Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 20 reinstated a Maine state lawmaker’s speaking and voting privileges that had been suspended over her criticism of males participating in girls’ high school sports.

In March, the speaker of the Maine House of Representatives barred Maine Rep. Laurel Libby, a Republican, from speaking or voting on the House floor until she recanted her views on Maine’s policy allowing transgender participation in school sports, according to the lawmaker’s application filed with the court.

On May 20, the Supreme Court granted Libby’s request for an injunction blocking the House policy as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considers the case. The unsigned order did not provide reasons for the decision.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor indicated she would deny the application. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent from the granting of the application.

A federal district court previously denied Libby’s application for a preliminary injunction, finding legislative immunity prevented the court from acting because the speaker’s “sanction” was a “legislative act” and the disenfranchisement of the voters in Libby’s legislative district was not so “extraordinary” as to override immunity.

Libby appealed to the First Circuit, which also declined to block the House policy.

In her April 28 application to the Supreme Court, Libby challenged the speaker’s decision to suspend her privileges as a lawmaker.

“The verbal censure (unwise as it may be) is not what Applicants challenge here. It’s what happened next.

“The Speaker declared Libby was barred from speaking or voting until she recants her view. This means her thousands of constituents in Maine House District 90 are now without a voice or vote for every bill coming to the House floor for the rest of her elected term, which runs through 2026.

“The ongoing and indefinite denial of Libby’s voting rights is unprecedented,” the application said, adding that the U.S. House of Representatives found long ago that the Constitution forbids that chamber from preventing one of its members from voting.

“The member’s vote is not her own; it belongs to her district. And depriving an entire district of representation is no more constitutional than excluding that district from a redistricting plan in the first place. … The same rules apply in Maine.”

On May 8, Maine’s House Speaker Ryan Fecteau, a Democrat, filed a brief urging the Supreme Court not to take up the case.

The brief said that on Feb. 17, Libby “targeted” a high school student who had competed in an event “because that student is transgender,” and identified that student by name. The post, written on her official Facebook account, “quickly went viral,” according to the brief.

Fecteau said he saw the post and “was immediately concerned about the student’s safety and welfare” and sent a letter to Libby, urging her to delete the post. Libby declined.

The Maine House passed a resolution with a vote of 75 to 70, requiring Libby to “accept full responsibility for the incident and publicly apologize to the House and to the people and the State of Maine,” the brief said.

“Like other censures of Maine House members, the censure resolution required Rep. Libby to apologize for her conduct—not recant her views.”

Libby declined to apologize, the brief noted. Fecteau determined that Libby had violated House rules and ruled she could not participate in floor debates and floor votes until she apologized.

The speaker said that Libby “retains all other legislative privileges and continues to enjoy considerable means to advance and oppose legislation and otherwise represent her constituents,” despite those restrictions.

In her dissent, Justice Jackson wrote that Libby’s application isn’t an emergency and fails to meet the “high bar” imposed by the federal All Writs Act, which gives the Supreme Court authority to issue injunctions. She said that the First Circuit is “moving quickly to evaluate the legal issues this case presents,” and oral argument is scheduled for the coming weeks.

Libby has failed to show that her right to the relief she requested is “indisputably clear,” Jackson wrote, citing a legal precedent.

This leaves “many difficult questions,” such as whether there are limits to state legislatures’ power to bind lawmakers to ethics rules, and whether federal courts may determine if those rules are improper, Jackson wrote.

For example, “Does it violate a representative’s First Amendment rights to be subject to sanction under such rules, and does it make a difference what the sanction is?”

“This Court has neither addressed nor answered most of these questions,” Jackson wrote.

Authored by Jeffrey Folks via American Thinker,

Not long ago, U.S. health secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. defended Trump’s nomination of Casey Means as surgeon general.  In his nomination remarks, Trump wrote that Means would “work closely” with Kennedy “to ensure a successful implementation of our Agenda in order to reverse the Chronic Disease Epidemic, and ensure Great Health, in the future, for ALL Americans.”

Trained as a head and neck surgeon, Casey Means abandoned her career in surgery to become a prominent “wellness” influencer.  Like RFK Jr., Means promotes preventive and alternative medicine that might result in fewer surgeries and other invasive treatments.  She practices “functional medicine” and is not board certified in a medical specialty.  No wonder her nomination has been attacked by professional groups associated with surgeons and other members of the medical establishment.

Means has promoted what some see as “controversial” ideas, such as removing ultra-processed foods in school lunches and replacing them with unprocessed foods, especially fresh fruits and vegetables.  This might seem like common sense, but it threatens a food industry that is focused on processed meat, dairy, and other foods and that employs powerful lobbies to maintain sales.

There is also her view that glucose “as a molecule has caused more destruction of the human mind and body than any other substance in human history.”  Like RFK Jr., Means supports food warnings and possibly outright bans on high-sugar foods.

During the Sep. 27, 2024, Roundtable Discussion of Children’s Health: A Second Opinion, Means joined Sen. Ron Johnson, RFK Jr., and a dozen experts in a discussion of preventive options for children’s health.  At the roundtable, Dr. Means stated that “if the current trends continue … at best, we’re going to face profound societal instability and decreased American competitiveness, and at worst, we’re going to be looking at a genocidal level health collapse.”

A full four-hour video of the roundtable is available online and is well worth watching for what it says about America’s health care crisis and about the views of RFK Jr. and Casey Means.  Several panelists referred to the “corruption” and economic self-interest of food and health care systems that, in their opinion, are making Americans chronically ill.  As Means stated, every segment of the current “health care” system “makes more money when we are sick.”  It is not a matter of degree, one panelist stated, but of “black and white … good and evil.”  According RFK Jr., if a foreign country did these things to us — the poisoning of our food supply and corruption of our health care system — “it would be considered an act of war.”

A crucial point is that President Trump himself stands behind, and in fact set in motion via his appointment of RFK Jr., Means and others in this effort to transform America’s health.  More than anyone, it is Trump who is spearheading the effort to transform health care and diet, as well as to lower the cost of prescription drugs and other medical costs.  One recalls that in his first term, Trump passed the “Right to Try” legislation that has opened ongoing clinical trials to those willing to pay for them.

Many persons associated with the medical establishment might label Means and RFK Jr. as radicals because of their intention to fundamentally transform American health.  This transformation involves many elements, but at its heart, it is a change of approach among physicians away from treating symptoms to promoting wellness.  Along with this, there would be major changes in diet and exercise.

Whether Kennedy and Means are radicals is, of course, a matter of opinion.  But no one can deny that, despite spending more per capita than any other country in the world, the U.S. has one of the highest levels of chronic and acute disease.  This is a problem that must be addressed either by government or by individual choice.

The rate of adult obesity in the U.S. stands at 40% and it is rising.  Three fourths of U.S. adults have at least one serious marker of disease — high blood sugar, high blood pressure, obesity or overweight, heart disease, arthritis, and others.  We are not a well nation.  Just recently I sat outside a local grocery for 30 minutes (waiting on my wife) and observed that a majority of shoppers coming out, their carts piled with Mothers’ Day foods and presents, were either overweight or obese.  This is not natural, and it is not the way most of us want it to be.  But as many commentators have written, we live in an unhealthy environment that deliberately promotes unhealthy choices.

This is not to say that individual choice plays no role in our predicament.  Pizza is the most popular food in America, and this choice is not forced on us.  Hamburgers, often loaded with cheese and extra meat patties, are second — again, not because of a conspiracy on the part of the medical establishment, but because they are quick, filling, and tasty.  To really change American health, it would be necessary to shift eating patterns from pizza and burgers.  Only three percent of Americans consistently eat whole plant-based foods at present.

Many critics believe that these changes are too extreme and that the chances of bringing them about are slim.  But health advocates have pointed out that as late as the 1980s, a majority of Americans still smoked on a regular basis, and now that figure stands at 14%.  Change in health habits is possible if driven by public education and social and economic pressure.  The price of a pack of cigarettes has risen from about 30 cents in 1960 to six dollars today, a result mostly of higher taxation and litigation designed to restrict consumption.  A similar program of education and taxation could be applied to sugary foods and drinks.

“Transformation” is difficult to achieve, as I fear Kennedy and Means will find out.  But incremental changes are possible, and I believe they should be implemented.  As a conservative, I believe that healthy choices are a matter of individual choice, but it is a fact that government policy toward reducing smoking has saved an estimated 8 million lives, 3.5 million of them from lung cancer.  Even minor changes to food and medical systems will, I believe, save an equal number of lives.  It is right to ban artificial food dyes.  It is right to educate the public about the harm of excessive sugar.  It is right to promote consumption of more natural foods.

As with the appointment of RFK Jr., Trump’s nomination of Casey Means as U.S. surgeon general is a shot across the bow of America’s health care system and the food and drink industry.  Trump campaigned on making America “healthy again.”  There is a crisis, and every American is affected in some way — if not directly by disease, then by the burden of health care spending.  Trump’s appointment of RFK Jr. and his nomination of Casey Means are steps in the right direction.

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

CHIMNEY ROCK, N.C.—North Carolina officials estimate that it will take many years, many hands, and up to $60 billion to recover from the widespread devastation caused by Hurricane Helene in late September 2024.

In the historic village of Chimney Rock, located in the western part of the state, a dedicated army of volunteers has been providing much-needed assistance to the recovery effort at no cost.

“It hasn’t required much funding,” Shane Zoccole, founder and director of the South Carolina-based disaster relief nonprofit Spokes of Hope, said.

Zoccole told The Epoch Times that the recovery effort in Chimney Rock is primarily driven by volunteers.

“Chimney Rock is essential to the valley—it’s the commerce of this area,“ he said. ”We felt led to help the businesses, to help the people here, and to get this town to stay on the map instead of going off the map.”

Since October 2024, Zoccole has led more than 2,000 volunteers from various nonprofits willing to help without compensation.

Among the volunteers are hundreds of Amish and Mennonite people from Ohio and Pennsylvania who are ready to go the distance, he said.

“We eat breakfast by 8 a.m., work orders go out, we’re working by 8:30, and then we work until just about 6 p.m., when dinner is served,” Zoccole said.

“It’s been all the moving parts connecting with local business owners and volunteers across the nation.”

He said it has been a collaborative effort since the hurricane made a lasting impact on the landscape eight months ago.

Zoccole founded Spokes of Hope in 2018 after Hurricane Florence caused nine deaths and resulted in $2 billion in damages across South Carolina.

However, that was dwarfed by the destruction caused by Hurricane Helene, he said.

Much of Chimney Rock, a village in western North Carolina’s Hickory Nut Gorge on the eastern slopes of the Blue Ridge Mountains, was either damaged, destroyed, or buried under several feet of mud.

The bridge over the Rocky Broad River, leading to the state park near the village, collapsed in the rising floodwaters, which reached a height of 20 feet.

The ferocious wind, powerful currents, and heavy rain swept away several businesses along the river. All that remained were the concrete foundations.

Near the Bat Cave residential area, a ticket booth remained on its side, while the stately homes further upriver lay in ruins or exhibited heavy damage. Many homes that survived the torrent were no longer safe for habitation.

“Still here, still standing,” read a sign on a house that remained livable.

Confronted with such devastation, Zoccole’s initial reaction was that using a bulldozer to clear the wreckage would be a more effective solution than implementing a reconstruction plan for the village.

Nonetheless, Zoccole and his relief volunteers refused to give up on the community.

“We have to go to the finish,” he said.

“If we don’t finish something that we’ve started, then we’ve [basically] told these people we’re only here part-time for you. We’re only here to help you a little bit.”

Members of the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division arrived in early October 2024, armed with buckets and shovels to clear the knee-deep mud and allow other volunteers to begin repairs.

By early May, volunteers had removed tons of silt and debris from the water-damaged shops. They rebuilt several of them to code using donated and repurposed materials and equipment.

Although many shops remain closed for repairs, Chimney Rock Village no longer bears the worst scars from the hurricane.

Zoccole noted that considerable work remains, as the village business center plans to reopen this summer, possibly in June.

“Our success is in our unity. We’ve been able to pull together ahead of schedule,” he said.

A Storm Like No Other

Chimney Rock Village, located in Rutherford County, has a rural population of about 140 residents. It is one of the 39 counties in North Carolina designated as a critical disaster area following Hurricane Helene.

The hurricane struck Florida with winds of 140 mph on Sept. 26, 2024, before moving into North Carolina the next morning and causing severe rain, flooding, and deadly landslides across much of the western third of the state.

In certain regions, rainfall accumulation reached as much as 30 inches. The storm caused damage to, or destroyed, more than 73,000 homes, roads, and bridges across 6,900 sites, including the heavily trafficked Interstate 40.

The storm claimed more than 100 lives across the state and directly caused 176 deaths across the southeastern region, with seven residents still unaccounted for in North Carolina, according to federal government data.

One resident of Chimney Rock Village lost her life during the storm, which was deemed the worst since Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

According to a revised North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management assessment, the estimated multi-year recovery costs are nearly $60 billion.

The report estimates the storm’s total economic impact at more than $16 billion, which includes $3 billion in direct damages to businesses, and more than $12 billion in lost revenue, excluding wages and income.

Then-North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper requested $3.9 billion from the General Assembly to support struggling communities. Of this total, $1.2 billion has already been allocated, with an additional $225 million set aside in reserve.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has designated $850 million for this initiative, which includes the deployment of 8,500 personnel for emergency response.

‘Nothing but Mud’

Erica Stafford, 40, is the head chef and kitchen manager at Lured Market and Grill near Lake Lure and Chimney Rock.

She said she has witnessed powerful storms and the death and economic havoc they leave behind, but Helene seemed to be far worse.

“Nobody expected it to be what it was,” Stafford said. “Even living here, I thought, ‘Well, there’ll be some flooding. We’re going to have a tree down. We’re going to be out of power.’ Nobody expected the amount of damage done.

“It was such a mess. I got down here, and it was nothing but mud.”

Read the rest here…

Gun rights groups celebrated Thursday morning after the House narrowly passed President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” in a 215–214 vote. Organizations like Gun Owners of America praised the legislation for including the Constitutional Hearing Protection Act (CHPA), which eliminates both the federal registration requirement and the $200 tax on firearm suppressors. The provision drew sharp criticism from anti-gunners and leftist media outlets as the bill now heads to the Senate. 

“The House of Representatives passes GOA-backed language 215-214 to ELIMINATE the unconstitutional taxation & registration of suppressors under the NFA,” GOA wrote on X, adding, “The bill heads to the Senate, where GOA will fight to include protections for short-barreled firearms too.” 

🚨BREAKING🚨⁰⁰The House of Representatives passes GOA-backed language 215-214 to ELIMINATE the unconstitutional taxation & registration of suppressors under the NFA.⁰⁰The bill heads to the Senate, where GOA will fight to include protections for short-barreled firearms too. pic.twitter.com/4cRqgi4LHl

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 22, 2025

GOA’s Deputy Director of Federal Affairs, Benjamin Sanderson, said in a short video posted on X that the organization has been working on a budget reconciliation strategy to deregulate suppressors for the past year. He thanked the millions of GOA members who have supported their efforts.

THANK YOU to our members, supporters, & 2A allies who helped make suppressor deregulation a reality in the House.

This is a huge win for gun owners—and worth celebrating.👏

Next: Let’s get the SHORT Act added in the Senate & send it to President Trump’s desk.🔥 pic.twitter.com/qOocqJlktp

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 22, 2025

Since being classified under the Al Capone-era National Firearms Act, suppressors have been subject to a $200 tax stamp imposed by the ATF. If President Trump signs the Senate version of the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” purchasers only need to pass an FBI background check to acquire a suppressor.

“Shall not be infringed—or taxed. I’m proud that we secured the elimination of taxation and registration of suppressors in budget reconciliation. It’s past time we restore our constitutional 2A rights,” stated Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), who originally introduced CHPA. 

Shall not be infringed—or taxed.

I’m proud that we secured the elimination of taxation and registration of suppressors in budget reconciliation.

It’s past time we restore our constitutional 2A rights. pic.twitter.com/cimvg4aRW0

— Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) May 22, 2025

Clyde said, “This is a massive 2A victory — one that takes important steps toward restoring our constitutional freedoms.”

GOA Founder Erich Pratt stated, “Eliminating the suppressor registration and tax is a major step forward for liberty and safety. This would not have happened without Rep. Clyde’s resolve and strategic leadership. Gun owners have one less unconstitutional hurdle to worry about — but we’re not done. The Senate needs to deliver on President Trump’s campaign promise to protect gun owners from another ban on short-barreled firearms like the Biden Pistol Brace Ban.”

Meanwhile, leftist corporate media melted down…

GOA detailed what needs to be done in the Senate: “Let’s get the SHORT Act added in the Senate & send it to President Trump’s desk.”

Recall we were one of the first to report last week: Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Would Slash Suppressor Transfer Costs To Zero… 

Authored by Connor O’Keefe via the Mises Institute,

Over the weekend, the Biden family announced that former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with stage IV prostate cancer. The statement said that the cancer was characterized by a Gleason score of 9 out of 10, indicating it is highly aggressive, and that it has already spread to the bone.

Well-wishes poured in from both the former president’s allies and political opponents as the Bidens reportedly reviewed treatment options. But it didn’t take long for people to note a few questionable details about the nature and timing of this announcement.

First, it happened to come a little over thirty hours before the release of a highly-anticipated book by CNN’s Jake Tapper and Axios’s Alex Thompson that detailed Joe Biden’s mental decline while in office and the effort by people around him to cover it up and deny it was happening at all. While other books have already come out claiming to tell this story, none have come from journalists as highly respected by the political establishment as Tapper and Thompson.

Also, the day before the announcement, Axios released the full recording of Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur, where the president’s difficulty answering straightforward questions was on full display at the same time his allies in the media were trying to claim he was “as sharp as a tack.”

That convenient timing and speed at which some Biden allies, like David Axelrod, came out and said that talk of the former president’s decline should now be set aside because of this diagnosis led to some skepticism about the claim that the cancer was discovered only a few days ago.

That skepticism only grew as doctors began reacting with disbelief that cancer at this late a stage could have either just developed in the past few months or gone undetected for years while Biden was president. That’s especially true considering that prostate cancer is typically easier to discover early than most other cancers due to antigens it releases in the blood that can be detected with a simple blood test—a blood test we know both presidents Obama and Trump had taken while they were in office.

It is certainly possible that no physical health problems were covered up during Biden’s presidency, that his cancer was only detected for the first time a few weeks ago, as his office has said. But many of those most aggressively denying that anything shady is happening with the timing of this announcement will have a much harder time getting the public to believe them because of the blatant and unsuccessful attempt to censor, hide, and deny Biden’s deteriorating mental state in the lead up to the 2024 election.

The lengths to which establishment politicians and major media figures went to gaslight the American public into dismissing something that was obvious to anyone who was looking should never be forgotten because it exposed the true nature of the political class. They lied, shamelessly, to further their political ambitions.

While that’s far from unusual, rarely are their lies as blatantly and immediately obvious as saying Biden was sharp and highly engaged behind closed doors and that every video that purported to show otherwise was fabricated by far-right video editors.

It’s also rare for the establishment’s lies to blow up in their faces as quickly and extensively as this one did at the now famous June 2024 presidential debate. Once it became obvious that the lie would not hold, virtually the entire anti-Trump political scene flipped on a dime and began parroting concerns that they were mocking people for voicing mere hours before.

The political class is still struggling to run damage control. The most promising strategy—seemingly embodied by Tapper and Thompson’s new book—is to try to pin the blame on a handful of staffers, claiming they hid the truth from media figures like Tapper who then unintentionally spread the lie to the rest of the world. But that would be a much easier sell if millions of Americans had not spent years openly talking about the very thing that was apparently being hidden from them. Still, the establishment will throw as many staffers under the bus as they need to avoid admitting they lied. They do not want the takeaway from this episode to be that they need to lie less.

And beyond that, if the establishment admitted they knowingly supported an increasingly cognitively impaired man, not only to remain in office but to serve an entire second term, it would shatter the illusion that our government is truly run by a president who embodies the wishes of the voting public, like we learned in elementary school. It would reveal the fact that, as long as they don’t actively speak out against or draw attention to all the ways the political class is ripping the American public off, the person sitting in the Oval Office is essentially irrelevant.

Whether the timing of Biden’s cancer announcement is a particularly disgusting part of the scheme to cover all this up or truly a complete coincidence, the last few days have made it clear that the damage the political class did to its credibility with its attempted cover-up of Joe Biden’s condition has not gone away. And that is duly deserved.

Computex 2025 in Taipei, Taiwan, entered its fourth day on Thursday. Tech blog Tom’s Guide said the spotlight this week has been on AMD’s Radeon RX 9060 XT and Nvidia’s RTX 5060 gaming GPUs. Other top highlights include Intel’s early reveal of next-gen laptop CPUs for 2026 and MSI’s debut of its first AMD-powered gaming handheld, the Claw A8.

Breaking down Asia’s top AI tech show, Bloomberg highlighted five key takeaways from this week:

Consumer AI Needs More Time

There was scant mention of consumers this year. In 2024, Qualcomm Inc. devoted its presentation to how AI would make everything better and we’d never again need our laptop chargers on the move. This time around, it flipped to a script focused on enterprise applications for AI.

Foxconn, also known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., used its first keynote address at the show to go big on heavy-duty AI, from making cities smarter to bringing robots to manufacturing and making EV design more efficient. The company that assembles the bulk of the world’s iPhones had nothing to excite consumers.

Asustek Computer Inc. offered a sobering outlook on the prospects of so-called AI PCs.

Samson Hu, co-chief executive officer of the Taiwanese computer gear maker, said AI PCs will take a year or two before they go mainstream. That’s because the software is still immature, plus new tariffs from the US are likely to flatten near-term growth. Asus may have to hike prices in the US by as much as 10% to deal with those levies, Hu said.

DeepSeek Changed AI

The debut of DeepSeek in January changed the nature of AI, highlighting China’s advances in the field while dismantling basic assumptions about computing needs.

Huang was among the few executives who addressed that first openly, saying that China is “incredible” at software development and has the resources to make up for any technological gap.

DeepSeek also popularized reasoning models, which require more raw computing power. “And so now the reasoning model is not one shot, but it’s hundreds of shots,” Huang told reporters this week. “DeepSeek increased the amount of computing need by maybe 100 to 1,000 times.”

China Looms Large

The most-clicked headlines centered around Nvidia’s delicate position as the US pursues chip restrictions intended to curtail China’s tech ascent. That came to a head Wednesday, when Huang branded that effort a “failure” and called for Washington to back away.

If the US doesn’t allow Nvidia to sell within China, local companies like Huawei Technologies Co. will fill the void, he warned. “The local companies are very, very talented and very determined,” Huang said. “And the export controls gave them the spirit, the energy and the government support to accelerate their development.”

While key officials in Washington buy that argument as it applies to the rest of the world, US President Donald Trump’s administration has doubled down on measures targeting Beijing.

Executives in Taiwan no doubt took note of two related developments. Huawei hosted its AI developer gathering the same week, touting the Ascend chips that Beijing wants to see supplant Nvidia’s silicon. And Xiaomi Corp. happened to announce it’s developed its own advanced 3-nanometer mobile chip to compete with Qualcomm.

Taiwan Charm Offensive

Intel Corp.’s new boss worked hard to mend ties with the Taiwanese partners, after his predecessor Pat Gelsinger raised concerns about the island’s dominance in semiconductors.

Lip-Bu Tan praised local supply chain partners during a company event in Taipei celebrating its 40th anniversary on Monday.

Even Nvidia dedicated much time and floor space at the conference to lauding its Taiwanese partners. SoftBank Group Corp. founder Masayoshi Son was also in town for the week, though like Tan he was keeping a low public profile.

No Bubble?

There was little public discussion about one of the most pressing questions for tech investors: have we overestimated the need for datacenters? Tech stocks from Nvidia to Meta Platforms Inc. and Microsoft Corp. have gyrated wildly in 2025 in part because of that overarching uncertainty.

To be sure, most of the attendees benefit directly from spending on the servers and components needed to power datacenters and AI development. Nvidia’s CEO echoed the sentiment.

“We’re several hundred billion dollars into tens of trillions of dollars of AI infrastructure buildout,” Huang said.

With all the major announcements already made earlier in the week, the Computex conference will wrap up on Friday.

Goldman analyst Eddy Kuo attended the conference. In a note on Thursday, he pointed out that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang “is optimistic for humanoid robotics and commented it will be the core of the future economy, and Taiwan is playing a key role in this area integrating AI and humanoid robots.” 

As Taiwan faces nursing shortages and an aging population, COMPUTEX 2025 showcases innovative robotics solutions, including Foxconn’s Nurabot for healthcare and Pegatron’s Simba robot dog for dangerous environments.
★ https://t.co/ynzSGjhc12 ★ pic.twitter.com/qERUmznDUJ

— TVBS World Taiwan (@tvbsworldtaiwan) May 22, 2025

“Computex will conclude today and color on the ground here the Computex onsite is super packed yesterday even more crowded than Tue and expect today to reach the peak and lots of interests on ASIC related supply chain,” Kuo said. 

Update(1817ET): Elias Rodriguez, a 30-year old man from Chicago, has been charged in last night’s fatal shooting of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, outside an event hosted at the Jewish Museum.

He is accused of opening fire on an entire group of people who were exiting an event hosted by an advocacy group that supports Israel. He faces two counts of first-degree murder for the deaths of Sarah Lynn Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky.

Court filing shows brutal execution-style murders, after which Rodriguez shouted “free Palestine!” as police apprehended him and took him away.

He shot the young woman in the back after she was hit the first time, and as she struggled to stay alive.

The newly filed charges filed against Elias Rodriguez expose the depravity and callousness of the murders. He didn’t just kill Sarah and Yaron- he made sure to finish them.

He followed Sarah as she crawled away in agony after he shot her. He followed her and shot her again. He… pic.twitter.com/T2gjBzlmKR

— Marina Medvin 🇺🇸 (@MarinaMedvin) May 22, 2025

The court document filed by the FBI indicates that Rodriguez told officers on the scene of the shooting: “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza, I am unarmed.” He was reportedly holding a red keffiyeh as he said this “spontaneously” to law enforcement on the scene.

In a briefing, the FBI’s Steve Jensen has said the shooter was not previously known to the FBI, and that analysts are currently combing through his social media profiles. They said it’s believed the man had traveled to D.C. initially for a work conference.

And as expected, Rodriguez appears to be an ANTIFA radical and avowed communist, based on initial findings from his online history…

Elias Rodriguez, the Chicago far-left activist accused of shooting dead two Israelis outside the Capital Jewish Museum, has a long history of support for BLM, Palestine, communist and anti-white causes.

Those groups have been trying to scrub his associations with them by… https://t.co/DvtdsH23ie pic.twitter.com/34QRe5Yogo

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) May 22, 2025

Interim US Attorney for the District of Washington Jeanine Pirro said in a press briefing the president and attorney general have indicated that in cases where the death penalty is warranted and seems appropriate, it will be used.

“It’s far too early to say whether that is the case, but this is a death penalty eligible case,” she said.

According to more details via the BBC:

• Interim US Attorney for the District of Washington Jeanine Pirro said the shooting was being investigated as an act of terrorism and that more charges may be added
• Pirro said it was “far too early” to say if they would seek the death penalty, but that it was a “death penalty eligible case”
• The FBI’s Steve Jensen said the suspect Elias Rodriguez was not known to the bureau, but investigators are looking at his social media accounts and contacting his associates
• The FBI believe Rodriguez travelled to DC for a work conference one day before the attack
• Police chief Pamela A Smith said there would be an increased presence of law enforcement in the area

* * *

Late Wednesday evening there is currently a massive ongoing police response in northwest Washington DC outside the Capital Jewish Museum, after gunfire erupted just outside which killed two staff members of the Israeli Embassy.

“Two Israeli Embassy staff were senselessly killed tonight near the Jewish Museum in Washington DC,” Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem confirmed in a post on X. “We are actively investigating and working to get more information to share.”

The shooting occurred across the street from the FBI’s Washington Field Office, which is located very near to the museum, and Israeli embassy officials are working with local law enforcement and the FBI.

It has further been confirmed that the Israeli ambassador is safe, and was not involved in the incident, and was not present at the time of the shooting.

Underscoring the seriousness of the killings, which appear to have targeted an event which took place at the Jewish Museum, US Attorney General Pam Bondi amd acting US Attorney for DC Jeanine Pirro are currently on the scene in the aftermath. 

🚨BREAKING: Israeli diplomat and companion fatally shot outside the Capital Jewish museum in Washington, D.C., gunman reportedly yelled “Free Palestine!” pic.twitter.com/nHMVK0fCcL

— Liberty Watch (@LibertyWatchHQ) May 22, 2025

Ted Deutch, the CEO of the American Jewish Committee, has described that his organization was hosting an event at the museum and has issued an initial statement:

“We are devastated that an unspeakable act of violence took place outside the venue.”

“At this moment, as we await more information from the police about exactly what transpired, our attention and our hearts are solely with those who were harmed and their families.”

Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, has also issued a statement calling it a “depraved act of anti-Semitic terrorism”:

The fatal shooting that took place outside the event that took place at the Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. is a depraved act of anti-Semitic terrorism. Harming the Jewish community is crossing a red line. We are confident that the US authorities will take strong action against… pic.twitter.com/mVyXHjGyxU

— Danny Danon 🇮🇱 דני דנון (@dannydanon) May 22, 2025

Reports say that a suspect may be in custody, but it is unclear as the security situation is fluid amid the ongoing emergency response.

One man and one woman were shot and killed outside of an event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, law enforcement sources told ABC News.

The suspect in the shooting has been identified as a 30-year-old man from Chicago, Washington, D.C. Police Chief Pam Smith said.

“Two staff members of the Israeli embassy were shot this evening at close range while attending a Jewish event at the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington DC,” the spokesperson at the Israeli Embassy in Washington, Tal Naim Cohen, said in a statement on Wednesday night. –ABC News

There are unconfirmed reports that a gunmen screamed “free Palestine” and opened fire:

❗️Suspect opened FIRE before screaming ‘Free Palestine’ — reports

Police have suspect in custody https://t.co/bWKjii0Hon pic.twitter.com/6F8v9S7e0x

— RT (@RT_com) May 22, 2025

Houman David Hemmati, who is connected to the event at the Jewish Museum, writes on X:

Chaotic scene tonight inside Washington DC Capitol Jewish Museum where, just outside, 2 people (potentially Israeli diplomatic) who may have been attending an American Jewish Committee Young Diplomats event (one I organized years ago) shot & killed.

Tensions have been running high following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that a new phase of the Gaza War has begun, dubbed ‘Operation Gideon’s Chariots’ – which aims to fully eradicate Hamas and end in a full Israeli military takeover of the Gaza Strip.

Is this a return to a horrific summer of love?… amid boiling geopolitical tensions which threaten to erupt in a city near you.

Authored by Nick Giambruno via International Man,

Gold has been at the heart of the US monetary system since the nation’s founding, evolving from a direct anchor for the dollar to a strategic reserve asset.

Though it no longer backs the dollar, gold remains a cornerstone of central bank reserves, a discreet but powerful force in global finance.

Throughout American history, monetary resets have been a recurring theme—and more often than not, they have revolved around gold because gold is money.

Understanding this history isn’t just about the past—it’s about the future. And if history is any guide, another reset may be coming sooner than most expect.

1775: Continentals and the American Revolution

Before the Revolution, gold and silver coins were the backbone of trade in the American colonies.

When war broke out, the Continental Congress lacked the authority to levy taxes, forcing them to seek an alternative way to finance the war.

In 1775, Congress began issuing “Continental Currency”—the first fiat paper money in US history. These notes, known as “Continentals,” were supposed to be redeemable in gold and silver after the war, but that promise lacked credibility.

Continentals quickly became worthless amid hyperinflation. The phrase “Not worth a Continental” became synonymous with worthlessness.

By 1781, Continentals had lost over 99% of their value, and the US government effectively abandoned them, leaving holders with massive losses.

This disaster deepened distrust in fiat money and cemented the belief among the Founders that gold and silver must be the foundation of any stable monetary system.

1792: The Coinage Act and the Birth of the US Monetary System

After the disastrous failure of Continental Currency, the Coinage Act of 1792 created the first official US monetary system, ensuring stability by tying the dollar to both gold and silver.

Gold was set at $19.39 per ounce, while silver was also legal tender.

The Founders aimed to prevent another Continental-style collapse by anchoring the currency to hard money.

The First Bank of the United States (1791–1811)

The First Bank of the United States, the nation’s first central bank, was established under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton to stabilize the economy, issue a national currency backed by gold and silver, and manage federal deposits.

However, it quickly became a political flashpoint, facing fierce opposition from Thomas Jefferson and states’ rights advocates, who feared it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of the federal government.

When the bank’s 20-year charter expired in 1811, Congress refused to renew it.

The Second Bank of the United States (1816–1836)

In the wake of the financial chaos following the War of 1812, the US established another central bank, the Second Bank of the United States, in 1816.

Like its predecessor, it was designed to regulate credit, stabilize the currency, and hold federal deposits.

However, it quickly became a political lightning rod, particularly under President Andrew Jackson, who saw it as a corrupt institution that served elite interests at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Jackson vetoed its recharter in 1832, waged a successful campaign against it, and ultimately dismantled the bank in 1836.

1834: First Major Price Change ($20.67 per Ounce)

The Coinage Act of 1834 officially raised the gold price to $20.67 per ounce, effectively devaluing the US dollar (since more dollars were now needed to buy an ounce of gold).

The $20.67 per ounce gold price remained unchanged for nearly a century until FDR’s intervention in 1933.

1862: Lincoln’s Greenbacks – The Civil War Fiat Experiment

During the War Between the States (1861–1865), President Abraham Lincoln introduced a fiat paper currency known as “Greenbacks” to finance the war effort. This marked a major departure from the gold and silver-based system that had defined US money.

The war demanded enormous financial resources, but the government lacked sufficient gold and silver reserves to cover costs. Traditional borrowing through bond sales proved insufficient, and policymakers were reluctant to impose heavy taxation on the public. In response, Congress passed the Legal Tender Act of 1862, authorizing the issuance of paper money not backed by gold or silver—these notes became known as “Greenbacks” due to their distinctive color.

Although Greenbacks allowed the government to fund the war, they were not backed by hard assets, leading to debasement. After the war, the US took steps to restore confidence in the monetary system and return to a gold-backed standard.

In 1869, the Public Credit Act was passed, pledging that Greenbacks would eventually be redeemable in gold, reassuring creditors. This was followed by the Specie Payment Resumption Act of 1875, which mandated that by 1879, Greenbacks would once again be convertible into gold. By then, the US had reduced the number of Greenbacks in circulation, successfully returning to a gold-based monetary system and ending their fiat status.

Although Greenbacks were a temporary fiat currency, their detachment from gold foreshadowed future monetary shifts.

1913: The Federal Reserve Act

The creation of the Federal Reserve—the nation’s third central bank—marked a significant shift toward centralized control over the US monetary system.

While gold remained part of the system, the Federal Reserve’s ability to expand credit beyond physical gold reserves weakened gold’s direct role in the monetary system. This shift set the stage for future monetary interventions, inflationary policies, and the eventual abandonment of gold convertibility in 1971.

1933: FDR’s Gold Confiscation (Executive Order 6102)

In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) issued Executive Order 6102, forcing Americans to turn in their gold coins and bullion to the US Treasury. This move was intended to give the government greater control over the money supply and combat deflation during the Great Depression.

Citizens were paid $20.67 per ounce for their gold, but shortly after, the government revalued gold at $35 per ounce, effectively devaluing the dollar by 41%. The change allowed the government to print more dollars without increasing gold reserves.

In a national radio address on October 22, 1933, Roosevelt justified the decision, stating:

“The United States must take firmly in its own hands the control of the value of our dollar.”

Gold ownership was banned for private citizens until 1974, and much of the nation’s gold was centralized in Fort Knox. This marked a decisive step in the government’s tightening control over the monetary system.

1944: The Bretton Woods Agreement – The Dollar Becomes the Global Reserve Currency

It’s been rightly said that “he who holds the gold makes the rules.”

After World War 2, the US had the largest gold reserves in the world by far. Along with winning the war, this let the US reconstruct the global monetary system around the dollar.

The new system, created at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, tied the currencies of virtually every country in the world to the US dollar through a fixed exchange rate. It also tied the US dollar to gold at a fixed rate of $35 per ounce.

However, the Bretton Woods Agreement was doomed to fail.

Runaway spending on warfare and welfare eventually caused the US government to print more dollars than it could back with gold at the promised $35 price.

1971: Nixon Ends Gold Convertibility (“Nixon Shock”)

By the late 1960s, the number of dollars circulating had drastically increased relative to the amount of gold backing them. This encouraged foreign countries to exchange their dollars for gold, draining the US gold supply at an alarming rate.

As a result, the US gold supply dropped by more than half, from 574 million troy ounces at the end of World War II to around 261 million troy ounces in 1971.

The situation pressured the US government to make a drastic decision.

It could do nothing and watch its gold holdings evaporate, which would mean losing enormous financial and geopolitical power. Or it could default on its promise to redeem the dollar for gold.

On Sunday night, August 15, 1971, President Nixon interrupted the scheduled TV programs and made a surprise announcement to the nation—and the world.

Nixon said he was temporarily suspending the dollar’s convertibility into gold.

The most obvious lie was Nixon’s claim that the suspension would only be “temporary.” It’s still in place today.

Another egregious lie was that his move was necessary to protect Americans from international speculators. Instead, money printing to finance out-of-control government spending was the real problem.

Lastly, Nixon said removing the link to gold would stabilize the dollar. However, even by the government’s own rigged inflation statistics, which understate reality, the US dollar has lost over 87% of its purchasing power since 1971.

The truth is that Nixon defaulted on the US government’s promise to redeem the dollar for gold at $35 an ounce. Since then, the dollar has been a pure fiat currency with no backing.

1972 – The Smithsonian Agreement Adjusts the Gold Price to $38

After the Nixon Shock, world leaders met in December 1971 to try and stabilize the international monetary system. The Smithsonian Agreement attempted to:

• Raise the official gold price from $35 to $38 per ounce, effectively devaluing the dollar by 8.5%.
• Allow major currencies to fluctuate within a 2.25% band instead of being strictly fixed.

However, confidence in the dollar continued to erode, and the agreement collapsed by 1973, paving the way for the modern floating exchange rate system, where gold would trade freely on the open market.

1973: The US Dollar and Gold Officially Float

After multiple attempts to stabilize exchange rates—including the Smithsonian Agreement (1971)—major currencies transitioned to a free-floating system in early 1973, allowing exchange rates to fluctuate based on market forces.

As the US dollar continued to weaken, another official devaluation occurred in February 1973, raising the official gold price from $38 to $42.22 per ounce. This represented a total devaluation of 20.7% compared to the original $35 peg established under Bretton Woods.

However, despite these adjustments, it became clear that the US could no longer control gold’s value in global markets.

By March 1973, the Smithsonian Agreement collapsed, and major currencies—including the US dollar—shifted to a fully floating exchange rate system. This marked the end of government-controlled gold pricing as the US stopped setting an official price. Gold began trading freely on the open market, and its price was determined by supply and demand rather than government decree.

While August 15, 1971, marked the end of gold convertibility under the Nixon Shock, the US still attempted to maintain an official gold price under the Smithsonian Agreement. However, this system ultimately failed.

Gold officially began trading freely in March 1973, when the floating exchange rate system was adopted, allowing the market to set gold’s value independently for the first time since the nation’s founding.

Below is a chart depicting the 181-year history of gold’s official role in the US monetary system—from the Coinage Act of 1792 to 1973.

Each gold price adjustment marks a rare but significant event, reflecting dollar devaluations and major monetary resets that reshaped the financial system.

The Rise of Gold as a Financial Asset (1973–Present)

Before the adoption of a fiat currency standard after the end of Bretton Woods, gold had been mankind’s most enduring form of money—for over 5,000 years—because of unique characteristics that made it best suited to store and exchange value.

Gold is durable, divisible, consistent, convenient, scarce, and most importantly, the “hardest” of all physical commodities.

In other words, gold is the one physical commodity that is the “hardest to produce” (relative to existing stockpiles) and, therefore, the most resistant to debasement.

Gold is indestructible, and its stockpiles have built up over thousands of years. That’s a big reason why the growth of new gold supply—typically 1-2% per year—is insignificant.

In other words, nobody can arbitrarily inflate the supply.

That makes gold an excellent store of value and gives the yellow metal its superior monetary properties.

People in every country of the world value gold. Its worth doesn’t depend on any government or any counterparty at all. Gold has always been an inherently international and politically neutral asset. This is why different civilizations around the world have used gold as money for millennia.

Yet, most people don’t understand this.

They might say the paper dollars in their wallets and the digital dollars in their bank accounts are money, not gold. But that’s only been the case since 1971, a drop in the bucket by historical terms.

The collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971 was a turning point, severing gold’s link to the dollar and transforming it from a fixed monetary anchor into a freely traded financial asset. Even though it is no longer legal tender, gold has retained its status as a store of value, trusted by governments, central banks, and investors worldwide. Its role as a hedge against inflation, currency devaluation, and economic instability has only strengthened over time.

Despite abandoning the gold standard, central banks continue to hold and accumulate gold, recognizing its importance as a financial asset.

This is what makes gold fundamentally different from other commodities like wheat, copper, or oil. While those goods are consumed, gold is primarily held as a financial asset, making its price a critical indicator of global economic stability, currency strength, and monetary policy credibility.

The price of gold is a barometer of the fiat currency system itself. It is a real-time measure of confidence (or lack thereof) in the monetary system because it is a free market alternative to government-issued money.

Throughout history, every major monetary reset in the United States has revolved around gold—from the Coinage Act of 1792, to FDR’s gold confiscation in 1933, to the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1971. Each time, the dollar was devalued, and gold played a central role in reshaping the financial system.

This is no coincidence—gold has been mankind’s most enduring form of money for thousands of years, making it only natural that it would play a central role in any major monetary shift.

Today, the conditions are ripe for a monetary reset in the US, and history leaves little doubt—gold will once again be at the center of it. If past resets are any indication, a significant dollar devaluation is not just possible, but practically inevitable.

Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, all but confirmed that a monetary reset is imminent when he recently stated:

“We’re in the midst of a great realignment, a Bretton Woods realignment in terms of global policy, global trade… I’d like to be part of it, either on the inside or the outside.”

The stage is set. History shows every major US monetary reset has revolved around gold—and 2025 could be next. With debt exploding, the dollar overvalued, and gold flowing quietly into US vaults, the writing is on the wall.

What happens next could change everything.

That’s why I’ve just released an urgent new report revealing the top three strategies you need to prepare—and profit—from what’s coming next.

Click here to download it now before the window closes.

Authored by Gabriel Canaan via American Thinker,

On the very day Donald Trump became president again, he signed an executive order prospectively eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Immediately, lawsuits were filed in a half-dozen jurisdictions across the country challenging this order.

The groups bringing these suits claim the order disrupts long-standing legal norms governing citizenship. Yet, in fact, Trump’s contention — that birthright citizenship is not possessed by children of illegal aliens under the “correct interpretation of the law” — is exactly right.

Birthright citizenship is conventionally understood to apply to any child born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of that child’s parents. This view is based on the common law principle of jus soli (“right of soil”), which is said to be incorporated in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This understanding of the Citizenship Clause, however, despite its prevalence in academia and political commentary, is based on a mistaken and incomplete reading of controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In fact, birthright citizenship, as provided for in the Citizenship Clause, as that clause has been authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court, is possessed only by children born in the United States to at least one parent who is lawfully residing in the United States.

Ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War with the aim of remedying the injustices of the Dred Scott decision, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase has been wrongly equated with “subject to the laws thereof,” and thus to entail that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens, with only a few narrow exceptions, such as children born to diplomats.

Yet the Supreme Court has construed the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” more narrowly, most notably in seminal cases that have been taught — well or ill — in law schools ever since.

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, decided when American Indians were increasingly integrating into mainstream American society, presented the constitutional issue of whether Indians who had been born within the allegiance of a tribe were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, and thus born American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled that they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, on the ground that “jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause meant complete jurisdiction, which implied “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States. The parents of children born in the allegiance of a tribe had only indirect and intermediate allegiance to the United States, through their tribe. (Today, by a subsequent act of Congress, Indians born on reservations are U.S. citizens at birth.)

Twelve years later, in Wong Kim Ark v. United States, the citizenship status of an American-born man of Chinese descent was the issue.

Wong Kim Ark had been born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals, and had been denied entry to the United States after returning from a visit to China as an adult. At the time, Chinese nationals were precluded by treaty from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, after recounting the history of the common-law jus soli doctrine, and its influence on our Constitution, the Court held that, because the petitioner had been born to parents lawfully residing in the United States, he had been born within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States, and therefore at birth was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. He was thus born a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

That the petitioner’s parents had resided here with the permission of the United States was central to the Court’s holding. Chinese nationals who remain “subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here,” the decision reads, “and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens [lawfully] residing in the United States” (emphasis added). The Court explained that to “reside,” in this usage, means to live in a place with the intent to remain there, but not necessarily indefinitely. It is a broader category than “domiciled,” and could apply to long-term visa holders, as well as to lawful permanent residents.

The Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment thus limits its application to children of aliens residing in the country with permission. This requirement implies that children born to foreign nationals living in the country without permission are not subject to its jurisdiction, and that mere tourists, since they are only visiting and do not reside here, also are not so subject. This crucial qualification of common law birthright citizenship by the requirements of both residence and permission therefore excludes from citizenship at birth children both of tourists and of those residing in this country without permission — that is, illegal aliens.

To disregard these requirements would involve interpreting the Court to mean that illegal aliens are within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States.

But the Court specifically stated otherwise, holding that Chinese nationals who were not permitted to reside in the United States were not within its allegiance and protection. The Court could hardly have held otherwise. The phrase “allegiance and protection” describes the reciprocal obligations of citizens and the state that are foundational to a nation. Since illegal aliens are at all times subject to apprehension and deportation, they can hardly be regarded as within the “protection” of the United States.

In further evidence that Wong Kim Ark held that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for citizenship purposes, the Court cited to its own earlier ruling in another immigration case, from 1893, Fong Yue Ting v. United States. There, the Court addressed the legal status of non-resident or unlawfully-present aliens: while they are subject to our laws, they remain outside the government’s “complete jurisdiction.” Had the Court held in Wong Kim Ark that all children born in the United States and subject to its laws — such as illegal aliens—were citizens, it would have run afoul of the combined holdings of Elk — that jurisdiction for citizenship purposes means complete jurisdiction — and of Fong Yue Ting — that illegal aliens and non-resident aliens are outside the complete jurisdiction of the United States. The residence and permission requirements of Wong Kim Ark are therefore necessary to harmonize that case with those prior cases.

Wong Kim Ark’s inclusion of residence and permission requirements marks the Court’s departure from the English common law understanding of birthright citizenship in favor of one more compatible with American constitutional principles.

Indeed, leading constitutional scholars at the time noted that the American approach required residence while the British did not.

The doctrine of jus soli as articulated by common law scholars such as Coke and Blackstone is a product of feudalism: a subject owes a duty of perpetual loyalty to the Crown under the protection of which he is born.

In stark contrast, the American Revolution severed the colonies’ duty to the king in favor of a compact operating by consent of the governed rather than by perpetual, unchosen duty. The purpose of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment was not to reinstate the common law version of birthright citizenship; rather, it was to extend the principles of the Declaration of Independence to freed slaves and to nonwhite immigrants such as Chinese-Americans.

As it is currently applied, birthright citizenship not only returns us to a feudal past, but also undermines the ability of the people of the United States to set forth standards by which children born to foreign nationals may become citizens. It incentivizes “birth tourism” and mass illegal immigration, both of which treat the United States as a provider of material benefits rather than a political community towards which one owes allegiance and duties. Unlike illegal aliens and temporary guests, lawful permanent residents are incentivized to invest in their political community, and to adopt the customs and civic responsibilities of that community. Their children’s subsequent inheritance of those responsibilities further facilitates assimilation and social cohesion.

The rule of Wong Kim Ark v. United States reflects the compact approach to self-government inherent in the founding principles of this country while serving the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the rule as it was intended to be understood would remedy the above-mentioned policy deficiencies of an over-expansive view of birthright citizenship without the need to amend the Constitution, and efficiently resolve the flurry of lawsuits against President Trump’s executive order.

Gabriel Canaan is an attorney at the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) in Washington, DC.  A native of Southern California, he is a graduate of William & Mary Law School, and, prior to joining IRLI, served as a law clerk on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs.

The U.S. Senate voted 51–44 to overturn California’s ban on gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, sending the measure to President Trump’s desk for signature.

The vote nullifies a Biden-era Environmental Protection Agency waiver that allowed California to set stricter emission standards than federal rules under the Clean Air Act. The vote also marks a significant blow to leftist climate radicals pushing de-growth green policies aimed at shaping vehicle emission standards at a national level. 

Nearly all Democrats voted against repealing the EV mandate, except Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who broke ranks to support the measure—likely due to her home state’s deep ties to America’s legacy automakers in Detroit. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) blasted the Biden-era EPA waiver, calling it an “attempt by the Biden administration to impose an electric vehicle mandate across the country.” 

As of May, eleven states, plus Washington, D.C., have adopted California’s plan to phase out new gasoline-powered car sales by 2035. The new requirements faced strong opposition from the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, an auto trade group representing BMW, Ferrari, Ford, General Motors, Honda, and many other manufacturers. Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce argued the 2035 target was unrealistic and would harm the economy because it was de-growth in nature. 

Republicans, led by West Virginia Senator Shelley Moore Capito, called Biden-era EPA waiver a federal overreach and a threat to consumer choice and jobs. 

“Today, the Senate voted to end California’s EV mandate and send my joint resolution of disapproval under the CRA to President Trump’s desk. The Biden administration and Congressional Democrats tried to block the will of the American people from this attempt by extreme unelected California and Biden EPA bureaucrats to ban gas-powered cars throughout the country, but Congress has now spoken and soundly rejected this rule,” Capito stated. 

She continued, “The impact of California’s waiver would have been felt across the country, harming multiple sectors of our economy and costing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the process. I’m proud to have led this effort to protect American workers and consumers from this radical and drastic policy.” 

Democrats in the Senate are watching key climate policies—linked to the Green New Deal—begin to unravel under President Trump’s first four months in office. The rollback is evident not only in the automotive sector, with efforts to block EV mandates, but also in utilities, where fossil fuel generation is desperately needed to stabilize fragile power grids amid the surge in demand from AI data centers and overall electrification trends. 

Environmental groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, were furious with the vote, calling the move by Republicans “an unprecedented and reckless attack on states’ legal authority to address the pollution causing asthma, lung disease, and heart conditions.” 

“It is going nuclear,” Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said on Wednesday evening, adding this would enable MAGA Republicans to hijack the rules, erode “away at the Senate and undermine this institution they claim to care about.”

Meanwhile, the climate change policies have sparked a number of national security threats, first being the potential for unreliable power grids, plus flooding the nation with foreign solar panels has created a major issue:

• “Rogue” Devices Found Hidden In Chinese Solar Panels Could “Destroy The Grid”

And risk plunging into a net-zero death like Spain several weeks ago… 

• NatGas Generators Rescued Spain From Net Zero Death After Power Collapse

All in all, the Trump administration is bringing back energy policy common sense after four years of disastrous climate change nonsense that only boosted inflation.