The Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a generic version of mifepristone, a drug used in chemical abortions, isn’t just another bureaucratic misstep. It’s a profound betrayal of pro-life Americans and a reckless disregard for public safety.

The agency has now accelerated the mass production of a drug that ends unborn lives and carries serious risks for women. In doing so, the FDA’s bureaucracy has made clear that it serves ideological interests, not the citizens or the administration it is supposed to answer to.

Every life matters — both the woman and the child. Without moral clarity in policy, America risks losing its foundation altogether.

Only days before the approval, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary publicly pledged to conduct a full safety review of mifepristone. That commitment lasted less than a week. By fast-tracking the generic drug, the agency reversed its own position without completing the promised review.

Mifepristone is no ordinary medication. It is designed to be 100% lethal to an unborn child and carries documented risks to the mother, including severe bleeding and infection. The FDA’s reversal isn’t a matter of procedure — it’s a moral failure dressed up as administrative routine.

For millions of Americans who value the sanctity of life, this decision feels like déjà vu: another Washington agency disregarding its duty under the cover of “regulatory process.”

The bureaucracy’s excuse doesn’t hold

Pro-life Americans — one of the largest and most enduring constituencies in the nation — have been ignored by the bureaucratic elite for decades. When confronted, officials claim they’re merely “following the law.” But the FDA has wide discretion to delay or deny authorization for drugs that raise ethical or safety concerns.

Choosing not to use that authority isn’t neutrality. It’s cowardice. It’s the decision to shrug and look away while a drug designed to end life gains wider reach.

This approval darkens what should have been a pro-life administration’s legacy. Mifepristone’s purpose could not be clearer: It ends human life. Authorizing a generic version without exhaustive review prioritizes ideology over science and convenience over conscience.

Between promise and practice

The FDA insists that further studies will follow, but the promise rings hollow. As 17 U.S. senators recently pointed out, the safety study Makary pledged during his confirmation took six months to even be announced — and was done quietly, with little public notice.

RELATED: Trump’s battle for the abortion pill — and why it’s more dangerous than you’ve been told

Photo by Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images

That delay reveals the real problem: a deep-state bureaucracy operating with impunity, detached from the leadership and values of the nation it serves. When bureaucrats make decisions that contradict both policy and conscience, accountability becomes nonnegotiable.

A call to accountability and courage

The FDA must immediately identify and remove the officials responsible for this approval. It should also reconsider mifepristone’s production and distribution altogether. A drug designed to end life has no place in a nation that claims to defend the vulnerable.

The stakes could not be higher. Every life matters — both the woman and the child. Without moral clarity in policy, America risks losing its foundation altogether.

This moment demands courage, not compliance. Those who value life must stand firm, demand accountability, and work toward a future where the institutions of government defend life instead of destroying it.

​Opinion & analysis, Abortion, Pro-life, Food and drug administration, Mifepristone abortion pill, Mifepristone, Congress, Safety, Deep state, Administrative state, Families, Children, Donald trump, Marty makary, Regulations 

The Trump administration has made Main Street a central priority — and limiting the reach of the Corporate Transparency Act’s Beneficial Ownership Information rule was one of its best decisions so far. The rule required small businesses to hand over sensitive ownership data to the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, under threat of heavy fines and criminal penalties. Large corporations were mostly exempt.

After small-business owners and pro-business lawmakers protested, the administration moved quickly. In March, it issued an interim rule exempting U.S. small businesses and citizens from the reporting mandate. Treasury then opened a public comment period to shape a final rule. That comment window closed five months ago, and yet the final rule still hasn’t arrived.

The administration must not allow deep-state bureaucrats and bad actors to stall this reform. Small businesses need clarity and relief — now, not after another election cycle.

Small-business owners want the exemption locked in for good — not left vulnerable to reversal by a future administration. Ohio Republican Rep. Warren Davidson’s Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, with nearly 200 co-sponsors, aims to make that exemption permanent. But some lawmakers say they can’t codify until Treasury finalizes the rule. The delay is holding back certainty for millions of entrepreneurs.

Many of those same business owners also want FinCEN to purge the personal data they already submitted before the exemption took effect. With hacking and misuse always possible, they’re demanding the government delete the information it never should have collected.

FinCEN Director Andrea Gacki acknowledged the concern during a congressional hearing. “Along with the resolution of this rule, we also intend to resolve questions around the data that we have collected and dispose of data that is no longer legally required,” Gacki said.

A purge appears to be on the table — but without urgency from Treasury, the data remains at risk.

Gacki told Congress the rule would be finalized “in the upcoming year.” Whether that means 2025 or 2026 is anyone’s guess. The longer the Treasury Department drags its feet, the closer we get to the midterms — and the less likely Congress is to act in time.

Brian Reardon, president of the S Corporation Association, put it bluntly: “Intentions are well and good, but we need action. Sixteen million small businesses filed their owners’ personal information under the old rules. The only way to protect that information is to purge the database now.”

RELATED: Europe shows us what happens when bureaucrats win

wassam siddique via iStock/Getty Images

The National Federation of Independent Business agrees. NFIB’s Josh McLeod said, “President Trump was right to call BOI egregious, invasive, and an economic menace. Unfortunately, a future administration can simply rewrite this burdensome mandate back into existence. Small businesses urgently need the Trump administration and Congress to repeal the CTA and destroy the data.”

Small businesses remain the backbone of the U.S. economy. Reducing legal uncertainty and lifting needless regulatory burdens should stay at the top of Congress’ agenda. Finalizing the CTA BOI rule — and permanently securing the exemptions for small businesses and citizens — is an easy, commonsense win for Main Street.

The Trump administration must not allow deep-state bureaucrats and bad actors to stall this reform. Small businesses need clarity and relief — now, not after another election cycle.

​Opinion & analysis, Wall street, Main street, Treasury department, Financial crimes enforcement network, Fincen, Corporations, Small business, Regulations, Corporate transparency act, Beneficial ownership information rule, Andrea gacki, Warren davidson, Uncertainty, Rules and regulations, National federation of independent business, Congress, Donald trump, Deep state, Administrative state, Economy 

Old habits die hard. The Oversight Project filed another lawsuit against the FBI today. During the Biden years, we were in court constantly, suing the bureau more than a dozen times over weaponization and abuse. Many of the cases we fought then connect directly to the scandals now surfacing under the Trump administration. We were over the target back then — and Washington doesn’t do coincidences.

But this case is different.

We’re suing the FBI to force transparency — not for politics, but for accountability. Because if we don’t fix this now, we’ll look back and wish we had.

Monday’s lawsuit strikes at a deeper problem: the FBI’s claim that it has been “reformed” and is now “the most transparent in history.” That phrase is absurd on its face. Compared with the post-COINTELPRO reforms and the Church Committee era, today’s FBI is anything but transparent.

We’re suing because the bureau has built a system designed to violate the Freedom of Information Act. Over time, the FBI has developed a “pattern and practice” of breaking the law to hide information. Reporters across the political spectrum can tell you the same thing. The bureau stonewalls, delays, and hides behind boilerplate responses that make a mockery of the law.

Our case asks the federal judiciary to step in and force the FBI to fix this — to overhaul its FOIA process and follow the law it routinely ignores. This isn’t a step we took lightly. For nearly a year, we tried to resolve these problems through other channels. But the bureau’s “fixes” never came.

Bureaucratic shell game

The FBI has perfected a set of tricks to avoid scrutiny. It uses canned denials for well-defined requests, ignores the public-interest standard written into law, and buries documents under layers of redaction. Even by Washington’s anemic transparency standards, the FBI stands out as the worst offender.

This isn’t theoretical. In practice, the Oversight Project submitted requests naming specific agents — like the infamous Timothy Thibault — and identifying internal systems such as the Lync messaging platform. We asked for communications containing key terms like “Republican” or “Mar-a-Lago.” Those are precisely the requests the bureau continues to battle with gusto.

FBI Director Kash Patel deserves credit for some high-profile disclosures, but we can’t depend on him to keep discovering incriminating documents in “burn bags” or forgotten closets. That’s not transparency — that’s triage. The FBI cannot investigate itself or selectively release information without feeding public cynicism.

The point of FOIA is citizen oversight — not bureaucratic discretion. In a republic, the people are supposed to control government institutions, not the other way around.

A pattern of abuse

If the FBI had obeyed its own transparency standards all along, Americans would already know far more about the scandals that shook their confidence in government: Russiagate, the Mar-a-Lago raid, Operation Arctic Frost, the targeting of Catholic parishes and concerned parents, and the January 6 excesses. Each of these was compounded by secrecy and delay.

RELATED: Video sleuth challenges FBI Jan. 6 pipe-bomb narrative, unearths new evidence

filo via iStock/Getty Images

The bureau’s institutional resistance to disclosure doesn’t just protect bad actors — it perpetuates them. It allows corruption to metastasize under color of national security and procedure.

Time to clean house

At some point, the FBI will no longer be in Kash Patel’s hands. That’s why reform should happen now while the issue is in the public eye. The systems that enable secrecy and abuse must be dismantled before the next crisis hits.

We’re suing the FBI to force transparency — not for politics, but for accountability. Because if we don’t fix this now, we’ll look back and wish we had.

​Opinion & analysis, Federal bureau of investigation, Fbi, Freedom of information act request, Foia, Lawsuit, Oversight project, Kash patel, Operation arctic frost, Russiagate, Timothy thibault, Charles grassley, Information, Citizen oversight, First amendment, Secrecy 

Texas’ Senate Bill 12 is a no-brainer. Dubbed the “Parents’ Bill of Rights,” the law has four simple principles for public schools:

1. No DEI training: Schools can’t assign DEI duties or allow race-/gender-based training. Critical race theory ideas about racial superiority or guilt are banned.

2. No sex education without parental consent: Schools cannot provide any instruction on human sexuality, including topics like sexual health or reproduction, without explicit written parental consent.

3. No social transitioning help: Staff can’t help students change names, pronouns, or appearance to match a different gender without parents knowing.

4. No gender-/sex-focused clubs: Clubs focused on sexual orientation or gender identity are banned from recognition, funding, and use of school facilities.

Sara Gonzales — BlazeTV host of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” and the vice president of Texas Family Project, a nonprofit organization aiming to protect children from radical ideology — says SB 12 is “a very reasonable law … to anyone who isn’t a total creep.”

And yet, there are people who are adamant on fighting SB 12. One of those people is Texas Tribune reporter Lindsey Byman, who posted this on Wednesday:

— (@)

As a parent of two Texas schoolchildren, Sara was much obliged to answer Lindsey’s question. In a lengthy, scathing email, Sara told the Texas Tribune journalist exactly how SB 12 has impacted Texans.

Lindsey,

My name is Sara Gonzales, and I have two school-aged boys in Texas. I am also the vice president of Texas Family Project, a nonprofit organization here in the state that has advocated for SB 12 — and much more — to shield innocent children from the predatory claws of radical ideologues.

You asked to hear how the “new policies limiting the discussion/expression of trans identities at public TX K-12 schools” have affected Texans. As you likely already know — or should if you weren’t so blinded by your obvious agenda — this policy simply protects children from being socially transitioned at school, in secret, without their parents’ knowledge. It also prevents teachers from otherwise having conversations with minor children related to their sexual preferences. Any adult who is not a morally bankrupt, mentally ill degenerate would cheer this as a reasonable measure to protect children from harm.

To be clear, I am absolutely thrilled that public school teachers can no longer sexually indoctrinate children without accountability or consequence. It warms my heart to think that these vile perverts who have been radically indoctrinating Texas children into a cult that makes them more prone to depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation could finally be fired. In a just world, their entire lives would be turned upside down as a result of their ghoulish behavior, and their nightmares would be endless.

In fact, I’ll sleep like a baby tonight just thinking about these predators plagued with real-world consequences of sexually indoctrinating and exploiting children.

Texans are united on this: Our hard-earned tax dollars should fund education, not indoctrination peddled by leftist lunatics. History will brand you and the pathetic left-wing propaganda mill you shill for as the villains you are — enemies of children, truth, and decency. Let’s be honest: Your company is circling the drain. It won’t survive much longer; after all, who in their right mind would continue funding a steaming pile of garbage? Tick-tock, Lindsey. Your irrelevance is calling. You can quote me in full.

Yours in unyielding contempt,
Sara Gonzales

Surprisingly, Lindsey was quick to reply. To see her response, watch the episode above.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Sara gonzales, Sara gonzales unfiltered, Blazetv, Blaze media, Lindsey byman, Transing kids, Transgenderism, Texas, Public schools, Sb12 

It would be easy to demonize John Allen Chau, the Christian missionary who died while trying to bring the Bible to a remote tribe. The 26-year-old could have introduced new diseases to the North Sentinel Island community, causing serious harm. He also vowed to invade a community that craves isolation above all.

Now imagine a Hollywood film capturing Chau’s short, dramatic life. The industry isn’t known for sympathetic close-ups on faith, to be generous.

‘Whenever we go into places where we’re not comfortable, the first thing is, “I have to impose my point of view. Here’s my worldview.”‘

Yet veteran director Justin Lin (“Star Trek Beyond,” the “Fast & Furious” franchise) took a less expected path in bringing the young man’s life to theaters.

Justin Lin. Photo: Giles Keyte

Quick to judge

“Last Days” stars Sky Yang as John, a determined Christian who vowed to do something remarkable with his life. He risked everything to travel to the North Sentinel Island, hoping to share Jesus Christ’s message.

The story ended tragically, but Lin’s film portrays Chau as a kind-hearted lad whose complicated life led him to his fate. Lin isn’t a Christian, but he treated the material with care and empathy. That wasn’t his first reaction.

“It’s very easy to judge and dismiss. That’s what I did when the story broke,” Lin told Align of the initial news reports, the kind of “hot take” that swiftly decried Chau’s fateful decision. “It didn’t sit well with me that I was so quick to judge and dismiss him.”

A father’s story

An Outside Magazine feature on Chau’s life had a powerful effect on the filmmaker. The story shared Chau’s father’s perspective on his late son, among other details.

That rocked Lin.

“I have a teenage son. As a parent, I know exactly what he was going through, how you’re trying to impart your wisdom, make sure they’re not going through any hardships,” he said. “What I learned from that article was that if you do it on your timeline, and your son is not ready, you just miss each other.”

The project didn’t involve fast cars or intergalactic travel, but the change of pace spoke to the veteran filmmaker.

“I really wanted to try something different,” added Lin, even if he wouldn’t have the kind of blockbuster budget at his back.

“It’s going to be a run-and-gun, small crew,” he imagined before reading more from the real Chau’s diary. “In John’s writing, he was clearly inspired by adventure novels and Hollywood films. … I’m going to honor that and be the signpost for our film. … It’s an intimate story, but it has to feel like a big Hollywood film.”

He called in some professional favors to give the film a Tinsel Town sheen that otherwise might not have been feasible.

RELATED: Pistol-packing rabbi targets anti-Semitism in action flick ‘Guns & Moses’

Still courtesy Pictures from the Fringe

Fresh perspectives

Lin approached Chau’s faith delicately, while acknowledging the dubious decisions he made along the way. A mid-film romance ends unexpectedly, for example, allowing for fresh perspectives on Chau’s quest.

That balance came via an extensive effort on the director’s part.

“Whenever we go into places where we’re not comfortable, the first thing is, ‘I have to impose my point of view. Here’s my worldview.’ I made that commitment early on to say, ‘No,’” he said. “Taking three years of my life [for this film] … was to connect with his humanity.”

More with less

“Last Days” looks as lush as a $100+ million film, the kind that Lin routinely delivers. He didn’t have those resources nor an A-list cast to bring John Chau’s life to the big screen. Yang is a minor revelation, while Ken Leung’s turn as the young man’s father is heartbreaking.

Lin has a knack for doing more with less.

“I made a credit card movie for $250,000, and that movie opened the door and gave me all these opportunities,” said Lin of “Better Luck Tomorrow,” his 2002 breakthrough made by maxing out his personal credit limit. The film earned $3.8 million theatrically, a tidy sum given the budget. Hollywood swiftly came calling.

“Last Days” may have an indie sensibility, but Lin still felt the pressure to “nudge” the film in certain directions. The real Chau refused to be “boxed in” by society, yet the film industry tried to do just that with the film.

“Can you make this a Christian movie?” he recalled of the behind-the-scenes chatter about “Last Days.” … I didn’t understand or even appreciate that kind of nudge. … ‘If you really wanna be marketable, you should do more of this.’ Those conversations for me ended very quickly.”

“That is a challenge with independent films … the temptation. … ‘If I give you all this money, can you cast my son?’ Those are all choices you encounter,” he said.

Lin will find himself on more familiar ground with the upcoming “BRZRKR,” based on the Boom! Studios comic book co-created by Keanu Reeves. The “John Wick” star served as an angel investor in “Last Days.”

“I didn’t grow up wanting to make action movies, but I ended up enjoying the process,” he admitted.

The public got a sneak peek at “Last Days” during the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year, months before its Oct. 24 theatrical rollout. The post-screening Q and A left him hopeful he had accomplished what he had set out to do with the film.

“Five minutes in, they could find a common bridge in [the film],” Lin recalled. “We need that now more than ever.”

​Showbiz, Movies, Entertainment, Culture, Sentinel island, John allen chau, Missionary, Christianity, Faith, Justin lin, Fast & furious, Align interview 

Anyone who drives America’s highways knows the story: potholes, cracked pavement, and endless construction zones. States pour billions of tax dollars into road maintenance every year, yet the pavement always seems to crumble faster than it can be repaired. What most motorists don’t realize is that heavy trucks cause much of the damage — and pay almost nothing to fix it.

Federal estimates show that a single fully loaded 18-wheeler can inflict as much pavement damage as nearly 10,000 passenger cars. Fuel taxes and highway user fees from trucking companies cover only a small fraction of the destruction they cause. Taxpayers pick up the rest, footing the bill for constant repaving, bridge work, and the cycle of crumbling roads.

Every additional ton of freight shifted to rail represents pavement preserved and taxpayer dollars saved.

Trucking keeps the economy moving, and freight rail, shipping, and trucking together form the backbone of America’s supply chain. But shifting more freight to rail makes sense. The rail network is self-maintained by the companies that use it, and trains move goods more safely and efficiently than trucks. The more freight we move by rail, the less damage we’ll have to repair on the nation’s roads.

A merger serving Americans

The recently proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern offers an opportunity to improve both our roads and our supply chains simultaneously. By creating a more efficient coast-to-coast rail network, the merger would allow railroads to capture more freight that currently travels by truck — relieving taxpayers of billions of dollars in hidden subsidies for road repair.

Merging Union Pacific’s vast western network with Norfolk Southern’s eastern lines would create the nation’s first true transcontinental railroad — from the Pacific to the Atlantic. For shippers, that means single-line pricing instead of juggling multiple operators to move goods from point A to point B.

It also means faster delivery, fewer interchanges, and lower costs.

Railroads, unlike trucking companies, build and maintain their own infrastructure. Every mile of track, every bridge, and every switching yard comes from private capital, not public funds.

When freight moves from trucks to trains, taxpayers win twice: less highway damage to repair and more freight handled by a system that pays its own way.

The savings aren’t theoretical. Heavy trucks cause roughly 40% of the wear on America’s roads while accounting for only about 10% of total miles driven.

A North Carolina Department of Transportation study found that trucks with four or more axles underpay for road damage by anywhere from 37% to 92%. State budgets from Texas to Pennsylvania tell the same story: Highway repair costs soar while trucking fees barely make a dent.

Every ton of freight shifted to rail means less pavement destroyed and more tax dollars saved.

False cries of monopoly

Naturally, critics of the merger will cry “monopoly,” as they always do when industries consolidate. But that misses the real competitive landscape. In addition to competing with other railroads, rail competes vigorously with trucks, which dominate American freight today.

Trucks control roughly 70% of domestic freight volume — subsidized in part by taxpayer-funded roads. Allowing railroads to offer a stronger alternative isn’t anti-competitive — on the contrary, it’s pro-market. It creates stronger competition for taxpayer-subsidized trucking.

RELATED: DOT withholds $40M from blue state for flouting English requirements for truckers

Photo by Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

At its heart, this merger is a test of whether the Trump administration trusts the free market to deliver solutions. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are not asking taxpayers to fund their merger. They are not asking for subsidies, grants, or carve-outs. They are investing their own capital to create a system that reduces public costs, strengthens supply chains, and keeps America competitive.

If policymakers are serious about preserving America’s battered roads, as well as strengthening our supply chain infrastructure, the choice is obvious. Let the free market work, and let railroads take more freight off the highways.

​Opinion & analysis, Opinion, Transportation, Department of transportation, Brendan carr, Union pacific, Railroad, Railroads, Freight, Trade, Economy, Jobs, Supply chain