President Trump’s recent push to send federal health care dollars directly to individuals, rather than insurers, reflects a broader demand for transparency and effectiveness in how public funds are used. Government-funded medical research, which forms the foundation of much clinical care, also requires such scrutiny.

In recent years, academic medicine has advanced a nebulous theory of “structural racism” that echoes the 19th century “miasma” theory, which blamed disease on “bad air.” Despite scant evidence, studies attempting to validate this vague framework have multiplied, often funded by largely unaware taxpayers. Refocusing federal research dollars on rigorous science and evidence-based care is essential to correcting this trajectory.

The incentives were clear: Few researchers — early-career or established — would decline funding in an area where the NIH was investing heavily.

How did this happen? The construct of “structural racism” was virtually absent from medical literature until a decade ago. Since then, it has become the default explanation in academic medicine for differences in health outcomes across racial and ethnic groups. Its rise accelerated during the 2020 anti-racism craze, which swept through corporate boardrooms and university administrations while also becoming a core ideological pillar of Black Lives Matter and other political movements.

Academic medicine was no exception. This philosophy quickly gained favor in medical education, academic health centers, elite journals, and professional associations, eventually influencing federal agencies that distribute research funding.

The result: a surge of grant-funded studies built on the premise that racism causes health disparities. Of the nearly 2,300 articles indexed under the term “structural racism” in PubMed, the U.S. National Library of Medicine’s database of leading biomedical and health journals, 95% were published after Jan. 1, 2020. In 2025 alone, PubMed lists 400 such papers — nearly four times the total published before 2020.

This proliferation has been supported by a tsunami of federal taxpayer dollars coming from the National Institutes of Health. From 2020 to 2025, an NIH database search found nearly 750 projects mentioning “structural racism” in their abstracts, totaling almost $533 million in funding. More than 70 of those projects were funded in 2025 at just under $40 million — significantly down from more than 220 projects in 2024 totaling $150 million, but still far above 2020, when only 12 projects received a little over $12 million in the aggregate. Before 2020, the NIH had funded just 10 such projects at a combined cost of $4 million.

Funding patterns across NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers from 2020 to 2025 make clear that ideology, not medical science, drove much of this growth. The largest investments came from the National Institute on Drug Abuse ($147 million in total funding), National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities ($70 million), and National Institute on Aging ($57 million), each pouring substantial resources into “structural racism” research.

In 2025, for example, NIDA supported a project under the Healthy Brain and Child Development National Consortium that identified “structural racism” as a risk to babies before and after birth, alongside more recognizable factors like maternal health, toxic exposures, and child abuse — thereby conflating an abstract, ill-defined, and ideological social theory with measurable, scientific variables as a threat to child development.

Also in 2025, NIMHD funded the Clinical Research Scholars Training program, a “health-equity focused” initiative created in part due to NIH calls for research on “the impact of structural racism and discrimination on health disparities.” Eligibility for this program was limited to those deemed “underrepresented in biomedical research.” All others need not apply.

RELATED: Who really controls behavioral health care — and why it matters now

Douglas Rissing / Getty Images

And just last year, a NIA-funded project invoked “interrelated systems of structural racism” and “race-specific stress” as risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline, diverting attention and resources away from well-established contributors such as genetics, medical conditions, lifestyle and environmental factors, and core biological mechanisms like amyloid plaques and tau tangles.

Unfortunately, a commitment to science gave way to ideology years ago. Under Francis Collins, the NIH “acknowledged and committed to ending structural racism,” without even defining the concept itself. “Structural racism” was accepted despite its questionable validity and lack of explanatory power.

With vague boundaries and mechanisms difficult to measure, claims of “structural racism” far exceeded the empirical evidence. Nevertheless, the idea was accepted wholesale and used to justify a wave of DEI initiatives, effectively recasting the NIH as an “anti-racist” institution in the Ibram X. Kendi mold. Objective science was no longer sufficient; the agency was expected to take an activist stance.

Proponents embraced this shift, seeing an opportunity to move health research from “individual-level risk, health behavior, and functioning” to “structural level concepts” with “structural racism” named specifically. Research dollars supported tools like the Structural Racism Effect Index to “guide policies and investments to advance health equity.”

The incentives were clear: Few researchers — early-career or established — would decline funding in an area where the NIH was investing heavily, especially when that support could provide a path to publication in top journals.

Yet the instruments used to quantify “structural racism” expose a basic flaw: They don’t measure racism.

The SREI’s nine dimensions, for example, largely track socioeconomic conditions — wealth, income, housing, employment. In practice, a high score identifies communities facing poverty. Even researchers linking SREI scores to hypertension, obesity, smoking, and low physical activity concede they “cannot make causal inferences.”

RELATED: Teaching kids to hate America will have real-world consequences

Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images

These health risks may result from poverty, contribute to it, or arise from entirely different causes. Labeling them as products of “structural racism” adds no explanatory value, miscasts economic hardship as race-based, and downplays individual responsibility. It overshadows far more consequential drivers of outcome disparities, including access to care, personal choice, medical comorbidities, and genetics.

Nonetheless, no alternative explanation for health disparities has received anywhere near the same attention in leading medical journals — such as the New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and JAMA — as “structural racism.” This concept has been treated as settled fact, with disparities alone offered as proof: If disparities exist, racism must be the cause. Likewise, many medical organizations have reinforced this view through policies and position papers that embed an anti-racism framework into scientific inquiry.

But change is in the air. The NIH’s recent miasma-like fixation on “structural racism” is finally clearing. Under Director Jay Bhattacharya, the agency is refocusing on its core mission of funding rigorous, evidence-based science rather than ideology-driven research. This shift will direct scarce taxpayer dollars toward work grounded in medical science and its practical application — research that can genuinely improve health rather than feed political currents.

This course correction is timely, and while sustained effort in 2026 will be needed to fully restore the NIH to its rightful mission, taxpayers can take comfort: America’s leading biomedical and medical science research institute will once again prioritize their dollars and their health.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Structural racism, Medical funding, Nih, Medical research, Government funding, Nida, Clinical research, Woke, Opinion & analysis, National institutes of health, Black lives matter, New england journal of medicine, Jay bhattacharya, Reform, Health, Equity 

Last year, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that Russia and China increasingly lean on nuclear weapons to pursue their national interests. Together, they could surpass the U.S. strategic nuclear force in numbers, creating a multiple-challenger problem and raising the risk of coordination between adversaries.

Put plainly: The nuclear balance is moving against the United States.

The DIA projects more than missiles and warheads. It predicts that China will deploy 60 fractional-orbit bombardment systems by 2035 — systems designed to complicate warning and response.

Start with Russia. The DIA projects a force of 400 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles. Fifty would be Sarmats, each reportedly capable of carrying up to 20 high-yield warheads — about 1,000 warheads. The remaining 350 would be Yars missiles, with roughly four medium-yield warheads each — about 1,400 more. That puts Russia at roughly 2,400 warheads on land-based ICBMs alone.

Russia’s sea-based force adds more. The Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile reportedly carries six warheads. Under the DIA’s forecast, that comes to about 1,152 additional warheads, pushing the combined ICBM/SLBM total to roughly 3,552. Russian strategic bombers can carry still more — around 1,000 warheads on air-launched systems.

That implies a Russian long-range strategic force as high as 4,552 warheads — far above the 2010 New START ceiling.

China’s trajectory looks even more unsettling. The DIA now projects 700 Chinese ICBMs by 2035, a striking revision given the agency’s history of underestimating Beijing’s growth. China reportedly produces 50 to 75 ICBMs per year. With roughly 400 already fielded, an additional 300 by 2035 are well within reach even at a slower production rate.

Warhead potential varies by missile type. The DF-31A can carry three re-entry vehicles. The DF-41 can reportedly carry up to 10 warheads. Depending on the mix, China could field anywhere from roughly 2,100 to 7,000 ICBM warheads.

The DIA also forecasts 132 Chinese SLBMs by 2035: 72 JL-3 missiles and 60 additional missiles for three new Type 096 ballistic-missile submarines. If the JL-3 carries three warheads, that yields 216 SLBM warheads. If the new SLBM carries at least six, that adds 360 more. In that scenario, China fields about 576 SLBM warheads — bringing the total for Chinese ICBMs and SLBMs to roughly 2,616 to 7,616 warheads.

The DIA projects more than missiles and warheads. It predicts that China will deploy 60 fractional-orbit bombardment systems by 2035 — systems designed to complicate warning and response. It also anticipates roughly 4,000 hypersonic weapons, many of which can evade current defenses and approach from unpredictable trajectories. Some could potentially carry nuclear payloads. China also produces hypersonic vehicles at scale and at far lower cost than the U.S.

North Korea compounds the problem. The DIA forecasts that Pyongyang could field about 50 ICBMs. That adds a third nuclear challenger and increases the risk of coordination among Russia, China, and North Korea during a crisis.

RELATED: How the military is computing the killing chain

Photo by John Harrelson/Getty Images

No quick fixes

Now consider the United States. The modernization plan centers on 400 Sentinel ICBMs deployed in existing silos through roughly 2045, with 400 warheads but potentially 800 to 1,200 in an upload scenario. At sea, the U.S. plans 12 Columbia-class submarines, each with 16 missiles. If each missile carries up to eight warheads, the fleet could carry 1,536 warheads. Combined, that produces 2,736 fast-flying warheads in a maximum-load scenario.

The bomber leg adds more, at least on paper. A force of B-52s and B-21s carrying cruise missiles and gravity bombs could add up to roughly 720 additional warheads, pushing a hypothetical total to about 3,456 strategic long-range warheads. That number may exceed the available warheads in the stockpile and planned cruise-missile inventories, but it illustrates the upper bound of what current plans could support.

Even that maximum posture faces a timing problem. Triad experts estimate that the United States would need at least four years to upload an expanded warhead force. Against a potential Russian and Chinese deployed force with more than 11,000 long-range warheads, the U.S. could face a numerical disadvantage of at least 3-1. More importantly, in this scenario the United States would already sit at its build limits: Sentinel and D-5 capacities would be maxed out.

We could add more bombers, but those aircraft also support critical conventional missions that few allies can perform. Current plans call for 100 B-21s, with growing support for 150 to 200. Additional ICBMs, submarines, or bombers would arrive late — often after 2040. The U.S. has 50 additional, currently empty ICBM silos that could help, but the vulnerability window could still remain open for years.

Time to build — again

Some argue that raw warhead counts do not matter. That view may comfort American planners, but it does not necessarily describe how adversaries think. Arms control — from SALT to New START — rested on the premise that limits matter and that verification matters. President Reagan captured the logic: “Trust but verify.”

If numbers never mattered, verification never would have.

History also suggests that superiority can translate into leverage. President Kennedy believed nuclear advantage helped the United States stare down the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He reportedly called the newly deployed Minuteman force “my ace in the hole.” He similarly saw the Polaris submarine force as insurance against Soviet pressure during the Berlin crisis.

None of this replaces sound diplomacy. Military strength without strategy becomes bluster. Diplomacy without credible force becomes impotent. Henry Kissinger made that point repeatedly, and it remains true in a nuclear age.

If the 2023 Strategic Posture Commission is correct that Russia and China practice nuclear blackmail and coercion, the United States cannot assume shared premises about deterrence, arms control, or restraint.

RELATED: Trump’s space order shows why the Outer Space Treaty must go

Manuel Mazzanti/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Consider the recent arms-control record. Under the Moscow and New START agreements, the U.S. and Russia reduced deployed strategic warheads by roughly 4,500 each, bringing the total to roughly 1,700 to 1,800. Russia may have sought to keep U.S. deployed forces below 2,000 for roughly two decades while it modernized, recovered economically, and positioned itself for a new era of confrontation.

If China and Russia achieve meaningful numerical superiority, they may gain coercive leverage that changes behavior across regions. At the same time, abolition advocates urge the United States to abandon deterrence and extended deterrence, leaving America’s forces below those of its adversaries. That would signal weakness to NATO and Indo-Pacific allies, undermining confidence and pushing some to consider their own nuclear options.

That outcome would be bitterly ironic. Many critics predicted that pushing European allies to spend more would weaken the alliance. In reality, a stronger NATO — anchored by U.S. power and reinforced by allied conventional buildup — raises the cost of aggression and reduces the risk of miscalculation.

The enemy always gets a vote. Our adversaries have cast theirs. They treat nuclear force not simply as a deterrent, but as a tool of coercion and a shield for aggression — an adjunct to the unrestricted warfare the U.S. now faces.

Because nuclear weapons underpin America’s deterrent strength and provide the umbrella under which U.S. military and diplomatic power operate, the United States must complete — and expand — its nuclear modernization plans. That effort should include credible theater and tactical nuclear capabilities as well as strategic systems. These forces function as a firewall against coercion and attack.

No substitute exists, regardless of how strongly abolition advocates wish otherwise.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

​Nuclear triad, Nuclear bombers, Nuclear submarines, Russia, China, U.s., North korea, B-21 bomber, Cruise missiles, Nuclear deterrence, Start treaty, Opinion & analysis, America first, National defense, Strategy 

Police officers searching high and low for a missing toddler in Louisville, Kentucky, last month received an unlikely assist from a four-legged hero.

While a drone and police helicopter searched overhead for signs of the 3-year-old boy, officers with the Louisville Metro Police Department’s Seventh Division canvased the neighborhood, keenly aware that time was of the essence.

‘Lassie found him!’

Officer Josh Thompson indicated that a fellow officer heard tell of a report from a woman “that called in about a kid. It wasn’t the same description, but it was a young kid — hit her Ring doorbell camera, ran off.”

After following up with the woman, Thompson learned that the boy had ventured to the home across the street.

The front porch of that residence was flanked by packages, and there were no obvious signs of anyone being inside. So Thompson inspected the rear of the house, taking note that “there’s some spots where a kid may be.”

When returning to the front of the home, hoping that this time someone might answer the door, Thompson realized that he was being tailed.

RELATED: ‘The Case for Miracles’: A stirring road trip into the heart of faith

Photo by Luke Sharrett for the Washington Post via Getty Images

“There’s a dog, starts walking with me,” Thompson recalled. “At first, you don’t know about dogs. You don’t know where the dog’s from, so I’m kind of being a little leery of the dog. He’s barking, chirping at me a little bit, and then continues to follow me back to the front porch.”

The dog was relentless, yapping at Thompson in an apparent effort to get his attention.

Bodycam footage shows Thompson gesture to the dog and say, “Let’s go find him! Come on! Let’s go!” Immediately, the dog spins, then begins leading the officer back toward the rear of the house.

“It led me all the way back to the back yard. At that point, I’m thinking, ‘Okay, this kid’s in this back yard,'” recalled Thompson.

Noticing that the back door was ajar, officers briefly checked inside the house for the child but found nothing. When the officers came out empty-handed, they were greeted again by the dog, which hurried over to a parked car.

Moments later, Thompson heard his fellow officer, who had accompanied the dog through the back yard, announce victory: “I got him!”

“The kid was in the front passenger seat, terrified,” said Thompson.

With some coaching from the officers, the kid was able to unlock the door and was greeted with cheers.

“I don’t think I’ve ever seen a happier kid in my life,” said Thompson. “He jumped out of the car, bear-hugged my neck, and wouldn’t let go.”

In the footage, it’s clear that the dog was similarly excited over the result, wagging its tail excitedly and darting its nose from officer to officer.

“Lassie found him!” says one of the officers.

Thompson suggested that in his two years patrolling the neighborhood, he had never seen the hero dog before or since.

“I don’t know where the dog came from,” he said. “But it was a blessing from God that day.”

The LMPD stated, “Outstanding work by our officers, and a four-legged friend who reminded us that heroes come in all forms.”

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

​Lifestyle, Good dog, Dog, Canine, Missing, Toddler, Children, Police, Louisville, Metro, Politics 

A 39-year-man who had worked as a coach and math teacher at a high school was arrested for allegedly sending inappropriate messages to a 15-year-old girl.

Yaniv Rosenberg showed WESH-TV the nude selfie that was allegedly sent to his daughter by Colby Erskin, who was arrested Feb. 5 by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office.

‘From, ‘Do you need help in math?’ to, ‘You look cute,’ to sexual comments.’

Rosenberg said Erskin had been his daughter’s math teacher at South Plantation High School before he took a job at a different school.

He described the messages allegedly found on his daughter’s device.

“From, ‘Do you need help in math?’ to, ‘You look cute,’ to sexual comments, to, ‘You want to hang out?’ to, ‘Can I see you after the football game?’ to freakin’ naked pics of himself,” Rosenberg said.

Erskin was a head football coach at Mount Dora High School in Lake County when he was arrested.

He is facing two felonies related to soliciting a child and sending harmful information.

Lake County Schools said Erskin had only recently been hired as a coach and was fired soon after the arrest.

“Mr. Erskin, who was hired less than a month ago as our football coach, was dismissed from his position (Feb. 5) after we learned that he had been arrested on a South Florida warrant for allegations that do not involve any of our students,” the statement reads.

RELATED: Michigan man who allegedly murdered his fiancée and her two sons says he just ‘snapped’

“We are cooperating with law enforcement and encourage anyone to come forward if you have anything to share regarding Mr. Erskin,” the district concluded.

The WESH video report shows a blurred-out image of the nude photo allegedly sent to the student.

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

​Yaniv rosenberg’s daughter, Colby erskin arrest, Teacher sends inappropriate messages, Coach sends nudie to student, Crime 

Most parents who purchase baby formula trust that if the product is on the supermarket shelf, it must be safe for their child, but according to findings from the Healthy Florida First initiative, many of the top formula brands tested positive for heavy metals.

The state-led program, spearheaded by Governor Ron DeSantis (R), first lady Casey DeSantis, and Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo through the Florida Department of Health, aims to build a healthier Florida through independent testing and publication of contaminants in everyday foods.

On a recent episode of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz,” Horowitz interviewed Casey DeSantis about what Florida’s health initiative uncovered about 24 top-selling baby formulas and what parents can do to ensure that their children are receiving the best nutrition.

A Consumer Reports investigation released in March 2025 found potentially harmful levels of heavy metals, including arsenic and lead, in some of the 41 baby formulas tested. Around the same time, HHS and the FDA announced Operation Stork Speed, which increased testing for heavy metals and contaminants, reviewed nutrient standards, and strengthened oversight of infant formula safety.

Despite this initiative, DeSantis says that according to infant formula testing conducted by Florida’s Department of Health, “there hasn’t been much change at all.”

“And honestly, since we had our results coming out, I haven’t heard anything from some of these baby formula manufacturers. And so it’s like at what point in time is enough enough?” she says, calling metal toxicity in baby formula “unconscionable and unacceptable.”

Out of the 24 baby formulas tested, Florida’s Department of Health found that 16 contained one or more heavy metals exceeding current safety standards.

“Could you give us a summary of those shocking findings?” asks Horowitz.

“Sixteen out of the 24 had high levels of mercury. Two had lead. These are problematic heavy metals, right? They don’t just leave the body. They’re there for a while,” says DeSantis, “and our surgeon general said, you know, when you’re exposed to this early in life in these quantities over the course of a year or two, your risk of getting cancer goes up exponentially.”

“I would encourage moms and dads and grandparents to go to exposingfoodtoxins.com because there you can see specifically which ones are better than others,” she adds.

“Don’t tell me it’s the manufacturing process and there’s nothing that we can do, because certainly there are some manufacturers that are doing it better. So we should, as consumers, push to drive change because that’s the right thing to do on behalf of families.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

​Conservative review, Conservative review with daniel horowitz, Horowitz, Daniel horowitz, Casey desantis, Florida, Florida department of health, Operation stork speed, Ron desantis, Joseph ladapo, Blazetv, Blaze media 

The EPA just delivered news that millions of fed-up American drivers have been waiting for: Automatic start-stop technology is no longer being propped up by federal regulation.

On February 12, 2026, President Donald Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced what the administration is calling the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history. The move scraps the Obama-era 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding and wipes out federal greenhouse-gas standards for vehicles dating back to model year 2012.

‘Mechanically, it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Constant restarts accelerate wear on starter motors — even reinforced ones.’

For everyday drivers, the practical consequence is simple and satisfying: The regulatory credits that encouraged automakers to jam start-stop systems into vehicles are gone.

‘Universally hated’

Zeldin didn’t mince words, calling start-stop an “almost universally hated” feature — an “Obama switch” that makes your engine shut off at every red light. Trump echoed the sentiment, blasting the policy as a regulatory disaster that drove up prices and forced unwanted technology on consumers. Even the EPA’s own announcement acknowledged what drivers have been saying for years: A feature that kills your engine at stops and jolts it awake again was never embraced voluntarily — it was incentivized.

For years, automakers chased roughly a 1-mile-per-gallon compliance credit tied to start-stop systems. On paper, it helped meet greenhouse-gas targets. In the real world, the fuel savings were often negligible outside of ideal lab conditions. Still, the feature spread everywhere — from sedans to SUVs to trucks — not because buyers demanded it, but because it was the cheapest way to check a regulatory box.

Consumers got the irritation. Automakers got the credit.

‘Disaster waiting to happen’

I asked ASE Master Technician Greg Damon what start-stop really does under the hood. His answer was blunt:

Mechanically, it’s a disaster waiting to happen. Constant restarts accelerate wear on starter motors — even reinforced ones. Batteries cycle harder and require more expensive replacements. Engine components face repeated stress, especially during warm restarts when lubrication isn’t instantaneous. In shops, mechanics see higher failure rates, specialized repairs, and higher bills. All of that complexity and cost to chase a single MPG on a spreadsheet.

Is 1 MPG worth higher sticker prices, increased maintenance costs, and shorter component life?

Drivers have already answered that question. Many disable the system every time they start the car — if the manufacturer even allows it. Some vehicles require a ritual button press; others hide any permanent shutoff entirely. Subaru owners, in particular, have flooded forums with complaints about hesitation and drivability issues. Reviews and social media tell the same story: This isn’t progress. It’s punishment.

RELATED: Sick of your ‘eco-friendly’ car turning off at every red light? So is Trump’s EPA head

VCG/Getty Images

No incentive

After the ruling, I contacted major automakers. Their responses were identical — carefully scripted statements saying they would “review their strategy” if regulations changed. Well, the regulations have changed. Loudly. Publicly. And without ambiguity. With compliance credits vaporized, the financial incentive disappears. Expect manufacturers to quietly phase out start-stop or finally offer true, set-it-and-forget-it disable options.

The broader implications are enormous. The Trump administration projects more than $1.3 trillion in total regulatory relief, with per-vehicle compliance costs dropping by an estimated $2,400. Lower vehicle prices ripple through the entire economy. As Zeldin put it, the move restores consumer choice and eases cost-of-living pressure by removing mandates that distorted the market.

Other Clean Air Act rules governing traditional tailpipe pollutants remain in place. Emissions are not unregulated. What died here is the prescriptive, heavy-handed system that rewarded gimmicks like start-stop instead of genuine engineering improvements. Automakers now have room to pursue real efficiency — better engines, smarter hybrids, lighter materials, and improved aerodynamics — without sacrificing reliability or driver satisfaction.

Win for aftermarket

The automotive aftermarket wins too. An industry supporting more than 330,000 American jobs can breathe easier without constant compliance pressure steering vehicles away from serviceable, long-term ownership.

This is a win for common sense. Start-stop survived because Washington subsidized it, not because Americans wanted it. Without regulatory crutches, the feature faces the only test that matters: voluntary consumer demand. And the answer has always been clear.

If you’ve ever muttered under your breath at a red light while your engine shut off — then lurched back to life — this one’s for you. The era of government-mandated automotive irritation just took a fatal hit.

​Lifestyle, Epa, Start-stop, Lee zeldin, Auto industry, Donald trump, Ev mandate, Emissions standards, Align cars