Columbia University — an institution whose radicalism frequently spills out into the streets of Manhattan — is trying to distance itself from Columbia University Apartheid Divest after the coalition of student extremists echoed Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei’s go-to motto following his assassination on Saturday.

CUAD, a coalition of anti-Israel student groups that purportedly operates “outside of the purview of a registered student organization,” didn’t take the news of Khamenei’s death particularly well, calling it “devastating news.”

‘Columbia has not, and will not, recognize or meet with the group.’

In another social media post, which has since been deleted, the student group wrote, “Marg bar Amrika.”

This Persian phrase, which means “Death to America,” was one of the dead ayatollah’s go-to slogans.

“The slogan and shout of ‘Death to the U.S.’ by the Iranian nation has strong logical and rational support and stems from the Constitution and fundamental thoughts that brooks no injustice and oppression,” Khamenei stated a decade ago. “This slogan means death to the policies of the U.S. and arrogant powers and this logic is accepted by every nation when explained in clear terms.”

CUAD noted in a subsequent tweet that was taken down by Elon Musk’s X for violating the platform’s rules, “X forced use[sic] to delete our ‘marg bar amrika’ tweet in order to gain back access to our account but the sentiment still stands.”

RELATED: ‘Painful days’: Iran kills US troops as Trump threatens decapitated Iranian regime

Photo by Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images

The university — which had its accreditation threatened last year over its alleged “indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students” and is paying the federal government over $220 million to settle investigations into alleged discrimination on campus — rushed to denounce CUAD’s “violent, abhorrent language.”

Columbia emphasized that “‘CUAD’ is not a recognized student group and is not affiliated, in any fashion, with the University”; “the matter has been referred to law enforcement for further investigation”; and “there is no evidence, at this point, that anyone currently in control of this social media account is a Columbia student, staff, or faculty member.”

While it is unclear who presently mans the radical group’s social media accounts, Mahmoud Khalil — a Syrian-born radical and former Columbia University graduate student who is presently fighting potential deportation by the Trump administration to Algeria — previously identified himself as a spokesman for CUAD.

The university, which has been home to anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in recent days, noted that it denounced the group last July, making clear “Columbia has not, and will not, recognize or meet with the group that calls itself ‘Columbia University Apartheid Divest’ (CUAD), its representatives, or any of its affiliated organizations.”

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

​Iran, Khamenei, Columbia university, Divest, Apartheid divest, University, School, Radical, Radicalism, Islam, Iranian, Death to america, New york city, Politics 

Early Sunday morning, a foreign-born radical armed with a pistol and a rifle allegedly opened fire outside Buford’s Backyard Beer Garden in Austin, killing two individuals and wounding 14 others.

Authorities indicated that the now-dead suspect, identified as 53-year-old Ndiaga Diagne, drove around the area several times in an SUV before taking aim through a vehicle window at patrons outside the bar.

‘This act of violence will not define us.’

Austin Police Chief Lisa Davis noted during a press conference on Sunday that after the initial shooting, the suspect parked his SUV nearby, then opened fire with a rifle on unsuspecting pedestrians. Police intercepted the suspect as he made his way down East 6th Street and fatally shot him.

Once the dead suspect’s vehicle was identified, the APD’s bomb squad ensured that there were no explosives present.

Austin Mayor Kirk Watson lauded the work of the first responders and police officers who rushed into action on Sunday morning, noting that they “saved countless lives.”

While law enforcement is still investigating the shooter’s motives, Alex Doran, an active special agent with the FBI’s San Antonio field office, noted that “there were indicators … on the subject and in his vehicle that indicate potential nexus to terrorism.”

RELATED: Fetterman joins GOP lawmakers in praise of Iran strikes; Massie joins Democrats in condemnation

Photo by Stephanie Tacy/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Doran would not comment on the nature of those “indicators.” However, a law enforcement official told CNN that the dead suspect was wearing a shirt with an Iranian flag design on it as well as a hoodie emblazoned with the text, “Property of Allah.”

A law enforcement official told the New York Times that a Quran was recovered from the suspect’s vehicle.

The Department of Homeland Security reportedly indicated that Diagne entered the U.S. on a B-2 tourist visa in March 2000 and was naturalized in April 2013, seven years after his marriage to an American citizen.

A law enforcement official familiar with the investigation told CNN that the suspect, who was arrested in 2022 on a charge of collision with vehicle damage, is originally from the Sunni Muslim nation of Senegal.

On Sunday afternoon, federal and local authorities reportedly raided a house outside Pflugerville, roughly 30 miles north of the shooting, where the suspect apparently resided.

While officials did not immediately name the victims, University of Texas at Austin President Jim Davis said in a statement on Sunday that among those impacted by the shooting are “members of our Longhorn family.”

Ryder Harrington, a Texas Tech Red Raider, was ultimately identified by loved ones as one of the decedents.

A GoFundMe page raising funds for the Harrington family noted that “Ryder was a beloved son, brother, and friend whose kindness and presence touched countless lives. From the moment he joined our brotherhood, he brought a light that was impossible to ignore.”

Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows (R) noted, “From all accounts, Ryder was exactly the kind of young man who made a difference without even trying — full of life, loyal to his friends, proud to be a Red Raider and a Texan, and someone who showed up for the people around him.”

“This act of violence will not define us, nor will it shake the resolve of Texans,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said in response to the shooting.

“To anyone who thinks about using the current conflict in the Middle East to threaten Texans or our critical infrastructure, understand this clearly: Texas will respond with decisive and overwhelming force to protect our state,” added the governor.

Abbott indicated further that on Saturday, he directed the Texas Military Department to activate service members to work with federal and state partners to “safeguard our communities and critical infrastructure” and tasked the Texas Department of Public Safety and Texas National Guard with intensifying patrols and surveillance.

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

​Crime, Islam, Senegal, Terrorism, Shooting, Austin, Texas, Abbott, Iran, Iran strikes, Radicalism, Extremism, Mass shooting, Ndiaga diagne, Politics 

Imagine someone walks into your town with a proposition: Rezone large swaths of residential and farmland. Hand out tax breaks. Let us build ugly, noisy facilities for chatbots — facilities that will devour nearly a quarter of the power supply.

Then, before you run him out of the room, he adds a final promise: Do not worry. We will pay our own way.

Argue about the projections if you want. Do not tell the public they will not pay more for data centers. They already do.

That is the rope-a-dope Americans are supposed to accept from the government-tech oligopoly, even as politicians insist that data centers will not cost the public a dime.

Sensing a growing backlash against the data-slop colonization of rural America, President Trump promised during the State of the Union that every data center company will pay its own way. Awareness of the problem helps. The president’s pledge does not.

Facts on the ground point in the opposite direction: consumers already pay for data centers, the economics make “paying their own way” implausible at scale, and the industry fights efforts to put that promise into law.

The scope of the problem

The hyperscale build-out being stacked on top of roughly 4,000 existing facilities is not a “burden” on the grid. It is an industrial-scale demand shock.

MIT Technology Review reports that AI alone could soon consume as much electricity as 22% of all U.S. households. Boston Consulting Group projects data center energy needs of up to 1,050 terawatt-hours annually by 2030 — about 120 gigawatts on average. That figure exceeds current U.S. nuclear capacity by roughly 23%.

To put it in plain terms, the United States has about 97 gigawatts of nuclear capacity across 94 reactors. If the high end of OpenAI’s hyperscale ambitions materializes, those facilities alone would require roughly 36% of total U.S. nuclear capacity.

Now scale it out. Clearview estimates that if the 680 planned data centers get built and become operational, they would require the energy equivalent of 186 large nuclear power plants.

That should end the fantasy that these companies can “pay their own way” while drowning in debt, burning cash, and chasing thin margins.

These are not last decade’s data centers, either. Bloomberg reports that only 10% of facilities today draw more than 50 megawatts. Over the next decade, the average new facility will draw well over 100 megawatts. Nearly a quarter will exceed 500 megawatts, and a few will top 1 gigawatt.

Electricity is only the first bill. This demand shock forces major grid upgrades: transmission lines, transformers, substations, and capacity expansions. Utilities do not eat those costs. They pass them on to taxpayers — that is, us.

Wood Mackenzie estimates that AI-driven build-outs will push transformer demand beyond supply by about 30% this year, driving costs up and delaying projects. Consumers will pay for that, too.

RELATED: How data centers could spark the next populist revolt

Photo by Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

We already pay for data centers

Consumers already pay. Any serious fix starts with admitting it.

Yet Interior Secretary Doug Burgum has the nerve to tell Americans that nobody has paid higher prices because of data centers.

Grid operators say otherwise.

Bloomberg reports that in areas within 50 miles of significant data center activity, wholesale prices have risen by as much as 267% over five years, with more than 70% of recorded price spikes occurring near that activity. Dominion, the largest utility in Virginia — home to “Data Center Alley” — cited data center demand as a factor in proposing a base-rate increase that would add $8.51 a month to typical residential bills in 2026 and another $2 a month in 2027. That comes after rates already surged 13%.

Then look at PJM, the nation’s largest grid. Monitoring Analytics, PJM’s independent market monitor, says consumers will pay $16.6 billion to secure future power supplies from 2025 through 2027, with about 90% of that bill tied to projected data center demand. Monitoring Analytics called it a “massive wealth transfer” from consumers to the data center industry.

Costs spread across state lines. Maryland transmission infrastructure helps serve Northern Virginia’s data centers. In Baltimore, some residents have seen steep bill increases over three years, with additional increases anticipated starting mid-2026. Across the PJM region, capacity charges spiked 833% for the 2025-2026 period as supply struggled to keep up with these behemoths.

Texas faces its own version. ERCOT expects data center demand to exceed 22,000 megawatts by 2030, which could push wholesale rates up 22% or more, even before population growth enters the equation.

Argue about the projections if you want. Do not tell the public they will not pay more for data centers. They already do.

That reality explains why the industry resists any effort to put teeth behind its “we will pay our own way” pledge. Oklahoma state Rep. Jim Shaw (R) introduced HB 3724, which would have required data centers to pay their own way. Every Republican on the committee voted it down.

So the next time the pitch arrives — that you will not pay a dime extra once the facilities go live — treat it as marketing, not math.

Do not trust. Only verify.

​Opinion & analysis, Artificial intelligence, Ai data centers, Power grid, Nuclear power, Water, Zoning, Farmland, Housing, Supply and demand, Big tech, Donald trump, Costs, Affordability, Electricity bills, Mit technology review, Nuclear capacity, Texas, Maryland, Baltimore, Oklahoma, Jim shaw 

It’s been a little over a year since President Trump began his second term and enacted a wave of tariffs that rattled the global economy. After observing the impacts, Glenn Beck is finally ready to say three words: “I was wrong.”

For years, he opposed tariffs, believing that free markets were the answer. And while he still believes free markets are the ideal — as they’re “not just efficient” but also “moral” — he realizes in retrospect that they cease to work when the players cheat. Tariffs, he admits, are “not a sin” but a necessary “strategy” to protect American industry from nations that are attacking its economy through trade.

On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn explains his change of heart.

He first recaps history: America’s founders funded the government mainly through tariffs instead of income taxes, and Abraham Lincoln and early Republicans used them to protect young industries and build the nation into an industrial powerhouse. Tariffs only got a bad name after the 1913 income tax shift and the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariffs (blamed for worsening the Depression), while post-World War II free trade succeeded because the U.S. dominated the global economy.

But that era of “effortlessness, American dominance” has ended.

“Here’s what I failed to see,” says Glenn. “Free trade works when all of the players are playing free. … It works when your trading partners are not subsidizing industries, manipulating currencies, stealing intellectual property, weaponizing supply chains, using slave labor.”

“There comes a time when you then have to look at it and say, ‘OK, wait a minute, wait a minute — now we own the markets, but everybody else has weaponized trade against us. And now we’re hollowing out our own industrial base; we’re financing our adversaries’ rise,’” he adds.

Today he sees “the bigger picture that Donald Trump is doing with tariffs.”

“I have had very long conversations with the president about tariffs. He has been remarkable … because he’s been honest,” says Glenn.

“He has the vision to see the world economically as it truly is, but also the vision to see economically, business-wise, how it can be,” he explains.

“[Trump] understood tariffs are not just punishment and higher prices, OK? You use tariffs strategically as leverage, as negotiation — tariffs as industrial policy without the bureaucracy; tariffs used strategically, not universally; tariffs used as a tool to bring trading partners to the table; tariffs being used to build domestic capacity.”

Glenn highlights Trump’s repeated claim that foreign countries have committed to investing $18 trillion in U.S. factories since the start of his second term (roughly half the national debt).

“Let’s say half of that is true. That’s pretty remarkable. You know what that will do? That will rebuild our industrial base, which we hollowed out because we didn’t have tariffs!” he exclaims.

To hear more, watch the video 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.

​The glenn beck program, Glenn beck, Trump, Trump tariffs, Tariffs, Blazetv, Blaze media 

On Friday, in an open letter to the 119th Congress, I joined more than 100 economists and public policy experts from universities, think tanks, and businesses across the country urging practical reform of the Highway Trust Fund. Our message is straightforward: Congress can — and should — take incremental, bipartisan steps now to put the fund on a stable, sustainable path.

The Highway Trust Fund long embodied a simple user-fee compact: People who use the roads pay for them. That bargain delivered predictable funding and reinforced fiscal discipline.

Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.

Now the system is fraying. Fuel taxes have not kept pace with inflation, rising construction costs, or improved fuel efficiency. Electric and hybrid vehicles — a growing share of the fleet — often contribute little or nothing through fuel taxes. Congress has repeatedly patched the shortfall with transfers from the general fund, which papers over the problem while weakening the principle that made the system durable.

Congress does not need to solve every long-term challenge in one bill. It can make meaningful progress in the next surface transportation reauthorization, which lawmakers must pass by Sept. 30.

First, lawmakers should reinforce the user-pay principle by ensuring all road users — including drivers of electric and hybrid vehicles — contribute a fair share through transparent, enforceable mechanisms. Fairness demands no less. When some users effectively get an exemption, the burden shifts to everyone else or to taxpayers at large.

Second, Congress should improve price sensitivity. Heavy commercial vehicles impose disproportionate wear and tear on highways and bridges. User fees should better reflect vehicle weight and road impact. That change would improve fairness and send clearer economic signals about infrastructure costs. A system that reflects actual use and damage is more rational — and more defensible.

Third, legislators should evaluate a transition from per-gallon fuel taxes to mileage-based user fees. A well-designed road-usage charge would ensure payments reflect miles driven and vehicle characteristics.

Any transition must preserve the core user-pay principle while avoiding disproportionate burdens on low-income households, small businesses, and farmers. State pilot programs show mileage-based systems can protect privacy and maintain public trust. Congress should build on that experience rather than delay modernization.

Fourth, Washington should reduce reliance on general-fund bailouts and set clearer expectations for revenue reform in the next major reauthorization cycle. Temporary patches undermine fiscal responsibility and create uncertainty for state planners and private investors.

RELATED: Trump is getting the job done for American truckers

Photo by Chris Kleponis/Polaris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Revenue reform alone will not secure the system. Transportation infrastructure now depends on digital systems that guide vehicles and manage logistics. America’s economy relies heavily on GPS-enabled positioning and timing. Disruptions to systems overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation would ripple across freight networks, emergency services, and daily commutes.

China and Russia have shown the capability to interfere with satellite systems and GPS signals. A prolonged outage would cost billions of dollars per day. Vehicles sold in the U.S. should incorporate tested backup positioning technologies to guard against such threats.

Supply-chain security also demands attention. Chinese firms such as BYD and CATL dominate global battery production. The concentration of manufacturing — and embedded telematics — in companies subject to influence by the Chinese Communist Party raises legitimate concerns about espionage and strategic vulnerability.

The U.S. should expand domestic battery production and charging infrastructure, reducing dependence on foreign-controlled systems that can compromise data security and resilience.

Finally, Congress should pursue sensible federal deregulation to reduce the needlessly high cost of transportation projects — and require state and local partners to do the same. Streamlined permitting, faster reviews, and fewer duplicative requirements would stretch every Highway Trust Fund dollar and deliver projects faster.

These proposals are not partisan. They are practical steps rooted in fiscal responsibility and national security. A stable source of funding for roads is not merely a budget issue; it is essential to economic competitiveness, national mobility, and public safety. By reinforcing the user-pay principle, modernizing revenue mechanisms, protecting digital infrastructure, and strengthening supply chains, Congress can signal a shared commitment to safeguarding America’s transportation future.

The 119th Congress has an opportunity to restore the Highway Trust Fund’s integrity. Lawmakers should seize it.

​Opinion & analysis, Highway trust fund, Funding, Gas taxes, Mileage tax, Fee for service, Transportation department, Transportation funding, Infrastructure, Interstate, Bridges, Roads, Fuel efficiency, Electric vehicles, Congress, Budget