Category: blaze media

It’s long been an open secret in Canadian law enforcement circles: Chinese Triads have been moving people, weapons, and drugs over the the border and into the United States with impunity for decades.

And yet the government in Ottawa has largely failed to act on repeated warnings by a number of Canadian security officials over the years.

‘He has stopped all the border crossings. So where’s all the fentanyl coming from still? Where’s the trafficking coming from still?’

President Donald Trump has brought renewed attention to lax border security, using tariffs as a stick to prompt action.

Now Trump-appointed FBI Director Kash Patel is amplifying his boss’ message: Forget Mexico. America’s most pressing border security concern is to the north.

‘Step up’

During an interview with Fox News host Maria Bartrimono last weekend, Patel brushed aside concerns about Trump’s “51st state” rhetoric and urged Canada to “step up” and take responsibility for its border security.

Of the 300 known or suspected terrorists to illegally enter the U.S. in 2024, 85% came via Canada, Patel claimed.

Noting that Trump has effectively “sealed” the Mexican border, the FBI boss also contended that Canada must be the source of the fentanyl that continues to be smuggled into the U.S.

“In the first two, three months that we have been in the seat under Donald Trump’s administration, he has sealed the border. He has stopped border crossings. So where’s all the fentanyl coming from still? Where’s the trafficking coming from still?” Patel asked rhetorically.

He quickly supplied the answer: “The northern border.”

Booming business

Patel identified two distinct roles that Canada plays in the international drug trade: a destination for smuggled fentanyl ingredients and a haven for illegal labs transforming those ingredients into fentanyl.

“Our adversaries have partnered up with the [Chinese Communist Party] and others — Russia, Iran — on a variety of different criminal enterprises, and they’re going and they’re sailing around to Vancouver and coming in by air.”

Patel’s remarks have been largely confirmed by Canadian investigative journalist Sam Cooper, who has done extensive reporting on how fentanyl precursors arrive from China at the Vancouver port, where the shipments are undetected. The precursors are then moved to drug production plants in the interior of British Columbia, where the fentanyl is produced.

Under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the Canadian government showed little interest in interrupting his process until last December, when tariff pressure from Trump helped persuade Trudeau to announce a $900 million border security plan.

Cozy with China

Trudeau successor Mark Carney has has talked about bolstering border security but has yet to allocate a penny more. There is no budget expected from his government until sometime in the fall.

Carney’s close ties with China may complicate any attempts to crack down on that country’s alleged infiltration of Canadian ports.

As I wrote here last month, Carney has advocated for replacing the U.S. dollar with the Chinese yuan as the global currency. While serving in Beijing as the special economic adviser to then-Prime Minister Trudeau, Carney also secured a $276 million (CDN) loan from the Chinese central bank in October 2024 for Brookfield Asset Management, a company he chaired at the time.

​Kash patel, Fentanyl, Canadian border, Sam cooper, China, Mark carney, Justin trudeau, Donald trump, Letter from canada 

President Donald Trump announced Friday morning that he is considering imposing a hefty tariff against the European Union in an effort to end trade tyranny.

In a post on Truth Social, he declared that he is weighing a 50% tariff against the EU to fix America’s trade deficit.

‘There is no Tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States.’

“The European Union, which was formed for the primary purpose of taking advantage of the United States on TRADE, has been very difficult to deal with,” he wrote. “Their powerful Trade Barriers, Vat Taxes, ridiculous Corporate Penalties, Non-Monetary Trade Barriers, Monetary Manipulations, unfair and unjustified lawsuits against Americans Companies, and more, have led to a Trade Deficit with the U.S. of more than $250,000,000 a year, a number which is totally unacceptable.”

RELATED: European Union offers to remove all tariffs on industrial goods after Trump demands reparations from Europe

Photo by JONATHAN ERNST/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

According to Trump, the trade negotiations with the EU “are going nowhere.”

“Therefore, I am recommending a straight 50% Tariff on the European Union, starting on June 1, 2025,” he declared. “There is no Tariff if the product is built or manufactured in the United States. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

This is a developing story and will be updated with additional information.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, Donald trump, Trump, Trump administration, Trump admin, Tariffs, Trade, European union, Economy, Politics 

A New York Times report this week revealed how the Democratic Party is mobilizing its donor class in a coordinated effort to reclaim cultural dominance. In the aftermath of the 2024 election, the dominant progressive narrative has avoided serious self-critique. Rather than acknowledge Kamala Harris’ unpopularity or the unappealing nature of her platform, Democrats have instead blamed independent media — most notably Joe Rogan’s podcast — for her defeat.

This obsession with podcasting has driven Democrats to propose 26 separate initiatives aimed at restoring their lost cultural dominance, backed by tens of millions of donor dollars. But no matter how much they spend, they cannot purchase the one thing they now lack: authenticity.

The Democratic Party cannot manufacture its own Joe Rogan, because its ideology forbids the conditions that make someone like Rogan possible.

When politics becomes a surrogate religion, every policy becomes an article of faith. Apostasy, even for strategic reasons, is unthinkable. The 2024 election dealt a decisive blow to the progressive project. In a normal political environment, such a loss would prompt recalibration. But for Democrats, adjustment is impossible. Wokeness is no longer a means to an end — it has become the end itself.

Some within the party briefly suggested a return to the economic populism associated with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Those suggestions were quickly silenced. Party elites rejected substance in favor of narrative, attributing their defeat not to ideology but to communication failure. Their solution is to manufacture a parallel influencer ecosystem — essentially, a Manhattan Project for progressive social media.

Democratic strategists openly discuss their desire to create a “left-wing Joe Rogan.” The irony is glaring: They already had one. His name was Joe Rogan. But they pushed him out of the coalition for refusing to submit to ideological conformity.

Progressives recognize the importance of cultural power. What they fail to grasp is that the culture they hope to reproduce cannot be engineered through funding or message discipline. The problem is not the messenger — it’s the message.

Rogan and other prominent podcasters such as Tim Dillon and Theo Von are not natural conservatives. They are comedians, drawn toward irreverence and instinctively opposed to rigid social norms. Popular culture has long associated moral puritanism with the religious right, but for decades now, it has been the left enforcing an increasingly suffocating moral orthodoxy. That men like Rogan have drifted away from progressivism under pressure from this new puritanism only underscores how deeply censorious the modern left has become.

The New York Times story concedes as much. It quotes Democratic consultants who say the goal is to “avoid the hall monitor mentality” that dominates their political brand. But that mentality is not a rhetorical accident — it is central to their identity.

Progressivism, as practiced today, functions like a disciplinary institution. Its adherents find moral satisfaction in correction and control. This dynamic alienates key demographics, especially young men, who have left the party in large numbers. And yet the behavior continues, because it is integral to the ideological structure. Asking the left to abandon its scolding posture is like asking a devout Christian to deny Christ — it’s not just a tactic; it’s the organizing principle.

Podcasting feels authentic not because conservatives suddenly became more truthful but because the podcast space allowed genuine conversations to emerge. Legacy conservative media was often as sterile and contrived as its progressive counterpart. But podcasting, by its decentralized and long-form nature, made room for the unscripted. And when people are allowed to speak freely, their conclusions tend to drift right — not because of partisanship but because truth tends to align with natural order, and natural order is inherently at odds with progressive orthodoxy.

RELATED: Let’s build a statue honoring Pat Buchanan

Photo by Steve Liss/Getty Images

The GOP had no role in building the podcast sphere — and to its discredit, it never would have tried. Republican institutions still treat culture as peripheral to politics, investing only in short-term electoral returns. Democrats, by contrast, understand that cultural influence is a long game. That’s why they’re panicking now.

Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter may not have resulted in immediate legislative victories, but it was arguably the most important right-aligned political event of the past decade. It shifted the terrain of public discourse in ways that conventional politics never could.

This is the source of the left’s anxiety. The podcast sphere, despite its independence from traditional conservative infrastructure, now functions as a cultural counterweight. Not because it was funded by think tanks or coordinated by campaigns but because it grew organically out of cultural exhaustion. Its voices include comedians, disillusioned academics, and rogue cartoonists like Scott Adams — people driven not by ideology but by the sense that something fundamental in their world had broken.

The Democratic Party cannot manufacture its own Joe Rogan, because its ideology forbids the conditions that make someone like Rogan possible. It cannot reach the audiences it most desperately needs — especially young white men — because it has built its entire moral framework around blaming them for the ills of society.

Conservatives should take note. The left understands that culture drives politics. The right must learn the same lesson — and fast. While the right didn’t build the podcast sphere, it can nurture and expand it. That requires more than talking points or candidate funding. It requires investment in art, literature, music, and media that affirm reality and speak to a deeper longing for order and meaning.

Cultural power matters. The left knows this. The right must act like it does, too — before the window of opportunity closes.

​Opinion & analysis, Joe rogan, Podcasts, Theo von, Tim dillon, New york times, Democrats, Culture war, Kamala harris, 2024 presidential election, Progressivism, The right, The left, Woke 

Ten illegal aliens facing transfer from Texas to a holding facility at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba,
filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on March 1. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, claimed that the “arbitrary and capricious” transfers violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the First Amendment’s due process clause, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, and requested a stay.

In the time since, seven of the plaintiffs have been sent packing, including Maiker Espinoza Escalona,
who was identified by the Department of Homeland Security as a lieutenant of the Venezuelan terrorist gang Tren de Aragua. The remaining plaintiffs threw in the towel on Thursday, indicating they “no longer wish to continue litigating this case.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, chief among the defendants named in the lawsuit, had a
two-word response to the voluntary dismissal of the action: “Suck it.”

— (@)

While some online responded positively to the taunt, calling it “based,” others, particularly critics on the left, characterized the Homeland Security secretary’s message — which appeared on her official government account on X — as
“cruel,” “classless,” and “disgraceful.”

‘How evil and depraved.’

Former Biden DHS spokesman Alex Howard
wrote, “If we’re lucky, it’ll only take years to undo the damage Kristi Noem has inflicted on DHS, its workforce, and its reputation in just four months. This behavior is beneath the office and an embarrassment to the institution.”

RELATED: Trump’s truth about ‘due process’ has the left melting down

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the
American Immigration Council, was among those who expressed disbelief, writing, “This is the official account of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security of the United States.”

“This is real,”
whined Ron Filipkowski, the editor in chief of the anti-Trump publication MeidasTouch News.

One user
concluded, “They are the worst of us.”

“This is DHS Secretary Kristi Noem saying ‘suck it’ in celebration over deporting people to El Salvador without due process,”
tweeted Democratic propagandist Harry Sisson. “She’s celebrating constitutional rights being ignored. How evil and depraved.”

Blaze News has reached out to a spokesman for Noem for comment.

As the plaintiffs taunted by Noem voluntarily dismissed the case “without prejudice,” they could refile in the future; however, the government doesn’t appear to think they have legs to stand on.

Attorneys for the government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the suit; the court lacked jurisdiction to stay the government’s exercise of discretion to send an illegal alien to “an appropriate place of detention”; the plaintiffs’ claims were improperly venued in the District Court for the District of Columbia as they had never been held in the district; and Noem has the statutory authority to send immigration detainees to Guantánamo.

‘Very thankful that they are off the streets of the United States and that we have safer communities.’

President Donald Trump
issued a memorandum on Jan. 29 directing Noem and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “to take all appropriate actions to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to full capacity to provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”

RELATED: Vance defends use of Alien Enemies Act, calls out meddlesome judges

Photo by JACQUELYN MARTIN/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

The
stated aim of this initiative was “to halt the border invasion, dismantle criminal cartels, and restore national sovereignty.”

The Pentagon established Joint Task Force Southern Guard to work with the DHS to fulfill Trump’s order.

A U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity,
told Reuters there were roughly 70 illegal aliens presently detained at Guantánamo.

Noem
told CNN talking head Dana Bash during a February interview at Guantánamo Bay that the individuals transported to the base “are the worst of the worst that we pulled off of our streets. … Murderers, rapists.”

“When I was there, I was able to watch one of the flights landing and them unload about 15 different of these criminals. Those were mainly child pedophiles, those that were out there trafficking children, trafficking drugs, and were pulled off of our streets and put at this facility,” continued Noem. “Very thankful that they are off the streets of the United States and that we have safer communities.”

The secretary noted further that efforts were underway to accommodate 30,000 detainees.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Kristi noem, Noem, Department of homeland security, Homeland security, Deportation, Guantanamo bay, Illegal aliens, Illegal immigration, Migrants, Aclu, Lawsuit, Politics 

American science has lost its credibility, and if it’s not swiftly restored, America will never be great again. That’s the bracing upshot of major new remarks recently delivered by Michael Kratsios, the White House’s new director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

On his second tour of duty in a Trump administration, deeply and extensively plugged in to the tech industry, Kratsios has the outsized authority and influence needed to deliver such an unflinching message, and it’s clear neither he nor the president is afraid to put it to use.

Nevertheless, Kratsios and the crisis of scientific authority he must contend with inescapably raise a deeper and more uncomfortable underlying issue: What, really, is the difference between trusting the science and trusting in science?

The goal, noted Kratsios, is the successful completion of “three interconnected tasks in pursuit of a golden age of innovation: to maintain American technological leadership; to ensure all Americans enjoy the fruit of transformative advances in science and technology; and, a mission I believe we all share, to revitalize America’s scientific enterprise.”

But for the first time in American history, these goals, which would be familiar to citizens since the dawn of the republic, require, according to Kratsios, a fundamental rejection of what the science industry and discipline have become.

“Blindly trusting in The Science, with a capital T and capital S, is inimical to free inquiry and open debate and is thus the enemy of scientific progress. The beginning of knowledge is the knowledge of ignorance. We seek to know, despite human limitations, and to move upward from mere opinion to the truth. It is convention, dogma, and intellectual fad that resist revision and correction.”

These claims are paradoxically controversial today in many corners of professional science, where many leaders and practitioners have shamelessly capitulated to performative ideological litmus tests and rituals.

But the way in which the COVID debacle radicalized many millions of Americans regardless of partisan label has made it plain that “trusting the science” is more than an ideological mistake that simply goes away if the “wrong” ideology is excised. The absurdities and injustices of the COVID regime struck a pervasive, invasive, and long-lingering blow against the very real and embodied life of vast numbers of American citizens — from tiny children to our elderly, from the healthiest to the most infirm.

So despite the controversy, Kratsios is leading on an issue where a growing majority of Americans already, regardless of ideology, increasingly find themselves.

Nevertheless, Kratsios and the crisis of scientific authority he must contend with inescapably raise a deeper and more uncomfortable underlying issue: What, really, is the difference between trusting the science and trusting in science?

Perhaps nowhere else is trying to simply walk the clock back to the relative golden age of the 1990s more conspicuous than here.

Didn’t we get into this mess of trusting “The Science” as a result of “everyone” agreeing at the turn of the century that the only inarguable source of truth was what the scientific method produced?

Doesn’t the transformation of the art of government into “political science” lead inexorably to the belief not that science must be ideologized, but that “doing science” is the only true ideology?

That the only good, consequential, meaningful, and useful thing for us to do is to “do science” to everything? To apply the scientific method to everything? For science to “eat the world”?

It’s not just a bracing set of questions, it’s a fascinating one, too — because the long-standing modern project to make everything science was rooted even more in modern philosophy than in modern practical sciences like engineering. But since the ‘90s, science driven by intellectual theory has indeed stagnated and regressed into ideological performance, while science driven by technology has gone ahead and eaten the world.

Who needs ideology when you have technology? Who needs philosophy? Tech has made itself into the thing that must be applied to everything, most conspicuously ourselves and one another; algorithms and now AI have caused human behavior within cybernetic systems to become opaque to both the scientific and the philosophic “outside observer.”

We have quickly gone from not being able to account for our technological phenomena in terms of cause and effect to not being able to account for human — or should I say cyborg? — phenomena in those terms.

Some people cheer on this development! And others don’t really care as long as it benefits them, or doesn’t seem to affect them, or simply seems the cost of doing business or the new normal one must find a way to bear.

Surely scientists should care … but can they, like the modern philosophers, actually do anything about the uncanny fact that trusting in science as mankind’s ultimate authority has led to science refuting its own claim to ultimate authority — and to technology seizing the mantle of our new ultimate authority?

What we’ve seen already is that tech occupying these grand heights is a fundamentally spiritual, not ideological, philosophical, or rational phenomenon. Therefore the only people who can assert trustworthy spiritual authority over both people and their machines are people who can do so on a religious basis!

This is very foreign territory for Americans to be in. Indeed it is terrain hard to navigate for people certain that “dogma” is axiomatically bad and that “debate” is axiomatically good. Somehow we will have to find a way to liberate science and scientists both from the constraints of ideology and the constraints of modern philosophy’s misplaced dogma that argument alone produces truth — without letting science vanish along with everything else, including our humanity itself, into a universal black box of inexplicable technology.

Viewed through a dystopian lens, this is a scary and daunting prospect. But isn’t it interesting how much our image and fear of dystopia have come to us from British writers working in the mid to late 20th century period of high modernism, high scientism, high utilitarianism, and high rationalism?

Christians have a unique opportunity at this strange time to weigh in with a powerfully anti-dystopian — yet also anti-utopian — vision of harmony between human beings and their mechanical creations. What we face on the precipice of a new American golden age is the mysterious recognition that no golden age is without its problems — problems that, if the highest focus is on the salvation of souls, we may find it easier to accept and admit of no final solution.

​Tech, James poulos zero hour, James poulos 

Washington breathed a sigh of relief Thursday morning. After weeks of wrangling, members and staff of the House of Representatives finally got some much-needed sleep. But while the House’s passage of the reconciliation package marks a major win, no one should mistake it for the final battle.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it will be dissected, amended, and — barring a miracle — sent back to the House with underlines and edits.

The White House wants this wrapped up before the July 4 recess. That’s ambitious, considering how narrowly the bill cleared the House in the first place.

All spending must originate in the House, a fact that the Senate sometimes forgets. So think of Thursday’s vote as taking the beaches. Now comes the slow, messy slog inland.

Everyone involved in this next phase knows how exhausting the past few weeks have been — and how fragile the agreement they’ve inherited really is. But senators have a habit of ignoring that reality. Unlike their House counterparts, individual senators wield more power. They don’t always play well with others.

That might restrain their worst impulses. But not by much.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) is heap big mad over any attempt to touch Medicaid — even if it only means requiring able-bodied recipients to work. Some last-minute adjustments and private talks with the president have reportedly calmed him.

Still, Hawley is known for digging in. He claims the president has his back. Some negotiators expect him to fall in line. Others expect fireworks. On Thursday, he told reporters the House bill “will definitely change” once the Senate finishes with it.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has his sights on the REINS Act, which would force major federal regulations — those with an estimated economic impact of $100 million or more — to get Senate approval. Procedural hurdles kept it out of the House version of the bill, but a placeholder was added. Lee won’t get everything he wants, but he’s not letting it go. Expect him to push hard to rein in the bureaucracy.

Also expect him to enjoy every minute of the fight. Lee actually
likes this process. He’ll be tinkering away until the end.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) wants to roll federal spending back to pre-COVID levels. Outside Washington, that sounds like common sense. Inside the Beltway, it sounds preposterous. Johnson seems ready to take on the fight — putting him on a collision course with the likes of Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

The White House hopes he’ll settle for a few symbolic wins. That remains to be seen.

Then there’s Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who reliably votes no unless everything revolves around him. He’s hard to negotiate with because no one expects him to say yes. But consistency has its brand value, and Paul knows it.

On tax policy, major changes seem unlikely. House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.) worked closely with Senate Finance Chairman Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) to smooth out differences. Whether the other committees were as engaged is less clear.

So, no — the fight isn’t over. The Senate will spend the next three weeks grinding through its version of the bill. Once it is passed, the two chambers will head to conference to reconcile differences and produce a final draft both sides can support.

The White House wants this wrapped up before the July 4 recess. That’s ambitious, considering how narrowly the bill cleared the House in the first place.

Back in April, when the Senate took the lead on the budget, Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) made a deal: no major cuts now in exchange for letting the House lead on reconciliation. House members expect that promise to mean something. They shouldn’t.

As one former congressman and current White House adviser told the Beltway Brief, the Senate essentially never takes a House bill and improves it — but senators
always make their changes.

Sign up for Bedford’s newsletter

Sign up to get Blaze Media senior politics editor Christopher Bedford’s newsletter.

​Opinion & analysis, Politics 

On the May 20 episode of ABC’s “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg responded to the release of Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson’s book “Original Sin,” which details allegations of a cover-up by Biden’s staff regarding his physical and cognitive decline during his presidency.

“Why is it important to know now?” she asked the audience, implying that because it’s in the past, it’s not worth looking into.

Glenn Beck compares her question to saying, “So the bank was robbed; they got their money back through insurance. … Why are we still going after these bank robbers?”

“Are you crazy?” he asks, bewildered. “If the truth doesn’t matter on this, then neither does your vote, and if that is true, we do not have a republic at all.”

In this recent episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn passionately dismantles Goldberg’s flawed logic in three compelling points.

1. Empowering criminals

By not investigating who covered up Biden’s deteriorating health, we’re telling criminals they are “above the law.”

Glenn points to the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka (D) and the assault charges against Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) for their roles in an ICE protest as an example of what happens when protesters believe they can get away with anything.

“If we would have put people behind bars who were looting Macy’s and burning cities down [during the 2020 BLM riots] … we wouldn’t be sitting in this situation,” he says. “Once you ignore something, you teach bad people or even people who are just frustrated with the system ‘oh well, they can do it, I can do it too.”’

2. Guaranteeing future scandals

Second, refusing to investigate Biden’s health cover-up makes it far more likely that a massive scandal of the same nature will happen again. Glenn points to what just occurred at the National Institutes of Health earlier this week as an example.

On Monday, during a town hall meeting, NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said, “It’s possible that the pandemic was caused by research conducted by human beings, and it’s also possible that the NIH partly sponsored that research.”

“If it’s true that we sponsored research that caused the pandemic — and if you look at the polls of the American people, that’s what most people believe, and I’ve looked at the scientific evidence and I believe it — [then] what we have to do is make sure that we don’t engage in research that is any risk … to human populations,” he continued, despite several NIH employees storming out of the meeting.

“That’s why [Biden’s health cover-up] matters!” says Glenn.

We can’t restore the NIH’s credibility “if we ignore the truth that the NIH most likely … [was] involved in a cover-up because they were funding things they weren’t supposed to be funding,” and we “can’t save the republic by ignoring that the president wasn’t in control of his faculties or the government,” he explains.

3. Protecting people

The most important reason that Biden’s health cover-up must be investigated, however, is simply because people matter.

Glenn highlights the investigation of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo (D) for his handling of nursing home deaths during COVID-19.

“It needs to be investigated; it needs to be tried in open and fair court, and if he’s guilty, he needs to go to jail. Why? … Because you hate the Cuomos?” Glenn asks. “No, because I love people more, and I don’t want people to be able to be killed in a nursing home because they’re expendable.”

But “you can’t solve that unless you put the people behind bars that encouraged that, because they’ll just do it again, and if they don’t, somebody else will do it,” he warns.

The same applies to the people who hid Biden’s deteriorating health, putting all the people in this country at risk by allowing an impaired leader to make critical decisions unchecked, either by his own compromised judgment or under the influence of unelected controllers.

“There’s two reasons why we’re in the situation we’re in,” says Glenn. “One: Nobody knows the Constitution; nobody’s following it. Two: Nobody’s listening to the sage advice of three presidents.”

To find out who they are, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Glenn beck, Joe biden, Original sin book, Whoopi goldberg, Blazetv, Blaze media, The glenn beck program, Biden cognitive decline, Biden health cover up 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released his 68-page MAHA Commission report detailing the dark reality of America’s health and how to fix it.

Kennedy’s report highlights root causes of chronic diseases, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and behavior disorders in children. The report points to multiple culprits, including ultra-processed foods, exposure to chemicals like pesticides, and lack of exercise, as well as “overmedicalization.” Underlying all of these issues, the report notes that corporate influence in medicine and health care has been one of the driving forces that has led to all of these problems.

“To turn the tide and better protect our children, the United States must act decisively,” the report reads. “During this administration, we will begin reversing the childhood chronic disease crisis by confronting its root causes — not just its symptoms. This means pursuing truth, embracing science, and enacting pro-growth policies and innovations to restore children’s health. Today’s children are tomorrow’s workforce, caregivers, and leaders — we can no longer afford to ignore this crisis.”

‘This strategic realignment will ensure that all Americans — today and in the future — live longer, healthier lives.’

RELATED: 100 days of MAHA: What has Robert F. Kennedy Jr. done so far to make America healthy again?

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

“After a century of costly and ineffective approaches, the federal government will lead a coordinated transformation of our food, health, and scientific systems,” the report reads. “This strategic realignment will ensure that all Americans — today and in the future — live longer, healthier lives, supported by systems that prioritize prevention, well-being, and resilience.”

The MAHA Commission, which was established by one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders, was tasked with investigating the drivers of America’s health epidemic.

The report found that as much as 70% of foods children consume contain ultra-processed ingredients and concluded that scientific funding for pharmaceutical, chemical, and food companies has contributed to rising chronic diseases.

Additionally, the report found that there’s been a 1,400% increase in prescriptions for antidepressants in American children from 1987 to 2014, also known as “overmedicalization.” The report also questioned the current childhood vaccine protocol and said that vaccines would benefit from a “more rigorous clinical trial” design.

RELATED: HHS scrapping COVID jab recommendations for pregnant moms and kids: Report

Photo by Rebecca Noble/Getty Images

To address the many failures that have affected American children’s health, the report also put forward a “gold standard” research initiative that includes nutrition trials, drug safety research, and large-scale lifestyle interventions.

“Some of the steps to implement these research initiatives are already underway and others will begin this in the near future,” the report reads. “In parallel, the MAHA Commission will immediately begin working on developing the strategy to make our children healthy again — due in August 2025. We invite all of America, especially the private sector and academia, to be part of the solution.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Maha, Rfk, Robert f. kennedy jr., Donald trump, Hhs, Health and human services, Make american healthy again, Childhood vaccine schedule, Chronic disease, Overmedicalization, Maga mandate, Maha commission, Covid, Vaccines, Health crisis, Health epidemic, Antidepressants, Politics 

This weekend, we observe Memorial Day, a national day of remembrance first established by General John A. Logan’s “General Order No. 11,” issued on May 5, 1868, by the Grand Army of the Republic. The order declared:

The 30th day of May 1868 is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers and otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land.

Logan’s order codified a practice that was already widespread across the country. In the years following the Civil War, Americans from both the North and South began gathering to honor the fallen. Logan provided that instinct with formal significance and established a national calendar.

In 1998, while serving as a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, I had the honor of delivering the city’s annual Memorial Day address at City Hall. In those remarks, I warned that the true meaning of the holiday was slipping away.

Memorial Day permits us to enlarge the individual soldier’s view — giving broader meaning to the sacrifice that was accepted by some but offered by all.

Memorial Day had become little more than a three-day weekend. For many, it marked the start of summer — just another excuse for a cookout. But that was never the intent.

The holiday was established to solemnly reflect on the lives lost in service to the country. It offered catharsis for those who fought and survived. And it served as a national promise to remember those who gave everything so that the republic — and the principles that sustain it — might live.

A long history of sacrifice

I argued that Americans have forgotten how to honor their war heroes and remember their war dead. My friend and fellow Marine “Bing” West made the point forcefully in his powerful book on Fallujah, “No True Glory.” Stories of battlefield courage, he wrote, must “be recorded and read by the next generation. Unsung, the noblest deed will die.”

During my remarks, I recalled acts of heroism from the Civil War, World War II, and Vietnam. I spoke about a grieving mother who had written to me after her son — one of my Marines — was killed in Vietnam in May 1969. I asked, rhetorically: Why do men like those Marines under my command willingly fight and die?

Glen Gray offered one answer in “The Warriors: Reflections on Men in Battle”:

Numberless soldiers have died, more or less willingly, not for country or honor or religious faith or for any other abstract good, but because they realized that by fleeing their posts and rescuing themselves, they would expose their companions to greater danger. Such loyalty to the group is the essence of fighting morale.

Gray’s insight matches my experience. In the heat of combat, soldiers don’t talk about ideology. They think about each other. They fight to protect their brothers.

And yet, while the individual soldier’s focus narrows to survival and loyalty, Memorial Day offers us the chance to widen that lens. It helps us see the larger meaning of sacrifice — accepted by some but offered by all.

Memorial Day gives the nation a chance to recognize those sacrifices and validate them through the only lens that matters: the founding principles of the American republic.

‘Mystic chords of memory’

I noted in 1998 that Pericles, in his famous funeral oration during the Peloponnesian War, gave meaning to the Athenian dead by praising the excellence of Athens. He honored their sacrifice by affirming the civilization they died defending.

President Abraham Lincoln did something similar four months after the Battle of Gettysburg. At the dedication of the cemetery there, he expanded on what he had previously called the “mystic chords of memory” in his first inaugural address — those chords stretching “from every battlefield and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land.”

Lincoln gave universal meaning to the particular deaths on that hallowed ground. He allowed Americans to understand Memorial Day through the lens of Independence Day — to see the end of those soldiers’ lives in light of the nation’s beginning and the purpose of the American republic.

I argued that the deaths at Gettysburg, throughout the Civil War, and in all of America’s wars must be understood in relation to the founding principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence. Throughout history, countless brave soldiers have died fighting for causes that were unjust. Americans, by contrast, are fortunate. We can anchor the sacrifice of our fallen to a moral proposition: that all men are created equal.

Some critics accused me of glorifying war — of sentimentalizing conflict, justifying unjust campaigns, and trivializing death. But that critique misses the point. Soldiers enlist for many reasons. But almost all are motivated, at least in part, by a sense of duty, honor, and love of country.

That love of country — patriotism — is under constant attack. Critical race theory and the 1619 Project insist that America’s founding was corrupt and its principles invalid. But they’re wrong. A country built on decent principles, however imperfect its journey, remains a cause worth defending — and, if necessary, dying for.

My intention was never to trivialize individual loss. The death of a soldier marks the end of youth, promise, and joy. No speech or philosophy can console the family left behind. The mother who wrote to me after losing her Marine son in Vietnam carried a grief no words could ease.

Her anguish reminded me of Kipling’s “Epitaphs of the War,” especially the fourth verse, “An Only Son”:

“I have slain none but my mother;
She (blessing her slayer) died of grief for me.”

Kipling, too, lost his only son in World War I.

But as Oliver Wendell Holmes said in his Memorial Day address of 1884:

Grief is not the end of all. I seem to hear the funeral march become a paean. I see beyond the forest the moving banners of a hidden column. Our dead brothers still live for us and bid us think of life, not death — of life to which in their youth they lent the passion and joy of the spring. As I listen, the great chorus of life and joy begins again, and amid the awful orchestra of seen and unseen powers and destinies of good and evil, our trumpets sound once more a note of daring, hope, and will.

So by all means, have that burger this weekend. Enjoy the cookout. Go to the beach. But also take some time to remember to honor those who died to make your weekend possible.

​Opinion & analysis, Memorial day, John a. logan, Civil war, Three-day weekend, Bing west, Naval war college, Vietnam war, Marine corps, World war ii 

The backlash
came fast.

Last week, a plane landed: 59 Afrikaners, mostly farmers, mostly white. Trump called it a genocide. MSNBC called it racism.

Turning away the persecuted because they’re the wrong color is not justice; it’s betrayal.

Just like that, we were off. Cue the outrage cycle, fearmongering chyrons, left-wing think pieces, and Twitter threads from soft-palmed theologians who wouldn’t recognize a plow if it hit them in the face. “This isn’t what Christianity looks like,” they screamed.

But that’s precisely the problem. Trump’s version of Christianity doesn’t look the way they want it to. It doesn’t speak in nonprofit euphemisms, hold committee meetings on climate equity, sing hymns to intersectionality, or check in with the Episcopal diocese before making moral decisions.

It does something far more offensive: It acts on behalf of people the professional Christian class has decided no longer count. In other words, white, rural, conservative Christians who don’t fit the preapproved narrative.

Since the fall of apartheid, over 2,000 South African farmers — the majority of whom are white and Christian — have been murdered. It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s documented by AfriForum, confirmed by Genocide Watch, and still chanted in the streets: “Kill the Boer, kill the farmer.” Yet none of this made it into the MSNBC segment. No photos, testimonies, or grieving families. Just condemnation of Trump’s optics.

Instead, somewhat preposterously, MSNBC fixated on the Trump administration’s decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Afghans. It was painted as cruel, hypocritical, and — gasp — even racist.

But that myopic take ignores what TPS is and what it isn’t.

TPS was never intended as a permanent visa. It’s in the name, after all — temporary. It was created as short-term protection for people fleeing war zones, natural disasters, or sudden upheaval. The expectation was clear: Once conditions stabilized, people would return home. It was not meant to be a substitute for asylum or a silent pathway to permanent residency. It was designed to function like a humanitarian stopgap, not a loophole.

The legacy media could have made that distinction, but they chose not to. Of course, we know why: Saying Trump followed legal protocol doesn’t sell. Saying he’s racist does. Moreover, revoking TPS doesn’t mean automatic deportations. It means re-evaluating immigration pathways through more deliberate channels.

In other words, more structure, more security screening, and more accountability.

But the media don’t want to hear that. They want to frame the whole thing as ethnic cleansing with a press release. The disingenuity and deception are staggering.

Which brings us to the Episcopal Church.

This is the same denomination that once prided itself on global humanitarian work. The same church that took federal money for decades to resettle migrants and called it Christlike, that praised itself for “prophetic witness” under every administration — until Trump.

Then, suddenly, moral clarity became optional. Compassion had a disclaimer. And Christian charity came with a footnote: Only if it’s politically convenient and only if the suffering checks the right boxes.

“In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice,”
said Bishop Sean Rowe, justifying the Church’s refusal to assist in resettling white South African Christians.

Apparently, justice stops when the victims are white.
That’s not moral clarity. That’s selective compassion. It’s the Episcopal Church as a cultural concierge, offering mercy only when it’s fashionable, when it photographs well, and when it won’t rattle the donor base or offend the editorial board.

But that’s the exact opposite of Christianity’s core ethic. The gospel doesn’t filter the wounded. Christ didn’t ask for demographic credentials before healing the sick. Turning away the persecuted because they’re the wrong color is not justice — it’s betrayal.

Trump, for all his flaws, didn’t play that game. He didn’t wait for theological consensus. He didn’t ask whether these Christians were the right kind. He just acted. And in doing so, he exposed the uncomfortable truth: The real split in American Christianity isn’t between denominations. It’s between those who believe faith should do something and those who believe it should signal something.

Trump’s Christianity doesn’t flatter elites, quote theologian Karl Barth, or attend interfaith summits. It doesn’t apologize for its roots or rename Christmas. It’s blunt, imperfect, pragmatic, and deeply offensive to the people who have turned Christianity into a lifestyle brand.

But look at the record.

Trump’s administration fast-tracked Syrian and Iraqi Christian refugees, groups the Obama administration left behind. He
raised the profile of Nigerian Christians being slaughtered by Fulani militias. He placed visa restrictions on regimes that persecuted believers.

The liberal media barely covered it.

But ask Christians from Qaraqosh or Kaduna who showed up. It wasn’t NPR or the National Council of Churches. It was Trump’s State Department — and here they are showing up again.

Many in the American church, at least the part that gets airtime like the Episcopal Church, aren’t interested in defending the faith. They’re more interested in managing it, sanding down its edges, apologizing for its past, and translating it into something that looks more like a DEI seminar.

When someone breaks that mold — when someone like Trump uses it as a vehicle for action — they call it heresy.

But maybe heresy isn’t the problem. Maybe the problem is a faith that has become allergic to strength, certainty, and action without apology.

​South africa, Tec, The episcopal church, Conservatives, Christianity, Donald trump, Racism, Christians, Faith 

A middle school girl says that school officials barely tried to stop a vicious beating that was caught on video in Oklahoma.

Bixby Public Schools officials addressed public outrage in a statement that suggested the male school employees had to consider appropriate boundaries when trying to stop a fight involving females.

‘I grabbed his hand and was like asking him to help me while she still had a hold of my hair, and he didn’t help me at all …’

The victim, who only wanted to be known as Mattie, spoke to KTUL-TV about the fight that went viral from Bixby Middle School.

“I hate it. It’s honestly the worst thing ever ’cause I had no control. I got knocked out, and it was very traumatizing, and everyone kind of takes it as entertainment to watch the videos, and that hurts me a lot, to know that people are watching me get hurt and considering it enjoyable to see it happen,” she said.

Her mother, Brittany Yates, told KTUL she was angry over the lack of response from the school workers who were present. She also claimed that she had been trying to get school officials to act on her complaints of bullying.

“That video was very, very, tough for me to watch as a mom,” said Yates.

She said there were “countless” incidents of threats and verbal bullying and added that her daughter had been physically assaulted and sexually harassed in four incidents with nine different individuals.

RELATED: Viral video shows student being brutally beaten during fight of Parkland high school students: ‘These people are animals’

Photo by Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Mattie said that she regained consciousness after being knocked out during the fight.

“I grabbed his hand and was like asking him to help me while she still had a hold of my hair, and he didn’t help me at all. He was still just standing there while I was holding his hand asking for help,” she said of one of the officials.

A police report was filed about the incident, and the two attackers were suspended.

The victim is getting counseling and remains optimistic despite the horrible ordeal.

“I love going to Bixby. I love the school, I love my friends, and I want to go there next year. I just don’t want to deal with this again,” she said.

Bixby is a city of about 28,000 people in the northeast part of the state.

The interview with the victim and her mother can be viewed on the news video report from KTUL on its YouTube channel.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Viral video fight, Bixby public schools, Video of girl fight, Oklahoma viral fight, Crime 

Tuesday’s congressional testimony from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem turned heads for all the wrong reasons. Pressed to define “habeas corpus,” she stumbled. And while I respect Noem, this moment revealed just how dangerously misunderstood one of our most vital legal protections has become — especially as it’s weaponized in the immigration debate.

Habeas corpus is not a loophole. It’s a shield. It’s the constitutional protection that prevents a government from detaining a person — any person — without first justifying the detention before a neutral judge. It doesn’t guarantee freedom. It demands due process. Prove it or release them.

Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

And yet, this doctrine — so essential to our liberty — is now being twisted by the political left into something it was never meant to be: a free pass for illegal immigration.

The left wants to frame this as a matter of compassion and rights. Leftists ask: “What about habeas corpus for migrants?” The implication is clear: They see any attempt to enforce immigration law as an attack on civil liberties.

But that’s a lie. Habeas corpus is not an excuse for indefinite presence. It doesn’t guarantee that every person who crosses the border gets to stay. It simply requires that we follow a process — a just process.

And that’s exactly what President Donald Trump has proposed.

Habeas corpus, rightly understood

Habeas corpus is the front door to the courtroom. It simply requires the government to justify why someone is being held or detained. It’s not about citizenship. It’s about human dignity.

America’s founders knew this — and that’s why they extended the right to persons, not just citizens. Habeas corpus isn’t a pass to stay in America forever — it’s a demand for legal clarity: “Why are you holding me?” That’s it.

If the government has a lawful reason — such as illegal entry — then deportation is a legitimate outcome. And yet, the left treats any enforcement of immigration law as a betrayal of American ideals.

The danger today isn’t that habeas corpus is being ignored; it’s that it’s being hijacked. The system is being overwhelmed with bad-faith cases, endless appeals, and delays that stretch for years. Right now, the immigration courts are buried under 3.3 million pending cases. The average wait time to have your case heard is four years. In some places, people are being scheduled for court dates as far out in 2032. Where is the justice in that?

This is not compassion. This is national sabotage.

Weaponizing due process

The left uses this legal bottleneck as a weapon, not a shield. Democrats invoke due process as if it requires the government to play a never-ending shell game with public safety. But that’s not what due process means. Due process means the state must play by the rules. It means a judge hears a case. It means the law is applied justly and equally. It does not mean an open border by procedural default.

So no, Trump is not proposing the end of habeas corpus. He’s calling out a broken system and saying, out loud, what millions of Americans already know: If we don’t fix this, we don’t have a country.

This crisis wasn’t an accident — it was engineered. It’s a Cloward-Piven playbook, designed to overwhelm the system. Bureaucratic inertia, activist judges, and political cowardice have turned due process into a slow-motion invasion. And the left knows it.

Abandon the Constitution?

Remember, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. But how do we balance the Constitution and our national survival without descending into authoritarianism? Abandon the Constitution? No. Burn the house down to get rid of the rats? Absolutely not. The Constitution itself gives us the tools to take on this crisis head on.

The federal government has clear authority over immigration. Illegal presence in the United States is not a protected right. Congress has the power to deny entry, enforce expedited removals, and reject bogus asylum claims. Much of this is already authorized by law — it’s simply not being used.

RELATED: Trump shrugs at immigration law — here’s what he should have said

Photo by: Rodrigo Varela/NBC via Getty Images

President Trump’s idea is simple: Use the tools we already have. Declare the southern border a national security emergency. Establish temporary military tribunals for triage. Process asylum claims swiftly outside the clogged court system. Restore “Remain in Mexico” so that the border is no longer a remote court room. Appoint more immigration judges, assign them to high-volume areas, and hold streamlined hearings that still respect due process.

That’s not authoritarian. That’s leadership.

The path forward

Trump is not trying to destroy habeas corpus. He’s trying to save it from being twisted into a self-destructive parody of itself. Leftists have turned due process into delay, justice into gridlock, and they’re dragging the entire country into their chaos.

It’s time to draw the line. Protect habeas corpus. Use it lawfully. Use it wisely. And yes — use it to restore order at the border. Because if we lose that firewall, we lose the republic.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn’s FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

​Opinion & analysis, Immigration, Mass deportations, Kristi noem, Congress, Department of homeland security, Illegal immigration, Habeas corpus, Liberty, Judges, Federal court, Supreme court, Constitution, Rights, Citizenship, The left, Media bias 

On May 20, 2025, during a House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) displayed a shocking image of her nude silhouette that her ex-fiancé, Patrick Bryan, allegedly took without her consent.

The decision to share the brow-raising photo was tied to Mace’s advocacy for her legislation, the Protect Victims of Digital Exploitation and Manipulation Act, which seeks to criminalize nonconsensual deepfake pornography and similar digital exploitation.

Back in February, Mace accused Bryant and three other men of rape, sex trafficking, and nonconsensual filming during a nearly hour-long speech on the House floor, claiming she discovered over 10,000 photos and videos on Bryant’s phone documenting these acts, including images of herself.

Bryant has denied all accusations. In a social media post on Tuesday, he said, “I categorically deny the false and outrageous claims made by Nancy Mace. I have never raped anyone. I have never hidden cameras. I have never harmed any woman. These accusations are not just false — they are malicious and deeply personal.”

Dave Landau, ¼ Black Garrett, and Angela Boggs, BlazeTV hosts of “Normal World,” bring their unique blend of humor and analysis to the messy scandal.

“My wife took a naked silhouette of me … but it looked like a short Hitchcock,” jokes Dave.

“If I was a senator or something, I would bring up pictures of my exes and be like, ‘This is why Kevin’s a d***,”’ laughs Angela.

In all seriousness, though, the panel can’t understand how showing a nude image of herself — the very type of material her legislation seeks to protect against — makes a convincing argument.

“I’m confused,” says Garrett, claiming the stunt is just Mace “using [her] time in the government” to address “private” issues.

To hear the panel’s hilarious banter about Nancy Mace’s strange self-exposure, watch the episode above.

Want more ‘Normal World’?

To enjoy more whimsical satire, topical sketches, and comedic discussions from comedians Dave Landau and 1/4 Black Garrett, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Normal world, Dave landau, 1/4 black garrett, Angela boggs, Nancy mace, Blazetv, Blaze media 

After two generations of record-breaking immigration, we’re still flooding the labor market with millions of foreign students and visa workers — gutting entire industries and boxing Americans out of their own economy. On what planet does this country need more foreign labor?

Last week, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it had selected 120,141 H-1B visa applicants in its random annual lottery for fiscal year 2026. While the number is slightly lower than during the Biden years, it reflects the same endless pipeline we’ve seen for decades.

So much for putting American workers first.

A shrinking job market

At any given time, roughly 1.5 million white-collar foreign workers operate in this country on a mix of visa categories — H-1B, H4EAD, L-1, J-1, O-1, TN, OPT, and CPT. That doesn’t even count the more than 1 million foreign students or the birthright citizenship granted to their children, despite many of them being here on “temporary” visas.

The real number of new H-1Bs that should be admitted next year? Zero.

If we truly had a shortage of skilled labor, wouldn’t wages be rising? Shouldn’t entry-level pay be going up?

The only reason we allow India to monopolize graduate programs and entire sectors of the tech and medical industries is to suppress wages. Meanwhile, American companies continue to lay off workers while lobbying to import more foreign labor. That contradiction exposes the lie.

Last September, the Wall Street Journal described what young tech workers now face.

Once heavily wooed and fought over by companies, tech talent is now wrestling for scarcer positions. The stark reversal of fortunes for a group long in the driver’s seat signals more than temporary discomfort. It’s a reset …

Job postings for software developers are down more than 30% since February 2020, according to Indeed. Layoffs in tech have continued into this year, with around 137,000 jobs eliminated since January, per Layoffs.fyi. Many workers — especially younger ones — are experiencing their first taste of a shrinking job market.

And yet the foreign labor machine rolls on.

If we truly had a shortage of skilled labor, wouldn’t wages be rising? Shouldn’t entry-level pay be going up?

In fact, the opposite is true. The Journal reports that median pay dropped 1% to 2% for software engineers, product designers, and technical managers — precisely the fields dominated by the Indian slave trade, a system of corporate-sponsored indentured labor enabled by the H-1B program.

The wage gap between job-switchers and job-stayers has nearly vanished. Historically, job-changers earned more. Now, thanks to artificially depressed wages and a labor market flooded with visa-bound foreign workers, that advantage has all but disappeared. Wages have nowhere to rise.

Corporations win, workers lose

Federal law technically requires H-1B employers to pay prevailing wages, but enforcement is a joke.

The Center for Immigration Studies found that in 2023, the average salary employers promised new H-1B workers in computer-related fields was 25.2% lower than the average for U.S. software developers.

RELATED: How H-1B visa loopholes are undercutting American wages and jobs

filo via iStock/Getty Images

And what about the claim that these are the “best and brightest” minds from around the world? According to CIS, H-1B workers in tech were paid 41% less than Americans in the 75th percentile and 53% less than those in the 90th percentile.

So much for “high-skilled labor.” The reality is simple: This is about corporate access to cheap, compliant, and easily controlled labor.

Trump can stop this

So why is the Trump administration approving another 120,000 H-1Bs while American tech workers struggle to find jobs?

While courts have limited the administration’s ability to remove those already here, the Supreme Court has ruled that the president has plenary authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to block prospective visa applicants. Section 215(a)(1) gives him similarly broad power to regulate all entries and exits of foreign nationals.

Congress may set the cap — but nothing stops the president from suspending the program entirely in the national interest, as Trump did with the refugee program in his first term.

Here are a few reforms Trump could impose immediately.

End the random lottery: Select applicants based on highest salary offers. If this program is truly about skilled labor, prove it.
Blacklist diploma mills: Deny visa applications from unaccredited or fraudulent institutions.
Reject firms that fire Americans: Companies that lay off U.S. workers shouldn’t receive new batches of foreign replacements.
Terminate the OPT program: Created without congressional approval, OPT allows employers to hire foreign students tax-free for entry-level jobs. Trump can end it with a stroke of the pen.
Cap foreign workers at 10% per company: No corporation should be allowed to replace Americans en masse with foreign labor.

Trump began cracking down on visa abuse late in his first term, but Biden quickly reversed those gains.

Now Trump is back. So what happened to the promise of putting American workers first?

​Opinion & analysis, Immigration, Foreign workers, Cheap labors, H-1b visas, Donald trump, Joe biden, Center for immigration studies, Citizenship and immigration services, India, Big tech, Employment, Job switchers, Job stayers, America first, Visa lottery, Birthright citizenship 

The constant platforming of ESPN sports commentator Stephen A. Smith on political shows, both conservative and liberal, raises the question: Could he be a serious contender in the 2028 presidential race?

“I think he can because Stephen A. Smith knows how to gather and rile up emotions,” sportscaster Marcellus Wiley tells BlazeTV host Jason Whitlock on “Fearless.” “And candidly, I know that he’s making some of those moves with some top people that we have in common.”

“Here’s why I don’t want him,” he continues. “I don’t like panderers, and there’s too many times he panders.”

“And the last thing I want to see is Stephen A. Smith, having that power, second black president, pandering to my people, to the people. Because all it’s going to do is be harmful for all of us, including the people he’s pandering for, and I hate it. It just totally gives you the handicap sticker that you don’t need.”

While Whitlock doesn’t like Smith for the Democrat ticket either, he doesn’t think Smith will run as a Democrat.

“My theory is he’s not going to run as a Democrat. He’s going to run as a Republican,” Whitlock says. “I’ve seen too many conservative tastemakers embrace Stephen A. Smith, endorse Stephen A. Smith, ignore the obvious flaws in Stephen A. Smith that makes me say, ‘Oh, that’s the eventual endgame; he’s a conservative, or pretending to be a conservative.’”

“So I think he’s going to run as a Republican. I mean that, and that’s an off-the-wall prediction, and I certainly am in agreement with you that the top levels of power seem to be all circling around Stephen A.,” he continues.

“That wasn’t an off-the-wall assessment you just made,” Wiley argues. “I’ll let you in on a little secret. Of the pool of people that I know that is around Stephen A. Smith, the top two dogs, conservative Republicans.”

“Just letting you know, so you are dead on with that,” he adds.

Want more from Jason Whitlock?

To enjoy more fearless conversations at the crossroads of culture, faith, sports, and comedy with Jason Whitlock, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Upload, Video, Video phone, Camera phone, Free, Sharing, Youtube.com, Fearless with jason whitlock, Fearless, The blaze, Blazetv, Blaze news, Blaze podcasts, Blaze podcast network, Blaze media, Blaze online, Blaze originals, Stephen a smith, Stephen a smith democrat, 2028 presidential race, Republicans 2028, President donald trump, Marcellus wiley 

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily granted a motion from the Trump administration to allow the firing of two federal officials who said they were improperly terminated.

The court voted 6-3 in favor of the Trump administration, with liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent.

‘He may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions …’

The two former employees of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board argued that they could only be fired for cause and that no qualifying cause was given. The case also touches on the larger debate over how much power the executive has over agencies set up to be “independent” by Congress.

“Because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President,” the ruling said, “he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf, subject to narrow exceptions recognized by our precedents …”

The ruling went against lower-court rulings that said Gwynne Wilcox and Cathy Harris could not be fired summarily by the president from the NLRB and the MSPB, respectively.

The decision went on to say that the court was not ruling on whether the NLRB and the MSPB fell into an exception to the rule and said the issue would be decided “for resolution after full briefing” and argument.

“The stay also reflects our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the ruling concluded.

RELATED: Appeals court reinstates Dem labor board members Trump fired

Photo by OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration did not argue that the limitations on the executive were unlawful but instead said that the agencies under consideration had grown in power to the extent that they went beyond the intention of a 1935 decision related to hiring policies.

“The president should not be forced to delegate his executive power to agency heads who are demonstrably at odds with the administration’s policy objectives for a single day — much less for the months that it would likely take for the courts to resolve this litigation,” wrote Solicitor General John Sauer.

The application was made to Chief Justice John Roberts, who referred it to the whole court.

Union advocates contend that if the Supreme Court sides against the workers that it would dramatically expand the powers of the executive beyond what the founders intended.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Supreme court sides with trump, Trump vs federal employees, Executive power vs legislative, Wilcox and harris lawsuit, Politics 

Glenn Beck hosted Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California on “The Glenn Beck Program” Thursday, where the two reached across the aisle to share some friendly disagreement, as well as some areas of common ground.

Khanna is one of few Democrats who refrains from acting as an ideologue and is willing to talk to those he will likely disagree with. Whether it’s DOGE cuts or nuclear energy, Khanna has no problem breaking from his party’s messaging.

“You’ve got a lot of followers, and look, at the end of the day, we’re all Team America,” Khanna told Beck. “We have differences of opinion, but this country has gone down a place of greater and greater division. And I do hope that the next generation, whether that’s JD Vance, Rubio, myself, others, that we find some way of turning that around.”

‘They didn’t talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities.’

RELATED: Vance tells Glenn Beck Congress needs to ‘get serious’ about codifying DOGE cuts

Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Khanna’s veneration for our country’s founding makes him stand out within his party. Rather than condemning the roots and the history of our nation like some of his fellow Democrats, Khanna says he was raised to appreciate and value America.

“Our common, defining moment as a nation is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as interpreted through the Declaration of Independence,” Khanna said. “The biggest blessing I had, as a son of immigrants born in Philadelphia in our bicentenary, is I got to go to a school that taught American history and gave me a reverence for this country.”

“My parents said, ‘Ro, you won the lottery,'” Khanna added. “They didn’t talk a lot about my rights. They talked about my responsibilities.”

Beck and Khanna had their fair share of respectful back-and-forth on subjects such as the 14th Amendment and immigration. One area of agreement Khanna pointed out was about the role of government with respect to asset forfeiture.

“Progressive Democrats like me and libertarians in the Freedom Caucus often align, saying that the government shouldn’t come in and be able to take things from citizens without due process,” Khanna said. “I believe that’s the essence of who we are as a people, that yes, you have inalienable rights endowed by God, and that’s who makes citizens.”

RELATED: Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ narrowly passes the House, notching another win for Johnson

Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images

Khanna also departed from his Democratic colleagues on the border, admitting that it was a weak point of their party platform.

“Someone said it’s like a knock-knock joke,” Khanna said. “You say, ‘Knock, knock. Who’s there?’ The American people just want to know who’s there, who’s at the border, just like you would when coming to someone’s house and making sure that people are vetted before they come in. That seems to be a very reasonable a place. We can agree.”

“But I also believe that people here, now that they’re here, if they’re paying taxes, and you and I may disagree with this, if they’re paying taxes, if they’re working hard, and … if they’ve been here that there should be some path to at least legalization,” Khanna added.

Khanna insists that, above party, all people should be skeptical of their politicians. At the same time, Khanna said that the state of our divided politics is not due to a lack of skepticism, but rather to a lack of trust.

“Skepticism is healthy,” Khanna said. “I get concerned if there were town halls and people weren’t asking hard questions, weren’t criticizing their politicians. But I think there’s a difference between skepticism and what’s happened now, which is just the loss of trust, the sense that people aren’t in it for the country, aren’t in it for the public good.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Glenn beck, Ro khanna, House democrats, Democrat, Mass deportations, Border crisis, Immigrtion, 14th amendment, Due process, Constitution, Bill of rights, Declaration of independence, Founding fathers, Jd vance, Marco rubio, Doge, Nuclear energy, Politics 

A former Republican primary opponent to Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida was sentenced to prison for threatening to hire a “Russian-Ukrainian hit squad” to kill her.

William Robert Braddock III was charged with one count of interstate transmission of a true threat to injure another person in 2024 over the threat that was recorded in a phone call.

‘Luna is a f**king speed bump in the road. She’s a dead squirrel you run over every day when you leave the neighborhood.’

Luna had accused Braddock of stalking her and wanting her dead during the campaign in 2021.

Braddock was recorded speaking to a political activist when he threatened to contact his “Russian-Ukrainian hit squad” and have her killed.

“I really don’t want to have to end anybody’s life for the good of the people of the United States of America,” he said on the call that was obtained by Politico. “That will break my heart. But if it needs to be done, it needs to be done. Luna is a f**king speed bump in the road. She’s a dead squirrel you run over every day when you leave the neighborhood.”

However, there was no evidence that the Marine veteran took any actual steps to fulfill the threat.

Luna went on to win the primary election for Florida’s 13th Congressional District and also won the general election. She has since won a re-election campaign.

Braddock was sentenced to three years in prison.

RELATED: Anna Paulina Luna forcefully rejects ‘s**t hit piece’ implying ‘something distasteful’ between her and Trump

Photo by Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Officials said that Braddock flew to Thailand once the investigation began before eventually settling in the Philippines, but he turned himself in to law enforcement in Manila in 2023. He was brought to the U.S. to face trial in 2024.

Luna’s office released a general statement about death threats to the congresswoman when Braddock was charged.

“Female members of Congress are disproportionately targeted for stalking, violence, and harassment compared to their male counterparts,” said a Luna spokesperson to HuffPost. “This alarming trend points to a broader and more disturbing issue of violence in the political arena.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Threat to anna paulina luna, William braddock threat, Russian ukrainian hit squad, Braddock vs luna, Politics 

California leaders are battling to impose the state’s radical, costly emissions standards on Americans — potentially across the country.

California’s regulatory power, large market, and partnerships with other aligned states give it significant influence over national vehicle emissions standards.

‘We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California’s waivers.’

On Thursday, Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) announced that the state plans to file yet another lawsuit against President Donald Trump.

The announcement follows a morning U.S. Senate vote, 51-44, to pass a measure that would revoke three of California’s vehicle emissions waivers approved last year under the Biden administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

RELATED: Newsom dips into massive anti-Trump legal fund to sabotage tariffs

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Two of the waivers concern tailpipe emissions for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and truck smog requirements. The third requires all new vehicle sales in California to be zero-emissions by 2035.

The state standards are more strict than the federal regulations.

The Clean Air Act granted California the ability to set more stringent standards. However, Republican lawmakers contended that the Congressional Review Act gives Congress the authority to overrule measures implemented by federal agencies like the EPA.

Senate Democrats argued that the Government Accountability Office and Senate parliamentarian found that the act does not give Congress the power to revoke the waivers.

Bonta accused Senate Republicans of “bending the knee” to Trump as the president attempts to slash red tape and unleash American energy.

“The weaponization of the Congressional Review Act to attack California’s waivers is just another part of the continuous, partisan campaign against California’s efforts to protect the public and the planet from harmful pollution,” Bonta continued. “As we have said before, this reckless misuse of the Congressional Review Act is unlawful, and California will not stand idly by. We need to hold the line on strong emissions standards and keep the waivers in place, and we will sue to defend California’s waivers.”

RELATED: Trump challenges California’s emissions standards dictatorship

Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Newsom called the Senate’s vote “illegal.”

“Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent. We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again — undoing work that goes back to the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan — all while ceding our economic future to China. We’re going to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court,” Newsom remarked.

Since January, California has taken legal action against Trump’s administration 22 times. Newsom set aside $50 million in taxpayer funds to file lawsuits against the administration.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​News, California, Energy, Emissions, Emissions standards, Vehicle emissions, Donald trump, Trump, Trump administration, Trump admin, Gavin newsom, Rob bonta, Environmental protection agency, Epa, Politics 

President Donald Trump escalated his feud with Harvard University on Thursday when he shut down visas for international students headed to the prestigious institution.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sent a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber notifying him that the university’s certification for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program was ended, “effective immediately.”

‘Consequences must follow to send a clear signal to Harvard and all universities that want to enjoy the privilege of enrolling foreign students, that the Trump administration will enforce the law.’

Noem had demanded the university produce evidence of “illegal and violent activities” of international students or risk losing privileges granted by the federal government. She had given them a deadline of April 30.

A month later, the DHS confirmed that “Harvard can no longer enroll foreign students, and existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status.”

Jason Newton, a spokesperson for Harvard, told the Crimson that the action was “unlawful” and said the university was “fully committed” to continuing to admit international students.

“This retaliatory action threatens serious harm to the Harvard community and our country and undermines Harvard’s academic and research mission,” said Newton.

Noem specifically tied the visa program revocation to Harvard’s refusal to follow the administration’s request.

“This action should not surprise you and is the unfortunate result of Harvard’s failure to comply with simple reporting requirements,” said Noem in the letter.

RELATED: Harvard University lawsuit claims Trump violated free speech rights with billion-dollar funding cuts

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

“Consequences must follow to send a clear signal to Harvard and all universities that want to enjoy the privilege of enrolling foreign students, that the Trump administration will enforce the law and root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses,” she added.

She gave Harvard 72 hours to comply with her demands in order to regain certification for the international student program for the next academic school year.

Harvard has about 7,000 international students, or about 27% of the entire student body, according to NPR.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Trump vs harvard, Trump shuts down international students, Harvard prez alan garber, Harvard international students, Politics