Not long ago, if people predicted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would issue rules to help kill off gas-powered cars or reliable electricity sources like coal and natural gas, they would have been called unhinged.
But that’s what the agency did. And now the problem goes beyond anything one administration can fix on its own.
The EPA has a long history of going well beyond what Congress has authorized, but in the last decade, the agency took overreach to shocking levels.
President Obama’s EPA finalized the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/23/2015-22842/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating">Clean Power Plan</a> rule that tried to shift electricity generation away from coal power plants. The agency was effectively assuming the role of national grid manager. In 2022, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf">struck down</a> this rule, explaining “a decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”
Did this stop the EPA from again reasserting vast authority that common sense tells us Congress never would have authorized? Nope. The Biden EPA issued a greenhouse gas power plant <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/09/2024-09233/new-source-performance-standards-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-new-modified-and-reconstructed">rule</a> even more <a href="https://cei.org/news_releases/epa-rule-against-power-plants-bad-for-energy-reliability-and-prices-bad-for-rule-of-law/">heavy-handed</a> than Obama’s Clean Power Plan in shutting down reliable electricity generation.
The agency’s biggest overreach has been the Biden administration <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/18/2024-06214/multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-for-model-years-2027-and-later-light-duty-and-medium-duty">rule</a>, often referred to as the de facto electric vehicle mandate. According to the agency, by 2032, the rule would result in internal combustion engine vehicles <a href="https://cei.org/blog/epas-latest-unlawful-assault-on-vehicle-affordability-and-choice/">being</a> less than <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/18/2024-06214/multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-for-model-years-2027-and-later-light-duty-and-medium-duty">30%</a> of new light-duty vehicles sold.
The compliance cost of the rule is a staggering <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/18/2024-06214/multi-pollutant-emissions-standards-for-model-years-2027-and-later-light-duty-and-medium-duty">$760 billion</a>, based on the agency’s own estimate. To put the cost in context, the projected and then-shocking cost of the 2009 stimulus bill, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, <a href="http://stimulus.org/financialresponse/2009-stimulus-american-recovery-and-reinvestment-act">was</a> <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/American-Recovery-and-Reinvestment-Act">$787 billion</a>.
To its credit, the Trump EPA is trying to get rid of these Biden administration rules, and there’s a good chance its efforts will be successful. But success is not guaranteed. And future administrations will inevitably use the EPA and the Clean Air Act as a pretext for trying to change the economy and restrict individual freedom.
To achieve a durable solution that ends these abuses, Congress needs to do its part and pass legislation. The good news is that some leaders in Congress recognize the need and are taking action.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) have introduced the End EPA Abuse Act (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/9453">H.R. 9453</a> and <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/4931?hl=end+epa+abuse+act&amp;s=1&amp;r=1">S. 4931</a>). The bill makes it clear that there are common-sense limits to what the agency can do. Considering the agency tried to help kill off gas-powered cars and act as a national grid manager, the bill expressly prohibits the EPA from issuing such rules under the Clean Air Act, along with other overreaching rules.
The bill doesn’t prevent the agency from aggressively doing its job to protect the environment. Rather, it creates protections to ensure the agency isn’t constantly trying to usurp congressional power.
This legislation has wide support, deservedly so. Recently, a coalition of over 40 organizations sent a <a href="https://cei.org/coalition_letters/cei-leads-coalition-supporting-end-of-epa-abuse-act-of-2026/">letter to Congress</a> urging lawmakers to support the bill. And 20 state attorneys general already sent a <a href="https://www.lee.senate.gov/services/files/D4827DFA-BCCC-4832-A045-4A8E548CE6F4">letter</a> to Sen. Lee and Rep. Clyde expressing their support for their bill. They explained, “The End EPA Abuse Act of 2026 would close the door on some of EPA’s worst overreach while still leaving the agency plenty of room to perform its legitimate functions.”
Unless lawmakers think it is fine for the EPA to restrict the types of cars Americans drive or develop rules that undermine the reliability of the electricity grid, among other extreme abuses, then supporting this bill should be a no-brainer.
Let’s hope members of Congress get on board and help stop the worst EPA abuses once and for all.
***
Daren Bakst is director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Center for Energy and Environment and a Senior Fellow.

EPA’s New Contaminants List Is A Warning On Microplastics, PFAS

The EPA Needs A Power Check

Biden Administration

Clean Air Act

DW Opinion

End EPA Abuse Act

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Trump Administration

A federal infrastructure program used by the Biden administration to fund bike lanes and “advance equity” will go toward fixing America’s bridges, roads, and shipping ports, The Daily Wire has learned. 
The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it would be awarding $1.73 billion in infrastructure grants through the Department of Transportation to improve roads and bridges. Under Biden, the department focused on fighting “climate change,” pushing DEI, and funding bike lanes. 
“America is fortunate to have a Builder in the White House who knows America is only as great as our infrastructure,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy told The Daily Wire. “That’s why this Department is investing in repairing critical roads and bridges that connect Americans to job opportunities, port infrastructure that bolsters our national security, and aviation and transit projects that move American families.”
The funding will be awarded through the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) program.
Around 77% of the total grant funding ($1.3 billion) will be allocated to roads and bridges along critical transportation arteries, and another 7% will go toward beefing up the nation’s maritime infrastructure, the Department of Transportation told The Daily Wire. In contrast to Biden, when around 20% of funding went toward pedestrian-bike lane projects, no funds will go toward bike lanes. Just 2% of the funding under Biden went toward maritime projects, according to the Department of Transportation. 
“The impact of these dollars will be felt in communities nationwide for years to come,” Duffy added. 
During the Biden presidency, the BUILD program was renamed Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE), but the Trump administration changed the name back to BUILD.
Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg focused on pushing DEI and climate-related projects through the program. In November 2021, Buttigieg <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-secretary-transportation-buttigieg-announces-nearly-1-billion-grant-awards">declared</a> the program would focus on “equity” and combating “climate change.”
In 2023, the Biden administration <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-department-transportation-announces-availability-15-billion-raise-grants-made">said</a> it wanted grant applicants to “consider how their projects can address climate change, ensure racial equity, and remove barriers to opportunity.&#8221; That same year, Buttigieg <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/secretary-buttigieg-appoints-members-advisory-committee-transportation-equity-acte">reestablished</a> an Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity with the purpose of helping the department &#8220;institutionalize equity into Agency programs, policies, regulations, and activities.&#8221;
A <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/07/21/us-news/pete-buttigiegs-dot-spent-80-billion-on-dei-grants-delayed-air-traffic-control-upgrades-records-industry-insiders/">report</a> last year from the New York Post revealed that more than $80 billion was designated to DEI-related projects under Buttigieg’s four years as transportation secretary.
Shortly after taking office, Duffy <a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-transportation-secretary-sean-duffy-takes-action-rescind-woke-dei-policies-and">moved</a> to implement the Trump administration&#8217;s policy of eliminating DEI from government programs and policies. He directed department officials to rescind any DEI or climate change-related policies.

President Trump Holds Press Briefing

Trump Uses Biden’s Billion-Dollar DEI Bike Lane Program To Fix What Americans Actually Use

Department of Transportation

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Pete Buttigieg

Sean Duffy

Joe Biden opened the border.
Donald Trump closed the border, and the Supreme Court just ruled that is okay.
The Left and the legacy media are going insanely crazy. They say the Supreme Court is now a Right-wing tool as an evil stand-in for vicious racism.
Yesterday, two Supreme Court decisions came down, both 6-3. It was the Republican appointees on the Court versus the Democratic appointees. The first decision concerned people seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border. The other had to do with the Trump administration labeling countries like Syria and Haiti as dangerous for the purposes of deporting people here on temporary protected status.
Before we get to the content of these decisions, we first need to understand what the Supreme Court does. Why is that important?
Because the Left wants the Supreme Court to be a thing it is not. They yell at the Supreme Court when it doesn&#8217;t do what they want.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/the-ben-shapiro-show-episode-2454?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=Recent+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-981859" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/ben-banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
What is the Court supposed to do? It does not make policy, good or bad. It does not decide what the policy is, good or bad. That&#8217;s why we elect a Congress and a president. It&#8217;s why the Supreme Court is an unelected branch of government: its job is to interpret what the law means and decide what the law says.
It doesn&#8217;t get to say, “We read the law. That was bad. Now we&#8217;re overturning the law and putting a new law in its place.&#8221;
Going back to the 1930s, the Left decided the Supreme Court ought to act as a super-legislature, a group of really smart people who can simply rewrite policy they don&#8217;t like into good Left-wing policy.
In fact, what they want is for the Supreme Court to say that when the president or Congress does Left-wing things, that&#8217;s legal. When the president or Congress does Right-wing things, that&#8217;s illegal.
But that&#8217;s not the job of the Supreme Court. And yesterday, the Supreme Court did its job.
It doesn&#8217;t matter whether you agree with what the Trump administration actually did at the US-Mexico border or with Haitian migrants. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to agree or disagree with such action. The question is, under our Constitution, who has the authority to do what?
The Supreme Court said that the Trump administration acted within its legally defined purview and that it could not simply overrule it based on whether it liked it or not. If you don&#8217;t like the policy, elect a different Congress or a different president.
These things became Supreme Court cases because of a long history of bad legislation. And then presidents take advantage of bad legislation, which is the story of congressional-presidential relations since Woodrow Wilson.
Congress would pass vague laws. Presidents would take advantage of that in order to maximize their own power.
Let&#8217;s start with the first decision. It was called Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. In 2016, the Obama administration set up a process called metering. There was heavy migration at the southern border, as you recall, and until 2016, if you were a non-citizen seeking asylum at a port of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border, you crossed into U.S. soil and then had to wait in line for inspection.
At that point, we had a legal duty to listen to you. And most people would come and claim asylum. They would claim they couldn&#8217;t return to their home country due to a specific threat.
That is a different thing from temporary protected status; asylum requires you to show that you face a specific threat. You can&#8217;t just say, “I want to come here because my home country sucks.” In order for that to be adjudicated, you would come, wait in line for inspection at a port of entry, and once you were on American soil, we had a duty to actually listen to your asylum claim.
Toward the end of the Obama administration, there were so many people arriving at the border trying to get in that the government approved something called a metering policy, under which border agents would basically stand at the border and say, “Don&#8217;t come in. You don&#8217;t have travel documents or a visa. The port of entry is full. Come back later. You stay there.”
Why did they do that? Because the law says you only have to process people who are in the country. If you don&#8217;t come in, we have no legal duty to process you. The first Trump administration expanded and formalized the metering policy, and then the Biden administration rescinded it.
And then they went even further. They said, “Welcome to the border. Claim asylum and say the magic words, ‘I fear for my life, and I can&#8217;t go back to my home country,’ and we&#8217;ll let you basically run around in the United States and stay forever.”
So the Trump administration, Part II came in and said, “No, no. No metering policy back in place. You&#8217;re going to wait over there, and we will not process you. The border is closed. It&#8217;s not a matter of whether the ports of entry are full. You&#8217;re not coming in. Period. And if you&#8217;re not on American soil, we have no duty to you. “
If you don&#8217;t like that policy, you can vote for Democrats to go back to the Biden way of passing laws. Or you could rewrite the law so that people who apply for citizenship have to remain in Mexico, the Trump “Remain in Mexico” policy. Or theoretically, you could rewrite the law so that everyone who applies for citizenship, no matter where they are, has to be given an asylum hearing, even if they don&#8217;t come into the United States, and we don&#8217;t have a duty to house them.
There are a bunch of ways you could do this. But that&#8217;s what Congress exists for.
The role of the various branches of government is important. You elect people to change the policy. The Supreme Court is here to interpret what the law currently says, not what it should say or who should be elected.
The plaintiffs in this case are a group of non-citizens.
They were trying to get into the United States, and they say that their rights were violated because their asylum cases were never heard, because they were in line, and that is as good as being in the country. They never entered the United States. They were turned away at the border.
In a decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court said, “No. ‘In the United States’ means in the United States. You&#8217;re not in the United States if you&#8217;re waiting on the other side of the border.”
Justice Thomas wrote a concurrence, which said something further: that Congress has no power to force the president to bring aliens into the country. He said the Constitution allows Congress the power to regulate who doesn&#8217;t get to come in. But the Constitution does not specify a certain number of people who must be allowed into the country. Also, said Thomas, the people in this case are neither naturalized nor on the path to naturalization. You have no rights under the U.S. Constitution if you do not live in the country, if you are not on the path to naturalization, or if you&#8217;ve never entered the country.
In the more controversial case involving Haitian migrants, the only reason it reached the Supreme Court is that Congress passed an incredibly vague law that handed tremendous authority to the president. And then various presidents deliberately abused the law in various ways.
In 1990, Congress passed something called the Immigration Act. One of the provisions of the Immigration Act is something called Temporary Protected Status. The idea is, you come to the United States on a travel visa, you&#8217;re tooling around, and suddenly your home country goes nuts. There&#8217;s a coup, terrorists take over; you could be given temporary protected status by the executive branch.
At the time, Congress designated one country and one country only, El Salvador, as a country where things were so dangerous that you didn&#8217;t have to be deported back to your home country, even if you were, for example, overstaying your visa.
So what happened? Over the course of decades, the list of countries that became dangerous expanded, and the borders opened.
The Obama and Biden administrations used TPS to radically change immigration law. They would open the borders, bring in a bunch of people from crappy countries, label all those home countries dangerous, and now those people could stay forever.
The average temporary protected status holder in the United States has been here for 20 years.
So the Trump administration said, “It&#8217;s supposed to be temporary. It&#8217;s in the word temporary.”
Democrats are saying, “No, no, no, the focus should be on ‘protected.&#8217;’’
There are now 17 countries from which people are protected from going home. The Trump administration came in and they declared that a bunch of these countries are no longer dangerous for the purpose of deporting people. Those countries include places like Venezuela, Honduras, Nicaragua, Yemen, South Sudan, Haiti, Syria, Somalia, and Ethiopia.
I want to be clear about what&#8217;s factual and what&#8217;s not factual. Many of these countries are wildly dangerous; Haiti is one. It is the most dangerous country in the Western Hemisphere by a long shot. Five thousand and five hundred people were murdered in Haiti last year alone. Sex trafficking is rampant. Gangs basically run the place. It is now a hellhole.
But here&#8217;s what happened. Democrats are claiming that temporary protected status is a one-way ratchet; a president can legalize vast swaths of illegal immigration by labeling a country dangerous. But then a subsequent president cannot relabel that country unless there&#8217;s a showing that the country is not dangerous.
The question is what tools did the Trump administration have under the law?
According to stats from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS as well as the Congressional Research Service), in 2010, there were between 50,000 and 70,000 Haitian TPS holders. Sixteen years later, there were between 330,000 and 350,000 Haitian TPS holders. And remember, all these people have kids, and those kids are natural-born citizens of the United States.
So the Supreme Court had to decide whether or not the president can label Syria and Haiti non-dangerous for purposes of deportation. So Justice Alito wrote, “In these cases, we consider whether respondents who challenge the termination of temporary protected status for aliens from Syria and Haiti are entitled to orders postponing the terminations during litigation. We hold they are not. The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents’ non-constitutional claims and allows ‘no judicial review’ of any determination with respect to the termination of a TPS designation.”
You might not like how the Trump administration is using the law, but the law says what the law says.
If Congress wishes to designate Haiti as a country covered by TPS in law, it can do so. They can define how long people can stay; they can define how people are deported.
But that&#8217;s not what they did. In this law, Justice Thomas said that Congress barred all judicial review of TPS termination decisions, including constitutional claims. Courts are obliged to simply give effect to the ordinary meaning of the law.
Democrats are going to call Republicans cruel. Republicans are going to say, “We should not be taking in hundreds of thousands of people illegally and then backfilling that with a TPS designation.”
The Court isn&#8217;t the problem here. If you don&#8217;t like the law, change the law.
Attacking the Court for simply interpreting the law as written is ugly stuff.

donkeyelephanttugofwar

The Rule Democrats Loved … Until Now

Ben Shapiro

Immigration

Immigration law

Open borders

Opinion

Supreme Court

Former Vice President Kamala Harris provided her own peculiar definition of hope, adding to a growing list of rambling and confusing responses from the 2026 presidential candidate.
&#8220;I really, truly believe this. We each have light inside of us,” Harris <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtCee1K0kh4">told</a> former CNN anchor and podcast host Don Lemon on Friday. “And we need to know that that is what inspires our hope as much as anything external to ourselves.&#8221; 
The former vice president’s attempt to inspire Lemon’s audience when confronted by challenges and failures seemingly fell flat, if not face-first. 
Harris was not finished, though. 

&#8220;And when we feel that and not allow an election or an individual to dampen that light, and instead light, let that light kind of carry us in particular through moments of darkness, that we not only act on that hope, but we inspire that hope in each other,&#8221; she added. 
Harris has quite the word salad catalog. When asked why the Biden administration didn’t release the Epstein files in 2025, Harris <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kamala-serves-up-word-salad-when-asked-about-epstein-files-during-jimmy-kimmel-appearance">offered</a> late-night host Jimmy Kimmel the following response: 

“To give you an answer that will not satisfy your curiosity, I will tell you, perhaps to our damage, um, but we strongly and rightly believed that there should be an absolute separation between what we wanted as an administration and what the Department of Justice did. We absolutely adhered to that, and it was right to do that.” 
“The Justice Department would make its decisions independent of any political or personal, uh, vendetta or concern that we may have and that’s the way it worked,” she finished, before Kimmel was forced to cut to commercial. 
In 2024, the then-presidential candidate <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kamala-serves-up-a-fresh-word-salad-about-democracy">offered</a> the following bit of insight on the nature of democracy:
“Our election is about understanding the importance of this beautiful country of ours in terms of what we stand for around the globe as a democracy,” Harris said. “As a democracy,” she repeated, “we know there’s a duality to the nature of democracy. On the one hand, incredible strength when it is intact.”
In her most recent interview, Lemon asked Harris if she planned to run for president in 2028. In classic Harris fashion, she offered the following answer: 

&#8220;I’ve been spending a lot of time traveling the country [and] listening to folks,&#8221; she replied. &#8220;I think that people want a leader who is willing to take risks, as opposed to just doing what is popular. I think people want to know that they are being seen and heard, and that their leaders — whether they’re at the local, state, federal level or in the White House — are looking first at the people. You know, not looking at themselves in the mirror.&#8221;

Austrian World Summit 2026

Kamala Harris Delivers Another Brutal Word Salad

Kamala Harris

word salad

This is part two of a Daily Wire series exposing the Biden administration&#8217;s previously unreported efforts to enact radical anti-family policies in the name of protecting transgender-identifying children. Part one told <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-wouldnt-call-her-daughter-trans-the-state-took-custody?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Megan+Brock&amp;category=Investigation&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=She+Wouldn%E2%80%99t+Call+Her+Daughter+%E2%80%98Trans.%E2%80%99+The+State+Took+Custody.">the story of Nicole</a>, a mother whose refusal to indulge her daughter&#8217;s gender delusions led the state of Oregon to take custody of the child.
Today, we peer behind the curtain of the Biden administration&#8217;s efforts to replicate Oregon&#8217;s system on a national level. In the waning days of the administration, Biden health officials pushed a rule they said would stop an epidemic of &#8220;family rejection&#8221; straining the foster care system. There was just one problem: even radical LGBT activists told the Biden team it had its facts wrong. That didn&#8217;t stop them.
***
In April 2024, the Biden administration issued a rule pressing state child welfare agencies to stock their systems with foster homes that would “affirm” a child&#8217;s “gender identity,” insisting it was the best way to protect children&#8217;s mental health.
Less than a month prior, Biden officials were scrambling to find data to support their claim.
“I’m on a tight deadline and need to provide data on why LGBTQI+ children and youth are overrepresented in child welfare,” Julie Kruse, the Biden administration&#8217;s Senior Advisor for LGBTQI+ Initiatives at the Administration for Children and Families, wrote in an email to transgender activists unearthed by The Daily Wire.
“There are so many great surveys on disproportionality of negative experiences, WHILE these youth are in care but less quantitative data I’ve been able to find on family rejection and other factors that led a disproportionate number of LGBTQI+ youth to be in foster care in the first case.”
Kruse and others in the administration pushed the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/30/2024-08982/designated-placement-requirements-under-titles-iv-e-and-iv-b-for-lgbtqi-children" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rule</a> to fix what they believed was a massive problem with foster care: a dangerously high number of teens were entering the system because their parents did not accept their gender or sexual identity. The rule&#8217;s rationale pointed to “family rejection” — including refusing to use a child&#8217;s chosen pronouns or not letting a child “learn about their LGBTQ identity” — as harmful, and directed agencies to make placements that support a child&#8217;s gender identity.
Bianca Wilson, an LGBT scholar, warned Kruse that this claim wasn&#8217;t supported by data.
“I encourage you to avoid the go-to explanation of ‘family rejection’ that is often adopted by queer organizations that do so in the absence of data to support it,” <a href="https://luskin.ucla.edu/person/bianca-d-m-wilson" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Wilson</a> wrote to Kruse in an August 28, 2023, email.
“Most of the queerkids in care (based on what we saw In LA and what NYC found) entered care before they were teens,&#8221; wrote Wilson, the lead investigator of the first <a href="https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/sgm-youth-la-foster-care/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> to <a href="https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Surveying-LGBTQ-Youth-Foster-Care-Nov-2016.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">estimate</a> the number of LGBT youth in foster care. &#8220;This means they likely entered care before [Sexual and Gender Minority] expression and identities were especially salient.&#8221;
Kruse got somewhat luckier with Angela Weeks and Marlene Matarese.
The pair had helped lead the cumbersomely named National Quality Improvement Center on Tailored Services, Placement Stability, and Permanency for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and Two-Spirit Children and Youth in Foster Care.
The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190823151605/https://qiclgbtq2s.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">QIC-LGBTQ2S</a> was launched in 2017 and worked with child welfare agencies in Michigan, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Ohio to develop and <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190823160412/http://www.qiclgbtq2s.org/lis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">implement</a> gender affirming child welfare interventions in partnership with the Children’s Bureau, with the goal of transforming child welfare systems to become LGBTQ+ affirming. The programs developed by the QIC-LGBTQ2S group were later <a href="https://sogiecenter.org/programs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">housed</a> and made accessible by the <a href="https://sogiecenter.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National SOGIE Center</a>, a collaborative of transgender activist groups working to influence child welfare systems.
Weeks sent Kruse a federally funded research <a href="https://sogiecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Cuyahoga-Youth-Count-2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> conducted through the initiative she and Matarese led, which &#8220;found that 32% of young people (ages 12-21) identified as LGBTQ+.&#8221; But Weeks made clear that &#8220;there is less administrative data to help us understand the cause of this prevalence,&#8221; and that the extant data did not definitively show the reasons &#8220;LGBTQI+ youth&#8221; entered the foster care system.
Bianca Wilson, the researcher who discouraged Kruse from employing &#8220;the go-to explanation of ‘family rejection,'&#8221; specifically named the Cuyahoga study as insufficient to demonstrate Kruse&#8217;s point in her message, insisting that &#8220;no one has yet done the research needed to examine this question adequately.&#8221;
Wilson&#8217;s warnings did not dissuade Kruse. The Cuyahoga County report is the first study cited in the &#8220;family rejection&#8221; rule the Biden administration submitted to the Federal Register.
&#8220;The rule was premised on the incorrect notion that not affirming and supporting a child’s self-proclaimed sexual identity or identity that rejects his or her sex is unsafe, harassment, mistreatment, and abuse,&#8221; Ethics and Public Policy Center fellow Rachel Morrison told The Daily Wire. &#8220;This radical premise, if adopted, would not be contained to foster care; it would have far-reaching implications for adoption, custody disputes, child care, education, and athletics.&#8221;
“The Biden rule created special rules for children in foster care who identify as ‘LGBTQI+’ based on misrepresentations of research and data, outdated studies, and biased surveys produced by ideologically-driven activist organizations,&#8221; she added.
President Joe Biden continued pushing the idea that “family rejection” was driving kids into child welfare systems during his presidency. Kruse and Weeks worked together to plan an October 2024 “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/inside-the-biden-administrations-speed-dating-event-for-trans-activists-and-megadonors?author=Megan+Brock&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=15&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Biden+Admin+Hosted+%E2%80%98Speed+Dating%E2%80%99+Event+For+Trans+Activists+With+One+Rule" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speed dating</a>” event first exposed by The Daily Wire, which brought together transgender activists, government officials, and major progressive philanthropists to promote and expand the impact of “family acceptance” child welfare programs.
The Biden foster care rule was <a href="https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-secures-final-victory-over-biden-era-rule-forcing-radical-gender" target="_blank" rel="noopener">vacated</a> by a federal judge in June 2025. The Trump administration <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-squashes-controversial-biden-rule-forcing-foster-homes-affirm-childrens-lgbtq-status" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> in March 2026 that it was taking action to rescind the rule.
<div>Wilson stood by her comment to Kruse on family rejection and told The Daily Wire that data indicate LGBTQ+ youth are overrepresented in foster care, but there is no systematic data to explain why. She attributed this to a lack of research funding and the government&#8217;s blocking efforts to collect SOGIE data.</div>
&#8220;Yet, if you look at some research studies, it is also clear that family rejection because of prejudice against a child or youth’s SOGIE is sometimes a major issue leading to placement in foster care. So, family rejection is sometimes a major issue, but we do not have clear data to explain whether it is central to creating LGBTQ youth disproportionality,&#8221; Wilson told The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/she-wouldnt-call-her-daughter-trans-the-state-took-custody?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Megan+Brock&amp;category=Investigation&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=She+Wouldn%E2%80%99t+Call+Her+Daughter+%E2%80%98Trans.%E2%80%99+The+State+Took+Custody.">READ PART ONE: SHE WOULDN&#8217;T CALL HER DAUGHTER &#8216;TRANS.&#8217; THE STATE TOOK CUSTODY.</a>

President Biden Hosts Pride Celebration At The White House

The Evidence Problem At The Heart Of Biden’s Trans Rule

Child Welfare

gender ideology

President Donald Trump revoked a costly Biden-era regulation on Thursday, axing a green energy policy that banned an alleged &#8220;hyper-pollutant&#8221; for refrigeration systems, which led to higher grocery prices across the country. 
Trump’s move will allow businesses to make their own decisions on &#8220;the refrigeration systems that work best for them,&#8221; according to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin. The president delivered the announcement at the White House alongside Zeldin and National Council Director Kevin Hassett. 
Trump <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2057491297137488141">ripped</a> the Biden administration for forcing &#8220;companies to adopt specific high-cost refrigerants, massively driving up the price of transporting and storing various goods.&#8221;
&#8220;Americans faced higher grocery prices and reduced access to critical medical supplies,&#8221; Trump added.
The Biden administration determined that hydrofluorocarbons, which are used for refrigeration and cooling, are more harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. As a result, supermarkets and other businesses were only allowed to use the cooling mechanism in limited quantities, forcing them to turn to more expensive cooling methods and thus passing on higher costs to consumers. 
“Americans were right to be frustrated with the Biden-era refrigerant rules. They didn’t protect human health or the environment and instead piled on costly, unattainable restrictions beyond what the law requires,” said Zeldin. “Today, the Trump EPA is fulfilling President Trump’s promise to lower costs and is fixing every problem we can under the authority Congress gave us. Our actions allow businesses to choose the refrigeration systems that work best for them, saving them billions of dollars. This will be felt directly by American families in lower grocery prices.” 
A White House official told The Daily Wire the rollback on the alleged “hyper-pollutant,” paired with a revision to the 2024 Emissions Reduction and Reclamation rule, “are estimated to save American families and businesses more than 2.4 billion” dollars a year. The White House official added that the savings are “expected to flow directly to consumers through lower grocery prices, cheaper transportation of refrigerated goods, and more affordable home air conditioning.”
The Biden administration claimed the restrictive regulation would lead to green technological innovation, <a href="https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/technology-transitions">stating</a>, &#8220;Facilitating the transition to next-generation technologies through sector-based restrictions on HFCs is one way that EPA and stakeholders are working together to meet ambitious climate protection goals.” 
The rule <a href="https://apnews.com/article/hfc-refrigerant-chemical-air-conditioners-epa-ac01324c05ba5bf5f54bc794c1054296">mandated</a> a 40% reduction in hydrofluorocarbon use, with an 85% reduction scheduled by 2036, leading to higher costs for grocery stores that were left with no choice but to overhaul their refrigeration systems.
Trump&#8217;s move to roll back Biden&#8217;s green regulation is his latest strategy to address Americans&#8217; economic concerns amid rising energy and food prices in recent months. In April&#8217;s inflation report, grocery prices <a href="https://thehill.com/business/personal-finance/5888142-groceries-just-had-the-biggest-price-hike-in-years-its-about-to-get-even-worse-experts-warn/">rose</a> 2.9% year-over-year, the highest rate since 2023. 
Earlier this week, the administration temporarily paused the Jones Act, which would increase the supply of ships able to transport cargo between American ports. The Administration has also urged the Department of the Interior to explore additional energy production on Federal lands and waters, remove all regulatory requirements related to energy that are not grounded in applicable law, eliminate the electric vehicle mandate, and <a href="https://www.energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-reverses-biden-lng-pause-restores-trump-energy-dominance-agenda">reverse</a> Biden’s liquified natural gas export ban.

GettyImages-2202512674

Trump Axes Biden-Era Green Energy Rule That Raised Grocery Prices

Donald Trump

federal regulation

Food

grocery prices

Microsoft’s recruitment of former Biden officials to its payroll raises conflict of interest questions as it provides major tech services to the federal government, a watchdog organization warned. 
The American Accountability Foundation asked the Justice Department on Tuesday to probe the “revolving door” between former Biden administration officials who once “oversaw, regulated, or investigated Microsoft” but now work for the tech giant. The watchdog said the investigation is warranted specifically because the Justice Department is using Microsoft’s Government Community Cloud High platform for sensitive unclassified data. 
“Public confidence in federal cybersecurity, in federal contracting, and in the impartial administration of federal law enforcement depends on the willingness of the institutions named in this letter to ask hard questions when the public record suggests they should be asked,” American Accountability Foundation President Tom Jones said in a <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/1041005159/Microsoft-Revolving-Door?_gl=1*1tcmssc*_up*MQ..*_ga*MTY3NDU2MDUxNi4xNzc5MjE2ODYz*_ga_Z4ZC50DED6*czE3NzkyMTY4NjIkbzEkZzEkdDE3NzkyMTY4NjQkajU4JGwwJGgw*_ga_8KZ8BV0P5W*czE3NzkyMTY4NjIkbzEkZzEkdDE3NzkyMTY4NjQkajU4JGwwJGgw">letter</a> obtained by The Daily Wire. 
One example flagged in the letter was that of Melinda Rogers, who works as a partner of Microsoft’s Customer Voice, focusing on federal, civilian, intelligence, defense, and defense industrial base sectors. Before joining Microsoft in June 2025, Rogers worked for the Justice Department and authorized the department’s use of the tech giant’s Government Community Cloud High platform. 
The platform is described as a highly secure cloud platform for the federal government and government contractors. Jones wrote that the DOJ should probe “whether any employment discussions or negotiations occurred during the period in which she was exercising official authority over Microsoft&#8217;s authorization.”
Microsoft has <a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-cloud-fedramp-cybersecurity-government">previously said</a> that there was no link between Rogers&#8217; hiring and the selection of the technology for the Justice Department. 
Jones noted that Microsoft faced several high-profile hacking incidents between 2019 and 2023 from foreign hackers. These contributed to the joint federal and private <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2022/02/03/dhs-launches-first-ever-cyber-safety-review-board">launch</a> of the Cyber Safety Review Board in February 2022, a partnership aimed at improving the nation&#8217;s cybersecurity. 
The Cyber Safety Review Board&#8217;s March 2024 <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/CSRB-Review-Summer-2023-MEO-Intrusion">report</a> on a 2023 breach of Microsoft&#8217;s systems by Chinese hackers determined that the company&#8217;s “security culture was inadequate and requires an overhaul” and that a “cascade” of “avoidable errors” led to the intrusions. 
During this time, current Microsoft president of global affairs Lisa Monaco was the deputy attorney general at the Justice Department. She <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/deputy-attorney-general-lisa-o-monaco-announces-new-civil-cyber-fraud-initiative">launched</a> the Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative with the intention of using the False Claims Act against contractors who make misrepresentations about cybersecurity risks. 
“During her tenure, the Department brought such actions against companies whose conduct, on the public record, appears far less serious than the conduct attributed to Microsoft in the same period, including against a medical contractor, a defense contractor, a telecommunications provider, and a university. No such action was ever brought against Microsoft,” Jones wrote. 
Jones added that the DOJ’s Civil Division and the National Fraud Enforcement Division should “evaluate whether Microsoft&#8217;s representations to federal customers&#8221; concerning the security of its systems are accurate. 
President Donald Trump demanded in September 2025 that the company fire Monaco, accusing her of being a “menace” to national security. 
The American Accountability Foundation further noted that multiple individuals involved with the Cyber Safety Review board subsequently joined “Microsoft as employees or consultants, or joining firms that represent Microsoft, in close proximity to their official actions concerning the company.”
These individuals <a href="https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/CSRB-Review-Summer-2023-MEO-Intrusion">include</a> former FBI official Bryan Vorndran, who <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryan-vorndran-43b3025/">joined</a> Microsoft as its deputy chief information security officer in June 2025, and <a href="https://commons.erau.edu/avcysecworkshop-bios-2025/12/">Jerry Davis</a>, who became a chief security advisor for Microsoft after his <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/jldavisnasa/details/experience/">work</a> with the board. 
Another individual mentioned in the report is former National Security Agency Cybersecurity Director Robert Joyce, who founded a consulting firm after leaving the federal government. His firm&#8217;s page <a href="https://www.joycecyber.com/empty-page">notes</a> that he has advised Microsoft.
The individuals named in the letter are not accused of any specific violations, but Jones said the hiring pattern should face scrutiny by federal investigators to ensure transparency.  
“We do believe, however, that the cumulative public record raises questions that have not been answered, that the questions are serious, and that the public has a substantial interest in seeing them addressed by the institutions with the authority and the duty to do so,” Jones said. 
&#8220;Federal ethics rules prohibit government officials from participating in matters in which they have a financial interest, and require cooling-off periods before certain officials may represent private parties before their former agencies,&#8221; Jones said. &#8220;What no investigation has yet examined is whether the prospect of future employment shaped the decisions these officials made while still in government.&#8221; 
Microsoft received The Daily Wire’s request for comment, but did not respond to questions on the letter or its ties to former Biden officials.

President Biden Hosts Presidential Citizens Medal Ceremony

Biden Officials Who Were Investigating Big Tech Giant Are Now Working For It

Department of Justice

Microsoft

Growing up, I went to church with my family every Sunday to hear my father preach. During the week, we spent time with other Christian families praying, singing hymns, and living out our faith.
We felt safe practicing our Christian faith because we serve the all-powerful God, but also because of the U.S. Constitution.
Fast forward to the Obama and, even worse, the Biden administration. It became obvious to anyone paying attention that our government disfavored Christians in almost every way. To name just a few, we were being discriminated against in government contracts, as Christian charities, in First Amendment claims, as foster parents, and even in service to the country. A high-ranking military official quietly shared with me that during President Joe Biden&#8217;s administration, Christian members of the military were afraid to wear Crosses due to fear of retaliation and potential withholding of promotions.
But finally, thanks to months of work and an over 200-page report from President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ), we know this to be true. Last week, the DOJ published its extensive and well-documented report, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1438506/dl?utm_medium=email&amp;utm_source=govdelivery" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1438506/dl?utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgovdelivery&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1778090745948000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2AebOqL2v4IBjqZYIR0WoT">Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias within the Federal Government.</a>
While it may not come as a shock to Christians that former President Biden and his cronies engaged in anti-Christian actions, what is shocking is the extent of the persecution.
During those four years, the federal government prosecuted pro-life activists under the FACE Act for peaceful protests outside abortion clinics, with the Biden DOJ pursuing more severe charges and significantly harsher sentences for peaceful pro-life defendants than violent pro-abortion defendants. The Biden Administration even colluded with abortion providers to persecute pro-life Americans.
The Biden Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act to mean that employers are required to accommodate an employee&#8217;s abortion, even if doing so would go against the employer&#8217;s religious beliefs, such as those of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Biden administration relied on the Supreme Court’s narrow Bostock decision to expand the definition of sex discrimination across federal policy, including Title IX and EEOC enforcement — moves that prompted legal challenges from religious employers who argued their beliefs were not adequately protected.
Thousands of religious organizations that participated in the National School Lunch Program were barred from doing so under the Biden administration unless they complied with the new definition of sex. This reduced the amount of food available to kids who relied on it.
The Biden administration attempted to prohibit so-called &#8220;conversion therapy,&#8221; a.k.a. the ability for Christian counselors to counsel those struggling with homosexuality or gender dysphoria.
At the international level, the Biden administration removed Nigeria from its list of countries of particular concern, despite the well-documented cases of Christians being raped, murdered, and tortured for their religious beliefs.
The examples are seemingly endless. The takeaway is that the Biden administration did everything it could to prohibit Christians from acting in accordance with our beliefs. The administration was willing to risk the lives of Americans for the sake of persecuting Christianity.
This should concern all Americans, Christian or not. This is not the America the Founders created, and it’s not the one I grew up with.
The government should not be in the business of persecuting anyone for their religious beliefs. Christians must be free to practice their religion without fear of being harassed by the government.
Going forward, we are grateful that the Trump DOJ has identified and exposed the depth of the anti-Christian bias toward and persecution of Christians during former President Biden’s tenure. And we are glad the DOJ is working to rectify the anti-Christian policies so that Christians’ rights are protected. We encourage the DOJ to follow through and work to restore that which was taken from Christians throughout the government, and to ensure this persecution does not happen by the federal government again.
However, the onus is on us, as Christians, to be guardians of the rights of future generations of Christian believers and members of other faiths. The Founders understood, thanks to Evangelist George Whitefield, that our rights come from God, not government. We must permit no erosion of these rights. At Concerned Women for America, we simply will not permit it. Join our efforts.
***
Penny Young Nance is CEO and president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, and author of 7 Rules for Success in Business and Life: A Woman’s Guide. <a href="https://concernedwomen.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://concernedwomen.org/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1778090745948000&amp;usg=AOvVaw1uPlGFLke1g6sWeIcr6wot">https://concernedwomen.org/</a>

2016 Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia

Biden And His Cronies Engaged In Anti-Christian Actions, What’s Shocking Is The Extent

Religious Freedom

CNN panelists might have amnesia. It’s worse, apparently, than the former vegetable-in-chief they spent years defending.
On Wednesday&#8217;s NewsNight, a pompous and overconfident Neera Tanden, former senior Joe Biden White House official, talked over Scott Jennings, wildly gesturing and insisting that Joe Biden never went after his political opponents! She seemed personally offended by the suggestion.
Maybe she’s still living in the brain-dead Biden era, where a constant ice cream-brain freeze obscured reality. But Joe Biden’s administration almost singularly targeted conservatives, Christians, and, as it turns out, nuns — for the crime of being nuns.
That’s one way to book a direct trip to hell. 
According to a new exclusive Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-biden-doj-lawyers-fantasized-about-prosecuting-catholic-nuns-emails-show?author=Mary+Margaret+Olohan&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=EXCLUSIVE%3A+Biden+DOJ+Lawyers+Fantasized+About+Prosecuting+Catholic+Nuns%2C+Emails+Show">report</a>, Justice Department prosecutors in the Biden administration fantasized about targeting Catholic sisters. Text messages obtained by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) show DOJ attorneys Joseph Cooney and Molly Gaston salivating over a New York Times photo of religious sisters in traditional habits and veils at the January 6 rally.
“I would like to take a special assignment of finding and prosecuting them,” Gaston wrote. Cooney replied: “I’m with you. Although I’d like to prosecute any nun who still wears the head habit.” Then: “Hahaha.”
God’s not laughing.
This is the same Cooney who is now running to represent Virginia&#8217;s 7th congressional district — right in the heart of the Diocese of Arlington, one of the most traditional Catholic dioceses in the United States, serving over 430,000 faithful. The irony appears entirely lost on him. You’d have to possess a breathtaking level of arrogance to miss it.
If this sounds familiar, it&#8217;s because earlier this month, the Trump DOJ&#8217;s Weaponization Working Group released an 800-page report exposing the lengths to which the Biden administration weaponized the FACE Act against peaceful pro-life defendants — mostly Christians — while barely acknowledging the firebombings, vandalism, and coordinated attacks on pregnancy centers and churches.
They called Christian beliefs “culty” in open court, screened jurors for religiosity, and dispatched 16 FBI agents to arrest Catholic father Mark Houck in front of his weeping children. All while cozying up to abortion advocacy groups who fed them dossiers on pro-life activists. 
Sure, gas was high, the economy was in the toilet, and illegal migrants were flooding our borders. But hey, at least the nuns and baby-lovers were getting prosecuted. In fact, Biden prosecutors sought an average of 26.8 months in prison for pro-lifers.
I don’t want to hear about the “weaponization of the DOJ” from a former staffer of the man who wrote the book on it.
One side note: In light of King Charles <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-empty-crown-why-america-should-ignore-king-charles">jetting</a> here this week to lecture us on religious tolerance and “shared values” in his address to Congress, I ask that his majesty aim his bloody, blasphemous babbling at the previous president, please and thank you. As it was, he was the religiously intolerant one. Of Christians.
Of course, beneath all of these lies is something far more sinister. It’s the quiet part they desperately want to say aloud: a seething hatred of the entire edifice of human rights, individual liberty, limited government, and objective morality that built the richest, freest, and most innovative societies in human history. That edifice rests on one revolutionary Judeo-Christian idea — Imago Dei. Every human being is made in the image of God. That single doctrine shattered pagan hierarchies, declared that kings and peasants alike have equal dignity before the Creator, and slapped a firm moral limit on the reach of government power. 
 
They despise the religious conviction that makes abortion grotesque. The faith that gave us the work ethic and charitable impulse that built universities, hospitals, and the scientific revolution. The moral foundation that gave us a rule of law, declaring that even the president answers to a higher authority. 
John Adams wasn’t kidding when he said the Constitution only works for “moral and religious people.” Strip away that Judeo-Christian root and you don’t get neutral secularism, you get moral subjectivism, where feelings replace facts and the state becomes the new God, deciding who has rights and who gets hunted. 
The Biden DOJ was purposeful and nefarious. It was, in effect, an extinction project. They know Christianity stands in the way of total cultural control, so they smear pro-lifers as “extremists,” surveil churches, stack the DOJ with activists who openly despise traditional faith, and literally text each other about hunting nuns.
And then Neera Tanden has the audacity to sit on CNN and pretend none of it happened. 
Spare us. 
I think they’re arrogant ideologues who hold the rest of us in contempt. But I’ll still pray for them.

US-POLITICS-BIDEN-FIREFIGHTERS

Turns Out The Seething, Anti-Christian Biden DOJ Was Real All Along

Christian Persecution

A former FBI official who oversaw the agency&#8217;s production of an infamous memo targeting “Radical Traditional Catholics” joked about how it would make good fodder for a memoir, according to emails viewed by The Daily Wire. 
Stanley Meador, who now works in Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger&#8217;s administration, ran the FBI’s Richmond field office when it produced an <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/fbi-anti-catholic-memo.pdf">internal memo</a> attempting to link traditional Catholic beliefs to criminal activity. After backlash to the memo, Meador downplayed it and suggested that one of the agents who produced it include it in their memoirs, according to emails released by the Justice Department. 
“No apology needed [redacted],” he wrote on July 7, 2023. “I’m glad you are on the team and thankful for your commitment. Keep that head up, this too shall pass. Will make for a great chapter in your memoirs some day!”
<div id="attachment_1086743" style="width: 1601px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1086743" class="size-full wp-image-1086743" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-29-at-2.05.35-PM.png" alt="" width="1591" height="495" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-29-at-2.05.35-PM.png 1591w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-29-at-2.05.35-PM-300x93.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-29-at-2.05.35-PM-1024x319.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-29-at-2.05.35-PM-768x239.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Screenshot-2026-04-29-at-2.05.35-PM-1536x478.png 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1591px) 100vw, 1591px" />Justice Department report.</div>
The emails were included in a Justice Department report released Thursday morning on anti-Christian bias from the federal government during the Biden administration. 
The document, referred to as the “Richmond Memo,” relied on the leftist Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), now facing criminal wire fraud charges, to link racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists with what the agency called “radical-traditionalist” Catholic beliefs. The memo was retracted shortly after it was leaked in February 2023, generating outrage from Republican lawmakers and Catholics. 
Meador’s July 7 email came after one of the FBI agents involved in crafting the memo apologized over the document.
“I am terribly sorry for all that everyone has had to endure as a result of this product. Each person negatively impacted is a trusted colleague and/or supervisor whom I deeply respect and admire,” the unidentified FBI employee wrote. “I feel personally responsible as I should have known the potential DT pitfalls and the susceptibility to politicization surrounding this paper better than anyone. Thanks for supporting us and please accept my sincerest apologies.”
Meador, now <a href="https://www.governor.virginia.gov/cabinet/name-1081469-en.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Secretary</a> of Public Safety and Homeland Security in Virginia, was removed from the FBI in June 2025 after serving for over two decades with the agency. 
The Richmond Memo was an FBI product known as a “Domain Perspective,” or an internal threat assessment document. The document argued that the FBI should pursue threat mitigation based on the interest in violent extremists in so-called “radical-traditionalist Catholic (RTC) ideology.” Using SPLC data, the FBI identified nine of these groups.
Other documents included in Thursday&#8217;s Justice Department report showed that intelligence officers inside the FBI expressed concerns about the citation of the SPLC, but were ignored by leadership. 
“This product cites more subjective information from SPLC (a list of hate groups) without examining SPLC’s threshold for determining a hate group or explanation of how that threshold aligns with the FBI’s definition,” one intelligence officer wrote. “This product’s Source Summary Statement does not address factors that would affect the quality and credibility of SPLC as a source for subjective information, such as it previously issuing apologies and retracting its naming of individuals or groups as extremist.”
The DOJ wrote in its anti-Christian bias report that the FBI used “an unsubstantiated claim by the Southern Poverty Law Center that several traditional Catholic churches were ‘hate groups’ — as justification to launch a two-pronged attack against traditional Catholics.”
“FBI Richmond thus assessed that traditional Catholics and racially motivated violent extremists may share ‘common cause’ on issues of ‘abortion rights, immigration, affirmative action, and LGBTQ protections,’” the DOJ wrote Thursday. “In an appendix, the Domain Perspective cited to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s identification of radical traditional Catholics.”
As criticism mounted, former President Joe Biden&#8217;s FBI Director Christopher Wray said the Richmond Memo did &#8220;not reflect FBI standards.”
“We do not conduct investigations based on religious affiliation or practices, full stop,” Wray said. “We have also now ordered our inspection division to take a look at how this happened and try to figure out how we can make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.”
In an interview with the task force investigating anti-Christian bias, FBI Director Kash Patel said his team did a deep dive into the Richmond Memo. 
“We came to learn that companies like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League were out there working with the FBI, giving them false information to generate a memo that allowed law enforcement a [] &#8216;justification&#8217; to go after and attack people of faith,” Patel said. 
The DOJ report also details how the Biden administration targeted pro-life Christians for peaceful protests and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-biden-partnered-with-abortion-activists-to-track-and-imprison-pro-lifers?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=BREAKING%3A+How+Biden+Partnered+With+Abortion+Activists+To+Track+And+Imprison+Pro-Lifers">outlines</a> other Biden-era policies that suppressed Christian expression.
The release of the report comes one day after The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-biden-doj-lawyers-fantasized-about-prosecuting-catholic-nuns-emails-show?topStoryPosition=undefined&amp;author=Mary+Margaret+Olohan&amp;category=Exclusive&amp;elementPosition=0&amp;row=1&amp;rowHeadline=Top+Stories&amp;rowType=Top+Stories&amp;title=EXCLUSIVE%3A+Biden+DOJ+Lawyers+Fantasized+About+Prosecuting+Catholic+Nuns%2C+Emails+Show">obtained text messages</a> from Biden-era DOJ prosecutors discussing their desires to target Catholic nuns. One prosecutor said he would &#8220;like to prosecute any nun who still wears the head habit,&#8221; when working on January 6-related cases.

MixCollage-29-Apr-2026-03-15-PM-9949

READ IT: The Internal ‘Joke’ That Followed The Biden-Era FBI Targeting Of Catholics

abigail spanberger

Catholic Church

Christopher Wray

kash patel

Virginia

After finding out that the Justice Department official who spearheaded prosecutions against pro-life activists had been fired, one of the defendants imprisoned by the Biden administration over a peaceful protest celebrated and said he would like to attend some “firing parties.”
Calvin Zastrow, 65, who spent 100 days in federal prison for his role in a non-violent protest at an abortion facility in Tennessee, told The Daily Wire he was pleased to hear some of those involved in Biden’s crackdown on pro-lifers had been held accountable. Zastrow’s comments came after the Justice Department <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-biden-partnered-with-abortion-activists-to-track-and-imprison-pro-lifers?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=BREAKING%3A+How+Biden+Partnered+With+Abortion+Activists+To+Track+And+Imprison+Pro-Lifers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released</a> a bombshell report detailing how Biden officials worked closely with pro-abortion groups to monitor, track, and prosecute pro-life activists.
Before the report was released, it was announced that Sanjay Patel, the official who led the prosecutions against the pro-lifers, had been fired.
“I want to come to some firing parties, I think that&#8217;s fun to watch. That&#8217;d be a good time to celebrate,” Zastrow said. “I&#8217;d like to see accountability on the unnamed FBI agents who filed reports on us, and we still don&#8217;t know their names, who followed us, who tracked us, who messed with our family.”
Zastrow, a devout Christian who travels the country engaging in evangelism and pro-life events, was convicted in January 2024 of violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a Clinton-era statute that makes it a crime to block the entrances of abortion facilities. He and 22 other pro-life activists were <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pardoned-pro-life-activist-says-hes-running-on-adrenaline-and-the-holy-ghost-after-trump-pardon" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pardoned</a> by President Donald Trump his first week in office.
The DOJ report revealed that the Biden administration weaponized the FACE Act by closely working with radical groups like the National Abortion Federation to keep tabs on pro-life activists. Zastrow said he would like to see FACE repealed, saying that “the federal government shouldn&#8217;t have this big of a club.”
Emails revealed earlier this month showed abortion groups were tracking Zastrow and were working closely with Patel.
In one email included in the DOJ’s report from September 2021, Patel reached out to the National Abortion Federation to ask if they knew Zastrow’s travel plans. “Do you have any info on Zastrow and Co’s travel to Montana?” Patel wrote.
Zastrow said he wasn’t surprised that pro-abortion groups tracked him and his family, saying that had been going on for years. Yet he did agree with one thing the pro-abortionists said about him and his fellow activists.
“They&#8217;re trying to make us to be wild-eyed, religious zealots,” he said. “And that&#8217;s because we are wild-eyed, religious zealots for Jesus.”
Paul Vaughn, a Tennessee father who was placed on house arrest after being <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/a-glorious-struggle-pro-life-father-of-11-targeted-by-biden-awaits-sentencing-over-pro-life-protest" target="_blank" rel="noopener">convicted</a> on the FACE Act, also welcomed the report from the Justice Department.
“We’re thrilled the truth is coming out,&#8221; he told The Daily Wire. &#8220;We knew that the Biden DOJ was acting inappropriately and maliciously behind the scenes.&#8221;
Vaughn’s home was raided by armed FBI agents without warning in 2022 and his young children were outside getting ready for school.
“We had no warning, we had no knowledge that we were even being investigated, let alone charged, until they showed up and arrested me at gunpoint in front of my children,” he said. “It&#8217;s just wickedness. It was designed to instill fear in a segment of the population that is pro-life that believes abortion is murder, and it believes it shouldn&#8217;t be a part of a civil society.”
In the days leading up to Vaughn’s arrest by the FBI, emails showed that the Justice Department officials discussed the optics of arresting the defendants rather than allowing self-surrender. In one email, Patel wrote that the “unspoken reason” the FBI was going to stage dramatic arrests rather than allow self-surrender was because “the FBI really likes to make arrests.”
Steve Crampton, a lawyer with the Thomas More Society who represented many of the pro-life defendants, praised the Trump administration for its extensive investigation into Biden’s use of the FACE Act.
“It is just extraordinary to me that the Trump DOJ has taken such pains to right the egregious wrongs of the previous administration,” Crampton told The Daily Wire. “I think this is, you know, the word unprecedented is overused these days, but this is unprecedented.”
He said the hundreds of pages of documents included in the report showed that the Biden administration engaged in selective prosecution, discrimination on the basis of religion, and discrimination on the basis of political allegiances.
Part of the Biden administration’s novel strategy against the pro-life defendants was to pair the FACE Act charges with conspiracy against rights, a felony charge that can be punished with over a decade in prison.
One email flagged by Crampton revealed a Justice Department official saying that the conspiracy against rights charge was specifically being used to take away the gun rights of defendants. An official said that prosecutors were “inclined” to bring the conspiracy charge so that the defendants in Detroit would have felonies and would be &#8220;barred from possessing firearms.”
Crampton added that the emails revealed the political bias of the Justice Department under Biden.
“It just exposes the ideological underpinnings of the DOJ, and it&#8217;s a love affair, really, with the poor abortion movement,” he said. “It just kind of makes my skin crawl to think that these are the folks that are charged with and empowered with the full weight of the federal government to apply the law in an even handed way.”
He said he was grateful to see Patel and three other FACE Act prosecutors cut from the DOJ on Monday.
“It&#8217;s astonishing to read and to know that this is the way it ought to be, trying to restore the rule of law is an awfully difficult undertaking after it&#8217;s been trampled underfoot by the Biden administration,” Crampton said. “But God bless President Trump and his team for trying to restore some faith in the system.”

IMG_20240820_065228419_HDR

Pro-Lifer Imprisoned By Biden Responds To DOJ Shakeup: ‘I Want To Come To Some Firing Parties’

Abortion

FACE Act

Spirit Airlines might soon opt for liquidation if they are not bought out or bailed out — and the Biden administration’s opposition to its proposed merger with JetBlue may be largely to blame, one economist explained to The Daily Wire.
A federal judge ultimately dealt the death blow to the plan to have the two airlines combine, but the ruling ultimately stemmed from a 2023 lawsuit filed by the Biden-era DOJ and a handful of states. The lawsuit arguably played a key role in the airline&#8217;s demise, as Spirit now struggles to get out of bankruptcy and risks becoming a ghost of aviation&#8217;s past.
“Today’s decision by JetBlue is yet another victory for the Justice Department’s work on behalf of American consumers,” then-Attorney General <a href="https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-statements-jetblue-terminating-acquisition-spirit-airlines" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Merrick Garland</a> stated at the time.
“The Justice Department proved in court that a merger between JetBlue and Spirit would have caused tens of millions of travelers to face higher fares and fewer choices. We will continue to vigorously enforce the nation’s antitrust laws,” he added.
Peter St. Onge, an economist at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Wire that the blocked merger — along with high taxation and rising jet-fuel prices due to the ongoing conflict in Iran — have led to the airline’s woes.
“The main thing that drove them over the edge was blocking the JetBlue merger. On the day that it was denied, their stock fell 47%. And the big picture here is that the low-cost carriers can&#8217;t pass anything on, right? They have razor-thin margins, like 2 or 3%. So they need scale in order to survive,” he said.
“The Department of Justice argued that Spirit was useful because it was keeping fares low, but of course, the reason it was keeping fares low was because of that razor-thin margin. And the only way to sustain that was to get scale. So effectively the Department of Justice killed the golden goose because it was golden,” he added.
St. Onge noted that an increase in regulations under Biden added increased difficulty.
“The legacy carriers were able to pass that on. The low-cost carriers, they couldn&#8217;t pass it on,” he said.
President Donald Trump told CNBC’s &#8220;<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/21/cnbc-transcript-president-donald-trump-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-today-.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Squawk Box</a>&#8221; on Tuesday that he wants to see that airline get purchased, saying “Spirit’s in trouble” and suggesting that “maybe the federal government should help that one out.”
“I don’t mind mergers. I think I’d love somebody to buy Spirit, it’s 14,000 jobs,” he said.
However, he cautioned against a floated merger between American Airlines and United Airlines, as American Airlines denied a Reuters report over the possibility, according to <a href="https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/04/21/american-airlines-has-denied-rumors-of-a-merger-wi/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Motley Fool</a>.
“But with American, it&#8217;s doing fine, and United is doing very well […] I don&#8217;t like having them merge,” Trump added.
St. Onge noted that “United and American traditionally would be an absolute no-go for antitrust” due to their much larger size, noting that Trump may view Spirit as a “special case” because of their strong emphasis on “low-cost fares” for Americans who otherwise could not afford to fly.
Last week, the Department of Transportation told The Daily Wire on background that &#8220;when Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg blocked a proposed Spirit/JetBlue merger in 2024, their DOJ bragged it was &#8216;a victory for U.S. travelers who deserve lower prices and better choices.'&#8221;
&#8220;If American consumers were faced with one fewer ultra low cost carriers, they would obviously disagree,&#8221; the department added, noting that DOT is &#8220;monitoring the situation.&#8221;
Spirit Airlines did not respond to a request for comment. The airline told <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/15/spirit-airlines-could-liquidate-as-early-as-this-week-sources-say.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CNBC</a> last week that it does not “comment on market rumors and speculation.”

signal-2026-04-21-160336

Did Joe Biden Kill Spirit Airlines?

Aviation

JetBlue Airlines

Merrick Garland

Spirit Airlines

Travel

Menu