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. 

Update (0830):

President Trump has finally weighed in with a lengthy Truth Social post after his “Big, Beautiful Bill” narrowly cleared the House in a last-minute 215–214 vote.

“THE ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL” has PASSED the House of Representatives! This is arguably the most significant piece of Legislation that will ever be signed in the History of our Country! The Bill includes MASSIVE Tax CUTS, No Tax on Tips, No Tax on Overtime, Tax Deductions when you purchase an American Made Vehicle, along with strong Border Security measures, Pay Raises for our ICE and Border Patrol Agents, Funding for the Golden Dome, “TRUMP Savings Accounts” for newborn babies, and much more! Great job by Speaker Mike Johnson, and the House Leadership, and thank you to every Republican who voted YES on this Historic Bill! Now, it’s time for our friends in the United States Senate to get to work, and send this Bill to my desk AS SOON AS POSSIBLE! There is no time to waste. The Democrats have lost control of themselves, and are aimlessly wandering around, showing no confidence, grit, or determination. They have forgotten their landslide loss in the Presidential Election, and are warped in the past, hoping someday to revive Open Borders for the World’s criminals to be able to pour into our Country, men to be able to play in women’s sports, and transgender for everybody. They don’t realize that these things, and so many more like them, will NEVER AGAIN happen!

*   *   * 

President Donald Trump’s multi-trillion-dollar tax package—also known as the “Big, Beautiful Bill”—cleared the House in a last-minute 215–214 vote on Thursday morning. The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans are calling for major revisions ahead of an expected vote in August. It aims to prevent a year-end tax hike and a potential debt default but would significantly increase the near-term federal deficit.

🚨 #BREAKING: The House of Representatives ERUPTS in cheers and applause as President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill officially PASSES

CONGRATULATIONS, 47! 🇺🇸🔥

✅ No tax on tips or overtime
✅ $175B for deportations and the wall
✅ Tax relief for seniors
✅ Making his 2017 tax… pic.twitter.com/HtchiQqvCx

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 22, 2025

The 215-214 House vote, with one abstention, was met with loud cheers by House Republicans. Some of the key provisions include:

• Extension of Trump-era tax cuts and new relief, such as exempting tips and overtime from taxation.

• The state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap will be increased to $40,000, with phase-outs for high earners.

• Cuts to safety-net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps, alongside new work requirements starting in December 2026.

• Rollbacks on clean energy tax credits, boosting fossil fuel incentives. 

• Major increases in military and border security spending.

• New taxes targeting elite universities (e.g., Harvard and other Ivy Leagues) and immigrant remittances.

• The elimination of EV tax credits, replaced by interest deductions on U.S.-built vehicle loans

It is interesting to note that Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were the only Republicans to vote against the Big, Beautiful Bill. They warned about mounting deficits that would result if the bill were passed. 

We provided Zero Hedge Pro Subs with an in-depth analysis of how the Big, Beautiful Bill would surge near-term deficits, adding about $5 trillion in debt.

Read more here…

The ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Will “Massively” Increase Near-Term Deficits, Add $5 Trillilon In Debt https://t.co/M6h17IJglA

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 21, 2025

In the bond market, the US 30-year Treasury yield moved higher after the bill narrowly passed the House, hitting 5.12%, the highest level since October 2023. This level is nearing its highest point since 2007. 

With Treasury yields soaring, perhaps it’s time for Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to fire up the “big toolkit”…

Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R., Texas) stated: “This bill is our opportunity to deliver on the promises we made. At its core, the one big, beautiful bill is about more than dollars and cents. It’s about liberty and empowering the American people.”

The Wall Street Journal noted, “Republicans are aiming to get the bill to Trump’s desk by July 4. The real deadline might be a bit later.” 

Democrats blasted the bill as taking money away from the social safety net to fund tax cuts for the wealthy…

“It’s really one big broken promise,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene (D., Wash.), adding, “Republicans have spent months fighting over how many Americans they’re going to kick off Medicaid and how fast.”

*  *  *

You can support ZeroHedge by picking up a waxed canvas hat!

Harvard is having a really bad year. From feds yanking billions in grants, to House Republicans alleging ties to the Chinese military, to President Trump threatening their tax-exempt status, to detained embryo-smuggling scientists (and most of that’s just this month), the university has now been blocked from enrolling international students – which constitute nearly 1/3 of Harvard admissions.

“I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked,” according to a letter sent to the university by DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, which they promptly shot over to the NY Times. The university has 72 hours to hand over requested information.

The decision followed a back-and-forth in recent days over the legality of a wide-ranging records request by the Department of Homeland Security.

According to Bloomberg, existing foreign students must transfer or lose their legal status, the notice reads.

This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.

It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments… pic.twitter.com/12hJWd1J86

— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) May 22, 2025

In April DHS threatened to block Harvard from enrolling international students if the university refused to hand over detailed records about the student body containing “relevant information” on student visa holders who have been involved in “known illegal” or “dangerous” activity.

“It is a privilege to have foreign students attend Harvard University, not a guarantee,” Noem wrote in an April letter. “The United States government understands that Harvard University relies heavily on foreign student funding from over 10,000 foreign students to build and maintain their substantial endowment.”

Harvard dug in last month following the Trump admin’s demands – with president Alan Garber saying in a statement “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Not So Fast?

Concurrently, a federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from terminating the legal status of international students nationwide while a court case challenging previous terminations is pending.

The order by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White in Oakland bars the government from arresting or incarcerating the plaintiffs and similarly situated students; from transferring any of them outside the jurisdiction of their residence; from imposing any adverse legal effect on students and from reversing the reinstatement of the legal status until the case is resolved. Students can still be arrested for violent crimes. –AP

According to White, the government’s actions “wreaked havoc not only on the lives of Plaintiffs here but on similarly situated F-1 nonimmigrants across the United States and continues do so.”

Read Noem’s letter below (emphasis ours):

Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program Decertification

I am writing to inform you that effective immediately, Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification is revoked.

As I explained to you in my April letter, it is a privilege to enroll foreign students, and it is also a privilege to employ aliens on campus. All universities must comply with Department of Homeland Security requirements, including reporting requirements under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program regulations, to maintain this privilege. As a result of your refusal to comply with multiple requests to provide the Department of Homeland Security pertinent information while perpetuating an unsafe campus environment that is hostile to Jewish students, promotes pro-llamas sympathies, and employs racist “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies, you have lost this privilege.

The revocation of your Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification means that Harvard is prohibited from having any aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status for the 2025-2026 academic school year. This decertification also means that existing aliens on F- or J- nonimmigrant status must transfer to another university in order to maintain their nonimmigrant status.

This action should not surprise you and is the unfortunate result of Harvard’s failure to comply with simple reporting requirements.

On April 16, 2025, I requested records pertaining to nonimmigrant students enrolled at Harvard University, including information regarding misconduct and other offenses that would render foreign students inadmissible or removable. On April 30, 2025, Harvard’s counsel provided information that he represented as responsive to my request. It was not.

As a courtesy that Harvard was not legally entitled to, the Acting DHS General Counsel responded on my behalf and afforded Harvard another opportunity to comply. Harvard again provided an insufficient response.

Consequences must follow to send a clear signal to Harvard and all universities that want to enjoy the privilege of enrolling foreign students, that the Trump Administration will enforce the law and root out the evils of anti-Americanism and antisemitism in society and campuses.

If Harvard would like the opportunity of regaining Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification before the upcoming academic school year, you must provide all of the information requested below within 72 hours.

Please be advised that providing materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent information may subject you to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Other criminal and civil sanctions may also apply.

I expect full and complete responses to the following requests:

1. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding illegal activity whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
2. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding dangerous or violent activity whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
3. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding threats to other students or university personnel whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
4. Any and all records, whether official or informal, in the possession of Harvard University, including electronic records and audio or video footage, regarding deprivation of rights of other classmates or university personnel whether on or off campus, by a nonimmigrant student enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
5. Any and all disciplinary records of all nonimmigrant students enrolled in Harvard University in the last five years.
6. Any and all audio or video footage, in the possession of Harvard University, of any protest activity involving a nonimmigrant student on a Harvard University campus in the last five years.

Developing…

Authored by The Vigilant Fox via vigilantfox.com,

The “safe and effective” narrative collapsed on camera during Senator Ron Johnson’s explosive Senate hearing on COVID-19 vaccine injuries Wednesday afternoon.

Senator Ron Johnson brought the receipts, exposing how the Biden administration DELIBERATELY hid vaccine harms from the public.

Then Dr. James Thorp (OB-GYN) revealed miscarriage data so disturbing, it left the room silent.

This is the Senate hearing they never wanted you to see. I turned three hours of footage into a five-minute read.

Senator Ron Johnson opened the hearing with a bombshell: the Biden administration knew about deadly heart risks tied to the COVID shots, and deliberately kept it from the public.

Johnson released newly subpoenaed records exposing a detailed timeline of what officials knew and when. While Pfizer and Moderna received insider updates, doctors and citizens who raised concerns were silenced.

In February 2021, Israeli health officials warned the CDC of “large reports of myocarditis, particularly in young people” following Pfizer injections, just two and a half months after the vaccine received emergency use authorization.

By April, the CDC was already reviewing myocarditis data from Israel and the Department of Defense. But instead of alerting the public, they stayed quiet.

By the end of that month, VAERS had recorded 2,926 deaths, nearly half of which occurred within three days of injection. “Somebody ought to be looking at it,” Johnson said.

In May, the CDC considered issuing a formal health alert—but scrapped it. They replaced it with watered-down guidance that removed a key warning for doctors to restrict physical activity in myocarditis patients.

Francis Collins, then director of the NIH, brushed it all off. “Senator, people die,” he told Johnson.

In just six months, the toll was staggering: 384,270 reports of adverse events, 4,812 deaths, and 1,736 of those occurred within just 48 hours of injection.

BREAKING: The Biden administration KNEW about deadly heart risks from COVID shots and DELIBERATELY kept it from the public.

Sen. Ron Johnson just released subpoenaed records exposing a damning timeline of what officials knew and when.

Pfizer and Moderna got insider updates from… pic.twitter.com/od4fqSiaUh

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 21, 2025

Dr. Peter McCullough then took the floor and upended the narrative that vaccine-induced myocarditis is “rare.”

Before COVID, McCullough had seen just two myocarditis cases in his entire career. After the rollout, everything changed.

He says he’s now “examined thousands of patients with this problem.”

“There’s 1,065 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on COVID vaccine myocarditis,” he explained, pointing to a 2021 case published in the New England Journal of Medicine. A 42-year-old man developed vaccine-induced myocarditis. “The infection is ruled out,” McCullough said. “It’s the vaccine.” Three days after his Moderna shot, the man was dead.

McCullough cited a shocking case from Korea—a young man who died within eight hours of hospitalization after a Pfizer shot. His heart had been, in McCullough’s words, “fried with inflammation.”

Then came a case from Connecticut: two teenage boys, 16 and 17, died in their sleep just days after Pfizer. Their parents found them unresponsive.

“These cases… should have gotten everyone’s attention,” McCullough said. “We should never have someone die after taking a vaccine that’s directly caused to the vaccine.”

Dr. Peter McCullough says he had only seen TWO cases of myocarditis in his entire career before COVID.

After the shots rolled out, everything changed.

He says he’s now “examined thousands of patients with this problem.”

“There’s 1,065 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on… pic.twitter.com/Gy0qRSl3X7

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 21, 2025

Alabama-based physician Dr. Jordan Vaughn followed up with a chilling estimate—up to 15 million Americans may be suffering from long COVID or COVID vaccine injuries.

He now treats teenagers who can’t stand up and previously healthy adults who are suffering strokes with no clear cause.

According to Vaughn, the spike protein’s S1 subunit is far from harmless. “It triggers inflammation, it disrupts endothelial barriers, it induces fibrin resistant to breakdown, and it promotes a lot of amyloid aggregates,” he said.

These effects impair oxygen delivery, damage blood vessels, and trigger a wave of symptoms—racing heart, brain fog, shortness of breath, and post-exertional crashes.

In his clinic, Vaughn uses immunofluorescent microscopy to detect the spike protein’s damage, showing up in patients who were once thriving.

He warned that the mRNA injections led to uncontrolled spike protein production, which spread throughout the body, reaching the heart, brain, ovaries, and testes.

REPORT: Up to 15 MILLION Americans may be suffering from the devastating effects of the COVID shots, says Alabama-based physician Dr. Jordan Vaughn.

In his clinic, he now sees teenagers who can’t stand and previously healthy adults suffering strokes with no identifiable cause.… pic.twitter.com/sngD0F6COL

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 21, 2025

Regulators claimed the vaccine stayed in the arm. That was a lie. A Yale study now shows some people are still producing spike protein more than 700 days after their last injection.

We didn’t just inject people. We turned them into spike protein factories.

OB-GYN Dr. James Thorp delivered one of the most haunting moments of the hearing.

He said the COVID shots “MIRRORED” the effects of chemical abortion drugs—and the government knew what it was doing.

Dr. Thorp pointed to the now-infamous Shimabukuro study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which claimed a 12.6% miscarriage rate following COVID vaccination.

But when you isolate the data for women vaccinated in the first trimester, the miscarriage rate rises to 82%, Dr. Thorp said. This 82% claim remains a topic of debate within the scientific community.

If true, “This figure mirrors the effects of chemical abort drugs,” Dr. Thorp lamented.

OB-GYN Dr. James Thorp delivered one of the most haunting moments of the hearing.

He said the COVID shots “MIRRORED” the effects of chemical abortion drugs—and the government knew what it was doing.

Dr. Thorp pointed to the now-infamous Shimabukuro study published in the New… pic.twitter.com/6ucjWU1se7

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 22, 2025

He added, “Recently, animal studies revealed the mRNA COVID vaccine causes the destruction of 60 PERCENT of the ovarian reserve in rats.”

If that effect translates to humans, it could be a catastrophic blow to fertility and the future of entire generations.

Dr. Thorp said pregnant women were deliberately targeted, and their unborn children paid the price.

“This must stop now,” he said.

Attorney Aaron Siri then delivered a little-known history lesson on vaccine liability.

“For every product on the market, you can SUE the manufacturer for harm,” Siri said. “There’s only ONE product in America you CANNOT sue the manufacturer to claim it could have been made safer—and that’s VACCINES.”

He explained how the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act gave pharmaceutical companies sweeping immunity, not just for three vaccines, but for every new childhood shot added to the CDC schedule.

The result? A schedule that exploded from 3 shots to 29 in the first year of life, with zero accountability.

“They don’t have the financial incentive to make them safer,” Siri said. “In fact, they have the disincentive.”

Attorney Aaron Siri (@AaronSiriSG) then delivered a little-known history lesson on vaccine liability.

“For every product on the market, you can SUE the manufacturer for harm,” Siri said. “There’s only ONE product in America you CANNOT sue the manufacturer to claim it could have… pic.twitter.com/Kq8RXtUk21

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 22, 2025

Senator Ron Johnson confronted Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, who was defending the COVID jabs at the hearing.

“I could fill this room with photos of people who are DEAD because of the COVID injection,” Johnson said. “I could fill the room,” he reiterated.

He made the comment after calling out how the vaccine-injured are still being ignored, gaslit, and denied care.

Johnson pointed to VAERS data showing 38,607 reported deaths after the shot, 9,228 of them within two days.

Multiply that by a conservative underreporting factor of 10, and the death toll climbs to over 386,000.

Senator Ron Johnson confronted Hawaii Gov. Josh Green, who was defending the COVID jabs at the hearing.

“I could fill this room with photos of people who are DEAD because of the COVID injection,” Johnson said. “I could fill the room,” he reiterated.

He made the comment after… pic.twitter.com/FdmFHxkcWM

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 22, 2025

Dr. Peter McCullough delivered one of the most powerful moments of the hearing.

Senator Blumenthal had previously claimed the COVID vaccines “saved three million lives.”

Dr. McCullough quickly dismantled that false narrative. He delivered a three-part reality check on what actually brought COVID deaths down:

1. Natural immunity did the heavy lifting.

2. Early treatment kept people out of hospitals.

3. The virus mutated into a milder form.

“The vaccine cannot be falsely credited with saving millions of lives,” McCullough said.

“We can’t allow false drug advertising to be put up on a poster behind one of our public servants. We cannot accept that.”

Dr. Peter McCullough (@P_McCulloughMD) delivered one of the most powerful moments of the hearing.

Senator Blumenthal had previously claimed the COVID vaccines “saved three million lives.”

Dr. McCullough quickly dismantled that false narrative. He delivered a three-part reality… pic.twitter.com/8WwWh4dXD7

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 22, 2025

Sen. Ron Johnson delivered another crushing blow to the “safe and effective” narrative—this time with a devastating chart that exposed that lie.

The chart showed that one of the biggest spikes in COVID cases and deaths occurred AFTER the vaccine rollout began in December 2020.

By mid-2021, over half the U.S. was “fully vaccinated.” But instead of improving, the numbers got worse.

If the vaccine had worked, cases and deaths would have dropped. They didn’t—and this chart makes that impossible to ignore.

Sen. Ron Johnson delivered another crushing blow to the “safe and effective” narrative—this time with a devastating chart that exposed that lie.

The chart showed that one of the biggest spikes in COVID cases and deaths occurred AFTER the vaccine rollout began in December 2020.… pic.twitter.com/IuKuvHaFg9

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 22, 2025

Sensing the narrative was slipping, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) scrambled to defend public health officials.

He became visibly agitated at the suggestion that vaccine risks had been covered up.

“I may be sounding a little bit like a lawyer, not a physician, but purposeful concealment, intentional hiding, is essentially undocumented by the evidence released by this report itself,” Blumenthal said.

He brushed off the myocarditis concerns as “rare” and insisted that officials like Rochelle Walensky took “multiple steps” to warn the public.

So his message quietly shifted from “safe and effective” to “We did our best with what we knew at the time,” a clear sign that the vaccine narrative is running out of ground to stand on.

Sensing the narrative was slipping, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) scrambled to defend public health officials.

He became visibly agitated at the suggestion that vaccine risks had been covered up.

“I may be sounding a little bit like a lawyer, not a physician, but… pic.twitter.com/qz29MP3k5R

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 22, 2025

Vaccine-injured physician Dr. Joel Wallskog captured the pain of the vaccine-injured better than anyone.

“If I could describe one word that I think all, if not most, vaccine-injured will say… it’s ABANDONMENT.”

He explained how people like him have been attacked from both sides.

“The right says we’re stupid… the left calls us anti-vaxxers, which is one of the most ignorant things to say.”

He reminded the room that he was injured because he got vaccinated.

Dr. Wallskog and vaccine-injured associate Brianne Dressen met multiple times with FDA vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks over two years.

“We have been placated, we have been blown off,” he said. “He thanks us, he says he’ll get back to us… he never does.”

Dr. Wallskog added that the idea that federal agencies are trying to help is “the farthest from the truth.”

Vaccine-injured physician Dr. Joel Wallskog captured the pain of the vaccine-injured better than anyone.

“If I could describe one word that I think all, if not most, vaccine-injured will say… it’s ABANDONMENT.”

He explained how people like him have been attacked from both… pic.twitter.com/Wt1IlTZybV

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) May 22, 2025

Read the rest here…

The text that passed the House on a 215-214, party-line vote early Thursday is even less favorable to clean energy interests than a previous draft that industry groups widely panned, UtilityDive reported.

The bill terminates the 48E investment and 45Y production tax credits for non-nuclear clean energy projects placed in service after 2028, with no phaseout period. Projects must begin construction within 60 days of the bill’s enactment — likely later this year — to be eligible for the credits.

The version the House Ways and Means Committee released on May 12 stepped down the value of the 48E and 45Y credits over three years and did not include the imminent construction-start requirement, giving developers and asset owners more leeway to wait out lengthy waits for grid interconnection.

Combined with even tighter restrictions on foreign involvement in U.S. clean energy projects, the truncated eligibility window leaves a “near impossible” pathway for non-nuclear developers to qualify for the 48E and 45Y credits, Jeffries said. The foreign involvement restrictions apply to “foreign entities of concern” like China, which controls much of the upstream supply chain for batteries, electric motors and other clean energy equipment.

The bill also eliminates the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax credit transferability framework for most clean energy projects. Experts say transferability, which previously enjoyed bipartisan support, expands project financing options for small and midsize energy developers.

Following an outcry from industry groups like the Nuclear Energy Institute, the House bill extends production and investment tax credit eligibility for advanced nuclear projects and power uprates of existing reactors that begin construction by 2028. It also extends a separate production credit for existing nuclear power plants through 2031 and preserves transferability for nuclear projects.

The practical effect of the nuclear carveout is unclear. Projects like the planned reactor restarts at Constellation Energy’s 835-MW Crane Clean Energy Center and Holtec International’s 800-MW Palisades plant would likely qualify, but many greenfield projects are not expected to begin reactor construction until later this decade. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority earlier this week began a more than two-year federal permitting process for a small modular reactor that it expects to begin building in late 2028.

The biggest surprise in the latest version of the bill is what Jeffries called the “intentional targeting” of the residential solar sector. The previous version of the bill quickly terminated the 25D tax credit for customer-owned residential solar installations while preserving it for installations leased by companies like Sunrun, the country’s biggest third-party solar and energy storage leasing enterprise.

“This short-lived advantage to [residential solar leases] was seemingly corrected, with new text now ‘leveling the playing field’ by targeting all future residential solar originations, whether leased or owned,” Jeffries said.

Shares of Sunrun fell about 40% in early Thursday trading; stocks of other solar companies also tumbled.

Clean energy advocates and trade groups said the bill would devastate an industry driving the United States’ manufacturing boom while increasing customers’ utility bills and threatening the stability of the electric grid.

“This unworkable legislation is willfully ignorant of the fact that deploying solar and storage is the only way the U.S. power grid can meet the demand of American consumers, businesses and innovation,” the Solar Energy Industries Association said in a statement.

The head of Advanced Energy United, another clean energy trade group, called the legislation a “meat cleaver” in a statement noting that solar, wind, storage and other “advanced energy” added 50 GW to the U.S. grid in 2024 and produced about $400 billion in domestic revenues.

The House bill “abruptly dismantles bipartisan, long-standing tax policy that has catalyzed billions in private investment for affordable, reliable energy while sparking a rebirth of manufacturing across America,” AEU President and CEO Heather O’Neill said. “If enacted as written, this bill will weaken our power system and send shockwaves throughout the U.S. economy by raising electricity prices, killing tens of thousands of jobs and ceding energy dominance to China.”

In a report released before the House bill passed, the American Clean Energy Association identified more than 800 manufacturing facilities involved in the U.S. clean energy supply chain. Seventy-three percent of those are located in “Republican states,” it said.

Antonio Gracias, a private equity investor and senior official in the Department of Government Efficiency, revealed the startling methodology used by DOGE staff to uncover voter fraud involving illegal immigrants, describing it as “just the tip of the iceberg.”

“We’ve sampled a handful of states, and in those handful of states, we found people registered to vote, and we have found people who actually voted,” Gracias said, detailing the meticulous process used by DOGE staff in an interview at the All-In summit in Miami. “This is all being done by sampling. Okay, so we are sampling DHS data and then have to go to the voter rolls, check the voter rolls, and then check them.”

🚨 DOGE’s Antonio Gracias Says Illegal Migrants Have Voted in U.S. Elections

“We have found [illegal migrants] who actually voted … We already had three arrests in Florida and one indictment … My opinion is that this is the tip of the iceberg.”

Full Episode w/… pic.twitter.com/f3HgiMB1o8

— Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) May 21, 2025

The process, as Gracias explained, involves cross-referencing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) data with state voter rolls. “We give that to HSI, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), who goes and checks the voter record by subpoena and the voter and the cards you sign when you vote,” he added. The results have already led to action in Florida, where Gracias noted, “We had already three arrests here in Florida, actually, and one in one indictment.”

Gracias elaborated on how some individuals, including illegal immigrants, obtained the ability to vote. “They legally secured social security numbers through the process we talked about last time, asylum or some special program or whatever,” he said. “They were given, you know, an associate number by filing a 765 and getting authorization. They registered to vote, and they actually voted in 2020 and/or 2024.”

One case stood out in particular, the founder of Valor Equity Partners told the All-In crew.

“Three have been arrested; I just want to say this carefully: three have been arrested, and one has been indicted,” Gracias stated. “The one we indicted, I want to just stop on this guy for a minute: he’s an Iraqi national. He voted in 2020 in New York. He went to prison for shooting somebody, shot some guy’s hand off, and has charged, if I remember correctly, 160, 60, or $70,000 of benefits through Medicaid.”

Gracias revealed that the indicted individual may no longer be in the U.S., saying, “We think he is now in Iraq because he’s active on his Facebook page, and the IP address is from Iraq.” He praised the collaborative efforts of federal agencies, adding, “Credit to our friends at HSI, our partners HSI, and to DOJ for tracking this down. I got to tell you guys, it’s difficult, laborious work.”

When asked about the scope of the election integrity issue, Gracias was frank while exercising caution. “My opinion is that this is the tip of the iceberg,” he said. “How big the iceberg is, I don’t know, and I don’t want to speculate because I think it would be, not that I think we can do at this moment. I think we’ll have more data over time.”

Gracias emphasized the labor-intensive nature of the investigation, noting, “For sure, if we can sample out of a database and it takes an engineer about a day to find 20-ish cases, what DOJ asks for was 10 to 20 cases per state. It just gives you a sense of what’s happening. It takes an engineer about a day to find 10 to 20 cases per state in sampling.”

In April, Gracias sparked a firestorm alongside tech titan and DOGE leader Elon Musk, unveiling explosive data at a Wisconsin rally aimed at energizing voter turnout. The duo presented a detailed chart alleging that millions of noncitizens were issued Social Security numbers under the Biden administration. Their findings pointed to a steady rise, with a staggering peak of over 2 million noncitizens receiving Social Security numbers in fiscal year 2024, ending September 30. The data also showed roughly 1 million noncitizens issued numbers in both FY 2023 and FY 2025, the latter spanning October 2024 through September 2025.

“None of this would have happened without President Trump,” Gracias later told Fox News. “President Trump had the courage to allow us to go across databases. He signed an executive order. It’s never been done before, where agencies could talk to each other and databases could talk with each other.”

“That allowed us to connect all this data, to find these people across the system, across the benefit system, all the way to the voting records. It really took a lot of courage,” he added.

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

The U.S. Supreme Court on May 22 voted 4–4 to reject authorization for the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself and did not participate in the case known as Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. The respondent is Gentner Drummond, Oklahoma’s attorney general.

The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion consists of one sentence: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” No reasons for the ruling were provided.

As the vote resulted in a tie, under court rules, the lower court ruling being appealed is affirmed.

On June 25, 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled against the school, ordering the school board to cancel the contract and finding that the school was a governmental entity.

The court determined that, since the school was deemed a state actor, denying it charter status did not violate the free exercise clause.

The state court also found that the school’s contract with the school board violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s prohibition against “using public money for the benefit or support of any religious institution.”

This is a developing story and will be updated.

The Trump administration, focused on delivering economic growth and food production in the U.S., is attracting the opposition of zealots and degrowth monied interests alike. 

To wit; two radically authoritarian ballot measures – which have the support of initiatives and frameworks of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) – ask Colorado and Oregon voters to give up the family dog and hand over their private property rights in what some have called “the end of farming and ranching” in the Mile High state.

Democrats in Colorado are preparing to permanently end farming in the state

“This would be the end of farming and ranching and private (farm) land ownership in Colorado”

“There’s something happening in Colorado which is not so good. The corridor of people that don’t understand… pic.twitter.com/EDWu2KJNd8

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) May 13, 2025

The first measure, Colorado ballot initiative 2025-2026#82, reads like a dictator’s manifesto – and is essentially a carbon copy of the CCP-backed Convention on Biological Diversity’s wildlands project.

The eight-page “Colorado Wildlife and Biodiversity Protection Act” seeks to create the Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation Commission (WECC). 

Astonishingly, the WECC would consist of nine appointed members, with the petition strictly stipulating that no member can have any financial ties to agriculture, energy, or development. The petition then goes on to (laughably) assert that these supposed “elite” members – without “financial ties” – will be appointed by universities, environmental groups, and policy institutes. Naturally,  this commission will have total control over agriculture, energy, and all future development in Colorado. 

Deal with the Devil

But, have no fear landowners, the petition miraculously provides 25-50% tax abatement for those willing to hand over 49-100% of their private lands as designated wildlands…in perpetuity. 

Given the sheer naivete, and the multitudes of legal errors made by petitioners Jessica Presso and Cameron Porter, most would rightly assume the petition would be dead on arrival. Not so fast.

Within days, the Colorado Legislative Council Staff and Office of Legislative Legal Services sent Presso and Porter a nineteen-page how-to guide, effectively giving free legal advice by outlining the requirements for a final draft. 

Similar to court filings, when initiated petitions fail to meet filing requirements for single subjects, or properly address statutory amendments, they’re simply refused by the Secretary of State – placing the onus upon the petitioner(s) to seek legal advice. However, this departure from the norm now appears to be part of a growing trend in radical leftist states.

Oregon

Leading up to the 2022 election in Oregon, a similarly wonky Initiative Petition 13 was introduced to make raising, riding, eating or owning domestic livestock illegal. Similarly, the state donated resources to the petitioners by sending back a lengthy how-to guide. 

After significant tweaks, that Initiative Petition is back as IP28 and greenlit for signature collection ahead of the 2026 election. In addition to making it illegal to own companion animals such as dogs or cats, the IP would make it illegal to render animals for meat in the State of Oregon. 

While some might be quick to dismiss the actions of a few, seemingly lone environmental zealots, others cite bigger-picture concerns for connections to IGOs and dark money influence.

Last month, when the Trump administration delivered a long-awaited reform to the Endangered Species Act, monied interests immediately lashed out with threats. 

“Trump is trying to drive a knife through the heart of the Endangered Species Act. This will absolutely upend how we’ve been protecting endangered species for the last 40-plus years,” said Noah Greenwald of the Center for Biological Diversity, which makes its money by suing states and the federal government.

“The Center for Biological Diversity will no doubt join other groups in challenging the rule change in federal court,” Greenwald added. 

Yet by narrowly redefining “harm” as an illegal taking—such as removing or poaching—the Trump administration is attempting to rectify decades of federal overreach that have resulted in the loss of grazing rights on privately owned lands and the lowest cattle volumes in 70 years. 

While America’s farmers and ranchers are no strangers to authoritarian land grabs, many are now urging voters to take these state-level initiatives seriously as they’re not only aligned with the degrowth agendas of foreign-backed IGOs but would also supplant private property rights with eco-fascism.

*   *   * 

Save small ranchers, control your own food supply, and eat clean.