Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Undisclosed communication devices reportedly discovered in Chinese-manufactured solar panels and related equipment have sparked concerns among U.S. officials about the vulnerability of the nation’s power grid, according to a Reuters report. 

These “rogue” devices, found over the past nine months, could potentially destabilize energy infrastructure and trigger widespread blackouts, sources familiar with the matter told the outlet.

The undocumented devices, including cellular radios, were identified in solar power inverters, batteries, electric vehicle chargers, and heat pumps produced by several Chinese suppliers. 

BREAKING:

The U.S. has found Trojan horse communication devices in Chinese-made solar power inverters. They are used to connect solar panels to electricity grids.

The devices could be turned out remotely to destabilize energy grids, potentially leading to massive blackouts like… pic.twitter.com/mShdpVD4oD

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) May 14, 2025

U.S. experts uncovered the components during security inspections of renewable energy equipment, prompting a reevaluation of the risks posed by these products. 

Inverters, critical for connecting solar panels and wind turbines to the power grid, are predominantly manufactured in China, amplifying concerns about their security.

“We know that China believes there is value in placing at least some elements of our core infrastructure at risk of destruction or disruption,” said Mike Rogers, former director of the U.S. National Security Agency.

“I think that the Chinese are, in part, hoping that the widespread use of inverters limits the options that the West has to deal with the security issue,” Roger’s further urged.

Experts warn that these rogue devices could bypass firewalls, allowing remote manipulation of inverter settings or even complete shutdowns. 

Such actions could disrupt power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and cause blackouts. 

“That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid,” another source told Reuters.

The discovery adds to long-standing warnings from energy and security experts about the risks of relying on Chinese-made green energy products. 

Concerns over espionage and sabotage have grown as the U.S. continues to integrate these technologies into its energy systems.

In December 2023, Republican officials, including former Wisconsin Rep. Mike Gallagher and then-Senator Marco Rubio, urged Duke Energy to discontinue using Chinese-manufactured CATL batteries at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, citing surveillance risks. 

“Directly following our inquiry, Duke disconnected the Chinese-manufactured systems from the grid,” Gallagher and Rubio stated in a February 2024 press release. 

“Others that continue to work with CATL, and other companies under the control of the CCP, should take note,” they added.

The Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged the issue, with a spokesperson telling Reuters that the department continuously assesses risks associated with new technologies. 

“While this functionality may not have malicious intent, it is critical for those procuring to have a full understanding of the capabilities of the products received,” the spokesperson said. 

The DOE is working to strengthen domestic supply chains and improve transparency through initiatives like the “Software Bill of Materials,” which inventories all components in software applications.

A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in Washington rejected the allegations, stating, “We oppose the generalisation [sic] of the concept of national security, distorting and smearing China’s infrastructure achievements.”

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva was just recently one of the some 29 heads of state who attended the Victory Day Red Square parade and events in Moscow. He also met with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin while in the country.

And now amid plans for ‘direct’ Russia-Ukraine talks to be held in Istanbul Wednesday, Brazilian media is reporting that Lula is urging Putin to attend in person. 

“It costs me nothing to say, ‘Hey, comrade Putin, go to Istanbul and negotiate, come on’,” Lula was quoted as saying by Brazil’s state news agency Agencia Brasil.

But on Wednesday, Kommersant newspaper is reporting that not even Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will take part in the Istanbul talks.

“Speaking to reporters during a visit to China, Lula said he would stop in Moscow on his way back to Brazil in an effort to press Putin to take part in negotiations,” another regional source reports.

As for the United States, President Trump is dispatching his two top diplomats, but there are reports they could arrive after main talks are scheduled to happen, while currently they are accompanying Trump in the Gulf:

US President’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio will arrive in Istanbul, Türkiye, on Friday, May 16, reports The Guardian.

As the outlet reports, Witkoff told journalists that he and Rubio will head to Istanbul on Friday for talks regarding Russia and Ukraine. He also noted that it remains unclear whether Russian President Vladimir Putin will be present at the planned negotiations.

However, the potential talks between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul are scheduled for Thursday, May 15.

The Kremlin has since confirmed that it still plans to participate, also as Zelensky is trying to goad Putin into attending in person. Zelensky has said he’s ready to be there if Putin is.

And even Trump had days ago said he was “thinking about actually flying over”; however, this is looking increasingly unrealistic. 

Despite some sensational recent headlines and statements, one thing we can be sure will not happen is President Putin’s personal presence. There’s no reason for him to be there – from a strategic point of view – given Kiev has yet to make any major concessions, and Russian forces are winning on the ground in the east.

And if Moscow is not willing to send Lavrov, it’s a clear sign the Kremlin is not approaching the Istanbul meeting as if it will result to much of great consequence or substance.

Update (1405ET): CoinDesk’s Margau Nijkerk reports that Top House Democrats sent a letter to the U.S. Treasury Department Wednesday, asking its money laundering watchdog to hand over all suspicious activity reports (SARs) tied to President Donald Trump’s crypto ventures.

In a letter sent to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Reps. Gerald Connolly (D-Va.), Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) – the ranking members of the House Oversight, Administrative, and Judiciary committees – called for an urgent investigation into Trump’s blockchain project World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP memecoin, citing possible violations of campaign finance laws, bribery statutes and securities regulations.

“The Committees seek to determine whether legislation is necessary to prevent violations of campaign finance, consumer protection, bribery, securities fraud, and other anti-corruption laws in connection with fundraising by candidates for federal office and federal officeholders and to guard against deceptive and predatory campaign fundraising practices, illicit foreign influence over federal officials, and other financial misconduct connected to prospective or current federal officials,” the leading Democrats on the committees wrote in a press release shared with CoinDesk.

The request marks an escalation in congressional scrutiny on whether President Trump and his entourage are abusing their positions of power to benefit their crypto businesses. Senate Democrats pointed to Trump’s crypto ventures last week as part of their reason for not voting to advance stablecoin legislation that previously saw bipartisan support.

The inquiry zeroes in not only on the Trump family’s September 2024 launch of World Liberty Financial and the $TRUMP memecoin launched just days before his inauguration, but also Elon Musk’s America PAC and whether they are using Trump’s name to solicit donations under false pretenses.

As Sander Luz reported earlier via Decrypt.co, it was supposed to be a slam dunk.

The American crypto industry, flush with more political capital than it has ever had (and perhaps will ever have), was to get its long-awaited “regulatory clarity” on stablecoins last week.

And yet the Senate failed to pass a key procedural vote on the marquee stablecoin legislation. 

As the bill, dubbed the GENIUS Act, languishes in legislative purgatory, should it be considered functionally dead—or might there be hope yet for its passage? 

It depends who you ask. 

Technically speaking, according to the Senate’s rules, the window to file a motion to reconsider the bill—which would establish a legal framework for offering stablecoins in the United States—has already passed. 

Such a motion would have had to be filed by Monday evening, and no senators did so in time. 

A source familiar with the Senate’s rules of procedure confirmed this state of affairs to Decrypt.

Stablecoins are a key component of the crypto economy. They are essentially digital dollar-equivalents that allow their users to enter and exit digital asset trades, and send payments or remittances overseas, without the need to access dollars directly.

It’s expected that once these assets are anointed by the U.S. Congress, rules of the road signed into law by President Donald Trump, banking giants and Wall Street titans will join the fray and enter the stablecoin market—bringing billions if not trillions of dollars into crypto. That’s why the lobbying arm of the crypto industry has been pushing so hard for this legislation.

But the GENIUS Act has not been taken up for a cloture vote this week because, functionally, political calculus has not changed on the topic since Thursday. 

A small cadre of pro-crypto Democrats still have yet to reach a deal with Republican leadership over the bill’s language. Republicans are confident, however, they will be able to take advantage of “other procedural opportunities” to get the GENIUS Act back to the Senate floor if such a deal is made, sources told Decrypt. 

After a largely uneventful weekend, key Democratic and Republican stakeholders are resuming talks this week over the contents of the bill, sources familiar with the plans told Decrypt. Both sides are remaining exceptionally tight-lipped, however, about what exact language is holding up progress. 

Five Senate Democrats who voted against the bill last week previously voted to advance it from the Senate Banking Committee. Two of the Democrats who opposed the bill on Thursday, Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), are consponsors of the legislation. 

In a statement issued last weekend, pro-crypto Democrats blamed their withdrawal of support for GENIUS on portions of a new draft of the bill, which they said contained insufficient anti-money laundering and national security protections. But optics appear to also be playing a significant role in their change of tune. 

In the last two weeks, President Donald Trump and his family have made multiple flashy crypto and stablecoin-related announcements that have animated Democrats over perceived conflicts of interest in the White House. 

That line of attack has only been exacerbated since the weekend, with Trump announcing Monday that he intends to personally accept a $400 million Boeing jet as a gift from the Qatari government.

The Senate’s decision to block the GENIUS Act on Thursday drew immediate condemnation from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who warned the vote could jeopardize the U.S.’s position in the global digital assets race. 

“For stablecoins and other digital assets to thrive globally, the world needs American leadership,” Bessent posted on X. 

“The Senate missed an opportunity to provide that leadership today by failing to advance the GENIUS Act.”

Multiple crypto policy leaders told Decrypt Tuesday they are growing increasingly worried that the political stakes involved pose a very real threat not just to any chance of salvaging the GENIUS Act, but also the rest of the industry’s legislative agenda. 

A parallel stablecoin bill is currently making its way through the House, and foundational market structure legislation is pending in both chambers of Congress. 

The policy leaders all agreed that this week is do or die for crypto’s political momentum in Washington. 

Should the GENIUS Act fail to make significant progress by Friday—as in, pass the cloture vote it failed last week—the situation could become terminal, they warned. 

“Grim if something doesn’t give soon,” one D.C. insider put it. 

Authored by James Hunt via TheBlock.co,

Ethereum has lagged behind Bitcoin and alternative Layer 1s throughout this cycle amid a wave of relative bearishness.

And yet, since the crypto market’s April lows, ETH has surged nearly 100% – gaining 65% in the last 30 days alone to tap $2,750, back above pre-election levels (and key technical levels). 

So what’s driving the move?

Analysts at research and brokerage firm Bernstein, led by Gautam Chhugani, said in a Wednesday note to clients that several narratives have been put forward attempting to explain this performance.

While bitcoin claimed all-time highs, crossing the psychological $100,000 barrier, the ETH/BTC ratio has dropped 45% over the past year as bitcoin dominated store-of-value mindshare amid the success of Bitcoin exchange-traded funds and corporate treasury adoption, while retail flows shifted to faster Layer 1s like Solana, the analysts wrote.

Ethereum, caught between its Layer 2 roadmap and limited ETF traction comparatively, was “stuck somewhere in the middle,” they added – neither the best store of value, nor the best blockchain destination for speculative retail trenches.

Stablecoins and tokenization, Layer 2 institutionalization, and an ETH short unwind

However, according to the analysts, the narrative is beginning to change amid a boom in stablecoin and securities tokenization, Layer 2 institutionalization, and an ETH short unwind.

The cycle is expanding beyond store-of-value use cases, they said, with stablecoin payments and tokenized securities gaining real traction. 

Stripe’s $1.1 billion acquisition of stablecoin platform Bridge and Meta’s recent comments about reigniting its stablecoin venture are helping to bring back a focus on the underlying blockchains, and Ethereum — which holds 51% of the total stablecoin supply — is emerging as the key platform proxy for this growth trend, they added. 

Traditional finance giants like BlackRock and Franklin Templeton are also advancing adoption of a real-world asset tokenization market now valued at over $22 billion, according to RWA.xyz — with Ethereum again dominating deployment.

Secondly, while critics question the value accretion of Layer 2s to ETH, the Bernstein analysts said that with networks like the Coinbase-incubated Base earning revenue of around $84 million last year, Ethereum Layer 2s are taking a growing role in institutional crypto infrastructure. With Robinhood’s recent acquisition of WonderFi — which also runs an Ethereum Layer 2 — brokers may soon offer tokenized equities on their own chains, they argued. Since these Layer 2s use ETH for gas and settlement, they help drive Ethereum demand and position it as a leading platform for institutional smart contract adoption, they added.

Finally, the third driver of ETH’s recent outperformance is more tactical, in the analysts’ view. Over the past 12 to 18 months, crypto hedge funds have often used ETH as a delta-neutral hedge – staying long BTC and SOL while shorting ETH. But as the narrative shifts toward institutional adoption of blockchain and stablecoin payments, and beyond store of value, ETH’s role as the underperformer is becoming harder to justify, they said.

As a result, the resurgence of ETH and other non-bitcoin assets is good for crypto exchanges and broker-dealers, they argued, as a broader crypto market rally reinvigorates retail traders, driving stronger volumes.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We previously discussed how schools were making students remove sweatshirts reading “Let’s Go Brandon.”

I have argued that the shirts should be treated as protected speech. 

However, United States District Court Judge Christopher Boyko just delivered another blow to free speech in rejecting a claim for such protection, at least as the basis for injunctive relief, in  Conrad v. Madison Local School Dist—Bd. of Ed.

In the prior Michigan case with the sweater shown below, Judge Paul Maloney in D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools (W.D. Mich.) ruled that a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt could be the basis for punishment:

A school can certainly prohibit students from wearing a shirt displaying the phrase F*** Joe Biden. Plaintiffs concede this conclusion. Plaintiff must make this concession as the Supreme Court said as much in Fraser … (“As cogently expressed by Judge Newman, ‘the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket [which read {F*** the Draft}].’”) The relevant four-letter word is a swear word and would be considered vulgar and profane. The Sixth Circuit has written that “it has long been held that despite the sanctity of the First Amendment, speech that is vulgar or profane is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection.” …

If schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane. Removing a few letters from the profane word or replacing letters with symbols would not render the message acceptable in a school setting. School administrators could prohibit a shirt that reads “F#%* Joe Biden.” School officials have restricted student from wearing shirts that use homophones for profane words … [such as] “Somebody Went to HOOVER DAM And All I Got Was This ‘DAM’ Shirt.” … [Defendants] recalled speaking to one student who was wearing a hat that said “Fet’s Luck” … [and asking] a student to change out of a hoodie that displayed the words “Uranus Liquor” because the message was lewd. School officials could likely prohibit students from wearing concert shirts from the music duo LMFAO (Laughing My F***ing A** Off) or apparel displaying “AITA?” (Am I the A**hole?)…. Courts too have recognized how seemingly innocuous phrases may convey profane messages. A county court in San Diego, California referred an attorney to the State Bar when counsel, during a hearing, twice directed the phrase “See You Next Tuesday” toward two female attorneys.

Again, I strongly disagreed with that decision. However, it has now been replicated in Ohio.

In his complaint, C.C. details how he was wearing a shirt with the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon” on November 25, 2024, underneath a flannel shirt. 

He alleges that teacher (and registered Democrat)  Krista Ferini was bothered after spotting the shirt and ordered him to “button that up. I know what that means.” 

C.C. did so, but later, he was in a classroom that lacked air conditioning, so he took off his flannel shirt. That is when allegedly Ferini proceeded to write him up for the infraction. Principal Andrew Keeple then instructed C.C. to wear the flannel the rest of the day and never to wear the shirt to school again.

C.C. defied that order and wore the shirt again in January of 2025. 

While no one else complained, Ferini was reportedly irate and again wrote up C.C.  Keeple declared that C.C. had once again violated the school’s dress code and that the shirt constituted a vulgar expression even though it contained no vulgar terms. He stated that further discipline would follow if C.C. continued to wear the shirt.

On March 24, 2025, C.C. wore the t-shirt again.

While no one complained,  he received a detention from Keeple.  C.C. was disciplined on two other occasions for wearing the shirt.

The court ruled:

“While this case presents serious questions of student free speech versus a school’s interest in protecting students from vulgar and profane speech, the Court finds Plaintiff has not met his high burden to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits by clear and convincing evidence. While the D.A. case was on summary judgment and presented facts that are different than those before this Court, Defendant’s burden on summary judgment was a preponderance standard which is a lesser burden than Plaintiff’s here. Moreover, that case presented fact issues going to the reasonableness of the school’s interpretation. Here, as Defendants point out, Plaintiff acknowledges in his Verified Complaint that “Let’s Go Brandon” is a euphemism for F*#% Joe Biden. 

“In school speech cases where a school limits or restricts a student’s expression, courts must determine whether the school’s interpretation of the expression is reasonable.”

“The student’s expression must be considered in the proper context but the student’s motivation or subjective intent is irrelevant.”

Given the strong interests of both sides, the unique characteristics of speech in a school setting, the finding by at least one court in this circuit that the school’s interpretation of the phrase as vulgar was reasonable, and the acknowledgment in this case by Plaintiff that the phrase is a vulgar euphemism, the Court finds Plaintiff has not shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits to support injunctive relief. This does not mean Plaintiff cannot win on the merits of the claim as discovery will likely provide clearer evidence on the reasonableness of the interpretation. But given the high standard for injunctive relief, the Court finds against Plaintiff….”

“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud-and-clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”

“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.

This teacher was clearly put out over the political messaging of the shirt. However, we should encourage students to be politically aware and expressive. Moreover, if schools are allowed to extrapolate profane meaning from non-profane language, it is hard to see the limits on such censorship.

So what if students now wear “Let’s Go Krista” shirts? How many degrees of removal will negate the profane imputation. Does that mean that the use of “let’s go” in any shirt is now prohibited?

C.C. and his family should continue to litigate and, if necessary, appeal this worthy case in the interests of free speech for all students.

*  *  *

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Via Headline USA,

U.S. officials unveiled an indictment Tuesday against two alleged Mexican drug cartel leaders on narco-terrorism charges.

The indictment comes after the Trump administration in February designated the Sinaloa Cartel and seven other Latin American crime organizations as “foreign terrorist organizations,” upping its pressure on cartels operating in the U.S. and on anyone aiding them. President Donald Trump called for the designation in an executive order on Jan. 20, the day he took office in his second term.

The “foreign terrorist organization” label is unusual because it deploys a terrorist designation normally reserved for groups like al-Qaida or the Islamic State group that use violence for political ends — not for money-focused crime rings such as the drug cartels.

“If you act like a terrorist, you shouldn’t be surprised if you are charged as one,” said Adam Gordon, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California.

Those charged were described as key leaders of the Beltrán Leyva Organization, according to the indictment. The organization is one of a number of warring criminal groups that once formed part of the Sinaloa Cartel and have since split off and warred for territory and power, fueling bloodshed in large swathes of Mexico.

Pedro Inzunza Noriega and his son, Pedro Inzunza Coronel, were also charged with providing material support of terrorism in connection with the trafficking of massive amounts of fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin into the United States, according to court documents. 

Five other high-ranking members were charged with drug trafficking and money laundering.

All remain fugitives, officials said.

The father and son have overseen “one of the largest and most sophisticated fentanyl production networks in the world,” Gordon said. 

The organization is accused of trafficking tens of thousands of kilograms (pounds) of fentanyl into the United States.

Mexican authorities in December raided multiple sites controlled by the father and son that resulted in the world’s largest seizure of fentanyl, totaling 1,500 kilograms (more than 1.65 tons), according to court documents.

The group is also known for its violence, engaging in shootouts, kidnappings, torture and murders and targeting officials. 

It controls the drug trade in various parts of Central America and in many areas of Mexico – including in the border city of Tijuana, across from San Diego, according to the indictment.

The elder Pedro is paralyzed after being shot by a rival cartel member. His group has been one of the top distributors of cocaine and now fentanyl since 2006, Gordon said.

A sweeping Republican tax overhaul proposal, estimated to deliver double-digit percentage reductions in tax bills for average-income Americans, is drawing mounting opposition in the Senate over its accompanying cuts to health care and clean energy programs – underscoring the internal divisions complicating Republican efforts to advance a unified economic agenda.

According to a new analysis from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), households earning between $30,000 and $80,000 would see their federal taxes drop by approximately 15 percent in 2027 under the House GOP plan. Americans earning between $15,000 and $30,000 would see an even steeper 21 percent decline – at least initially.

But those same low-income earners would see their tax bills rise sharply in later years unless extended, with increases of 12 percent in 2029 and 20 percent in 2030, the JCT found. The report attributed some of those changes to proposed reforms of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a benefit for low-income workers that Republicans argue is vulnerable to improper payments.

While the report’s topline numbers have fueled Republican claims that the proposal is middle-class focused, Democrats seized on the overall distribution of tax cuts in dollar terms, Politico reports. Taxpayers earning more than $500,000 are slated to receive an aggregate cut of about $170 billion in 2027 – nearly triple the $59 billion going to households earning $30,000 to $80,000.

The proposal has already provoked heated exchanges in the House Ways and Means Committee, where lawmakers debated the fairness and sustainability of the tax package. Democrats derided the bill as a boon to the wealthy, while Republicans pointed to new breaks for tips, overtime, and seniors as evidence of its broader appeal.

The report is not a complete picture of winners and losers under Republicans’ plans. It doesn’t include a potential deal among lawmakers to further increase the SALT cap, beyond a proposed $30,000 limit.

The report also only looks at the tax side of Republican plans, and does not account for changes in spending programs, like Medicaid. -Politico

“It’s a trick,” said Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI). “You do it temporarily so you can get through the 2026 election” and “then these benefits for children and elders and workers disappear, while the tax benefits for the ultra-wealthy soar.”

Senate Republicans Balk

Yet beyond the debate over tax cuts, the House plan is facing stiff resistance in the Senate for how it proposes to offset some of the revenue losses: by slashing Medicaid and rolling back key clean energy incentives passed under the Biden administration.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate found that the House bill’s Medicaid reforms could result in 8.6 million people losing health care coverage, largely due to new work requirements, cost-sharing mandates, and restrictions on how states finance their Medicaid programs.

Several Senate Republicans voiced concern over the health care implications, especially for rural areas.

“These are working people in particular who are going to have to pay more,” said Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), referring to new cost-sharing rules. He warned that changes to provider taxes – which states use to draw federal Medicaid dollars – could reduce coverage in his state and strain rural hospitals.

“I continue to maintain my position we should not be cutting Medicaid benefits,” Hawley said.

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), said the proposed treatment of provider taxes “would be very harmful to Maine’s hospitals,” echoing concerns raised by other senators from rural and Medicaid-reliant states.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), also pointed to the disproportionate burden that Medicaid cuts would place on states like hers, calling the issue a key sticking point in ongoing Senate discussions.

Not So Fast?

In addition to health care, some senate Republicans are also wary of the House’s aggressive plans to unwind tax credits for clean energy and hydrogen development, incentives championed in the Inflation Reduction Act and credited with bringing manufacturing investments and jobs to red and purple states alike.

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), who faces a competitive reelection race next year, expressed concern over quickly ending climate initiatives – suggesting that the House language on energy tax rollbacks would need to be revised.

“You can’t shock the markets by doing it all at once,” Tillis said of the proposed clean energy phaseouts.

Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) also flagged potential impacts to her state’s clean hydrogen initiatives, saying she would review the House’s plan to eliminate the 45V hydrogen production credit, which could affect nearly $1 billion in planned federal support for the Appalachian Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub.

The House GOP plan is expected to pass narrowly along party lines, but Senate Republicans made clear this week that the legislation will require significant changes to win broader support in the upper chamber.

“We are coordinating very closely with our House counterparts,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota. “We know they have to get 218 votes… but it’s likely we’ll have a Senate substitute.”

As Republican leaders try to reconcile competing priorities — delivering tax relief, restraining federal spending, and maintaining political support in swing states — the path forward for the legislation remains uncertain.

“How we navigate this,” said Murkowski, “is something we’re all trying to wander through.”

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Health officials are poised to make an announcement on COVID-19 vaccines, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said.

“That is something that’s being discussed right now,” Dr. Marty Makary, the commissioner, said in an interview, released on May 12, after being asked by political activist Charlie Kirk about whether COVID-19 vaccines will remain on the childhood vaccination schedule.

“I think you’re going to see some announcement on that in the coming weeks, but I know they are trying to review all of the scientific data.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services, which maintains the schedule, did not respond to a request for comment.

Makary told Kirk that there’s no evidence available at this time that supports giving healthy children additional COVID-19 vaccine doses.

“That evidence does not exist, and so we’re not going to rubberstamp things at the FDA,” he said. 

“I don’t think you’re going to see the CDC pushing COVID shots in young, healthy children.”

The FDA commissioner, who expressed concern before joining the agency about vaccinating children, noted that there is no data from randomized, controlled trials for the COVID-19 vaccines that are currently available. The regulatory agency cleared the vaccines from Moderna, Pfizer, and Novavax in 2024, pointing to animal testing and data from previous versions of the shots.

“There’s no good randomized control data that the current version, the latest formulation, of the COVID shot, is necessary for young, healthy children. Other leading countries in Europe have recommended against it,” Makary said. 

“So I think you’re going to hear something forthcoming.”

The CDC, in 2023, added the COVID-19 vaccines to the vaccination schedule, following a recommendation from its vaccine advisory panel.

The same panel said in April that it is leaning toward narrowing the current universal recommendation for COVID-19 vaccination. In the same meeting, officials noted that the United Kingdom and Australia are among the countries that do not recommend COVID-19 vaccine boosters for healthy children.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that same month that officials were considering removing the COVID-19 vaccines from the schedule. Makary has said he would support that move.

The CDC, which has an acting director at present, has not commented on the prospect of the schedule being adjusted.

The American Academy of Pediatrics is among the organizations that support the current COVID-19 vaccine recommendations. The group says on its site that the vaccines are safe and effective.

The FDA is set to meet with its vaccine advisers on May 22 to discuss selecting updates to the COVID-19 vaccines, with Novavax saying it plans to participate in the meeting. Pfizer and Moderna have not responded to queries.

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Modernity.news,

Ex-CNN host Don Lemon had a total meltdown over Trump resettling a small number of white South African refugees in America, calling it “the most racist shit ever.”

A mere 59 Afrikaners arrived at Dulles International Airport outside Washington on Monday, prompting widespread derision and demonization from leftists and the media, who claimed they were not real refugees while also monstering them as white supremacists.

The backlash to the refugees arriving in America was so vociferous that it became a stunning mask off moment in proving that anti-white hatred is still mainstream.

Don Lemon hyperventilated over “this South African farmer bullshit, which is the most blatantly obvious racist shit ever,” implying that Afrikaners couldn’t be refugees because they “own most of the land and the property” in South Africa.

Lemon failed to acknowledge that this is precisely why they are being targeted, sometimes violently, and officially by government discrimination in the form of compulsory land grabs.

The former CNN anchor’s main bone of contention was that Trump was “trying to cut down on immigration from other countries” while favoring people from white countries.

Don Lemon has a meltdown over South African refugees: “The most obvious racist sht ever”

pic.twitter.com/eNXmnXTEXu

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) May 13, 2025

Because legally admitting 59 white people from South Africa is totally the same as the millions upon millions of illegal immigrants who entered America under Joe Biden, many of whom were violent criminals.

Lemon then ludicrously tried to justify the South African government taking land from farmers without compensation by claiming it’s only for land that isn’t being used.

Who decides whether the land is being used or not?

The same government seizing it without compensation.

I’m sure that’s a completely impartial and fair process!

Suddenly developing a flair for per capita statistics that leftists can’t seem to grasp when it comes to crime, Lemon complained that white South Africans own more land than blacks despite being a minority of the population.

Apparently, this alone, in true Communist dictatorship style, is enough to justify the government just stealing it from them without compensation.

As we highlighted earlier, African-American influencers are now suggesting that the white refugees should be violently targeted because they’re “racist,” proving precisely why they needed to flee South Africa in the first place.

“These racist motherfuckers gonna find out the hard way, they’re gonna fuck around and find out, you can’t talk that shit over here on our soil,” he said.

Tiktoker threatens the immigrants from South Africa and says they’re all racist and Trump brought them here to be racist

“They’re gonna find out the hard way… These people will start getting their ass whooped”

Seems totally normal and stable… pic.twitter.com/NuRrBxweap

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 14, 2025

“So what’s gonna happen is that these people will start getting their ass whooped…we’re gonna start lighting motherfuckers up because they don’t know how to talk to black people in America,” he added.

The influencer then complained that when white South African refugees start getting violently attacked, people will complain about it, prompting more discrimination against black Americans.

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.