Via Remix News,

On top of soaring healthcare costs, rising crime, and overburdened schools, the German court system can add itself to the list of institutions feeling pressure due to soaring migration numbers. Rejected asylum seekers are once again suing to stay in Germany in growing numbers, with the administrative courts seeing 100,494 new cases in 2024.

The rules in Germany allow asylum seekers to sue if their asylum case is rejected, with the state of Brandenburg seeing the sharpest increase, with 6,138 cases, a 134 percent increase.

In 2023, there were 72,000 such cases, while in 2022, there were 62,000, according to a survey conducted by the German Judges’ Journal. That means there has been a 62 percent increase since 2022, according to Welt newspaper.

In 2017 and 2018, the number of such lawsuits was much higher but then fell from that time.

The courts are once again struggling to deal with the influx as the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) is now processing asylum claims more quickly.

The highest number of cases were seen in North Rhine-Westphalia at 19,267 cases, while Bavaria (15,278) and Baden-Württemberg (12,755) were in second and third place.

Wait times are also up for decisions and well beyond the target of six months set by the Conference of Minister Presidents.

Sven Rebehn, Federal Director of the German Judges’ Association, which also publishes the German Judges’ Journal, said “The administrative courts are gradually getting ahead of the wave, and their processing times are declining significantly. However, if the current dynamic increase in the number of complaints continues, the trend could stall again.”

He called for the hiring of more judges.

Read more here…

A 22-year old British man who had been fighting for Ukraine was slapped with a lengthy prison sentence of 19-years by a Russian court on Wednesday in southwestern Kursk region. He’s been charged with terrorism and acting as a foreign fighter.

The detained man, identified as James Scott Rhys Anderson, has been dubbed a mercenary by Russian authorities, though it’s unclear whether he was fighting within the ranks of a private firm or perhaps Ukraine’s national armed forces.

He was detained in November reportedly inside Russian territory, fighting on behalf of Ukraine as part of the Kursk incursion, which has been on since last August.

Anderson pleaded guilty to the charges, and the British embassy has committed to giving him “all the support we can” – but likely with the guilty plea there’s little the UK government can do – other than a possible future prisoner swap arrangement.

Given that Russia has deemed Anderson a mercenary, he was not provided prisoner-of-war protections under the Geneva Conventions and thus was charged under Russia’s civil criminal code.

It’s expected that he’ll serve an initial five years in a local prison, after which he’ll be transferred to spend the remainder 14-years in a maximum security facility.

When he was first captured over three months ago, a ‘proof of life’ video was widely circulated on social media channels:

In a video posted on pro-war Russian Telegram channels on Sunday, a man wearing combat fatigues identifies himself as 22-year-old James Scott Rhys Anderson from the UK.

The man, speaking with an English accent, says that he served as a signalman in the British army until 2023 before joining the International Legion in Ukraine to fight against Russia.

In the footage, which has not been verified, the captured man appears with his hands tied. It is unclear when the clip was recorded.

Anderson appeared in court looking gaunt after months in jail awaiting trial…

Russian investigators said Anderson illegally entered Russia in November as part of an armed group committing “criminal acts against civilians”. However, the precise circumstances of his capture remain unclear. 

Early in the more than 3-year long conflict, UK authorities – including Liz Truss at the time – positively encouraged citizens to go and fight on behalf of Ukraine. Since then an estimated 20,000 foreigners from over 50 countries are believed to have traveled to Ukraine to assist. But these official calls from Western officials have grown silent as Ukraine’s battlefield chances have dimmed, and the front lines have seen continued Russian advances.

Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The most serious drug warnings in American medicine often go unnoticed by the very people they’re meant to protect.

Just ask Michele Mason.

In 2023, her 27-year-old daughter, Alisa, was prescribed a seven-day course of Levaquin (levofloxacin) for pneumonia at an urgent care clinic in Arizona. Neither she nor her mother had ever heard of the drug—or the risks it carried.

“I picked up her prescription, and not a word was said,” Mason told The Epoch Times. “I had never even heard of black box warnings.”

A boxed warning—often called a black box warning because of its bold black border—is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s most serious safety alert. It signals to doctors and pharmacists that a drug carries serious risks.

Halfway through the treatment, Alisa’s arm began to tremble, causing her to drop coffee cups. Within days, she was overwhelmed by unexplained symptoms—nerve pain, muscle weakness, and relentless joint pain. Even washing dishes became painful. Unable to work, she moved back to Michigan to live with her mother.

“I don’t know if she’ll ever be able to work again,” Mason says. “And doctors just look at you like you’re crazy.”

Alisa suffered an adverse reaction to fluoroquinolone antibiotics—a drug class flagged with the FDA’s highest safety warning. In 2008, the agency cautioned that these antibiotics could cause permanent nerve damage, tendon ruptures, and severe effects on the muscles and nervous system. But Mason was never warned. The urgent care doctor called it a “strong antibiotic,” and the pharmacy technician dispensed it without comment.

Alisa’s experience is more common than many think. Black box warnings often arrive years after a drug has been widely prescribed. Even then, many patients remain unaware until they suffer the consequences firsthand.

What Is a Black Box Warning?

Black box warnings appear at the top of a drug’s prescribing information in both printed and online materials. However, they are often absent from prescription labels, which critics say leaves patients uninformed about serious risks.

Black box warnings vary in severity. Some flag life-threatening risks, such as organ failure or suicidal thoughts. Others highlight serious but non-fatal side effects, like permanent nerve damage or birth defects. Some warnings focus on strict prescribing rules to prevent misuse or abuse.

The FDA mandates black box warnings, and pharmaceutical companies draft them based on agency guidelines.

Black box warnings were first introduced by the FDA in 1979, starting with chloramphenicol, an antibiotic linked to a rare but fatal blood disorder.

“Black box warnings were initially rare, reserved for those that were considered most important,” Dr. Paul Axelsen, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, told The Epoch Times. “The first was a necessary alert about a drug that could be fatal. But over the years, these warnings have become far more common.”

A Growing Trend

As of 2022, more than 400 medications had black box warnings.

In 2023, the FDA issued more black box warnings than any previous year, extending a decade-long increase. That year alone accounted for 40 percent of all black box warnings issued over the past decade, compared to 12 percent in 2022. Many of these warnings weren’t for newly developed drugs but for widely used medications, including antidepressants, painkillers, and sleep aids.

Despite the sharp increase in black box warnings, the FDA has not conducted a formal analysis of the trend. In response to questions from The Epoch Times, the agency stated that determining the frequency and causes of these warnings over time would require manually reviewing more than 1,000 drug applications—an effort it does not consider an efficient use of resources.

What’s behind the surge? Some experts point to improved post-marketing surveillance, the FDA’s system for tracking drug safety after approval. Others worry it means more high-risk drugs are making it to market.

Social media has transformed how drug safety concerns come to light. Patient forums and advocacy groups frequently highlight potential risks, sometimes prompting others to report side effects to the FDA.

A 2021 study in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance found that social media discussions often identify drug risks months or even years—up to 9 years—before regulators take action. While these reports aren’t always reliable, online platforms have become a major influence on drug safety and could be fueling the rise in warnings.

Lawsuits have also become a driving force. More law firms now specialize in black box warning cases, holding drug manufacturers and health care providers accountable for failing to disclose risks.

“Litigation in this area has skyrocketed,” said Axelsen. “Many doctors don’t realize that not informing a patient about a black box warning can be used in court to imply that they did not inform a patient about any warnings.”

As lawsuits increase, so does pressure on regulators. Some argue that growing litigation pushes the FDA to issue warnings more aggressively, ensuring that risks are formally documented. Axelsen points out that black box warnings can shift duty to warn from drug manufacturers to doctors.

“If a drug has a black box warning, the question becomes, ‘Why didn’t the doctor warn the patient?’” he said.

When Warnings Come Too Late

Even when issued, black box warnings often come after a drug has already reached millions of patients. A 2024 Cureus study found that approximately 80 percent of these warnings result from post-marketing studies—meaning serious risks often become evident only after widespread use. Since the FDA requires strong evidence before adding a warning, many patients are exposed to harm before the risks are formally recognized.

This delay means newly approved drugs often lack black box warnings—even if they pose serious risks. By the time enough adverse events accumulate to justify a warning, thousands—sometimes millions—of prescriptions have already been filled.

The FDA acknowledges this gap, explaining that pre-market clinical trials—while thorough—can’t always predict long-term risks. Trials typically include only a few thousand patients, so rare or delayed side effects may not appear until the drug is widely used. The agency told The Epoch Times that post-market surveillance is essential for uncovering these risks and adjusting warnings as needed.

Drug manufacturers have strong financial incentives to avoid black box warnings. These warnings restrict direct-to-consumer advertising, cutting into the billions spent on TV and online drug promotions—campaigns that drive sales and boost profits.

Yet, a black box warning can also serve as a legal shield for drug makers. Once in place, it shifts liability to doctors, allowing manufacturers to argue that they disclosed the risks if a patient experiences serious side effects.

When Providers Miss the Warnings

Black box warnings are meant to improve safety but often fail to change how providers prescribe. In some cases, they introduce new risks.

One problem is awareness. Many doctors and pharmacists monitor black box warnings and discuss them with patients—this is especially true for specialist physicians who prescribe fewer types of medications than primary care physicians. However, with the sheer volume of medications they manage, other doctors may miss them entirely.

These alerts aren’t sent directly to physicians but are buried in lengthy drug inserts or electronic health record pop-ups that can be easily overlooked. A 2015 Journal of Medical Toxicology study found that emergency and pediatric doctors correctly identified medications with black box warnings only 36 percent of the time. Even when they knew a drug carried a warning, just 13 percent could recall its details. Nearly one of three admitted they had no reliable way to stay updated.

“The information in a black box warning often does not reach the prescriber,” said Axelsen. As a result, some prescribe drugs with black box warnings without even realizing it.

Pharmacists, who receive drugs in bulk packaging from manufacturers, are often the only ones who see the printed black box warnings. But with the high volume of medications they handle, they have little reason to scrutinize each label for updates, according to Axelsen.

Patients, meanwhile, are asked if they have questions when picking up prescriptions—often via a touchscreen prompt—but most don’t know to ask about black box warnings in the first place.

Even when physicians see the warnings, how they respond can vary widely. A 2014 study of half a million patients found that after an FDA warning about a diabetes drug, prescribing rates dropped—but unevenly. Some doctors cut back sharply—others barely changed. In fact, prescribing became more inconsistent after the warning, showing that FDA alerts alone aren’t enough. How hospitals and health systems enforce them determines whether they lead to real change.

The result? Many doctors unknowingly prescribe medications in violation of black box warnings—sometimes as often as 50 percent of the time. An Archives of Internal Medicine study found that 7 in 1,000 outpatients received prescriptions that directly contradicted such warnings. While most cases resulted in no harm, the findings raise a critical question—if doctors don’t see the warnings, how effective can they really be?

Although prescription technology has advanced, newer studies on black box warnings are lacking, Axelsen noted.

Read the rest here…

According to UN estimates released last year, Europe already hit its peak population in 2021 and has slowly started its population decline.

How did this happen, and can this trend reverse?

To answer that question, Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao tracks the total fertility rate of every European country per UN estimates for 2025.

ℹ️ The fertility rate measures the average # of children a woman in a specific area will have over the course of her lifetime.

From this number, demographers and statisticians can make assumptions about population replacement and future trends.

Ranked: European Countries by Total Fertility Rates 2025

As it happens, 2.1 is a key threshold for fertility rates.

At this level, an area’s population remains stable. Above it, it’s likely to grow (barring war, disease, and famine). And below it, it’s likely to decline (barring immigration).

Looking at the data in the table above, almost all of Europe is below population replacement rate.

Monaco is the only exception, and is likely skewed upwards due to its small size (39,000 residents). Any small change in the number of babies born there can dramatically affect the fertility rate.

Zooming out, Northern and Western Europe have had below replacement fertility rates since the 1960s. Time and immigration helped delay immediate effects but four decades of falling fertility rates are finally having an impact.

Unless immigration patterns change significantly (and these new immigrants have more children), it’s unlikely this trend will reverse.

Want to see how these figures can affect each country’s population in the future? Check out: Europe’s Population Forecast to 2100 for a breakdown.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via substack,

This scenario is increasingly in America and Russia’s shared interests vis-à-vis their “New Détente”…

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban predicted late last month that “Ukraine, or what remains of it, will once again be a buffer zone” between NATO and Russia once the conflict inevitably ends. His rationale is that it’ll be kept out of NATO but also is unlikely to fall completely under Russia’s sway. This is logical, but another scenario is also possible, namely that Ukraine turns into a “bridge state” instead, which could help repair Russian-Western or at least Russian-American relations.

To explain, Russia’s goals of demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine can’t easily be obtained unilaterally in the sense of Moscow forcibly imposing this, let alone indefinitely maintaining it. They much more realistically require a compliant government in Kiev to carry them out. This explains the terms contained in the spring 2022’s draft peace treaty that was sabotaged by the UK and Poland. Those two and their shared US patron didn’t want that outcome since they thought they could strategically defeat Russia.

America’s strategic calculations changed after Trump’s historic election victory, however, to the point where the US is now ready to make more concessions than Russia in pursuit of a “New Détente”. This arrangement that they’re working towards is deemed much more important to the US than continuing to weaponize Ukraine against Russia since it could lead to eroding some of China’s competitive edge vis-à-vis the US by incentivizing Russia into limiting resource and military cooperation with it.

Readers can learn more about the contours of their emerging deal here, here, and here, which could of course also be offset by unexpected developments or not be reached in full but is generally what they want to agree upon. In the event that they’re successful, a so-called “moderate government” might eventually take power in Kiev after elections are held, especially if Trump coerces Zelensky into not running or authorizes his intelligence services to support whoever his rival might be given their tensions.

That would be an historic outcome since whoever replaces Zelensky might very well implement the demilitarization and denazification goals that Russia has sought to achieve over the past three years with the full approval of Trump’s America as a quid pro quo for whatever else Russia and the US agree upon. While Russian-Ukrainian trade might never return to its pre-2014 level due to Ukraine’s EU Association Agreement and other such economic pacts, that would still go a long way towards a rapprochement.

The relative normalization of Russian-Ukrainian relations can therefore lead to Ukraine becoming much more of a “bridge state” than a “buffer state” in terms of maintaining the “New Détente” between Russia and the US. Whether or not it leads to a gradual rapprochement in Russian-EU relations would depend on Brussels’ response to these potential developments as well as Warsaw’s since Poland serves as the EU’s gateway to Ukraine. Neither appear likely for now but they also can’t be ruled out either.

As the Russian-US talks progress, it would be in both of their interests to do everything possible to turn Ukraine into a “bridge state”, which Putin might have expected to be a potential outcome all along and could explain his decision not to wage an all-out war on Ukraine. By being careful to avoid collateral damage to civilians, including inconveniences like if Russia bombed bridges across the Dnieper or totally destroyed Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, he made this comparatively easier.

The keyword is comparatively since there’ll still be some Ukrainians who’ll hate Russia no matter what and have felt that way for whatever their personal reasons may be even before the special operation. Nevertheless, the point is that the self-restraint that Russia has exercised throughout the course of the conflict kept viable the scenario of a rapprochement with Ukraine, which now increasingly aligns with American interests as Trump 2.0 conceptualizes them to be and is thus more likely than ever before.

Authored by Milton Ezrati via The Epoch Times,

Pakistan is failing, in large part because of its close association with Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Because coal mines tend to emit large quantities of poisonous carbon monoxide, miners in the old days would carry a caged canary into the mine with them. The bird’s more delicate constitution would succumb to rising gas levels long before the miners and signal that human life might be in jeopardy. The bird’s death cued the miners to get out. Pakistan, as an early and enthusiastic participant in the BRI, is suffering as a consequence and may well be issuing a signal for other participants to leave this particular “mine.”

Pakistan’s biggest problem centers on the power grid built for the country by the BRI, also known as “One Belt, One Road.” It was expensive from the start, and because China built considerably more generating capacity than Pakistan needs, the burden of debt Pakistan now faces is simply unsupportable.

Tellingly, the problem is not just an unfortunate miscalculation of the sort that occurs frequently when nations invest. More ominously for all BRI participants, it is a feature of how Beijing’s scheme works.

In the scheme, Beijing approaches a less developed nation and offers to build the kind of infrastructure that presumably will help that nation make economic gains. Beijing offers to arrange loans for the recipient to pay for the project, always from state-owned Chinese banks. It also arranges for Chinese contractors to do the construction and for Chinese management to run the project once it is complete.

All the advantages lie on Beijing’s side. If, for some reason, the recipient nation cannot meet the financial obligations of the loan, ownership will revert to Beijing. Even if the recipient nation can repay the loan, that recipient remains beholden to Beijing to sustain the project and make it worthwhile.

There is another source of difficulty. Because Chinese authorities choose the projects, always for political and diplomatic rather than economic reasons, the projects often miss the needs of the recipient nation’s economy or are too large or too small. Since Beijing is using the recipient nation’s money, albeit in a loan, it has little incentive to match the projects to needs. What makes matters worse is that the nations approached by the Chinese regime seldom have the ability to assess the economic needs accurately.

For Pakistan, China’s initial offer, about a decade ago, looked attractive. The country was short of electric generating capacity. China came in and built a whole series of coal, solar, and hydroelectric plants, an effort that cost the equivalent of some $25 billion, a huge sum for Pakistan. In addition to the obligation to repay the loan in only 10 years, Pakistan also had to pledge to take all the electricity generated by the array of Chinese-managed facilities for the next 40 years and further promised the Chinese state companies running them a 34 percent return on the effort.

It should have been obvious from the start that Pakistan could never deliver on these terms. Because the calculations were political and diplomatic rather than economic, China built much more generating capacity than Pakistan will need for many years to come, by some calculations, 40 percent more. But the terms make Pakistan buy all they generate anyway.

To meet all these onerous obligations, Pakistan has raised the price of electricity to higher levels than in some developed and considerably richer nations. Electricity for a few lights, a small refrigerator, and a couple of fans can cost a Pakistani family the equivalent of $60 a month, a steep sum indeed considering that the country’s per-capita income amounts to the equivalent of some $125 a month.

Pakistan is already the equivalent of $1.0 billion in arrears on the debt to Chinese state banks, and that does not include the $9.0 billion more it will owe on two new Chinese nuclear plants.

Pakistan is in worse shape than most other BRI participants, largely because it was an early player, not because the deals with other countries have different characters, though each has different specifics. Already, Sri Lanka has defaulted, and several African participants have had to renegotiate terms they can no longer support. Not too long ago, Chinese leader Xi Jinping had to promise additional lending in Africa just to keep several participants from backing out of the program.

If Pakistan is any indication, the BRI scheme is fundamentally flawed. What may be worse, the failing participants will force strains on Chinese finance and contractors at a time when China’s debt-heavy, underperforming economy can ill afford it.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Grocery shoppers in the United States have an abundance of options to choose from, and a wide range of prices accompanying varying selections.

Items labeled as organic typically sell for a premium over non-organic counterparts, but many consumers are unaware of the market forces that factor into the pricing.

Premiums, once as high as 170 percent for some items—such as spinach in 2015—are on the decline and are currently about 20 percent higher than conventionally grown produce, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

While all farms face certain regulatory hurdles at the federal, state, and local levels, organic producers are saddled with more comprehensive rules to abide by.

Organic food production is heavily regulated—forbidding genetically modified organisms as well as approximately 700 chemicals that are used in non-organic agriculture—and certification is required.

To achieve organic certification, farmers spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars annually to comply with record keeping requirements and prepare for regular document and facility inspections.

Non-organic farms do not have such overhead costs and thus have fewer expenses priced into the cost of goods sold.

Throughout the growing seasons, organic farms cost more to operate for a variety of reasons, and subsidies that disproportionately benefit chemically intensive agriculture exacerbate the price discrepancies, according to advocates for the organic industry.

Approximately 2 percent of the money allocated for research by the federal government since 2018 was focused on organic food production, according to data collected by the Organic Trade Association.

“We would really like to see more of a balance for the research money, especially because funds used for organic studies tend to benefit the entire Ag industry,” a spokesperson for the trade group told The Epoch Times.

*  *  *

Grow your own food with HEIRLOOM SEEDS (39 varieties – 4,500 seeds) from ZH Store!  Free shipping in the USA.

Past research related to integrated pest management—where beneficial insects are used to manage invasive pests—for example, was initiated by organic producers, but the subsequent findings are now widely used.

One study from the U.S. National Institute of Health found a 95 percent reduction in insecticide use when pests are managed using natural methods.

With the bulk of federal dollars going to study non-organic practices such as how to use pesticides and herbicides banned in organic production, critics of the current system suggest the playing field is tilted toward farmers who use a wide range of chemicals.

It has resulted in significantly lower prices for some non-organic foods, including heavily processed fast foods, compared with organic, natural ingredients.

Advocates are currently lobbying federal lawmakers to boost investment in organic agriculture research.

More Expensive Inputs

Fertilizers used in organic production—including manure, alfalfa meal, and composted material, among other things—are more costly than synthetic versions like urea and ammonium nitrate, with estimates ranging from 20 to 50 percent higher for organic nutrients.

Conventional farms rely on synthetic materials developed since the 1950s with the invention of chemically intensive agriculture.

Organic farmers utilize crop rotation and cover crops to fix nitrogen in the soil, a method that builds soil health, improves water retention, outcompetes weeds, and reduces insect populations.

Spreading natural fertilizers and planting and plowing under clover, winter rye, and other cover crops requires the use of heavy equipment or laborers, depending on the size of the operation, which further adds to the cost of production.

Labor Intensive

Removing weeds is one of the costliest aspects of organic agriculture, as mechanical removal using weed eaters or flamethrowers is the preferred method and requires many hours of labor to eradicate nuisance plants.

“During part of the year, we spend more hours removing weeds than doing anything else,” Juan Guzman, a managing farmhand for organic vineyards in Northern California, told The Epoch Times.

“It’s the most important job because the weeds will steal food from the vines and reduce the yields if we don’t get rid of them.”

Non-organic farmers typically use glyphosate, sold under the brand name Roundup, to manage weeds. The cost of the chemical is offset by the ease of application, which helps lower production costs.

Supply and Demand

Also impacting pricing are the perennial forces of supply and demand, with health-conscious consumers seeking high-quality foods at increasing levels, while production has plateaued in recent years, and organic yields are slightly lower than conventional crops.

A thin market, with fewer producers than in the conventional sector, creates a situation where more dollars are chasing fewer goods, thus leading to higher pricing strategies at retail levels.

Imports of organic produce are increasing to meet the demand, with more than $4 billion of goods imported in 2023, according to the USDA.

However, margins for organic farms are slightly below the national average for non-organic farms, ranging from negative 3 percent to slightly higher than 20 percent, the National Center for Appropriate Technology concluded in a 2019 report.

Consumers Want Healthy, Affordable Food

Demand for organic food is at an all-time high, with approximately $64 billion worth of certified organic food sold in the United States last year, up from about $11 billion in 2000, according to the Agriculture Department’s 2025 situation report.

Families of all backgrounds across the United States are prioritizing healthy living, and a growing movement is popularizing a return to traditional farming methods that avoid synthetic chemicals.

“I don’t want that going into my child’s body,” Megan Armstrong, a resident of Huntsville, Texas, and mother of a 3-year-old, told The Epoch Times.

“It’s worth the extra bucks to keep my child safe.”

Another mother from Texas, Kelsey Facundo, said she prioritizes organic food for her children, while she and her husband oftentimes have to make do with what they can afford.

A homesteading mother said the difference in quality of organic and conventional meats is stark.

Animals raised for organic production are fed certified organic hay and grains, allowed to graze in pastures, and are strictly forbidden from eating genetically modified grains, which is the standard fare for conventional livestock production.

“I started finding local butchers to buy all my meat from,” Shanna Dixon told The Epoch Times.

“It’s worth the price because the taste is on another level, which really goes to show you what they are doing to the meat between the slaughter and the table to change the taste.”

Newly appointed Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has long championed organic agriculture as part of his Make America Healthy Again agenda, and many advocates are anxiously watching his actions to see how new policies could impact the industry.

Regarding prospective reviews of the U.S. food supply, he said, “Nothing is going to be off limits,” during introductory remarks to his department on Feb. 18.

A new report indicates that 200 employees across Disney’s ABC News Group and Disney Entertainment Networks unit are set to be laid off as early as Wednesday, accounting for roughly 6% of the combined workforce. The move is part of a broader consolidation wave within far-left corporate media amid ratings implosion as Americans gravitate towards X and new media outlets in the Trump era. 

The Wall Street Journal reports that the layoffs, which represent 6% of the combined units, will be announced at some point today. The report is based on people knowledgeable about the cuts. 

Additional color by WSJ of the cuts: 

• The ABC news magazine shows “20/20” and “Nightline” are consolidating into one unit, resulting in job cuts, the people said. ABC is also eliminating the political and data-driven news site 538, which had about 15 employees.

• All three hours of “Good Morning America” branded shows will be consolidated under one person; previously, the third hour had a separate production team.

• At the Disney Entertainment Networks unit, which houses broadcast networks and cable channels such as Freeform and FX, there will be staffing reductions in program planning and scheduling.

WSJ noted, “The cuts are the latest of several staff reductions over the past few years at Disney, which like many entertainment companies is looking for ways to save on what used to be core businesses as it spends more on sports and entertainment content to compete in the streaming marketplace,” adding, “Ratings and revenue are down at many cable channels as consumers ditch cable packages and advertisers flee for streaming services and digital platforms.” 

The imminent cuts at ABC (and entertainment unit) come a little more than one week after race-baiting propagandist Joy Reid was fired from MSNBC. Ratings at the far-left network—full of wild conspiracies—have collapsed since Trump secured the White House in last November’s presidential election. Many hosts on the network suffer from a severe case of “TDS.”

Watch: Joy Reid Breaks Down In Tears After Getting Fired From MSNBC https://t.co/3bSuqteYAH

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 24, 2025

Also.

Chuck Todd Out At NBC News In Latest MSM Shakeup https://t.co/Co58WOAxj8

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 31, 2025

And. 

Jim Acosta To Leave CNN After 18 Years: Report https://t.co/h7LVZXI6qn

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 28, 2025

Millions of Americans have turned off leftist corporate media, instead opening their X app for the news. They now listen to long-form podcasts with Joe Rogan and increasingly read altranterive media outlets. Many folks feel betrayed by the left’s propaganda machine, which misled them on critical stories ranging from Hunter Biden’s laptop to Covid’s origins to the economy. 

Now, the Overton Window has shifted from far-left to center-right (woke era over). With Trump signing an executive order banning government censorship, a new era of free thought has emerged—driven by new media pushing humanity forward. 

Authored by Bradley Jackson via RealClearPublicAffairs,

February 22nd marked the 293rd anniversary of George Washington’s birth. It seems that few Americans, however, really know the man or understand what makes him important.

Some accounts of Washington are hagiographic and instructive, after the fashion of a fable. Parson Weems, for example, invented the tale about him chopping down a cherry tree. In contrast, others have attempted to cut a tall man down to size by emphasizing Washington’s moral shortcomings, most importantly his ownership of slaves, which he himself admitted was an immoral trade.

Washington has much more to offer us, however, than simple morality tales about his virtues and vices. He was a man of extraordinary depth and complexity. He was in tight control of himself, and his life was always choreographed to the rhythms of propriety and morality as he understood them.

Washington held himself to the highest standard and inspired others to meet it as well.

His private life, well known to us through his contracts, travels, and investments, is nonetheless hidden from us by his wish that Martha, his wife, burn their personal correspondence, which she fulfilled. Penetrating to the heart of the man beyond the image he wished to portray can be difficult.

To recover the real Washington, we should start with what he cherished beyond all else – his country. To understand the character of his patriotism is to understand what he believed America to be.

For Washington, America is defined by liberty, which he spoke about in his Farewell Address. Liberty, he said, is “interwoven … with every ligament” of the American heart.

The Constitution, he believed, was based upon the “fundamental maxims of true Liberty” and the great principle of “the power and the right of the People to establish Government.” It is because of the Constitution’s liberal and democratic character that we should show “respect for its authority, compliance with its Laws, acquiescence in its measures.” Only the people have the right to alter the Constitution, said Washington, and “’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, [it] is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

It is in this context that Washington warns Americans, “in the most solemn manner,” of the dangers of partisanship and what we today call polarization. He argues that while parties and factions “may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the Power of the People, and to usurp for themselves the reins of Government.” Partisanship, in other words, is a danger to liberty and constitutional government. For this reason it is “the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it.”

Washington’s preferred phrase to describe partisanship is “the spirit of Party.” This spirit, he says, “agitates the Community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”

Partisanship makes countrymen into enemies, silencing what Abraham Lincoln would later call the “better angels of our nature.” As we look within for enemies, Washington feared we would ignore the real enemies outside our borders. He warns us that the spirit of party “opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.”

Partisanship, in other words, distracts us from our true self-interest, divides us, and weakens us before our enemies. Washington, even after two terms as president, was still a military man at heart.

What must we do to prevent these dangers, especially since partisanship is “inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind”? For Washington, it all comes down to our fidelity to the Constitution and the system of checks and balances it prescribes.

Public servants, he states, must “confine themselves within their respective Constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the Powers of one department to encroach upon another.” Congress must let the president enforce the law, and the president must allow Congress to decide what that law is.

If we do not follow Washington’s advice, he is very clear about the outcome: “The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”

The overriding importance of Washington for America today is not so much that he was a moral exemplar, nor that he bears the moral failure of not seeking ways to free his slaves prior to his death, though both claims are, in different ways, true. Rather, it is that Washington understood this country as a father understands his children, knowing their strengths and their weaknesses.

Washington can teach us something about how to be Americans, but only if we see him as more than a proxy for our own partisan fights. It is long past time that we returned to the actual political teachings of our founders, for it is in these that true civic education can be found.

Bradley Jackson is the vice president of policy at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.