Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is launching a formal investigation into Lululemon over concerns the popular activewear brand may be misleading consumers about the safety of its products, particularly regarding the potential presence of so-called “forever chemicals.”
In a press release obtained exclusively by The Daily Wire, Paxton’s office confirmed it has issued a Civil Investigative Demand as part of a broader probe into whether Lululemon has accurately represented the health impacts, safety standards, and material composition of its clothing. The company, which generated more than $11 billion in fiscal year 2025, markets itself heavily around wellness, sustainability, and performance — branding that Paxton suggested may not align with emerging concerns.
“Americans should not have to worry if they are being deceived when trying to make healthy choices for themselves and their families,” Paxton said. “I will not allow any corporation to sell harmful, toxic materials to consumers at a premium price under the guise of wellness and sustainability.”
At the center of the investigation are PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of synthetic chemicals widely referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their extreme resistance to breaking down in the environment or the human body. According to researchers at <a href="https://sustainability.yale.edu/explainers/yale-experts-explain-pfas-forever-chemicals#:~:text=PFAS%2C%20or%20per%2D%20and%20polyfluoroalkyl%20substances%2C%20are,chips%20*%20Toilet%20paper%20*%20Waterproof%20cosmetics">Yale School of Public Health</a>, PFAS have been used in consumer and industrial products since World War II, often for their water-resistant, stain-resistant, and non-stick properties, qualities commonly associated with performance apparel.
That same durability, however, is what makes PFAS potentially dangerous. Experts warn the chemicals can accumulate over time in the human body, persisting in blood, liver, and kidneys for years. Studies have linked PFAS exposure to a wide range of health risks, including certain cancers, liver toxicity, reduced fertility, immune system suppression, and developmental issues.
“PFAS are often called ‘forever chemicals’ because they contain an exceptionally strong carbon-fluorine bond, which makes them highly resistant to breakdown,” Yale epidemiology chair Vasilis Vasiliou explained. “As a result, they persist in the environment for decades or longer.”
Paxton’s investigation will specifically examine whether Lululemon’s products contain PFAS that consumers would not reasonably expect based on the company’s marketing. It will also scrutinize the company’s internal safety standards, testing protocols, and supply chain practices to determine whether its products comply with its own stated guidelines.
The probe comes amid growing scrutiny of PFAS contamination nationwide. Federal regulators only recently began setting enforceable limits on certain PFAS chemicals in drinking water, though those standards have already faced rollbacks and legal challenges. Meanwhile, consumer awareness has surged, with increasing concern about the presence of these chemicals in everyday products, including clothing.
While the investigation is still in its early stages, it signals a broader shift toward holding companies accountable for how they market “health-conscious” products, particularly when underlying materials may tell a different story.
Worth noting, Paxton is currently locked in a high-profile Republican primary runoff against John Cornyn (R-TX) for a U.S. Senate seat. His investigation also aligns with a broader push inside the Trump administration to crack down on environmental toxins in consumer products. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made similar issues a priority at HHS, including a recent <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-hhs-announce-historic-actions-protect-americans-microplastics-and-safeguard">joint initiative</a> with the EPA targeting microplastics, which regulators have begun categorizing alongside PFAS as emerging public health risks.
For now, the outcome of the investigation remains unclear. But as scrutiny around PFAS intensifies, companies built on wellness branding may increasingly find themselves under the microscope.

Is Lululemon Using Forever Chemicals?

Courts

Forever Chemicals

Ken Paxton

Lawsuit

Texas

U.S.

A U.S. appeals court on Friday declared unconstitutional a nearly 158-year-old federal ban on home distilling, calling it an unnecessary and improper means for Congress to exercise its power to tax.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled in favor of the nonprofit Hobby Distillers Association and four of its 1,300 members.
They argued that people should be free to distill spirits at home, whether as a hobby or for personal consumption including, in one instance, to create an apple-pie-vodka recipe.
The ban was part of a law passed during Reconstruction in July 1868, in part to thwart liquor tax evasion, and subjected violators to up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones said the ban actually reduced tax revenue by preventing distilling in the first place, unlike laws that regulated the manufacture and labeling of distilled spirits on which the government could collect taxes.
She also said that under the government&#8217;s logic, Congress could criminalize virtually any in-home activity that might escape notice from tax collectors, including remote work and home-based businesses.
&#8220;Without any limiting principle, the government’s theory would violate this court’s obligation to read the Constitution carefully to avoid creating a general federal authority akin to the police power,&#8221; Jones wrote.
The U.S. Department of Justice had no immediate comment. Another defendant, the Treasury Department&#8217;s Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Devin Watkins, a lawyer representing the Hobby Distillers Association, in an interview called the ruling an important decision about the limits of federal power.
Andrew Grossman, who argued the nonprofit&#8217;s appeal, called the decision &#8220;an important victory for individual liberty&#8221; that lets the plaintiffs &#8220;pursue their passion to distill fine beverages in their homes.&#8221;
&#8220;I look forward to sampling their output,&#8221; he said.
The decision upheld a July 2024 ruling by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman in Fort Worth, Texas. He put his ruling on hold so the government could appeal.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Bill Berkrot)

Alcohol

From Felony To Freedom: A Century-Old Rule On Liquor Just Collapsed

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)

Food

Showing why her own colleagues have long viewed her as the abrasive outlier of the High Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor — who said in 2001, &#8220;I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn&#8217;t lived that life&#8221; —  recently decided that the hallowed traditions of Supreme Court protocol are secondary to her own progressive &#8220;lived experience.&#8221;
Speaking at the University of Kansas, the &#8220;Wise Latina&#8221; took a <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/sotomayor-faults-kavanaugh-over-immigration-stops-concurrence">verbal sledgehammer</a> to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, violating the unwritten rule that judicial disagreements stay within the mahogany walls of One First Street.
Sotomayor’s target was a concurrence Kavanaugh wrote regarding an emergency order on immigration enforcement. While Kavanaugh noted that brief stops for legal residents are typically just that—brief—Sotomayor went for the jugular, and she made it personal. Mocking Kavanaugh’s upbringing, she sneered, “This is from a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
It was a stunningly low blow, even for Sotomayor. By attacking Kavanaugh’s class and background rather than his legal reasoning, she didn&#8217;t just breach collegiality; she set it on fire. Supreme Court protocol dictates that justices attack the argument, not the man. But for Sotomayor, identity politics is the only North Star, even if it means suggesting a colleague is too &#8220;privileged&#8221; to understand the plight of the working man.
Of course, this isn&#8217;t Sotomayor’s first time playing the role of the &#8220;grating&#8221; colleague. Her history on the bench is littered with instances where her peers—on both sides of the aisle—have cringed at her antics. Even the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a fellow traveler on the Left, was known to <a href="https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/is-sotomayor-finding-her-voice-or-alienating-her-colleagues/#:~:text=(His%20entire%20concurrence%20is%20a,for%20Jim%20Crow%20%22shameful.%22">trade barbs</a> with Sotomayor in footnotes, frequently questioning her interpretation of the law.
In the Schuette case, Sotomayor’s fifty-eight-page dissent was so vitriolic that Chief Justice John Roberts felt compelled to write a separate concurrence just to call her out for making legal disagreements personal. At the time, even The New York Times admitted her voice was grating on her colleagues. Antonin Scalia was even less diplomatic, famously labeling her comparisons of certain modern policies to Jim Crow as &#8220;shameful.&#8221;
The Supreme Court relies on &#8220;institutional glue&#8221;—the handshake, the shared meals, the omertà of the conference room—to function. Sotomayor, however, seems intent on dissolving that glue. While Justice Amy Coney Barrett <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/engaged-in-a-common-enterprise-u-s-supreme-court-justice-amy-coney-barrett-reflects-on-judicial-independence-transparency/#:~:text='An%20act%20of%20the%20will,do%20with%20time%20spent%20together.%E2%80%9D">recently noted</a> that collegiality is an &#8220;act of the will,&#8221; Sotomayor appears to have willed herself into a state of permanent grievance. By publicly slamming Kavanaugh’s character, she has signaled that she is no longer interested in being a judge among peers, but rather an activist-in-exile, writing children’s books and airing dirty laundry because she can&#8217;t win the legal argument.

The Constitutional Court Celebrates Women’s Day

‘Wise Latina’ Sotomayor Breaks SCOTUS Protocol To Trash Kavanaugh’s Pedigree In Public

Brett Kavanaugh

Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court

Meta has begun scrubbing ads offering legal help for damages related to social media addiction and the associated harmful behaviors.
According to a <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/04/09/meta-social-media-addiction-ads">report</a> from Axios on Thursday, Meta has begun pulling ads — from both Facebook and Instagram — that provide users with information about getting legal advice or taking legal action against social media platforms.
Axios quoted an example of one of the ads that was pulled: &#8220;Anxiety. Depression. Withdrawal. Self-harm. These aren&#8217;t just teenage phases — they&#8217;re symptoms linked to social media addiction in children. Platforms knew this and kept targeting kids anyway.&#8221;
Meta has acknowledged that some ads are being removed from the social media platforms, saying that the law firms placing such ads should not be allowed to benefit from the use of Meta&#8217;s platforms while claiming at the same time that Meta was responsible for creating addicts and causing mental health problems.
&#8220;We&#8217;re actively defending ourselves against these lawsuits and are removing ads that attempt to recruit plaintiffs for them. We will not allow trial lawyers to profit from our platforms while simultaneously claiming they are harmful,&#8221; a Meta spokesperson told the outlet.
The report comes just two weeks after a California jury found that both <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/verdict-reached-in-landmark-social-media-media-addiction-trial">Meta</a> and YouTube had contributed to a number of mental health problems — including addiction and related behavior — in a landmark case before the California Superior Court.
A Meta spokesperson protested the verdict, saying at the time, &#8220;We respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.&#8221;
As The Daily Wire previously reported, social media platforms — including Meta and YouTube — have often touted online safety features in recent years, such as Instagram’s “Teen Accounts” and YouTube “Kids,” which are meant to create safer and more controlled experiences for children. Critics argue that kids — sometimes with willing parents or other adults helping them — are able to bypass those controls and gain access to the full platforms anyway.

Social Media

Meta Shuts Down Ads From ‘Trial Lawyers’ Targeting Social Platform Over Addiction

Meta Doesn't Want Users To Know They May Be Able To Sue For Social Media Harm

Big Tech

MixCollage-15-Sep-2025-04-51-PM-6957

Inside The Twisted Confession Tyler Robinson Is Accused Of Sending His Boyfriend

assassination

Charlie Kirk

Crime

Murder

Tyler Robinson

A federal judge in New York ruled on Thursday to dismiss ten of Blake Lively’s 13 claims against her “It Ends With Us” costar Justin Baldoni, including those related to harassment, defamation, and conspiracy.
Though three of the claims will stand, this is being celebrated as a victory by Baldoni and his legal team. The claims being argued at trial include retaliation, aiding and abetting retaliation, and breach of contract.
“We’re very pleased the Court dismissed all sexual harassment claims and every claim brought against the individual defendants: Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Melissa Nathan, and Jennifer Abel,” Alexandra Shapiro and Jonathan Bach of Shapiro Arato Bach said in a statement.
“These were very serious allegations, and we are grateful to the Court for its careful review of the facts, law and voluminous evidence that was provided,” the statement went on. “What’s left is a significantly narrowed case, and we look forward to presenting our defense to the remaining claims in court.”
A rep from Lively’s legal team insisted that even though the harassment claims were dropped, it was on a technicality. Sigrid McCawley said her client’s claim against Baldoni “isn’t going forward not because the defendants did nothing wrong but because the court determined Blake Lively was an independent contractor, not an employee,” per <a href="https://people.com/justin-baldoni-reacts-dismissal-blake-lively-sexual-harassment-claims-trial-11941948">People</a>.
“&#8230;the greatest measure of justice is that the people and the playbook behind these coordinated digital attacks have been exposed and are already being held accountable by other women they’ve targeted,” the statement went on.
The legal drama between the former costars started in December 2024 when Lively filed a lawsuit against Baldoni accusing him of sexual harassment, retaliation, and attempting to “destroy” her reputation. This came after she starred opposite Baldoni in “It Ends With Us,” a film he also directed.
Baldoni fervently denied the claims, responding with a countersuit against his co-star and her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds. He also sued The New York Times for $250 million in a defamation claim for an article about the situation, which he says is “rife with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and omissions.” The countersuit was dismissed by the judge in June 2025.
A trial is scheduled to kick off May 18 in New York.

Blake Lively

Judge Makes Decision On Blake Lively’s Sexual Harassment Claims Against Justin Baldoni

Celebrities

Entertainment

Sexual Harassment

The Supreme Court issued one of its most clarifying rulings in years on Tuesday, directly challenging the cancellation efforts of modern progressivism, and the reaction from the progressive Left revealed everything you need to know about who actually believes in freedom and who doesn’t.
In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/supreme-court-sides-with-therapist-in-challenge-to-colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy/">Chiles v. Salazar</a>, the Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” — specifically, talk therapy that helps minors explore whether their gender dysphoria might resolve in alignment with their biological sex — violates the First Amendment rights of licensed counselor Kaley Chiles. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, put it <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf">poetically</a>: laws that “suppress speech based on viewpoint represent an egregious assault” on First Amendment commitments. The ruling wasn’t close. It was a near-unanimous recognition that the government cannot dictate which therapeutic conversations are permissible and which are forbidden based on the ideological conclusion it prefers. Tuesday’s ruling should send a chill down the spine of other states that have taken similar action.
Enter Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY).
<a href="https://x.com/AndyBeshearKY/status/2039018698451677322?s=20">Beshear</a> decried the ruling, saying that “conversion therapy is torture,” and invoked his progressive Christian faith to say that “my faith teaches me that all children are children of God and practices that endanger or harm them are wrong.”
Beshear is welcome to espouse his convictions of faith in public life, including as a sitting governor (even if they depart from biblical teaching). He is not welcome to abuse it in the service of a philosophical position that he and other progressives fail to reason through with consistency.
Here is the question he, along with all other leftists, cannot or refuse to answer: If you affirm a minor’s right to pursue medical intervention — puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries — to align their body with their perceived gender identity, on what principled basis do you deny another minor the right to pursue talk therapy exploring whether their dysphoria might resolve without drastic intervention? Both involve a young person, a clinical professional, and a question about identity. The only difference is the direction of the therapeutic goal. And those goals are set against what progressivism thinks sufficiently aligned with its own aims. Beshear supports state-sponsored medical intervention when the conclusion is sufficiently progressive and lines up with what he bills as compassionate; he abandons the language of compassion when it runs contrary to leftist goals for using the government to advance transgender ideology.
The compassionate appeal to “children of God” is theologically sound as far as it goes — every Christian affirms it. But it proves too much and too little simultaneously. It proves too much because it could be deployed to ban any therapy a state deems harmful. It proves too little because it says nothing about which therapeutic goals are legitimate, which is the actual question before us. That’s an anthropological question, one that liberals do not like to answer because modern progressive anthropology lies on flimsy, irrational grounds, unable to determine what a man or woman even is. What Beshear wants is for his theological sentiments to do the intellectual work that his empty platitudes cannot. But a magistrate charged with upholding the common good owes citizens more than sentiment (Rom. 13:1-7). He owes them a coherent account of what a man and woman are, and which identity claims warrant medical affirmation and which warrant further reflection — and why. He has not given one. He cannot give one, because the moment he tries, the internal contradictions of progressive gender ideology become impossible to ignore.
Consider the logical structure on display in the leftist outcries to Tuesday’s decision:
Progressives opposed the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/">Skrmetti</a> decision, the Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, on the grounds that the state should not prevent individuals from pursuing medical interventions aligned with their gender identity. The watchword was choice. Bodily autonomy. Access to care.
Now those same leftists cheer when states ban a licensed counselor from having a conversation with a minor who voluntarily seeks to explore whether their dysphoria might be addressed without medical transition. The watchword is now “protection.” Safety. Science.
The contradiction is absurd. When a teenager wants hormones, progressivism demands the state get out of the way. When a teenager wants to talk to a therapist about living in accordance with biological reality, progressivism demands the state intervene. This is the enforcement of ideological conformity through the selective and weaponized deployment of the language of compassion.
Progressivism is not, at root, about expanding choices. It is about ratifying the correct choices — the ones that affirm the progressive account of identity, selfhood, and liberation. Every other choice, including the choice to embrace one’s given sex, is categorized as harm, trauma, or abuse.
Kaley Chiles was not torturing anyone. She was a Christian counselor who believed — correctly, as it happens — that talk therapy aimed at helping a young person live at peace with biological reality is a legitimate therapeutic goal. Eight justices agreed that Colorado (which now has a long track record of punishing people of faith and losing, thanks to Alliance Defending Freedom) had no business shutting her up.
All children are indeed children of God. That is precisely why they deserve honest counsel and the opportunity to hear the truth about their design.
***
Andrew T. Walker is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Managing Editor of WORLD Opinions. He is a Fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center.

US-NEWS-KYGOV-TRANSGENDER-HEALTHCARE-LX

Someone Ask Andy Beshear A Hard Question

Conversion Therapy

First Amendment

gender ideology

Yesterday was one of the most important days in American legal history! Federal judge Richard Leon ordered the Trump administration to stop construction of a new White House ballroom on the grounds of the somewhat recently torn down East Wing. And he did so by using a lot of exclamation points! In fact, he used 18 of them in a 35-page opinion. That’s a lot!
If we believe his Wikipedia page picture, Leon, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court in D.C. nearly 25 years ago by George W. Bush, actually looks like Seinfeld&#8216;s George Costanza in disguise. He previously worked as a hand model, for the New York Yankees, as an architect, and in an unknown capacity at Vandelay Industries. He also loves using exclamation points in his opinions! Four times, he refuted White House arguments by saying “Please!” As in, “according to Defendants, any construction delay will undermine national security. Please!” At least he didn’t say, “b*tch, please!” but it’s implied.
 Here are some other examples of the exclamatory function in Leon’s judicial prose: “the existence of a &#8216;large hole&#8217; beside the White House is, of course, a problem of the President&#8217;s own making!”; “This clearly is not how Congress and former Presidents have managed the White House for centuries, and this Court will not be the first to hold that Congress has ceded its powers in such a significant fashion!”; and “After all, the White House does not belong to any one man, not even a president!”
There’s a large percentage of the establishment, buttressed by Boomers and permanently terrified Gen-Xers on social media, who act like Trump’s attempts to build a grand ballroom at the White House are akin to him tearing out the Rose Garden to make way for a crematorium for illegal immigrants. The only thing that makes them madder is the Melania documentary. Leon, clearly, is the judge they want! This is the “People’s House,” they argue, even though most people don’t live there and will never go there. The renovation is privately funded and, in the end, will harm absolutely no one. But the real headline here is that a major judge has used exclamation points in a significant ruling like he’s a middle-schooler writing a mash note.
Imagine John Marshall using exclamation points, or Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., or Thurgood Marshall. During their long and unlikely friendship, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia never used exclamations in their judicial writings. William Howard Taft never used them. Also, he never got stuck in a bathtub!
But maybe American judicial writing would have been more exciting and easier to study if judges had been using exclamation points all along. According to Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, &#8220;It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is!” That’s pretty awesome. Rand and Ron Paul would have gone to bat hard for McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819: &#8220;The power to tax involves the power to destroy!&#8221;
&#8220;Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal!” Brown v. Board of Education would go. That’s for sure. John Marshall Harlan’s brave dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson might have carried more weight if he’d written: &#8220;The Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens!” As Miranda v. Arizona might say, “You have the right to remain silent!” Please!
I do exclaim: we all know how this will end. President Trump will ignore the court’s ruling or find a way around it. He’s going to build his big, beautiful ballroom. And then he and his administration will say to Judge Leon: Bye, Felicia!
***
Neal Pollack is the author of 12 semi-bestselling books of fiction and nonfiction and is a three-time Jeopardy! champion.

Trump indictment DC

Judge’s Anti-Trump Tone Raises Questions After One Over-The-Top Move

Judiciary

Trump Administration

White House Ballroom

A federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump’s effort to strip federal funding from National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service, handing a legal victory to the embattled public media outlets, even as their long-term funding outlook remains uncertain.
In a ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss permanently blocked the administration from enforcing a presidential directive that would have cut off federal support to NPR and PBS. Moss is a judge on the District Court of the District of Columbia and was appointed by former President Barack Obama. Moss cited the First Amendment, writing that it “does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type.”
“It is difficult to conceive of clearer evidence that a government action is targeted at viewpoints that the President does not like and seeks to squelch,” Moss wrote, concluding the executive order was unlawful and unenforceable.
The decision marks a significant rebuke of the administration’s argument that the outlets’ coverage ran counter to American interests. Trump had previously said he would “love to” defund NPR and PBS, accusing them of left-leaning bias. Moss rejected that rationale outright, emphasizing that the government cannot deny funding based on disapproval of speech or editorial perspective.
Leaders at both organizations quickly <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/judge-blocks-trumps-executive-order-to-end-federal-funding-for-pbs-and-npr">celebrated the ruling.</a> NPR CEO Katherine Maher called it “a decisive affirmation of the rights of a free and independent press,” while PBS CEO Paula Kerger described the executive order as “textbook&#8221; unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Still, the ruling may ultimately have limited practical impact. 
While Moss blocked the executive branch from unilaterally cutting funding, Congress has already taken steps that could prove far more consequential. Lawmakers previously rescinded federal appropriations for public broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, a move that led to the shutdown of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the key entity responsible for distributing federal funds to NPR and PBS.
Following House passage of the Rescissions Act, Kate Riley, CEO of <a href="https://apts.org/news/press-releases/local-public-television-stations-will-close-after-us-congress-votes-rescind-essential-funding">America’s Public Television Stations</a>, said at the time the move would “decimate public media” by eliminating the bulk of federal funding that flows to local stations. More than 70 percent of appropriated funds, she noted, go directly to local broadcasters rather than national networks.
Riley argued lawmakers targeting National Public Radio and Public Broadcasting Service risk collateral damage to smaller, independent stations, some of which do not even carry NPR or PBS programming. Many of those outlets, particularly in rural areas, rely on federal support to remain operational.
The funding itself is modest, about $1.60 per person annually, but, according to Riley, functionally irreplaceable within the current system. The rescission ended funding beginning October 1, 2025, and ultimately shuttered the CPB altogether, a prediction that came to pass in January of 2026.
That reality underscores the limits of the recent court ruling. While the judiciary has drawn a constitutional boundary around executive action, the more decisive battle over public media’s future is now unfolding in Congress, where the outcome may prove far more consequential than any single legal decision.
The judge acknowledged as much, noting that while some claims related to the now-defunct CPB were moot, the executive order still extended beyond it by directing all federal agencies to cease funding the outlets entirely. That sweeping directive, Moss found, crossed a constitutional line.
The case now sets up a likely appeal, with broader implications for the limits of executive power over federally funded institutions and the extent to which government officials can factor editorial viewpoints into funding decisions.

US-BUSINESS-NPR

Obama-Appointed Judge Throws Wrench In Trump’s Plan To Defund NPR, PBS

Media

Politics

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)

A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration&#8217;s restrictive Pentagon press access policy, which threatens journalists with being ​branded security risks if they seek information not authorized for public release.
The lawsuit by the New York Times in Washington, D.C., federal court alleged that policy changes by the Defense Department last year gave it free rein to freeze out reporters and news outlets over coverage the department did not like, in violation of the Constitution&#8217;s protections for free speech and due process. The government disputed that characterization and said the policy is reasonable and necessary for national security.
U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said in his ruling that he recognized the importance of protecting troops and war plans but that it was &#8220;more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing&#8221; in light of President Donald Trump&#8217;s recent &#8220;incursion&#8221; into Venezuela and war with Iran.
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said on social media that the government disagrees with the decision and will seek an immediate appeal.
New York Times spokesman Charlie Stadtlander said the ruling enforces constitutionally protected rights for the free press and &#8220;reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public&#8217;s behalf.&#8221;
&#8220;Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,&#8221; Stadtlander said in a statement on Friday.
The changes approved under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in October 2025 state that journalists can be deemed security risks and have their press badges revoked if they solicit unauthorized military personnel to disclose classified, and in some cases unclassified, information.
Of the 56 news outlets in the Pentagon Press Association, only one agreed to sign an acknowledgment of the new policy, according to the Times&#8217; lawsuit. Reporters who did not sign surrendered their press passes.
The Pentagon assembled a new press corps consisting of pro-Trump outlets and media personalities after the exodus of reporters, which the Times said was evidence that the policy was aimed at stifling unflattering coverage.
The policy states that publishing sensitive information &#8220;is generally protected by the First Amendment&#8221; but says soliciting that information could be considered by officials when determining whether a reporter poses a &#8220;security or safety risk.&#8221;
In its lawsuit, the Times said the policy unlawfully restricts essential newsgathering techniques and gives the Pentagon &#8220;unfettered&#8221; discretion to revoke passes, permitting it to impose the type of &#8220;viewpoint-based&#8221; press restrictions forbidden by the Constitution.
Justice Department lawyers acknowledged the policy was partly subjective but said press credentialing decisions were still governed by neutral, objective criteria. The government also said soliciting military personnel to commit a crime by disclosing unauthorized information was not legally protected speech.
In his ruling on Friday, Friedman said the policy violated the First and Fifth Amendments because it was vague, overly expansive and &#8220;makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department&#8221; a possible basis for revocation of a journalist&#8217;s pass.
He also rejected the government&#8217;s argument that the policy is aimed at preventing criminal solicitation of defense secrets by journalists, saying it was impossible for reporters to know whether information they seek is authorized for release.
Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy chief Seth Stern praised Friday&#8217;s ruling in a statement, saying it was &#8220;shocking&#8221; that the government had argued that &#8220;journalists asking questions of the government is criminal.&#8221;
The Associated Press has a pending lawsuit against Trump administration officials over its removal from the White House press corps after the news agency decided to continue using the Gulf of Mexico&#8217;s established ​name, while acknowledging Trump&#8217;s executive order calling on U.S. institutions to refer to it as the Gulf of America.
The AP said the decision was illegal viewpoint-based discrimination, while the government countered that it had wide discretion over press access decisions for non-public spaces.
(Reporting by Jack Queen in New York; Editing by Kate Mayberry and Rosalba O&#8217;Brien)

The Pentagon

Pentagon Pushes Back After Judge Rules Press Access Limits Unconstitutional

Free Speech

Pentagon

Pete Hegseth

An Ohio company was ordered to pay $22.5 million to a woman whose baby died after her company denied her request to work from home during a high-risk pregnancy.
Per <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-firm-must-pay-225-million-mom-whose-baby-died-was-denied-work-hom-rcna264321?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&amp;taid=69bc55cb9ac2060001303ea5&amp;utm_campaign=trueanthem&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter">NBC News</a>, Chelsea Walsh requested to work from home beginning on February 15, 2021, for her job with Total Quality Logistics, but was denied. Walsh had just undergone an operation on her cervix when she made the request and was recommended to be put on bed rest due to the high risk nature of her pregnancy.
A <a href="https://www.woltermanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-03-18-Larkin-v.-Total-Quality-Logistics-press-release-1-2.pdf">press release</a> from Walsh’s attorney said her doctors “instructed her to limit activity, remain on modified bed rest, and work from home.”
“TQL presented Walsh with an impossible choice — work at the office and put additional strain on her child, or take an unpaid leave of absence and lose the income and health insurance she needed,” the lawsuit said.
Her husband Joel Walsh then had a conversation with the company’s human resources manager, who is friends with an executive at TQL, the lawsuit says. The unnamed executive allegedly said, “Thank you … you just saved us a lawsuit.”
This led to Walsh’s request being granted on February 24, which is the same day she went into premature labor and gave birth to a daughter, named Magnolia. The baby was born at 20 weeks and four days.
&#8220;Magnolia had a heartbeat, was breathing, and exhibited fetal movement,&#8221; the lawsuit says, per NBC. &#8220;Magnolia was placed on Walsh’s chest so that Walsh could hold her. Magnolia died in Walsh’s arms approximately one hour and thirty minutes later.&#8221;
The jury ruled in Walsh’s favor and ordered the company to pay $22.5 million in damages for what they determined to be a wrongful death.
“This is a heartbreaking outcome for a young family,” one of Walsh&#8217;s lawyers said in a statement. “The evidence showed that Chelsea Walsh was following her doctors’ instructions for a high-risk pregnancy and simply asked to work from home.&#8221;
&#8220;The jury found that TQL’s denial of that reasonable request led to the death of her daughter,” he said.
Julia Daugherty, a rep for TQL, said the company disagreed with the verdict, arguing that “the way the facts were characterized at trial&#8221; were not accurate. “We are evaluating legal options and remain committed to supporting the health and well-being of our employees,” the rep said.

Baby feet

Firm Must Pay $22.5M To Woman Whose Baby Died After Work-From-Home Request Denial

Business

Death

Motherhood

Ohio

Planned Parenthood’s Illinois chapter has agreed to pay $500,000 after the federal government investigated allegations that the branch discriminated against its white employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said there is reasonable cause to believe the organization segregated its employees by race into “affinity networks.”
Many firms have “affinity networks,” which allow employees to join employee groups with those to whom they feel similar. However, at other companies, these networks are voluntary, not mandatory. Planned Parenthood had mandatory &#8220;affinity caucuses” segregated by race, and employees of other races were not allowed to participate.
Every week, staff were required to attend one- to two-hour sessions of segregated racial affinity caucuses or DEI training. At DEI training sessions, white employees were reportedly the target of harassment and derogatory statements such as: they “are white and do not feel racism the same way that non-white patients feel” and “white supremacy is exerted at every level of oppression.&#8221;
EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas said, “Segregating employees by race violates the core promise of our nation’s civil rights laws.” Lucas added in her statement that Title VII guarantees equal treatment for every employee and “those protections equally apply to white workers.”
Planned Parenthood employees alleged that the company even restricted the benefits of white employees. “Planned Parenthood also denied white employees access to time off that it granted only to black employees,” the report read. Along with the $500,000 settlement, Planned Parenthood fired the manager responsible for the misconduct that the investigation uncovered. The EEOC says the investigation was prompted after multiple employees brought forward their concerns.
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-illinois/newsroom/statement-in-response-to-august-21-article-from-buzzfeed-news-statement-in-response-to-august-21-article-from-buzzfeed-news?utm_source=chatgpt.com">obtained</a> a press release from the Illinois Planned Parenthood affiliate that may have been the start of the organization’s discriminatory practices.
Planned Parenthood of Illinois said in a response to a BuzzFeed News article, &#8220;Despite not having the details of this particular incident, we recognize that Planned Parenthood has been complicit in upholding systemic racism. Moving forward, [Planned Parenthood of Illinois] is deeply committed to being anti-racist and ensuring that our work is not performative, that there is no divide between our words and actions.”
They added, “As part of this work, we’ve created spaces for honest conversations about race and are providing multiple channels through which staff have opportunities to share their lived experiences with leadership.”
The Illinois Planned Parenthood is not the only affiliate to release statements on racism in their organization. Nineteen out of the 49 Planned Parenthood affiliates have issued statements.
Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest said, “We must confront how white supremacy of the past and present continues in the institutions we are a part of today including our own organization.&#8221;
The Virginia affiliate said that they acknowledge “our past and our present participation in white supremacy and are committed to stopping, learning, growing and living our values through the hard and uncomfortable work of progress.”
None of the statements released by the Planned Parenthood chapters specifically addressed discrimination allegations against white employees or white patients.

Bill Tompkins  Planned Parenthood signage Archive

Planned Parenthood Chapter Hit With $500K Settlement Over Discrimination Against White Employees

Abortion

Discrimination

Planned Parenthood

Racism

Menu