By Editorial Board – DrRichSwier.com
AI and Big Tech stocks have fueled major U.S. stock market growth in 2025, but investor skepticism is rising. Chief Market Strategist Anthony Saglimbene breaks down three AI investing themes to watch in 2026.
WATCH: Investing in AI stocks: 3 trends to watch in 2026
©2025 Editorial Board – DrRichSwier.com. All rights reserved.
RELATED ARTICLES:
2026 AI Outlook: The Great Startup Churn & Enterprise Adoption
By The White House
President Trump delivered a powerful year-end address from the White House’s Diplomatic Reception Room, emphasizing his administration’s achievements in his first 11 months back in office.
WATCH: A message of hope for an American Revival.
He described the first year of his consequential second term period as an “historic comeback,” blaming the previous Biden White House for economic and security failures and promising an unprecedented American Renaissance of economic prosperity ahead.
©2025 The White House. All rights reserved.
By The Daily Caller
Ten of the twelve former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioners and acting commissioners opposed to the Trump administration’s stiffer standards for vaccines quietly disclosed ties to the pharmaceutical industry, a Daily Caller News Foundation review shows.
The FDA old guard criticized the new leadership in a Dec. 3 New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) letter over a higher regulatory bar for vaccines, namely the expectation that most new vaccine approvals will require randomized clinical trials, arguing it could hamper the market.
“Insisting on long, expensive outcomes studies for every updated formulation would delay the arrival of better-matched vaccines when new outbreaks emerge or when additional groups of patients could benefit,” the former commissioners wrote. “Abandoning the existing methods won’t ‘elevate vaccine science’ … It will subject vaccines to a substantially higher and more subjective approval bar.”
But while the former commissioners disclosed their conflicts of interest to the medical journal — per standard practice in scientific publishing — reporters didn’t relay them to the broader public in reports in the Washington Post, STAT News and CNN.
The headlines about a bipartisan rebuke from former occupants of FDA’s highest office give the impression that the Trump administration is contravening established science, but closer inspection reveals a revolving door between pharmaceutical corporations and the agencies overseeing them.
Three of the signatories have received payments totaling $6 million from manufacturers or former manufacturers of COVID vaccines.
Scott Gottlieb has received $2.1 million in cash and stock from his position on the Pfizer board of directors, where he has advised on ethics and regulatory compliance since 2019, according to company filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Stephen Ostroff has received $752,310 from Pfizer in consulting fees since 2020, according to OpenPayments.
Mark McClellan has received $3.3 million from Johnson & Johnson as a member of the board of directors since 2013, SEC filings also show. McClellan also consults for the new pharmaceutical arm of the alternative investment management company Blackstone, which invested $750 million in Moderna in April 2025.
Gottlieb and McClellan did not respond to requests for comment. Ostroff could not be reached for comment.
FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Director Vinay Prasad outlined the higher standards and shared the results of an internal analysis validating 10 reports of children’s deaths following the COVID-19 vaccine in a Nov. 28 memo to staff. He called for introspection and reform at the agency.
The NEJM letter criticizes Prasad for cracking down on a practice called “immunobridging” that infers vaccine efficacy from laboratory tests rather than assessing it through real-world reductions in disease or death. The FDA under the Biden administration expanded COVID vaccines to children using this “immunobridging” technique, extrapolating vaccine efficacy from adults to children based on antibody levels.
Norman Sharpless — who in addition to previously serving as acting FDA commissioner also served as the head of the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute — consults for Tempus, a company that collaborates with COVID vaccine maker BioNTech. He has helped steer $70 million in investments in biotech through a venture capital firm he founded in November 2024. Sharpless also disclosed $26,180 in payments in 2024 from Chugai Pharmaceutical, a Japanese pharmaceutical company that markets mRNA technology among other drugs, on OpenPayments.
“I was grateful for the opportunity to serve as NCI Director and Acting FDA Commissioner in the first Trump Administration, and strongly support many of the things President Trump is trying to do in the current Administration,” Sharpless said in an email.
Margaret Hamburg, another former FDA commissioner and signatory of the NEJM letter, has since 2020 earned $2.8 million as a member of the board of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, which markets RNA interference (RNAi) technology.
Hamburg did not respond to a message on LinkedIn.
Most signatories disclosed income from biotech companies testing experimental cancer treatments. These products could face tighter scrutiny under Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist long wary of rubberstamping pricey oncology drugs — which Prasad points out often cause some toxicity — without plausible evidence of an improvement in quality of life or survival.
The former FDA commissioners disclosed ties to Sermonix Pharmaceuticals Inc.; OncoNano Medicine; incyclix; Nucleus Radiopharma; and N-Power, a contractor that runs oncology clinical trials.
Andrew von Eschenbach, who like Sharpless formerly served both as FDA commissioner and the head of the National Cancer Institute, disclosed stock in HistoSonics, a company with investments from Bezos Expeditions and Thiel Bio seeking FDA approval for ultrasound technology targeted at tumors.
Some FDA commissioners who signed onto the letter opposing changes to vaccine approvals have ties to biotechnology investment firms, namely McClellan, who consults Arsenal Capital; Janet Woodcock, who consults RA Capital Management; and Robert Califf, who owns stock in Population Health Partners.
Califf did not respond to an email requesting comment. Woodcock did not respond to requests for comment sent to two medical research advocacy groups with Woodcock on the board. Eschenbach did not respond to a LinkedIn message.
The two signatories without pharmaceutical ties may find their judgement challenged by the FDA investigation into COVID-19 vaccine deaths, having either implemented or formally defended the Biden administration’s headlong expansion of vaccines and boosters to healthy adults and children.
David Kessler executed Biden’s vaccination policy as chief science officer at the Department of Health and Human Services, helping to secure deals for shots with Pfizer and Moderna.
Meanwhile Jane Henney chaired a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report published in October 2025 that praised the performance of FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) vaccine surveillance during the pandemic — underwritten with CDC funding.
That assessment clashes with that of a Senate report, citing internal documents from FDA, finding that CDC never updated its vaccine surveillance tool “V-Safe” to include cardiac symptoms, despite naming myocarditis as a potential adverse event by October 2020, and that top officials in the Biden administration delayed warning pediatricians and other providers about the risk of myocarditis after their approval in some children in May 2021, months after Israeli health officials first detected it in February 2021. The Senate investigation named Woodcock, a signatory of the NEJM letter, as one of the FDA officials who slow-walked the warning.
AUTHOR
Investigative Reporter
RELATED ARTICLES:
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.
By Majority Report
This Isn’t About Gender. It’s About God.
Eleven-year-olds are the target audience, and that is no accident.
A middle school in Bethesda, Maryland, chose children barely out of elementary school to begin teaching them that their bodies may be wrong and that the Creator who made them cannot be trusted.
The lesson was delivered to sixth graders at Westland Middle School during what administrators called “Transgender Awareness Week.”
The school insists the goal was awareness and respect. But what students were actually taught runs far deeper than manners or kindness.
Beneath the language of inclusion sits a message that strikes at the heart of creation itself and, by extension, at God.
According to materials obtained and reported by Fox News, sixth graders were shown a 12-page slideshow that instructed them on how to think about gender and identity.
Students were told that gender is “who you feel you are,” not something grounded in biology. They were taught to distinguish between sex and gender. They were introduced to the concept of nonbinary identity and given tips for identifying as nonbinary.
They were asked to discuss how people know whether they are a “girl” or a “boy,” and why the first thing announced about a newborn baby is the baby’s gender.
Videos were played during the presentation, including one from a nonbinary online creator who explained how to “bind” breasts. Binding refers to wrapping and flattening the chest to appear less feminine, a practice that carries real physical risks and is deeply controversial even among medical professionals.
This material was presented to children who are just entering puberty.
School officials responded with the familiar script.
The lesson, they said, was about awareness, respect, and teaching students to support peers from different backgrounds and lived experiences. Middle school, they explained, is a time when questions come up, and schools must reinforce that bullying and harassment are unacceptable.
No parent disputes the need to teach kindness.
But kindness does not require instructing children to doubt their own bodies.
Respect does not require ideological coaching.
And preventing bullying does not require teaching eleven-year-olds that biological reality is optional.
This is where the real story begins.
These lessons are not neutral. They are not value-free. They carry a worldview, and that worldview has unavoidable theological implications.
Children are being told that the body can be wrong.
That creation can misfire.
That identity comes from feelings, not from design.
If God exists, this teaching implies He either makes mistakes or intentionally traps children in the wrong bodies. And if that is true, then God is not trustworthy. Or worse, He is cruel.
The alternative message is even starker. If there is no Creator at all, then there is no order, no purpose, no meaning beyond self-definition.
Either way, the conclusion is the same. Creation cannot be trusted. Authority does not come from above. Truth comes from within.
That is not education. That is theology.
Most adults can see through ideological language. Children cannot.
Eleven- and twelve-year-olds are still forming their understanding of reality. They are impressionable. They are vulnerable. They are searching for answers about who they are and where they fit.
When schools introduce radical identity concepts at this age, they are not merely offering information. They are shaping how children interpret their own confusion, discomfort, and everyday developmental struggles.
That concern was voiced plainly by Defending Education, which monitors ideological activism in schools.
Its communications director, Erika Sanzi, described the lesson as cult-like and warned that while some children will shrug it off, others may be pushed onto a path from which they may never fully return.
That warning should not be dismissed. Identity confusion introduced during childhood can echo for decades.
What happened in Bethesda is not an isolated mistake. It is part of a national pattern.
School districts increasingly frame radical gender ideology as compassion, while quietly introducing concepts that undermine family beliefs, religious convictions, and even basic biology.
Parents are told not to worry. God is never mentioned. Faith is never discussed.
But the message is unmistakable.
Your body is suspect. Creation is negotiable. Meaning is self-made.
That belief system does not come from science, but from ideology and how you feel.
And it is being taught to children who still need hall passes to use the restroom.
The question is no longer whether these lessons are appropriate.
The question is whether parents will accept a public school system that teaches children, implicitly or explicitly, that creation itself is a mistake, that God is cruel, that the Almighty cannot be trusted.
Because once a child is taught that their body lies, the One who created it is recast as a monster.
And that lesson, once planted, is tough to undo.
AUTHOR
Martin Mawyer is the President of Christian Action Network, host of the “Shout Out Patriots” podcast, and author of When Evil Stops Hiding. Follow him on Substack for more action alerts, cultural commentary, and real-world campaigns defending faith, family, and freedom.
©2025 Majority Report. All rights reserved.
Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.
By Majority Report
While the giants gamble everything on trillion-dollar Gigafactories, a quiet rebellion is forming that could reshape who survives the age of artificial intelligence.
The tech world is racing toward a breaking point.
In our last report, we explained why a Big Bang is coming to artificial intelligence.
The industry is scaling models past the limits of physics, electricity, and economics. The cost curves are breaking. Private labs are burning cash at a pace never seen in the history of technology. And most have no clear path to ever recoup their money.
Across the world, tech giants are racing to build colossal AI Gigafactories designed to train frontier models at the scale of nations.
These facilities consume enough power to light entire cities. Their price tags run into the billions. They represent a kind of technological desperation. Bigger is the only strategy they have left, an approach that mirrors Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon: Success or death.
But there is a question almost no one in the mainstream press seems willing to ask.
If this runaway race ends in bankruptcy for the major AI labs, what happens to the tech billionaires who were smart enough to avoid the scaling war?
What happens to Musk? What happens to Bezos? What happens to the builders who no longer control the center of the AI universe?
The answer is emerging in plain sight.
A rival revolution is forming.
And it could be the escape route the old titans have been waiting for.
While AI giants pour billions into clusters that may never pay for themselves, another movement is accelerating.
It is called Physical AI. It is the marriage of robotics, world models, and machine intelligence that can interact with the real world.
Think Rosie the Robot, stripped of comedy and upgraded with superhuman perception, speed, and autonomy.
Rosie is not about chatting. She is about doing. Doing your laundry. Walking your dog. Cooking your food. Bringing you a nighttime snack. She is something people instantly understand, something that can be sold, monetized, and welcomed into everyday life.
That is a very different proposition from an AI locked inside a Gigafactory, trained to out-reason the world’s brightest minds, plot the course of nations, and optimize every minor and major decision in human life.
How do you sell that to John and Jane Doe? How do you explain its value? How do you justify its cost?
Physical AI feels helpful. Gigafactory AI feels abstract, distant, and unsettling. And that difference matters more than most people realize.
In other words, Physical AI rewards everyone, not just those who seek to control everyone. This is a significant pivot in artificial intelligence, one that the Gigafactory builders may one day wish they had seen coming.
AI researchers are shifting away from giant text models and toward world models that can understand the environment as humans do. These systems are trained in massive physics simulators.
They can pilot helicopters through wildfire smoke. They can deliver medical supplies. They can weed entire fields. They can manipulate the real world rather than describe it.
We are entering the first global competition to give AI a body.
And that changes everything.
The Gigafactory arms race has only two possible outcomes.
Either governments take control of the largest AI labs, or these labs collapse under their own weight. Microsoft and Google can absorb losses of that magnitude. Most others cannot.
But Musk and Bezos can leapfrog the meltdown by shifting to Physical AI.
Physical AI has lower compute requirements. Its value comes from deployment, not scale. It builds machines that work in factories, farms, hospitals, and disaster zones.
It is the real-world version of AI. It is also much harder for governments to regulate because it involves hardware, private robotics labs, and distributed autonomy.
It gives Musk and Bezos a battlefield where brute-force compute does not determine the winner.
It gives them a place to innovate without begging for H200 clusters.
It gives them a future outside the shadow of Microsoft and OpenAI.
Most importantly, it positions them ahead of the next phase of AI.
Because once digital models mature, the world will rush to endow them with physical capabilities. Someone will build the bridge between language models and action. Whoever controls that bridge will control an entirely new economy.
Physical AI is not a side project for them.
It is their way out.
Physical AI and digital AI are treated as two unrelated conversations. But they are converging fast.
And they are being driven by two factions of the tech world with completely different incentives.
The world is watching the AI meltdown at the top of the industry. It is not watching the billionaires quietly building the machines that will take AI out of the cloud and into the real world.
Once these two paths meet, the consequences will be historic.
This is the story almost no one is telling.
Below the fold, I explain why this split between digital AI and Physical AI may be the most dangerous technological shift of our lifetime, and how it aligns with the pattern of deception Scripture warns about.
The next phase of artificial intelligence will not simply talk. It will act. It will move. It will intervene in human spaces. And it will arrive under the control of private empires, outside public oversight, during the exact moment the world is distracted by the meltdown of the first AI race.
This is where the prophetic danger begins.
AUTHOR
©2025 Majority Report. All rights reserved.
Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.
By Family Research Council
It’s one thing to catch a local Chick-fil-A rebelling against Christian values — and quite another for headquarters to defend it. After this month’s revelation that an Orem, Utah location was publicly supporting same-sex marriage in a congratulatory post on Facebook (a post that’s still there), several disappointed customers reached out to corporate, hoping for an apology — or at least clarity — on what they saw as a public departure from the chain’s longtime beliefs. What they got instead was further confirmation that the Cathys’ beloved empire has lost its way.
According to an LGBT magazine in Salt Lake City, people who’ve complained about the post have gotten the following response.
Obviously, we’d expect a company rooted (at least formerly) in biblical values to serve everyone. That’s scriptural. But there’s a difference between selling a chicken sandwich to someone and celebrating their behavior.
Regardless, it’s absolutely baffling in America’s current pushback climate that any company — let alone a self-proclaimed Christian one — would openly admit to “embedding Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI)” in “everything we do.” Obviously, this isn’t a business caught unaware by a single rogue operator. This is a business with a deep and pervasive problem of activism.
As Megan Basham asked, “what’s going on here??” What indeed.
While skeptics are tempted to pin all of this on the Orem managers, that argument falls apart under the weight of the company’s other policies. If the local operators can’t declare, “I want to be open on Sundays,” how can they say, “I’ll message on something antithetical to Chick-fil-A’s beliefs”? Either the mission statement exists — “To glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us” — or it doesn’t.
Either way, the entire controversy is astounding. On what planet would consumers expect Chick-fil-A to be to the left of places like AT&T, Toyota, McDonald’s, Walmart, Amazon, and dozens more? It boggles the mind, the Political Forum’s Steve Soukup agreed. But, he was quick to point out, “It’s important to remember that Chick-fil-A is a privately held company. Consumer pressure can do a great deal to change corporate misbehavior, but often, shareholder pressure is even more potent, and I think this is one such case,” he observed.
“For years, social conservatives were buoyed in the culture wars by the ability of companies like Hobby Lobby to resist left-wing political trends and fads because of their private ownership. Chick-fil-A’s insensitivity to the current of cultural rebalancing represents the mirror image of that resistance,” Soukup lamented. “Robby Starbuck was wise to target left-leaning corporations with right-leaning customer bases because that gave his efforts immediate impact. Nevertheless, in Robby’s undertakings, the threat of shareholder frustration always implicitly backed up the threat of unhappy customers. That’s not the case with Chick-fil-A,” he said, “which appears to have decided, at least for the time being, to remain on the wrong side of the cultural-counter-revolution.”
Of course, in this instance, some would argue that Christians are the shareholders, and a company that’s held itself out to represent them is beholden to that same community. It’s why believers have been so disappointed by the moral failings that have plagued the brand since 2019. It’s also why they have the power to demand, with the same grassroots enthusiasm that forced the hands of Target and Anheuser-Busch, faithfulness to the standard Chick-fil-A has set for itself.
In the meantime, there’s plenty of puzzling about why the shift happened at all. Maybe, the Free Enterprise’s Stefan Padfield speculated to The Washington Stand, Truett’s grandson Andrew (now CEO) and his team “are true believers, in the sense that they wholeheartedly agree with things like discrimination in the name of anti-discrimination and men becoming women simply by saying so.” Or, he suggested, “the relevant decision-makers might be radical activists themselves or under the spell of some. … These types don’t really care if they destroy the business so long as they can pat themselves on the back for being ‘on the right side of history.’”
They could also be living under a rock, Padfield supposed, not realizing how “toxic DEI has become.” Or “they could be misguided opportunists who think marketing themselves as pro-DEI will somehow lead to greater returns. Regardless,” he said, “Chick-fil-A is free to embrace DEI — and we are free to eat elsewhere.”
Family Research Council’s David Closson is equally stunned by the chain’s departure from the Cathys’ legacy, but he had plenty to say about what the executive team is getting wrong. “When Chick-fil-A says it ‘embraces everyone,’ that’s faithful to Scripture,” he notes. “But to embrace contested identities — such as transgender identities or identities rooted in same-sex behavior — as morally legitimate expressions is something altogether different. A company grounded in Christian conviction should be able to love and serve every person without endorsing categories that contradict biblical truth,” Closson insists.
That’s why the statement about “‘embracing all people regardless of … sexual orientation or gender identity’ and its commitment to embedding DEI into ‘everything we do’ raises legitimate concern,” he stressed. “Diversity, equity, and inclusion frameworks in corporate America are not neutral. They typically operate from a moral vision that conflicts with the Christian understanding of creation, sin, identity, and human purpose,” Closson continued. “DEI, as commonly practiced, does not merely require treating all people kindly. It demands the affirmation of identity categories and behaviors Scripture calls believers to lovingly but firmly reject.”
As he underscored, “Christians can and should affirm kindness, hospitality, and equal treatment for all customers and employees. But love for neighbor never requires affirming what God calls sinful or endorsing identities that obscure rather than reflect His created design. A mission committed to glorifying God must be anchored in truth as well as compassion,” Closson urged. “When corporate statements blur that distinction, they drift from a biblical foundation toward a secular ethic that cannot sustain the Christian identity Chick-fil-A has sought to cultivate over the years.”
This is a company, he pointed out, that “sought to distinguish itself from other national brands by appealing to its founder’s Christian convictions. Unfortunately,” Closson added, “recent developments suggest that this commitment increasingly functions as marketing rather than sincere conviction.”
As a former manager of a North Carolina Chick-fil-A told TWS, “Many think that they hold to great values. I beg to differ. They uphold great standards of customer service — but that does not equate to values.”
That doesn’t mean the company can’t change. Look at the transformation we’ve seen from U.S. businesses that no one dreamed would shift to neutrality. Instead of clinging to obsolete DEI when the rest of corporate America has walked away, how about leaning into the faith-based identity that most loyalists already take for granted? Stop trafficking in this false idea of Christianity that offends. Move the vice president of diversity, equity, and inclusion to a charitable project, ask for moral compliance from every operator representing the brand, and most of all, stop being afraid of who you are and the convictions you were built to represent.
That, not wokeism, is how you honor Truett’s legacy. That, not compromise, is how you live out Chick-fil-A’s purpose.
AUTHOR
Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.
RELATED ARTICLE: California’s Newsom Goes All in on Trans Promotion
EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.
Partner with The Washington Stand to bring news from a biblical worldview to readers nationwide. From now until December 31, every gift will be doubled through our year-end Challenge Match.
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.
By Majority Report
And the fallout will reshape Big Tech, national security, and the American government itself.
Artificial intelligence is exploding so fast that even the companies building it admit they cannot control what happens next.
The public sees the shiny side of AI. Search engines that talk back. Photo editors that turn families into Christmas card masterpieces. Chat interfaces that feel like digital companions.
But behind the curtain, a storm is building that Big Tech does not want you to notice.
For the first time, prominent industry leaders are sounding alarms that the economic engine behind AI is unstable. They are talking about unrecoverable spending, power requirements that outstrip national grids, and an arms race that no private company can win.
And the bottom line is this.
A Big Bang is coming for AI.
When it detonates, the United States government will not be a spectator. It will be forced into the center of AI control, not because it wants to, but because national security will demand it.
Let us walk through what the insiders are whispering.
Over the past eighteen months, AI companies have poured historic sums into data centers, GPU clusters, and power contracts.
OpenAI and Microsoft have committed to long-term projects that total well over one trillion dollars. Google is racing to build global hyperscale sites. Amazon is transforming its cloud footprint to support models that double in computational demand every year.
IBM’s CEO bluntly said there is “no way” these companies can ever make this money back.
Anthropic’s leadership has accused the entire industry of “YOLO spending” billions on systems whose economic value has yet to materialize.
Even Google is now exploring solar-powered data centers in outer space because Earth-based energy cannot keep up.
This is not a thriving marketplace.
It is a desperate sprint.
The cost of AI is growing exponentially.
The revenue from AI is growing slowly, at best.
That is the mathematical definition of a bubble.
Upgrading to each new generation of models is not just expensive. It is crippling.
A single frontier model can require:
Even if Big Tech were to merge into a single mega company, the numbers would still not work.
The spending outruns the return. That is why smaller AI firms are collapsing. That is why consumer hardware companies like Crucial are shutting down entire product lines to feed the AI beast. That is why Meta is cutting the metaverse loose. Every resource is being vacuumed into AI.
The industry insiders see the wall coming.
They hope to hit it after everyone else.
This is the part the public has not connected yet.
AI has already become essential to American national security.
The Pentagon relies on it for threat analysis. Intelligence agencies use it for surveillance review, cyber defense, and predictive modeling. Homeland Security uses it to process border data.
What’s more, future battlefield systems, missile defense tools, and nuclear command simulations are being built around AI capability.
This means the United States government is now tethered to AI the same way it is tethered to satellites, aircraft carriers, and the electrical grid.
And if the companies behind AI begin to fail, the government cannot step aside and watch them collapse.
The United States would be forced to intervene.
Not because it wants control.
But because national security requires stability.
This is the part most people do not see.
The artificial intelligence explosion has outgrown the private market. The private sector cannot sustain it. But the government cannot afford to lose it.
A takeover becomes inevitable.
Here is what the transformation would look like. It will not be a dramatic seizure. It will be a slow absorption.
When the private AI boom collapses under its own weight, a new, government-centered AI ecosystem will form in its place – because it must.
This is the Big Bang.
The blast destroys the old structure.
The heat and debris assemble into something new.
And whether we like it or not, the United States will become the steward of the most powerful technology ever created.
Part Five: The Power Shift That Will Change Everything
Paid subscribers get the deep analysis here, so let us look at what happens once the government becomes the anchor holding AI in place.
AUTHOR
Martin Mawyer is the Founder of Christian Action Network, based in Lynchburg, VA.
©2025 Majority Report. All rights reserved.
Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.
By John Droz, Jr.
One of my faithful readers (W. van Snyder) recently wrote an important book: Where Will We Get Our Energy: A Comprehensive System Examination. As it turned out, another reader here (Dr. Jon Boone) emailed him an insightful and entertaining commentary. I’m reposting this below…
Van: Thanks for recommending your book.
Over the last month, I’ve read portions of it as I found time, assessing your content in terms of what I have learned over the last two decades. Bottom line: You produced a well documented, comprehensive, take down of the renewables ballyhoo (something I did nearly 20 years ago in my MDPSC wind testimony), eviscerating particularly the wind energy baby—along with its bathwater.
Your prose style is both pithy and entertaining; your rhetoric, compelling; and your blend of rather abstruse mathematics with down home explanation is deftly informative. For example, I loved the way you described the development of the formula for converting wind energy into electricity, quickly getting to the fly in wind’s soup: V3!
In short, you showed that the renewables du jour are a dysfunctional, very costly, solution to a non-existent problem. At grid scale, wind can neither be a functional additive nor an alternative energy source. Rather, it’s a supplement that requires a great deal of supplementation for grid integration, in the process continually subverting its reason for being.
The climate change farrago is a super-charged proposition that mocks the scientific method, as you so correctly demonstrate. It’s full of definitional slips and slides and, as currently formulated, can never genuinely be falsified, even though it is false. Your narrative excursion about nuclear is up to date and informative.
I’ve recommended your book widely.
Although I agree with all your conclusions, I nonetheless want to provide some food for your thought on the wind menu, addressing:
On the backup issue, the notion that wind volatility is something in need of “backup” seems to be a minor wind howler. Yes, grid reliability and security demand that all generating plants have redundancy built in, hence the idea of backup as a conventional industry term of use. However, backup overwhelmingly means a reserve or substitute for the real thing, often in the form of an understudy or a computer file. Or it can mean support for a much larger object or activity. (Let’s avoid here the notion of backup as a clogged drain.)
In the first case, the backup is sufficiently like the original (what is backed up) that performance should not be markedly corrupted. A second-string quarterback should in virtually all-important respects be able to do what the first-string quarterback does. Ditto for an understudy forced into mainline service because of illness to the diva.
In the second case, a backup buttress to an architectural feature plays a small role in the scheme of things, nice for security to be sure, but nonetheless, it is a minor part of the whole. Although it is a proactive measure in terms of ultimate security, it is mainly reactive in function.
The nature of wind variability, which routinely changes its output 5% or more at every five-minute interval and occasionally widely alters what it delivers in a very short time, means that wind is a wayward fish to conventional generation’s bicycle; it is a completely different creature both in degree and kind.
Given that wind generates an average of only a fourth of its full capacity annually, nearly 75% of that capacity must therefore consist of conventional generation—in order to keep supply matched to demand. Given that 10-15% of the time it produces nothing, then 100% of its full capacity must be taken over by conventional machines. The truth is that wind can only be a minor ingredient in a much larger fuel mix—but much like a fly in soup, which provides, like wind, problematic nutritional value. You could eat it. But why would you want to?
Given the erratic, skittering nature of its delivery, wind cannot merely be “backed up” by a slightly corrupted version of itself. Quite the contrary. It is as if wind is the whacky substitute requiring the first team, the diva, to make it functional. In the best Orwellian newspeak fashion, it is the backup that does virtually all the important work—but in a much more inefficient fashion. How would the world’s best actor squelch, live onstage, a drunken understudy who continually spoke lines from another play?
Words are important if they are to impart accurate meaning. To say that wind requires backup is to pervert both language and meaning, despite its bellyfeel quality. Although language is slippery, it should not be that quicksilver. Wind machines must always be ENTANGLED with proactive but inefficiently operating conventional machines through the entire extent of any wind machine’s full capacity.
On the issue of wind providing a certain percentage of electricity to a grid system, there is implied in this idea that the grid is therefore using less conventional power plants, particularly fossil fired, because wind is displacing them. This is of course a reasonable conclusion.
However, this is yet another of those situations where face value accurate facts don’t tell the larger context truth of things. As you surely know, there is a front and back end to wind generation. At the front end, wind energy must displace existing generation to keep the grid balanced. However, at the back end, wind’s continuous variability must be followed and balanced by conventional generation, typically fossil-fired. Thermal plants deployed as wind balancers are operating much more inefficiently in this role, consuming more fuel in the process than they otherwise would.
Here’s where the situation gets more than weird in terms of truth telling and it involves the use of imports (thanks for discussing them in your text). Let me urge you to read pages 6-13 of my paper, Overblown, where I discuss my findings about this regarding the grids in Texas and Colorado, examining claims by the wind industry that wind output had caused a reduction in overall conventional generation.
Turns out that the amount of imported generation, which was not mentioned as being part of the total generation mix, more than compensated for the reductions in the grids’ conventional generation use. In the cases of both grids, there was actually a slight increase in the use of conventional generation overall, despite a lot of wind on the system.
In all my years of looking, I have not found—anywhere—that wind generation has caused any reductions in the use of conventional power plants and their fuels. In truth, the more wind, the greater demand for fossil fuels, all things considered.
No need to respond. I haven’t done much energy related work for some while. So good to see you doing such excellent work. Trust you’ll continue in the wake of Trump’s energy agenda, providing intellectual ballast in support until the wind mess withers away from its well-deserved fate: unbelief.
Many cheers! Jon Boone
©2025 John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I offer incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, 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?
By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
the Trump administration affirmed its support for the four Lower Snake River hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest.
CFACT’s Conservation Country series, particularly our investigative report from September 2024, highlighted the benefits of this energy source, going directly to Ice Harbor Dam in eastern Washington.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright said of his visit to Ice Harbor: “Hydroelectric dams have provided affordable and reliable electricity to millions of American families and businesses for decades. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, they will continue to do so!”
WATCH: The Dam Truth: Hydroelectric Powers the Pacific Northwest
Our Lower Snake River Dam investigation uncovered some inconvenient “dam” truths. Dam breaching would lead to phasing out reliable hydroelectric power for electricity produced by intermittent solar and wind. Transportation of goods by barge would stop. And most “daming” of all, migratory salmon — an anti-hydro scapegoat — aren’t threatened by these power plants. Our report revealed marine mammals like voracious killer whales and sea lions pose a far greater threat.
In sum, the environmental trade-offs far outweigh the promised “benefits” of dam replacements.
CFACT is proud to have played a small but pivotal role in promoting hydroelectric power in the Northwest. However, there are numerous stories across America that also require attention. That’s where CFACT’s Conservation Country series comes into play.
Conservation Country specializes in shining a light on property rights, wildlife, and government abuses, as well as showcasing examples where things are done right — in other words, true conservation success stories.
Through this project, the CFACT team is fighting to change the narrative on terms like “environmental protection” by infusing it with sound science and free-market principles. With Team Trump in office, now is an especially good time to press the advance!
For nature and people too.
©2025 Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. All rights reserved.
By Editorial Board – DrRichSwier.com
In this episode, we dive into the three massive themes that will define the AI landscape in 2026. While 2025 was the year of infrastructure—where Hyperscalers like Google and Amazon poured money into chips and data centers—2026 marks the shift to mandated business adoption. Rich explains why the “experimental” phase is officially over and why the days of “analysis paralysis” must end if businesses want to survive.
We break down the hard reality of the coming “startup churn,” discussing why 95% of early AI startups (the “wrapper” companies) are likely to fail as tech giants vertically integrate those features directly into their cloud ecosystems. The conversation also highlights the emergence of a new “AI Service Layer”—consultants and providers who will bridge the gap between legacy systems and the new “genetic workflows.” Finally, we offer a practical framework for every business owner: stop overthinking the cost and simply treat your AI budget like the salary of your next most valuable hire.
10 Key Takeaways:
WATCH: 2026 AI Outlook: The Great Startup Churn & Enterprise Adoption
Interested in A.I.? Check out our podcast A.I. Guys. Subscribe to us on Apple, Spotify, YouTube (or others)
https://substack.aiguyspod.com
All links: https://lnkd.in/eXDpww6V
Spotify: https://lnkd.in/ee9h9GYB
YouTube: https://lnkd.in/etDvqQ7d
Apple: https://lnkd.in/epYT2GSi
Save time and money by adopting AI agents with raia. https://www.raiaai.com/
By Majority Report
World Models, Gigafactories, and the Quiet March Toward One-World Dominance.
Most people think AI is just a chatbot that helps write emails or answer trivia questions. They have no idea that a much deeper race is underway.
It is happening behind locked data centers, inside corporate labs, and across continents, as people build massive new AI factories before citizens even ask why they exist.
The headlines talk about ChatGPT and Gemini, but the real breakthroughs are happening in places the public never sees.
This is the race that will shape national power, the global economy, and the daily lives of everyone on earth. It is also a race most people do not know is happening.
For years, the world believed large language models would lead directly to artificial general intelligence. Just scale them up. Just give them more data. Just build bigger clusters. And BOOM: AGI.
Artificial general intelligence, or AGI, is the idea of an AI system that can learn, reason, and adapt like a human. It would not be limited to one task. It could understand problems across many fields, make decisions, plan, and apply knowledge in new situations.
In simple terms, AGI is the point where an AI stops being a tool and becomes a true problem solver that can think across domains the way people do.
Now the industry is quietly admitting something important. LLMs cannot reach real understanding. They cannot reason about the physical world. They cannot interact with reality.
They can only imitate patterns in text.
This is why the field is turning toward a new direction.
These new systems are called world models. If LLMs are brains trapped in a jar, world models are brains that can see, remember, predict, and act.
They learn how the world works.
They build internal maps of space and time.
They understand cause and effect.
They can eventually control robots, drones, vehicles, and physical infrastructure.
This is the path many scientists now believe leads to true AGI.
Yann LeCun, one of the founding fathers of deep learning, just left Meta to build a world-model startup. Meta chose not to invest. This surprised many people in the industry.
Meta is building its own AGI program called Super Intelligent Labs. Yet they let one of the most important thinkers in the field leave without backing his new vision.
Why? Because LeCun believes world models are the real path to intelligence. Meta is still betting on massive LLMs. Two philosophies, two roads, no peaceful way to combine them.
This moment may be remembered as a turning point in the AGI race. Companies that ignore world models might find themselves on the wrong side of history.
Meanwhile, Europe just announced it will build five AI gigafactories, each with about 100,000 AI chips. These are not chip manufacturing plants. They are colossal data centers designed to train frontier models at the scale of nations.
Europe is far behind the United States and China. It does not build advanced AI chips. Its best model, Mistral Large, cannot compete with American or Chinese systems. So Europe is trying to buy its way back into the race.
These gigafactories will be filled with NVIDIA hardware, not European technology. They may train non-European models. They represent both ambition and desperation.
A continent that once led the world in science is now trying to catch up before it becomes a digital colony of whichever power reaches AGI first.
With this level of computing power, Europe would be able to run continent-wide monitoring systems.
In practical terms, gigafactories give the EU the hardware necessary to manage and influence society at a level that would have been impossible even a few years ago.
While countries build AI supercenters and scientists leave major companies to start AGI labs, most people believe AI is harmless. They see playful chatbots and friendly assistants. They do not see:
• the hundred thousand chip clusters
• the energy demands that rival entire nations
• the robots learning to navigate human environments
• the quiet race to build AI that understands the real world
• the political scramble to control the next dominant intelligence on earth
By the time the public wakes up, these systems will already be embedded in everything from economics to defense.
Rapid technological change without public understanding is dangerous.
Scripture teaches that deception often works by appearing helpful, intelligent, and wise. The final global systems described in prophecy rely on influence, persuasion, and control.
Technology that understands people and interacts with the world will make it easier to build those systems.
We are watching the scaffolding go up. AI is moving from conversation to action. From imitation to understanding. From virtual worlds to the real one.
AUTHOR
Martin Mawyer is the Founder of Christian Action Network, based in Lynchburg, VA.
©2025 Majority Report. All rights reserved.
Please visit the Patriot Majority Report substack.
By John Droz, Jr.
The physical health of Americans is simply atrocious. For example, over 75% of American adults have at least one chronic disease, and the rate of child illnesses continues to grow. Considering our knowledge, scientific advancements, financial resources, etc, this is unconscionable.
The good news is that many people and groups (like RFKjr, MAHA Action, etc.) are now aggressively chipping away at this huge elephant-sized issue. I am in full support of these efforts, and (despite being time-challenged) religiously watch MAHA Action’s 1-hour weekly meeting. It rarely disappoints. (You can join, for free, here.)
That said, I have one major beef.
No one is seriously addressing the underlying mental part of this health crisis. I don’t mean mental illnesses, but rather mental ability. We can provide citizens with boatloads of great information, but if they can’t properly process it, what good is it?
Yes, to truly fix this crisis we need many more citizens to be Critical Thinkers!
Interestingly, medical people (and other good souls) immersed in trying to solve parts of our health crisis repeatedly say things like “We need to change the public’s thinking!” yet they don’t get this connection…
The human body is a collection of parts working together in various systems.
These unique elements range from relatively passive parts like a bone in your little finger to very active parts like your heart.
These complex systems range from the respiratory system to the circulatory system to the digestive system to the endocrine system.
The sophistication of these parts and systems is a major differentiation between animals and plants.
A key difference between humans and other animals is that humans have a much more advanced brain.
A human illness is a serious degradation of one or more parts or systems.
The human brain is designed for thinking critically. For example, young children are naturally inquisitive, which is a clear indication that they are developing their critical thinking skill — which is rooted in asking questions.
K-12 schools should be focused on maturing this powerful skill, which is a cornerstone of what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Instead of making this a priority, almost all US K-12 schools actually infect children with a mental illness: lemmingitis. (See my earlier related commentary.) This disease occurs when the brain’s healthy and naturally occurring critical thinking is purposefully replaced by conformity.
The result? Such a brainwashed person now has herd mentality, which means that they are not much different from many animals. Thus, the term sheeple.
Surprisingly, much of psychology (and many other treatments of what we call mental illnesses, e.g., depression) can often be traced to a lack of critical thinking skills. This results in those victims making poor decisions (regarding diet, exercise, drugs, relationships, and much more).
So, when we talk of mental illness, lemmingitis should be at the top of our list.
Put another way, the number one thing to significantly reduce Americans’ chronic illnesses is to nurture their inherent Critical Thinking ability, starting when they are youngsters.
We need to fix what goes into people’s minds before we can fix what goes in their mouths.
Put another way: until we make major inroads to restoring the critical thinking skills of Americans (e.g., starting in K-12), we have little hope to successfully restore the health of our nation.
©2025 John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.
I offer incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, 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?
By Editorial Board – DrRichSwier.com
In this episode, we dive into the massive shift happening in software development—moving from simple code completion tools to fully autonomous “agentic layers.” Rich explains that while many “old school” developers fear AI or dismiss it because it isn’t perfect yet, they are missing the bigger picture. The industry is transitioning away from developers as mere “doers” who hammer the nails, to architects who manage intelligent agents that act as collaborators on the code base.
We break down the practical reality of this shift, highlighting how AI is already a superior debugger capable of scanning millions of lines of code in milliseconds to find errors that would take humans days. The conversation moves beyond basic prompt engineering to the concept of training agents on your specific schema, database, and user guides. This allows not just developers, but product managers and support teams, to “collaborate” with the codebase, effectively democratizing technical problem-solving.
This transformation serves as a wake-up call for the development world: the “human in the loop” is the new standard. We discuss why waiting for AI to be “perfect” is a losing strategy that will leave you behind, as AI-first projects are already seeing 100x acceleration.
10 Key Takeaways:
WATCH: AI in Development: The Shift from “Doer” to “Manager”
Interested in A.I.? Check out our podcast A.I. Guys. Subscribe to us on Apple, Spotify, YouTube (or others)
https://substack.aiguyspod.com
All links: https://lnkd.in/eXDpww6V
Spotify: https://lnkd.in/ee9h9GYB
YouTube: https://lnkd.in/etDvqQ7d
Apple: https://lnkd.in/epYT2GSi
Save time and money by adopting AI agents with raia. https://www.raiaai.com/
By The Daily Signal
Just by living in 21st-century America, you have a lot to be thankful for.
You live in the richest country in the history of the world—and one of the freest. Despite what the left claims, the benefits of wealth aren’t limited to the 1%. The amenities most people take for granted—a vehicle, washing machine, hot water on demand—would have been unimaginable luxuries for most of human history. Among poor families in America, significant majorities have air conditioning systems, televisions, microwaves and smartphones.
We’ve come a long way from what the Pilgrims had to celebrate at the first Thanksgiving. Over half of the settlers had died during the previous winter. The remaining settlers were grateful for a harvest that would help them survive the upcoming winter.
Today, most people are concerned with how many servings of turkey they can eat while still having enough room for pumpkin pie.
It’d be impossible to list all the changes over the last four centuries that have turned scarcity into opulence. The bravery and sacrifice of members of the military are near the top of the list.
So is the fossil fuel industry.
You didn’t have to hunt your turkey, kill it and clean it. A farmer did that on a farm powered primarily by fossil fuels. A truck powered by fossil fuels drove it to your supermarket. Your supermarket used fossil fuels to keep its lights on, its freezer cold and its credit card readers humming. You used fossil fuels to drive there and buy it. That’s true even if you have an electric car, because electric cars plug into an electric grid mostly powered by coal and natural gas. Fossil fuels will also heat the oven used to cook your turkey. The lights you turn on during Thanksgiving dinner, the TV you use to watch football and the dishwasher you use to clean up all run primarily on fossil fuels.
Renewable energy gets all the publicity, but wind and solar power generated only about 14% of the nation’s electricity in 2023. Fossil fuels generated 60%, with nuclear and hydropower generating over 24%.
When the Pilgrims got cold, they had to chop wood and burn it. Today, you push a button on your thermostat. Going to see family? Airplanes use fossil fuels. The iPhone you use to FaceTime Grandma wouldn’t exist without the power provided by fossil fuels.
This doesn’t mean fossil fuel companies are perfect. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t externalities to fossil fuel production, although it’s hard to take environmental alarmists seriously after decades of failed predictions. It doesn’t mean that someday a different fuel source, like nuclear power, won’t replace fossil fuels.
But without fossil fuels, Thanksgiving dinner and everything else in American life would look entirely different—and not in a good way.
Happy Thanksgiving.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
AUTHOR
Victor Joecks is a columnist for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Victor on X: @VictorJoecks.
By Vlad Tepes Blog
With the left, the point is never the point, the revolution is always the point.
So when politicians have an international conference on an issue which is scientific (or medical) in nature, and what readers of this site know is in fact, a Line of Operation supported not by science, but by media driven mass line narrative attacks against the public, then it is good to sit down with a scientist and set the record straight.
Determining that the science does not support the policies is important to do, to negate the propaganda in the minds of the target audience. Which is all of us of course.
But what ultimately will be more important as the state launches more and more attacks on reality, is to be able to identify them as they happen, and know their true purpose. Like the Mass Graves at Residential schools. Which is another mass line, (this time intended to negate the right to own property or set rational limits to immigration) and one that may not be questioned for fear of cancellation, and soon, actual criminal charges. Ministry of Truth stuff. Maybe even Ministry of Love.
As with Covid, the real issue should have been, and remains, ‘The state does NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to implement ANY of the measures it did against the public.’
In other words, the state made up a pseudo-crisis, partly real or totally imagined, which they then claimed justified exceeding state powers by orders of magnitude to mitigate. The point was obviously the power grab, as it had nothing to do with the claimed issue.
To call the new powers Ultra Vires would be an understatement.
To call them the first major wave of a communist revolution would be exactly to the point.
Canada at one point even implemented the ultimate negation of basic rights of a free people. The destruction of the right of exit. You could not leave the country without submitting to experimental mRNA injections and you had to have proof that you did, just to leave. This is not the stuff of a republic. This is the ultimate test of a communist polity. As the old saying goes, free nations have walls to keep people out. Communist nations have walls to keep people in.
So it was refreshing to sit down with Tom Harris and go over both the facts of the claims made by those who use climate as a way of destroying Western industry and liberties, as well as the consequences of agreements signed by nations that flew their private jets into the Brazilian jungle to force there rest of its to give up our cars.
Tom Harris on Brazil COP 30 climate conference Nov 28 2025
Tom Harris: All The Facts You Need To Debunk ‘Climate Change’ Scammers
RAIR Exclusive Interview with Greenpeace Founder Patrick Moore
RAIR Foundation has this article pertaining to this interview with Tom Harris as well.
EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog column posted by Eeyore is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
By John Droz, Jr.
What this chart shows are two important things:
What this graph does NOT reveal are some additional important matters:
So the bad news is that our energy policies have been heavily influenced by political agendas and outright ignorance (e.g., a lack of critical thinking).
The good news is that the current Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary, Chris Wright, is a very technically competent person who will be leading the U.S. in much more sensible directions.
©2025 John Droz, Jr. All rights reserved.
Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:
I offer incentives for you to sign up new subscribers!
I also consider reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.
My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, 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?
By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
Climate campaigners are flying home from Brazil in deep dejection following one of their worst failures ever to exploit a UN climate summit to advance their agendas.
Not only did climate radicals fail to get COP30 to agree to eliminate fossil fuels, every mention of fossil fuels and 1.5 degree climate targets was stricken from the COP’s “Global Mutirão” outcome document.
All the fig leaf campaigners came away with was a call to triple funding for climate “adaptation” and increase funding for “loss and damage.” Adaptation is UN-speak for a nation’s ability to cope with the impacts of the impending disasters projected by climate computer simulations (that have failed to materialize in reality). Loss and damage is UN-speak for compensation for bad weather experienced by poor nations (that is not caused by you).
However, even the inclusion of these funding calls represents failure. The COP30 outcome contains no concrete mechanisms to raise and distribute adaptation and loss and damage funds, nor does it contain enforcement mechanisms, revealing these as empty gestures. Similarly the promised “roadmap” for combating deforestation failed to materialize.
Read the COP30 outcome text at CFACT.org.
Members of team climate are wringing their hand and gnashing their teeth in anguish.
Climate activists are showing signs of actually giving up on the UN climate process!
After failing to accomplish anything meaningful after two weeks of negotiations, André Corrêa do Lago tried to save face by concluding COP30 by promising, “I as President of COP 30, will therefore create two road maps, one on halting and diverting deforestation, and another to transitioning away from fossil fuels in a just, orderly and equitable manner.”
The COP presidency’s twin “road maps” would take place outside the UN climate regime and would only include willing nations with no mechanisms for implementation or enforcement!
How’s that for toothless?
Colombia announced it would co-host a voluntary conference with the Netherlands on April 28–29, 2026, in Santa Marta, Colombia in which nations can discuss fossil fuel phaseouts and climate finance without the UN.
Operationally, the summit was a shambles. The host city of Belém was overwhelmed: unfinished highways carved through the rainforest, submerged power cables when it rained, a fire in the UN Blue Zone caused by dodgy wiring, last-minute diesel generators for air-conditioning, and catering that ran out of proper food and resorted to ice cream and mysterious “yellow juice” for dignitaries.
Brazilian lawyer André Marsiglia reports that, “the event was horrible, a total failure… contracts were left to the last minute and became emergency contracts to try and circumvent the bidding process.”
What would a Socialist government or a UN COP be without incompetence and corruption?
Perhaps the biggest shadow over the entire event was the empty U.S. seat. With President Trump keeping the American delegation home, the traditional whipping boy—and primary ATM—of the climate movement was absent. More importantly, without U.S. diplomatic muscle, there was no one left with enough leverage to pressure holdouts like Saudi Arabia into going along and accepting fossil-fuel phaseout language.
For those who believe sound science and affordable energy should prevail over ideological crusades, COP30’s collapse is not a tragedy—it’s a hard-won victory.
For nature and people too.
©2025 Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. All rights reserved.
By Marc Morano from Climate Depot
Trump blamed for failure of UN climate summit!
Newsweek: ‘Trump May Be Winning the Global Climate Debate’ — POLITICO: ‘The sad, sorry state of COP’ — European Govt official: ‘What the f*ck are we even doing here?’
Morano: ‘Failure of a UN climate summit is great news for humanity!’
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano’s statement on COP30’s ending:
“Thank You, Mr. President! Trump’s masterclass move not to send U.S. delegation, blamed for failure of UN climate summit!” – (See: POLITICO: ‘The U.S. absence allowed’ BRICS nations & petro-states to team up to derail COP30)
“I have attended in-person 21 out of the past 23 international UN climate/environmental summits. I can declare that after spending a week in Brazil at COP30, it was the biggest UN climate sh*t-show ever! Thank God, President Trump chose not to send an official U.S. delegation to the UN climate summit for the first time in its history! (I was part of CFACT’s self-declared ‘unofficial’ U.S. delegation in Belém, Brazil) America’s absence helped speed along the total irrelevance of this 30th annual UN climate summit.)
Massive energy-intensive cruise ships served as temporary hotels for delegates, while hamburgers, chicken, and other beef products were sold out at the UN food court (why were there no insects on the menu?!), and the venue suffered from leaking and crumbling infrastructure.
The conference morphed into CRAP30 when the toilets failed, with world leaders going hours without access to bathrooms, and eventually leading to long lines with no toilet paper allowed in the conference center toilets. The conference then morphed into Combustion30 as it succumbed to a massive fire that shut down the entire summit. A blaze spread through the hastily built temporary venue, which felt like a windowless circus tent inside.
To sum up, we have witnessed COP FLOP. But, we must never forget, failure of a UN climate summit is great news for humanity!” (LINK to Full COP30 Round-up)
Belém’Newsweek Mag: ‘Trump May Be Winning the Global Climate Debate’ – ‘Trump looked like he was winning the argument without even showing up’ at COP30
Thank You, Mr. President! Trump’s masterclass move not to send U.S. delegation, blamed for failure of UN climate summit! – POLITICO: ‘The U.S. absence allowed’ BRICS nations & petro-states to team up to derail COP30
“What the f*ck are we even doing here?” asked a European government official, nursing a caipirinha at a riverside bar halfway through the two-week conference held in a city on the banks of the Amazon delta.
The U.S. absence allowed a group of emerging economies that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — known as the BRICS —to team up with petrostates, isolating the more green-oriented European Union and refusing to countenance even a reiteration of past deals to end fossil fuels.
Watch: Morano on Fox from UN climate summit in Brazil talking the ‘corporate capture’ of climate, Gore calling Gates ‘silly’ & cutting trees for meaningless climate confabWatch:
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “The entire UN climate agenda has been warning about the evils and carbon footprint of air-conditioning, yet when they hold a climate summit in a tropical city, UN officials immediately scream for colder air-conditioning! You would think that the UN, which is trying to manage energy economies centuries into the future, would’ve been able to plan a climate summit that included adequate air-conditioning, functioning toilets, and insects on the menu.
UN officials chose to hold a climate summit that featured massive amounts of meat consumption (Why are insects not being served at UN COP30 food court?), air conditioning, and a climate highway that required clear-cutting of the tens of thousands of acres of Amazon rainforest for the summit. “
We’re Saved! AP reports that ‘Doctors dance to hip-hop at COP30 to demand a fossil fuel phase-out’!
Fight over definition of ‘gender’ hangs over Cop30: Calls for language ‘intersectionality’ – Push ‘gender-diverse’ people – ‘Hardline conservative states have pushed to define gender as ‘biological sex’
Climate Depot founder Marc Morano pointed to a 2012 tweet from Trump in comments to MRC Business, where the then-business mogul stated that “[t]he concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” As Morano summarized in ripping apart McCarthy’s pro-China reporting, “The fact that China wants to be a ‘climate leader’ and sent the second largest delegation to the UN climate Summit in Brazil — proves that Donald Trump’s 2012 tweet was completely accurate!”
Moreover, said Morano, “If the U.S. had not taken a complete U-turn away from the UN’s net-zero policies under Trump, China would have been headed toward global domination of energy, transportation, and mining.” Morano then completely flipped the script on McCarthy:
Morano: “With Trump’s leadership in rejecting the climate agenda, China loves playing the role of ‘climate hero’ in order to suck up all of the gullible countries that are deluded enough to empower China further.”
Pope Leo XIV Scolds U.N. Climate Summit COP30 for Insufficient ‘Political Will’
By Family Research Council
President Donald Trump and his administration are preparing to officially classify state-funded abortion, gender transition procedures for minors, and a host of other left-wing policies as human rights violations.
In its next annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. State Department will update what qualifies as a human rights violation, according to The Daily Signal. State Department officials will now record other nations’ gender transition procedures for children, government-funded abortions or abortion drugs and the annual number of abortions committed, arrests or “official investigations or warnings” targeting free speech or laws targeting “hate speech,” affirmative actions and diversity policies in the workplace, permitting mass immigration into other countries, policies coercing euthanasia and assisted suicide, religious liberty violations, and “medical abuses” such as forced organ-harvesting and report those instances as human rights violations.
“In recent years, new destructive ideologies have given safe harbor to human rights violations,” principal deputy State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott told The Daily Signal. “The Trump administration will not allow these human rights violations, such as the mutilation of children, laws that infringe on free speech, and racially discriminatory employment practices, to go unchecked. We are saying enough is enough.”
The State Department records the human rights violations of all United Nations member states and all nations receiving foreign aid and submits those records to Congress annually. Earlier this year, the State Department adjusted its human rights violation reporting to leave out “LGBTQI rights,” which made frequent appearances in State Department reports under the previous administration, and focused greater attention on threats to freedom of speech in Europe.
The new State Department approach to human rights comes as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released a 410-page report determining that gender transitions for children, referred to by transgenderism advocates as “gender-affirming care,” are based on “very low-quality evidence” and pose “potential or plausible harms” to children.
In comments to The Washington Stand, Joy Stockbauer, policy analyst at Family Research Council’s Center for Human Dignity, said, “It is so encouraging to see the Trump administration recognize abortions and transgender procedures for what they are: horrific affronts to human dignity, and violations of human rights.” She continued, “Under President Trump’s leadership, this policy sends a strong message that the United States, which leads the free world, will stand up for all human life.” Stockbauer added, “I pray that the administration continues to protect life both domestically and abroad, including by permanently terminating all avenues through which the United States funds abortions using taxpayer dollars within our own borders.”
Laura Hanford, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a primary drafter of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, told TWS, “The last administration distorted the historic mission of the State Department’s Human Rights infrastructure and Human Rights Report to aggressively advance gender ideology and abortion as so-called ‘rights.’” She explained, “Billions of dollars were poured into promoting this agenda. Obama and Biden removed the religious freedom section from the Human Rights Report and added an LGBTQ section, demonstrating their ideological priorities.”
“This new directive restores the appropriate focus on the established rights of religious freedom and free speech, and clearly takes a position against harm to the most vulnerable,” Hanford continued. “This includes protecting children from invasive and permanent procedures that are not evidence-based but ideological, as demonstrated in the recent HHS report on pediatric gender medicine, among multiple systematic reviews conducted by other nations,” Hanford noted. “It includes the unborn, whose right to life has always been championed by presidents on the right side of history. And it includes the vulnerable targets — even children — of the abhorrent state-sanctioned practice of ‘euthanasia.’”
AUTHOR
S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.
RELATED ARTICLES:
What Park East told us about mayor-elect Mamdani
Illegal Immigrants Fined $1.8M File Lawsuit against Trump Admin’s Immigration Agenda
Iran Contemplates Capital Evacuation amid Terror, Nuclear Obsessions
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.
By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
The first commercial nuclear plant started operation at Calder Hall in England in 1956. By 1970, reactors were in construction around the world. Many predicted that atomic energy would generate most of the world’s power by 2000. In 1973, President Richard Nixon stated, “It is estimated that nuclear power will provide more than one-quarter of the country’s electrical production by 1985, and over half by the year 2000.”
However, operational problems and environmental opposition would sway public opinion against atomic energy. Reactor failures at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, in Chernobyl, Ukraine in 1986, and at Fukushima, Japan in 2011, raised safety concerns. Rising costs from efforts to ensure reactor safety and disposal of nuclear waste limited new plant construction. The nuclear share of world electricity peaked in 1996 at 18%, dropping to about 9% in 2024.
Artificial intelligence (AI) now drives a rising demand for electric power. The high-tech firms, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and the newcomer OpenAI, are building data centers across the world. Since the start of 2024, the number of U.S. data centers has increased more than 50%.
To help meet the new AI power demand, the Trump administration now pushes for a nuclear resurgence. On May 23, President Trump signed four executive orders aimed at deployment of new reactors, strengthening the nuclear supply chain, and reestablishing U.S. industry leadership. In 2024, nuclear plants generated about 18% of US electricity. The presidential orders called for quadrupling U.S. nuclear capacity to 400 GW by 2050.
The power needed by artificial intelligence is huge. When data center servers that previously supported the internet and grid storage are upgraded to run AI, they require six to ten times more electricity. Meta’s Hyperion data center in northeast Louisiana, when completed, will consume twice as much power as New Orleans.
Artificial intelligence needs 24-hour, 7-day, always-on power, which intermittent wind and solar can’t provide. Companies that have committed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions view nuclear as a zero-emissions source to power AI.
Today, natural gas is the preferred onsite electricity source for new data centers in the United States. Over 200 gas-fired power plants are in planning or under construction nationwide, including more than 100 new gas plants in Texas alone.
Tesla is a solar and battery company, but last year, the firm installed 35 gas turbines to power its Colossus xAI data center near Memphis, Tennessee. Gas plants can be constructed in as little as two years at a small fraction of the nuclear cost.
Nevertheless, to help meet rising power demand, U.S. nuclear plants are being restarted or completed. Holtec International is restarting the plant in Palisades, Michigan, which was shut down in 2022. Constellation Energy and Microsoft agreed to restart the Three Mile Island #1 reactor in Pennsylvania, (not the unit that suffered the 1979 accident). Google and NextEra Energy plan to restart the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo, Iowa, which was shut down in 2020 after wind-storm damage. Last month, Santee Cooper signed a letter of intent with Brookfield Asset Management to complete construction of two reactors in South Carolina after construction was halted in 2017.
In October, the Trump administration signed an agreement with Cameco Corporation, Brookfield Asset Management, and Westinghouse to invest $80 billion in new or restarted large-scale nuclear plants. This government-industry partnership aims to boost the nuclear industry in the U.S. and abroad.
But large nuclear reactors continue to face cost, cycle time, and regulatory obstacles, compared to other sources. The most recently constructed U.S. nuclear plants, Vogtle units 3 and 4 in Georgia, took more than a decade to build and entered service in 2023, more than seven years late. The plants cost over $30 billion, more than $18 billion over budget.
Nuclear plants face stringent regulatory requirements. I recently spoke at a conference of plastic pipe manufacturers. An attendee told me that when he ships pipe to a typical factory, two pages of documentation are required, but that this rises to more than an inch of paperwork for pipe for a nuclear plant.
Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) aim to provide the cost and cycle-time reductions needed for nuclear resurgence. Traditionally, reactors were custom designed and built on-site with capacities of about 1,000 megawatts (MW). SMRs are being designed with capacities of 10ꟷ300 MW, small in size, and able to be factory-assembled and transported as a unit to a location for installation.
In addition to targeting cost and build-time breakthroughs, SMRs are being designed for wide application and improved safety. Rather than rely on the grid, tech firms plan to build SMRs on-site to power data centers. Small reactors may soon be used to power commercial ships, military bases, and rural communities. These small plants are designed to shut down automatically in the case of failure and to minimize nuclear waste.
In August, the Department of Energy selected ten companies for fast-track SMR development, with an aggressive goal of having three test reactors up and running by July 2026. Twenty-four US companies are pursuing the SMR market.
The nuclear resurgence also appears to be underway globally. About 80 companies from 19 countries are working on SMR designs. One SMR is operating in Russia, and one is under construction in China. Russia and South Korea have begun building commercial ships with small reactors.
Trump administration efforts to expand nuclear capacity face another obstacle. The U.S. nuclear fleet of 94 operating reactors was mostly built in the 1970s and 1980s and is rapidly aging. Thirty-one of the reactors are more than 50 years old and another 36 are more than 40 years old. These reactors will need to be refurbished along with new reactor start-ups to expand the U.S. nuclear capacity.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE AGE OF U.S. NUCLEAR PLANTS INFOGRAPHIC
In summary, the push for a nuclear renaissance must overcome two things. One is the need for major cost breakthroughs, so that developers can back their projects with ‘turnkey’ performance to meet quoted costs and completion dates. Second is the need for a reduction in federal regulations. If these can be accomplished, a real free market in commercial nuclear power may be possible where government subsidies are not needed.
This article originally appeared at Master Resource
AUTHOR
Steve Goreham is a speaker, author, and independent columnist on energy, sustainability, climate change, and public policy. More than 100,000 copies of his books are now in print, including his latest, Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.
EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Receive regular news, commentary, and analysis straight to your inbox.
POWERED BY
DrRichSwier.com | ThePricklyPear.org