Freedom of speech has won a decisive victory in Australia. On Tuesday, a Melbourne tribunal <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/free-speech-victory-in-australia-for-billboard-chris-as-x-post-censorship-overturned">overturned</a> the Australian government’s censorship order against Canadian street advocate Chris “<a href="https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;rls=en&amp;q=support+billboard+chris+adf+international&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;oe=UTF-8">Billboard Chris</a>” Elston for an X post critical of gender ideology.
Back in 2024, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner had ordered X to remove Chris’ post, claiming it constituted “adult cyber abuse” under the country’s Online Safety Act. The post linked to a Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html">article</a> about a WHO appointee and referred to the individual using biologically accurate pronouns. No threats. No private information. Just public facts and an opinion the government didn’t like. X initially resisted, but eventually geo-blocked the post in the country while filing its own appeal.
Billboard Chris, who travels the world engaging in conversations exposing the truth about gender ideology prompted by his wearable signs, refused to bow down to the order. With legal support from ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, he challenged the eSafety Commissioner, and won in a decisive victory not just for himself, but for everyone who values the right to speak freely.
The Administrative Review Tribunal found what should have been obvious from the beginning — the post wasn’t intended to cause harm, wasn’t likely to be seen by the complainant, and was consistent with Chris’s well-known public message — namely, that children are never born in the wrong body. It ruled clearly that this did not constitute a form of abuse and revoked the takedown order.
The Tribunal recognized what the eSafety Commissioner refused to acknowledge, which is that this isn’t about harassment of any kind. The protection of Chris’ expression is about upholding the basic right to participate in a public conversation, one that touches on some of the most urgent questions of our time. To silence that conversation under the guise of “cyber abuse” is both intellectually dishonest and dangerous.
The absurdity of the government’s case was exposed in the hearing itself. Chris had merely reposted a widely read article that included publicly available information about the transgender activist appointed to a WHO panel of “experts” — information the activist had willingly shared on social media. Instead of defending public transparency, the government claimed those details were irrelevant and demanded censorship.
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a></h3>
The Tribunal’s written decision was clear: “The post, although phrased offensively, is consistent with views Mr Elston has expressed elsewhere in circumstances where the expression of the view had no malicious intent. For example, his statement placed on billboards that he is prepared to wear in public ‘children are never born in the wrong body’ expresses the same idea about the immutability of biology that he expresses, albeit much more provocatively, in the post”. Further, it held that, “an ordinary reasonable person would not conclude that that it is likely that the post was intended to have an effect of causing serious harm to Mr Cook”.
This case is about more than just one post or even one country’s speech laws. Not only will this decision likely shape future enforcement decisions, but also Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has just been <a href="https://x.com/k_mahlburg/status/1939872951895302531">named</a> in a U.S. congressional investigation for colluding with foreign governments and corporate cartels to suppress speech worldwide — including in the United States. The U.S. House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2025-06/Exporting%20Censorship%20Final.pdf">released</a> a 100-page report detailing how Grant worked with GARM — a World Economic Forum-linked advertising consortium — to push platforms like X into silencing disfavored views. She demanded global takedowns of lawful content. She participated in pressure campaigns against X after Musk’s takeover. And she allowed so-called “brand safety” coalitions to influence her regulatory decisions.
This is coordinated censorship. The report lays out how GARM and other WEF-affiliated coalitions, working with officials like Grant, sought to blacklist voices they disagreed with under the pretense of maintaining a “safe” internet. In reality, they were constructing a global censorship machine — one that’s ideologically aligned, politically unaccountable, and willing to cross borders to silence dissent. Billboard Chris&#8217; case is living proof of what this looks like.
If the Tribunal had sided with the Commissioner, it would have emboldened this aggressive censorship campaign and reinforced the idea that a government can suppress the speech of any person on any platform, even beyond traditional jurisdictional boundaries. And make no mistake — that’s exactly what the eSafety Commissioner and its allies are trying to do.
Fortunately, Billboard Chris’ free speech victory is a warning to the censors. He stood up to a system designed to silence him, and he won. But the same people trying to censor speech in Australia are working to do the same everywhere else. 
On the same day of Chris’ victory, the European Union took a significant step toward strengthening online censorship, beefing up its censorial Digital Services Act by enforcing the accompanying &#8220;Code of Conduct on Disinformation&#8221;. The DSA enables Brussels bureaucrats to control online speech at scale — both in Europe and globally — under the guise of “safety” and “protecting democracy”. Platforms that fail to remove content ambiguously deemed “illegal” face massive financial penalties and even suspension. Coupled with the framework’s approach to “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “hate speech,” the DSA could lead to the sweeping removal of online content.
Threats to free speech online are evidently immense and growing, but Billboard Chris’ successful challenge shows that this tide can be turned. Courageous individuals, armed with principle and the law, can stand up to the censorship industrial complex — and win. And their victories protect not just their own speech, but those too who would come after them. Others must be emboldened by the lead of this Canadian father and vigilantly defend against censorship if we are to see free speech prevail.
* * *
Robert Clarke is a barrister and director of advocacy for ADF International, which coordinated the legal defense of Billboard Chris in Australia. Follow him on X at <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor">Rob_ADFIntl</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

MixCollage-07-Apr-2025-01-02-PM-8595

A Blow To Global Censorship: ‘Billboard Chris’ Wins In Australia

A Blow To Global Censorship: 'Billboard Chris' Wins In Australia

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Australia

Censorship

European Union

Free Speech

Gender

gender ideology

Puberty blockers

Social Media Censorship

transgender surgery

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican challenge to campaign finance regulations that restricts political parties from coordinating campaign spending with political candidates.
The challenge from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that restricting the amount parties can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment by restricting speech. The court is expected to hear arguments on the case when its fall 2025 term begins.
&#8220;The government should not restrict a party committee&#8217;s support for its own candidates. These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court&#8217;s decision to hear our case,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/NRSC/status/1939735374395232752" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> NRSC Chair Tim Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson. &#8220;Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.&#8221;
The case was originally brought by the NRSC and now-Vice President J.D. Vance back in 2022 in a challenge to restrictions on coordinated spending introduced by the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act.
In September 2024, the restrictions were <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0212p-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">upheld</a> by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision, the appeals court said that the NRSC made “fair points” about speech restrictions; it could not side with them because of previous Supreme Court precedent.
The precedent in question was the 2001 FEC vs. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated spending do not violate the First Amendment.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
“The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as applied challenges,” the Sixth Circuit Court wrote in its September decision.
In its December 2024 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/333312/20241204134722325_NRSC%20v.%20FEC%20Cert%20Petition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> to the Supreme Court, the NRSC said that Congress &#8220;has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.”
“Should this Court decline to take this case, future litigants will interpret that decision as proof that, whatever the Court has said in more recent campaign-finance cases, it is content to leave the political parties as second-class holders of First Amendment rights,” they wrote.
The Trump administration has signaled support for the challenge, while the Supreme Court allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in support of the campaign finance restrictions.

Supreme Court Releases Decisions On Final Day Of Term

Supreme Court To Hear GOP Free Speech Challenge To Campaign Spending Restrictions

campaign donation

Courts

First Amendment

Republicans

Supreme Court

Tim Scott

U.S.

Blue cities are obstructing ICE and sheltering illegal immigrants, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) announces a federal probe into Nashville’s Democrat mayor, and the upcoming EU-U.S. Forum aims to address Europe’s free speech crackdown. Plus, the Government Accountability Office faces GOP backlash, and Elon Musk steps back from DOGE.
It’s Thursday, May 29, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Nashville Mayor Under Fire &amp; Europe&#039;s War on Free Speech" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/oOV6TGbNCEY?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>
If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nashville-mayor-investigated-europes-speech-police-5-29-25/id1576594336?i=1000710401675" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2>Sanctuary Vs Safety</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-926623" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_02.Still005.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_02.Still005.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_00_21_02.Still005-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: As Illegal immigrant gangs grow across the United States, several blue city leaders are standing in the way of ICE.
Trump border czar Tom Homan has been leading ICE raids in cities across the country targeting criminal illegals. But some so-called “sanctuary” city officials are working to hinder the crackdown.
Congressman Andy Ogles (R-TN), who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, announced this week that he&#8217;s launched an investigation into the office of Nashville Democratic Mayor Freddie O’Connell amid claims that city officials are actively obstructing ICE. Mayor O’Connell issued an <a href="https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/local/davidson/2025/05/28/what-to-know-mayor-freddie-oconnell-response-nashville-ice-operation/83901113007/">executive order</a> requiring civil servants in Nashville to report communications with federal immigration officials to the mayor’s office and has condemned ICE raids for causing “deep community harm.”
“MS-13 and Tren de Aragua, they&#8217;re all over the country,” Ogles told The Daily Wire. “They&#8217;re in Nashville. They&#8217;re in our small cities like Columbia and Tullahoma … this is a message to cities and mayors across the country. If you impede federal law enforcement in their duties, in their directive to follow President Trump, to say, it&#8217;s time that we start deporting these folks, we&#8217;re going to be looking into your city, and where appropriate, we&#8217;re going to hold you accountable.”
Ogles also noted that Nashville is a “through city” that is centrally located (within a 6-hour drive of many of America’s major population centers) and could be used as a waystation for human trafficking and the drug trade if the cartels are allowed to establish a foothold. “The violent gangs in Central and South America, they want strongholds in Nashville. And I&#8217;m not going to stand for it.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
<h2>Free Speech Under Siege</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-926625" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_08.Still002.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_08.Still002.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_01_21_08.Still002-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: As Europe cracks down on free speech, the Trump administration ramps up pressure on European leaders.
The EU-U.S. Forum is taking place this week in Hungary – the goal of the summit is to challenge the leftist ideas put forward by the European Union and unite Western leaders to fight back against the EU’s harmful policies. A major focus of the summit will be “Europe’s Free Speech Problem.”
This week, a number of senior State Department officials are heading to Ireland and Paris to push both countries to respect the speech rights of their citizens. A senior State Department official told The Daily Wire that the trip is part of the department’s effort to fight back against violations of basic natural rights in Europe, especially freedom of speech, religion, and the right to privacy.
“What happens in one country will impact the U.S.,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told The Daily Wire. “Ultimately, when they start putting restrictions on their free speech, then other outlets, whether it be a social media platform, whether it be technology platforms such as Apple or Google or things of that nature, when free speech is suppressed, then ultimately what&#8217;s gonna happen is so many of those same policies will be put in place in the United States.”
<h2>GAO Undermines MAGA</h2>
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-926621" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_05.Still004.jpeg" alt="" width="640" height="360" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_05.Still004.jpeg 640w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/SEGMENT-HEADERS.00_02_17_05.Still004-300x169.jpeg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></div>
Topline: Republicans have grown frustrated with the independent agency known as the “Congressional watchdog.” They say the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has too often let politics dictate its findings rather than the facts.
According to its website, the GAO is an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress. It typically looks at how federal funds are spent and how executive agencies implement certain policies, and it makes reports to inform lawmakers. Recently, Republicans say that the GAO has been infected by politics. This lack of trust comes as the GAO has conducted probes into dozens of Trump administration spending freezes.
Last week, the GAO said that the Department of Transportation violated the Impoundment Control Act to freeze a Biden-era electric vehicle charging program. That earned a rebuke from Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget. He wrote on X that the GAO is “going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt.”
Congressional Republicans are also unhappy with the GAO. Last week, Congress voted to strip a Clean Air Act waiver from California, which would have authorized the state to effectively ban new gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Before the vote, the GAO said that Congress couldn’t use the Congressional Review Act to pull the waiver – that set Republicans in the Senate off.
“For the first time ever, the Government Accountability Office has decided to insert itself into the process and affirmatively declare that an agency rule submitted to Congress as a rule is not a rule,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) said. “It’s an extraordinary deviation from precedent for an agency that should be defending Congress’ power instead of constraining it.”
Meanwhile, Elon Musk thanked President Trump on Wednesday as his official government role in the administration comes to an end. It’s been a rough ride for the world’s wealthiest man, from the attacks on his companies to the frustrations of government bureaucracy. This week, Musk seemed somewhat bitter about the political process, especially surrounding the passage of the “Big, Beautiful Bill.”
&#8220;As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,&#8221; Musk wrote on social media. &#8220;The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

MRN 052925 Thumbnail_V1

Morning Brief: Nashville Mayor Under Fire & Europe’s War On Free Speech

Elon Musk

Illegal Immigration

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Media

Morning Wire

Politics

Sanctuary Cities

The Trump administration is blocking all new student visa interviews in preparation for upcoming social media vetting requirements for all international students.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio signed a cable on Tuesday directing U.S. embassies to &#8220;not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M, and J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued &#8230; which we anticipate in the coming days,&#8221; according to a document POLITICO <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/27/trump-team-orders-stop-to-new-student-visa-interviews-as-it-weighs-expanding-social-media-vetting-00370501" target="_blank" rel="noopener">obtained</a>.
The pause affects all applicants for student visas while the administration reportedly prepares guidance for expanded social media vetting requirements.
This represents yet another blow to the finances of dozens of elite universities from the Trump administration, which has cut billions in federal grants for Ivy League institutions such as Harvard and Yale, in addition to threatening their tax-exempt status over free speech violations and DEI initiatives.
The more than 1 million international students in the United States represent a significant revenue source for many American higher education institutions, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2025/05/25/international-students-harvard-trump/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">constituting</a> nearly 30% of Harvard’s student body.
Several prestigious institutions have faced <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-apologizes-for-inaction-after-students-antisemitic-abuser-pleads-guilty?author=Kassy+Akiva&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=46&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=University+Apologizes+For+Inaction+After+Student%E2%80%99s+Antisemitic+Abuser+Pleads+Guilty">accusations</a> of tolerating antisemitism and allowing foreign influence to spread unchecked on their campuses, issues that gained heightened attention after Hamas&#8217; October 7, 2023, attack on Israel and subsequent campus protests.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
This directive broadens the scope of the administration&#8217;s previous social media vetting, which had primarily focused on students returning to the U.S. after potentially participating in pro-Hamas protests.
The Department of Homeland Security <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/homeland-security-to-screen-immigrants-and-foreign-students-social-media-for-anti-semitism?author=Kassy+Akiva&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=43&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Homeland+Security+To+Screen+Immigrants+And+Foreign+Students%E2%80%99+Social+Media+For+Anti-Semitism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> in early April that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) would begin screening foreign students&#8217; social media for antisemitic content and any history of physically harassing Jews.
In the screening process, USCIS is considering any social media content that “indicates an alien endorsing, espousing, promoting, or supporting antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity as a negative factor in any USCIS discretionary analysis when adjudicating immigration benefit requests.”
The Tuesday cable references executive orders aimed at keeping terrorists out of the country and combating antisemitism, though it doesn&#8217;t explicitly detail what the future vetting would screen for.
The State Department has not provided additional details about when the expanded vetting requirements will be implemented or how long the pause on new visa appointments might last, at the time of writing.
The Trump administration has consistently prioritized national security concerns in its immigration policies, with particular focus on identifying potential threats before they enter the country and addressing what it views as ideological bias in academic institutions.
“I think it’s crazy to invite students into your country that are coming onto your campus and destabilizing it,” Rubio <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/homeland-security-to-screen-immigrants-and-foreign-students-social-media-for-anti-semitism">said</a> in April. “Every country in the world has a right to decide who comes in as a visitor and who doesn’t.&#8221;

Supreme Court Rules Affirmative Action Is Unconstitutional In Landmark Case With Harvard And UNC

Trump Admin Freezes All New Student Visa Interviews In Major Blow To Elite Universities

American Universities

Anti-Semitism

Education

foreign students

Hamas

Harvard

Israel

Visa

Federal regulators on Thursday launched a probe into leftist “watchdog” Media Matters over reports that it illegally coordinated advertiser boycotts against Elon Musk&#8217;s X platform.
Media Matters for America, a non-profit <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/leaked-media-matters-donor-list-reveal-it-is-funded-by-democrat-mega-donors?author=Spencer+Lindquist&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Leaked+Media+Matters+Donor+List+Reveal+It+Is+Funded+By+Democrat+Mega+Donors">funded</a> by various leftist institutions and billionaires, <a href="https://archive.nytimes.com/thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/soros-donates-1-million-to-media-matters/">including</a> George Soros, has had the mission to deplatform and drive advertisers away from conservative voices since it was founded in 2004.
The Federal Trade Commission demanded documents regarding Media Matters&#8217; communications with similar “watchdogs” dedicated to labeling conservative content as hate speech and misinformation.
FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, appointed by President Donald Trump, signaled potential action in December, stating the agency &#8220;must prosecute any unlawful collusion between online platforms, and confront advertiser boycotts which threaten competition,&#8221; Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/ftc-probes-media-matters-over-musks-x-boycott-claims-document-shows-2025-05-22/">reported</a>.
Musk’s X sued Media Matters in 2023 after the liberal group published an article <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-to-file-thermonuclear-suit-against-media-matters-over-contrived-story-on-x?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Elon+Musk+To+File+%E2%80%98Thermonuclear%E2%80%99+Suit+Against+Media+Matters+Over+%E2%80%98Contrived%E2%80%99+Story+On+X">claiming</a> that X was placing ads for major corporations such as Apple, Disney, and Comcast alongside Nazi-related content.
A press release from Musk at the time said that the Media Matters story “completely misrepresented the real user experience on X, in another attempt to undermine freedom of speech and mislead advertisers.”
Musk accused the group of creating a “contrived” experience by using an alternate account to curate what posts appeared on the timeline.
In fact, according to Musk, X logs indicated that of the 5.5 billion ad impressions the day Media Matters pulled its research from, less than 50 were served alongside the content highlighted by Media Matters.
“Despite our clear and consistent position, X has seen a number of attacks from activist groups like Media Matters and legacy media outlets who seek to undermine freedom of expression on our platform because they perceive it as a threat to their ideological narrative and those of their financial supporters,” Musk’s release said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The split second court opens on Monday, X Corp will be filing a thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters and ALL those who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company <a href="https://t.co/55vl7PspaQ">pic.twitter.com/55vl7PspaQ</a>
— Kekius Maximus (@elonmusk) <a href="https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1725771191644758037?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 18, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Attorneys representing X <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/ftc-launches-probe-far-left-group-media-matters-over-allegations-advertiser-collusion-against-musks-x">described</a> the report as &#8220;intentionally deceptive&#8221; as a means to cause the company financial harm.
Media Matters has denied these allegations and countersued X.
In a similar case, X sued the World Federation of Advertisers and several other brands for participating in an illegal conspiracy to curtail ad spending on X, the lawsuit states, per the New York Post.
The plaintiffs denied Musk’s accusations, arguing that each individual brand had concerns with X’s policies that led to their suspension of advertising.
The FTC&#8217;s demand represents a significant escalation in the case of Media Matters, shifting the dispute from civil litigation to potential government enforcement action.
Musk, a major contributor to Trump&#8217;s 2024 campaign and head of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative, has seen advertising on X decline since his 2022 acquisition, with Apple and IBM immediately pausing all ads on X following the 2023 Media Matters <a href="https://www.mediamatters.org/twitter/musk-endorses-antisemitic-conspiracy-theory-x-has-been-placing-ads-apple-bravo-ibm-oracle">article</a>.
However, research firm Emarketer projects spending will increase in 2025, per Reuters.
Since taking over Twitter in 2022, Musk has made sweeping changes to content moderation policies, reinstated previously banned accounts, and introduced a paid verification system. The billionaire has frequently criticized what he characterizes as a &#8220;woke mind virus&#8221; affecting media and technology companies.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP-CABINET

Feds Probe Media Matters Over Plot To Defund Musk’s X, Silence Dissenting Voices

Big Tech

Media Matters For America

Trump Administration

Twitter

A student at Brown University is facing disciplinary charges for emailing thousands of non-faculty employees in a “Doge-like” email asking, &#8220;What do you do all day?&#8221;
Alex Shieh created a database of 3,805 administrative employees to attempt to understand why the Ivy League has become so expensive after the latest tuition hike brought annual costs for students up to $93,000.
Shieh’s email attempted to identify three particular jobs: &#8220;DEI jobs, redundant jobs, and bulls*** jobs,&#8221; but in the end, Shieh only received several dozen largely profane, belligerent responses from irate bureaucrats in addition to possible repercussions from Brown.
&#8220;Brown is retaliating against me for exposing that the exorbitant tuition costs are going to a bloated bureaucracy, not educating students,&#8221; Shieh <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/brown-university-student-who-angered-non-faculty-employees-doge-like-email-faces-punishment-from-school">told</a> Fox News.
&#8220;Because Brown can’t outright punish me for calling out their hypocrisy, they are instead accusing me of committing obscure conduct violations that are not applicable to my situation, in order to scare other students from speaking out,” he added.
Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/brown-university-gop-crosshairs-after-students-doge-like-email-kicks-off-frenzy">sent</a> a letter to Brown University Friday morning urging the school to &#8220;reconsider any disciplinary action&#8221; against the Brown sophomore, first reported by Fox News.
&#8220;Reports indicate that Mr. Shieh engaged in a journalistic act of contacting university administrative employees to inquire about their roles and responsibilities. This action, it appears, stemmed from his perspective as a student paying a substantial tuition fee and experiencing concerns regarding university facilities, leading him to question the allocation of administrative resources,&#8221; Nehls <a href="https://nehls.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/nehls.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/05.02.2025-rep-troy-e-nehls-letter-to-brown-university.pdf">wrote</a>.
&#8220;Penalizing a student for what appears to be an attempt to understand the university&#8217;s administrative structure raises serious questions about the institution&#8217;s commitment to open inquiry and the tolerance of dissenting viewpoints.&#8221;
The congressman demanded information on how Brown uses its $7.2 billion endowment, which boasts a 10% annual return, to reduce student costs.
Annual expenses to attend Brown for 2025-2026 are estimated at nearly $96,000, including tuition, fees, food, and housing. Nehls previously introduced legislation that would significantly increase excise taxes on larger colleges&#8217; endowment funds from 1.4% to 21%.
Brown University spokesman Brian Clark denied free speech was the issue, writing in a statement to Fox News, &#8220;At the center of Brown&#8217;s review are questions focused on whether improper use of non-public Brown data systems and/or targeting of individual employees violated law or policy.&#8221;
The controversy emerges as Ivy League schools face scrutiny from the Trump administration over both tuition rates and anti-Semitism concerns.
Shieh’s concerns regarding inflated college bureaucracies are <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulweinstein/2023/08/28/administrative-bloat-at-us-colleges-is-skyrocketing/">reflected</a> in a larger trend amongst universities, as according to Forbes, “Between 1976 and 2018, full-time administrators and other professionals employed by those institutions increased by 164% and 452%, respectively,” and “the number of full-time faculty employed at colleges and universities in the U.S. increased by only 92%, marginally outpacing student enrollment which grew by 78%.”
Shieh is planning to bring his campaign to other Ivy Leagues such as The University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and Cornell University &#8220;to expose wasteful expenditures there&#8221; and release &#8220;an online tool to demand that schools cease and desist DEI.&#8221;

GettyImages-548776411 (1)

University Student Faces Discipline For Emailing 3,800 Staff: ‘What Do You Do All Day?’

Brown University

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Ivy League

Conservative Supreme Court justices suggested approval for the nation&#8217;s first taxpayer-funded Catholic charter school in a landmark case that could dramatically expand religious freedom in American education.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, proposed by two Oklahoma Catholic dioceses, would offer K-12 education with an explicitly religious curriculum as a state-funded charter school.
Hundreds of families have already signed up while the school awaits the resolution of legal challenges, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-mulls-legality-milestone-religious-charter-school-2025-04-30/">according</a> to Reuters.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed back against the state&#8217;s exclusion of religion during arguments, stating: &#8220;&#8230; You can&#8217;t treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States,&#8221; adding that excluding religious schools &#8220;seems like rank discrimination.&#8221;
Attorney James Campbell, a lawyer for the state&#8217;s charter school board that approved St. Isidore, told Justice Kavanaugh that Oklahoma already permits charter schools with specific themes, noting that only religion seemed to be off limits, the Associated Press <a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-religious-catholic-charter-school-oklahoma-983ed57aabeae53e4b58367c5021f5e1">reported</a>.
“They’re not asking for special treatment, not asking for favoritism,” Kavanaugh concurred. “They’re just saying, ’Don’t treat us worse because we’re religious.&#8217;”
Chief Justice John Roberts challenged both sides of the argument, and will likely be the swing vote after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself without an explanation. She is a former Notre Dame Law School professor, a major supporter of publicly funded religious charter schools.
&#8220;This does strike me as a much more comprehensive involvement,&#8221; Roberts said, distinguishing it from earlier cases involving &#8220;limited state benefits, such as playground improvements, tuition and tax credits.&#8221;
The court’s three liberal justices were in uniform opposition to the charter school’s creation, with Justice Sotomayor <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-394_1b72.pdf">saying</a>, “What would you do with a charter school that doesn’t want to teach evolution? Or doesn’t want to teach history, including the history of slavery?”
In the event of a 4-4 tie, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s 6-2 ruling blocking the creation of St. Isidore would be left in place, which deemed the charter school a &#8220;governmental entity&#8221; that would violate constitutional limits on government involvement in religion.
The case has divided Oklahoma Republicans, with Governor Kevin Stitt and the Trump administration backing the school, while Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond opposes it, per Reuters.
If approved, St. Isidore would represent a significant shift in American education by becoming the first publicly funded charter school with an explicitly religious curriculum.
The Supreme Court&#8217;s decision is expected by the end of June.

Supreme Court Takes On Religious Charter School Case

Supreme Court Conservatives Signal Support For Public Religious Charter Schools

Amy Coney Barrett

Brett Kavanaugh

Oklahoma

Religious Freedom

A <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/support-billboard-chris" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Canadian father</a> recently sat before an Australian tribunal in Melbourne for five days because he shared an article from <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Daily Mail</a> in an X post last year.
Let that sink in.
Chris Elston, better known as &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/BillboardChris" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Billboard Chris</a>,&#8221; flew halfway around the world to defend not only his own free speech rights, but also those of all people. He is <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/billboard-chris-australia" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pushing back</a> against an order from Australia’s eSafety Commissioner. The order demanded X censor Chris’ February 2024 post criticizing the appointment of a transgender activist to a World Health Organization panel of experts, citing the Daily Mail <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13119521/Sex-secrets-trans-kinky-Australian-bondage-bestiality-nudism-drugs-sex-change.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">article</a> titled &#8220;Kinky secrets of UN trans expert REVEALED&#8221;
Linking to an article from one of the most-read news websites in the world, the post was <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1906643539754205575" target="_blank" rel="noopener">deemed</a> by eSafety to be “cyber-abuse material targeted at an Australian adult.” X initially resisted pressure to censor the content in any way but later geo-blocked the post in Australia when hit with a formal takedown notice. Billboard Chris, with legal support from ADF International, is challenging that order, and X joined in a separate suit.
This isn’t about one post. It’s about whether governments should be able to censor lawful expression because they don’t like the content — in this case, the rejection of gender ideology. 
The hearing at the Melbourne Administrative Review Tribunal spanned five days and took in over 2,000 pages of documents. Meanwhile, the complainant, Teddy Cook, never even appeared before the tribunal.
<a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1906643539754205575" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Day one</a> revealed how thin the complaint truly was. eSafety’s lawyers claimed that part of the problem was that Chris had revealed Cook’s place of work and posted private images. Chris, however, simply reposted the Daily Mail’s piece, which named Cook’s workplace (a detail already publicly available online) and, as anyone who uses social media knows, the featured images were pulled from Daily Mail article, not supplied by Chris. It becomes more ridiculous still. The Daily Mail had obtained the photos from Cook’s own social media. The argument didn’t just collapse under scrutiny — it exposed the flimsy foundation apparently sufficient for this bureaucracy to suppress dissent.
By <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1907084293513318811" target="_blank" rel="noopener">day two</a>, it was clear how detached from reality the process had become. There was no evidence of actual harm. Cook, just nine days after the post, had tweeted: “living my best life.” But here we were, with psychiatrists and professors flown in to dissect whether a single X post could legally be considered “likely … intended to have an effect of causing serious harm”.
Chris testified to the Tribunal about the issue at the core of his advocacy: “It’s damaging to teach children they are born in the wrong body &#8230; children are beautiful just as they are. No drugs or scalpels needed.” Asked whether he was trying to provoke outrage, he responded: “No. I want to provoke discussion.”
That matters. Under Australia’s Online Safety Act, takedown orders can only be issued if content is not only offensive, but also “likely …intended to have an effect of causing serious harm.&#8221; However, eSafety seemed to argue that intent is largely irrelevant. If someone feels offended, even by public information, that alone might justify censorship.
On <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl/status/1907754476250792285" target="_blank" rel="noopener">days three and four</a>, several more expert witnesses took the stand. eSafety’s own expert — a digital communications professor — asserted that biologically accurate terms are “harmful,” and that children should be able to choose their gender around age 12. Note Australian taxpayers are footing the bill for this expertise — reportedly more than $10,000 for just this one.
The final day brought closing submissions and a stark contrast in worldviews. eSafety argued the Tribunal should view the post in isolation, ignoring the broader debate, and insisted that Teddy Cook — a WHO-appointed expert and activist — shouldn’t be considered a public figure. Chris’ legal team, along with X, pushed back: any fair assessment must consider the wider social and political context. This wasn’t targeted abuse — it was participation in a critical public conversation.
This case is a warning to all who value free expression. If a Canadian citizen can be silenced in Australia for sharing a news article on U.S.-based platform X, then clearly, censorship is no longer bound by borders. What’s to stop any other government — from Canada to the EU to China — from deciding your speech “harms” someone abroad and demanding it be taken down too?
This is exactly how global censorship metastasizes: bureaucracies leveraging international tech companies to enforce vague, ideological speech codes on people who never voted for them, under laws they never consented to. And the more they get away with it, the bolder they become.
Fortunately, X put up a robust legal defense, and Chris, with the legal backing of ADF International and the Human Rights Law Alliance, was unequivocal in his message: he will not be censored as he fights to put an end to the evils of gender ideology.
Most evidently, gender ideology needs censorship to survive, and that is why Chris has been targeted. He hasn’t gone before this tribunal to protect himself — he’s doing it to protect the right of every person to tell the truth.
This is a test case with global consequences. Billboard Chris’ censorship challenge shows us exactly where we’re headed if we don’t defend free speech: toward a world where bureaucrats silence opinions they don’t like, even from the other side of the globe. It’s a world where truth must be approved, and feelings outweigh facts. That’s not just anti-democratic — it’s dangerous. Because once a government crosses the line of international censorship, there’s no saying where it will stop.
* * *
Robert Clarke is a barrister and director of advocacy for ADF International, which is supporting the case of Billboard Chris in Australia. Follow him on X at <a href="https://x.com/Rob_ADFIntl?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rob_ADFIntl.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

He Shared A Link On X. Now He’s In An Australian Court.

Canada

Opinion

President Donald Trump unveils his highly anticipated tariff plan in a Rose Garden speech. Damning new evidence points to an FBI cover-up ahead of the 2020 election. And, trade negotiations between the U.S. and the U.K. hang in the balance, as the fate of a pro-life protester becomes a bargaining chip.
It’s Thursday, April 3, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. If you’d rather listen to your news, today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
&nbsp;
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trump-tariffs-unveiled-fbi-censored-biden-laptop-4-3-25/id1576594336?i=1000702026572" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
&nbsp;
<h2>Trump’s “Liberation Day” Tariffs</h2>
<div id="attachment_902231" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-902231" class="size-large wp-image-902231" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Trump-Rosegarden-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Trump-Rosegarden-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Trump-Rosegarden-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Trump-Rosegarden-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Trump-Rosegarden-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Trump-Rosegarden-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Trump-Rosegarden-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/Trump-Rosegarden-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)</div>
Topline:  After months of anticipation, President Trump rolled out his plans to implement historic tariffs on Wednesday, transforming American trade policy with the stroke of his pen.
World leaders, investors, the business community — everyone has been holding their breath ahead of what Trump described as “Liberation Day.” The announcement in the White House Rose Garden was among the most consequential moments in American trade policy since NAFTA was implemented in 1994, or even the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930.
The Plan: The U.S. will establish a minimum 10% baseline tariff on all countries, regardless of what they charge. From there, the president announced that rates would be reciprocal. But according to Trump, the United States will be gracious, in his words, “kind reciprocal, not full.” In a truly remarkable scene, the president held up a giant poster board listing dozens of countries along with the rate they’ll now pay. Trump says that number was decided by adding up each country’s tariffs, value-added taxes, and currency manipulation. That number was then divided by two, and the final rate was decided.
According to the president, China’s overall rate on U.S. imports is 67%, so we’ll charge 34%. The European Union will face 20% rates; Japan, 24%; Australia, 10%; India, 26%; the United Kingdom will pay 10%; South Africa will pay 60%; and so on.
The president devoted much of his address to the auto industry, saying foreign tariffs had driven American companies to outsource production, leaving our manufacturing base decimated. In an effort to bring that auto production back to the United States, Trump announced additional 25% tariffs on all auto imports. Following that announcement, he called Brian Pannebecker, a United Auto Worker, to the podium.
 “My entire life I have watched plant after plant after plant, in Detroit and the metro area, close,” Pannebecker said. “And the UAW members… we support Donald Trump’s tariff policies 100 percent.”
This plan marks not just a transformation of global trade but also a political transformation. For decades, Republican administrations have opposed tariffs, while Democrats were generally in favor. But Democrats now argue that tariffs are a tax on consumers and will drive inflation higher. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), for example, said Trump was “taking a sledgehammer to the US economy” and vowed to fight his tariff policy “tooth and nail.”
The question now becomes how those other countries respond — will they lower rates in an effort to find relief or dig in for a prolonged trade war? We’ll have answers soon. 
&nbsp;
<h2>FBI Biden Cover-Up</h2>
<div id="attachment_902233" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-902233" class="size-large wp-image-902233" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/FBI-Coverup-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/FBI-Coverup-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/FBI-Coverup-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/FBI-Coverup-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/FBI-Coverup-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/FBI-Coverup-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/FBI-Coverup-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/FBI-Coverup-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />(Photo by Nes via Getty Images)</div>
Topline: House investigations revealed Tuesday that the FBI sought to silence its own agents from discussing Hunter Biden’s laptop publicly.
Congress has received internal messages from the FBI, which, while heavily redacted, suggest a coordinated effort to cover up elements of the Hunter Biden laptop story in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election. An FBI analyst confirmed the laptop’s authenticity in a phone call with Twitter on October 14, 2020, the day that a story in the New York Post on information found in Biden’s laptop dropped. After that, the FBI’s brass shut down public discussion. 
According to these messages, an FBI official told Elvis Chan, the FBI liaison for social media companies, that there was a “gag order” on talk about the laptop. This was apparently as the FBI was actively investigating the laptop for criminal conduct. Chan asked what specific crime was suspected of being violated, and the response was censored. But it was apparently shocking enough to make Chan write back, “oh crap. Ok. it ends here.”
The allegation is that the FBI knew the laptop was authentic as early as October 14, 2020, but still moved to censor the New York Post story before the election.
“We already kind of knew the FBI knew it was real,” Jon Levine of the Washington Free Beacon told Morning Wire. “But the sort of real time details, like on the very same day [the Post broke the story] they knew it was real. That&#8217;s new and it&#8217;s extra insidious because if you go back to that time… the FBI was running around that same week saying, well, we&#8217;re, we&#8217;re looking into this being a Russian information dump.”
All the FBI had to do was confirm the laptop’s authenticity. Instead, it allowed a considerable censorship operation to smother a news story. Several major media outlets propped up the FBI’s narrative, from <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/26/media/nprs-katherine-maher-admits-outlet-failed-to-cover-hunter-biden-laptop/">NPR</a> saying it didn’t want to “waste our time on stories that are not really stories” to <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276">Politico</a> publishing a story citing dozens of foreign intelligence officials who claimed the laptop “[had] all the classic earmarks” of Russian disinformation. All while the FBI was, in fact, investigating a very real Hunter Biden laptop. The fact that officials from other agencies signed on to that claim suggests the suppression effort extended beyond the FBI.
&nbsp;
<h2>US Pressures UK Against Censorship</h2>
<div id="attachment_902235" style="width: 870px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-902235" class="size-large wp-image-902235" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/UK-Opinion-Liscence-860x576.jpg" alt="" width="860" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/UK-Opinion-Liscence-860x576.jpg 860w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/UK-Opinion-Liscence-300x201.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/UK-Opinion-Liscence-768x514.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/UK-Opinion-Liscence-1536x1028.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/UK-Opinion-Liscence-2048x1371.jpg 2048w" sizes="(max-width: 860px) 100vw, 860px" />(Edited satirical photo, Original by Mariia Morozova via Getty Images)</div>
Topline: The State Department announced it’s closely monitoring the case of a woman targeted by the British government for her pro-life activism while the United Kingdom negotiates a trade deal with the US.
Over the weekend, the State Department announced that it is following the developments surrounding retired medical scientist Livia Tossici-Bolt. She was reportedly arrested in Bournemouth, England, in 2023 for holding a sign near an abortion clinic that read, “Here to talk if you want.” She’s one of many pro-life activists prosecuted for pro-life activism and prayer in the vicinity of abortion clinics. The U.K. has “buffer zone” laws that prohibit this kind of activity in those areas, including silent prayer. She faced a criminal trial on March 6, and a verdict is expected to be handed down on April 4.
The State Department&#8217;s announcement was an oblique warning. Headlines from The Telegraph and other high-profile European publications indicate that the United Kingdom’s censorship of its citizens could actually become a massive liability in regard to the transatlantic relationship, which has historically been very friendly. The State Department never directly said the trade deal was imperiled, but it did say that the U.S. is “concerned about freedom of expression in the United Kingdom.&#8221;
The State Department confirmed to Daily Wire White House Correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan that its senior advisor, Sam Samson, recently met with Livia in the U.K. Sources close to the situation told The Daily Wire that State Department officials held bilateral meetings with members of the British government about the topic, including the officials who are pushing hate speech laws. The United States has emphasized that its alliance with the United Kingdom must be civilizational – American allies must be on board with American values, including freedom of speech. 
The White House has not commented directly on this matter, but Vice President JD Vance has consistently made opposition to government censorship a trademark issue. Vance chastised European leaders for censoring their citizens at a security conference in Munich earlier this year. On Tuesday, he reiterated his vision for a liberated West at a Heritage Foundation event.
“ We can rebuild the kind of society where virtue and freedom and our ancient liberties are preserved and enforced and facilitated by our government rather than torn down by our government,” Vance said. “You see in Europe, people arrested for praying and you have the police asking them, well, what are you praying about? As if it was any of the police&#8217;s business.”

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

Morning Brief: ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs, An FBI Cover-Up, & America Pressures Brits On Free Speech

Donald Trump

Hunter Biden

laptop computer

Tariffs

United Kingdom

North Carolina Congressman Mark Harris is leading a push to protect pastors who make political statements from being punished by the IRS, he told The Daily Wire. 
Harris on Monday will introduce the “Free Speech Fairness Act,” to make it clear in law that religious leaders can make statements about political candidates and not have to worry about their churches losing tax-exempt status. The bill is specifically aimed at countering the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which restricts churches and other non-profits from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 
“The whole idea was in contrast to Americans’ inalienable rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion,” Harris told The Daily Wire. “It currently puts the IRS in a position of judge and jury on comments that are going to be made by ministers from the pulpit and all speech from non-profits.”
Harris, a Baptist minister, said that the Johnson Amendment had been used as a “tool to silence religious leaders and churches.” He said his legislation would restore free speech to religious leaders and non-profits. 
Senator James Lankford (R-OK) will introduce a companion measure co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the Senate. 
“The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to freedom of speech and religious freedom without the threat of interference from Congress,&#8221; Lankford told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Fundamental American values must extend to everyone, including pastors, social workers, or non-profit employees and volunteers. Everyone should have their constitutional rights to assembly, free speech, freedom of religion and free press protected.”
The bill would “allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose” and if no meaningful expenses are incurred. For example, a pastor could comment on a political candidate during a sermon, or the president of a crisis pregnancy center could point to a candidate&#8217;s record on abortion in a newsletter. 
The legislation would not allow churches or non-profits to become political action committees, Harris said. 
”We’re not looking for churches to become super PACS, that is certainly not the purpose of this,” he told The Daily Wire. “But it is to really restore free speech to the pulpits of America without any threat of our tax code.” 
In the House, the bill has already picked up 14 co-sponsors, including Reps. Michael Guest (MS), Randy Weber (TX), Barry Moore (AL), Clay Higgins (LA), Glenn Grothman (WI), Keith Self (TX), Michael Baumgartner (WA), Mark Messmer (IN), Tim Walberg (MI), Marlin Stutzman (IN), David Rouzer (NC), Doug LaMalfa (CA), Andy Ogles (TN), Abe Hamadeh (AZ), and Mary Miller (IL). 
House Speaker Mike Johnson <a href="https://scalise.house.gov/press-release/scalise-hice-johnson-lankford-reintroduce-free-speech-fairness-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced</a> similar legislation in 2019 alongside House Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
The proposal is also backed by over a dozen conservative groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Catholic Vote, the America First Policy Institute, and others.
Back in 2017, President Donald Trump promised to &#8220;destroy&#8221; the Johnson Amendment to &#8220;allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.&#8221; To that effect, Trump signed an <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/09/2017-09574/promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty" target="_blank" rel="noopener">executive order</a> in May 2017 to explicitly protect religious leaders speaking out on politics.

Mark Harris wont face state charges in N.C. 9th District ballot fraud case

EXCLUSIVE: North Carolina Republican Leads Effort To ‘Restore’ Free Speech For Pastors, Churches

James Lankford

North Carolina

Religious Liberty

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a Democrat-backed bill on Tuesday that advocates say would have been used to target peaceful pro-life protesters and sidewalk counselors outside of abortion facilities. 
The bill would have sharply restricted the activities of pro-life advocates around abortion facilities, including imposing penalties for “impeding” access to an abortion provider. In his veto message, the Republican governor said that the legislation was an unconstitutional attack on free speech. 
“This legislation is an unconstitutional time, place, and manner restriction on the God-given, constitutionally protected right to the freedom of speech,” Youngkin <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1324/text/SB1324VG" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. “It creates new criminal penalties for what one might say or where they stand when they say it. If this bill were to become law, a citizen of the Commonwealth, the crucible of our representative democracy, could be jailed simply for carrying a sign.”
The legislation, <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1324/text/SB1324ER" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB 1324</a>, would create penalties for anyone “who knowingly obstructs, detains, hinders, impedes, blocks, or delays another person&#8217;s entry to or exit” from a health care facility. 
It would also block anyone from approaching “another person within eight feet of such person in the public way or sidewalk area within a radius of 40 feet from any entrance door to a health care facility, unless such other person consents to the approach, for the purpose of giving, tendering, or exhibiting any material to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person.”
That provision would have restricted the work of pro-life sidewalk counselors who gather outside abortion facilities to urge women not to end the life of their unborn child and frequently offer help with their pregnancies. 
The Democrat-backed legislation <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/votes/SB1324/2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> the House of Delegates 51-45 and Senate 21-19 in party-line votes. 
Pro-life advocates said that SB 1324 was meant to chill their speech.
“This bill is part of a concerted effort to stifle efforts to provide oversight of abortion providers and prevent individuals and groups from counseling women away from abortion,” Victoria Cobb of the Virginia-based Family Foundation <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2025/01/29/trump-pardoned-pro-life-americans-now-virginia-democrats-want-to-lock-them-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> as the measure worked its way through the legislature. “SB 1324 represents a clear attack on the ability to peacefully voice opposition to abortion, criminalizing the very act of offering alternatives and support to women visiting these facilities.”
The law would have been similar to the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a federal offense to sit or stand in front of the entrances to abortion facilities. During the Biden administration, FACE was used to lock up peaceful pro-life protesters. 
President Donald Trump has taken a drastically different approach, pardoning the pro-lifers targeted by Biden, and directing his Justice Department to only prosecute FACE cases in instances of extreme violence. 
Youngkin on Tuesday also vetoed a number of other Democrat backed-bills, including legislation on gun control, pushing so-called green energy, and expanding recreational marijuana.

planecrash

Youngkin Vetoes Democrat Bill Allowing Pro-Lifers To Be ‘Jailed Simply For Carrying A Sign’

Abortion

FACE Act

Glenn Youngkin

Pro-Life Movement

Virginia

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

Menu