Medical schools nationwide are forcing students to promote left-wing ideologies on race, gender, and obesity at the expense of proper patient care, according to a new watchdog <a href="https://speechfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/CRITICAL-CONDITION_Speech-First-Medical-Schools-Report.pdf">report</a> released on Thursday.
The comprehensive investigation, produced by non-profit group Speech First, examined 54 public medical schools across the United States, seeking to document how &#8220;diversity, equity, and inclusion&#8221; (DEI) mandates are being enforced throughout medical education.
&#8220;This ideological conformity is required not only of students but also of faculty, who are often tasked with serving as enforcers of these mandates,&#8221; the report explains, noting that ideological requirements begin as early as the admissions process.
The report, first <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/news/medical-schools-nationwide-promote-weight-inclusivity-in-ongoing-dei-push/">obtained</a> by National Review, found that 99% of America&#8217;s top medical schools now “mandated commitments to racial justice ideology,” while 89% “did so for gender ideology.”
The report found 30% of examined schools mandate a form of “weight inclusivity,” instructing future doctors to avoid “fatphobia” despite the <a href="https://newsroom.heart.org/news/obesity-related-cardiovascular-disease-deaths-tripled-between-1999-and-2020">heaps</a> of medical <a href="https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr-details/3420">evidence</a> establishing the correlation between obesity and health risks.
These DEI commitments manifest through “mandatory courses, rotations, orientations, statements, and policies,” and even modified Hippocratic Oaths.
As examples, dozens of investigated schools emphasize the impact of white privilege and systematic oppression on medical treatment, and have student guidelines enforcing adherence to a patient’s preferred pronouns rather than their biological sex.
At the University of Texas at Austin, medical students are taught to avoid stigmatizing language, replacing terms like &#8220;overweight&#8221; or &#8220;obese&#8221; with euphemisms such as &#8220;people with larger size,&#8221; while the University of Vermont&#8217;s program explicitly states that &#8220;weight is not an important indicator of health.&#8221;
At the University of Connecticut, for example, medical students must pledge to &#8220;work actively to identify and mitigate my own biases&#8221; and &#8220;specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination, and racism,&#8221; according to documents obtained by Speech First.
The University of Arizona requires students to gain experience in transgender medicine, where students are “instructed that gender transitioning in children is normal, beginning with social changes in pre-adolescence and progressing to puberty-suppressing medications.”
Several harassment policies at medical schools now explicitly prohibit &#8220;misgendering,&#8221; with Oregon Health and Science University classifying it as a form of harassment subject to disciplinary action.
Medical school faculty face similar ideological pressures, as the University of Illinois-Chicago&#8217;s faculty manual states that &#8220;all College of Medicine faculty, regardless of track or rank, are expected to demonstrate a commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.&#8221;
The report identifies multiple cases where medical professionals faced serious professional consequences for questioning these ideologies, including Dr. Allan M. Josephson, who was demoted and ultimately terminated from the University of Louisville after criticizing transitioning treatments for children during a 2017 Heritage Foundation panel despite a “stellar record,” according to the non-profit.
The investigation details how this ideological enforcement begins before the student is even admitted to medical school.
The University of Missouri asks applicants how they will &#8220;contribute to the overall diversity of the medical school&#8221; and &#8220;foster an inclusive learning environment,&#8221; functioning as what Speech First characterizes as a political litmus test.
Students, as well as faculty, who question these mandates risk significant consequences. Kieran Bhattacharya, a former University of Virginia medical student, was banned from campus after questioning a presentation on microaggressions during a 2018 panel. After challenging the concept, he was flagged by faculty as &#8220;antagonistic,&#8221; leading to disciplinary action.
Speech First&#8217;s study found that even the Hippocratic Oath has been modified at several universities, with the University of Connecticut School of Medicine recently updating the oath to reflect an anti-racist narrative.
“I will work actively to identify and mitigate my own biases so as to treat all patients and coworkers with humility and dignity. I will strive to promote health equity. I will actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination, and racism,” the updated oath reads.
The report concludes with recommendations for legislative action, including banning mandatory ideological activism courses and ensuring medical curricula prioritize science-based teachings over politically driven health ideologies.
“If this continues, I’m horrified we’ll get doctors who will shove kids into gender chaos, favor race over health, and lie to obese patients, endangering us all for a deranged fringe,” said Jared Gould, research fellow for Speech First, per National Review.

University of Minnesota White Coat Ceremony, August 2022, Star Tribune photo

Med Schools Replace Medical Merit With Obesity Denial And DEI Doctrine, Watchdog Reports

Censorship

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

gender ideology

medical school

Obesity

Social Issues

U.S.

Meta&#8217;s Oversight Board expressed indignation at the social media giant for its January policy overhaul that axed fact-checking and eased restrictions on discussions about immigration and gender identity.
The independent oversight board railed against the company for implementing the changes &#8220;hastily&#8221; with supposedly no transparency about &#8220;what, if any, prior human rights due diligence&#8221; was performed.
Zuckerberg acknowledged that previous content moderation efforts had resulted in &#8220;too many mistakes and too much censorship.&#8221;
President Trump had frequently criticized Facebook during his first term, culminating in his platform suspension following the January 6, 2021, Capitol events — a ban eventually lifted as he launched his successful 2024 campaign.
Since President Trump’s election to a second term, the Meta CEO has been working to mend fences and roll back a decade of content policies that prohibited “hate speech” and supposed misinformation that conservatives have long criticized as biased.
As part of the January policy <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/metas-oversight-board-rebukes-company-over-policy-overhaul-2025-04-23/">overhaul</a>, Meta scrapped its U.S. fact-checking program, replacing third-party partnerships with a Community Notes tool similar to Elon Musk&#8217;s X, per Reuters.
In addition, Meta removed restrictions on “hate speech” towards LGBT individuals, and also announced it would stop proactively scanning platforms for &#8220;less severe policy violations,&#8221; instead focusing its automated systems only on serious content like terrorism and child exploitation.
Among its 17 recommendations, the board requested that Meta improve enforcement of its bullying policies while clarifying which hateful ideologies remain banned.
The board expressed concern about potential impacts in countries experiencing conflicts, urging Meta to &#8220;assess whether the changes could have uneven consequences globally.&#8221;
Despite the success of Community Notes on X, the Oversight Board still requested that Meta assess the new tool&#8217;s effectiveness and release reports every six months.
Meta said it would respond to the board&#8217;s 17 recommendations within 60 days.
The board did uphold Meta&#8217;s decisions to allow some controversial content, including posts discussing transgender people&#8217;s access to bathrooms, while requiring the removal of posts with racist slurs.
A Meta told Reuters the company welcomed decisions &#8220;that leave up or restore content in the interest of promoting free expression,&#8221; but did not address rulings calling for content removal.
Despite tensions, Meta has so far committed to funding the Oversight Board through 2027, allocating at least $35 million annually over the next three years, placed in an Irrevocable Trust designed to protect the board&#8217;s independence.
Oversight Board Co-Chair Paolo Carozza stated, &#8220;We have no reason to think that Meta is soured on the board or planning to make any large-scale structural changes in terms of its commitment with the board.&#8221;

US-POLITICS-IT-FACEBOOK-TRUMP

Meta Oversight Board Fumes As Facebook Ends Censorship Initiatives

Facebook

Mark Zuckerberg

Social Media Censorship

Democrats and the media defend a deportee. The State Department announces that it has fully dismantled an agency accused of censoring conservative voices. And, the UK’s Supreme Court hands down a landmark ruling clearly defining the word “woman.”
It’s Friday, April 18, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dems-defend-maryland-deportee-gec-operation-ends-4-18-25/id1576594336?i=1000703971466" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2>Controversial Deportee Has A Checkered Past</h2>
<div id="attachment_909431" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-909431" class="size-large wp-image-909431" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Kilmar-Protesters-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Kilmar-Protesters-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Kilmar-Protesters-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Kilmar-Protesters-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Kilmar-Protesters-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Kilmar-Protesters-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Kilmar-Protesters-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Kilmar-Protesters-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)</div>
Topline: As the Trump administration pushes forward with its mass deportation effort, Democrats are fighting for the return of one deportee sent to El Salvador.
The story centers on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old man who entered the United States illegally in 2011. Back in 2019, Garcia was arrested by ICE for suspected ties to the MS-13 gang, and given a deportation order. However, a court ruled at the time that Abrego Garcia should not be sent to his home country of El Salvador over potential threats from rival gangs there. Despite that deportation order, he remained in the country until he was arrested again by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador days later.
By April, the Supreme Court ruled that Garcia’s return to El Salvador violated the previous court order that he be sent elsewhere — and directed the White House to facilitate his return to America. The Trump administration conceded that it was a “clerical error” on their part, but stated that it was up to officials in El Salvador to decide whether he would be released or not. 
Democrats used the incident to argue the Trump administration is being careless in its mass deportation efforts — they say Abrego Garcia was a law-abiding father who never should’ve been deported in the first place. As the story gained traction, a number of Democratic lawmakers vowed to go to El Salvador to fight for his release, including Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to the prison where Abrego Garcia’s being held. Van Hollen was initially denied access by local authorities, but successfully met with Garcia on Thursday night.
&#8220;This is like taking away people’s freedom,” Van Hollen <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/sen-chris-van-hollen-compares-153458159.html">told</a> MSNBC. “That does not sound like a conservative idea to me. That is something that, of course, authoritarian governments engage in. And it’s a very fast road to tyranny if we don’t all stand up against it.&#8221;
Democrats have depicted Garcia as an upstanding citizen, husband, and father, but new reports are painting a very different picture. A police report released by the DOJ from his initial arrest back in 2019 shows that Abrego Garcia was found loitering with three other men, two of whom were previously convicted MS-13 members — when officers approached, they attempted to hide drugs under a nearby car. At the time of his arrest, Abrego Garcia was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat — authorities say that’s a symbol of “members in good standing with the MS-13.” Then, in 2021, Abrego Garcia’s wife sought a protective order against him following years of alleged domestic abuse. According to her sworn affidavit from the time, his wife alleged that on different occasions, Abrego Garcia punched her, leaving her with black eyes, hit her with his work boots, scratched her eyes, and drove erratically with their one-year-old in the car. She wrote in her own words, “I am afraid to be close to him.” That case did not move forward after Garcia’s wife failed to appear in court to testify against him.
 And that’s not all — the <a href="https://tennesseestar.com/justice/bidens-fbi-ordered-tn-highway-patrol-to-release-maryland-man-recently-deported-to-el-salvador-after-he-was-detained-in-2022-traffic-stop-on-suspicion-of-human-trafficking/tpappert/2025/04/16/">Tennessee Star</a> learned Wednesday that Abrego Garcia had been stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol in 2022 on suspicion of human trafficking. In that instance, he’d been pulled over with seven individuals in his car, but no luggage. When questioned, he told officers he was driving them from Texas to Maryland on behalf of his “boss” who worked in “construction.&#8221; Abrego Garcia was detained for two hours and was found not to have a valid driver&#8217;s license, which is a misdemeanor offense.
<h2>Rubio Dismantles The Global Engagement Center</h2>
<div id="attachment_909429" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-909429" class="size-large wp-image-909429" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Rubio-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Rubio-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Rubio-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Rubio-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Rubio-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Rubio-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Rubio-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Rubio-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)</div>
Topline: On Wednesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the Global Engagement Center, an Obama-era propaganda branch of the State Department, has been completely dissolved.
In 2011, the State Department created the Global Engagement Center, designed to combat propaganda from hostile foreign groups. But after Trump’s 2016 win, the department turned its attention to throttling Americans&#8217; political speech.
The GEC was created in 2011 as the Center for Strategic Counter Terrorism Communications. In 2016, Barack Obama gave it a new name and said it would “coordinate U.S. government communications aimed at countering foreign terrorist propaganda, particularly from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.” But soon, it was creating pressure on U.S. platforms, via advertising boycotts, to delete “conspiracy theories” like the idea that coronavirus came from a Chinese lab.
Like other State Department propaganda efforts, the GEC was specifically barred from operating against Americans. But there’s evidence that’s exactly what it did. In the Twitter Files, which showed how the Biden administration pressured Silicon Valley platforms to censor or remove content, one of the names that keeps popping up is GEC. Even an FBI agent who played a similar role, Elvis Chan, expressed concern about GEC, saying in its world, which was supposed to be foreign countries, the First Amendment didn’t exist.
The Daily Wire and the Federalist sued the State Department alleging that GEC was violating the First Amendment by funding groups like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index. The Global Disinformation Index put American media outlets on a “Dynamic Exclusion List” that was distributed to advertisers and named mainstream publications like the New York Post, Reason Magazine, The Daily Wire, and the Federalist as “risky.” Newsguard’s CEO said its goal is “empowering governments … to support quality journalism and systemically defund sources of harmful misinformation.” The Daily Wire argued that GEC was funding proxies to do what would obviously be illegal for the government to do.
<h2>UK Supreme Court Settles &#8216;What Is A Woman?&#8217; Debate In British Law</h2>
<div id="attachment_909445" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-909445" class="size-large wp-image-909445" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Loiscense-to-dictionary-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Loiscense-to-dictionary-864x576.jpg 864w, https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Loiscense-to-dictionary-300x200.jpg 300w, https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Loiscense-to-dictionary-768x512.jpg 768w, https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Loiscense-to-dictionary-1536x1025.jpg 1536w, https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Loiscense-to-dictionary-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images)</div>
Topline: The UK’s Supreme Court has ruled that in the eyes of the law, a woman is a biological woman, not a transgender woman.
The UK has decentralized governments, which means there are governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland who have powers devolved to them. In Scotland, the Scottish Nationalist government sought to extend what they call trans rights. Most controversially, it pushed for self-ID, which would allow someone to declare themselves a woman and be certified as such, no questions asked.
The legal case that led to this being brought to the UK’s Supreme Court began with a new law aimed at increasing the number of women on public boards. Affirmative action, known in Britain as “positive action,” is permitted by a law called the Equality Act. The Scottish government argued that this should include discriminating in favor of transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate. The campaign group For Women Scotland disagreed and argued it should be restricted to biological women.
The Court decided that the use of “sex” and “women” in the Equality Act refers to biology and biological women, so transgender women are not protected against discrimination as women, although they will still be protected against discrimination as people who have undergone gender reassignment.
“This is going to be a very far-reaching ruling,” Guy Dampier, Senior Researcher on Nationhood at the Prosperity Institute, told Morning Wire. “Like a lot of the West, there has been this huge battle over transgenderism. The Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, was famously once unable to say whether women have a penis or not. … the Gender Recognition Act is functionally null now, as it is now the law that sex is biological rather than social. That said, transgender women with a Gender Recognition Certificate will still have their legal documents describing their sex as female, and it’s illegal to ask someone if they have a GRC.”

Hearing Held In Case Of Maryland Man Mistakenly Deported To El Salvador

Morning Brief: Dems Defend Deportee, Censorship Group Dissolved, UK Answers ‘What Is A Woman?’

Deportations

El Salvador

Media

Morning Wire

Politics

U.K.

What Is A Woman

The State Department said on Wednesday it had shuttered the propaganda office that funded efforts to deem media outlets “misinformation” and pressured social media companies to censor content, a major victory for conservative critics who have long pinpointed the agency as key cog of the censorship industry.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that though the Global Engagement Center (GEC) was defunded by Congress last year following scandal, the Biden administration had moved its staff to a similar unit. 
The 2016 authorization of the office had an eight-year sunset, and the Republican-controlled House refused to re-fund the agency in 2024. But before it gave up power, the Biden administration appeared to essentially rebrand the entity, keeping the same staff under a new name: &#8220;the Counter-Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference hub,” or R/FIMI. The State Department said in a court filing that it planned to “realign the Center’s staff and funding to other Department offices.” 
Rubio said all remnants of the operation will be eradicated. All 30 full-time staff that were working for R/FIMI were put on leave, and Congress was notified on Wednesday morning that all full-time staff positions under R/FIMI had been eliminated.
“Under the previous administration, this office, which cost taxpayers more than $50 million per year, spent millions of dollars to actively silence and censor the voices of Americans they were supposed to be serving,&#8221; Rubio said in a statement. &#8220;This is antithetical to the very principals we should be upholding and inconceivable it was taking place in America. That ends today.&#8221; 
“Individuals in America have been slandered, fired, charged, and even jailed for simply voicing their opinions. That is not an America our Founding Fathers would recognize. It is the responsibility of every government official to continuously work to preserve and protect the freedom for Americans to exercise their free speech,” he added
GEC was created in 2011 as the Center for Strategic Counter Terrorism Communications. In 2016 it was renamed and tasked to “coordinate U.S. government communications aimed at countering foreign terrorist propaganda, particularly from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.” 
But after the 2016 election, when Democrats began painting “misinformation” as a national security threat, the GEC turned its attention to American social media platforms, even setting up an office in Silicon Valley to pressure them to remove content, such as “conspiracy theories” like the idea that coronavirus came from a Chinese lab.
Like other State Department programs, GEC was forbidden from operating on Americans.
But it may have circumvented that ban by funding third-party groups to do it for them. GEC ran contests encouraging private companies to get into the business of classifying news as “misinformation,” and paid groups like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard. 
The Global Disinformation Index put American media outlets on a “Dynamic Exclusion List” that was distributed to advertisers and named mainstream publications like the New York Post, Reason Magazine, The Daily Wire, and the Federalist as “risky.”
NewsGuard’s business model is similar. In March 2023, its co-CEO, Gordon Crovitz, praised his company for “empowering governments… to support quality journalism and systemically defund sources of harmful misinformation.” NewsGuard has a deal with the teachers union promoting its media-rating browser extension in schools, and public libraries also use the software. The browser extension causes a “Proceed with Maximum Caution” flag to appear next to search results from flagged outlets.
GEC hosted a website called Disinfo Cloud that boosted products aimed at bankrupt conservative news outlets by convincing advertisers to boycott them on the basis that they are dangerous misinformation that should not be economically supported.
The State Department said the contests “were aimed at countering disinformation and propaganda overseas.” But “Defendants admit that Disinfo Cloud users included some members of academia, the private sector, and tech vendors, including some located within the United States,” it <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.226532/gov.uscourts.txed.226532.75.0.pdf">conceded</a> in lawsuit filings.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/five-takeaways-from-twitter-fbi-agents-deposition-in-censorship-lawsuit-brought-by-conservative-states">Elvis Chan</a>, an FBI agent involved in asking Twitter to take down posts including those related to the Hunter Biden laptop, told Congress that he worked regularly with GEC, and that GEC did not seem to be concerned with the First Amendment since it was used to operating in foreign countries.
In December 2023, The Daily Wire and The Federalist <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-texas-ag-ask-court-to-block-state-departments-domestic-misinformation-efforts">sued</a> GEC, arguing that it was working to “render unprofitable, disfavored press outlets by funding the infrastructure, development, and marketing and promotion of censorship technology and private censorship enterprises to covertly suppress speech of a segment of the American press.”
“State Department disinformation tools were developed…as tools of warfare…in the context of national security” and “foreign relations,” then “misdirected to be used at home against domestic political opponents,” the suit said.
GEC “researched, assessed, funded, investigated, evaluated, tested, marketed, and/or promoted over 365 so-called Countering Propaganda and Disinformation or ‘CPD’ tools and technologies, including tools and technologies that target American speech and the American  press. These tools and technologies include so-called fact-checking technologies, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-the-biden-administration-used-a-counter-terrorism-grant-to-fund-anti-conservative-propaganda">media literacy</a> tools, media intelligence platforms, social network mapping, and machine learning/artificial intelligence technology,” a legal filing alleged. 
The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Texas. The State Department sought to have it moved to a Washington, D.C., judge, but the Texas judge refused. 
GEC operated with a secrecy that suggested a guilty conscience. The State Department admitted in the lawsuit to funding the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard through a middleman, Park Capital Investment Group. It <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/state-department-subpoenaed-over-use-of-foreign-propaganda-weapon-against-domestic-media">refused</a> to provide information about the activities even to Congress, forcing the House Small Business Committee to subpoena it.

US-DIPLOMACY-RUBIO-CARICOM

State Department Shutters ‘Misinformation’ Censorship Agency, Salts The Earth

Marco Rubio

State Department

The Daily Wire

Right now, the U.S. Supreme Court faces a crucial test: deciding whether states can criminalize undercover journalism simply because those in power dislike being recorded. At stake is more than just one organization’s right to expose wrongdoing — it’s about safeguarding free speech and transparency in an era increasingly defined by censorship and institutional distrust.
Project Veritas, known for undercover exposés revealing abuses within powerful institutions, recently petitioned the Supreme Court to challenge Oregon’s restrictive recording law. This statute demands that anyone recording in even the most public of places notify everyone else that they are being recorded. But there’s a rub: the state doles about permission slips making it easier to record some subjects, but not others. In short, Oregon law says you can easily record police abuse but not a school administrator admitting to indoctrinating students.
This arbitrary distinction represents precisely the kind of content-based speech restriction the First Amendment prohibits. It gives state authorities unchecked power to silence investigative efforts those in power dislike while permitting other investigations deemed politically acceptable.
Daily Wire readers should understand these implications clearly. The conservative movement has seen firsthand how selective enforcement of “privacy” laws punishes those uncovering inconvenient truths. Consider the notorious prosecution of David Daleiden and his investigation into Planned Parenthood. Instead of pursuing Planned Parenthood, California authorities, led by then-Attorney General Kamala Harris, targeted Daleiden himself.
Matt Walsh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-california-prosecuting-journalists-doing-matt-walsh" target="_blank" rel="noopener">aptly warned</a> at the time that such prosecutions could “criminalize all forms of undercover journalism.” Walsh was right: when governments can weaponize privacy laws against whistleblowers, corruption thrives unchecked. We’d like to stop that.
Project Veritas’s case underscores this danger. If Oregon’s law stands, it sets a precedent emboldening other states to enact similarly repressive measures. Such laws don’t merely threaten controversial groups like Project Veritas — they imperil every citizen-journalist, whistleblower, and parent aiming to hold those in power accountable.
Imagine parents secretly recording school officials implementing extremist curricula, or a VA hospital employee documenting abuse against veterans. Under Oregon’s model, these citizen-journalists become criminals rather than heroes. Balderdash.
Critics argue undercover journalism invades privacy. Yet, there’s a critical difference between personal privacy and public accountability. Recording private citizens’ truly private conversations — happening, say in someone’s home or a doctor’s office — is rightly protected against. But public officials and newsworthy figures talking about bad deeds or public policy in public must not be shielded from scrutiny.
The hypocrisy here is glaring. Legacy media applauded secret recordings like the Access Hollywood tapes or Greenpeace’s hidden-camera sting of Exxon executives because these aligned politically with their interests. Yet conservative-leaning investigations face condemnation and criminalization. Oregon’s law codifies this double standard into state policy, echoing Orwell’s chilling warning in &#8220;Animal Farm,&#8221; “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” The state now decides whose truths may be exposed and whose must remain hidden, a hallmark of dystopian control.
Today, Americans distrust legacy media precisely because traditional reporting methods often fail to reveal the full truth. In our digital age, audiences demand — and deserve — objective evidence. Hidden cameras have become essential tools for accountability journalism, offering unfiltered glimpses into realities otherwise obscured by spin, stonewalling, and hidden agendas.
If the Supreme Court allows Oregon to criminalize this essential method of truth-gathering, it cripples the First Amendment. Citizen-journalism, which Daily Wire audiences rightly value, becomes vulnerable nationwide. The justices must affirm a core constitutional principle: truth doesn’t need permission from those hiding it. Our American guarantee of free speech supports rigorous, bold investigations capable of exposing hidden abuses. In 2025, undercover journalism isn’t a fringe tactic — it’s a fundamental aspect of free inquiry and transparency.
It’s time the Supreme Court rejects Oregon’s unconstitutional censorship. America needs more citizen-journalism, not less. The freedom to expose wrongdoing must remain protected — even if it makes the powerful uncomfortable.
* * *
Benjamin Barr is a partner at Barr &amp; Klein PLLC where his practice engages in a variety of constitutional litigation nationwide. Along with his law partner, Stephen R. Klein, the firm represents Project Veritas in this matter.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

DALLAS, TX – NOVEMBER 29: James OKeefe, founder of Project Veri

Supreme Court Must Protect Citizen-Journalists From Oregon’s Censorship

Supreme Court Must Protect Citizen-Journalists From Oregon's Censorship

interview

Journalism

Oregon

Privacy

Project Veritas

SCOTUS

Whistleblowers

After being a major part of a global network of companies that cracked down on conservative speech in the name of so-called misinformation, credit card giant Mastercard is committing that it will not make marketing or branding decisions based on third-parties, according to emails obtained by The Daily Wire. 
 The announcement comes after a group of investors represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom were prepping a resolution targeting the credit card company over its involvement with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media or GARM. Mastercard will release a new company policy in the coming months making clear that third-party views will not influence branding or marketing decisions, the company told the Alliance Defending Freedom this week.
GARM, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leftist-censorship-cartel-garm-disbands-following-musk-lawsuit-ben-shapiro-testimony" target="_blank" rel="noopener">disbanded</a> in August 2024, a month after its leaders were<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-here-ben-shapiro-testifies-to-congress-on-censorship-updated-live"> called in to testify to Congress</a>, was an organization founded by the World Federation of Advertisers to ensure that companies only advertised with media outlets deemed “responsible.” In the name of this goal, GARM targeted podcasters like Joe Rogan, platforms like Elon Musk’s X, and conservative outlets like The Daily Wire, according to a congressional <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2024-07-10%20GARMs%20Harm%20-%20How%20the%20Worlds%20Biggest%20Brands%20Seek%20to%20Control%20Online%20Speech.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigation</a>. The Daily Wire&#8217;s Editor Emeritus Ben Shapiro testified that the aim of the advertising coalition was to &#8220;throttle viewpoints&#8221; that Democrat legislators and the Biden administration did not like.
After meetings with Alliance Defending Freedom lawyers, Mastercard, which was on the board of the World Federation of Advertisers that oversaw GARM, now says that it alone will determine its marketing and branding strategy. 
“We advance our marketing priorities with a close eye on the value delivered to our brand, the interest and relevance to the intended audience, and whether the media channel/platform supports our ability to deliver new and unique experiences to the end consumer,” a copy of the policy viewed by The Daily Wire says. “Mastercard alone makes decisions on our brand and our marketing activities, independent of any third-party views.”
That came after Inspire Investing, a Christian investment company represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, met with Mastercard to discuss a proposed shareholder resolution to call for an investigation over Mastercard’s involvement with GARM. 
A draft of the resolution viewed by The Daily Wire called for Mastercard to evaluate “how it oversees risks related to discrimination against ad buyers and sellers based on their political or religious status or views.”
After Mastercard agreed to distance itself from third-party organizations, Inspire Investing and Alliance Defending Freedom agreed to withdraw the resolution. 
“This is a meaningful step forward for Mastercard,” Inspire Investing Director of Corporate Engagement Tim Schwarzenberger told The Daily Wire. “We appreciate Mastercard’s willingness to engage with shareholders and make this important commitment to making decisions independent of third-party influences. It’s a positive step for free speech, religious freedom, and ultimately for all Mastercard stakeholders.”
After publication of this story, a Mastercard spokesman told The Daily Wire that the policy &#8220;reinforced our long-standing practices related to decision making on our marketing activities&#8221; in &#8220;conversations related to this proposal.&#8221;
The spokesman also attempted to distance the credit card company from GARM, saying, &#8220;While two members of our marketing team had participated in separate working groups, they were not aware of specific GARM plans or coordinated activities.&#8221;
Mastercard&#8217;s Chief Marketing and Communications Officer, Raja Rajamannar, who served as president of the World Federation of Advertisers while GARM was in operation, and regularly touted the work of GARM as a positive step for the advertising industry. In a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPJ8OmWwhN8&amp;t=90s">video posted to a Mastercard YouTube channel</a>, Rajamannar urged &#8220;every CMO&#8221; to join GARM.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Call for Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM)" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oPJ8OmWwhN8?start=90&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Jeremy Tedesco, the senior vice President of corporate engagement at Alliance Defending Freedom, said the new policy from Mastercard represented a major win for conservative customers.
“MasterCard, their business purpose is to make sure that people can transact funds. And that&#8217;s it. And that’s what they should be doing,” he told The Daily Wire. “They shouldn’t be taking their ad buying power and trying to shut down people they disagree with in the marketplace of ideas.”
He also said that it was a necessary step to hold companies accountable that supported the censorship of conservatives. 
“They used their ad buying power in collaboration with other major corporations to suppress conservative and religious content online,” he told The Daily Wire. “It’s really critical that these companies are held accountable for collaborating in that way, in collaborating with people who want to stop so-called misinformation and hate speech from appearing on the internet.”
He said that Alliance Defending Freedom has filed over 70 shareholder resolutions, had over 50 meetings with corporate leaders, and obtained 13 policy behavior changes this corporate season.
This piece has been updated to include comment from Mastercard and additional context.

Mastercard Credit Card

Mastercard, Facing Pressure Over Role In Global Censorship Effort, Agrees To Major Change

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

credit card

GARM

Mastercard

Working in corporate engagement, I often hear questions about why the ‘long game’ matters in changing woke company policies. If executive orders can instantly push companies away from DEI or ESG initiatives, why take other pathways? The answer is clear: lasting change takes time. JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank, just proved this with a major policy shift — one that speaks louder than any theory ever could.
In 2022, JPMorgan Chase <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/10/opinion/i-was-debanked-by-jpmorgan-chase-but-fought-back-and-won/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debanked</a> former U.S. Senator and Ambassador Sam Brownback, after Brownback opened an account for the newly-formed National Committee for Religious Freedom. The son of a Kansas farmer, Brownback refused to back down. When Brownback asked the bank for its rationale in shuttering his account, he was met with conflicting (and incorrect) explanations as to why.
Brownback’s debanking experience was the start of a major wave of scrutiny over exactly what conditions a bank will close a customer’s account. Victims range from nonprofit organizations like Indigenous Advance, an organization serving Ugandan widows &amp; orphans debanked by Bank of America in 2023, to Melania &amp; Barron Trump, who Melania <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01-24-Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> as having been debanked in her memoir, prompting further inquiry from the House Committee on Oversight.
Yet JPMorgan consistently ranked as one of the major bad actors in the debanking saga, closing not only Brownback’s account (and actually <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> for his org’s donor list for restoring service) but several other conservative nonprofits. The biggest bank in America was quickly racking up hits on its record of political neutrality and customer equality.
This trend might have gone unaddressed had the Right simply let the issue lie. Luckily, some of the most influential names in both the conservative legal, financial, and government worlds stepped up to the plate. Pressure for increased transparency and commitments to ditch any policies that could lead to a client being debanked for political reasons has come from all directions, from legal giants like <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/19-states-chase-stop-misleading-customers-commit-equality-treatment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> to <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/news/statement-on-debanking-and-free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notable financial professionals</a> to <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state financial officers and attorneys general</a>. As that public pressure mounted, shareholder pressure has been growing from the inside for the past three years, spurred on by organizations like the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, with Chase investors like financial advisor David Bahnsen spending literal years <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bahnsen-takes-the-fight-today-to-jpmorgan-chase/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">urging</a> the company to clarify its approach to debanking — and fix its spotty track record on political neutrality.
And Chase listened.
In 2023, JPMorgan made the decision to axe its “social risk” policy from its payment processing arm, no longer allowing vague terms like “intolerance” and “hate” to determine whether a customer was fit to continue doing business at Chase. But the biggest win so far came several days ago, when Chase agreed to a policy change explicitly protecting customers and employees from discrimination based on religious or political views.
This is huge. Many stories about companies ditching woke policies consist of the company putting out a public statement (and often the controversy that follows). Statements are great, but they’re not the ideal. Companies can hide behind statements — and do. Several companies that have publicly made statements supporting political neutrality clearly have work to do when it comes to actually putting their policies where their mouths are.
But companies can’t hide behind policy changes. That’s why they’re a sign of both real progress and good faith. Shareholders like Bahnsen, and groups like ADF &amp; Bowyer Research, have been engaging with Chase for years to get this change. Make no mistake: Chase’s willingness to protect against future political/religious debanking is the result of real shareholders using real influence to create real change. It’s a victory for Chase’s customers and shareholders, but also for the company itself. It’s a win for a company to clear up concerns about corporate bias, a win that’s been a long time coming, and a win that hopefully many other banks will find instructive.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Major US Bank Bosses To Discuss Debanking With Senate Committee

Major Win: JPMorgan Chase Ends Political Debanking

Banking

Banks

Bias

Christians

Conservatives

Corporations

debanking

Jamie Dimon

JP Morgan

Opinion

Woke Culture

Elon Musk’s social media platform X is being hailed in Ireland for its defense of the free press after it declined to comply with a demand from Irish authorities for confidential user data from one of the nation’s only independent news outlets.
An Irish court order, issued on June 13, 2024, and obtained by The Daily Wire, sought not only private account details, but also a log of IP addresses and messages tied to the Gript Media’s coverage of the April protests against the forced housing of undocumented migrants by the Irish government.
The order, granted under Ireland’s Criminal Justice Act 1994 at the request of Garda Síochána, Ireland’s national police, directed X to produce extensive data linked to Gript Media’s official X account, @griptmedia. The court order specifically sought subscriber and registration details, including all logged IP addresses, private messages that would have exposed confidential informants, attachments, and posted videos from April 25-28, 2024.
In a February email to Gript, X notified Gript of Ireland’s June request and said it would not comply.
“X has not produced information related to your account in response to this legal process,” the email said, according to a copy obtained by The Daily Wire. “One of our core values is to defend and respect the user’s voice. Accordingly, it is our policy to notify users of requests for their account information as soon as the law allows us too, unless we’re generally prohibited from doing so.”
In April, <a href="https://gript.ie/in-newtownmountkennedy-the-state-has-crossed-the-rubicon/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gript</a> extensively covered protests in Newtownmountkennedy, where Irish citizens opposed the establishment of an &#8220;asylum seeker&#8221; accommodation center. The demonstrations escalated on April 25, with the Garda Public Order Unit using force, including pepper spray, against protesters. Gript’s journalist Fatima Gunning was caught in the clashes, an incident captured on video and widely circulated online.
According to court documents obtained by The Daily Wire, it was shortly after the publication of these videos that the Gardaí sought legal authority to access Gript’s X account, a move seen by journalists as an attempt to intimidate those seeking to expose state misconduct.
Gary Kavanagh, Gript’s deputy editor, condemned the order calling it a “direct attack on press freedom” designed to deter sources from speaking to journalists.
“The role of journalism is to hold power to account, but how can we do that when the state is using secret court orders to access our private communications?” Kavanagh said. “This is not just about Gript; this is about the future of a free press in Ireland.”
He also praised X for its “commitment to free speech.”
“If this had happened under the previous management of Twitter, we might never have even known about it,” Kavanagh said. “The fact that Musk’s team stood firm is a testament to their commitment to free speech and transparency.”
Gunning, the journalist, told The Daily Wire that if X complied with the order, she would have been “powerless” as a reporter.
“As a journalist, if I cannot establish trust of confidentiality with sources if needs be, I am in many ways rendered powerless to report on issues of concern to the Irish people,” Gunning said.
“I can put my hand on my heart and say that I believe my reporting on the situation in Newtownmountkennedy was fair to both the protestors and the Gardaí,” she said. “Anyone interested doesn’t need to take my word for this: they can simply watch the many videos I posted from the scene which did not give favorable coverage to either side.”
“Nothing was concealed from the public on my part, so to have our national police force use laws originally intended to tackle those funding terrorism against my colleagues and it feels like nothing more than a gross abuse of power and Irish law.”
Kavanagh says Gript has since instructed legal counsel to challenge the warrant’s legitimacy, suspecting it may have been improperly awarded. “If the Irish state can do this to Gript today, it can do it to any journalist tomorrow,” Kavanagh stated.
Reached for comment by The Daily Wire, a Garda Síochána spokesman &#8220;declined to comment on ongoing investigations,&#8221; but defended the use of court orders, stating that law enforcement has a duty to obtain all available evidence when investigating alleged criminal activity.
“We operate within the legal framework set out by the Irish courts and judicial oversight is always applied in such cases,” the spokesman said.
The force did not address concerns about press freedoms or the implications of using anti-crime legislation against journalists.
This is only the latest of a number of controversies amid growing concerns over state surveillance and media suppression in Ireland and the European Union. Critics argue that granting police unrestricted access to social media accounts could undermine free speech and chill the press, particularly in countries where major social media companies, including X, maintain European headquarters.
The incident also ties into a broader debate on Ireland’s housing crisis and immigration policies. Many protesters in Newtownmountkennedy argued that the government’s prioritization of undocumented “asylum seekers” for housing left native Irish citizens waiting years for accommodations. The government’s approach, coupled with its crackdown on journalists covering these protests, has only inflamed public distrust.
X’s refusal to comply with the court order, however, underscores the platform’s commitment to free speech.
As the Irish government faces mounting international criticism over its treatment of independent journalists, its handling of immigration protests, and the potential misuse of legal mechanisms to silence dissenting voices, Gript Media remains resolute—vowing to challenge the order in court.
Ireland&#8217;s prime minister Micheál Martin, known as the Taoiseach, will be in Washington, D.C., this week to meet with President Donald Trump at the White House.

Another St Patrick’s Day During The Coronavirus Pandemic

Irish Police Used Secret Court Order To Extract Info From Journalists. Elon’s X Shut It Down.

Ireland

The Alliance Defending Freedom is demanding answers from the federal government about the Biden administration&#8217;s weaponization of government against conservatives as part of its push to combat alleged domestic extremism. 
On Monday, ADF filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the Treasury Department, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland Security about their work to combat so-called extremism under President Joe Biden. ADF believes that the information gleaned from the requests will shed greater light on how the Biden administration ordered banks to spy on the financial records of conservative Americans. 
“We sent these requests based on the belief that big banks and Big Tech are just as threatening to freedom as big brother,” Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Mercer Martin told The Daily Wire. “We have been going through the mounting evidence that the government, through these organizations, was enlisting big business and banks in its censorship schemes.” 
The FOIA request focuses largely on two aspects of the government’s actions under Biden.
First, ADF wants to know more about how the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) flagged conservative-coded transactions for potential investigation. Second, ADF wants to know the nature of the government’s work with private organizations, to identify domestic extremism and target so-called misinformation. 
Overall, Martin said the is was to identify how the Biden administration worked to “outsource censorship to private organizations and businesses.&#8221;
The FOIAs filed with the Treasury Department seek information on FinCEN’s “relationship with private organizations purportedly to combat domestic violent extremism” and “the government’s warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private financial information.”
It was previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/feds-flagged-terms-like-trump-maga-for-banks-to-comb-through-customer-data-jordan-says" target="_blank" rel="noopener">revealed</a> that top officials at FinCEN ordered banks to comb through customer data if terms like “TRUMP” or “MAGA” were used in transactions. Banks were also provided to provide information if customers had purchased religious texts or subscriptions to “extremist” media outlets. 
ADF’s requests would require the Treasury Department to provide documents and communications with key words like “Christian,” “Catholic,” “radical traditional,” “Southern Poverty Law Center,” “capitol riot,” and January 6. 
The FOIAs also asked for communications between the Treasury Department and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, an organization that labeled ADF a “hate group” in a report that was linked to by FinCEN. 
ADF’s FOIAs of the FBI seek information on the any documents related to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-Left organization the bureau <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-12-04-the-fbis-breach-of-religious-freedom-the-weaponization-of-law-enforcement-against-catholic-americans.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cited</a> in a memo warning about the radical about “radical-traditional Catholic” ideology
“The reason we’re interested in their work with the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is that [the government was] using those organizations’ lists of so-called hate groups or targeted groups, they were using those lists to then encourage banks and financial organizations to target their customers based on those lists,” Martin told The Daily Wire. 
The FOIAs also request information on the FBI’s work with the Domestic Security Alliance Council to “collect Americans’ personal financial information from private financial institutions and encourage private financial institutions to monitor Americans’ financial activity.”
The Domestic Security Alliance is a public-private partnership that purportedly <a href="https://www.dsac.gov/about">exists</a> to promote “the timely and effective exchange of security and intelligence information between the federal government and the private sector.”
In a third FOIA to the FBI, ADF requested that the bureau provide any communications with key words like “disinformation,” “election integrity,” “election interference,” “hate speech,” or “lab leak” and Big Tech companies like Google, Instagram, Facebook, and others. 
Along similar lines, the request to the DHS ask for documents on its work to combat alleged domestic extremism with private organizations and the flagging of Americans’ banking transactions. 
Martin said that the goal of the requests was to bring accountability to the government and determine whether individuals’ constitutional rights had been violated. 
“If we find that the Biden administration was violating individuals constitutional rights, we are interested in taking action to vindicate those rights as well,” he said.

President Biden Addresses NAACP Convention In Las Vegas

EXCLUSIVE: Alliance Defending Freedom Demands Answers On Biden Admin Censorship

Biden Administration

Department of Homeland Security

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Treasury Department

Freedom of speech is under <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/censorship" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attack</a>, not just in authoritarian regimes like Russia, North Korea, or Venezuela, but also in Western nations that once championed it. I know because I’ve lived through it before.
I was born and raised in Venezuela, where opposing the socialist regime came at a high cost. From a young age, I spoke out against tyranny. In a country that does not tolerate dissent, that meant facing real consequences. I was expelled from my university simply for questioning communist propaganda in class. Soon after, I was accused of being a “terrorist” for my political beliefs.
Now, living in the United States, I cherish the ability to speak freely. But that appreciation comes with deep concern. I am now witnessing Western nations — once bastions of liberty — embrace restrictions on speech under the guise of fighting hate and misinformation. What’s even more alarming is that many young people in my own generation champion this threat to free speech.
<h3>Thought Police In Action</h3>
In February, CBS <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/germany-online-hate-speech-prosecution-60-minutes/">aired</a> an interview with German officials who openly admitted that the German government is using its power to criminalize &#8220;hate or toxic speech.&#8221; When journalist Sharyn Alfonsi asked whether publishing an insult or a lie was a crime, the German prosecutors <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-claims-free-speech-caused-the-holocaust" target="_blank" rel="noopener">answered</a> without hesitation, &#8220;Yes.&#8221; In Germany, law enforcement raids homes, fines citizens, and even imprisons those whose speech is deemed offensive, controversial, or false.
Sadly, Germany is not the only country to adopt this Orwellian totalitarianism. In the United Kingdom, a nation with a rich history of constitutionalism, common law, and freedom, people are now being <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev9nxnygzpo">investigated</a> for tweets, and others are being fined or imprisoned for posting memes. Nations that should represent the best of civility and debate are sailing the seas of totalitarianism, where the state dictates what can and cannot be said.
Many Americans might dismiss this as a European problem, convinced such extreme measures could never take hold in the U.S. Nevertheless, the same mindset is creeping into American universities, where ideological obedience is enforced at the expense of free and open debate.
<h3>American Students Are Turning Against Free Speech</h3>
A <a href="https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/college.pulse/viz/2024CollegeFreeSpeechRankings/2024CollegeFreeSpeechRankings?publish=yes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">survey</a> conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (<a href="https://www.thefire.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FIRE</a>) revealed that most students would reject speakers with different views on some of the most important issues in our society. For instance, only 29% of students would allow a speaker who believes that transgender people have a mental disorder to speak on campus, and just 43% would accept an advocate for the abolition of abortion. In addition, only 37% of students believe it is never acceptable to stop a speaker, and 27% believe that violence may rarely, sometimes, or always be an acceptable response to prevent a talk on campus.
These statistics are shocking. A significant number of young people believe conservatives do not have the right to speak on campus — and some would even be willing to use force to prevent them from speaking. This mindset is a stark departure from the principles upheld by America&#8217;s Founding Fathers, who believed strongly in protecting free speech for even the most controversial opinions.
<h3>Why Free Speech Matters</h3>
The purpose of free speech is not to protect speech that pleases politicians, the government, or the majority. Free speech exists precisely to protect those who say controversial things or want to challenge power. As Thomas Jefferson <a href="https://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/jefferson-s-preference-for-newspapers-without-government-over-government-without-newspapers-1787">pointed out</a> in 1787: “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
The danger of adopting the term “hate speech” is that it is completely subjective and can be used as a political weapon. Who defines what is hateful? The answer is clear: those in power. In Venezuela, the Maduro regime branded my views as hate speech — and I’m sure some American progressives would agree. This is exactly why the right to determine what is true or false, right or wrong, must belong to individuals, not politicians.
We often claim that politicians are corrupt liars who only care about their own self-interest. So, why would we give these people the power to decide what we can say? If we truly value free speech, we must resist censorship in all its forms — no matter who enforces it or what justification they use.
* * *
Franklin Camargo is a Venezuelan-born political activist who fled his homeland due to political persecution. Now a proud advocate for liberty, capitalism, and free speech, Franklin is a political science graduate from Liberty University, a former Univision host, co-author of After Socialism, Freedom, and a <a href="https://www.prageru.com/video/franklin-camargo-i-fled-venezuela-to-fight-for-america">PragerU personality.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

Sunset behind the illuminated Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor

I Fled Censorship In Venezuela. I Now See It Spreading In The West.

Communism

Free Speech

Immigration

Marxism

Propaganda

Socialism

Venezuela

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to hear a free speech challenge to university &#8220;bias response teams&#8221; that conservatives argue silence their viewpoints on campus.
Two of the nine justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, indicated they would have granted a hearing on the free speech lawsuit brought by the Indiana University students, <a href="https://apnews.com/article/colleges-free-speech-supreme-court-879a12f6e7aaf9d678009e56a8ab6ed0">reported</a> The Associated Press.
“I would grant the petition. It raises an important question affecting universities nationwide; Speech First estimates that over 450 universities have similar bias-reporting schemes.” Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. Justice Alito agreed with Thomas, arguing that the case should be on the court’s docket.
The Indiana University students, represented by the free speech advocacy group Speech First, argue that the bias-response team targets right-leaning political speech by enabling anonymous reports of what are deemed “offensive” remarks.
Speech First specifically points to threats of discipline against conservatives who held contrary viewpoints on “gender identity, immigration, affirmative action, and the Israel-Palestine conflict,” suing Indiana University for forcing students to self-censor out of fear of retribution by these bias response teams.
University administrators maintain that the program is meant to provide education and support, not punishment.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas continues: &#8220;Given the number of schools with bias response teams, this Court eventually will need to resolve the split over a student&#8217;s right to challenge such programs.&#8221;
&#8220;I have serious concerns that bias response policies, such as Virginia Tech’s, objectively chill students’ speech,&#8221; Thomas further <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/thomas-alito-dissent-as-scotus-refuses-to-review-free-speech-concerns-over-university-bias-response-teams/">expressed</a>, per Courthouse News.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to grant a hearing does not imply agreement or disagreement with the lower courts, only indicating that fewer than four justices were interested in taking up the case for whatever reason, as the Court declined to provide an explanation for declining Speech First’s case on Monday.
Although the Court’s action leaves Indiana University’s program intact, the public statements from two justices suggest the matter of bias-response teams could reappear on the Court’s docket in a future case, given the right circumstances.

Justice Thomas Attends Forum On His 30 Year Supreme Court Legacy

Justices Thomas And Alito Dissent As SCOTUS Passes On Campus Free Speech Case

American Universities

Clarence Thomas

Courts

A big tech company that deplatformed conservative groups agreed to turn over documents related to that decision just days after Senator Ted Cruz announced plans to obtain them through subpoena, the Texas Republican told The Daily Wire. 
Cruz said Friday that Bonterra, a massive online service provider, will comply with his requests for information related to cancelled contracts with the Independent Women’s Forum and the Pennsylvania Family Institute. Bonterra, which helps nonprofits fundraise and manage operations, previously told Cruz it ended its contract with Independent Women&#8217;s Forum because it was anti-LGBT.
On Monday, Cruz, who leads the Senate Commerce Committee, said he planned to subpoena Bonterra for internal documents and communications related to its treatment of conservative companies. In response, Bonterra committed to producing the documents by March 19, Cruz&#8217;s office told The Daily Wire. 
“Once I announced my intention to seek the Committee’s authorization for a subpoena, Bonterra quickly agreed to produce requested documents,” Cruz told The Daily Wire on Friday. “This is a victory for groups like the Independent Women’s Forum and the Pennsylvania Family Institute whose contracts were not renewed because of their beliefs.”
He added that the documents, internal communications, and communications with third parties “will help us better understand how tech companies weaponize contractual terms to deny service to conservatives.”
The desired documents include communications between Bonterra and any third parties that advised Bonterra on its “business ethics” provision or its anti-hate speech policy, a senior aide for the committee told The Daily Wire. The committee will also demand communications with third parties who flagged users for alleged violations, and documents that will help it identify accounts removed by Bonterra for hate speech.
Bonterra previously told Cruz that it ended its relationship with the Independent Women&#8217;s Forum because the organization, which opposes transgender ideology, “works to restrict the rights of the LGBTQ community. Bizarrely, it added that it does not focus on “positions of the organization” when making decisions about terms of service violations.
The Independent Women’s Forum is a conservative nonprofit that aims to “engage and inform women about how policy issues impact them and their loved ones.” It has emerged as one of the most prominent voices defending women’s sports from the invasion of transgender-identifying men.
Cruz said he would move “swiftly to compel” Bonterra if it failed “in any way to fulfill its obligation to the Committee.”

Pam Bondi Swears In Kash Patel As FBI Director

Big Tech Company That Deplatformed Conservative Group Will Comply With Cruz Investigation

Big Tech

Ted Cruz

Menu