The Most Significant Accomplishments of Trump’s First 100 Days thumbnail

The Most Significant Accomplishments of Trump’s First 100 Days

By Family Research Council

Since Franklin D. Roosevelt ushered in the New Deal in 1933 in just three months, historians have measured a president’s success or failure by its first 100 days. As we reach President Trump’s 100th day in office, the 47th president’s second administration has taken a whirlwind of decisive actions to protect life, end artificial support for extreme transgender ideology, uphold religious liberty, secure America’s southern border, restore national sovereignty, and return to a traditional America First foreign policy fostering peace and prosperity.

President Trump’s second first-100-days in office have been “all about one thing: promises made and promises kept. And we have pages and pages and pages of those promises being kept already in just 100 days,” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) told “This Week on Capitol Hill” host Tony Perkins ahead of this week’s milestone.

Here are some of the president’s most significant accomplishments since his recent return to the Oval Office.

Abortion: Protecting Pro-Life Rights

President Trump began protecting pro-life advocates’ unalienable right to freedom of speech, reversing his predecessor’s weaponization of government against pro-life Christians, and stopping pro-life taxpayers from financing abortion on day one. By the afternoon of January 20 — inauguration day — a Biden-era government website promoting abortion, ReproductiveRights.gov, had gone offline.

On January 23, Trump kept a campaign promise he had made at the 2023 Pray Vote Stand Summit by signing the pardon of 23 pro-life advocates jailed by the Biden-Harris administration. “This is a great honor to sign this,” said the president as he held the pardon aloft in the Oval Office.

The Biden-Harris Justice Department imprisoned many of those nearly two dozen pro-life advocates under a novel legal theory that accused them of violating both the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act and the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. From this time forward, the Justice Department will only press charges under the FACE Act if the allegation results in “death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage,” announced the Trump administration in a January 24 memo. “Cases not presenting significant aggravating factors can adequately be addressed under state or local law.”

Trump also protected U.S. taxpayers from funding foreign abortions and many abortions in the United States. A January 24 presidential memorandum reinstated his 2017 Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA), which assures U.S. taxpayers shall not be forced to pay any foreign organization that commits, refers, or advocates for abortion. The action also aims “to ensure that U.S. taxpayer dollars do not fund organizations or programs that support or participate in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.”

The same day, Trump signed an executive order “Enforcing the Hyde Amendment,” which assures the nearly five-decade-old policy embraced by President Jimmy Carter will be respected for the next four years. Although a younger Joe Biden voted for the Hyde Amendment — which safeguards taxpayer funds from footing the bill for most abortions through Medicaid — the White House detailed how the Biden-Harris administration subsequently undermined this longstanding norm by compelling taxpayers to underwrite “abortion-related travel expenses,” while “the Department of Veterans Affairs allowed hospitals to provide abortions, and the Department of Health and Human Services paid for abortions for illegal immigrants.”

Additionally, in March the Trump administration held up tens of millions of dollars in Planned Parenthood funding over allegations the nation’s largest abortion business adopted so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies that violated federal civil rights laws. Leakers have said this may presage a larger administration initiative to defund Planned Parenthood, which received $699.3 million in taxpayer funding and carried out 392,712 abortions in its 2022-2023 fiscal year.

The Trump administration’s pro-life actions should prove popular. Three out of four Americans (73%) oppose taxpayer-funded abortions overseas, and nearly six out of 10 of Americans (57%) oppose using federal funds for abortions at home, according to a Marist poll released in January.

Symbolically, Vice President J.D. Vance delivered a speech in person at the 2025 March for Life, and Trump sent a recorded message to the annual pro-life gathering. In his first administration, Trump became the first sitting president to speak to the March for Life in the flesh.

Extreme Transgender Ideology

President Trump has opposed extreme gender ideology from day one, protecting children from transgender hormone injections or surgeries, sheltering battered women and female prisoners from men who say they identify as female, and maintaining fairness in women’s sports.

On his first day in office, Trump signed the executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” which said the federal government recognizes only two sexes, based in observable biological reality, from the moment of fertilization. “‘Female’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell,” says the order. “‘Male’ means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.”

Eight days later, the president’s executive order “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” ended taxpayer funding for transgender procedures involving minors, allows those subjected to such experimental medical interventions to sue, and may lead to the prosecution of those who carry out transgender surgeries. The predatory transgender industry’s “maiming and sterilizing a growing number of impressionable children under the radical and false claim that adults can change a child’s sex … will be a stain on our [n]ation’s history, and it must end,” the order declared.

Trump underscored this in a March 4 address to a joint session of Congress, when he told American youth directly, “Our message to every child in America is that you are perfect exactly the way God made you.”

Trump made it official policy that the military’s emphasis on winning wars and lethality is “inconsistent with the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals with gender dysphoria. This policy is also inconsistent with shifting pronoun usage or use of pronouns that inaccurately reflect an individual’s sex” in his January 27 executive order “Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness” on January 27. The order reverses President Biden’s order opening the military to those who openly identify as transgender but grandfathers in those who have been “stable” for at least 36 months. The executive order stated that identifying as transgender prevents people from living an “honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.”

On February 5, Trump announced his administration would prosecute Title IX violations by schools or universities that force female students or athletes “to compete with or against or to appear unclothed before males.” Allowing males to compete in women’s sports is “demeaning, unfair, and dangerous to women and girls,” stated the executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.” He also cut off student loan forgiveness for LGBTQ activists in a March 7 executive order, “Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness.”

The Trump administration has steadfastly implemented these orders against intransigent blue states such as Maine, led by Governor Janet Mills (D). On April 7, the Trump administration notified Maine officials that it would withhold all non-essential funding from the state Department of Corrections after it placed a 6’1” man who confessed to murdering both his parents (and his dog) in a women’s correctional facility. The Biden administration, by contrast, forced women to share prison cells with trans-identified male offenders and filed lawsuits against states that refused to go along with his orders. By January, 15% of all inmates in female correctional facilities were men.

On April 11, the Education Department announced it was moving to cut off all K-12 funding to the state of Maine for flouting federal law, cutting off prison funding. Similarly, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins held up USDA funding for “administrative and technological functions” in Maine schools that forced girls to change in front of, or compete against, boys.

Th White House released a theologically rich and inspiring statement celebrating Holy Week. One year earlier, then-President Joe Biden placed the weight of his bully pulpit behind a campaign needling Americans to celebrate the “Transgender Day of Visibility,” which also fell on Easter Sunday. Biden’s transgender proclamation ran nearly seven times as long as his Easter statement.

Trump press aides have said they do not respond to questions from reporters who put their personal pronouns in their biographies or social media profiles.

Restoring Religious Liberty

President Trump has established religious liberty departments within Cabinet agencies and recently hosted a conference on the violation of Christians’ rights. The administration has pointedly denounced violations of religious liberty and free speech rights by U.S. allies in Europe. Vice President J.D. Vance told the Munich Security Conference in February that the continent’s “backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious [believers], in particular, in the crosshairs.” Days later, police handcuffed a 74-year-old grandmother for silently offering to talk to mothers outside an abortion facility. They charged her with violating Scotland’s Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) Act, which carries a potential fine ranging from £10,000 ($12,600 U.S.) to an unlimited amount.

Securing the Border

On the president’s signature issue, Trump swiftly returned order to the U.S. border by reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy, ending the policy of catch-and-release, designating criminal syndicates such as Tren de Aragua and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations or criminal enterprises, and using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport illegal immigrants. He also signed the Laken Riley Act into law and turned the CBP One app from importing to exporting illegal immigrants. He has deported 135,000 illegal immigrants to date.

His policies have proven effective. “Illegal border crossings dropped precipitously. In March, U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement said 7,181 people were apprehended nationwide between border crossings — a 14% decrease from February and a 95% drop from March 2024,” reported the Associated Press. As Trump told Congress, “The media and our friends in the Democrat Party kept saying we needed new legislation. ‘We must have legislation to secure the border.’ But it turned out that all we really needed was a new president.”

National Sovereignty

President Trump has restored national sovereignty by withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO), effectively scuttling any chance the global body had of seeing significant progress on the WHO Pandemic Agreement. “WHO proved itself to be a corrupt organization run by the Chinese Communist Party and global leftists,” Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told “Washington Watch” earlier this month. “President Trump is acting boldly, swiftly, and decisively.” WHO reported a $2.5 billion budget shortfall shortly after Trump’s announcement.

The 47th president also promptly withheld U.S. taxpayer funds from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

The February 4 directive also ordered the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations to “conduct a review of [Ameria’s] membership in UNESCO,” the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. President Ronald Reagan exited the organization in 1984, but George W. Bush rejoined in 2003. Trump then withdrew again in 2018, but the Biden administration reversed that decision in 2023.

On February 6, Trump issued an executive order titled “Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,” rebuffing the ICC for investigating U.S. personnel “without a legitimate basis” and for “issuing baseless arrest warrants targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Former Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant” for committing war crimes in Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack by Hamas.

Moving to Abolish the Department of Education and Hold the Federal Bureaucracy Accountable

In what may prove to be President Trump’s most consequential action, he has taken the first steps to abolish the Department of Education. On March 11, the Trump administration fired half of the Department of Education’s staffers. Although the DOE has spent more than $3 trillion since its formation by President Jimmy Carter in 1979, U.S. reading scores in 2023 were “not significantly different from the average score in 1971,” according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The action fulfills a campaign promise made in a July 2023 online video and repeated at the 2023 Pray Vote Stand Summit to “move everything back to the states.”

The same order directs the secretary of Education to assure all public schools abide by the “requirement that any program or activity receiving Federal assistance terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology.”

Trump’s executive orders and actions have also rooted out racially discriminatory policies branded under the label “diversity, equity, and inclusion” — which often include LGBTQ indoctrination — from federal agencies and sought to thwart bureaucrats who simply maintained DEI policies and offices under different names. Meanwhile, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has exposed federal waste, fraud, and abuse, and sought to make the vast federal workforce responsive to the will of the American people.

In less than 100 days, President Donald J. Trump has “accomplished more than most politicians and presidents accomplish in an entire lifetime,” Speaker Johnson told Perkins.

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: EXCLUSIVE: JD Vance To Tout First 100 Days At USA Steel Plant 

RELATED VIDEO: POTUS Trump did more for the American people in his first 100 days than Biden in four years

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The post The Most Significant Accomplishments of Trump’s First 100 Days appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

K-12 Education: A Quickie Overview thumbnail

K-12 Education: A Quickie Overview

By John Droz, Jr.

I periodically come across information that helps put some of our national issues into perspective — and then share it with you.

In this interesting Report 2024 Schooling in America, there are some fascinating data, like what’s in the following two graphs…

FIGURE 3: PARENTS’ VIES ON THE DIRECTION OF K-12 EDUCATION, 2014-2024

FIGURE 5: PUBLIC VIEWS ON THE DIRECTION OF K-12 EDUCATON, 2013-2024

My takeaway is that we are at a record high dissatisfaction with our current State-run K-12 education systems. We should leverage this justified sentiment into creative, competent national reform, with DOEd not being dissolved, but rather providing leadership (see here).

From another recent ReportWhat Do Parents Want, note these conclusions:

  • Parents prefer schools that have stricter versus more lenient discipline.
  • Parents overwhelmingly want teachers to keep their politics to themselves. Further, a majority of parents said that they would not choose a school that took political stances with which they disagreed, even if that school was of high academic quality.
  • Parents want schools to avoid sexually explicit material and to avoid teaching LGBTQ content in the classroom.
  • Parents favor schools that use more technology than less, and that emphasize STEM over the humanities.
  • Parents prefer schools that emphasize national pride over skeptical treatment of American history.
  • Parents say they want schools to instill in students the ability to discuss contentious issues rationally.

My takeaway is that these are things that DOEd should publicly advocate, as well as give States assistance in making happen. At this point, few (if any) States are doing these things. (See here for more good ideas.)

©2025 All rights reserved.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

The post K-12 Education: A Quickie Overview appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

SANDOVAL: Left Wing Media Seethes At Young, Fertile, Republican Women thumbnail

SANDOVAL: Left Wing Media Seethes At Young, Fertile, Republican Women

By The Daily Caller

Left-wing media has identified a dangerous new political archetype: the thin, fertile, Republican woman.

Beware the burgeoning online “womanosphere” urging an audience of young women away from feminism and towards marriage, children, and being attractive, warns The Guardian. The outlet points to prominent conservative commentators such as Brett Cooper and Candace Owens, along with publications like Evie Magazine, as emblematic of this clunkily-named counterpart to the “manosphere.”

These women are united by their “desire to return to a gender-essentialist worldview,” according to The Guardian, which casts “women as submissive homemakers” and “men as strong providers.”

Oh, the horror. “Gender-essentialism” refers to the outlandish belief that men and women are different. One is free to draw varied conclusions from this fact. The left has taken up a strange quarrel with the concept of biological sex itself, an argument which defeats itself at the outset. How can one analyze why female commentators specifically appeal to females without acknowledging the validity of the category?

The outlet warns of “an organized effort” to create an “alternative rightwing media ecosystem targeting young female US audiences.” One discerns the outlet’s terror at the prospect — no great wonder, given the much vaunted “podcast strategy” helped win over young male voters to Donald Trump in the 2024 election.

“Organized” is supposed to be a dirty word. It connotes an insidious masterplan to take women off birth control and put them on quick-slimming diets. But the legacy media, with its extreme left-wing bias, is surely no less organized and strident in its political and cultural prescriptions than the “right-wing media.” Notice the asymmetry in terms. The New York Times and Netflix are simply media. They claim neutral ground. It’s a powerful rhetorical trick. If they can successfully assert themselves as unbiased observers and artists, they fashion reality itself in their terms.

This strategy shifts the window of acceptable belief to the left. Sure, they say, we welcome a diversity of opinion — anywhere between Hillary Clinton and a Tesla vandal.  Any objections to left-wing madness are easily characterized and dismissed as “extreme.” Including objections which members of the Democratic Party levied just twenty years ago.

Hillary Clinton speaks out against gay marriage 20 years ago pic.twitter.com/PNKqgnscKG

— Ian Corzine (@iancorzine) July 16, 2024

“I believe that marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between man and woman,” said a younger Clinton. “It exists between a man and a woman going back into the mists of history as one of the founding, foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization.”

Sounds an awful lot like a “womanosphere” talking point.

“Young women are particularly vulnerable to these appeals,” according to The Guardian. This is the proposition of feminism: women deserve all the same rights as men but are agentless creatures capable of none of the same responsibilities. It seems a tension born not out of logic, but political maneuvering. Feminism cloaks itself in the language of equality to disguise a cheap aim: endless goodies. This, at the cost of the well-being of men and women alike.

The Guardian blames conservative commentators for “capitalizing on a real crisis of loneliness” among young people.

“Conservatives aren’t focusing on the real issues,” whines the leftist, “Like making sure third graders have a robust understanding of prostitution and bondage.” Appeals to unity from the left are always bungled by their own inability to cleave from Woke.

“Don’t let them trick us into thinking we can be separated into rural and urban,” said Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) at a recent rally. “Black and white and Latino.” Note the capitalization from her producers. Even in a sentence calling for unity, she can’t help but isolate “white.”

Do not let them trick you into thinking we are enemies.

Do not let them trick you into thinking that we can be separated into rural and urban, Black and white and Latino.

We are one. pic.twitter.com/5rfXO1oJAT

— Team AOC (@TeamAOC) April 23, 2025

More to the point: why shouldn’t one relate young people’s loneliness to a culture plunging leftwards? At the very least, one must admit a correlation between rising alienation and rising egalitarianism. It seems no outlandish conjecture that men and women might be happier and more at ease with one another were they to assume some “antiquated,” sex-specific standards. And basic hygiene and fitness.

“Young women have been hailed as the saving grace of the Democratic party, the force that will deliver us from all those angry young men spending all their time listening to podcasts, but that’s not a given,” writes The Guardian.

Therein lies a sick admission. The Democratic Party prefers women fat, infertile, single, and unhappy. Why? Because those women make the most fervent ideologues. Leftism inverts natural hierarchies. It lofts the ugly and sick above the beautiful. It punishes any natural inclination towards the latter. This appeals to malcontents who depend on such an infrastructure to confer them status and meaning. Or a green card, as the case may be.

Who profits by a woman being thin and fertile? Why, only the woman herself, the young man interested in dating and marrying her, her future family, and all the rest of society by extension. The left’s supposed concern for female “freedom” and “independence” is false. They’d just prefer women be dependent on the state, not a husband.

AUTHOR

Natalie Sandoval

Contributor. Follow Natalie Sandoval on X: @NatalieIrene03

RELATED ARTICLES:

US Fertility Rates Continue To Plummet As Millennials Face Financial Concerns, Marry Later | The Daily Caller)

ROOKE: Enough Is Enough, Nuke All The Dating Apps | The Daily Caller

Poll Explains Fast-Changing Political Phenomenon That Could Alter Elections For Years

Sen. Elissa Slotkin Admits ‘War Plan’ To Defeat Trump Agenda Is Not Enough To Retake Senate

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Has Given ‘Significant Hope To Our Industry’ Car Part Manufacturers Say, Ask For Time To Implement Tariffs thumbnail

Trump Has Given ‘Significant Hope To Our Industry’ Car Part Manufacturers Say, Ask For Time To Implement Tariffs

By The Daily Caller

The Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA), representing over 7,500 American automotive businesses, delivered a message of support to President Donald Trump’s trade agenda.

In a letter sent Monday, SEMA praised Trump’s leadership and commitment to restoring America’s industrial strength.

“We write to commend you and your administration for your commitment to restoring the greatness of American manufacturing,” wrote SEMA President and CEO Mike Spagnola. “Your return to the White House has given significant hope to our industry.”

The automotive specialty parts aftermarket is a powerhouse of American innovation. Contributing $337 billion annually to the economy and supporting over 1.3 million jobs, the industry consists of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of motor vehicle parts and accessories.

SEMA was one of the loudest supporters of Trump’s decision to revoke former President Joe Biden’s de facto electric vehicle (EV) mandate.

“On day one of his new administration, President Trump reclaimed the nation’s freedom of vehicle choice, proclaiming the authority of the United States of America, rather than so-called United States of California, to set national policies,” Spagnola said.

While SEMA’s letter made clear they support the president’s use of tariffs to bring jobs back to America, they warned the transition period has been challenging, especially for smaller operations that don’t have the capital reserves or volume pricing power of multinational giants.

“For many specialty automotive businesses that manufacture their products in America, they are forced to source components used in their products from international suppliers, because there are no domestic manufacturers or none that will produce components in smaller volumes that meet their needs,” Spagnola continued in the letter. “For businesses in this position, they have no choice but to source components from abroad.”

Rather than backing down, they are asking for temporary, targeted relief.

“Our primary request is that American automotive parts manufacturers, including our members, be provided a transition period to re-shore their manufacturing, as well as some form of economic relief to assist in that transition,” Spagnola indicated. “That relief could include tariff exemptions for things like molds, tooling, and machinery brought back to the U.S., as well as tax incentives to offset the associated costs.”

SEMA emphasized they believe in Trump’s vision and want to be on the front lines of making it a reality, they just “need a bridge to assist with the transition.”

AUTHOR

Floyd Buford

Contributor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Weighs Tariffs As Tool To Break China’s Stranglehold On ‘Critical Minerals’

Mike Johnson Says He’s ‘Working’ To Kill ‘Idea’ Of Hiking Taxes On Rich

ROOKE: Gavin Newsom Crossed The Line, And Now He’s Paying The Price

SANDOVAL: Trump Just Gave People With Useless Degrees A Huge Reality Check

Boomers Disapprove of Trump More Than Any Other Demographic, Millennials/Gen Y Now The Most Right-Wing Generation

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.


All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Trump Has Given ‘Significant Hope To Our Industry’ Car Part Manufacturers Say, Ask For Time To Implement Tariffs appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

On Earth Day, We Finally Have a President Who Follows Science thumbnail

On Earth Day, We Finally Have a President Who Follows Science

By The White House

Under President Donald J. Trump, America is back — leveraging environmental policies rooted in reality to promote economic growth while maintaining the standards that have afforded Americans the cleanest air and water in the world for generations.

Unlike the previous administration, which wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on virtue signaling and ineffective grifts, the Trump Administration’s policies are rooted in the belief that Americans are the best stewards of our vast natural resources — no “Green New Scam” required.

President Trump is promoting energy innovation for a healthier future.

  • By supporting cutting-edge technologies like carbon capture and storage, nuclear energy, and next-generation geothermal, the Trump Administration is ensuring America leads in both energy production and environmental innovation — producing the cleanest energy in the world.

  • Moreover, by ending the Biden-era pause on liquefied natural gas export approvals, the U.S. is sharing cleaner energy with allies, reducing global emissions, and creating American jobs — building on President Trump’s first-term successes, where the U.S. led the world in greenhouse gas emission reductions.

President Trump is championing sound forest management.

  • The Trump Administration’s proactive forest management policies protect America’s forests, reduce catastrophic wildfires, and promote sustainable land use.

  • By streamlining regulations and expanding responsible logging, President Trump is safeguarding millions of acres of forestland, improving wildlife habitats, and supporting rural economies at the same time.

President Trump is ending the forced use of paper straws. 

  • Not only are paper straw mandates flawed in their alleged scientific backing, they’re also bad for humans and the environment. According to a new report, paper straws contain dangerous PFAS chemicals — “forever chemicals” linked to significant long-term health conditions — that infiltrate the water supply.

  • Moreover, studies have found producing paper straws can have a larger carbon footprint and require more water than plastic straws for “approximately zero environmental impact.”

President Trump is cutting wasteful regulations that stifle innovation and raise costs.

  • Actions like pausing restrictive emissions rules for coal plants and revising the National Environmental Policy Act implementation have accelerated responsible energy and infrastructure projects while maintaining rigorous environmental standards — saving American families thousands annually on energy bills and proving that a strong economy and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand.

President Trump is protecting public lands.

  • The Trump Administration has prioritized access to federal lands for energy development while ensuring responsible management.

  • By opening more federal lands and waters for oil, gas, and critical mineral extraction, the U.S. is strengthening energy security and reducing reliance on foreign resources.

  • Simultaneously, investments in conservation, such as $38 billion in clean water infrastructure during President Trump’s first term, continue to safeguard America’s natural heritage for future generations.

President Trump is pushing back on unfair trade practices that harm the environment and undercut U.S. producers and exporters.

  • For years, foreign countries have taken advantage of our generosity at the expense of American workers and the environment.

  • Deforestation in Brazil is at a 15-year high, China’s unfair, harmful fishing practices flood the global market with illegal fish and deplete stocks, and Mexico fails to deter illegal fishing — all while enjoying massive trade deficits with the U.S. and contributing to global environmental degradation.

President Trump is cracking down on China — the most prolific polluter in the world. 

  • According to Reuters, China is “responsible for the most ocean plastic pollution per year with an estimated 2.4 million tons, about 30 percent of the global total.”

  • By imposing tough trade measures and promoting American manufacturing, the Administration is reducing reliance on China’s high-pollution industries, ensuring the U.S. leads by example with cleaner production and responsible global stewardship.

President Trump is protecting wildlife. 

  • By pausing certain wind projects, President Trump is recognizing wind turbines’ detrimental environmental impact, particularly on wildlife, which often outweighs their benefits.

Copyright (C) 2025 The White House. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Earth Day Reminder: Green Groups Linked To World’s Top Polluter

The post On Earth Day, We Finally Have a President Who Follows Science appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Crichton: Environmentalism is the ‘Religion of Choice for Urban Atheists’ thumbnail

Crichton: Environmentalism is the ‘Religion of Choice for Urban Atheists’

By Hawaii Free Press

REMARKS TO THE COMMONWEALTH CLUB

by Michael Crichton — San Francisco — September 15, 2003

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people—the best people, the most enlightened people—do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let’s examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man’s invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don’t, they will die.

And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you’ll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you’ll have infections and sickness and if you’re not with somebody who knows what they’re doing, you’ll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won’t experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.

The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It’s all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it’s uninformed talk. Farmers know what they’re talking about. City people don’t. It’s all fantasy.

One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven’t the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can’t conceive the real power of what we blithely call “the force of nature.” They have seen the ocean. But they haven’t been in it.

The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn’t give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.

But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don’t, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.

Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn’t deep—maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it’d still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I’d probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.

But let’s return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn’t ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn’t fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don’t get down on our knees and conserve every day?

Well, it’s interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there—though they still appear, in the future. As mirages do.

Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they’re human. So what. Unfortunately, it’s not just one prediction. It’s a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it’s a religion. Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn’t quit when the world doesn’t end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets. One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven’t read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don’t report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn’t carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn’t give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it. I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit. I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%. I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeous science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won’t impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It’s not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth—that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won’t. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There’s a simple answer: we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm. I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren’t true. It isn’t that these “facts” are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all—what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Thank you very much.

EDITORS NOTE: This Hawai′i Free Press column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post Crichton: Environmentalism is the ‘Religion of Choice for Urban Atheists’ appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Leftist Violence — Angry Student Wrecks Pro-Life Club’s Table thumbnail

Leftist Violence — Angry Student Wrecks Pro-Life Club’s Table

By Conservative Commandos Radio Show and AUN-TV

GUESTS AND TOPICS

MATT LAMB

Matt Lamb is an associate editor for The College Fix. He also writes for LifeSiteNews, AMAC Newsline, and Human Life Review. He has written for the Washington Examiner and Headline USA. He previously worked for Students for Life of America, Students for Life Action, and Turning Point USA, along with Open the Books. The College Fix regularly trains students and helps them find jobs in media, with alumni at Fox News, The Daily Wire, Washington Examiner, National Review, a host of other publications.

TOPIC: Leftist violence — Angry student wrecks pro-life club’s table

RYAN YOUNG

Ryan Young is the senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). His research focuses on regulatory reform, trade policy, antitrust regulation, and other issues.

TOPIC: Tariff relief on electronics

©2025 . All rights reserved.

The post Leftist Violence — Angry Student Wrecks Pro-Life Club’s Table appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

UK Supreme Court Defines ‘Man,’ ‘Woman,’ and ‘Sex’ as Biological thumbnail

UK Supreme Court Defines ‘Man,’ ‘Woman,’ and ‘Sex’ as Biological

By Family Research Council

While President Donald Trump is combating the transgender agenda from the White House, across the pond, Britain’s highest court just issued a landmark ruling on the definition of “man” and “woman.” In 2018, Scottish legislators broadened the definition of “woman” as used in the Equality Act of 2010 (EA 2010) to include biological males who identify as women, even those who have not yet undergone gender transition procedures, provided that the males have gender recognition certificates (GRC) identifying their genders as female. The legislative redefinition was quickly challenged and, after a series of court battles, found its way to the U.K. Supreme Court.

The court unanimously ruled on Wednesday “that the terms ‘man’, ‘woman’[,] and ‘sex’ in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex.” The court wrote, “As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex.” The justices continued, “For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity … are based on the fact of pregnancy and giving birth to a child. As a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant. Therefore, these provisions are unworkable unless ‘man’ and ‘woman’ have a biological meaning…”

“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” the justices explained. They continued, “The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct… The Court rejects the suggestion … that ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ can refer to biological sex in some sections of the EA 2010, and certificated sex in others.” The justices stipulated, “The meaning of ‘sex’ and ‘woman’ must be consistent throughout the EA 2010.” They concluded, “The meaning of the terms ‘sex’, ‘man’[,] and ‘woman’ in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate… Therefore, a person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of a ‘woman’…”

Patrick Lord Hodge, the deputy president of the U.K. Supreme Court, clarified in court, “The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.” He continued, “We counsel against reading this judgement as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another. It is not.” The Supreme Court justice explained that the EA 2010 does afford legal protections to those who identify as transgender, even if they do not possess a GRC, but that the definitions of “man,” “woman,” and “sex” in the legislation are essentially biological.

Trina Budge, director of the For Women Scotland organization that challenged the redefinition “woman,” told reporters, “It’s absolutely a victory for women’s rights. This case was always about women, never about trans rights.” She added, “Now we have clarity over what a ‘woman’ means in law.” Budge continued, “We know for sure now that we are defined as a biological sex class of women and that when we see a women-only space, it means exactly that, just women, no men, not even if they have a gender recognition certificate.” She added, “Trans people never had these rights to access women-only spaces, trans men did not have that right. That was an overreach on their part.”

Reactions to the ruling from across the political and ideological spectrum have largely been positive. The author J.K. Rowling, who has emerged as a staunch opponent of transgenderism, hailed the court’s decision, saying, “It took three extraordinary, tenacious Scottish women with an army behind them to get this case heard by the Supreme Court and, in winning, they’ve protected the rights of women and girls across the UK.”

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the U.K.’s Conservative Party, said in a social media post, “Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact and now isn’t true in law, either. A victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot change your biological sex.” Referring to the U.K.’s left-wing prime minister, she added, “The era of Keir Starmer telling us that some women have penises has come to an end. Hallelujah!”

Family Research Council’s Meg Kilgannon told The Washington Stand, “When I first started working on the gender issue in 2015, there were few folks in the U.S. engaged on this issue. We found community online where I became acquainted with feminists from the U.K. who were fighting on this issue. This day has been a long time coming for all women in Britain, and I’m grateful for this ruling for them and for the world. Every time courts affirm that men are men and women are women, the world wins.”

Rupert Lowe, a sitting member of parliament (MP) and former member of the Reform U.K. Party, quipped, “Absolute madness that we’re even debating what a woman is — it’s a biological fact. No amount of woke howling will ever change that.” He added, “Now — let’s keep men out of women’s sports and spaces. We must prioritise safety over inclusivity, dignity over wokery, reality over ideology.”

Even Richard Dawkins, a renowned atheist and progressive proponent, praised the court’s decision. “Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as … a woman. Congratulations,” he said in a social media post. Referring to the court’s definition of biological sex as “binary,” Dawkins added, “Yes, the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught up.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump and RFK Jr. Direct NIH to Study Detransitioning and Trans ‘Regret’

Silenced on the Sidelines: Judge Bars Parents from Protesting Trans Athletes with Wristbands

West Virginia Enacts Parents’ Bill of Rights into Law

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The post UK Supreme Court Defines ‘Man,’ ‘Woman,’ and ‘Sex’ as Biological appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

Why Do “Green” Groups Oppose Nuclear Energy? thumbnail

Why Do “Green” Groups Oppose Nuclear Energy?

By Capital Research Center

Biden Administration Approved $485 Million for Anti-Nuclear Nonprofits. 

During the last half of the Biden administration, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm began talking up the virtues of reliable, safe, and carbon-free nuclear energy. In August 2024 she called for constructing 98 more of our largest nuclear reactors—enough to power 50 million additional American homes.

But as she said this, Granholm’s own department and others within the Biden administration were putting the last touches on $485 million in combined grant awards for 20 opponents of nuclear power.

This help wasn’t needed. The known opponents of nuclear energy collectively rake in at least $2.5 billion every year.

To put this in perspective, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the main trade association promoting American nuclear power, reported a mere $57.3 million annual revenue in its last publicly available IRS filing. At least seven strident anti-nuclear nonprofits, such as the Sierra Club, reported double or even triple that amount.

But elections have consequences. The Biden-era grant awards were approved grants, and the recent work of the Department of Government Efficiency has in many cases clawed back or blocked the total awarded spending.

Big Winners

With $313.8 million in total Biden-era grant awards, Grid Alternatives was set to become the biggest of the anti-nuclear winners.

This would have been a nearly 100-fold increase over all federal funding approved for Grid Alternatives from 2008 through 2020. This is typical of the Biden-era anti-nuclear grants. Most of the other 19 awardees had received comparably little or even zero federal funding prior to 2021.

As covered in a previous report, most of the approved funding for Grid Alternatives was to come from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to be used for hanging solar panels in low-income communities.

Grid Alternatives advertised its hatred of nuclear power long before the first grant was approved. The nonprofit cosigned a 2019 letter to Congress that referred to nuclear power as “dirty” and opposed its inclusion in any carbon-cutting energy policy.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was approved for $55.5 million in grants from several different agencies and departments during the Biden administration, more than half of it from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The WWF denounced a 2019 proposal from the European Union to include nuclear energy as a carbon-reduction tool, saying in a 2021 news release that doing so would be “greenwashing.”

The World Resources Institute (WRI) was approved for $43.6 million during the Biden years, most of it from USAID and the State Department. Impeding energy progress in developing nations is part of this nonprofit’s mission. In April 2018, WRI gave an “environmental prize” to a pair of South African activists for their work in blocking a $76 billion nuclear power investment in their homeland.

In 2023, the Department of Agriculture approved a $25 million grant for GreenLatinos. This sum was more than double the combined revenue raised by GreenLatinos from 2010 through 2023.

GreenLatinos consigned a May 2021 letter to Congress that opposed nuclear power and referred to it as a “dirty” energy source.

Other Anti-Nuclear Nonprofits

Here are the 16 other known anti-nuclear nonprofits that were approved for Biden administration grants, along with the approved cumulative total funding:

In addition to the federal departments and agencies already listed, the Biden-era anti-nuclear grants were also awarded by the Department of Interior, the Department Health and Human Services, the Federal Communications Commission, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Department of CommerceNASA, and the Denali Commission.

Opponents of Civilization

The 20 anti-nuclear groups winning those awards also oppose the use of hydrocarbon fuels: oil, natural gas, and coal. This means they oppose 88 percent of all the energy used in America. As energy is the life blood of prosperity, it’s not an exaggeration to say these groups are implicitly opponents of industrial civilization itself.

Approval of these grants was in effect an attempt to force federal taxpayers to fund their own economic destruction. Going forward, perhaps federal grant seekers should be required to answer a rigorous set of questions regarding whether they have a position in opposition to the sources of American wealth and civilization that they are hoping to tap.

Editor’s Note: This article is part of the DOGE Files, a series of CRC investigations into federal grants to nonprofits. This article explores grants made to opponents of nuclear power.

AUTHOR

Ken Braun

Ken Braun is CRC’s senior investigative researcher and authors profiles for InfluenceWatch.org and the Capital Research magazine.

He previously worked for several free market policy organizations, spent six years as a chief of staff in the Michigan Legislature, and also wrote political columns for MLive Media Group, a consortium including the Grand Rapids Press and seven other mid-sized Michigan newspapers. He is an alumni of Michigan State University.

EDITORS NOTE: This Capital Research Center column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The post Why Do “Green” Groups Oppose Nuclear Energy? appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.

New Discoveries in Quantum Physics Will Further Efficiency in Medicine, Space Exploration and More thumbnail

New Discoveries in Quantum Physics Will Further Efficiency in Medicine, Space Exploration and More

By NEWSRAEL Telling the Israeli Story

Israeli scientists have discovered how to ensure further efficiency in quantum technology, meaning advanced computers used across various sectors will now run better than ever. 

Researchers at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Cornell University have discovered how to keep “quantum spin” – the technology that keeps computers based on this technology active – going for longer.

This means that information stored on the computers that could sometimes be lost when quantum atoms lost their “spin” will now be saved.

Quantum computers are already highly efficient and fast and are currently utilized across various fields, such as medicine, space exploration, cybersecurity, and banking.

Scientists have now found that the electrons in tiny magnetic properties of atoms that store information can now keep spinning by applying low magnetic fields.

Often, when these electrons encounter certain types of light, they lose their “spin”, and, therefore, their ability to retain information, but the application of magnetic fields can keep the electrons spinning endlessly.

The study was led by Mark Dikopoltsev and Avraham Berrebi, under the supervision of Prof. Uriel Levy from the Hebrew University’s Institute of Applied Physics and Nano Center and Prof. Or Katz from Cornell University.

Dikopoltsev commented: “Our results show that low magnetic fields are not just useful for avoiding decoherence from random, spin-conserving interactions, they can actively suppress more damaging relaxation processes, giving us a powerful tool for preserving spin coherence.”

In the field of medicine, quantum computers are often used in drug development, MRI machines, and image processing.

Additionally, quantum technology is used in sensors, batteries, quantum clocks, and AI.

EDITORS NOTE: This TPS-IL News Agency column is republished with permission. ©All right reserved.

Government and medical establishment continue to poison our children with mercury and then lie about it to parents thumbnail

Government and medical establishment continue to poison our children with mercury and then lie about it to parents

By Leo Hohmann

Thimerosal, an ingredient in several childhood vaccines, is linked to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders. 

The U.S. government has for years been telling parents that a mercury-based vaccine preservative called thimerosal poses no harm to children but that, out of an abundance of caution, the ingredient hasn’t been included in childhood vaccines since at least 2001.

The Defender reports that, according to an investigation by independent journalist Sharyl Attkisson, both these claims are now proven false.

Attkisson described them as part of “a concerted propaganda campaign to mislead the public” about thimerosal and the science linking it to autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders.

Attkisson’s investigation highlights how government agencies, along with the mainstream medical and media establishment, colluded for decades to promote a false narrative about the toxic chemical.

On the one hand, they misled the public about its known and possible harms and actively worked to discredit anyone who questioned its safety. On the other hand, they falsely assured the public that it had been removed from vaccines. Anyone who stated otherwise was branded a conspiracy theorist.

The fact is, thimerosal is still used today in some vaccines, Attkisson said, including some that are advertised as “thimerosol free.”

Her report shows that evidence linking the chemical to neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, has existed for decades. It also shines a light on the purposeful agenda to rewrite the scientific narrative around the devastating neurotoxin to hide that link from the public.

Websites for the CDC, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a key source for vaccine-industry propaganda promoted by Google and an army of bought-and-paid-for “fact checkers,” have long posted statements leading the public to believe thimerosal had been removed years ago from children’s vaccines.

For example, the CDC still has false statements like this on its website: “Fact: Thimerosal was taken out of childhood vaccines in the United States in 2001.”

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia states on its website that thimerosal “was removed from vaccines after an amendment to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act was signed into law on Nov. 21, 1997.”

“These claims would receive five outrageous Pinocchios from any neutral fact-checking organization,” Attkisson wrote.

Attkisson shows a series of screenshots from websites and vaccine labels, many removed from the internet but archived on the Wayback Machine, from 199920012004, 2005, 2009201020182019202120222024, and 2025.

The screenshots all show thimerosal as an ingredient in vaccines available to children in the U.S., including in flu shots and some tetanus shots.

There can only be one reason why a government lies to its people in an effort to harm its children. They want a dumbed-down, mentally stunted, weak and passive population. And if that’s what they want, you have to ask yourself, why? Whose interests are served by dumbed-down, weak and passive population? I’ll let you be the judge of that.

©2025 . All rights reserved.


Please visit Leo’s Newsletter substack.

EXCLUSIVE: University Of Kentucky Offers To Violate State Law To Trans Kids — Changes Tune When Reporter Notices thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: University Of Kentucky Offers To Violate State Law To Trans Kids — Changes Tune When Reporter Notices

By The Daily Caller

The University of Kentucky’s hospital system hypothetically offered to provide transgender services to a child, which would constitute a violation of state law, according to an investigation by the Daily Caller.

A staff member for the UK HealthCare Department of Family and Community Medicine at Circle told the Caller on March 31 that they would schedule an appointment for hormone therapy for a hypothetical 15-year-old child.

“Um, yes, we do have trans … health at Circle,” the staff member said during a phone conversation.

“I also wanted to say that he’s also 15, I wasn’t sure if that changes anything,” a Caller reporter stated.

The staff member replied, “It does not.”

When asked specifically what services Circle provides, the staff member explained, “Hormone therapy — we don’t do the surgeries but we do have a facility that does surgery.”

Republicans in the Kentucky legislature passed a law in 2023 that would ban sex change surgeries, hormone therapy, and puberty blockers for patients under 18. Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear vetoed the legislation, but the legislature overrode his veto in March 2023. Beshear claimed the ban would “endanger the children of Kentucky.”

The University of Kentucky said in a statement to the Caller the next day, April 1, that they follow state law, as well as President Donald Trump’s executive order pulling federal funding from healthcare facilities that provide gender transition services to minors.

“The University complies with State Law and President Trump’s Executive Order on Gender Affirming Care,” Kristi Willett, the executive director of public relations for the University of Kentucky, told the Caller.

Trump signed an executive order Jan. 28 prohibiting federal funding from going to hospitals and healthcare facilities that offered sex changes to minors. The order was paused in late February after two federal judges issued preliminary injunctions in response to legal challenges against the president’s action. A Daily Caller investigation found that more than three dozen hospitals were still offering the services to minors.

EXCLUSIVE: More than three dozen children’s hospitals continue to provide sex changes for minors as @realDonaldTrump‘s executive order moving to defund “gender affirming care” is under a preliminary injunction

Some hospitals confirmed to @DailyCaller that they are still… pic.twitter.com/yNIK73MvGA

— Amber Duke (@ambermarieduke) March 19, 2025

Former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron said in a statement that hospitals who “chemically and surgically mutilate” children “should be held accountable.”

“Protecting Kentucky kids is not up for debate. President Trump and Kentucky lawmakers took decisive actions to end this permanent, life-altering harm. Any medical professional who chemically and surgically mutilates vulnerable children in secret or under the guise of some rebranded effort should be held accountable,” Cameron told the Caller.

The Caller called UK HealthCare’s Circle clinic again on April 2, the day after receiving a statement from the university denying that they were violating state law. This time, the Caller was given a different story as to whether or not they are still providing “gender affirming care.”

“I just spoke with my manager and she said there is a new law where apparently they have to be over 18 for hormone therapy,” a staff member said. “They could still be scheduled in the clinic but they would not be able to do the hormone therapy.”

Republican Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman did not respond to a request for comment.

AUTHOR

Amber Duke

Senior Editor. Follow Amber on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Press Team Won’t Respond to Emails with ‘Preferred Pronouns’ in Signature

EXCLUSIVE: Children’s Hospitals Continue Offering Sex Changes After Trump Moved To Defund Procedures

Why Senator Rick Scott Shut Down Our Christian Film About the LGBT Agenda

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Georgia Bill Sparks MAHA Concerns About Alleged Chinese Poison Chemicals thumbnail

Georgia Bill Sparks MAHA Concerns About Alleged Chinese Poison Chemicals

By The Daily Caller

MAHA advocates are warning about a bill Georgia lawmakers passed in March that they allege would allow manufacturers of pesticides to escape liability for poisoning customers.

Senate Bill 144 would make it so “that a manufacturer cannot be held liable for failing to warn consumers of health risks above those required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency with respect to pesticides.”

Environmentalists and regenerative farming advocates warn that the bill would be detrimental to public health.

“Stripping our right to be able to sue if we have a different opinion than what the EPA has is really going to be catastrophic for public health, because then we have no recourse whatsoever,” Kelly Ryerson, the founder of American Regenerative and Glyphosate Facts, told the Daily Caller. Ryerson, a Stanford University MBA, has a certificate in public health policy from Stanford Business School.

The bill’s primary sponsor, Republican Georgia State Sen. Sam Watson, pushed back on the idea that the bill would prevent Americans from being able to sue manufacturers.

“It’s dealing with failure to warn, it’s not providing immunity,” Sen. Watson told the Caller. “It’s not preventing anyone to go after [manufacturers] because they thought that a product caused cancer. You can still do that, you just can’t do it for failure to warn of it causing cancer.”

Manufacturers that would be covered under Georgia’s bill include Bayer, who owns Monsanto, the maker of RoundUp. A Georgia jury is fresh off awarding a plaintiff over $2 billion in a judgement against Bayer after he blamed RoundUp for his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a lawsuit.

Why did the Georgia State Legislature rush to pass SB144 aka The Pesticide Bill?

There are $2.1 BILLION reasons why!

Bayer was ordered to pay a plaintiff when they proved his cancer was caused by their pesticide (Round-Up).

Over 60,000 cases are still pending against Bayer.… pic.twitter.com/TH8YPs77yk

— Kylie Jane Kremer (@KylieJaneKremer) March 24, 2025

RoundUp’s active ingredient is glyphosate, the most commonly used pesticide in the United States. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said glyphosate likely causes cancer in 2015, labelling it as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

“It says it’s likely and we saw that same report. It doesn’t say it does. It says that it suggests or it may be or probably or could cause,” Sen. Watson told the Caller.

The EPA reached a different conclusion. After a February 2020 review, the agency found “that there are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label,” according to its website.

The IARC was accused of manipulating their data in 2017. A draft document of IARC’s 2015 study was unearthed and, according to Reuters, showed the agency dismissed and edited out conclusions contrary to their final report.

Watson claimed that the study which the IARC based its carcinogenic conclusion on also found a number of other common American lifestyle choices increased the risk of cancer.

“If you’ll keep reading in that study it also says that red meat is carcinogenic and night shift work is carcinogenic and a lot of other things that people do are carcinogenic. So, I mean, you need to read the whole study because one studies shift and dictate,” Watson told the Caller.

While the EPA did not concur with the IARC’s conclusion that glyphosate is a carcinogen, Ryerson alleged that the research they based that conclusion on was manipulated by Bayer/Monsanto.

Wisner Baum, a law firm which Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. once worked for, published a trove of documents that appeared to implicate Monsanto in ghostwriting a number of reports on glyphosate’s toxicity.

Science journal highlights Baum Hedlund’s work un-sealing and exposing the Monsanto Papers. “Scientific misconduct by private firms threatens the integrity of public science, and it threatens to undermine the public’s trust in science.” #ScienceEthics https://t.co/ww31mf94ZW pic.twitter.com/5ibdhgMreV

— Wisner Baum (@WisnerBaum) July 20, 2021

One email published by the firm allegedly shows that Monsanto commissioned scientist David Saltmiras and former Monsanto consultant Larry Keir to recruit respected names to write a review of glyphosate’s toxicity. “[E]ven though we feel confident that glyphosate is not genotoxic, this became a very difficult story to tell given all the complicated ‘noise’ out there,” the correspondence reads.

Keir’s name appears on the review that was eventually published, according to the documents obtained by Wisner Baum.

Other manufacturers that could benefit from the limited liability include Chinese chemical manufacturers. When ChemChina, a Chinese state-controlled chemical manufacturer, bought Swiss AgTech company Syngenta for $43 billion in 2017, it was forced by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to divest its rights to the company’s paraquat chemical business in the U.S. to an American firm.

However, China is still the primary producer of paraquat used in the U.S. while America is the world’s biggest importer, according to global shipping tracker Volza. The U.S. imports from 4,000 to 5,000 tons of the product annually, making up over 10 percent of China’s export supply, according to agropages.com

Like glyphosate, the EPA found “no dietary risks of concern associated with paraquat when it is used according to the label.” But others have called it “the deadliest chemical in US agriculture.”

National Institutes of Health (NIH) studies have linked the chemical to Parkinson’s disease, finding that people who used paraquat were 2.5 times more likely to develop Parkinson’s. Over 50 countries have banned its use, including China.

Sen. Watson, a vegetable farmer who uses RoundUp himself, argued it’s China’s very stranglehold over the paraquat market that makes SB 144 so necessary.

“If the Chinese become the only manufacturer of a product, you can’t go after them. It’s very difficult to go after a Chinese manufacturer for any kind of negligence claim,” he told the Caller.

“So I feel like they’re already protected, which makes it even more important to keep manufacturers in the United States because those are the ones that we can have recourse if they here in the United States.”

Ryerson disagreed. “I actually don’t care who manufactures it,” she said. “I just don’t want it anywhere in our system.”

Additionally, 99 percent of glyphosate used in the U.S. originated from China in 2024, according to a Farm Business Network survey.

You can’t make this up.

A German pharmaceutical company that helped Hitler during World War 2 (@Bayer) bought Monsanto and is now sending mailers in states saying lawmakers are pro-China if they don’t vote for a bill giving glyphosate legal immunity. https://t.co/6IbbIVD9Xe

— Calley Means (@calleymeans) February 15, 2025

The bill now sits on Republican Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp’s desk for him to sign. “Our office has 40 days following the last day of the legislative session to conduct a thorough review of legislation that received final passage by the Georgia General Assembly. We will make an announcement upon the conclusion of that review process,” a spokesperson for Kemp’s office told the Caller.

Georgia’s legislative session ended April 4, giving the governor until May 14 to make a decision.

The bill represents a test of power for RFK Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) coalition. Self-proclaimed “MAHA moms” have been lobbying hard against its passage, imploring Kemp not to sign it. RFK, who tried and won cases on behalf of Monsanto victims in his past life as an attorney, has yet to publicly comment on the bill.

The Daily Caller reached out to HHS to get Secretary Kennedy’s thoughts on the bill but did not receive a response.

AUTHOR

Robert McGreevy

Reporter.

RELATED ARTICLES:

RFK Jr. Targets America’s Most Obese State For Aggressive MAHA Reforms

Top Maryland Dem Backs Green Energy Bill That Could Line His Own Company’s Pockets

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Critically Thinking about Pain — Is Pain a Good or Bad Thing? thumbnail

Critically Thinking about Pain — Is Pain a Good or Bad Thing?

By John Droz, Jr.

Pain is a strange thing.

One of the most insightful things I’ve read about pain is that it is an essential element of making us happy! (e.g., read this interesting article.)

Put in a simpler way: Contrast makes all the difference. A personal example is that one of my favorite meals is lobster. However, if I had lobster every night it wouldn’t take too long before it was no longer my favorite… Go figure…

What this also says is that pain is not just a physical sensation, but a mental one. In a particular situation, it is often difficult to assess how much of a very marked pain comes from physical nerve signals, vs how much is from our brain telling us that we are hurt.

A good example is when a child stubs their toe. If the mom is looking on anxiously, there is a strong chance that the child will start crying. On the other hand, if they are by themself, it is more likely that they will frown and grimace — and then move on.

I clearly remember a situation when I was in high school (around 15), and living at home. I was always in good physical condition (e.g., I ran track, played high school basketball, etc.), so I was rarely sick.

I don’t remember what led up to it, but one evening (before dinner) I started feeling nauseous. That was quite unusual, so I was expecting that this painfully unpleasant feeling would quickly pass.

It not only did not go away, but it got worse. I had the definite feeling that I was going to throw up shortly — very distressing. I skipped dinner (an extreme rarity), and went up to my room to lay down. I brought a pan and was waiting for the very unappealing inevitable.

I decided to listen to my radio. (My clock radio was a prized possession I earned by getting a lot of subscriptions for a local newspaper.) Anyway, when I turned it on, nothing happened. The clock part was still working, so what was going on? Being a mechanical wizard (still am), I started to fiddle around to solve the problem. It took me about 15 minutes to disassemble the radio, figure out, and fix the issue. The radio started to play.

As I lay down to listen I started to think why was I in bed at this time in the evening, and remembered that I was here due to feeling very sick. Oh, right. The strange thing was that the nauseous feeling was completely gone!

I couldn’t believe it and was sure that this respite was temporary and that the pain would come back. It didn’t! After laying there for 10+ minutes, and feeling fine, I decided that there was no need for me to be in bed at this time of day. I went downstairs, had a typical dinner(!), and continued on normally. The nauseous feeling did not return…

Yes, the basic strategy here was to use the worthwhile tactic of trying to take my mind off a painful matter by distracting myself. The differences here were:

a) I didn’t consciously try to do that, and

b) the pain wasn’t just disguised, it actually went away.

I have found that there are other life situations (that we all experience), where this mind-over-matter insight can be beneficial.

Another interesting perspective on pain is expressed here:

“One unique characteristic of life is that the more pleasure you hunt down (as we’re inclined to do)the more pain you get!

“Most everything that makes you feel amazing and alive, ends with long-term pain and an accelerated premature death. Take alcohol for example or junk food, narcotics, watching TV, drinking coffee, working that safe job you don’t enjoy, smoking cigarettes, smoking weed, procrastinating, being a perpetual people pleaser, being lazy, mindless scrolling of social media, thinking that a toxic big pharma pill will make you healthy instead of changing your lifestyle, etc., etc…”

So the next time you are inclined to complain about a pain, give it some Critical Thinking to see if it really is as bad as it seems, or maybe it’s a cloud with a silver lining…

Some sample references:

©2025   All rights reserved.

Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2024 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

Inside the now-shuttered ‘East German-style’ EPA Museum — Gore says goodbye to USA?! thumbnail

Inside the now-shuttered ‘East German-style’ EPA Museum — Gore says goodbye to USA?!

By Marc Morano from Climate Depot

WATCH: Peek inside the now-shuttered EPA Museum that closed because it cost $4mil to build, $600k annually to operate & received less than 2000 visitors

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “The now-defunct EPA Museum evokes memories of an old East German government propaganda effort. Future generations will look back on this climate-obsessed era and marvel that a civilization ever took this climate crap seriously.”

Watch Fox News Video: EPA MUSEUM CLOSED: Cost $4 million of taxpayer dollars to build and no visitors!

RELATED ARTICLES:

EPA shuttering museum that cost $315 per visitor to stay open — with barely anyone showing up

‘Climate change may make it harder to spot submarines,’ new NATO study finds – Claim ‘warmer oceans alter how sound travels underwater’

The Climate Change movement might be nearing the end of its political lifespan – ‘Possible that Trump Admin is going to deal the death blows to the long-running climate change hysteria’

Even the EU, the motherlode of climate action, backs away from Climate Plans

Al Gore says goodbye to USA?!
NYT: ‘Gore Is Shifting His Climate Activism Abroad’ – ‘He has watched with alarm’ as Trump guts climate regs – Gore ‘is looking to the developing world for the next generation of climate activism’

UK Guardian: ‘Groundbreaking book argues climate crisis was sparked by colonization’ – Claims ‘climate breakdown is the mutant offspring of European scientific racism & colonialism’

Mag: ‘Bill Gates Gives Up on Climate Change’ – Gates signaling the end of a ‘major chapter in climate giving’ as ‘billionaires are pulling (climate) support at an alarming rate’

‘The Bill Gates Era of Climate Giving Has Ended’ – ‘Closing his (climate) policy & advocacy office and has laid off much of its staff’ – Gates was ‘instrumental to the lobbying effort to pass the IRA’

NYT claims ‘vicious cycle of extreme heat leading to more fossil fuel use’ – 

Realty Check: ‘As planet warms projected decrease in energy demand for heating is ~5x larger than projected increase due to more cooling’

Dogs Could Be Among ‘the First Victims of Climate Change’ – ‘Excessive panting, drooling, & lethargy’ from ‘increased risk of heat stress’

Climate Buzzwords Vanish From Corporate Earnings Calls As Trump Puts Green Energy Industry ‘On Its Heels’

Bill Gates in 2024: ‘My carbon footprint is high, & that’s partly why I’m so avid that we need to get all sources of emissions to zero’

Bill Gates says AI will replace doctors, & teachers within 10 years — & claims humans won’t be needed ‘for most things’

‘Climate Change Is Must-See Theater in London’ – New Play ‘Kyoto’ ‘draws sold-out audiences’ – Produced by the Royal Shakespeare Company, the play ‘dramatizes the first legally binding global pact’

Lomborg: ‘The global evidence is clear: Not a single country that relies heavily on wind & solar power has low average electricity costs’

Rolling Stone mag laments: ‘Trump Wants to Convince the World That Climate Change Is a Good Thing’ – He’s ‘ready to argue that climate change would benefit humans’

Watch: Morano on OAN TV talking DOGE climate cuts & EPA ‘gold bar’ spending

Listen: Morano on Joe Piscopo Show talking Greenpeace, offshore wind & Amazon taking over healthcare

Progress! US Supreme Court will not hear novel youth-led climate change case ‘claiming the U.S. govt’s energy policies violate their rights to be protected from climate change’

Watch: Morano on The First TV talking how Trump’s EPA is taking a blow torch to climate regulations

Watch: Princeton Prof. William Happer: The Climate Crisis Is a Made-Up Scare Story – ‘Saving the planet from one & a half degrees of warming is just crazy’

Climate Craziness Would Eliminate Air Travel – Except for the ‘Privileged’ as Airbus to use ‘sustainable aviation fuel’ which will add an expensive ‘green premium’ to airfares

©2025 . All rights reserved.

The Party of Men Who Think They’re Women Decides to Stay the Course thumbnail

The Party of Men Who Think They’re Women Decides to Stay the Course

By The Geller Report

What could possibly go wrong for the party of blue-haired, angry Marxists? They know they’re right. They know they’re righteous. They know their opponents are evil, racist fascists. So what if they’ve lost an election or two? They’re on the side of history, you benighted fools! To change course now would be to jump to the wrong side of history, and history hates when you do that! And so the Democrats have decided, after the American electorate decisively rejected the noxious stew they’re selling, to serve up more of the same.

Politico reported Friday that the Democratic National Committee held a major meeting not long after the Convicted Felon, the Emmanuel Goldstein of 2015-2025 (and counting), the focus of evil in the modern world, Orange Man Bad himself, took office again. The ostensible reason for the meeting was to vet candidates for the DNC leadership position, but it was really an opportunity for Democrat top dogs to do some soul-searching and decide which way their party would turn next.

The Democrat Party, whatever else it was, used to be adaptable to circumstances. In 1968, it went down to defeat with presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey, who supported the war in Vietnam. As the war grew increasingly unpopular, the Democrats moved farther to the left (which is always easy for them) and nominated the antiwar Sen. George McGovern in 1972. When McGovern’s far-left candidacy went down in flames, the party moved back toward the center by going with southern Democrat Jimmy Carter in 1976.

All that, however, was a long, long time ago. Now the party of Andrew Jackson and FDR is in the grip of hardline leftist ideologues who seem to care more about adherence to the far-left line than about electoral viability. All the party’s old ability to adapt has been lost; to change course now would apparently make one a class traitor, or a racist, or a fascist, or whatever the left’s favorite term for those it fears and hates is these days.

Even Politico’s Holly Otterbein was disgusted, stating with startling frankness that the Democrats have become a parody of themselves, likening a moment early in the meeting when one DNC leadership candidate broke into song to “a scene from ‘Portlandia,’ a comedy satirizing ultra-liberals — and it was a punchline that was clipped and replayed across social media in the days ahead. Things only got more surreal, and viral, from there.”

The aspiring DNC leaders, Otterbein wrote, “inadvertently showcased the party’s self-absorbed tendencies that strategists argue have driven away swing voters, by turns fixating on identity politics, displaying scorn for large swaths of the electorate and failing to focus on the pocketbook concerns of ordinary Americans.” They never dared approach the topic of whether Kamala Harris had not run a perfect campaign. They likewise ignored the open border, skyrocketing inflation, and all the other issues that made voters want to throw the Dems out in the first place.

As is generally true at Marxist and neo-Marxist gatherings, ideological purity was strictly enforced. MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart asked the leadership candidates: “How many of you believe that racism and misogyny played a role in Vice President Harris’ defeat?” Each candidate raised his or her or xis hand, whereupon Capehart passed up an opportunity to call them all crazy and tell them that they needed to remove their ideological blinkers. Instead, he stated magisterially: “That’s good. You all pass.” Whew!

A DNC member asked the candidates: “Will you pledge to appoint more than one transgender person to an at-large seat?” Seven of the eight candidates readily affirmed that they would do so, and the eighth was condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake. Okay, I’m exaggerating about that last part. But only a little.

The aspiring Democrat leaders also described Trump as a “fascist who espoused white supremacist conspiracies.” Telling half the country’s population that they’re evil people is hardly a winning strategy, and Politico climbed up onto a ledge of its own, despondently surveying the DNC leadership candidates and alleging that “the spectacle appalled many dyed-in-the-wool Democrats — and deepened the sense that party leaders were not up for the moment.”

Politico even quoted an anonymous “Democratic strategist” saying: “I don’t know if Dems realize how f**ked they are right now as a brand. It was a bunch of people politely discussing how many deck chairs on the Titanic should be reserved for transgender people.” For the sake of the continuing health of America as a free society, all free people must hope that this particular Titanic will continue to sink.

AUTHOR

Robert Spencer

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Democrats Fundamentally Changed from the Party of JFK to the Party of BHO

From JFK to the Resistance: What has happened to the Democratic Party?

The Democrat Party: The Enemy Within?

How the Democrat Party ‘fundamentally transformed’ into a Cabal of Thieves, Liars and Traitors

RELATED VIDEO: Congress to vote to limit judicial authority for nationwide injunctions

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

To Save America We MUST Transform K-12 Education — NOW! thumbnail

To Save America We MUST Transform K-12 Education — NOW!

By John Droz, Jr.

Only the US Dept of Education can do this. See 15 Profoundly Important Transformations they can provide. 

To understand what the Department of Education (DOEd) should do, please absorb these key facts:

a) The US K-12 education system is in deplorable condition and progressively getting worse.

b) Although there are multiple K-12 problems, the corruption of the curricula is BY FAR the most important.

c) 95%± of the blame of our failing K-12 education system is due to poor actions or inactions by the States — not DOEd.

I’ve repeatedly written (and proven) that the States are responsible for 95%± of the K-12 education failures, and that the curricula is the core issue… Jordan Peterson was interviewed by Megyn Kelly 3-26-25. Regarding K-12 he said: “Republicans have been asleep at the wheel for some four generations. Now the Trump administration is taking aim at DOEd — but that’s only a tiny proportion of the actual trouble. The REAL trouble is at the State level. I can’t see how the US K-12 school system could be set up any worse…” (Listen here for 30± seconds. What else do you need to hear?)

Another piece of empirical evidence (out of many) is that not a single State is formally teaching their K-12 children to be Critical Thinkers. Zero! How many States’ K-12 education programs exemplify leadership, competence, and creativity?

d) As such it makes zero sense to turn over our children’s education to nearly 50 second-rate bureaucracies.

e) We now have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to profoundly improve our K-12 education system, and

f) Trump’s real education position is: “Quickly make significant improvements to the US K-12 education system.”

g) We are in such dire straits, that we simply MUST make major national improvements within the next two years.

There are 4± Million graduates from US high schools, every year. Almost all of these students have been extensively indoctrinated with Left ideology, and have been specifically taught NOT to be a critical thinker… Most of these miseducated graduates then become voting citizens… This needs to be stopped immediately or America’s future will be determined by citizens with no Critical Thinking skills, and who have been thoroughly propagandized by Left-leaning ideology.

Solutions proposed for this have ranged from:

a) scrapping the entire K-12 public school system, to

b) eliminating DOEd (e.g., here).

Although the rationale behind these is very understandable, none of these suggestions are wisepractical, or effective resolutions to quickly and significantly improve the extremely dangerous situation we are in.

There is only one imperfect option that can accomplish this: a Transformed DOEd.

A Critical Thinking approach for those skeptical of this path would be to do an accurate and objective two-part analysis:

a) assessing the legitimacy and applicability of the claims against DOEd. (For detailed explanations concerning fifteen (15) inaccurate or inappropriate arguments against DOEd, see here.), and

b) identifying the advantages of keeping a completely transformed DOEd vs turning over our K-12 education to 50 States. That is what this commentary is about….

The Transformed Department of Education would start by making major internal changes like:

Strip down the DOEd to the bare essentials. There were over 4100 employees. How about aiming for 400 — a 90% reduction? Four hundred competent, motivated, well-directed employees can do a LOT!

For starters:

a) divide DOEd into Higher Ed and K-12 Ed, and

b) in the K-12 Ed part set up fifteen teams. Each team would have 5-10 people, entirely focused on one of the issues below.

So, for example, if the Oklahoma School Superintendent wanted advice about dealing with the challenges of AI, there would be DOEd AI specialists (group #14) who would share with him:

a) what competent and relevant scientific research (DOEd and otherwise) has been done regarding AI, plus

b) what other States have tried out and found useful.

Here is the boilerplate pablum that is DOEd’s current mission. Its objective should be upgraded to include something like: “creatively and competently assist States in producing a significantly better K-12 education product.”

Further, the Transformed DOEd would make it clear that it exists to provide leadership to States. DOEd’s primary K-12 function would be to provide unique and valuable assistance to States, so that they can do a better job at educating our children. In other words, DOEd would now be a competent service organization. States would have no obligation to take advantage of DOEd’s services — but they should be of such high quality that it would be foolish for them not to.

(BTW, this is part of the answer to those who ask “What happens if a different administration comes in and undermines DOEd?” If this means that the services are degraded, then States would just ignore DOEd and it would wither on the vine.)

DOEd should focus on providing accelerants to quickly and significantly improve States’ K-12 education results, like:

a) Pay for Scientific research on education topics of national interest (e.g., see the fifteen examples below). It makes no economic or practical sense to have fifty (50) States researching these national matters individually.

b) Poll and periodically meet with every State as to what their main concerns are and how DOEd can best assist them in providing a superior K-12 education product. Along the same lines, DOEd should sponsor an exclusive blog where State education professionals can ask and answer questions posed by their counterparts in other States. Additionally, DOEd should sponsor an annual national K-12 Education convention for all State education professionals to inter-relate and personally exchange ideas.

c) Reward States for creative efforts and/or for doing a superior job in improving their K-12 education system with some of DOEd’s $80± Billion in discretionary funds [out of a $250± Billion budget].

In other words, DOEd should leverage the power and money of the federal government to effectively service States in upgrading their currently inferior K-12 education systems. DOEd would do this by providing competent leadership and guidance, paying for new research, and financially rewarding States that are making good progress in improving their K-12 education product.


Assuming that the 3Rs are properly taught, the #1 goal of every State Education System should be to produce Critically Thinking graduates. It is simply stunning that there is zero commonality among the 50 States’ Education mission statements. States should have uniform education goals, but be free to decide on how to attain them.

A related objective is that DOEd would assist in profoundly changing the education system from its current focus on teaching students WHAT to think (and a lot of that is Progressive ideology), to instead teaching them HOW to think. Again, each State can decide how they think this can be best accomplished.

Since no State is currently doing that, this would revolutionize American education. (Note: presently less than ten States even mention Critical Thinking in their Education Department Mission statements! Worse, one commonality most States do have is that they teach the opposite of Critical Thinking — e.g., see this fine piece and this 1-minute video.)

In the education business, this is called pedagogy. For example, would the best way to educate our children be to have a classical education program (like here)? Or, would the best way be to adopt the state-of-the-art techniques used by MacKenzie Price in Alpha Schools — covering in 2 hours what traditional schools take 6 hours, and then using the remaining 4 hours to teach other valuable material (like financial management)? Or something else?

DOEd should solicit and evaluate a variety of teaching ideas — and then pass on their findings to the States. What sense does it make for 50 States to do this type of investigation? (Note: almost no States are seriously investigating this.)

There is no question that American K-12 education simply MUST produce graduates who are Critical Thinkers. The question is: what is the most effective way to teach this invaluable skill? There are different viewpoints here — and that is one likely reason that States are not formally doing this. DOEd should research this pivotal matter and then provide guidance to the States.

Common Core is a disaster (e.g., see here). Briefly, it was a States’ initiative to “modernize” the teaching of subject areas like math and reading. Although not a DOEd-initiated program, it did receive federal support. Currently, many States are looking for the best way to unwind from this failed experiment. A Transformed DOEd can provide helpful guidance based on the latest research.

Since 49 States have now officially adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) all or in part, it has effectively become a national standard. The NGSS was a joint effort by States and progressives. For example, Bill Gates’s organization Achieve was a major player in the NGSS (as it was in Common Core). DOEd had relatively little to do with the NGSS.

Although the NGSS has multiple major flaws (e.g., see ten listed here). Separately the highly regarded Fordham Institute gave the NGSS only a “C” rating, clearly indicating that it is not worthy to become any State’s Science standards — as recent test scores continue to verify. Additionally, NGSS was trashed in this powerful Report. Despite these and more, the NGSS has not received anywhere near the negative publicity it deserves, or what Common Core received.

That said, States are gradually waking up to the major deficiencies of the NGSS, and are looking for what to do now. Again, this is an invaluable guidance role that DOEd could fill, providing the latest independent research, etc.

Due to the magnitude of the adverse effects caused by Common Core and the NGSS, other K-12 subject area standards have not received the attention they warrant. Probably the best example is what is happening in K-12 History classes. Progressives have infiltrated this subject, particularly regarding American History — converting it into Woke propaganda. Clearly, States need assistance in resisting these political distortions, and DOEd should be set up to provide help based on objective research.

The safety of students and teachers on K-12 school grounds has become a very serious issue. For example, in North Carolina (generally considered one of the better education States) the latest annual records indicate that there were over 11,000 reports of violence in NC K-12 schools, the highest on record!

An integral part of this crisis is classroom discipline. To get an indication of the scope of this issue, searching “classroom discipline” brings up hundreds of articles, reports, and studies. These sample articles list five wayssix waysseven waysnine waysten ways, .… up to twenty-five ways of improving K-12 school discipline. This is so out-of-hand that some states are passing legislation specifically about getting classroom discipline under control (e.g., here).

Closely related to this is DOEd guidance to States regarding student mental health issues. Here is a good discussion: 12 Eye-Opening Statistics on Mental Health in Schools.

There is simply no way that there will be good education outcomes if either students or teachers feel unsafe. This is a national issue and it makes little sense to have fifty (50) States spending time and money to figure out how to minimize this problem. DOEd to the rescue!

A national “Parents Bill of Rights” regarding K-12 schools, could be an exceptionally helpful improvement on the country’s public school system. North Carolina has such a law that’s good, but the record in other States is spotty. DOEd can easily research this issue and recommend a national standard for this very important matter.

What’s going on regarding materials being in K-12 school classes and libraries (see here and here) is extremely disturbing.

The fundamental problem is that the powerful American Library Association (ALA) does not recognize the issue of age-appropriateness! DOEd should officially go on record endorsing the significance of age-appropriateness in K-12 classes, libraries, and associated matters.

This idea is already societally accepted in the US. A good example is that the rating systems for movies and also for TV are based on age-appropriateness. The movie website says “Established in 1968, the film rating system provides parents with the information needed to determine if a film is appropriate for their children.” Exactly the same thing applies to books being considered for K-12 school classes and libraries!

To make a profound improvement regarding this critical matter, DOEd should specify that they will not provide certain DOEd discretionary funds to schools that do not have an enforced, appropriate official written policy regarding the age-appropriateness of materials associated with their K-12 schools.

Towards that same end, DOEd should aggressively oppose federal legislation that undermines the concept of age-appropriateness — like this.

Although there is some State-related activity on this matter, much of it is coming from outraged parents, rather than the State Departments of Education. Further, the ALA is a powerful national organization, so DOEd would be a much more effective opponent.

Currently, the education mills are generally producing progressive graduates (e.g., see here) who have few Critical Thinking skills. How can such people be optimum teachers? No State can fix this on its own, but DOEd has the leverage and national influence to likely be able to.

Please carefully listen to Jordan Peterson’s recent comments on the corruptness of our teacher certification institutions, and how Republicans have been asleep at the switch for some 60 years, allowing this to happen. (Watch for 1+ minute starting here.)

Regretfully, some teacher unions have become more about prioritizing their own existence rather than seeing that the education of students is maximized. No State has the power — and few have shown the interest — to stand up to this negative influence on our K-12 education system. A Transformed DOEd is our best chance (by far) to redirect teacher’s unions to be an education ally.

For some time now the public school system has been in a conflicting situation regarding religion. On the one hand, public schools are bending over backward to not do anything that some activists might claim is a 1st Amendment violation (a federal matter).

On the other hand, US public schools seem to feel obligated to convey morality and ethics (e.g., “discrimination is wrong.”) However, what is right or wrong is a religious [moral] position. Aggressively stepping into this gap are atheism and relativism — which are effectively religions (e.g., see here).

Directly related to this issue is that DOEd should take an official stand against the scourge of SEL that has infested public schools nationwide. SEL is effectively trying to replace Judeo-Christian standards with its own value system. DOEd’s position should be along the lines of this.

So, despite their professed concerns about not advocating for any religion, that is exactly what public schools are doing. DOEd should research and take a position on this exceptionally important issue, as (again) no States are doing that.

What should be the rules and regulations for students having phones in class is a very important and contentious issue. To leave this up to 50 States (and/or thousands of school districts) to figure out is an absurd plan. DOEd has the money to pay for competent research, and can then publish guidelines. Schools and districts would have less resistance and legal exposure by setting rules based on federal guidelines.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is bearing down on us like a tsunami. There are extremely complex and significant decisions that need to be made about how we optimize AI to improve the education of our K-12 students. AI could be a helpful tool or an extremely bad influence. To leave this complicated topic to be worked out by 50 states and/or thousands of school districts is insane. As before, DOEd has the money to pay for competent research, and can then set helpful guidelines for States and districts.

Even though this is a long list, there are other K-12 education-related issues that States will have. DOEd should be carefully listening, and (where practical) provide the help asked for by States (e.g., by paying for new research, adding personnel, etc.).

All of the current US K-12 education system’s weaknesses are being taken advantage of by anti-American, Left-leaning ideology advocates. The corruption of the K-12 Science curricula is a perfect example of how American students are being Pied Pipered to a woefully inadequate education.

Yes, the above issues are a HUGE ask for any federal agency to properly handle. However, whether DOEd exists or not, these major problems exist anyway. If DOEd is terminated, who will provide the leadership and guidance to States regarding how to best resolve these issues? The empirical evidence is overwhelming that leaving these serious challenges up to 50 States to resolve is non-sensical.

Leaving our children’s education up to 50 different States to figure out will simply NEVER WORK!

A Transformed DOEd should step into this void and provide constructive and effective K-12 education leadership and assistance. Now is the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do exactly that!

©2025  All rights reserved.


Note: The best chance we have for substantially transforming DOEd, is to have a quality collection of “outsiders” (outside the education establishment) participating in the process. People who have few pre-conceived ideas of what can and can not be done are more likely to be advancing the most creative improvements.


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I am now offering incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!

I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking on my topics of interest.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

WiseEnergy.orgdiscusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

C19Science.infocovers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.infomultiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2025 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the State where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time – but why would you?

EXCLUSIVE: Researchers Axed Data Point Undermining ‘Narrative’ That White Doctors Are Biased Against Black Babies thumbnail

EXCLUSIVE: Researchers Axed Data Point Undermining ‘Narrative’ That White Doctors Are Biased Against Black Babies

By The Daily Caller

A researcher who argued that infant mortality is higher for black newborns with white doctors because of racial bias omitted a variable from the paper that “undermines the narrative,” according to the researcher’s internal notes.

The study forms a keystone of the racial concordance field, which hypothesizes patients are better served by medical providers of the same race, and has served as a rationale for affirmative action. It faces new questions just as universities move to defund their Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs or face legal action.

AUTHOR

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

‘Years of Climate Action Demolished in 52 Days’ By Trump — A ‘Climate Onslaught’ thumbnail

‘Years of Climate Action Demolished in 52 Days’ By Trump — A ‘Climate Onslaught’

By Marc Morano from Climate Depot

WATCH: Morano on Fox & Friends on Amazon rainforest being clear-cut for 4-lane highway for UN climate summit:

‘This is beyond parody. If they really cared about the rainforest or the climate, they would have a Zoom conference’

‘Years of Climate Action Demolished in Days’ By Trump! — A ‘Climate Onslaught’ — Reveals ‘how little anyone ever really cared about global warming’

‘Climate protest group Just Stop Oil says it will stop direct action’

Plus: Warmist turns on ‘sketchy’ LA Wildfire ‘attribution’ study

Former spokeswoman for Extinction Rebellion red-pilled on ‘green groups’ — ‘They have ‘nothing to do with protecting the Earth’

Cheers! Bloomberg columnists: ‘Years of Climate Action Demolished in Days’ By Trump – ’82 actions across 20 govt bodies…in 1st 52 DAYS’ – ‘Climate Onslaught’ –
Unleashed ‘climate demolition’

Morano: ‘This is how it’s done! Thank you, Mr. President!’

NYT’s moment of clarity: Paper shopping bags ‘might not be as green as you think’ – ‘Paper bags tend to require more energy to produce than plastic ones’ & ‘In landfills, paper bags produce methane & CO2’

Warmist Sabine Hossenfelder disgusted with climate scientists over media hyped LA wildfires climate ‘attribution’ study:
‘Many climate scientists know how sketchy the studies are…but they keep their mouth shut’ – ‘They don’t say a word because it’d be politically inconvenient’

WaPo: ‘Growing weed takes more energy than mining bitcoin’ –Uses 1% of all American energy, ‘warms the planet about as much as 10 million cars’

Mag: ‘Email signatures are harming the planet & could cost people their lives — it’s time to stop using them’ – Adding ‘gender pronouns in emails…may contribute to the premature deaths of one person a year’

Watch: Energy Sec. Wright: ‘Net Zero by 2050 is just nonsense. It’s an activist thing, & it’s a top-down, big government justification to do mostly anti-human things’

Think EVs are ‘green’?! 

‘Typical Tesla EV battery weighs 1,000 pounds & includes 26lbs of lithium, 10lbs of cobalt, 110lbs of nickel, 9lbs of manganese, 55lbs of copper, 44lbs of aluminum, 154lbs of graphite, plus, steel, plastic, & other metals’

Watch: Democrat Sen. Angus King grills Tulsi Gabbard: ‘Who decided climate change should be left out of this (threat assessment) report after it’s been in the prior 11?’

Bloomberg News goes all in for China! ‘This Is China’s Chance to Prove It’s a Climate Leader’ – Trump’s rejection of UN climate goals ‘has offered China a rare opportunity to expand its global influence’ – ‘China can produce the kind of change the world actually wants to see’

Lomborg: ‘Hunger keeps declining, even with climate change’ – ‘Over the past century, hunger has declined dramatically’

Study finds Trump Effect in U.S. over belief in ‘climate change’: In 2016, Republicans had ‘a noticeable rise’ of being ‘climate change believers’ after UN Paris pact –
But ‘by 2018, after Trump withdrew from the UN Paris Agreement…belief partially reversed, with more (GOP) individuals returning to higher skepticism’

Whitmer’s Michigan spent $670 million on green energy & EV corporate welfare — ZERO jobs created after three years!

The Climate Scam is Over: Peer-reviewed AI analysis completely debunks all of the ‘man-made’ claims

NYT claims ‘vicious cycle of extreme heat leading to more fossil fuel use’ –
Realty Check: ‘As planet warms projected decrease in energy demand for heating is ~5x larger than projected increase due to more cooling’

The downfall of climate change poster boy Michael Mann:
‘If Mann cannot even be trusted to tell the truth when he’s under oath & in court on pain of perjury, why on earth should any of us take him seriously on the subject of climate change?’

Lomborg: ‘The global evidence is clear: Not a single country that relies heavily on wind & solar power has low average electricity costs’

Morano on WMAL on Trump’s EPA reversing Obama/Biden regs: ‘We are seeing the climate movement collapse before our eyes’

Watch: ‘Germany detonates its most modern coal-fired power plant after just six years’ – Able ‘to power the entire city’ of Hamburg – ‘They demolished it because Greta said so’

Meanwhile:

© 2025 . All rights reserved.

PERKINS: Military Should Be Defined by Effectiveness, Not Ideology thumbnail

PERKINS: Military Should Be Defined by Effectiveness, Not Ideology

By Family Research Council

Last week, U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes, a Biden appointee, halted President Trump’s policy that prohibits transgender individuals from serving in the military. To understand the significance of this ruling, we need to look at the policy’s origins and the reasons behind it.

Transgender-identifying individuals were never allowed to serve in the military until former President Obama changed the policy during the final days of his administration. Upon taking office in 2017, President Trump reversed that decision, citing multiple factors, including cost and military readiness.

According to an analysis by Family Research Council, which informed the 2017 policy decision, the projected cost of allowing transgender individuals to serve — which was before active recruitment began under the Biden administration — was estimated at $1.88 billion over 10 years. It’s even more now. This staggering price tag reflects taxpayer dollars that would have been used for medical treatments like hormone therapy and surgeries, along with the cost of lost service time because of the treatments.

To put that in perspective, those funds could purchase 22 F-35 fighter jets, 116 Chinook Helicopters, 3,700 Tomahawk missiles, or a Navy destroyer instead. President Trump made the right decision in 2017, and he made the right decision to reinstate the policy.

The military’s mission is clear, as the president wrote in his executive order: “to protect the American people and our homeland as the world’s most lethal and effective fighting force. This objective should not be compromised to accommodate political agendas or ideologies. … Military service must be reserved for those who are both mentally and physically fit to serve.”

Judge Reyes, in her 79-page ruling, called the Trump policy “unabashedly demeaning” and claimed it was “soaked in animus.” Using twisted logic at best, she argued that it is sex discrimination to prohibit transgenderism, because “a biological female who identifies as a woman is not banned.” That’s precisely the point. Women can serve, and men can serve, but not men who think they are women. Keep in mind the military routinely excludes individuals based on factors that affect readiness, such as excessive body fat, pregnancy, endometriosis, or even motion sickness. These exclusions are not acts of discrimination — they are practical measures to ensure mission preparedness.

Judge Reyes may want to reconsider her interpretation of presidential authority. The Constitution, in Article II, explicitly designates the president as the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. As former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in 2022, “Judges are not given the task of running the military.” That responsibility falls to the president, whose primary duty is to ensure the safety and security of the nation.

It’s also worth noting that Judge Reyes criticized the lack of studies to support the Trump administration’s policy reversal, while ignoring the fact that the Biden administration conducted no studies when it overturned Trump’s policy on the fifth day of his presidency.

President Trump is right, and Judge Reyes is wrong. Military policy should be driven by effectiveness and national security — not the Left’s destructive ideology.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s DOJ launches review of law firms that participated in ‘weaponized lawfare’

Massive Poll Of Millions Of Americans Shows Dems Have Big Problems On Their Hands

Vulnerable Democrat Representative’s New Rhetoric On Gender Ideology Doesn’t Match Left-Wing Voting Record

Libs Up In Arms When Their Own Racism Gets Shoved In Their Face

Turns Out Americans Were Unhappier Than Ever Before Under Biden’s Watch

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.