WND

President Donald Trump’s doctor said Sunday the president “exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health” in a memo released by the White House.

Trump underwent his annual physical examination Friday, spending nearly five hours at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland, the Associated Press reported. United States Navy Capt. Sean P. Barbabella took note of Trump’s “active lifestyle” in the memo sent to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.

“President Trump’s days include multiple meetings, public appearances, press availability and frequent victories in golf events,” Barbabella wrote in the memo.

According to the memo, Trump weighed 224 pounds, and had a blood pressure of 128/74, with a resting pulse of 62 while scoring 30 out of a possible 30 on a cognitive test. The memo noted a scar from the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, during which Trump’s right ear was grazed by a bullet and “benign lesions” on his skin.

The memo also listed that Trump was taking two medications to control cholesterol, a cream for a skin condition and aspirin as a preventative measure.

“President Trump exhibits excellent cognitive and physical health and is fully fit to execute the duties of the Commander in Chief and Head of State,” Barbabella wrote. The physical was the first for Trump since he started his second term after succeeding President Joe Biden, whose health and cognitive abilities were widely questioned.

A Wall Street Journal article published Dec. 19, 2024, revealed White House aides “insulated” then-President Joe Biden, even from Cabinet members, as his health declined. The WSJ published similar articles prior to Biden’s July 21, 2024, decision to withdraw from the race, which generated pushback from some other media outlets.

Questions were also raised about the White House’s truthfulness about Biden’s health. On multiple occasions, Biden said he spoke with people who had died, including claiming to have spoken with former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who died in 2017, and former French President Francois Mitterrand, who passed away in 1996 on two occasions in February.

In September 2022, Biden asked for Republican Rep. Jackie Walorski of Indiana at a conference on hunger that took place several weeks after Walorski and two staffers were killed in a car accident.

Biden also suffered multiple falls during his term in office, including one at the Air Force Academy in June 2023, a fall while on his bike in June 2022 and tripping on the steps of Air Force One on multiple occasions. Biden took a different set of stairs onto the VC-25, a modified Boeing 747 used as Air Force One, among other concessions to his age in the later years of his administration.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PALM BEACH, Florida – President Donald Trump on Sunday took to social media to affirm “nobody is getting off the hook” when it comes to trade imbalances with the United States, as he blamed the national news media for inaccurate reporting.

“NOBODY is getting ‘off the hook’ for the unfair Trade Balances, and Non Monetary Tariff Barriers, that other Countries have used against us, especially not China which, by far, treats us the worst!” Trump exclaimed on Truth Social. “There was no Tariff ‘exception’ announced on Friday.”

“These products are subject to the existing 20% Fentanyl Tariffs, and they are just moving to a different Tariff ‘bucket.’ The Fake News knows this, but refuses to report it.

“We are taking a look at Semiconductors and the WHOLE ELECTRONICS SUPPLY CHAIN in the upcoming National Security Tariff Investigations.

“What has been exposed is that we need to make products in the United States, and that we will not be held hostage by other Countries, especially hostile trading Nations like China, which will do everything within its power to disrespect the American People. We also cannot let them continue to abuse us on Trade, like they have for decades, THOSE DAYS ARE OVER!

“The Golden Age of America, which includes the upcoming Tax and Regulation Cuts, a substantial amount of which was just approved by the House and Senate, will mean more and better paying Jobs, making products in our Nation, and treating other Countries, in particular China, the same way they have treated us.

“The bottom line is that our Country will be bigger, better, and stronger than ever before. We will, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller appeared on on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo to set the record straight about the status of electronic items, including computers, smartphones, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, wireless routers, USB flash drives, memory chips and memory cards.

“President Trump had a detailed plan from the beginning that’s being executed exactly as directed,” Miller said. “And unfortunately, some in the media are deliberately misportraying that plan.

Today, exclusively on @SundayFutures with @MariaBartiromo, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller @StephenM spoke about President Trump pursuing new trade deals. @FoxNews pic.twitter.com/garicgqLtH

— SundayMorningFutures (@SundayFutures) April 13, 2025

“There are no exemptions,” Miller explained. “Everyone pays at least the 20% and these particular components are being put through a separate process controlled by the Department of Commerce.”

“So this is a sophisticated, elegant, detailed plan to deal with Chinese economic aggression against the United States.”

Meanwhile, China on Sunday urged Trump to correct mistakes and heed “rational voices” on reciprocal tariffs, reports CNBC.

Beijing’s Commerce Ministry called any U.S. tariff exemptions a “small step” and pressed Trump to “completely abolish” the tariffs, which include a 145% duty on imports from China.

“We urge the U.S. to heed the rational voices of the international community and domestic parties, take a big stride in correcting its mistakes, completely abolish the wrongful action of ‘reciprocal tariffs,’ and return to the correct path of resolving differences through equal dialogue based on mutual respect,” the ministry said, according to a CNBC translation.

Trump authorizes 90 day pause on reciprocal tariffs, for a flat 10% tariff rate across the board, because so many nations have come to the table asking for a deal!

With the exception of China, for which the tariffs have been increased to 125%.

Trump is going to give every… pic.twitter.com/zIqetMj8Jk

— Clandestine (@WarClandestine) April 9, 2025

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

Topline: The Spanish-American War ended in 1898, but it took over a century for Congress to completely stop charging a telephone tax created to fund it. The tax was finally eliminated in 2006, once the war was a distant memory.

Americans spent $128.6 billion in total paying the tax, according to the IRS and Congressional Research Service.

It generated $5.9 billion in taxes in 2005, the most of any year. That’s one large phone bill: $9.8 billion in today’s money.

Key facts: The telephone excise tax was created in 1898 as a way to cover the federal budget deficit created by the war without imposing tariffs on other countries. Phone users had to make a “sworn statement” of how many lengthy phone conversations they had in a month and pay a tax of one penny for each.

Most Americans were unaffected. At the time, telephones were still a luxury item owned mostly by the rich.

“The tax raised $314,000 in 1900 and ended in 1901, but not for long. Congress revived it in 1917 and charged it almost every year until 2006, except for a pause from 1924 to 1932.”

The tax rate changed often until the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, which set a flat 3% tax on telephone bills.

Search all federal, state and local government salaries and vendor spending with the AI search bot, Benjamin, at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Critical quote: Rep. Ed Royce, the former Republican congressman from California, was a cosponsor of the bill that ended the telephone tax.

He said at the time, “Only Washington would think to tax talking. It’s so unbelievable that it’s a perfect candidate for ‘Ripley’s Believe It or Not.’

“I would think that after 102 years, we would have paid off the five months of the Spanish-American War. This tax should have ended with it. What else is there on the books? A surcharge for the Civil War? Maybe there’s a tariff on candles to pay for the Revolutionary War still being collected.”

Background: The telephone tax may be gone, but taxpayers are still paying for the technology in other ways.

The Federal Communications Commission saw its outlays jump from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $28.4 billion in 2024, an increase of 1,195%, OpenTheBooks found. The agency’s authorization to receive Congressional funding expired in 2020, yet lawmakers continue to allocate funds anyway.

Summary: The telephone excise tax may seem silly today, but there’s plenty of other absurd ways the federal government uses taxpayer money. Some are just as antiquated as a war from the 19th century.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

In September 1987, private citizen Donald Trump purchased a full-page ad in The New York Times demanding “a little more backbone” in America’s foreign defense policy. Four decades later, President Donald Trump’s recent implementation of reciprocal tariffs marks a pivotal moment in America’s pursuit of equitable trade.

And American energy will provide the backbone.

President Trump’s bold strategy is, in large part, made possible by the formidable strength of our nation’s energy sector. American energy provides the resilience and autonomy necessary to recalibrate global trade dynamics in favor of our workers and industries.

Ivory tower economists try to complicate the debate with PhD-level deflection, but the math is simple: If it’s “Made in the USA,” there is a zero tariff. And American energy is 100% American made.

Under President Trump’s leadership, the U.S. is on its way to reclaiming its position as a global energy powerhouse. This energy renaissance has not only ensured domestic energy security but has also endowed the nation with a strategic advantage in international trade negotiations.

Affordable and abundant energy acts as an economic stabilizer, mitigating potential disruptions that could arise from the imposition of tariffs. When energy is cheap, America can afford to fight for fair trade. Energy is America’s backbone and armor to defend itself on the global stage. This energy-driven resilience enables the U.S. to confront unfair trade practices head-on, fostering an environment where American industries can thrive without undue foreign competition.

Leveling the Playing Field for Failed Renewable Energy

The recent tariffs extend to “renewable” energy products, a sector where foreign manufacturers have historically dominated the U.S. market. By imposing these tariffs, the administration is ensuring that renewable energy technologies compete on a fair and equitable basis. If windmills and solar panels are ready to stand on their own without the taxpayers footing the bill, then this move is poised to invigorate domestic manufacturing of their components.

Empirical Evidence: Tariffs Strengthen the Economy

The efficacy of tariffs as a tool for economic strengthening is well-documented. A 2024 study examining the impact of President Trump’s first-term tariffs concluded that they “strengthened the U.S. economy” and “led to significant reshoring” in industries such as manufacturing and steel production. Furthermore, a 2023 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission found that these tariffs effectively reduced imports from China, stimulated domestic production, and had minimal effects on downstream prices.

While some critics claim tariffs may temporarily increase costs, it is essential to recognize the long-term benefits of fostering a robust domestic supply chain. Reducing reliance on foreign imports not only enhances national security but also insulates consumers from international market fluctuations and supply disruptions. This strategic approach aligns with the broader objective of achieving true energy independence across all sectors. These findings underscore the strategic value of tariffs in promoting domestic industry and safeguarding American jobs.

Energy Independence: Shielding America from Retaliatory Measures

A critical advantage of America’s energy dominance is its capacity to shield the nation from potential retaliatory measures by foreign entities. Creating a more self-reliant energy sector, the U.S. is less vulnerable to external pressures that could otherwise compromise its economic stability. This autonomy empowers the nation to pursue strong trade policies without the looming threat of energy supply disruptions or price manipulations by foreign producers. By  contrast, China imports nearly 70% of their oil including nearly 5% from the U.S., because they rely on other nations for their critical energy needs.

Moreover, the robust energy sector can serve as a foundation for broader manufacturing. Affordable energy is the key to reduced operational costs for manufacturers, enhancing their global competitiveness and encouraging industries that relocated abroad to come home. All of this before we even discuss the energy needs required to assure America becomes a leader in artificial intelligence. It will all require American energy and more of it.

President Trump’s implementation of reciprocal tariffs is a testament to the strategic synergy between energy dominance and fair trade. By harnessing the strength of our energy sector, America is well-positioned to confront unfair trade practices, promote domestic industry, and achieve a balanced and prosperous economic future. Our energy workers and companies are at the forefront of this endeavor, driving the nation toward self-reliance and fueling the manufacturing boom that lies ahead. This integrated approach not only secures America’s economic interests but also reaffirms its leadership on the global stage.

Larry Behrens is an energy expert and the Communications Director for Power The Future. He has appeared on Fox News, ZeroHedge, and NewsMax speaking in defense of American energy workers. You can follow him on X/Twitter @larrybehrens

I’ve been a working GOP political consultant for more than 40 years. One of the most amazing stories in politics in that time is the way the GOP in Pennsylvania has clawed back from a voter registration deficit of more than a million votes to essentially parity.

In the mid-2000s, Pennsylvania Democrats maintained a healthy voter registration edge of between 450,000-500,000 statewide. That’s what Republicans dealt with in the late U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter’s successful 2004 re-election campaign, which I managed, as he beat Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Hoeffel that fall by nearly 591,000 votes.

Later, in the Obama years, the Democrats’ statewide advantage ballooned to just above 1 million voters. Nevertheless, the state remained competitive for the GOP in statewide races, often because the conservative Democrats in Southwestern Pennsylvania at times voted for Republican candidates.

New registration numbers recently released show the Democratic advantage among active voters is less than 50,000: D+ 49,789 to be exact. (All the voter registration numbers cited here come via the non-partisan voter data firm, L2 Data, which gets its source data from the state and the 67 counties.) 

Here are the current registration stats, as of the beginning of March:

• 41.9% of PA voters are registered as Republicans
• 42.6% are registered as Democrats
• The remaining 15.5% are Independents, a grab bag of voters who are neither Republican nor Democrat.

In raw numbers, PA now sports: 3,414,974 Republicans, 3,464,763 Democrats, and 1,252,562 Independents

In a state with 8.13 million active voters, D+ 49.7k is essentially a tie. So, in the past 15 years or so, Pennsylvania Democrats have watched their voter registration advantage shrink from about 1 million to … zero. (PA designates a voter as ‘inactive’ if they haven’t voted for 5 years; if the voter does not vote in two subsequent federal elections, then the voter is cancelled.)

The Democratic advantage is nearly all contained within the 8 counties in the Philadelphia media market. As a group, the three exurban counties there – Lehigh, Northampton and Berks –are about even in registration. Democrats hold a solid advantage in the four collar counties and a huge advantage in the city itself. The Pennsylvania Democrats’ advantage in the Pittsburgh media market is a negligible 25,600.

The other four markets, plus the out-of-state counties, have GOP registration majorities.

• Here are the voter registration figures broken down by the state’s six indigenous TV markets:

1. Philly TV market: 3,361,516 total voters, or D+ 670,999 registration is 31.6/51.6/16.8% R/D/I
2. Pittsburgh TV market: 1,734,546 total voters, D+ 25,674 registration is 42.3/43.8/13.9% R/D/I
3. Harrisburg TV market: 1,283,684 voters, R+ 291,393 registration is 53.1/30.4/16.5% R/D/I
4. Scranton TV market: 902,915 total voters, R+ 140,496 registration is 50.6/35.1/14.3% R/D/I
5. Johnstown-Altoona TV market: 444,372 total voters, R+ 138,588 registration is 59.5/28.3/12.2% R/D/I
6. Erie TV market: 233,556 voters, R+ 19,848 registration is 47.2/38.7/14.1% R/D/I

• Out-of-state markets (six PA counties get their TV from out-of-state stations, i.e. NYC, Buffalo): 173,710 voters, R+ 56,559 Registration is 58.9/26.3/14.8% R/D/I

Of the top 10 most populous counties in the state, five are majority Democratic while five are majority GOP. The five majority Democratic counties are Philadelphia, Allegheny, Montgomery, Delaware, and Chester counties. The five majority GOP counties are Bucks, Lancaster, York, Berks, and Westmoreland counties.

To be clear, voter registration and voter behavior are two separate things, which the recent special election in Lancaster County demonstrated yet again. As I’ve long said, your voter registration status is a lagging indicator of your political sensibilities, but in the near term – perhaps even this year – Pennsylvania Democrats will wake up to the state having more Republicans.

The hearing wasn’t halfway through when the chairman walked away.

Inside the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room earlier this month, the head of the subcommittee on the Constitution, Sen. Eric Schmitt, stepped out as testimony on “the censorship industrial complex” was ongoing. He had an excuse: The Senate was voting on the nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, author of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration and later a plaintiff alleging government censorship in the lawsuit Missouri v. Biden, to lead the National Institutes of Health.

Quipped the chairman, now back behind the dais, “Who was the attorney general leading that?” Answering his own question about the lawsuit, he added, “Oh yeah, his name was Eric Schmitt. My glory days I suppose.” Schmitt had just voted to confirm his old client.

It was “the irony of all ironies,” and it was more evidence that the censors “are on the run,” Schmitt tells RealClearPolitics. His lawsuit, the one that temporarily blocked the Biden administration from communicating with social media companies, “was playing defense.” Those once censored are now ascendent, Republicans are now the party of free speech, “and now we are playing offense.” At least, according to Schmitt.

Another moment of ironic levity from the hearing:

“Mr. Chairman, just for the record when I was here alone, I was getting drunk with power,” joked Sen. Cory Booker, the Democrat who presided over the committee in Schmitt’s absence.

“Thank you for showing restraint,” the Missouri Republican replied.

The unspoken, and perhaps unrealized, subtext of the moment: The right is still furious that the left didn’t show any such restraint when the world went mad, allowing and facilitating what Schmitt describes as “the darkness that enveloped a core tenet of our American experiment.” Yes, the pandemic is over, but there won’t be any amnesty for infringing on free speech.

“This instinct that is on the left hasn’t gone away,” Schmitt says of the temptation to curb free speech. The difference, as he sees it, is that his opponents “just have fewer levers of power to do it.” Fast forward four years, he predicts, and another Democrat “will try to do it again.” His goal, then, is to shatter the aforementioned censorship industrial complex and scatter it to the winds. But first Republicans must define it. Democrats insist it does not exist.

The term was coined by author Michael Shellenberger to describe a shadowy network of ideologically aligned academics, Big Tech companies, NGOs, and government agencies, each with the stated goal of defending the democratic process but with the effect of undermining it. Their byword is “misinformation.” The commonality? Taxpayer funding. An example: The National Science Foundation awarded no less than 64 grants worth $31.8 million to countering “misinformation” and “disinformation.”

Schmitt likens it to nothing less than “a second state,” an apparatus that is “faceless” but motivated by “collective purpose,” a system with “dispersed power” but collective purpose operating beyond “the limits and liberties of our Constitution.” Stories of abuse come to hand easily for Republicans. Chafing under the yoke of alleged censorship has become intertwined with the core of their party identity.

When the New York Post broke the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020, detailing the overseas business dealings of the Biden family, they were not heralded as the New York Times had been in 1971 when that paper put the Pentagon Papers on the front page. Instead, they were censored.

The Stanford Internet Observatory, a now-defunct academic outfit funded by taxpayer dollars for the study of “abuse in current information technologies,” cautioned that the basis of the story might be part of a “hack-and-leak” operation. The Aspen Institute, which received taxpayer dollars, had held a “tabletop” exercise ahead of the election that year, attended by Facebook and Twitter executives, to prepare for the possibility of foreign interference. NewsGuard, a company that purports to evaluate the credibility of news outlets and previously received taxpayer dollars, dismissed the laptop story as “a hoax perpetrated by the Russians.”

Twitter listened. Under pressure from the FBI and Biden administration, the social media giant locked the account of the New York Post. Journalists who simply shared the story, like Jake Sherman, then of Politico, were suspended from the website until they deleted their tweets. Even Kayleigh McEnany, spokesman for the president, was similarly muzzled – during an election year no less.

But what was dismissed as a hoax was verified by the federal government. Years later, that is. Mum during the censorship of the New York Post, the Department of Justice prosecutors introduced the laptop as evidence in their case against Hunter Biden. The FBI had the laptop in their possession for more than a year. “They knew it was real, and they were working with these companies so that when this came out, it would be dismissed,” Schmitt complains.

It was not just one story. Opposition to medical face coverings, or support for the Wuhan lab leak theory, or objection to the vaccine mandate – and any number of lingering COVID controversies – all trigger an avalanche of raw anecdotes of censorship by social media at the behest of a shadowy network in the ether – funded by a bubbling glut of money built on what George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley calls a “a cottage industry of disinformation experts.”

Free speech was “commoditized,” censorship was “monetized,” and partisan advantage was taken often in the name of public health. “Suddenly, the market was awash with money for those who could offer systems or staff to combat viewpoints deemed misleading or false,” Turley testified.

Organizations such as NewsGuard and a British-based NGO called the Global Disinformation Index thrived. Both received federal funding, both leaned on Big Tech to deplatform alternate voices, and both launched pressure campaigns to push advertisers away from publications that even gave voice to dissent on anything from the election to the pandemic. It was, conservatives allege, government censorship with extra steps. Other times, there was a direct line.

Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters as much. She admitted the administration was actively flagging what they saw as problematic posts for Facebook to remove. “It is life and death,” Psaki told RCP in July of 2021. “It is a public health issue in the country.” Schmitt came to a different conclusion: “It just didn’t feel like America.”

As Missouri AG, he filed suit in May of 2022, alleging that the Biden administration was colluding with Big Tech companies to censor and suppress free speech, related not just to public health information but also to the previous election. “I was just honestly shocked,” he recalls, “that it could take hold in America like it has over the last five years.”

It was never supposed to be this way, he says as he talks fondly about a time when “liberals used to believe in free speech.” There was the political correctness in the 1990s when Schmitt was a law student, and while that was an attempt to “narrow the bandwidth of what was acceptable,” he never believed that the American mind had closed.

Then came “the Great Awokening.” And then came COVID. “It just blew the lid off,” Schmitt says. The guise of policing misinformation during a national health crisis, he says, “just gave them an excuse.”

Republicans have gotten pretty good at telling this kind of dystopian story. The examples are well worn, but memories of the abuses are still fresh. For Democrats, well, they have heard it all before. An unseen but also all-powerful Orwellian octopus working in concert with a Democratic Machine to police wrong-think? Massachusetts Sen. Peter Welch almost finds the idea amusing.

“I’m part of the Democratic Party,” Welch protested in committee. “You give us way too much credit for being that organized to be able to put this whole massive enterprise together.”

“Because you can rely on the censorship industrial complex to do the work for you,” shot back Mollie Hemingway, editor-in-chief of the Federalist, who testified in committee that the conservative website had been the target of censorship.

Asked about that exchange, an affable Schmitt gives his Democratic colleague an out. “Do I think he was the one connecting all the dots?” he asks of Welch. “No, but the point is that there’s a whole network that is very well funded where that is their purpose.” He alleges also that the censorship apparatus marches in lockstep with Democrats and shares a goal of “absolute power and control with no room for dissent.”

Salvation in this telling came not in court, but from Donald Trump. A loyal surrogate who helped Trump with debate prep, Schmitt was standing next to then-Sen. J.D. Vance in Butler, Pennsylvania, when an energetic Elon Musk barreled onstage. The election was a referendum on democracy itself, the world’s richest man told the crowd as Trump stood by beaming. “The other side wants to take away your freedom of speech,” said the owner of X, the social media website formerly known as Twitter. A Trump loss, Musk warned, would end the First Amendment and end democracy altogether.

Schmitt agrees. Earlier that summer, he had lost at the Supreme Court.

More specifically, his successor, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, lost; Schmitt had been elected to the Senate the year prior. But notably, they did not lose on the merits. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the states suing Biden did not have standing. All the same, writing in his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito complained that the court had just allowed “the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.”

Yet Schmitt still counts the case as a victory.

Because before the “Twitter Files,” before the admissions from the Biden White House, before any congressional testimony, he won the right of pre-trial discovery, which allowed him and his legal team access to the censors’ internal communications. This, in turn, gave Americans their first look behind the curtain to see exactly how the government leaned on Big Tech. “You’ve got to remember, at that time, nobody had done it,” he recalls. “It was called a conspiracy theory.” Once granted discovery, Schmitt was able to peer into the communications between the Biden administration and Big Tech, revealing what he calls “the worst instincts of folks who should have never had that much power” and laying bare “what they were willing to do with it.”

In March 2021, Rob Flaherty, White House director of digital strategy, wrote an unnamed Facebook official to accuse that company of “hiding the ball.” He complained that they weren’t doing enough to police social media posts that ran counter to the administration’s public narrative. The White House, he wrote ominously, had become “gravely concerned that [Facebook] is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy.” He wasn’t alone.

On the same email chain, Andy Slavitt, a senior Biden administration COVID advisor, then fumed that White House officials did “not sense [urgency] from you at all,” adding that “100% of the questions I asked have never been answered and weeks have gone by.” He then dangled what some read as a threat: “Internally we have been considering our options on what to do about it.” Facebook listened – and promptly got in line.

Internal emails from the company, Alito wrote in his dissent, “paint a clear picture of subservience” as the Big Tech giant worked to stay in the government’s good graces.

To Republicans these emails showed prima facie evidence, they argued, that Biden was willfully violating the First Amendment. “The government really was coercing these companies to do their bidding,” Schmitt explains. “We all know the government can’t censor speech, but they also can’t outsource that to private companies, which is what they were doing.”

For Schmitt, the peek behind the curtain revealed an elite defined by “their loathing of regular people to make decisions.” A far cry from live-and-let-live liberalism, the political correctness of his youth had blossomed into a censorship regime governed by an expert class whom he says “want their beliefs to be shoved down the throats of everyone,” telling anyone of a dissenting opinion to “shut the hell up.”

But Schmitt isn’t the quiet type.

Hence the hearing where two radically different visions emerged, and where what has solidified into consensus among conservatives and libertarians is dismissed as overblown hype by many of those on the left.

The emails brought forward by his lawsuit didn’t reflect poorly on anyone in government or tech, insisted Mary Anne Franks. A constitutional law professor at George Washington Law School – and Turley colleague – she testified in committee that the censorship industrial complex was a “myth” used by conservatives to harass academics and nonprofits working to put up “safeguards against foreign and domestic misinformation and media manipulation.” She read the same emails that Schmitt obtained in discovery. Her conclusion: “There’s no evidence to support collusion between the Biden administration and Big Tech.”

That’s news to Mark Zuckerberg. The Meta founder told Joe Rogan earlier this year that “people in the Biden administration” would “scream at them and curse” his team in an ultimately successful attempt to pressure Facebook to censor posts the White House considered COVID misinformation. The social media giant has since loosened its speech standards.

Jack Dorsey would be similarly surprised. The former Twitter CEO has expressed regret with how his company censored the New York Post, writing after his exit from the company that Twitter failed to withstand “corporate and government control.”

Schmitt sees a window as a result, one that would never have opened if Kamala Harris had won in November. With Trump in office and Musk at the helm of DOGE, the Republican administration has instead started a long march through bureaucracy. It started on Inauguration Day when the new president signed an executive order condemning his predecessor for “trampling free speech rights” and ordering his administration to immediately “identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct.”

Hours earlier, the same Silicon Valley CEOs whom conservatives consider little more than co-conspirators in the censorship racket gladhanded at the inauguration. While members of Congress watched remotely in another room, inside the Capitol Rotunda Big Tech had the best seats.

Musk attended, too, though he had already been canonized after turning Twitter into a safe space for conservatives. Then there was Zuckerberg, who after his very sudden, very public mortification on Rogan, had donated $1 million to the Trump inaugural committee. Google CEO Sundar Pichai also enjoyed a first-class seat despite long-standing conservative skepticism of his digital behemoth.

President Biden complained, incongruously, that his biggest regret was failing to do more to police misinformation, and in his final address, he warned the nation of a rising “oligarchy” driven by a “tech-industrial complex.” For his part, Trump welcomed his billionaires. “They were all with him, every one of them,” he told reporters of his new supporters, “and now they are all with me.”

Should Republicans trust those elites too? Schmitt struggles to make sense of the dizzying realignment. “I don’t know. That’s the answer,” he replies while holding out hope that the conversion, and the condemnation of censorship, is legitimate. “Maybe they’ve been red-pilled,” he speculates. He isn’t naïve, though. “It could very well be that it’s just because President Trump’s in power now,” the senator says. “There’s no way of knowing that. Time will tell.”

In the meantime, the new administration advertises the fight for free speech as a battle for Western civilization. A less-than-diplomatic Vice President Vance brought that blunt message with him to the Munich Security Conference during his first diplomatic mission. Existential threats abound on that continent, but what Vance told the assembled leaders he worries the most about is the “threat from within,” specifically “the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values.”

He castigated the United Kingdom for charging an anti-abortion protestor with demonstrating silently outside a clinic. He attempted to shame the government of Scotland for encouraging citizens to report on neighbors guilty of prayer in private homes located in so-called safe access zones. He said that across Europe “free speech is in retreat.”

And while Vance claimed the previous U.S. president was sympathetic to such capitulation, he warned Europe that they would not find a partner in Trump: “There is a new sheriff in town.” The assembled elite were aghast. Schmitt beamed.

Watching from the audience in Bavaria that day, the Missouri Republican thought each word his former Senate colleague delivered was pitch-perfect. “You can’t say to the American people, to the American taxpayer, that their generosity should be unlimited in defense of these ‘Western values’ and of these borders that are nowhere near ours when, at the same time, Europe is rejecting core values like free speech,” Schmitt says of the “hypocrisy” Vance was confronting.

While allies back stateside were thrilled, critics at home complained that the new administration shouldn’t have gone abroad lecturing allies. The real threat to free speech, they say, is at home. Here Democrats cite their own, more recent examples.

The Trump administration threw the Associated Press out of the White House press pool for refusing to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America.” The president swore to defend and uphold the Constitution one moment but complained the next, during a speech at the Department of Justice, that news organizations who criticize him are “scum” and their actions “illegal.” Foreign college students who protest American foreign policy are being rounded up off the street and targeted for deportation.

“These attacks on free speech and association have a chilling effect,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, warning that the actions “signal to others that if they don’t fall in line with the Trump administration’s preferred views, they could be next.”

Schmitt has ready rebuttals for those critiques:

The Associated Press doesn’t have a First Amendment right to be included in the press pool, the rotating group of reporters who travel with the president daily, he notes. As things stand, he says, “the AP can write all the stories they want – informed or ill-informed.” The president, meanwhile, is still allowed to speak his mind. Press criticism is a far cry from press censorship, the senator replies when pressed on Trump’s DOJ speech, insisting that “the fact that President Trump has an opinion about them is not a ‘threat to democracy.’”

Deportations of foreigners over their speech is a thornier issue. Schmitt is not familiar with the case of Rumeysa Ozturk, the Tufts University doctoral student from Turkey arrested by DHS last month for allegedly engaging in activities in support of Hamas. The administration hasn’t yet provided detailed evidence, but Ozturk did write an op-ed in the school newspaper condemning Israel for “the Palestinian genocide.”

“I don’t know the specifics, but I think writ large, if somebody’s here on a student visa, that is a privilege,” he says. “If you’re not a citizen, you’re guests in this country.” And unruly guests, like the ones who shut down campus buildings and intimidate others with political violence, he adds, should not be tolerated. “I don’t think this gets to a place where somebody who has dissenting views is being deported,” he qualified. “That’s not happening. That’s not the case.”

These views are foundational to Schmitt and his current political project. They cannot be quickly abandoned. Defending free speech wasn’t just his springboard to the Senate, it remains his work there. “I’m about as free speech absolutist as you’re going to find,” he says. “I’m not threatened in any way shape or form by somebody having a different point of view.”

The problem, and the reason for his ongoing work, he insists, is that “I just don’t think you find – sadly – all that many people on the political left who believe that anymore.”

Topline: The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, one of seven small agencies ordered to reduce its workforce in President Donald Trump’s March 15 executive order, had a payroll of $28.6 million in 2024, according to data obtained by OpenTheBooks.

Of the agency’s 200 employees, 164 earned between $100,000 and $204,000. All but 15 employees have now been placed on leave.

The Daily Wire’s Luke Rosiak, who has done extensive reporting on FMCS, claims the agency exists only to “provide luxurious lifestyles for its employees,” including hiring friends and relatives and commissioning paintings of themselves.

Key facts: The FMCS was created in 1947 to offer free conflict resolution services to private companies, such as mediating disputes between labor unions and their employers.

Rosiak’s reporting in the Washington Examiner from 2013 to 2015 revealed some of the most extreme examples of taxpayer waste in the federal government.

One top employee worked in Washington D.C. but had his official work station listed as Iowa. That meant his work was categorized as a business trip for six years, allowing him to be reimbursed for his rent and meals using taxpayer funds, according to Rosiak.

The FMCS headquarters is still in D.C., but OpenTheBooks’ data shows only 17 employees working there. The remaining employees are spread across 36 other states.

Another official created a “recreation and reception fund” in 2015 to buy $200 coasters and artwork painted by his wife. Employees also removed fraud protections from their credit cards, allowing one official to lease a BMW and another to pay for cable TV at both his house and his vacation home, Rosiak reported.

For staff training, the agency paid trainers $1,500 per day plus $163 an hour for travel expenses. Officials allegedly allowed their friends to write the guidelines for hiring trainers, making it easier to get the job  themselves.

Allison Beck, another top official, was reimbursed for first-class flights to Italy, Tunisia, Georgia, and Switzerland in one month. One of her business meetings in Switzerland was scheduled to be over video call, Rosiak reported.

The agency’s in-office gym included a $1,000 TV, a $3,867 ice-maker and a $560 stereo, Rosiak found.

An inspector general asked the FBI to investigate FMCS based on Rosiak’s reporting, but no one was ever charged with a crime. Rosiak’s reporting is now over a decade old and does not necessarily reflect the agency’s current spending habits.

Search all federal, state and local government salaries and vendor spending with the AI search bot, Benjamin, at OpenTheBooks.com. 

Critical quote: “Like something out of ‘The Office,’ the employees spent an inordinate amount of time and money congratulating one another for being employed there and engaging in ‘work’ that really amounted to pampering themselves,” Rosiak wrote. “FMCS seemed, quite clearly, to exist for the benefit of those on its payroll, and not much else.”

Supporting quote: The FMCS released a statement arguing that “Rosiak’s article contains numerous falsehoods and misleading claims that irresponsibly do not reflect the reality of FMCS’s operations or our unwavering commitment to support the U.S. economy with transparency and ethical practices.”

In the past 10 years, FMCS has introduced new ethics programs and conducted multiple audits with “zero findings of any irregularities,” according to the agency’s statement.

Summary: The biggest dispute the FMCS needs to mediate may be between its own employees and the taxpayers whose money they are spending.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Conservative military veterans are sounding the alarm over a new Department of Defense reinstatement form that they say whitewashes the truth about their forced separations during the COVID-19 vaccine mandate era.

Veterans who once wore the uniform with honor are now being told that if they want back in, they must lie on paper and pretend they left the military of their own free will.

The Department of Defense has released updated guidance officially inviting back thousands of service members who were involuntarily separated for refusing to comply with the now-defunct COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The move comes under Executive Order 14184, signed by President Donald Trump on January 27, 2025, and implemented by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The order compels the Pentagon to offer reinstatement to any military personnel—active or reserve—who were forced out solely for refusing the COVID shot.

The new policy outlines a comprehensive process for both involuntary and voluntary separations.

For those involuntarily discharged, the Military Departments are tasked with identifying and contacting eligible former service members, offering them reinstatement through the Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs).

The process includes medical pre-screening, expedited record reviews, and potential financial benefits like back pay, restored rank, and credit for lost service time, subject to offsets such as wages earned post-separation.

Reinstatement requires a four-year service commitment, with a two-year option for those nearing retirement eligibility.

Service members who voluntarily left or allowed their service to lapse to avoid vaccination can also apply to return.

They must submit a sworn statement attesting to their decision and meet retention standards.

While re-accession restores rank and pay, it does not include back pay or other retroactive benefits unless pursued separately through standard BCM/NR processes.

The rollout follows a groundswell of complaints from veterans like USMC veteran Daniel Pendergast, who publicly criticized the Pentagon’s new “reinstatement form” for requiring a signed statement declaring their separation was “voluntary and made freely without coercion.”

Pendergast, echoing many of his peers, called the document “a textbook case of duress.”

“I’ve just received this form from recruiting and I cannot sign my name to it,” Pendergast wrote.

He continued, “I did NOT leave freely without any coercion. The DoD was making it abundantly clear that they were not going to honor sincerely held religious accommodations and I, barring policy change, would be dishonorably or other than honorable removed from the military. That is a textbook case of duress.”

Buried in the paperwork is a landmine, it reads:

“I, [name], attest I voluntarily separated from the (Air) (Space) Force or allowed my service to lapse rather than be vaccinated under the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was in effect from 24 August 2021 to 10 January 2023. My decision to separate was made freely and without coercion.

Trending: THIS IS BIG: Rudy Giuliani Criticizes Kash Patel and Pam Bondi: ‘I’m Very Upset Right Now’

I am voluntarily seeking to return to military service. In doing so, I acknowledge the following:

I will return to service with the same rank and pay held immediately prior to separation. I will not be entitled to backpay, credit for lost service, or similar relief.

I will be required to meet applicable medical standards. I will incur a service commitment.

Law, regulation, and policy may further preclude my restoration of service.

This attestation is not a binding contract guaranteeing military service.”

I’ve just received this form from recruiting and I cannot sign my name to it. I did NOT leave freely without any coercion. The DoD was making it abundantly clear that they were not going to honor sincerely held religious accommodations and I, barring policy change, would be… https://t.co/burLBrcNab pic.twitter.com/mTIXwNGuSc

— Daniel Pendergast (@tenndergast) April 8, 2025

Former USAF intelligence officer Jordan Karr, who sued the Pentagon over the vaccine mandates, echoed Pendergast’s outrage.

“I cannot in good faith encourage anyone to sign their name to this form. I’m on your side, but this feels like a new administration applying the same ‘gun to your head’ tactics from the last one,” she wrote. “If you want to return, all you have to do is admit there was no coercion? That’s malicious compliance.”

I cannot in good faith encourage anyone to sign their name to this form. @DoD_USD_PR @SecDef I am on your side but this feels like a new administration applying the same “gun to your head” tactics from the previous administration.

Feels like “If you want to return all you… pic.twitter.com/8gstQCweql

— Jordan Karr (@JordanLkarr) April 8, 2025

She added, I’m actually stunned at the audacity. My BCMR shows WITH PROOF that not only was there coercion, but that policy/laws were broken! WHO is responsible for advising that this be put in USA airforce?!

Karr pulled no punches in questioning the top brass, calling out both the Secretary of Defense and the Pentagon’s personnel office:

“Does @SecDef know his services are coercing veterans into signing something that removes responsibility from the commanders who forced us out? This is NOT what @POTUS promised. Who signed off on this?”

I’m still waiting for this to be addressed.

Does @SecDef know that his services are trying to coerce veterans into signing something that would remove responsibility from the commanders who forced us out?

This is NOT what @POTUS promised.

Who signed off on this language? https://t.co/4rU4f5aeTp

— Jordan Karr (@JordanLkarr) April 10, 2025

Military attorney R. Davis Younts, who has represented numerous clients discharged under the Biden-era mandates, called the policy deceptive and manipulative in a statement to Just the News.

R. Davis Younts, a lawyer who represents multiple former and current service members negatively impacted by the COVID vaccine mandate, told Just the News on Thursday that the “path for those involuntarily discharged is reasonable,” unlike the guidance for those who left without being involuntarily discharged.

The guidance sent by the Air National Guard says that former members “have to sign a waiver saying they left voluntarily, were not coerced to leave,” will get their rank back, but won’t receive back pay, and will thus “not claim through the Board of Corrections or a court that they suffered any harm for getting forced out,” Younts said.

He added that while he has had “very productive meetings and conversations” with senior Pentagon officials “about a reasonable path to reinstatement,” the ideas discussed “are not yet part of the guidance being put out” in the short time the new administration has been in office.

Younts believes that “there are some senior leaders at the Pentagon that don’t understand the full scope of the problem or its impact,” and ”that there’s a lot of bureaucratic resistance to any sort of action to provide a meaningful path to reinstatement for the majority of people who left over the COVID vaccine mandate.”

While there were 8,000-plus military members who were involuntarily discharged over the COVID vaccine mandate, there is “a huge number that were not allowed to reenlist, forced to retire early, passed over for promotions, and not allowed to complete training programs solely because of the COVID vaccine mandate,” Younts said.

“I’m optimistic that senior leadership and officials that I talked to at the Pentagon understand and are sympathetic to these concerns and want to address them, but I’m seeing a level of malicious compliance in an attempt to stop, slow roll, or make an effort to make reinstatement meaningless for most people impacted by COVID,” he added.

Meanwhile, the DoD’s response team issued a limp statement, claiming they’re “reviewing” the matter.

We are reviewing this. https://t.co/jEMPbpUi7M

— DOD Rapid Response (@DODResponse) April 12, 2025

This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit.com.

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is warning Iran of U.S. military action if fresh talks fail to ensure the Islamic Republic does not have a nuclear weapon.

“President Trump is dead serious on this issue,” Hegseth said on “Sunday Morning Futures” with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.

While calling the negotiations headed by Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, a “good step,” Hegseth indicated the president is” also dead serious that if we can’t figure this out at the negotiating table, then there are other options to include my department to ensure that Iran never has a nuclear bomb. We hope we never get there. We really do.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. has been pounding Iran-backed Houthi rebels recently to stem the Islamic assault on American ships in the region.

“What we’re doing with the Houthis and what we’re doing in the region we’ve shown a capability to go far, to go deep and to go big,” Hegseth said.

“Again, we don’t want to do that, but if we have to we will to prevent the nuclear bomb in Iran’s hands.”

.@SecDef: “[@POTUS is] dead serious that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon … He’s also dead serious that if we can’t figure this out at the negotiating table, then there are other options.” pic.twitter.com/oVwUw16AcC

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 13, 2025

Hegseth added he’s hoping Iran gets the message with the recent U.S. strikes.

“We know Iran has taken a look at what’s happening to the Houthis, and realizing they don’t want any part of it. That’s because … we’re dismantling the Houthis’ capabilities. We’re even hearing rumblings of them second-guessing what they’re doing. Ultimately, we just want to open up our shipping lanes.

“It sends a very clear signal to the Iran as well. You’re not gonna mess with the United States. Iran, come to the table. Negotiate full dismantlement of your nuclear capabilities, and that doesn’t have to be your future.”

Is the news we hear every day actually broadcasting messages from God? The answer is an absolute yes! Find out how!

Hegseth also talked at length about Trump’s efforts to take back control of the Panama Canal from increasing Chinese influence.

“China’s influence cannot control our own backyard, especially a critical waterway, a key terrain like the Panama Canal,” he said.

After traveling to Panama this past week, Hegseth announced a two-part deal:

1. U.S. military and auxiliary vessels will travel first and free through the canal.

2. A formal agreement with Panama to reestablish a permanent U.S. presence.

“Fort Sherman will reopen jointly with the Panamanians, a jungle school, and we’re going to have a larger U.S. presence –– at the invitation of Panama –– working with them to keep the Communist Chinese out,” Hegseth indicated Sunday.

“If we can’t use that waterway in a key contingency, then China has an advantage. Other presidents have allowed us. We’ve been sort of asleep at the wheel.”

NEW: Pete Hegseth says Trump isn’t just talking tough on China—he’s taking back the Panama Canal, and U.S. forces are already moving in.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth just dropped a bombshell after his return from Panama:

The U.S. is reclaiming the Panama Canal at all… pic.twitter.com/T2Y8mAg0wa

— The Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) April 13, 2025

“The Communist Chinese want to control politicians, they’re building infrastructure projects, they want to surveil. They want to take that canal. President Trump says not on our watch, and we’re fighting back.

“They’re building a tunnel underneath the canal they’re paying for, what could that be used for? Surveillance of submarines? Of ships? Bridges over the top. Cranes … with antennas all over them. What are those used to do?”

When asked by Bartiromo about the large amount of signage in the Chinese language in the Canal Zone, Hegseth replied: “By now, they’re removing a lot of that signage, but removing signage is not enough. You’ve got to remove the insidious influence.”

Follow Joe on X @JoeKovacsNews

Democratic Rep. Jahana Hayes of Connecticut said she regrets voting for the Laken Riley Act, a bipartisan bill requiring authorities to detain illegal migrants charged with committing various criminal offenses.

Hayes said she “probably would have voted differently” when asked at a town hall by CNN’s Kaitlan Collins if the legislation violated illegal migrants’ due process rights. The lawmaker’s apparent flip-flop comes as Congressional Democrats are telling voters they want a secure border but are consistently voting against legislation that Republican lawmakers argue will deport criminal illegal migrants and help lower the number of border crossings.

“I voted for that piece of legislation because of a very specific provision, and it was if it caused injury or death to a police officer, which was one small piece of it,” Haynes said referring to a provision of the bill requiring the detention of an illegal migrant accused, charged or convicted of causing the death of law enforcement. “As I’ve thought about it over the last couple months, I probably would have voted differently.”

“It’s a vote that I regret,” Haynes continued. “But coming into this Congress, I trusted that this administration … that they wanted to have border security, they wanted to work with Democrats that we could actually move forward. I’m not really sure of that, because I’ve seen the rhetoric that has come out and the attacks that have been targeted toward immigrants, so I’m very cautious and careful when I’m negotiating my votes moving forward.”

Hayes, serving her fourth term, represents a somewhat competitive Connecticut district that the nonpartisan Cook Political Report rates as “Likely Democrat” heading into the midterms.  The congresswoman discussed her apparently changing views on the immigration enforcement bill during a bipartisan CNN town hall alongside Democratic Rep. Derek Tran of California and Republican Reps. Mike Lawler of New York and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania, who all also represent “battleground” districts.

The Laken Riley Act was the first piece of legislation advanced by the 119th Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump. The law is named in honor of a University of Georgia nursing student who was murdered by an illegal migrant while out on a run near her college campus in February 2024.

The law’s proponents have argued that if similar legislation had been signed into law prior to Riley’s murder, her killer, a Venezuelan national, would have been deported upon being arrested for allegedly shoplifting at a Walmart in Athens, Georgia. The migrant murdered Riley nearly two years after the arrest.

Connecticut “Dim” Rep. Jahana Hayes says she regrets voting for the Laken Riley Act.

Man, if they thought 21% was bad … just wait. “Let them Speak” is working !! pic.twitter.com/pCbNXHozsm

— Juanita Broaddrick (@atensnut) April 11, 2025

The Trump administration has notably moved with urgency to get border crossings at the southern border to record lows. March saw a 95% decrease in border patrol encounters compared to the same time last year under former President Joe Biden’s leadership, the Daily Caller News Foundation previously reported.

Hayes also voted against legislation in February requiring stiffer criminal penalties on migrants who flee border patrol agents while operating motor vehicles. Fifty of her Democratic colleagues backed this immigration enforcement bill.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told the DCNF Thursday that his conference wants to “secure the border” despite leading every House Democrat in voting against Republicans’ budget resolution that would have unlocked up to $175 billion in border-security related funding for federal immigration authorities.

“We believe we have a broken immigration system and we need to fix it in a comprehensive and in a bipartisan way,” Jeffries told the DCNF at his weekly press conference Thursday.

Jeffries also led most House Democrats this Congress in voting against the bipartisan Laken Riley Act and the Agent Raul Gonzalez Officer Safety Act.

“And also we believe that we always defend Dreamers, farmworkers, and law-abiding immigrant families and protect them from aggressive overreach from the Trump administration,” Jeffries continued. “Those are the principles that we have consistently articulated publicly and privately to our Republican colleagues that it relates to finding some common ground on the immigration issue.”

Mackenzie and Lawler took Haynes to task for worrying about the due process rights of illegal migrants over the safety of American citizens like Riley during the town hall.

“Did Laken Riley get due process?” Mackenzie asked Haynes during the townhall after she doubled down on her concerns with the Laken Riley Act despite initially supporting it. “The answer is no.”

“It was only Democrats that voted against that bill [Laken Riley Act],” Mackenzie said during the town hall. “All Republicans voted for it. And so, you do see that difference and distinction between the two parties nowadays.”

Andi Shae Napier contributed to this report.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.