China Ends Military Drills With ‘Simulated Attacks’ On Taiwan Ports, Energy Sites
China’s military on Wednesday announced the completion of major war drills aimed at Taiwan, and which included a ‘live fire’ portion – as well as the patrols of some 20 naval ships off Taiwan’s coast.
The PLA’s Eastern Theater Command revealed that the second day involved simulated strikes on key ports and energy sites of the self-ruled island and US ally. A PLA spokesman had described drills which “test the troops’ capabilities” in areas such as “blockade and control, and precision strikes on key targets.”
The Chinese military further said it conducted “long-range live-fire drills”. China’s Shandong aircraft carrier was also spotted in regional waters testing its ability to “blockade” Taiwan, as part of the exercises dubbed “Strait Thunder-2025A”.
Beijing’s foreign ministry meanwhile on Wednesday declared the “punishment will not stop” if Taiwan leaders don’t halt their ‘separatist’ rhetoric.
Additional to the naval assets at sea, some 50 jets were involved in the drills, the biggest since early last year – to which Taiwan’s military responded by dispatching its own aircraft and ships, and land-based missile systems on coastal areas.
Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense listed out the following Chinese military weaponry which was moved near Taiwan by early afternoon on the first day of the exercise: 71 sorties by military aircraft and drones, 21 navy ships ranged around the island, and the aforementioned Shandong carrier which was spotted about 220 nautical miles east of Taiwan
The Eastern Theatre Command simultaneous to all of this had issued a brief videocalling Lai a “parasite” in English, also depicting him as a green bug dangled by chopsticks over a burning Taiwan.
Taiwan officials blasted the drills as “reckless” and “irresponsible”. Taiwan’s military subsequently elevated its readiness level to ensure China does not “turn drills into combat” and “launch a sudden attack on us.”
China’s Foreign Ministry had at the week’s start called out Washington’s role in the Taiwan tensions, slamming US’ use of “China threat” rhetoric which is bent on provoking confrontation, but which will end in regional countries being used as “cannon fodder” for US hegemony – according to a statement.
Two months into his second term, President Donald Trump was accused by some politicians in the West of abandoning Washington’s longstanding allies as a result of his stance on the war in Ukraine. But one doesn’t have to look very far back in history to note that a similar act of “unfriending” had occurred from continental Europe and wasn’t unjustified.
In 1988, the late British Prime Minister Lady Margaret Thatcher, speaking at the College of Europe in Bruges, Belgium, advised her audience thus:
“We must strive to maintain the United States’ commitment to Europe’s defence. And that means recognising the burden on their resources of the world role they undertake and their point that their allies should bear the full part of the defence of freedom, particularly as Europe grows wealthier.”
Unfortunately, those mild words of the Iron Lady fell on deaf ears.
Eleven years later, her tone had changed into one of disdain and spite, when in a Conservative Party conference in Blackpool she shockingly declared, “In my lifetime all the problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions have come from the English-speaking nations across the world.”
Between Bruges and Blackpool, Thatcher morphed from a 30-year supporter of European integration into a fierce opponent.
She decried the “British malaise”—a term used by Conservative politician and historian Sir Ian Gilmour in his 1969 book “The Body Politic”—to characterize the economic stagnation, the social decline, and the sense of futility and hopelessness that seemed to pervade British society.
Thatcher abhorred the European welfare state, criticized intransigent unionism, and loathed the power wielded by unelected Brussels bureaucrats, who had virtually forgotten NATO by the mid-1990s, even though Europe had grown rich. She won her battle posthumously, in 2020 (BREXIT).
U.S. President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher pose for photographers on the patio outside the Oval Office in Washington on July 17, 1987. Mike Sargent/AFP via Getty Images
Since then, primarily by default, Britain has gone out of Europe and built partnerships in the Indo–Pacific, a region that it is historically familiar with, signed bilateral free trade agreements Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and is in talks for new ones with the United States and India. The UK has recently gained membership in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. The new Labour government has not tried to bend back the arc.
The United States is on a similar trajectory. Trump also spurns Big Government and bureaucratic multinational agencies. Like Thatcher almost 40 years ago—but much more vehemently—he has criticized other NATO countries for spending far too little on defense—a constant gripe of U.S. presidents, especially Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan.
Trump’s associates readily criticized certain European countries for abandoning basic Western values, such as adopting free speech, abolishing secure national borders, and letting in gangsters and fanatical Jihadis who unleash terrorist attacks on innocent citizens. Trump also thinks all these are happening in the United States.
The Russia–Ukraine war has caused rifts between Trump and other NATO members. He wants the war to end so that Washington can “pivot” to the Indo–Pacific to squarely face the “pacing threat” of communist China, which he, since his first term, has rightly regarded as America’s major adversary.
So, almost simultaneously, the two major English-speaking countries, the United States and the UK, are extricating themselves from entanglements in Europe and reaching out to Asia. Their “leaving Europe to enter Asia” is going full circle from the time when Japan’s most famous 19th century reformist, Fukuzawa Yukichi, advocated the opposite, “leaving Asia to enter Europe” (1885), under very different circumstances.
If U.S. Commodore Matthew Perry’s arrival in Tokugawa Japan in 1853 and World War II marked the first and second historic coming of America to Asia, respectively, then the “Trump pivot” may well be the third. It could add enormously to the prosperity in Indo–Pacific Ex-China, for two reasons. First, as the U.S.–China decoupling continues, much American money leaving China will go into other Indo–Pacific economies. Second, when greater American military might, coupled with increased defense spending and capabilities in East Asian countries, is realized under Trump’s pressures, it will be deployed to contain the Chinese regime and achieve greater regional stability, and new investment money will arrive with more confidence.
But then what about Europe, which the United States and perhaps Britain are leaving behind? It will do fine, but in a previously unexpected way.
This will be the scenario: Trump 2.0 will continue to goad Europe to pony up for its own defense, necessarily at the expense of its welfare state, climate policy, and open borders, and damage the transatlantic relationship if it must. Trump will be much maligned in the process.
For example, a recent BBC article accused the U.S. president of “blow[ing] up the world order.”
But that is sheer Eurocentrism, because Trump is merely resetting Washington’s relationship with Europe and Europe is not the whole world.
In fact, there are good signs that Europe is reacting to Trump in a healthy way; for example, the newly elected German leader has decided that Germany must spend huge amounts in upgrading its military, notwithstanding that it necessarily will have to cut welfare spending and retune its growth model.
Expectedly, when Europe is strong and wholesome again, Trump will be gone from the stage and his successors will be able to mend fences with all obstacles removed. At that point, the world will still be essentially bipolar: the open society camp versus the authoritarian-or-worse camp.
There will be two main theaters where the conflict between the two camps will be played out.
First is Asia, in which the United States—rid of its European baggage and in some kind of alliance with Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Australia—will face off against the Chinese regime.
The mightiest power on Earth will try to roll back and contain the most dangerous.
Next is Europe, where a reformed and repowered European Union will take on Russia.
A second-rate power will try to keep a third-rate one in check.
It will be a much more rational conflict configuration and manageable division of labor for the West than it is now.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Flying Taxis Officially Lift Off – But Only In China, Thank Biden’s FAA
China’s drone taxi industry officially lifted off this week, as EHang Holdings and Hefei Hey Airlines became the first companies to receive certifications from the Civil Aviation Administration of China to launch autonomous flying drones for commercial taxi use. This development comes as China pulls ahead of the US drone industry—amid recent comments by Andreessen Horowitz’s Marc Andreessen, who noted that the Biden-Harris administration’s FAA slowed the US drone industry. It raises the question: Did the previous administration’s FAA deliberately slow America’s drone industry, allowing China to gain a strategic edge?
The South China Morning Post reported that China’s low-altitude economy has officially lifted off. EHang and Hefei Hey are dominating the skies with eVTOL (electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing) taxi drones that can reach altitudes of 10,000 feet and transport two passengers across town.
“This marks the beginning of China’s low-altitude human-carrying flight era, allowing the public to book flights for low-altitude tourism, urban sightseeing, and more in Guangzhou and Hefei,” EHang stated on X, adding, “With this certification, EHang becomes the world’s first eVTOL company to achieve the full suite of regulatory approvals, paving the way for large-scale commercialization of autonomous aerial mobility.”
🚀 EHang’s EH216-S eVTOL Operators Obtain Air Operator Certificates ✈️
EHang’s EH216-S eVTOL operators, EHang General Aviation and Heyi Aviation, have officially received China’s first-ever Air Operator Certificates (OC) for civil pilotless human-carrying aerial vehicles by the… pic.twitter.com/jqX74ETR8A
Meanwhile, Marc Andreessen told the host of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson (former Reagan speechwriter), earlier this year that:
We have a drone company that’s been trying to compete with the Chinese company. Number one, the Biden FAA has been trying to kill us this entire time, trying to do all kinds of things to make sure that American drone companies can’t succeed as part of their war on tech. It’s literally just another in the long list of ways that they’ve been just trying to absolutely kill us.
🚨 NEW: Marc Andreessen on China’s manufacturing dominance
“There’s three industries that follow phones that the Chinese own the global market at:
1) Drones
Something over 90% of all the consumer drones are made in China. Which is what the US Military also uses. It’s the whole… pic.twitter.com/e94C927MMU
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Biden administration rule on federal regulation of so-called “ghost guns” which are unserialized parts or kits that can be assembled into completed firearms.
The 7-2 decision on Wednesday was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and upholds the rule for continued regulation by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as well as opening the door to requiring background checks and age verification in order to purchase the kits.
Gun control advocates and regulators have been strongly opposed to the kits, which some have dubbed as “ghost guns” due to the fact that they allowed buyers to complete the assembly of the firearm at home without having to make the purchase through a federally licensed dealer.
Supporters of gun control have claimed that the firearms are nearly untraceable, making it more difficult for law enforcement to connect them to a specific individual.
In the ruling, Gorsuch wrote, “Some home hobbyists enjoy assembling them. But criminals also find them attractive.”
According to the Associated Press, the rule passed under the Biden administration requires companies to treat the kits like other firearms by adding serial numbers, running background checks and verifying that buyers are age 21 or older.
Sellers of the parts kits had challenged the rule, arguing that a collection of parts was not a firearm and therefore was not subject to the Gun Control Act of 1968.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals based in Louisiana agreed with them and struck down the ATF ghost gun rule.
Today’s ruling overturned that 5th Circuit decision.
Second Amendment advocates are expressing disappointment at the decision but also acknowledge that in the era of 3D printing, federal regulators are facing an increasingly impossible task when it comes to gun control.
Washington Sheriff Won’t Allow Non-Citizens To Work As Police Officers, Despite Political Pressure
A state county sheriff in Washington may be the only person left in the state with common sense.
He is rejecting a new state senate bill that would allow non-citizens to serve in public roles such as police officers, judges, and teachers, according to Breitbart.
Despite unanimous support in the legislature, Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank said he won’t comply. “I have a problem with non-citizens being cops and arresting our citizens in Pierce County. Therefore, we’re not going to hire non-citizens for the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office,” he told KIRO-TV.
Washington’s SB5068, which would allow non-citizens with federal work authorization—including DACA recipients—to serve as police, judges, and other public officials, passed the state senate unanimously in February.
All 30 Democrats backed it, but notably, so did all 19 Republicans.
Supporters argue there’s no difference between non-citizens in the military and in law enforcement, but Sheriff Keith Swank disagrees.
SB5068: Allowing non-citizens to be police, prosecutors, judges, firefighters, teachers, etc… WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY LEGISLATORS [INCLUDING ALL REPUBLICANS]…
Maybe @WAGOP can take a crack at explaining this to REPUBLICAN CONSTITUENTS?
“There’s a difference between law enforcement and the military. In law enforcement, we arrest people. We take away their constitutional rights. We lock them up in jail. We don’t use our military to do that,” he said.
Legislators claim the bill addresses Washington’s police shortage, but Swank isn’t buying it.
“The real problem is the reason it’s hard to hire people in Washington State… Cops don’t want to work here when they’re afraid to do something they might be put in prison for,” he said. The bill passed out of a House committee 6–3 and is headed for a full House vote.
RFK Jr.’s Advisor Torches Anti-MAHA Lobbyists: “Insane To Think More Bureaucrats = Better Health”
Calley Means, co-founder of the Truemed telehealth platform and a special government employee at the Department of Health and Human Services advising Robert F. Kennedy Jr., defended efforts to eliminate waste and fraud within federal health agencies.
During a tense exchange at the Politico Health Care Summit on Wednesday, Means criticized existing federal health authorities as an “utter failure,” prompting one healthcare lobbyist in the crowd to shout, “That’s not true!” Means then proceeded on a warpath with stats, shutting up the room of anti-MAHA lobbyists.
Here’s the exchange:
Calley: “Those scientists fundamentally have overseen a record of utter failure.”
Lobbyist: “That’s not true!”
Calley: “Oh, that’s not true?”
“Has there been one single chronic disease medication in modern American history that has lowered rates of the chronic disease?”
“Is it appropriate that the American Academy of Pediatrics right now, which is 90% funded by pharma, is pushing Ozempic on six year olds?”
“The lobbyists in this room do not have the humility to admit that we have gone completely wrong.”
“The lobbyists in this room laughing when we have the sickest children in the developed world.”
Calley Means just torched a room of lobbyists!
Calley: “Those scientists fundamentally have overseen a record of utter failure.”
Lobbyist: “That’s not true!”
Calley: “Oh, that’s not true?”
“Has there been one single chronic disease medication in modern American history that… pic.twitter.com/yQRs3AE4F7
— End Tribalism in Politics (@EndTribalism) April 2, 2025
Means continued:
“When you turn on CNBC, it’s just a nonstop infomercial for pharma. It’s a Skyrizi commercial followed by Scott Gottlieb saying how Bobby’s killing people followed by a breathless coverage of the measles outbreak, and no mention of the mental health crisis. It is insane for you to insinuate that the thing standing between us and better health is more government bureaucrats.”
It is insane to argue that more government bureaucrats and more spending is standing in the way of better health.
It’s the opposite.
The moves from HHS this week disempower administrators who let us down + ensures more money goes to scientists and frontline health services. https://t.co/OFzCGCHSEp
Means defended rolling back staffing levels to 2017, arguing that trimming bloated federal health agencies is necessary after decades of worsening public health and some of the worst health rates for kids in the developed world.
There is a dividing line in the healthcare debate:
Do we need bold change to change the incentives of our system to reverse childhood chronic disease?
As Means pointed out, it’s time for meaningful reforms (such as HHS cuts last week)—not just in health care, but across the processed foods industrial complex. It’s time for Americans to demand big food stop poisoning them with chemicals and seed oils.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the changes to its physical fitness requirements in an effort to “fix” the standards that he said were “lowered” under President Barack Obama’s administration.
“Different physical standards for men and women in the U.S. military have existed for a long time. BUT, there were also combat roles that were male-only,” Hegseth said in a statement on X. “Then, under Obama, all combat roles were opened to men AND women. BUT, different physical fitness standards for men and women remained.”
“Today at the Department of Defense—we fix this. All combat roles are open to men and women BUT they must all meet the same, high standard. No standards will be lowered AND all combat roles will only have sex-neutral standards. Common sense,” Hegseth added.
In a March 30 memorandum, the defense secretary said that the nature of warfare has evolved over time and the demands of U.S. service members have grown more complex.
“Sex-neutral” standards must therefore be imposed, according to Hegseth.
“All entry-level and sustained physical fitness requirements within combat arms positions must be sex-neutral, based solely on the operational demands of the occupation and the readiness needed to confront any adversary,” he wrote. “In establishing those standards, the Secretaries of the Military Departments may not establish standards that would result in any existing Service member being held to a lower standard.”
The defense secretary also directed military secretaries to distinguish between combat and non-combat arms occupations in order to ensure that the standards reflect the unique physical demands of each role.
Hegseth also directed them to come up with comprehensive plans for each of those roles.
In Ground Combat roles, standards should emphasize the ability to carry heavy loads, endure prolonged physical exertion, and perform effectively in hostile environments.
Roles in Special Operation Forces should require “sustained peak physical performance” and incorporate advanced swimming, climbing, parachuting, and the ability to operate in extreme environments.
In Specialized Operations, such as Navy divers, service members must have the endurance to tackle conditions that are considered mentally and physically taxing.
Hegseth has previously expressed his opposition to women in combat jobs and his belief that standards were lowered to accommodate women. He has also been a staunch proponent of setting all standards the same, regardless of gender.
On Jan. 1, 2016, the Defense Department, under Obama, opened all combat roles to women for the first time in U.S. military history.
“They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated at the time. “They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers, and everything else that was previously open only to men.”
A 2015 study by the Marine Corps revealed the difference in performance between men and women. As part of the study, the Marine Corps conducted a gender integration experiment in which women participated in infantry courses that were typically closed to females. Mixed-gender combat units took up to a staggering 159 percent longer to evacuate a casualty than all-male units, the results showed.
Massie Bill Demands Federal Candidates Reveal Dual Citizenship
Seeking to spotlight federal office-seekers who may have a conflict of interest, Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie has introduced a bill that would require candidates for federal office to disclose any non-American citizenships they hold.
“Personally, I don’t think dual citizens should serve in Congress, but I ultimately decided to introduce a transparency bill requiring full disclosure of citizenship,” said Massie in a Monday Fox News interview with Will Cain. “Voters can then make the decision.” So far, Massie’s Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act (HR 2356) has attracted four co-sponsors, all of them Republicans: Andy Biggs (AZ-5), Clay Higgins (LA-3), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-14) and Nicholas Begich (AK at-large).
While it’s not a provision of his transparency-focused bill that would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act, Massie thinks dual citizens in Congress “should… abstain from votes specifically benefitting those countries,” the libertarian-minded MIT grad said in a press release accompanying the introduction of his bill. “We swear an oath to the Constitution, and the question is, if you’re a citizen of two countries, which oath are you taking more seriously, or can you take them both seriously?” Massie told Fox’s Cain.
Underscoring the mystery that Massie is seeking to end, it’s unclear how many current members of Congress have citizenship in a foreign country. Indeed, ZeroHedge wasn’t able to identify any members who have disclosed dual citizenships on their own. According to Pew Research, there are 19 foreign-born members of the 119th Congress, but that doesn’t necessarily equate to holding citizenship abroad. Among those 19, the countries of birth are Mexico (4 members), India (3), South Korea (2) Ukraine (2), Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Japan, Peru, Somalia and Taiwan.
“I’m not picking on any particular country,” said Massie. However, American social media and otherdiscourse regarding US officials’ potential dual citizenship has overwhelmingly focused on Israel, which receives billions of dollars in US military aid every year, in a relationship that foments intense foreign resentments against the United States, and terrorism against Americans.
When he last summer first began advocating for dual citizens in Congress to renounce their foreign citizenships, Massie was immediately accused of anti-semitism. One of his accusers was then-Florida state senator Randy Fine, who on Tuesday was elected to the US Congress in a special election:
This guy is just gross. Who in Congress is a dual citizen? I think we all know the slur he is tossing around. The real question is why certain Florida politicians choose this bigot to hang around with. https://t.co/ngs7RTjwDn
Massie’s refusal to vote for aid to Israel, and his votes against bills that would subject colleges that allow anti-Israel speech to federal enforcement actions, have made him a recurring target of pro-Israel political organizations. They’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in attempts to oust him in a GOP primary or simply undermine his political future — so far, all in vain.
One of the biggest spenders in 2024 was an offshoot of the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Staking a position that echoes his transparency-seeking Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act, Massie has argued that AIPAC should be compelled to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act:
Foreign interest lobbying group AIPAC is running $300,000 of ads as part of a pressure campaign to influence my votes in Congress.
The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires agents of foreign principals to register & disclose certain information. Should AIPAC register w/FARA?
In February, when Massie teased a potential 2026 bid for the Senate seat of retiring former Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican Jewish Coalition warned that “the RJC campaign budget to ensure he is defeated will be unlimited.” Massie turned that threat into a fundraising bonanza of his own, raising hundreds of thousands in small-dollar contributions to his campaign fund in just a few days.
On Tuesday, treading on what may be thin political ice himself, Cain endorsed Massie’s Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act:
“I don’t like it when I see an elected official have more than the American flag in their…bio on X. I don’t want to see a Ukrainian flag. I don’t want to see an Israeli flag. I want to see single loyalty to the United States of America.”
This afternoon, I joined @willcain to discuss my bill, the “Dual Loyalty Disclosure Act.”
Candidates for federal office should be required to disclose to voters whether they have citizenship in other countries.
The abrupt withdrawal last year of President Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee, followed rapidly by his replacement with Vice President Kamala Harris, irked many voters left out by the process. Yet social media seemed to ooze with enthusiasm and Gen Z-friendly hipster appeal.
Influencers flooded the web with neon-matcha green pro-Harris videos synced to beats from singer Charli XCX’s album “Brat” released last year. The poppy rave videos, gushed journalists, showed that Harris embodied the confidently independent “brat” vibe conveyed by the music. Social media pages bubbled with memes celebrating Harris as the voice of queer and black youth, in contrast with the Republican agenda of white supremacy. Digital creator Amelia Montooth, in one viral TikTok video, kissed a woman and tried searching for pornography, actions her sketch suggested would be banned if Harris lost the election.
Harris, a career politician favored by the Democratic Party’s establishment, never quite fit the bill as an icon of activist movements. But the sudden influencer buzz seemed to transform the stodgy former prosecutor into an icon of the cultural zeitgeist.
As it turns out, the tidal wave of enthusiasm was not entirely genuine. Much of the content, including Montooth’s videos, was quietly funded by an elusive group of Democratic billionaires and major donors in an arrangement designed to conceal the payments from voters.
RealClearInvestigations obtained internal documents and WhatsApp messages from Democratic strategists behind the influencer campaign. Way to Win, one of the major donor groups behind the effort, spent more than $9.1 million on social media influencers during the 2024 presidential election – payments revealed here for the first time. The amount was touted in a document circulated after the election detailing the organization’s accomplishments.
The effort supported over 550 content creators who published 6,644 posts across platforms, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Twitch, and X. Way to Win coached creators on phrases, issue areas, and key themes to “disseminate pro-Kamala content throughout the cycle,” a post-election memo from the group noted.
The look behind the curtain reveals that at least some of the image-making around the Harris candidacy was carefully orchestrated by the same types of covert social media marketing often used by corporate brands and special interest groups. Such campaigns provide the illusion of organic support through the authentic appeal of trusted social media voices.
Way to Win, in internal messages, touted its work with a stable of Democratic Party-affiliated influencers and activists, including Harry Sisson, Emily Amick, Kate Abu, and Dash Dobrofsky. The group also overtly cultivated “non-political creators” – influencers typically known for travel vlogs, comedic skits, or cooking recipes – and seeded them with “positive, specific pro-Kamala content” that was “integral in setting the tone on the Internet and driving additional organic digital support.” The effort often took the form of talking points that were rapidly distributed to the in-network creators.
“Bro who is Tim Walz,” said @AbeeTheArtist, one of the TikTok creators backed by Way to Win. “He’s a football coach, that’s hard,” the influencer continued. “It’s time for Republicans to drop out, it’s not looking good for ya’ll!”
In a series of internal presentations about the influencer campaign, Way to Win emphasized its data-driven approach. “We know what messaging works,” noted Liz Jaff, a branding strategist working with Way to Win, during a call with donors last year. She touted the use of an AI-based focus group tool developed by Future Forward, the Harris campaign’s primary SuperPAC.
Jaff also explained the process for developing talking points that could be inserted into organic-appearing messages and posts on social media. “We then convey that to the influencers who take that into their own words,” continued Jaff. “We then test those videos and see what needs to be boosted,” she added, referencing paid media efforts to amplify specific TikTok videos or favored streamers.
The lofty promises of message mastery, however, often fell short. Way to Win directly financed a series of clunky YouTube shows and liberal identity politics-oriented social media skits designed to bring voters out to support the Harris campaign and Democrats more broadly. There’s little evidence that such measures moved any significant numbers of voters during an election in which Democrats lost historic levels of support from key constituency groups – the youth vote, Latinos, and black men swung significantly to Donald Trump last year, upending decades of voting patterns.
Ilana Glazer, a comedian who starred in the Comedy Central show Broad City, received Way to Win funding for a series of election videos called “Microdosing Democracy,” in which she half-heartedly endorsed Harris as she lighted a spliff of marijuana. Another TikTok and Instagram series backed by the donors, called “Gaydar,” featured interviews quizzing people on the streets of New York City about gay culture trivia with little election-related content.
Way to Win also funded a caravan with an inflatable IUD to Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., Raleigh, St. Louis, and other locations. The tour, which featured content creators producing posts along the way, was designed to bring attention to claims that Trump would ban contraceptive devices.
In an apparent attempt to boost Harris’ support among black men, Way to Win directly funded a series of YouTube interview-style talk shows called Watering Hole Media.
“I heard a brother say to me, ‘Man, I didn’t know I was going to be excited when Kamala was selected,’” said Jeff Johnson, a managing director with the lobbying firm Actum LLC who worked as a host for the Watering Hole Mediaseries “Tap In.” “One brother said, ‘I’m not even fully sure why,’” continued Johnson. “No, seriously, he said, ‘When I look at her, though, she reminds me of my aunt,’ and I said yes, so there is this communal piece.”
The discussion, taped at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last August, buzzed about the “through line” from the Black Panthers to the Nation of Islam to Harris’ nomination, suggesting her candidacy represented another moment in radical black politics.
The Way to Win-sponsored media group sponsored many similar discussions attempting to buoy the Harris candidacy with appeals to racial identity politics.
Despite the well-funded efforts, few tuned in. The seven video programs produced at the DNC collectively garnered fewer than 1,000 views. One video had fewer than 40 viewers.
Questions have mounted over the campaign spending decisions from Harris and her supporting organizations. The Harris campaign and her SuperPAC spent over $1.5 billion in the last months of the campaign, with much of the money flowing to consultants and media advertising. Alex Cooper, who hosted Harris for an interview on her “Call Her Daddy” podcast, was baffled about why the campaign spent about $100,000 on a “cardboard” temporary studio set that “wasn’t that nice.” Others have raised similar concerns about payments to Oprah Winfrey’s production firm.
“Our 2024 creator program reached key audiences with nearly a billion views, but there’s more to do, and we’re applying lessons from last cycle,” a Way to Win spokesperson said in a statement to RCI.
“Sometimes in presidential campaigns, there are times when there aren’t any cost controls,” observed Mike Mikus, a Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania. “The biggest question is whether they had any empirical evidence that this TikTok messaging would work.”
The payments occupy a hazy area of election law. Way to Win structured the funds through nonprofit corporations that paid various influencer talent agencies – firms such as Palette Management and Vocal Media. The money was not listed in Federal Election Commission disclosure portals that show political funds spent during the campaign.
While television or radio ads require disclaimers showing the groups responsible for paying for the advertisements, there are no equivalent mandates for TikTok stars or Instagram personalities that receive payment to promote election-related content. Despite some attempts to reform election transparency regulations, minimal progress has been made. The FEC has deadlocked over attempts to form new rules to govern the influencer space, leaving the entire medium virtually lawless regarding campaign cash.
Way to Win operates several entities and corporations, most of which do not disclose donors. The group did not respond to a request for comment for more information in this regard. However, the cache of documents about the influencer campaign pointed to some clues. Way to Win hosted a series of donor-only events in San Francisco and Washington, D.C., with representatives of the Open Society Foundation, the charity backed by billionaire investor George Soros. OSF did not respond to a request for comment.
Democrats are hardly alone in payola for influencers. Republican campaigns have spent several hundred thousand dollars on similar social media marketing agencies that tout the ability to seed content with popular accounts on X and TikTok.
But the attempted reach and spending of the pro-Kamala Harris 2024 effort is unprecedented. For Way to Win, the group justified the spending sprees as the only way to compete with pro-Trump voices and popular podcasts, such as Joe Rogan, which the Harris campaign eschewed.
“Our goal this year was to combat conservative content domination on Instagram and TikTok. We did that,” Way to Win claimed in a triumphant memo to donors after the election.
“Had more Americans gotten their media from Instagram and TikTok,” the December memo argued, “Kamala Harris would be the next President of the United States.”
Government Funding For mRNA Technology Is Being Scrutinized And, In Some Cases, Sidelined
It looks as though government funding for mRNA technology is on a short leash…
Take, for example, a promising mRNA vaccine for pancreatic cancer, developed by Memorial Sloan Kettering, that showed encouraging early results: in some patients, immune responses lasted up to four years and appeared to reduce recurrence.
It is being overshadowed by new concerns about federal support for mRNA research, according to a new op-ed by science commentator Anjana Ahuja in the Financial Times.
According to Nature, NIH officials are informally advising scientists to remove references to mRNA from grant applications, and a spreadsheet tracking 130 related projects has raised fears of funding cuts.
NIH claims it’s simply reviewing what mRNA work it currently funds, but the lack of clarity has sparked unease—especially given the agency’s massive $47 billion research budget.
Drew Weissman, the Nobel-winning scientist behind mRNA vaccine breakthroughs, warned that cutting NIH support for mRNA research would stall medical progress and harm U.S. science. Even the threat of funding cuts creates fear and instability, especially for young researchers who may now look abroad for more secure opportunities.
To which we reply: if mRNA vaccines have a safe solution, the free market will eventually allow them to flourish…
But the Financial Times piece says that concerns have intensified with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. leading Health and Human Services, and reports that mRNA projects are being scrutinized or sidelined politically.
One early study using personalized mRNA cancer vaccines is already yielding hopeful results and has launched a broader global trial, according to the op-ed.
Scientists argue that pulling support now could derail life-saving innovation. As history shows, today’s medical breakthroughs rest on decades of consistent public research investment — a pipeline that can’t survive in a climate of political interference.
