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)

Education

Elon Musk

Free Speech

Ivy League

U.S.

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

Supreme Court

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.

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

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

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Australia

Canada

Gender

gender ideology

Opinion

Social Media Censorship

Twitter

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

Media

Morning Wire

Politics

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

First Amendment

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.

Sunset behind the illuminated Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor

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

Censorship

Communism

Immigration

Marxism

Propaganda

Socialism

Venezuela

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

Justice Thomas Attends Forum On His 30 Year Supreme Court Legacy

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

American Universities

Clarence Thomas

Courts

SCOTUS

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to restrictions that had been placed on pro-life speech and protest activity within 100 feet of an abortion-providing facility. 
The case arose after the pro-life group Coalition Life challenged a Carbondale, Illinois, <a href="https://go.boarddocs.com/il/coc/Board.nsf/files/D73HT549FC54/$file/2023-03%20Ordinance%20Amending%20Title%20Fourteen%2C%20Chapter%20Four%2C%20Section%20Two%20of%20the%20Carbondale%20Revised%20Code%20as%20it%20Relates%20to%20Disorderly%20Conduct.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordinance</a> that restricted pro-life sidewalk counseling within 100 feet of an abortion facility. The policy, which was first implemented in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, was repealed by the city as Coalition Life prepared its appeal to the Supreme Court. 
Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that they would have heard the challenge. 
In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-57_21p3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dissent</a>, Thomas wrote that he would have ruled to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, which upheld a Colorado law that required a pro-life protester or counselor to obtain consent to approach within eight feet of a person in a 100-foot radius around an abortion facility. 
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill.”
Thomas wrote that the majority in Hill minimized the restrictions it placed on free speech and said the majority erroneously decided that buffer zone laws were content-neutral. 
“Hill’s abortion exceptionalism turned the First Amendment upside down,” Thomas wrote, saying that “constitutional rights hang in the balance” while the Supreme Court doesn’t reevaluate the Hill decision. 
<a href="https://coalitionlife.com/?_sm_nck=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Coalition Life</a>, which trains sidewalk counselors to urge women not to get abortions and provide them information about other options, was represented by lawyers with the Thomas More Society and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. 
Peter Breen, the head of litigation for the Thomas More Society, said that the only reason Carbondale repealed its ordinance was to escape Supreme Court scrutiny. 
“On the eve of our petition deadline, Carbondale quietly repealed its bubble zone ordinance in a shadowy, four-minute, weekend meeting, knowing full well their bubble zone would fail constitutional scrutiny if it came before the Supreme Court,” Breen <a href="https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/news/after-last-minute-gamesmanship-city-avoids-supreme-court-scrutiny-for-silencing-pro-life-advocates">said</a>. “While our clients are now able to sidewalk counsel freely in Carbondale, the city flagrantly violated their Free Speech rights for eighteen months, without penalty.”
Coalition Life Executive Director Brian Westbrook said that his group would continue its work despite the court&#8217;s decision. 
“Our appeal may have been denied but across this nation, at hundreds of abortion facilities, a different sort of tragic ‘denial’ continues,” he said. “Cities and states across America are denying sidewalk counselors and law-abiding citizens their rights to inform women about their options&#8230; Women are being denied true choice as they are bullied into the only option that is offered by the abortion advocates.”

Washington-DC-March-for-Life-2025

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Law Restricting Pro-Life Speech Outside Abortion Facilities

Illinois

Since Churchill’s time, America and Britain have spoken of their “special relationship” – even if the affection has been somewhat unilateral in recent years, as the US has recognised the UK’s increasing irrelevance on the world stage as it descends into economic decay, social disintegration, and democratic suppression.
You might think this an exaggeration – and I do not intend to imply that dissenting British voices receive the same treatment they might receive in China or Cuba. But that is not the right question. The question is whether dissenting voices in Britain are free.
We have all seen the evidence that they are not. The first act of Bridget Philipson, Keir Starmer’s Education Secretary, was to <a href="https://freespeechunion.org/phillipson-tried-to-pull-plug-on-new-free-speech-law-days-after-election/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">try and revoke</a> the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, even after it was passed by Parliament. That this is not merely a position, but even the top priority, of our new government is chilling. This, despite the fact that <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/uk-students-feel-censored-on-campus-poll-finds" target="_blank" rel="noopener">nearly half</a> of UK students are scared to express their views.
Whether people are <a href="https://www.gbnews.com/news/christian-lecturer-sacked-from-methodist-college" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fired from their jobs</a>, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-64786856" target="_blank" rel="noopener">referred to terrorist watchlists</a>, secretly put on registers for “non-crime hate incidents” (<a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/children-as-young-as-nine-investigated-by-police-for-hate-incidents/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">even as children</a>), or even <a href="https://www.thetimes.com/article/police-criticised-over-arrest-for-gay-swastika-post-0dj6j0007">arrested</a>, freedom of speech is increasingly a luxury commodity in Britain – and saying what you think is increasingly seen as criminal. “Hate speech” is increasingly seen as a legitimate constraint – with <a href="https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/bible-hate-speech-survey-rewrite" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1 in 4 young people</a> open to banning the Bible itself if they believed it included “hate speech”.
Yet free speech is not the only casualty of recent years. Multiple people have been <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/cases/isabel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">arrested or charged</a> merely for praying silently in their heads in the vicinity of an abortion clinic (which, in one case, was not even open), with an army veteran <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/news/guilty-army-vet-convicted-for-praying-silently-near-abortion-facility" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recently convicted</a> for silently praying for his unborn son. Thoughtcrime is no longer Orwellian fiction.
When asked if the UK should be included among other human rights abusing regimes, however, congressmen in the US ordinarily reply that “we are allies, we can’t do that”. The UK is enough of a friend to the US that it escapes any significant accountability.
But true friends do not let each other make serious mistakes without challenge: that is politeness, not friendship. So the question is: can the UK be enough of a friend to receive accountability?
We all know what tough love means: that if you really seek the best for someone, you confront them with reality, whose content or consequences may be acutely painful – but ultimately needed for our flourishing. And the reality in this case is clear: the British people desperately need a restoration of their civil liberties before we are too far down the slippery slope. If the US really cares for our country and its citizens, you must speak – and act – in favor of our freedom, whoever you offend in the process. Vance’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCOsgfINdKg" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speech in Munich</a> was a fantastic start – but now action is needed.
There are many ways to achieve this, but here is one idea: the freedom tariff. The UK is desperate for a trade deal with the US after Brexit. Trade is one of the few areas where nations can be genuinely held accountable beyond stern letters or phone calls – which are routinely ignored. Freedom tariffs would provide genuine leverage over the UK with a simple addition: include a clause stipulating that insofar as the UK restricts the most basic freedoms – speech, assembly, conscience, religion, and thought – it will pay for those restrictions with tariffs.
This is hardly coercive: why should America give us free trade when we won’t give our own people free speech? We either believe in freedom or we don’t. If we don’t, we can hardly expect its benefits from others. The deal is up to us to take or not.
America imposing “freedom” on other countries has understandably come under fire in recent decades. But rather than intervening militarily in intractable Middle Eastern political disputes, tariffs are entirely non-violent. And here’s the extra good news: this tough love need not be painful at all. All the UK would have to do is stop firing, blacklisting, and arresting people for thinking and saying the wrong things. Give free speech, get free trade. It is really that simple.
Of course, this problem is not unique to the UK. In France, a TV channel was <a href="https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/french-tv-channel-fined-for-calling-abortion-the-worlds-leading-cause-of-death" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fined 100,000 euro</a> for stating that abortion is the leading cause of death worldwide, while in Finland, a sitting parliamentarian has been on <a href="https://adfinternational.org/en-gb/campaign/free-speech-on-trial" target="_blank" rel="noopener">criminal trial</a> under the War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity sections of their penal code – launched by the attorney general – for years, simply for tweeting a Bible verse (a bishop has faced similar persecution).
The European Union’s deleterious approach to open discourse on social media has been widely publicized by Vance and Musk, among others. Perhaps freedom tariffs are benefits that can be extended beyond the Special Relationship.
* * *
Calum Miller is a research fellow at University of Oxford and a registered medical doctor.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

President Trump Should Impose ‘Freedom Tariffs’ On Europe

England

Europe

Great Britain

President Trump

Vice President JD Vance doubled down on the tone of his Munich speech while at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday, saying that while he believed many European nations to be friends, that friendship was dependent on &#8220;shared values.&#8221;
Vance got mixed reviews from world leaders when he challenged European leaders to abandon recent efforts to suppress the political expressions of their own people, saying in part, &#8220;If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you.&#8221;
After CPAC attendees gave Vance a loud — if a week late — standing ovation for his Munich remarks, he took a similar tone when talking about the United States&#8217; relationship with European nations moving forward.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/VP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@VP</a> Vance: &quot;The strength of those alliances with Europe depend on whether we take our societies in the right direction. That friendship is based on shared values. You do not have shared values if you&#39;re jailing people for saying we should close down our borders.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/ADCA8lWKKc">pic.twitter.com/ADCA8lWKKc</a>
&mdash; TheBlaze (@theblaze) <a href="https://twitter.com/theblaze/status/1892602977044627725?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Moderator Mercedes Schlapp asked Vance to elaborate on the relationship between Europe and the United States, and he laid it out in blunt fashion.
&#8220;Obviously we&#8217;re going to continue to have important alliances with Europe, but I really do think the strength of those alliances is going to depend on whether we take our societies in the right direction.&#8221;
Vance went on to say that American troops stationed in Germany helped to keep that nation safe on the taxpayers&#8217; dime, adding, &#8220;Do you think that the American taxpayer is going to stand for that if you get thrown in jail in Germany for posting a mean tweet? Of course, they&#8217;re not!&#8221;
<a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" data-sk="tooltip_parent">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;So the point that I tried to make to our European friends — and I think that they&#8217;re our friends, I believe that, I know President Trump does — is that friendship is based on shared values,&#8221; Vance continued. &#8220;You do not have shared values if you&#8217;re jailing people for saying we should close down our border. You don&#8217;t have shared values if you cancel elections because you don&#8217;t like the result, and that happened in Romania. You don&#8217;t have — you do not have shared values if you&#8217;re so afraid of your own people that you silence them and shut them up.&#8221;
&#8220;So let&#8217;s have shared values,&#8221; he concluded. &#8220;Let&#8217;s defend democracy, let&#8217;s have free expression, not just in the United States but all over the Western world. That is the path to strong alliances in Europe.&#8221;
Shortly after Vance&#8217;s speech last week, CBS News ran a &#8220;60 Minutes&#8221; broadcast that highlighted Germany&#8217;s efforts to curtail &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/guest-on-60-minutes-claims-german-citizens-have-free-speech-but-there-are-limits" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hate speech</a>&#8221; on the internet — and network anchor Margaret Brennan accused Vance directly of irritating American allies, claiming that &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-claims-free-speech-caused-the-holocaust" target="_blank" rel="noopener">free speech was weaponized</a>&#8221; to cause the Holocaust.

Key Speakers At Day One Of The Conservative Political Action Conference

Vance Doubles Down On Munich Speech: ‘Friendship Is Based On Shared Values’

Vance Doubles Down On Munich Speech: 'Friendship Is Based On Shared Values'

Germany

Global Politics

JD Vance

Vice President JD Vance got a standing ovation at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday for a speech he actually gave a week earlier in Munich, Germany, about the importance of pushing back against government censorship.
Moderator Mercedes Schlapp, the former White House Director of Strategic Communications, mentioned the speech, prompting applause from the audience. &#8220;I think they really liked it,&#8221; she said.
&#8220;I&#8217;m glad you guys liked it, not everybody liked it,&#8221; Vance said, referencing the outcry from liberals in the United States and abroad who had accused him of driving a wedge between the United States and its allies. &#8220;You guys liked it, not everybody liked it.&#8221;
What followed then was a standing ovation:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
JD Vance gets a standing ovation at CPAC for his epic Munich speech last week. <a href="https://t.co/T36nFp9P9s">pic.twitter.com/T36nFp9P9s</a>
&mdash; Libby Emmons (@libbyemmons) <a href="https://twitter.com/libbyemmons/status/1892601576633897287?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As the audience members got to their feet, Vance smiled and thanked them, adding, &#8220;I&#8217;ll take a standing ovation for a speech I already gave. It&#8217;s like two for the price of one.&#8221;
&#8220;Here&#8217;s your speech, just say it again,&#8221; Schlapp joked.
Vance&#8217;s speech warned Europeans of a threat within their own borders — one posed by the very governments they represented.
<a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://dailywire.com/subscribe" data-sk="tooltip_parent">PRESIDENTS’ DAY SALE! 40% Off DailyWire+ Annual Memberships With Code DW40</a>
&#8220;If you are running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you,&#8221; he told European leaders while citing examples of efforts to suppress the political expressions of their own people.
Referencing the European nations that had been on the winning side during the Cold War, Vance added, &#8220;Consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that canceled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not. And thank God, they lost the Cold War. They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty.&#8221;
&#8220;What no democracy — American, German, or European — will survive, is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief, are invalid and unworthy of even being considered. Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There’s no room for firewalls,&#8221; he concluded.

61st Munich Security Conference

Vance Gets Standing Ovation For Speech He Gave Last Week: ‘Two For The Price Of One!’

Vance Gets Standing Ovation For Speech He Gave Last Week: 'Two For The Price Of One!'

CPAC

General

Munich

Menu