liberation-lite. The apron, ironically, covers. Where the micro-mini trafficked in the optics of freedom (and the speed of virality), the apron asks about the conditions that make freedom possible: who launders, who cooks, who cares? To move from “look at me” to “who is working here?” is a pivot from optics to ethics, without abandoning desire. (The aprons are, after all, deeply covetable.) In a platform economy that still rewards the shortest hemline with the biggest click-through, this is a sophisticated counter-program.Yet the designer is not romanticizing toil. There’s wit in the ruffles and perversity in the crystals; neither negate labor, they metabolize it. The most striking image is the apron treated as couture-adjacent. Traditionally, an apron protects the precious thing beneath; here, the apron is the precious thing. You could call that hypocrisy—luxurizing the uniform of workers. Or, strategy, insisting that the symbols of care and effort deserve visibility and investment.Of course, none of this exists in a vacuum. The “tradwife” script thrives because it is aesthetically legible and commercially scalable. It packages gender ideology as moodboard. Miu Miu counters with garments whose legibility flickers. The collection’s best looks ask viewers to reconcile tenderness with toughness, convenience with care, which is exactly the mental choreography demanded of women in every context from office to home to online.If you wanted a season-defining “It” item, you’ll still find it. The apron is poised to proliferate across fast-fashion and luxury alike. But the deeper success is structural: Miu Miu re-centered labor as an aesthetic category. That’s rarer than a viral skirt. It’s a reminder that clothes don’t merely decorate life, they describe and negotiate it. In making the apron the subject rather than the prop, Prada turned a garment of service into a platform for agency. It’s precisely the kind of cultural recursion you’d expect from a designer shaped by feminist politics, who never stopped treating fashion as an instrument of thought as much as style.The last image to hold onto is deceptively simple: a woman in an apron, neither fetishized nor infantilized, striding, hands free. Not a costume for nostalgia, not a meme for the feed, but a working uniform reframed, respected, and suddenly, undeniably beautiful. That is Miu Miu’s provocation for Spring 2026: the work behind the work, made visible at last."
}
]
}