After decades of investing in life science breakthroughs, from biotech platforms to diagnostic innovations, I’ve seen what’s possible when bold ideas meet real backing. I’ve also seen what happens when bureaucracy gets in the way. Nearly $52 billion flows through the National Institutes of Health each year — taxpayer money entrusted to one of the world’s most important engines of biomedical progress. It begs a tough question: Is the NIH delivering what it promises? In my opinion, not yet.
Discovery today moves faster than ever, but the NIH struggles to keep pace — not from lack of talent or mission, but because of outdated systems, fragmented structure, and a risk-averse culture. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s not about dismantling anything. It’s about upgrading an essential institution to work the way science works: fast, open, collaborative, and accountable. Under Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s leadership, with his courage and clear-eyed vision, we’re closer than ever to meaningful reform.
The NIH’s 27 institutes and centers often function in isolation, duplicating work and missing chances to collaborate. In 2024, $9 billion went to indirect costs like admin overhead — paperwork, not pipettes or Petri dishes. Rep. Cathy McMorris proposed streamlining to 15 centers, a plan that ought to be seriously considered. Merging overlapping fields, say, translational medicine and biomedical imaging, would sharpen focus and accelerate progress. It would help the NIH act like a modern, integrated organization, not a loose confederation of silos. Let scientists spend their time in the lab, not in grant-cycle purgatory.
<div id="attachment_946227" style="width: 879px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-946227" class="size-large wp-image-946227" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636-869x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 12: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya speaks alongside President Donald Trump during a press conference in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on May 12, 2025, in Washington, DC. During the event, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at reducing the cost of prescription drugs and pharmaceuticals by 30% to 80%. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)" width="869" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636-869x576.jpg 869w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636-300x199.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636-768x509.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 869px) 100vw, 869px" />Andrew Harnik/Getty Images</div>
Public funding comes with public accountability, and the NIH has work to do. Concerns over inadequate responses to research misconduct, opaque grant reviews, and questionable international ties — like those linked to risky pathogen studies — damage credibility and slow progress. What’s needed isn’t punishment but clarity. Reforms to tighten oversight, simplify peer review, and flag repeat issues will protect the science and the people behind it. The American public is generous in funding medical research. It’s time to be just as generous with the truth.
In my years as a venture capitalist, I’ve learned that real innovation comes from unexpected places — outsiders, first-time founders, scientists chasing questions no one else asks. But the NIH’s grant system favors the safe route, funding incremental research while visionary proposals, like a novel approach to Alzheimer’s, get passed over. Put more generalists and cross-disciplinary thinkers on peer review panels. Train reviewers to recognize high-risk/high-reward ideas. Carve out funding for newcomers applying for the first time. We can’t solve 21st-century problems if we’re afraid to back 21st-century thinkers.
The scientific landscape has changed — AI decodes protein structures, organ-on-chip tech replaces animal testing, wearables guide patient care. Yet the NIH uses tools and timelines built for another era. The new public access policy, requiring funded studies to be shared freely, is a good start. But modernizing how we evaluate, fund, and share research is overdue. AI-driven grant reviews and real-time data platforms could match the global pace of discovery. If we want to compete with China and Europe, we need to move faster.
Despite its massive budget, the NIH sends disproportionate funding to elite institutions. In 2023, half of all grants went to just 10 states. Great science can come from a fresh PhD in Idaho or a tenured lab in Iowa, but without grant caps, geographic diversity, and fair review standards, those ideas never get a shot. America doesn’t have a monopoly on good ideas. Let’s stop acting like it does.
Are all reform proposals perfect? No. They’ll need input from scientists, policymakers, and patients who count on the results. Ignoring the problem, though, is reckless. This isn’t about tearing down the NIH; it’s about retooling it for today’s challenges. I came to this country believing in what it stood for. I’ve backed companies that pushed the limits of healthcare. I believe American science is the best in the world, but it needs a system that doesn’t hold it back. Let’s build an NIH that earns trust, funds bold ideas, and turns the best thinking into real-world cures. It’s time we let science lead. 
* * *
Guy Paul Nohra is co-founder of Alta Partners, a leading Venture Capital firm in life sciences, funding over 150 companies in the healthcare/life sciences sector since 1996 through eight Venture Capital funds.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

HHS Secretary Kennedy Holds News Conference On Synthetic Dyes In Food Supply

Paperwork And Petri Dishes: It’s Time To Reform The NIH And Let Science Lead

Paperwork And Petri Dishes: It's Time To Reform The NIH And Let Science Lead

Federal Government

Health

Health Care

Jay Bhattacharya

Medical

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump to resume his plans to cut the federal workforce and restructure agencies, a key promise he made on the campaign trail to hack away at the size of the federal government.
The justices lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston&#8217;s May 22 order that had blocked large-scale federal layoffs called &#8220;reductions in force&#8221; affecting potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, while litigation in the case proceeds.
Trump in February announced &#8220;a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy&#8221; in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by the administration.
Workforce reductions were planned at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and more than a dozen other agencies.
The Supreme Court, in a brief unsigned order, said Trump&#8217;s administration was &#8220;likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order&#8221; and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies.
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision. Jackson wrote that Illston&#8217;s &#8220;temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court&#8217;s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.&#8221;
Illston wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits, and local governments that challenged the administration.
&#8220;As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress,&#8221; Illston wrote.
The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out.
Illston&#8217;s ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president&#8217;s drive to slash the federal workforce.
Formerly spearheaded by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government, and root out wasteful spending and fraud. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with Trump.
The Left-leaning San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling on May 30, denied the administration&#8217;s request to halt the judge&#8217;s ruling.
The 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge&#8217;s order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit.
&#8220;The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president&#8217;s supervisory powers under the Constitution,&#8221; the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration&#8217;s actions &#8220;an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations.&#8221;
The 9th Circuit&#8217;s ruling prompted the Justice Department&#8217;s June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston&#8217;s order.
Controlling the personnel of federal agencies &#8220;lies at the heartland&#8221; of the president&#8217;s executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in its filing to the Supreme Court.
&#8220;The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers,&#8221; the filing said, referring to the constitution&#8217;s section delineating presidential authority.
The plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to deny the Justice Department&#8217;s request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its &#8220;breakneck reorganization,&#8221; they wrote, would mean that &#8220;programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.&#8221;
The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January.
It cleared the way for Trump&#8217;s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants.
It also allowed Trump to implement his ban on trans-identifying people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge&#8217;s order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, and twice sided with his Department of Government Efficiency.
In addition, the court curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.
(Reporting by John Kruzel; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

Donald Trump

Trump Wins At SCOTUS Again: Court Says Admin Can Resume Mass Layoffs Of Federal Workers

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Supreme Court

Trump Administration

The IRS made clear its stance on churches endorsing political candidates in front of their congregations, saying in a court filing on Monday that houses of worship are free to push political candidates from the pulpit without fear of losing their tax-exempt status.
The IRS clarification came in a lawsuit court filing after two Texas churches and an association of Christian broadcasters sued, seeking an exemption from the ban on churches endorsing political candidates, The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/07/us/politics/irs-churches-politics-endorse-candidates.html">reported</a>. While the plaintiffs sought a carve-out for all nonprofits, the IRS agreed in a court filing to allow churches to endorse candidates without penalty.
According to the IRS, the Johnson Amendment — which has been part of the U.S. tax code since 1954 — does not prohibit a church from communicating with its congregants about its preferred political candidates, comparing such endorsements to “a family discussion concerning candidates.”
“Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,” the agency wrote in the <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txed.232590/gov.uscourts.txed.232590.35.0.pdf">court filing</a>.
The IRS added that it has long refrained from enforcing the Johnson Amendment against churches &#8220;for speech concerning electoral politics in the context of worship services.&#8221; For several years, pastors from around the country organized to test the tax code during &#8220;Pulpit Freedom Sunday,&#8221; The Washington Post reported. The IRS only launched one investigation stemming from &#8220;Pulpit Freedom Sunday,&#8221; and the agency did not punish any churches.
The IRS statement will be celebrated by many conservative Christians who have long viewed the prohibition on political endorsements as infringing upon their free speech.
During his first term, President Donald Trump stated that he wanted to &#8220;totally destroy&#8221; the Johnson Amendment, which was introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson (D-TX) in 1954.
“I will get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment and allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution,” Trump <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-to-totally-destroy-restrictions-on-churches-support-of-candidates/2017/02/02/fed9bad2-e981-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html">told</a> Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2017. “I will do that, remember.”
For the Johnson Amendment to be repealed, Congress would have to take action.
Proponents of the Johnson Amendment argue that the tax code is essential for guarding campaign finance laws. If the Johnson Amendment were repealed, some worry that political contributions could be funneled through tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations, and the contributions could remain undisclosed and tax-deductible.

Church

Trump’s IRS Says Churches Can Endorse Political Candidates Without Losing Tax Status

Christianity

Churches

Executive

Religion

Taxes

U.S.

We are not solving our deficit problem.
You can see what&#8217;s going to happen to the United States down the line, because no one takes this problem seriously. Most Republicans don&#8217;t. Most Democrats don&#8217;t. The American people certainly do not. 
All you have to do is take a look across the ocean at Great Britain. On Wednesday, there was a shocking and fraught moment that happened there. The Wall Street Journal <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/britains-chancellor-in-tears-as-investors-turn-on-government-22aee17f?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=ASWzDAjZpkxEZH_qTxXcl-zvbi7np_J3qYRtV5gD99cAFFKx9W04z7JDoMWZ-xkzK3w%3D&amp;gaa_ts=6866caec&amp;gaa_sig=0k3E5u5VSkXj7mYSs0Q3EQLJqtEknleCqra4ptlRa79N59RLrBTHOVLmsAPH4A3zsL6rpF65FSo9B8cDPH9nDA%3D%3D">reported</a>:
<blockquote>Investors sold off British government bonds and the pound fell sharply on Wednesday after the Labour government abandoned plans to cut ballooning welfare costs and the country’s Chancellor of the Exchequer was seen crying in parliament. The selloff came hours after the government of Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wsj.com/topics/person/keir-starmer">Keir Starmer</a> shelved a plan to cut disability payments following a rebellion by Labour’s own lawmakers. 
The U-turn raised the prospect of the government hiking taxes or issuing more debt to fund its welfare system. It also casts doubt over the future of Rachel Reeves, the U.K. chancellor, who took the job just over a year ago promising a return to economic stability in Britain by<a href="https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-sp500-nasdaq-live-01-23-2025/card/u-k-will-stick-to-fiscal-rules-reeves-tells-wsj-lyApDGigeve1oDWxyzwP?mod=article_inline"> sticking to strict spending rules. </a> The pound sank in value, losing more than 1% to trade at $1.36. U.K. government bonds, too, tumbled in price, sending the yield on 10-year gilts up 0.12 percentage point to 4.581%. That far outpaced the more muted gains for yields in the U.S. and in other major markets. 
“Markets have latched onto the idea that Reeves’s departure might be much more imminent,” said Mark Dowding, chief investment officer for fixed income at RBC BlueBay Asset Management. “That is unsettling investors in terms of what that means of the Labour government’s commitment to the fiscal framework.” </blockquote>
Of course, the Labour Party didn&#8217;t have any commitment to the fiscal framework; they are a far-Left party. They were never going to be fiscally responsible.  
This is demonstrative of a crisis that is eventually going to face every Western government, including the government of the United States. “The government’s climbdown points to a broader truth for governments across Western Europe, where weak economic growth means countries are struggling to raise enough revenue to pay for rising costs from an aging population, the Journal stated “With voters largely wary of spending cuts, that leaves higher taxes, which could hurt growth further, as the most likely outcome.”
“Britain is already on course to register the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/britains-labour-party-bets-on-big-taxes-borrowing-to-boost-economy-5d3eba82?mod=article_inline">highest tax burden</a> since World War II thanks to big spending during the pandemic and paying out for energy subsidies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile its growth prospects remain meager,” the Journal noted.
If you look into the future for the United States, this sort of thing could happen here, too. The United States is demographically growing only because of immigration.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2231?elementPosition=5&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
The reality is that the fertility rate in the United States is actually below replacement levels, at 1.66 births per woman. The United States is not replacing its own population. The only way we are able to do that is through large-scale immigration, which we have stopped, which means we have a shrinking tax base, an aging population, just like Western Europe, slower but similar.
We also have the possibility of serious economic stagnation, absent a massive breakthrough in AI that suddenly translates into higher productivity.
If all of that materializes and we don&#8217;t cut any of the massive welfare state that we have built, we are going to end up inflating our way out of this. That&#8217;s the reality. As I&#8217;ve said myriad times, there are only three solutions to massive debt: inflation, massive tax increases, or austerity. Our population is so used to its benefits that they do not want austerity.
But eventually, the West is going to have to grow up and recognize that the welfare state has costs attendant upon it. And those costs are going to have to be paid for by someone; they can&#8217;t be kicked down the road indefinitely. You can&#8217;t just magically manufacture money and hope the economy is going to continue to sail forward.
So, what does the United States need? It needs massive economic growth, and eventually it&#8217;s going to need some real cuts to the size and scope of government.
The kind of cuts in the Big, Beautiful Bill are not going to do it. They need to be a lot larger than that.
I know that&#8217;s an unpopular view. It also happens to be an economically sane view that very few people in politics are willing to take because most people don&#8217;t want to hear it.
But we must be willing to listen to reality, even if it’s painful, for one reason, and one reason alone: In the end, reality always wins.

NATO Leaders Attend 2025 Summit In The Hague

Reality And The Fiscal Wake-Up Call From Britain

England

Entitlement Reform

Europe

Great Britain

Keir Starmer

London

National Debt

Opinion

Parliament

Welfare

Elon Musk and President Trump are at it again.
A rift has emerged in the Republican caucus between some of the tech bros and populist economists in the Trump coalition.
The Senate passed the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” but you have the economic populists who&#8217;d like lower taxes and big spending, and then you have the tech guys, and what they&#8217;re mostly concerned about is deregulation; they would like some subsidies aimed at things like AI and green energy.
Thus, we are seeing that all break out into the open with regard to Elon Musk.
“Critics say that President Trump&#8217;s mega bill amounts to an abject surrender in the battle for the future of energy,” <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/07/01/trump-clean-energy-tax-credits-renewables">Axios reported</a>. “The consequences for U.S. jobs, electricity prices and the arms race could reverberate for decades.”
Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1939390933205991585">tweeted</a>, “A massive strategic error is being made right now to damage solar/battery. That will leave America extremely vulnerable in the future.”
Jason Bordoff, who leads the Columbia University energy think tank, said the bill could <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/07/01/trump-clean-energy-tax-credits-renewables">hinder the United States</a> in the AI race with China. He said, “Winning that race is going to require we increase electricity generation capacity in the US really fast by a lot. That soaring demand is creating tailwinds for natural gas and nuclear. But even those great sources cannot ramp up fast enough to meet the urgent near-term needs of data centers and AI infrastructure.&#8221;
He&#8217;s saying you need to throw everything at energy, including so-called renewable energy.
So this is a major battle that&#8217;s broken out again inside the tech-centric part of the Republican Party.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2230-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Beyond that, there was supposed to be an amendment to the &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill&#8221; in the Senate that was going to protect the development of AI in the United States by creating a federal moratorium to bar state-level experimentation with regulation on AI. Florida couldn&#8217;t have its own AI rules; California its own AI rules.
The idea was that there would be a federal ban on state-level legislation. The federal government could still legislate and regulate with regard to AI, but you don&#8217;t want AI companies having to navigate the thickets of 50 different state regulatory structures in order to develop, because we are in a national competition with China on the development of AI.
But the Senate voted 99-1 to strip a provision that would have blocked states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next ten years.
This is definitely going to hold up the development of AI on a national level.
All of this led to the massive clash now occurring between President Trump and Elon Musk. What exactly happened?
Musk decided that he was going to go to war with the bill again. He threatened to primary senators and congresspeople who voted for the bill. He also vowed to help Thomas Massie — the Republican congressperson who truly gets on President Trump&#8217;s nerves by voting against everything Trump wants — saying he&#8217;s going to help him in a primary.
President Trump then hit back with a long social media post of his own, seeking to frame Musk&#8217;s opposition as a bid to cling to his electric vehicle subsidies. <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114776149269773065">He wrote</a>:
<blockquote>Elon Musk knew, long before he so strongly Endorsed me for President, that I was strongly against the EV Mandate. It is ridiculous, and was always a major part of my campaign. Electric cars are fine, but not everyone should be forced to own one. Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa. No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE. Perhaps we should have DOGE take a good, hard, look at this? BIG MONEY TO BE SAVED!!!</blockquote>
He went right at Elon&#8217;s jugular, basically saying, “Listen, you started DOGE. Why don&#8217;t we examine the cost structure on the Tesla EVs? Why don&#8217;t we examine the cost structure on SpaceX and all the rest?”
This followed Musk pledging he would form a new party he calls the America Party. He wrote, “Nearly the entire House and Senate GOP will lose their primary next year if it&#8217;s the last thing I do on this earth.” He went out of his way to call out House Republicans who call themselves budget hawks, such as Andy Harris of Maryland, and Chip Roy of Texas, as well as Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.
Trump is saying, “Listen, buddy, you know, we are friends. We&#8217;re on the same side of this. But if you keep going after this bill and you&#8217;re doing so because you want a subsidy, we could just remove all of those subsidies.”
Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1940025317701148864">responded</a> on X/Twitter, “So tempting to escalate this. So, so tempting. But I will refrain for now.” 
 
There are a few different factors clashing here, as I’ve said before. On an ideologically and politically pure level, Elon complaining about the “Big Beautiful Bill” is not wrong. It spends far too much money.
But that&#8217;s true for virtually every bill passed at the federal level. That&#8217;s just the reality.
I wish the American people approved of Elon&#8217;s spending plans. I do. I wish we were restructuring our entitlements in a serious way. I wish we weren&#8217;t going to sleepwalk our way like Thelma and Louise right over the cliff, that fiscal cliff that is going to come sometime in the next few years.
I wish we did all these things, but the American public simply is not prepared to do any of those things. And that&#8217;s where you enter the realm of the pragmatic, where President Trump lives.
Is this fight really about EV subsidies? Is this fight truly about political purism, or is it something more personal?
As I&#8217;ve suggested before, the fact that the Trump administration decided they were going to get rid of Elon&#8217;s hand-picked head for NASA — which Sergio Gore was apparently behind — is what ticked Elon off. He hasn&#8217;t let go of it. He&#8217;s still going after the bill. Because of that incident, as well as Elon&#8217;s idealistic view of how politics should work, it should not be a shock that Elon is now attempting to wield his power in a kind of blunderbuss fashion.
It&#8217;s also not a shock that President Trump is slapping back, essentially saying, “Listen, I&#8217;m the president of the United States. Thank you for your help. But I&#8217;m the president. I&#8217;m the one who has to do all this stuff. I&#8217;m the one who has to cut the deals, and I&#8217;m the one who has to live with it if we don’t make the tax cuts permanent.”
This bill indeed has a lot of pork, but so does every single government funding bill of my lifetime. There has yet to be a major government bill that is not a big-spending government bill because the American people lie to themselves all the time. We say we want lower spending, but when asked what we would cut, we start scratching our heads and looking around.
That is the problem if you wish to build a cohesive movement for serious cuts to the government.
That was never the MAGA movement. It wasn&#8217;t. I’ve been speaking publicly about not loving that about MAGA since 2016. President Trump was the one candidate declaring back in 2015 and 2016 that he was not going to touch entitlements. Although I am indeed a big fan of Trump, I’ve criticized him for that position for a decade, because I would love to touch the entitlements.
I think entitlements are a disaster area. They are bankrupting the country. They&#8217;re wildly ineffective as they currently stand. I think there are fixes that could be made to them. I think many of them can be delegated back to the state or local level. And I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s the proper function of the federal government to be involved in three-quarters of this stuff.
But my opinion is not the MAGA opinion. If you&#8217;re going to be politically pragmatic about this, you have to recognize that what this bill effectively is about, more than anything else, is making sure the tax cuts don&#8217;t go away, making sure defense is paid for, and making sure immigration is paid for, among other things.
Is Elon going to force Trump to fight again? I want to know what the endgame is. What is it that Elon is really looking for here?
If he wants to build a popular movement outside the government in favor of slashing and burning large swaths of the federal government, sign me up today. But if we are talking about the idea that someone like Chip Roy is unsuitable for big government, or if we&#8217;re saying the choices here are letting the tax cuts expire and taxes radically increase, and you still don&#8217;t get lower spending, I think most Americans will choose the bill.
That doesn&#8217;t mean that the bill polls particularly well, because the bill&#8217;s been criticized every which way.
But I guarantee you: If Republicans don&#8217;t get this done and the taxes do increase, that&#8217;s going to be even more unpopular.

President Trump Attends NCAA Division I Wrestling Championship In Philadelphia

Elon Musk, Trump, And The Future Of The GOP

Ben Shapiro

Debt Ceiling

Elon Musk

President Trump

Corporations that receive billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded federal contracts have a duty to be ideologically neutral, transparent, and accountable to the American people.
This shouldn’t need to be said. But 1792 Exchange’s <a href="https://1792exchange.com/contractors/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new database</a> of top government contractors shows that it does.
One of the report’s most striking revelations is the fact that some government contractors most aggressively aligned with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are not even American. These include the United Kingdom-based BAE Systems, BP, Deloitte, and Rolls-Royce, and Ireland-based Accenture.
Many American contractors blatantly promote radical agendas — at this point, LGBT might as well stand for “Lockheed, General Dynamics, Boeing, Textron” — but allowing foreign firms to act as ideological agents within the American system is beyond the pale.
These firms exert extensive influence on federal agencies and provide essential services such as defense technology, energy logistics, financial auditing, and consulting, while actively promoting a worldview that the American electorate and our current administration reject.
As President Donald Trump made clear in executive orders rescinding federal DEI mandates, the “government should be focused on mission readiness, not ideological indoctrination.” This principle must encompass foreign contractors and consultants.
To grasp the scale of ideological encroachment, consider <a href="https://1792exchange.com/spotlight-reports/corporate-bias-ratings/?c_id=1073" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BAE Systems</a>, the British defense and aerospace giant, which received $7.7 billion in government contracts in 2023.
Despite serving as a primary contractor for the Department of Defense, BAE has <a href="https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/article/bae-systems-inc-releases-third-annual-dei-report" target="_blank" rel="noopener">adopted comprehensive DEI goals</a>, including race- and gender-based recruitment benchmarks and board composition — a commitment they called “<a href="https://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/b/LSE_BA_2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Change the Race Ratio</a>” in their 2023 annual report — and ethnicity-based mentorship programs, such as RISE, implemented by KPMG.
In the United Kingdom, where BAE is allowed to take “<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace#:~:text=communicate%20with%20staff.-,2.,is%20relevant%20to%20a%20case." target="_blank" rel="noopener">positive action</a>,” it must adhere to national expectations of not engaging in “positive discrimination.” Yet on American soil, with American funds, they behave as if potential violations of civil rights law are both normative and commendable.
Similarly, <a href="https://1792exchange.com/company/bp/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BP</a> — the British energy conglomerate that obtained over a billion dollars in federal contracts from the United States government — publicly supports a vast range of DEI policies, <a href="https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/sustainability/bp-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-report-2020.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">including racial equity audits</a>, <a href="https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/investors/bp-directors-remuneration-report-2021.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DEI-linked executive compensation schemes,</a> and <a href="https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/careers/life-at-bp/our-stories/bp-recognized-by-stonewall.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">gender identity training</a> protocols.
American citizens, through federal procurement budgets, are effectively subsidizing an imported ideology that increasingly lacks democratic legitimacy at home.
<a href="https://1792exchange.com/company/accenture/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Accenture</a> ($3 billion) and <a href="https://1792exchange.com/company/deloitte/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Deloitte</a> ($3.7 billion), incorporated in Ireland and the United Kingdom, respectively, have become deeply embedded in federal operations, making their cultural influence within agencies indistinguishable from that of internal leadership. These firms frequently promoted their DEI credentials in competitive bids, and until now, federal officials have often highlighted these characteristics as value-added features instead of liabilities.
It’s commendable that Accenture <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/accenture-dropping-corporate-dei-policies" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced it would end its DEI initiatives</a>. However, given its history of establishing headquarters in foreign countries — first in Bermuda, then moving to Dublin in 2009 to avoid paying American taxes — it’s concerning that the company promoted this agenda at any point without being fully invested in the outcome of our nation.
Given that $3 billion of its $64.9 billion in revenue comes directly from American taxpayers, and its global CEO operates from an office in the Washington, D.C., area, one should question how Accenture can claim to be Irish. Notably, the company is aware of this line of inquiry, listing its Irish domicile as a risk factor in its <a href="https://www.accenture.com/content/dam/accenture/final/accenture-com/a-com-custom-component/iconic/document/Accenture-2024-10-K.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2024 10-K filing</a> with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Likewise, <a href="https://1792exchange.com/company/rolls-royce-holdings-plc/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rolls-Royce</a> ($1.1 billion), the British aerospace firm, completes the list of foreign-headquartered contractors that combine technological excellence with radical ideological activism. Although it <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/companies/article/rolls-royce-dei-us-diversity-backlash-9hcs2zdrm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reportedly</a> rolled back funding for its identity-based employee resource groups in the United States, Rolls-Royce previously enacted internal policies that reflect the most radical tenets of the DEI framework, including <a href="https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/annual-report/2021/ar2021-strategic-report.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">“anti-racism” events</a> and <a href="https://www.rolls-royce.com/country-sites/sea/our-stories/2019/women-in-stem.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unconscious bias training</a>.
The central paradox is this: as the United States reorients its federal policy around merit, neutrality, and excellence, some of the largest beneficiaries of government contracts are foreign actors advancing the very ideologies that Americans just voted to reject.
Congress and the Trump administration must act swiftly to align federal contracting policy with the new executive directives. A contractor’s country of incorporation must not allow it to launder political agendas through backdoor bureaucratic channels.
Ultimately, federal contracting is more than an economic matter; it is a matter of sovereignty. American taxpayers should not be subsidizing foreign entities that undermine American values. 1792 Exchange’s report has exposed this vulnerability. Now, it falls to policymakers to close the gap between the will of the people and the behavior of those paid to serve them.
Daniel Cameron is the CEO of the 1792 Exchange and the former attorney general of Kentucky.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Davos become a showcase for global companies

Foreign Companies Use Taxpayer Dollars To Push DEI. That Needs To Stop.

Lockheed Martin

United Kingdom

Elon Musk said on Friday that while he is taking a step back from his role in the White House, the Department of Government Efficiency, which he helped spearhead, will continue to &#8220;grow stronger.&#8221;
Musk appeared alongside President Donald Trump in the Oval Office for a press conference on the end of Musk&#8217;s time as a &#8220;special government employee.&#8221; During the press conference, Trump praised Musk for his work with the DOGE team, and Musk said he would remain an adviser to the president.
&#8220;This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning,&#8221; Musk said. &#8220;My time as a special government employee necessarily had to end. It was a limited-time thing &#8230; but the DOGE team will only grow stronger over time. The DOGE influence will only grow stronger.&#8221;
&#8220;It is permeating throughout the government, and I am confident that, over time, we will see &#8230; a trillion dollars of waste and fraud reduction,&#8221; he added.
Musk, who will return to focusing more of his attention on his companies Tesla and SpaceX — and his mission to get humanity to Mars — added that DOGE still predicts saving the federal government over $160 billion for fiscal year 2025 to 2026. &#8220;And that&#8217;s climbing,&#8221; he said.
&#8220;I think the DOGE team is doing an incredible job. They&#8217;re going to continue doing an incredible job, and I&#8217;ll continue to be visiting here and be a friend and adviser to the president,&#8221; Musk continued.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@elonmusk</a>: &quot;This is not the end of DOGE, but really the beginning&#8230; The DOGE team will only grow stronger overtime&#8230; It is permeating throughout the government, and I am confident that, over time, we will see — a trillion dollars of waste and fraud reduction.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/75XZ7ih8qg">pic.twitter.com/75XZ7ih8qg</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1928517327642874003?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Some of the government waste the White House said was uncovered by the DOGE team <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1928514412257608022" target="_blank" rel="noopener">includes</a> over $100 million &#8220;for DEI contracts at the Department of Education,&#8221; nearly $59 million &#8220;for illegal alien hotel rooms in New York City,&#8221; $20 million directed to make an &#8220;Arab Sesame Street,&#8221; and $8 million for gender experiments on mice.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Trump gifted Musk a golden key and called him “one of the greatest business leaders and innovators the world has ever produced.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> presents <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@elonmusk</a> with a gold White House key as a gift for his service as a special government employee. <a href="https://t.co/vmpp3RcSTm">pic.twitter.com/vmpp3RcSTm</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1928515860101988759?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Musk recently grew frustrated over some of the obstacles in the way of cutting government waste and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ive-done-enough-musk-says-he-will-spend-a-lot-less-on-future-political-campaigns?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=%E2%80%98I%E2%80%99ve+Done+Enough%E2%80%99%3A+Musk+Says+He+Will+Spend+%E2%80%98A+Lot+Less%E2%80%99+On+Future+Political+Campaigns">said</a> he will dial back his spending on future political campaigns.
“I think I’ve done enough,” Musk said last week, adding, “If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I do not currently see a reason.”
Musk faced constant criticism from the Left and Democrats in Washington as he focused on searching for government waste to cut. After he became a senior adviser to Trump and pushed for major government spending cuts, Tesla has been targeted by leftist activists who have set fires to and vandalized vehicles and threatened Tesla dealerships.
Last week, Musk provided some more <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/musk-reveals-more-about-his-decision-to-step-back-from-politics-and-it-involves-humanoid-robots?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Musk+Reveals+More+About+His+Decision+To+Step+Back+From+Politics+%E2%80%A6+And+It+Involves+Humanoid+Robots">insight</a> into his decision to step back from his White House role, writing on X that he believes &#8220;accelerating GDP growth is essential,&#8221; adding that he wants to do so with humanoid robots.
“I have come to the perhaps obvious conclusion that accelerating GDP growth is essential. @DOGE has and will do great work to postpone the day of bankruptcy of America, but the profligacy of government means that only radical improvements in productivity can save our country,” Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1925975507759243741" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>.

‘Will Only Grow Stronger’: Musk Says It’s Still ‘The Beginning’ Of DOGE As He Steps Back From Role

Oval Office

Politics

spending

President Donald Trump promised on Friday that the major spending cuts requested by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will be codified after his &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill&#8221; passes Congress.
Trump <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wK3XzFZ_ac" target="_blank" rel="noopener">addressed</a> DOGE during a press conference with the mastermind behind the waste-cutting effort, Elon Musk, who is taking a step back from his role in the White House to focus on his companies. The &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill,&#8221; pushed by Trump and passed by the House, is currently in the hands of the Senate, where it faces scrutiny from some Republicans over its lack of cuts to federal spending.
&#8220;We are totally committed to making the DOGE cuts permanent and stopping much more of the waste in the months to come,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;We want to get our great &#8216;Big, Beautiful Bill&#8217; finished and done. After that, we&#8217;re going to be — we put some of this into the bill, but most of it is going to come later. We&#8217;re going to have it [codified] by Congress.&#8221;
The president promised that the DOGE cuts will result in &#8220;hundreds of billions of dollars&#8221; in savings.
Earlier this week, Musk said he was &#8220;disappointed&#8221; by the &#8220;massive&#8221; bill passed by the House, which he said &#8220;increases the budget deficit&#8221; and &#8220;undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.&#8221;
&#8220;I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful,&#8221; Musk <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-disappointed-by-trump-big-beautiful-bill-doge/">said</a> in an interview with CBS News, &#8220;but I don&#8217;t know if it can be both. My personal opinion.&#8221;
Musk wasn&#8217;t alone in his criticism of the &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill.&#8221; In the House, Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted against the legislation, citing the federal deficit. Similarly, Sens. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Mike Lee (R-UT), among others, have raised concerns about the legislation.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“Everybody likes a tax cut, but when you’re $37 trillion in debt on the path to over $60 trillion in debt, right when the Social Security trust fund is running out, somebody’s got to be the dad that says, ‘I know everybody wants to go to Disney World, but we just can’t afford it,’” Johnson <a href="https://thehill.com/business/budget/5322665-conservative-furor-doge-cuts/">said</a>.
Sen. Lee <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mike-lee-comes-out-against-current-version-of-trump-s-beautiful-bill/ar-AA1FFaYf">told</a> conservative commentator Charlie Kirk, &#8220;The Big, Beautiful Bill is big [but] isn’t yet as beautiful as it needs to be, but there’s still time to fix it. And the Senate version is going to be more aggressive.&#8221;
&#8220;So we got to address the spending crisis to a greater degree than this bill does,” Lee added.
Stephen Miller, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, <a href="https://x.com/StephenM/status/1927572082780520465">said</a> earlier this week that the &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill&#8221; was not the right package to cram through DOGE cuts.
&#8220;DOGE cuts are to discretionary spending. (Eg the federal bureaucracy). Under senate budget rules, you cannot cut discretionary spending (only mandatory) in a reconciliation bill,&#8221; Miller wrote. &#8220;So DOGE cuts would have to be done through what is known as a rescissions package or an appropriations bill.&#8221;

Donald Trump, Elon Musk

‘Totally Committed’: Trump Promises To Codify DOGE Cuts After ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’

Congress

We&#8217;ve been trending in this direction for some time now, but after yesterday&#8217;s ruling by a three-judge panel on the United States Court of International Trade in Manhattan — which struck down all of the Trump administration&#8217;s tariffs — it&#8217;s now official: We don&#8217;t need any more rulings from federal judges about what the president of the United States isn&#8217;t allowed to do. Those are completely pointless. Instead, what we need, in our alleged first-world democracy, is a ruling from some federal court explaining, in as much detail as possible, what exactly the president of the United States does have the authority to do while in office. That would be the most efficient way forward, at this point.
In just the past five months, federal courts have held that the Trump administration has no authority to do the following:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Change federal government websites</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Fire any Executive Branch employees</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Ban mentally disturbed individuals from joining the armed forces </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eliminate slush funds for corrupt NGOs</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Stop funneling billions of dollars of taxpayer money to anti-white universities like Harvard</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Eliminate wasteful &#8220;administrative spending&#8221; that&#8217;s tacked onto every single scientific grant</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Deport illegal alien gang members — even the wife-beaters and terrorists</li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Cut federal funding to child castration services for children</li>
</ul>
And now, after all of these rulings and dozens more like them, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/worlds-stock-markets-react-to-court-ruling-against-trumps-tariffs?author=Hank+Berrien&amp;category=undefined&amp;elementPosition=11&amp;row=3&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+News&amp;rowType=Vertical+Carousel&amp;title=World%E2%80%99s+Stock+Markets+React+To+Court+Ruling+Against+Trump%E2%80%99s+Tariffs">we heard last night</a> from the U.S. Court of International Trade that the president of the United States also does not have the power to impose emergency tariffs on foreign nations. Before we go into the details about this ruling and the problems I have with it, there&#8217;s a very important point that needs to be made here, which is this: Even if you think tariffs are a terrible idea — and really even if you believe that the Court of International Trade made the right ruling in this particular case — you simply cannot deny that the judicial system in this country, because of its own overzealousness, has never been less legitimate than it is right now.
The sheer number of injunctions that have been issued, blocking every single agenda item that the democratically elected president has attempted to execute, is unprecedented in the history of the United States. We&#8217;re in comical, “jump-the-shark” territory. And that&#8217;s a very, very big deal, because courts don&#8217;t have militaries. They can&#8217;t enforce their own rulings. When they lose legitimacy, they lose everything. And with this latest ruling, on top of all the other rulings, legitimacy is long gone.
So who does have legitimacy? Where does legitimacy come from? For judges, legitimacy comes from restraint and consistency, and adherence to the law. For presidents, it comes from democratic elections. It comes from campaigning, and openly telling voters what you plan to do, if and when you&#8217;re elected. And with that in mind, you will not find a single person — even the most deranged anchor on MSNBC — who will disagree with this statement: Donald Trump explicitly campaigned on imposing massive tariffs on foreign nations in order to return manufacturing to the United States. That was always a core plank of his domestic agenda. That doesn&#8217;t mean you have to agree with him. You can feel however you want about tariffs. But it does mean that Trump&#8217;s plan was put to a vote. And the American people decided that Donald Trump&#8217;s economic agenda was the best way forward. That&#8217;s legitimacy. If that&#8217;s not legitimacy, then legitimacy has no meaning. And neither does democracy.
Again, even on MSNBC, they concede this point. Last night, as he was celebrating this court decision, the perpetually unhinged Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell admitted that Trump&#8217;s entire campaign was about tariffs. He says he was talking about tariffs the whole time — and he blames the &#8220;campaign press&#8221; for not talking about tariffs enough. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 unconstitutional Tariffs" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/O-_kzh1ORhE?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>
The point of this little diatribe from Lawrence O&#8217;Donnell is to suggest that, if only the &#8220;campaign press&#8221; had covered Trump&#8217;s tariffs a little bit more, then the voters would have rejected his entire candidacy. This is a very familiar tactic on the Left. They did the same thing with Russiagate. They claimed that, if only people knew that the Russian government had spent $100,000 on Facebook memes back in 2016, then they would never have voted against Hillary Clinton. You poor, poor voters. You&#8217;re always being tricked by Donald Trump. You have no agency whatsoever. Thankfully, the courts will correct that little problem for you.
This is about as undemocratic as it gets. It is asinine, narcissistic and above all, totalitarian. Of course, it wasn&#8217;t just this one MSNBC blowhard who discovered that Trump was talking about tariffs all the time. The entire country heard Trump talk about tariffs. And then they overwhelmingly decided to elect him. And that should matter, more than anything else. Unless the president clearly and unambiguously exceeds his authority under the constitution, then the courts should respect the will of the voters.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1605-member-exclusive?elementPosition=0&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
And in this case, if you read the ruling from the panel of judges on the United States Court of International Trade, you&#8217;ll discover that Donald Trump did not actually exceed his authority. In order to come to the opposite conclusion, a lot of mental gymnastics were required on the part of this three-judge panel. I want to start with the court&#8217;s handling of Trump&#8217;s fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. At the moment this ruling was issued, the tariffs stood at 25% for Mexican and Canadian products, and 20% for Chinese products (with an exception for Canadian energy, which remained at 10%).
Normally, the president can&#8217;t issue tariffs that are quite this high. However, as you probably remember, the Trump administration determined — rightly — that fentanyl trafficking is a national emergency because tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year from fentanyl that&#8217;s imported from overseas. Therefore, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the White House asserted its authority to impose substantial tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China — tariffs that are much higher than they otherwise could be.
Under this emergency act, the president is allowed to, “&#8230; deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.&#8221;
Again, the president can, “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States &#8230; if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.&#8221;
That&#8217;s a direct quote from the text of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which became law in the 1970s. That&#8217;s the authority Congress delegated to the president. Under this Act, the president can impose substantial tariffs to &#8220;deal with&#8221; any &#8220;extraordinary threat,&#8221; as long as he declares a national emergency. So you might be asking: Isn&#8217;t that exactly what happened in this case? Didn&#8217;t Trump impose the fentanyl tariffs in order to pressure countries like Mexico and China to stop allowing fentanyl into this country? Under the terms of this law, isn&#8217;t the president implementing these tariffs to &#8220;deal with&#8221; the fentanyl crisis?
According to the trade court, the answer to that question is no. Here&#8217;s their reasoning. They focus extensively on the words &#8220;Deal with&#8221; in the law that I just read.
Here&#8217;s what <a href="https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/25-66.pdf">they said</a>:
<blockquote>&#8216;Deal with&#8217; connotes a direct link between an act and the problem it purports to address. A tax deals with a budget deficit by raising revenue. A dam deals with flooding by holding back a river. But there is no such association between the act of imposing a tariff and the &#8216;unusual and extraordinary threats&#8217; that the [Fentanyl] Trafficking Orders purport to combat. &#8230; The [Fentanyl] Trafficking Orders do not &#8216;deal with&#8217; their stated objectives. Rather, as the Government acknowledges, the Orders aim to create leverage to &#8216;deal with&#8217; those objectives.</blockquote>
In other words, the court is acknowledging that the fentanyl tariffs are being used by the Trump administration as a form of leverage, which can force foreign countries to &#8220;deal with&#8221; the fentanyl problem. But they&#8217;re claiming that, under the law, that&#8217;s not allowed. That&#8217;s not how you&#8217;re supposed to &#8220;deal with&#8221; fentanyl, according to this three-judge panel. The judges are saying that the Trump administration is assuming too much power, and that &#8220;leverage&#8221; isn&#8217;t the appropriate way to &#8220;deal with&#8221; an emergency. Therefore, apparently, the Trump administration needed to impose a tariff specifically on fentanyl imports, or something like that — even though it would obviously accomplish nothing at all, because no one is declaring their fentanyl shipments at the border.
I want to emphasize this a little more, because this part of the ruling really deserves more attention than it&#8217;s getting. Congress passed a law that allows the president to &#8220;deal with&#8221; any emergency he declares. And now, decades later, this trade court is saying, in effect — &#8220;no, you can&#8217;t deal with it like that.&#8221; But there&#8217;s nothing in the law that justifies their ruling. The court just makes it up. The only reasoning that the court provides — which is contained in two paragraphs at the end of their opinion — is that the Trump administration&#8217;s approach would justify any kind of tariff they wanted to impose, no matter how ridiculous. They&#8217;re saying that, if Trump can use &#8220;leverage&#8221; as a justification, then he can impose whatever tariff he wants. But that&#8217;s not true. There has to be an underlying emergency, first of all. And the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans every year certainly qualifies.
Additionally, there&#8217;s evidence that, in this case, Trump&#8217;s &#8220;leverage&#8221; is indeed working. Within days of Trump&#8217;s sweeping tariffs on Canada, for example, Trudeau appointed a fentanyl czar and pledged to screen exports more carefully, in order to prevent fentanyl from entering into this country.
So we&#8217;re not talking about some arbitrary tariff that has no connection to reality. We&#8217;re talking about a tariff that has already produced tangible results that will stem the flow of fentanyl. But apparently, that&#8217;s not good enough.
I&#8217;m highlighting this part of the ruling because it underscores the extent of the judicial coup we&#8217;re witnessing. Congress delegated authority to the president to &#8220;deal with&#8221; an emergency. He attempted to do that. And then the court overrides him, based on ad hoc reasoning that invalidates the will of the voters, who elected the Trump administration (and the members of Congress who passed that emergency tariff law). Again, it&#8217;s fine if you think the tariffs are a bad idea, or good idea, or if you have mixed feelings about it. But the solution, in that case, is for Congress to rescind the tariff power — in whole or in part. The solution is not for random courts in Manhattan to override the president and the Congress, based on very strained interpretations of the law.
This ruling has already been appealed, and it&#8217;s clear that the Trump administration can still impose tariffs — albeit reduced ones — under the non-emergency tariff powers that have been passed by Congress. And late on Thursday, a federal appeals court put a temporary stay on the court&#8217;s ruling. So the ultimate outcome here is still uncertain. What&#8217;s not uncertain is that federal judges, once again, have undermined what&#8217;s left of their legitimacy with this ruling. If this had been the very first injunction against a Trump administration policy, it wouldn’t be as much of a crisis. People may even give the judges the benefit of the doubt throughout the appeals process. But we&#8217;ve seen more than 100 rulings like this by now. This is unsustainable — to the point that, if one of these federal judges somehow manages to issue a good ruling, no one will follow it. That&#8217;s not the ideal outcome for this country or the rule of law, obviously. But with this decision from a court that no one has ever heard of — which erases the president&#8217;s congressionally-approved authority to &#8220;deal with&#8221; national emergencies — it&#8217;s the outcome that now appears to be inevitable.

Federal Judge Strikes Down Trump Executive Order Aimed At WilmerHale Law Firm

These Federal Judges Are Trying To Stop Trump From Dealing With The Fentanyl Crisis

Canada

Fentanyl

Judges

Matt Walsh

Mexico

Tariffs

President Trump is apparently pushing for a higher tax rate. That’s a nonstarter.
The tax regime that President Trump put into place in his first term, his tax cuts, were a boon to the economy. They actually disproportionately benefited people who were middle and lower class. Revising the tax regime to pay for more loopholes and tax breaks in particular areas by increasing taxes on the highest income earners will sink investment capital. That&#8217;s what it does.
As somebody who has been in most tax brackets at one point in my life, I can tell you I will invest less if I have less money to invest. That&#8217;s true for everyone who is a high net earner. Increasing the income tax on the top income tax bracket in order to pay for more useless government spending — because nobody has the actual guts to say in American politics that we spend too much on our social welfare programs, which we do, particularly our means tested social welfare programs — will break the American economy.
It&#8217;s like shifting deckchairs on the Titanic.
Increasing the marginal tax rate at the top by 2% or something similar is not going to save anything. If the Republican Party is now the tax-raising party and the tariff party, we will have to see how that works out for them at the polls.
I do not think it is going to work out particularly well.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2196-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
According to some reports, President Trump is privately urging speaker Mike Johnson to raise the top tax rate and close the so-called “carried interest loophole.”
You hear about the “carried interest loophole” all the time. Very often the media will use a term and call it a loophole when it&#8217;s not a loophole at all. Here’s an example: They will refer to a “gun show loophole,” claiming that if you&#8217;re a federally licensed firearms dealer, you can just go to a gun show and sell a gun randomly, which is not true. They say the “gun show loophole” means a private person who sells a gun to his friend doesn&#8217;t have to necessarily go through all of the federal background check, which just means that if you are a federally licensed firearms dealer and you&#8217;re a private individual, that these rules don&#8217;t apply to you in the same way.
So what is the “carried interest loophole”? Is it a loophole at all? What is carried interest? “Carried interest” works like this: Fund managers typically receive two forms of compensation. If you work at hedge fund or in private equity or venture capital, you have two forms of being paid.
One is a management fee, which is just income. You simply get paid a flat fee to handle people&#8217;s portfolios.
Then there&#8217;s the so-called “carried interest,” which is a share of the fund&#8217;s profits. The fund makes a profit; you get a share of the profit. But in order for it to qualify for capital gains tax as opposed to income tax, the underlying investments have to be held for more than three years.
Management fees are taxed at the regular income rate; carried interest is taxed as the long-term capital gain at a maximum rate of 20% if the underlying investments are held for more than three years.
So here is the question. If you have a share of the profits, isn&#8217;t that more like owning a stock? That&#8217;s the reason why it&#8217;s not treated as a form of typical income. It&#8217;s more like selling a stock because you actually are getting a share of stock that was profitable and then it was sold. Thus it&#8217;s more like a capital gain than it is like income.
Now you can make an argument that capital gains should be taxed the same as income. But stop pretending that the “carried interest loophole” is a form of normal income that&#8217;s getting carved out for hedge fund managers. That&#8217;s not what it is.
This populist leftist economic policy for heavy trade restrictionism for the sake of trade restrictionism as a subsidy to particular areas of the American economy added to higher tax rates, and I&#8217;m wondering what the difference is between that economic policy per se and leftist Democrat senator Sherrod Brown&#8217;s economic policy when he was senator from Ohio.
That is not the economic policy that President Trump enacted in his first term that was so wildly successful in increasing the earnings of everybody from the bottom part of the spectrum to the top part of the spectrum.
This would be a mistake.

Trump Hails The Election Of First US Pope As A ‘Great Honor’

Why Raising The Top Tax Rate Is A Recipe For Economic Decline

Economy

Income tax

Wealth Tax

Poorly equipped, unsanitary, and understaffed facilities. A sewage leak caused patients to vomit. Positive sexually transmitted infection results went unreported. 
The New York Times gave a shocking <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/15/us/planned-parenthood-clinics.html">glimpse</a> behind the curtain of Planned Parenthood. Although the legacy media usually defends and promotes the largest U.S. provider of abortion (nearly <a href="https://cdn.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/ec/f4/ecf43d92-fcd2-4d11-b299-e67b5c3ac394/2024-ppfa-annualreport-c3-digital.pdf">39%</a> of <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states">all</a> abortions in our country), some things are too egregious to ignore. 
This is what Planned Parenthood dispenses under the guise of providing “necessary women’s health care.” 
These grotesque lapses aren’t due to a lack of funding, but a lack of desire to provide quality care. According to its 2022-2023 annual <a href="https://cdn.plannedparenthood.org/uploads/filer_public/ec/f4/ecf43d92-fcd2-4d11-b299-e67b5c3ac394/2024-ppfa-annualreport-c3-digital.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, the collective organization received over $2 billion in income, including $699.3 million in taxpayer funding and $997.5 million in private donations. Yet, they don’t prioritize “care, no matter what,” as their advertising claims. Instead, they funnel money into lawsuits and to loyal politicians, spending nearly <a href="https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/tipsheets/the-quickie-planned-parenthood-votes-launches-2024-electoral-program" target="_blank" rel="noopener">$40 million</a> in the 2024 election cycle.
Their goal is to overturn any limitations on abortion, even <a href="https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/types-attacks/trap-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arguing against</a> basic safety standards that would improve care for the women Planned Parenthood claims to be concerned about.
I have seen the disintegration of Planned Parenthood’s mission firsthand, as I worked part-time for a local Planned Parenthood while I was an OB-GYN resident 30 years ago. At the time, I wasn’t concerned with my ideological differences on the abortion issue, especially since they never asked me to perform abortions. I enjoyed my time there, caring for underserved women, performing necessary gynecologic services such as pap tests, well-woman exams, STI testing, and contraceptive management. Like many Americans, I assumed that abortion was only a small part of the services they provided, and that other services were addressing women’s needs. 
When I compare Planned Parenthood’s 1996-1997 annual report, which coincides with my employment there, to today, their mission is clearly more focused on abortion to the neglect of other services. Whereas they provided 1.5 million pap tests in 1996, that has plummeted by 87% to 197,617 in 2022. Adoption referrals dropped 72%, from 6,274 to 1,721. 14,292 prenatal clients have decreased to 6,316 prenatal services.
Meanwhile, the number of abortions they sell rises every year, from 153,367 in 1996 (11.3% of the 1,366,000 abortions performed that year, <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/1998/11/abortion-incidence-and-services-united-states-1995-1996" target="_blank" rel="noopener">per</a> Guttmacher Institute) to 392,715 of the estimated one million abortions sold in the U.S. in 2022 (39%). Planned Parenthood only has a few options to resolve a woman&#8217;s pregnancy: prenatal services, adoption, miscarriage care, and abortion. <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-sheet-planned-parenthoods-2022-23-annual-report/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">97%</a> of the time, she&#8217;s sold an abortion. As an organization, then, Planned Parenthood appears to care far less about helping women through their pregnancies or plans for adoption than they do about selling women abortions. 
My recent experiences with Planned Parenthood are far different from my impression three decades ago. As an obstetric hospitalist, I have provided care for several women who suffered complications from the abortions Planned Parenthood sold them. In each case, Planned Parenthood failed to offer them an appointment or offered nonsensical advice like “rub your tummy” when they reported heavy bleeding.
But don’t just take my word for it. The media have been recently sharing horror stories highlighting their poor-quality care.
We’ve seen the stories of incomplete abortions, an IUD placed in a pregnant woman resulting in a stillbirth, and an improperly placed contraceptive which resulted in nerve damage, reported in an exposé by The New York Times.
18-year-old Alexis Arguello <a href="https://catholicvote.org/investigation-teen-dies-from-planned-parenthood-abortion-complication/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recently died</a> after a late-term abortion at a Fort Collins, CO, Planned Parenthood. According to a physician who testified about her death, the facility waited too long to notify emergency responders when she experienced a complication during her abortion at 22 weeks’ gestation. EMS was allegedly advised not to use sirens to facilitate her rapid transport to the hospital.
Instances of Planned Parenthood employees <a href="https://lawecommons.luc.edu/annals/vol23/iss1/5/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failing</a> to ask questions to identify and assist trafficked women and facilitating transport of minors out of state for abortions without parental notification have been documented many times.
Since Planned Parenthood facilities are preferentially providing abortion drugs, frequently by mail, women can’t go to them if they experience complications. Instead, these women will go to the ER, where hospitalists like me will care for them. And even if a Planned Parenthood facility were nearby, they would be incapable of providing proper treatment.
Planned Parenthood marketing has successfully gaslit Americans, convincing them that desperate women would have no health care options without Planned Parenthood. This is untrue. There are thousands of federally qualified health center service sites (FQHCs) in the U.S., providing many health services for women in need. Medicaid health insurance is accepted by most private health care providers, expanding the options for women, and also providing the prenatal services that Planned Parenthood rarely provides.
We must look beyond Planned Parenthood’s slick marketing and gaze into the soul of this heartless organization. Better care is available for women from other organizations, and women deserve better than what Planned Parenthood offers.
* * *
By Dr. Ingrid Skop, M.D., FACOG, Vice President and Director of Medical Affairs for Charlotte Lozier Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

US-VOTE-POLITICS-DEMOCRATIC-CONVENTION

Gaslighting Women: It’s Time To Look Past Planned Parenthood’s Slick Marketing

Abortion

Doctors

Planned Parenthood

The New York Times

Women

We have been hearing for a while that the Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) under the tutelage of Elon Musk has been a giant failure.
We’ve been hearing this from the legacy media, who have been saying that all the cuts are basically fake, that nothing is happening, that it&#8217;s chaos that&#8217;s wrecking the country.
It is true that not one Social Security check has been stopped. The Medicaid and the Medicare checks are also still going out. The government, unfortunately, is still running much as before.
But — much spending has really been stopped. There&#8217;s been an open question as to how much spending will be stopped, how much can be temporarily frozen versus actually just cut. Will firing these employees actually stick?
But Democrats are caterwauling because, as it turns out, DOGE has been quite effective in stopping an enormous amount of spending. Trillions of dollars? No. Is it hundreds of billions of dollars? Yes.
According to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-withholding-43687-billion-approved-spending-top-democrats-2025-04-29/">Reuters</a>:
<blockquote>U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has so far withheld at least $436.87 billion of congressionally approved funding, the top Democrats on the U.S. Congress&#8217; appropriation committees said on Tuesday. The frozen allotments span the federal government, according to the first estimate of the potential impoundments in the project led by Senator Patty Murray from Washington and Representative Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut. Almost $42 billion was frozen or canceled for the State Department, including the frozen support for USAID, along with another $62 billion-plus in competitive grant funding for the Transportation Department, according to the estimate. The Democrats also detailed $943 million frozen for the Head Start early-education program.</blockquote>
Head Start is one of the great failures in federal history. The data on Head Start has been pretty solid for a long time, showing effectively no difference between kids who go to Head Start and kids who do not. There&#8217;s also been some $10 billion frozen and canceled for the Natural Resources Conservation Service as well.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2189-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Democrats, of course, are very angry about all of this. All of the spending is going to have to be put permanently into the “no-spend” category by Congress. They can do so with a simple 50 vote majority in the Senate. That is presumably the path Congress is going to have to take.
The focus needs to move to Congress, because the truth is that President Trump and DOGE can temporarily freeze a lot of this funding, but unless it&#8217;s rescinded by Congress, it will go right back into place after a certain period of time.
This is the reason why Democrats are freaking out about all of this.
They&#8217;re worried that Republicans are going to start passing rescission bills that would make many of the freezes permanent and then turn the freezes into cuts.
According to Reuters, “The administration has cited Musk&#8217;s Department of Government Efficiency and the undoing of the federal government&#8217;s diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives as reasons for blocking congressionally approved funding.”
The question is how much the executive branch can actually block that funding under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. Usually the president has to tweak levels by proposing cuts. That would be the rescission. That has not happened so far.
Which brings us to Congress. Right now it would be an act of political magic. Every time you get a Republican majority together, it&#8217;s a bit of political magic. The reason for that is because the Republican House majority is unbelievably narrow.
Even in the Senate of the United States, you have to acknowledge that senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) are likely to go the other way on major legislation. That cuts the GOP majority to 51 votes. There are still holdovers like Mitch McConnell (D-NY), who may vote against something President Trump wants. There are a wide variety of other senators with various interests.
So getting this whole thing together is an attempt to herd cats by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), as well as Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA).
Can they do it? That&#8217;s the question.

President Trump Holds “Make America Wealthy Again Event” In White House Rose Garden

It’s Up To Congress Now

DOGE

John Thune

Mike Johnson

Menu