&#8220;Harry Potter&#8221; author J.K. Rowling unloaded on liberals for failing to uphold the principle of free speech, arguing they&#8217;d largely done it out of fear that they&#8217;d no longer be accepted by &#8220;their tribe.&#8221;
Rowling shared her thoughts in a post on X, explaining that free speech had to encompass the freedom to offend people with speech, and decried the liberals who could not get past &#8220;this most basic hurdle.&#8221;
&#8220;Freedom of speech means freedom to cause offence. The number of supposed liberals who’ve fallen at this most basic hurdle, because for the first time in their lives they risked losing the approval of their tribe, has been staggering,&#8221; she wrote.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Freedom of speech means freedom to cause offence. The number of supposed liberals who’ve fallen at this most basic hurdle, because for the first time in their lives they risked losing the approval of their tribe, has been staggering.
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1952958963424870608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Rowling, a self-described liberal and advocate for women, has routinely angered radical trans activists by insisting that men cannot become women and that women deserve to have their sex-based rights and single-sex spaces protected from the men who argue otherwise.
The &#8220;Harry Potter&#8221; creator has also railed against the notion of compelled speech — specifically when it&#8217;s applied to the transgender issue and people publicly pressured or even directed by law to say that a man is a woman if he claims to be so.
Rowling addressed that topic in a post from one day prior, saying that she did not believe anyone actually thought men could be women — only that some were willing to say something they knew not to be true for political reasons.
&#8220;Western society is currently divided between people who know this is a man and are prepared to say so and those who know this is a man but lie out of obedience to an ideology. There is no third option. Literally nobody on earth thinks &#8216;Roxanne Tickle&#8217; is actually a woman,&#8221; she said, sharing a photo of the man she&#8217;d mentioned.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Western society is currently divided between people who know this is a man and are prepared to say so and those who know this is a man but lie out of obedience to an ideology. There is no third option. Literally nobody on earth thinks &#8220;Roxanne Tickle&#8221; is actually a woman. <a href="https://t.co/xLbzcOfKmJ">pic.twitter.com/xLbzcOfKmJ</a>
— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) <a href="https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1952939136349798421?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 6, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

“Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes Of Grindelwald” UK Premiere – Red Carpet Arrivals

JK Rowling Torches Liberals For Sacrificing Free Speech For ‘Approval Of Their Tribe’

Free Speech

Harry Potter

J.K. Rowling

Media

Politics

The University of Maryland has agreed to pay Palestine Legal and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) $100,000 after the university first defended, but then briefly tried to reschedule, a rally on the anniversary of Hamas&#8217;s October 7, 2023 attacks by a campus group that advocates &#8220;the right of Palestinians to carry out armed struggle.&#8221;
The public university&#8217;s Students for Justice in Palestine chapter “will spend every dollar we receive from the $100,000 penalty for banning our vigil on organizing and supporting the movement for a free Palestine,” group member Daniela Colombi said in a <a href="https://www.cair.com/press_releases/palestine-legal-cair-announce-historic-100k-settlement-from-u-of-maryland-for-unlawfully-suppressing-pro-palestinian-student-speech/">statement</a>.
&#8220;Capitulating to bad faith, anti-Palestinian pressure will cost you,&#8221; Ahmad Kaki, a CAIR attorney, added, calling it a &#8220;transparent censorship attempt&#8221;—although even as CAIR fought for the right of students to demonstrate on October 7 on free speech grounds, it tried to force the university&#8217;s medical school to <a href="https://jewishinsider.com/2025/01/umd-medical-school-stands-by-israeli-surgeon-after-cair-played-role-canceling-his-talk/">cancel</a> a lecture by an Israeli surgeon.
CAIR noted that the Maryland public institution agreed to pay the anti-Israel group even as the Trump administration has extracted <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/columbia-university-retreats-as-trump-scores-historic-220m-settlement">massive</a> <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ucla-will-pay-6-million-to-settle-antisemitic-discrimination-complaints">payments</a> from other universities for failing to protect Jews from antisemitism on campus. 
 University president Darryll Pines had in fact gone to great lengths to allow Students for Justice in Palestine to rally on the anniversary of the terror attack — an event advertised as &#8220;honor[ing] the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-maryland-will-let-anti-israel-group-hold-oct-7-rally">150,000+ martyrs</a> who have lost their lives within the past year&#8221; — including his personally echoing the false claim that Israel had killed 150,000 people, which not even Hamas contended.
But that freedom appeared to extend only to certain groups. In an email obtained by the Daily Wire, Pines threatened to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-of-maryland-prez-said-anti-israel-protesters-could-rally-on-10-7-then-threatened-to-call-police-on-jew-for-complaining">call the police on a Jewish woman</a> if she did not stop emailing faculty and staff with complaints about antisemitism.
When Jewish critics raised that double standard by wondering how Pines, who is black, would respond if it were a KKK rally instead of an anti-Israel rally, or confederate flags instead of Palestinian ones on the campus&#8217;s central quad, the rhetorical device seemed to go over Pines&#8217; head: he took it as a literal assertion that there was actually a KKK rally planned for October 7, and suddenly his prior First Amendment concerns no longer seemed to apply. 
Patricia Perillo, the University of Maryland’s Vice President of Student Affairs, later said in an affidavit that “on August 26, 2024, an individual emailed University President Darryll J. Pines, who is Black, advising that if the University was going to permit SJP’s event to go forward, ‘then my Klan Rally with sheets and a noose are also approved.’”
Pines cancelled all events on October 7, not because of his aversion to the anti-Israel event, but because of what he suggested was anti-black racism and threats by Jewish people, requiring the cancellation of events to protect the safety of the Palestine activists, according to prior Daily Wire reporting and CAIR&#8217;s summary of the lawsuit.
&#8220;The University <a href="https://palestinelegal.org/s/Defendants-Opposition-to-Plaintiffs-Motion-for-TRO-and-PI.pdf">responded to CAIR and Palestine Legal’s lawsuit</a> by claiming that it was forced to cancel all events due to racist threats from pro-Israel individuals, who had threatened to organize a KKK rally and come to campus armed if SJP’s vigil was allowed to proceed. At the hearing, University of Maryland Police Chief David Mitchell testified that pro-Israel individuals even threatened UMD President Darryl Pines’ family and used the N-word,&#8221; CAIR said in its statement heralding the settlement.
But the postponement of all October 7 gatherings on campus was short-lived. Despite Pines&#8217; general sympathy to the group, SJP sued his university in federal court, backed by lawyers from CAIR. On October 2, U.S. District Judge Peter J. Messitte wrote that the Palestinian group would suffer &#8220;irreparable harm&#8221; if it could not congregate on that date to mark &#8220;what it calls Israel&#8217;s most recent &#8216;genocidal campaign,'&#8221; and ordered the event <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-says-university-must-let-anti-israel-group-hold-oct-7-event">reinstated</a>.
In its statement on the settlement, CAIR cast the planned event as a &#8220;vigil&#8221; somberly mourning the deaths of people in the Israel-Hamas war, but that is not what contemporaneous documents indicate. SJP&#8217;s national headquarters had called for a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-student-group-is-calling-for-a-week-of-rage-beginning-october-7">&#8220;Week of Rage&#8221;</a> coinciding with the anniversary of the Palestinian terrorist group&#8217;s slaughter of 1,200 Israelis. 
An application for reserving campus space, filed August 1, contained only a nine-word description of the event (&#8220;One year since the genocidal bombing campaign in Gaza&#8221;), according to documents obtained under public records laws, and Jewish critics have raised questions about whether the group failed to properly comply with the university&#8217;s rules for getting events approved, which would have given Pines a mechanism for blocking the event. 
Pines dismissed complaints from Jews by claiming that the group had &#8220;condemned the horrific attack by Hamas,&#8221; but a Daily Wire review of SJP&#8217;s social media showed no such sentiment. SJP instead said on Instagram that it supports the “<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C_WntvnPe2D/?img_index=5">right of Palestinians to carry out armed struggle,</a>” and “unequivocally states that the Zionist state of Israel has <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/C9yDEB3PJv6/?img_index=5">no right to exist</a>.” 
Pines was so invested in defending the anti-Israel group that he resorted to academic misconduct, sending a Jewish critic what he said was original &#8220;faculty research&#8221; from Middle East scholars on campus that proved that the Palestinian flag was not objectionable. The Daily Wire found that what he called the &#8220;consensus opinion from these faculty scholars,&#8221; whom he claimed he personally consulted with, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-maryland-president-plagiarized-from-chatgpt-to-justify-anti-israel-oct-7-rally">actually came from ChatGPT</a>.
That misrepresentation spurred The Daily Wire to check Pines&#8217; past academic work for plagiarism, and it found that nearly one-third of a 5,000-word paper was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/university-of-maryland-president-copied-rocket-science-paper-from-aussie-student">copied and pasted from an Australian student</a>, who was never referenced anywhere in the paper. There was evidence that Pines (or his co-author) had not accidentally mixed up someone else&#8217;s work with their own, because the British spellings in the Australian version had — with one exception that was missed — been changed to the American versions.
Pines acknowledged &#8220;recurrent language&#8221; but denied misconduct, and the state&#8217;s university system opened a review into his academic integrity. Ten months later, the review panel has <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=web&amp;rct=j&amp;opi=89978449&amp;url=https://www.thebaltimorebanner.com/education/higher-education/university-of-maryland-darryll-pines-plagiarism-AHZESFHKN5HA5DLTEF32CER46E/">issued no findings</a>.
The University of Maryland did not answer The Daily Wire&#8217;s questions, but said in a statement that &#8220;the litigation in federal court has been mutually resolved through a settlement agreement with no admission of liability by the University.&#8221;
&#8220;UMD SJP is a registered University student organization in good standing which has had more than 100 events on campus since October 7, 2023, for which it consistently followed the University’s policies and procedures governing such events,&#8221; it added. &#8220;The University reiterates its support for the First Amendment and particularly making campus space available for individuals and groups of all viewpoints to share their opinions pursuant to its Guidelines for Expressive Activities and the First Amendment. The University takes very seriously its responsibilities for the safety and security of all University students and other members of its community.&#8221;
A top senator this week <a href="https://www.cotton.senate.gov/news/press-releases/cotton-to-long-investigate-cair-for-ties-to-terrorists">called</a> for CAIR&#8217;s tax-exempt status to be examined due to its &#8220;ties to terrorists.&#8221;

UMD Students for Justice in Palestine / Instagram

University of Maryland Will Pay Anti-Israel Group That Planned Campus Rally On October 7

Anti-Semitism

Education

Israel

Maryland

Universities

University of Maryland

As a clinical psychologist, I help people find the words to express what they’re feeling. For most of my career, this was a straightforward process — mostly supporting clients with anxiety and relationship or career issues. But over the past few years, I’ve noticed a shift. More and more, clients arrive not just with anxiety — but with speech anxiety. They’re not afraid of public speaking. They’re afraid that voicing a viewpoint could harm others — or be interpreted as harm itself. 
 
We’re living in a cultural moment where phrases like “words are violence” have moved from the margins into the mainstream. The instinct behind the idea is understandable. It’s rooted in compassion and a desire to protect others from emotional pain. But as someone who works with people in distress, I can say this: equating speech with physical violence doesn’t foster safety. It fosters fragility — and avoidance of the very emotional tools we need to thrive. 
 
Yes, words can hurt. They can be cruel, dismissive, even traumatizing but to label words as violent collapses a crucial distinction. Physical violence is something we’re biologically wired to avoid at all costs. It triggers a primal response — fight, flight, freeze — that can be lifesaving, in the right context. But when we teach people to respond to challenging conversations as if they’re being physically attacked, we inadvertently hijack that same physiological stress response. We turn everyday discomfort into a perceived emergency. 
 
This distinction isn’t just philosophical — it’s embedded in clinical ethics. As a licensed psychologist, I’m legally required to break confidentiality if a client discloses an imminent threat of physical violence. But if a client tells me they plan to say something rude, offensive, or even hateful, I’m not only permitted to keep that information confidential — I’m obligated to do so. That’s because speech and violence are fundamentally different categories of concern. One may call for a conversation. The other may call for an intervention. Blurring that boundary in everyday life creates confusion, not clarity. 
 
This can lead to serious emotional fallout. Clients tell me they’ve ended friendships, distanced themselves from family, or left jobs because of political or social disagreements that they once would have handled with a spirited discussion. They often say they feel “unsafe” around people with differing views — not because of any actual threat, but because of what those views might represent. That interpretation leads not to empowerment, but to chronic anxiety. 
 
Over time, this kind of hypervigilance doesn’t just shape relationships, it reshapes the self. In therapy, I see people move through the classic defense mechanisms we’re trained to watch for: suppression, repression, and denial. Suppression is when you’re aware of a thought or feeling but actively push it down. Repression is when the mind buries those thoughts so deeply that you’re no longer even conscious of them. Denial occurs when a person distorts their view of reality to avoid an uncomfortable truth. 
 
When people feel they must stifle their thoughts or language to remain socially acceptable, suppression is often the first step. But if suppression becomes a habit, it can slide into repression — people lose access to parts of themselves. Eventually, they may engage in denial: reframing a difficult relationship or viewpoint not as a difference of opinion, but as a danger to be avoided. From a mental health standpoint, this is where we start to see symptoms escalate — more anxiety, more relational conflict, and a diminished capacity to process emotions with nuance. 
 
This dynamic also connects to a broader societal trend. In 2023, the U.S. Surgeon General <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37792968/">declared loneliness</a> a public health epidemic. We are more digitally connected than ever — and yet we feel increasingly cut off. That’s partly because people are afraid to express themselves authentically. If you’re always editing what you say — or editing who you are — you’re not really connecting. You’re performing. And performance doesn’t build intimacy. 
 
The goal isn’t to dismiss emotional pain or encourage rudeness. Psychological abuse is real, and words can leave deep scars. But we must be careful not to overextend the concept of harm to the point where disagreement feels dangerous. When that happens, people don’t just walk away from conflict — they walk away from each other. 
 
We also risk missing the bigger picture: that open dialogue is one of the most effective tools we have for growth, both individually and socially. Research in conflict resolution shows that meaningful change often begins with conversation — not censorship. Even in extreme cases — such as hate group de-radicalization — studies repeatedly show that dialogue, not silence, is what moves people out of entrenched thinking. 
 
What we need now is a more balanced framework — one that acknowledges the emotional impact of speech without mistaking it for physical harm. We should be equipping people with emotional skills: the ability to tolerate discomfort, name their feelings, and respond with clarity instead of retreating in fear. These are the building blocks of psychological resilience and they’re far more protective than trying to sanitize the world of anything potentially upsetting. 
 
In my work, I’ve seen that when people stop fearing their own voices — and stop fearing others’ — they grow stronger. They communicate better. They form deeper, more authentic relationships. That doesn’t happen when we treat words like weapons. It happens when we remember what words are for: understanding, connection, and sometimes, respectful disagreement. 
 
Words can hurt. But they can also heal. Let’s not confuse one for the other — because when we do, we risk losing the ability to use language as the powerful, human tool it’s meant to be.
* * *
Dr. Chloe Carmichael is a clinical psychologist, USA Today bestselling author of &#8220;Nervous Energy,&#8221; and a visiting fellow at Independent Women. Her <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/151078490X/ref=cm_sw_r_as_gl_apa_gl_i_BPB78R7NVWK0ZVAJQ088?linkCode=ml1&amp;tag=ivba-20">upcoming book</a> &#8220;Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly&#8221; (Skyhorse, Nov. 2025) explores the mental health benefits of open dialogue and the costs of self-censorship.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Medium shot of businessman discussing project with colleague

Words Are Not Violence And Here’s Why That Matters

Anxiety

Hate Speech

Opinion

Psychology

Violence

Woke Culture

President Trump showed European allies the ‘art of the deal’ this week as his own luxury resort in Scotland played host to negotiations for one of the largest trade deals in history.
Accompanied by bagpipes, the President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-laughed-at-trump-now-theyre-going-to-cut-a-big-energy-check">shook hands</a> with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and heralded a major new US-EU trade pact — encompassing a 15% tariff rate on European imports.
But while Scotland was hosting talks on open markets, its own government continues to close off a core tenet of liberal democracy: the freedom to speak — even, in some cases, to silently pray.
In April 2024, Scotland enacted the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, which criminalizes words that amount to subjectively “stirring up hatred” based on a wide range of characteristics, such as someone’s “gender identity.” One may be found guilty of using the wrong words even if offence was only taken, but not intended. The consequences include up to seven years in prison.
Legal scholars, writers, and civil liberties groups have raised serious concerns. The law invites the state to police not just conduct but private expression — even within a family home. What was once a proud tradition of robust, even unpopular debate, is being eroded in favor of subjective standards of offense.
Meanwhile, new legislation in Scotland has imposed “buffer zones” around hospitals, vaguely criminalizing “influence” on the matter of abortion within 200 meters of the building. That radius can encompass private homes. <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/26/praying-at-home-a-crime-depending-on-who-is-passing-window/">According</a> to the law’s own architect, Gillian Mackay MSP, a person praying silently near a window in their home could be guilty of a crime, “depending on who’s passing the window.”
One recent case under a similar “buffer zones” law across the English border drew international attention: Livia Tossici-Bolt, aged 62-years-old, was arrested simply for standing with a sign reading “Here to talk, if you want.” She was not disruptive. She was not loud. She simply offered consensual conversation to other adults.
The U.S. State Department <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/03/31/free-speech-row-threatens-starmers-us-trade-deal/">took notice</a>. A senior official confirmed “concern” about the state of free speech in the UK, adding, “It is important that the UK respect and protect freedom of expression.”
Vice President JD Vance raised similar concerns in his landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference earlier this year, even highlighting Scotland’ notorious prayer problem, noting, “free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” Who can blame him? In the UK, police are <a href="https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police-are-restricting-speech-in-worrying-ways">arresting</a> over 30 people per day for <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/meet-the-people-around-the-world-on-trial-for-a-tweet?author=Lois+McLatchie+Miller&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Meet+The+People+Around+The+World+On+Trial+For+A+Tweet%C2%A0">online posts</a> deemed offensive.
Such statements reflect a growing discomfort with what appears to be a widening values gap between the U.K. and its allies. Free societies are built not just on GDP and diplomatic summits, but on the intangible infrastructure of liberty — the right to live and speak freely, according to one’s own conscience. Trade flows best when rooted in mutual trust, shared principles, and the confidence that citizens on both sides of the Atlantic are protected by the same basic freedoms.
The U.K. cannot credibly advocate for open markets while tolerating closed discourse. A nation cannot speak loudly on the world stage while silencing its citizens at home. If Britain wishes to remain a trusted partner in the transatlantic alliance — not just economically but morally — it must reaffirm its commitment to the freedoms that define liberal democracy.
No ally is perfect. But the U.K. must meet the standards it helped to set. Free trade among free nations requires more than signed agreements. It requires trust in mutual political courage to protect liberty where it is most easily lost: quietly, at home.
 * * * 
Lois McLatchie Miller is a Scottish commentator on free speech, and a senior legal communications officer for ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer Visits US President Donald Trump in Scotland

The U.K. Can’t Champion Free Trade While Abandoning Free Speech

Abortion

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

European Union

Prayer

President Trump

Pro-Life Movement

Scotland

United Kingdom

President Donald Trump took a sledgehammer to Brazil on Wednesday, calling out the leftist government for its censorship of U.S. social media and its &#8220;witch hunt&#8221; targeting former conservative president Jair Bolsonaro.
In a <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1943043154946457812">letter</a> to Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva — one of the many letters Trump has sent to countries around the world this week — the U.S. president deviated from his typical message announcing tariff rates to blast &#8220;Brazil&#8217;s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans.&#8221;
&#8220;Dear Mr. President,&#8221; Trump began the letter. &#8220;I knew and dealt with former President Jair Bolsonaro, and respected him greatly, as did most other Leaders of Countries. The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!&#8221;
Last year, Bolsonaro was <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/21/americas/brazilian-ex-president-jair-bolsonaro-indicted-over-attempted-coup-plot/index.html">charged</a> alongside 36 other people for taking part in an alleged coup to overthrow the government after he lost the 2022 election to Lula. Brazilian prosecutors claim the plot included plans to commit political assassinations, but Bolsonaro has denied the allegations and argued that the charges against him are politically motivated. Bolsonaro has maintained the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/09/23/brazilians-views-of-lula-and-bolsonaro/">support</a> of millions of Brazilians as he faces the indictment brought against him by Lula&#8217;s leftist government.
Trump has also defended Bolsonaro on numerous occasions, saying earlier this week that he will &#8220;be watching the WITCH HUNT of Jair Bolsonaro, his family, and thousands of his supporters, very closely.&#8221;
&#8220;The only Trial that should be happening is a Trial by the Voters of Brazil — It’s called an Election. LEAVE BOLSONARO ALONE!” he <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114812490799920916">added</a>.
In his letter to Lula on Wednesday, Trump also slammed the government for going after American social media companies. Last year, the Brazilian Supreme Court upheld a nationwide <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/brazilian-judge-orders-suspension-of-x-social-media-platform-responds">ban</a> on Elon Musk&#8217;s social media platform, X. The country&#8217;s Supreme Court took further action on the issue last month, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/4a5235c5-acd0-4e81-9d44-2362a25c8eb3">ruling</a> that social media platforms can be held liable for their users&#8217; posts.
Trump wrote in the letter, &#8220;Due in part to Brazil&#8217;s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET AND UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market), starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States, seperate from all Sectoral Tariffs.&#8221;
Trump has sent numerous letters to countries around the world this week, informing them of the tariffs they will pay come August 1. The 50% tariff rate on Brazil is the highest one that Trump has unveiled this week, a rate that Trump said &#8220;is necessary &#8230; to rectify the grave injustices of the current regime.&#8221;

Donald Trump/Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva

Trump Rips Brazil Over Censorship, Bolsonaro ‘Witch Hunt’ — Then Says Country Will Face 50% Tariff

Brazil

Donald Trump

Global Politics

Jair Bolsonaro

Social Media

Tariffs

U.S.

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

Australia

Censorship

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

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="auto, (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="auto, (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="auto, (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)

Morning Wire

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

foreign students

Hamas

Harvard

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.

Menu