The Russian defense ministry announced Monday its armed forces have begun planned exercises involving the deployment of Yars intercontinental ballistic missiles, RIA news agency is reporting.

Yars ICBM regiments in the Sverdlovsk and Altai regions are being deployed to field positions during command-staff exercises. The Yars can be transported on trucks or positioned in silos.

State media on Monday featured a photograph of one of the missiles being transported in its mobile form, but has given few other details on the drills or their scope.

Russia has over the course of the 3+ year long Ukraine war held several tactical nuclear exercises, while threats and counter-threats continue to fly amid growing Western involvement.

The current ICBM drills are a continued demonstration of Russia’s strategic capabilities, and muscle-flexing aimed at the Western allies.

It seems Moscow began increasing the readiness of its tactical forces especially last year. That’s when Biden issued the greenlight for Ukraine to conduct long-range strikes inside Russia using Western weapons. Putin at the time decried that this risks making Ukraine a ‘global war’.

For example, President Putin said last November, “The use of such weapons by the enemy cannot affect the course of the situation in the Special Military Operation zone.” He also said it was a big mistake for the US to pull out of the the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in 2019.

🇷🇺 Routine inspections of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces have begun, with Yars mobile intercontinental ballistic missile regiments deploying to field positions during command-staff exercises, the Defense Ministry announced. pic.twitter.com/acU7EFhh9d

— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) March 24, 2025

Putin has also long highlighted that Kiev is now in possession of US F-16s, and that of course NATO F-16s are capable of carry tactical nuclear weapons. Thus Russia has previously said it will have no choice but to assume each F-16 could be armed with nukes, highlighting how dangerous the situation is becoming.

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

While continuing to closely tie the recent US attacks on the Houthis in Yemen to Iran, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz confirmed that the Trump Administration is demanding “full dismantlement” of Iran’s nuclear program, including its capacity to enrich uranium for civilian use.

Waltz made the comments on CBS’ Face the Nation, and when asked what full dismantlement meant and to clarify the distinction between it and the verification deal the US had with Iran before President Trump pulled out of it in 2018, he made it clear this is far broader, covering everything, including enrichment, “weaponization,” and strategic missile programs.

Iran’s enrichment program, which is under IAEA monitoring, has no military component in the first place. Enrichment was purely for making fuel rods for the Bushehr nuclear power plant along Iran’s coast and for making somewhat higher enriched fuel for its medical isotope reactor. Iran has a long history of having a substantial nuclear medicine program, and supplied its own isotopes for that.

The long-abandoned nuclear deal was meant to give Iran a design to produce isotopes without 20% enriched uranium through a heavy-water reactor. Like most of the promises to Iran under the deal this was never honored, and Iran is left with the old research reactor. Higher levels of enrichment were also done to try to encourage new negotiations, though Iran promised the IAEA that they would not go above 60% levels, and weapons-grade uranium is a minimum of 90%.

Waltz’ new demand is not that Iran goes back down to 20% or anything, it’s to stop enrichment entirely. It’s unclear in the context if Iran is even allowed to keep it’s power plant, though without the ability to enrich uranium to make their own fuel, it would be effectively useless in fairly short order.

Beyond that, Waltz demanded Iran scrap its “weaponization” program, which will be a challenge because Iran does not have one, and US intelligence assessments have repeatedly said Iran hasn’t decided to try to make such a weapon though such assessments never seem to inform the content of US demands.

He also demanded Iran get rid of its entire strategic missile program, which since they haven’t even attempted to create nuclear warheads would exclusively impact conventional weapons in Iran’s arsenal. Though presented as something to do with nuclear dismantlement, it is effectively unrelated in the case of these missiles.

Waltz confirmed that the US had received multiple responses from Iran regarding the demands, which were initially submitted through a letter. He declined to discuss what the responses were in any way, but said there was an ongoing “back and forth” and that “all options are on the table.” He further vowed Iran would face consequences if they didn’t submit to the demands.

The latest US demands are by far the furthest they’ve gone in demands for nuclear concessions from Iran, but they once again appear founded in the same false narrative that the program has a military component, even though US intelligence has consistently confirmed it does not.

The refusal to disclose what Iran’s response to the demands has been so far is likely based in part on avoiding talking about how Iran doubtless reiterated that they don’t have such a program to give up. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has publicly responded in part, by rejecting the idea of direct talks with President Trump on the matter.

Khamanei has previously expressed openness to direct talks with the US, but since Trump was the one who tore up the previous nuclear deal, he has said that there is no value in talking with a party they can’t count on to fulfill their commitments.

The US must know that when facing Iran, threats will never achieve anything.

— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) March 21, 2025

Russia issued a statement on Friday which appears to reject the basis of the US demands, saying Iran has every right to have a peaceful nuclear program for civilian purposes. Western European nations have previously given lip-service to past US demands to restrict Iran, but it is unclear if even they will go along with the idea that Iran isn’t allowed to enrich uranium to civilian levels. Beyond Israel, the Trump Administration might be alone given the severity of this latest demand.

Authored by Tory Bruno via RealClearWire,

Recently during President Trump’s State of the Union, he declared: “As commander in chief, my focus is on building the most powerful military of the future. As a first step, I’m asking Congress to fund a state-of-the-art Golden Dome missile defense shield to protect our homeland, all made in the USA.”

Also referred to as an “Iron Dome,” a Golden Dome is a pretty awesome rebranding of the current Israeli missile defense system and a new initiative to protect the US from missile and hypersonic attack. President Trump is right—we absolutely want one, and it is finally possible.

Ballistic missiles are the weapons of choice for our adversaries to strike the U.S. homeland from far away. Our most sophisticated adversaries are also developing the dreaded maneuvering hypersonic weapon which is capable of defeating today’s missile defenses.

A ballistic missile would arrive in minutes, be hard to see, and come in blisteringly fast. That’s because they are launched with rockets, the fasted delivery systems on earth, making this threat really tough to counter. Enter the missile defense interceptor.

If you want to stop a rocket, you use another rocket. An interceptor flies out at high velocity into the path of the incoming warhead, destroying it in midair. Its radar detects an incoming warhead and alerts your Battle Management System that aims and fires. All this only takes a few minutes. It’s like shooting clay pigeons. The interceptor is wicked fast, but so is the warhead, so we aim at a point in front of the target, so they arrive at that spot together.

The marquis example is THAAD, which I developed a few years ago. It utilizes a powerful radar and an interceptor that flies at twice the speed of a rifle bullet. The radar can also be tipped off by a SBIRS satellite, allowing it to focus and pick up the warhead earlier. THAAD is ideal for short range to medium range threats, but it can also handle ICBMs within a smaller area. It can operate above the atmosphere or closer in, where decoys will be stripped away. It’s a great underlay for systems designed to defend large swaths of the country from ICBMs and works well with its own underlay of systems like Patriot that defend against cruise missiles. Layering is vital.

Israel’s Iron Dome system is quite good, but there’s one big challenge when we look at the United States: geography. Israel is only 85 miles wide vs. America’s 2,600 miles. But don’t worry, it turns out that we already have the most capable missile defense technology in the world. We just need more of them… Plus one extra for the dreaded hypersonic.

The United States requires a three-layered defense: 

1. An ICBM killer that takes a first shot and efficiently covers the entire country, 

2. a sea-based system off our coasts, and 

3. a regional defender providing an underlay for population centers.

Today, we have Ground-Based Midcourse Defense in Alaska. 

It’s there for North Korean ICBMs. It also does an okay job with Iran. But it would do better if it were also deployed on that side of the country. This technology is being updated right now with Lockheed Martin’s Next Generation Interceptor (NGI). So for our US Iron Dome ICBM element, we just need to finish NGI and base them in Alaska, the Northeast, and perhaps the South.

We already have a highly capable sea-based missile defense system on Aegis Cruisers using the Standard Missile family. 

Ships would be posted off both coasts and in the Gulf of America.

And, finally, a THAAD battery or two would provide the underlay for each US region. 

Some would be located near major metropolitan areas providing a “point” defense against an ICBM “leaker”.

Boom! Done. A practical American Golden Dome could begin deployment right now.

What about maneuvering hypersonics? This is a unique physics challenge. That’s why China and Russia have been investing in it. Remember my earlier trap shooting analogy? This threat seeks to defeat an interceptor by waiting until after you “shoot” and then swerving out of your path.

We could kill it in terminal flight, just over its target. If it maneuvers then, it misses…. But we’d have to put a THAAD battery in every city, which would be impractical. There’s only one way to do this. We need an interceptor that travels at the speed of light, aka: Directed Energy (lasers).

The saying inside the community is that “directed energy is ALWAYS ten years away”. That was true for so long, that no one noticed when it wasn’t. I developed a practical system that killed rockets and drones over ten years ago using a commercial laser source. We can develop a system to be based on a constellation of satellites that would monitor large regions of the country and destroy hypersonic gliders in any part of their flight path from space. Having also developed hypersonics myself, I can tell you that they are fast, but not very sturdy.

We have all the tools for America’s Golden Dome. We can start deploying the first elements tomorrow. Congress just needs to act.

Let’s get on it!

Federal officials are targeting a long-running underground birth tourism industry in California, where Chinese nationals pay baby brokers to ensure their children are born as U.S. citizens.

Authorities say pregnant women are often housed in upscale homes and apartments near Los Angeles—dubbed “baby farms” by locals. These illegal operations can charge over $100,000 per pregnancy, according to NewsNation.

“This was an industry,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph McNally. “These were criminal enterprises that operated here in the United States and also people in China who would recruit. The organizers… were responsible for the birth tourism of thousands of babies. They had a system in place.”

McNally estimates that roughly 30,000 babies were born through these schemes.

NewsNation reports that hotels and motels across the U.S. have reported an influx of pregnant Chinese women staying for months to give birth on American soil.

For wealthier couples, another route is surrogacy—paying American women to carry their child. These babies, born with U.S. citizenship, often return to China immediately after birth.

“Anytime somebody has a U.S. passport, it means they have access to the United States,” warned Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph McNally. He cited a case where a baby born in Irvine later joined the Chinese military while still holding a U.S. passport. “That provides a real national security asset to China. And a real problem to the United States,” he said.

While not illegal, McNally said the trend is deeply concerning.

Parham Zar, head of a Beverly Hills surrogacy agency, said at one point 90% of his clients were Chinese, with surrogacy packages costing around $200,000. He defended the practice: “It is a misnomer in this field that people are just coming here to be a U.S. citizen… I haven’t met anyone who had nefarious intentions of having a child.”

Still, the issue has drawn political scrutiny. Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) called it “strange and dystopian,” adding: “We need to be having a national dialogue… whether we should be interpreting our own laws to be allowing the buying and selling of children essentially or the buying and selling of wombs.”

Authored by Amy Denney via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Though Dr. Mark Burhenne has been railing against water fluoridation on his social media accounts and his “Ask the Dentist” podcast, he never thought he’d see it banned from so many public water supplies in his lifetime.

A landmark ruling in September that directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to address the “unreasonable” risk fluoride in drinking water poses to lowering IQ in children has become a tipping point, Berhenne told The Epoch Times in an email. The decision has motivated large numbers of local and state governments to ban fluoride in their water supplies.

“Change like this isn’t going to happen overnight, but this was the kind of momentum we’ve been waiting for,” he said. “I didn’t think I’d see this kind of progress on fluoride in my lifetime, but now? I think it’s possible. It’ll take time—decades, maybe—but the wheels are turning.”

Utah is set to be the first state to ban fluoride in drinking water. At the same time, at least 50 communities nationwide have removed fluoride from water—representing about 4.5 million people—according to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Florida is considering legislation to prevent local governments from adding it to water supplies, and several states are considering reversals of fluoridation mandates.

The chain reaction on the local level is obscured by silence on the federal level, where decades of denials and obfuscation have clouded the contentious public health issue. It remains unresolved and unaddressed, even as new research confirms fluoride health risks. There may be legal loose ends as well. Three days before President Trump took office, EPA’s acting administrator Jane Nishida filed an appeal of the federal court decision under pressure from dental organizations.

Stakeholders Respond

The Epoch Times reached out to the EPA to ask whether it is pursuing the appeal or if it is pursuing action related to the court’s findings.

An agency spokesperson didn’t address specific questions but replied, “In keeping with a longstanding practice, EPA does not comment on pending litigation.”

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco issued an 80-page ruling in September, which stated “the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA.”

*  *  *

Filter fluoride out of your water here…

Use code THANKYOU10 for 10% off

*  *  *

Chen did not order a specific course of action. Currently, the government recommends a fluoride level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in drinking water for the prevention of tooth decay.

“Community water fluoridation is a practical, cost-effective, and equitable way for communities to improve oral health regardless of age, education, or income by preventing cavities. This results in less mouth pain, fewer fillings or teeth pulled, and fewer missed days of work and school,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The lawsuit was filed in 2017 by several nonprofits led by environmental advocacy organization Food & Water Watch. Chen paused the suit in 2020 to wait for a National Toxicology Program report that was in the works, which was published in August, showing a link between higher amounts of fluoride exposure and a lower IQ in children. The findings were based on studies involving fluoride levels at about twice the recommended limit for drinking water or approximately 1.4 mg/L.

The American Dental Association (ADA) and other organizations wrote a letter to Nishida requesting the appeal one week before it was filed, noting that the CDC hailed water fluoridation as a top public health achievement, reducing cavities by 25 percent.

“It would be regrettable to compromise nearly 80 years of public health success due to challenges in effectively communicating the science, which often extends beyond the simplicity of a sound bite,” the organizations wrote.

The ADA did not reply to The Epoch Times for an interview request.

Burhenne countered that the EPA’s appeal was surprising in light of overwhelming data.

“It’s hard to see it as anything but a stall tactic. Honestly, it feels like ego is driving their actions at this point, and it’s frustrating,” he said.

The lawsuit findings are sufficient to end water fluoridation, according to Stuart Cooper, executive director of FAN, which was a plaintiff in the suit. The EPA has two years to devise a tactic for protecting the vulnerable from fluoride risks. The neurotoxic effects of fluoride are more prevalent in formula-fed infants, African Americans, and undernourished people.

Cooper said new EPA rules could be designed either to ban municipalities from buying fluoride—which is a manmade chemical form of the mineral—or somehow inform every pregnant woman of the risks to fetal and child development from drinking fluoridated water. The latter seems so out of reach that Cooper doesn’t conceive any option outside of ceasing the practice.

Other federal agencies could also step in and take action, Cooper told The Epoch Times, including the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which sets fluoride limits in drinking water and is headed by long-time fluoride opponent Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We expect to see CDC and HHS to change their stance in the coming months,” Cooper said. “In the meantime, HHS is currently promoting water fluoridation, they are providing grants to communities for the infrastructure so they can initiate fluoridation, and they spend tax dollars on PR campaigns in favor of fluoridation.”

He added that nothing would prevent HHS or the CDC from updating recommendations on the optimal upper limit of fluoride to zero, much like HHS and the EPA did when they lowered the upper limit of fluoride from 1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L in 2011.

The Epoch Times reached out to several federal agencies to ask whether the new administration plans to issue advisories or launch new studies on fluoride. Agencies that responded referred questions to the EPA.

Cooper said neither a pending appeal nor the EPA’s legal directive prevents other agencies from stepping in to take action. Also, he pointed out that the new administration isn’t beholden to following through on the appeal.

“The CDC and HHS can act unilaterally outside of that. They can put out an advisory and end the promotion of water fluoridation tomorrow,” he said. “I imagine they’re busy right now. It hasn’t been very long, but it’s going to happen. You’re already watching water fluoridation unravel in real-time.”

RFK Jr: Fluoride Friend or Foe?

Adding to the confusion is a post Kennedy made on X that Trump would “advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water” on his first day as President, leaving followers questioning the silence in the weeks since.

Neither Kennedy nor the White House responded to The Epoch Times about why that recommendation wasn’t made.

“Public policy takes time,” Cooper said. “You have to be patient and determined and put your head down and just keep advocating if you believe in something. Eventually I think integrity and truth wins out.”

Burhenne said the nature of Kennedy’s announcement was disappointing and hasn’t helped forge awareness or cooperation.

“It shifted the focus back to polarizing, sensationalized rhetoric—the kind of ‘conspiracy theory’ framing we’ve been trying to avoid. That made things a bit harder, but I don’t think it derailed the progress entirely,” Burhenne said.

New Fluoride Evidence

Another study showing fluoride exposure in children was tied to lowered cognitive abilities was published earlier this month in Environmental Health Perspectives.

Researchers followed 500 women and their children in rural Bangladesh who were exposed to naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water at levels similar to those in the United States. Fluoride exposure was measured through urine, accounting for not only water but also exposure to fluoride in food and dental products, which aren’t considered a significant exposure since they aren’t intended to be ingested.

Fluoride concentrations in children at more than 0.72 mg/L were associated with lower cognitive abilities—including being able to hear or read and then follow instructions—and being able to process and interpret information with their senses. Of note, the associations were only statistically significant when children were 10 years of age and not 5 years of age—although a negative effect was also seen at 5 years.

Beyond Fluoride

Fluoride also highlights a larger problem, Burhenne said, about the state of municipal water supplies, which vary drastically and are filled with carcinogens and other toxins like microplastics, heavy metals, prescription drugs, and other chemicals.

The federal government should have stricter guidelines for water and require more frequent testing, he said. Governments have failed to provide access to safe, clean drinking water, he added, leaving the burden of filtering and purifying water up to homeowners.

Funds used for purchasing and maintaining fluoride systems could be redirected toward improving overall water quality, Burhenne suggested.

“Clean water is fundamental—after all, we’re mostly water ourselves—and the fact that this basic right to clean, uncontaminated water is being overlooked in favor of political and emotional debates is deeply concerning.”

Monday brought a new twist in South Korea’s ongoing political discord, as the country’s Constitutional Court negated the impeachment of Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and immediately reinstated him as acting president. The country now awaits an even more consequential ruling about the propriety of the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol. 

“I thank the Constitutional Court for its wise decision,” said Han. “I will work to bring the government to order.” Han became acting president in December, following Yoon’s impeachment after he stunned South Korea and the world by attempting to declare martial law.

Han’s hold on the presidency proved short-lived, however, as he too was impeached by the National Assembly less than two weeks after taking command. His ouster came after he blocked the appointment of three more justices to the Constitutional Court — a move intended to increase the chances of Yoon’s impeachment. (Justices serve renewable six-year terms, but must retire upon reaching age 70.) He was also accused of aiding and abetting Yoon’s martial law declaration. 

Since then, the South Korean government has been led by Finance Minister Choi Sang-mok. In a sign that the National Assembly’s impeachment fever is still in full force, opposition parties last week put forward a motion to impeach Choi too, as they have been angered by his frequent vetoes of legislation and his procrastination in appointing a new, left-leaning Constitutional Court justice who’s already been approved by the assembly. 

That brings us to Monday, when the Constitutional Court decisively struck down Han’s impeachment in a 7-1 ruling. The reasoning differed among the justices, with some saying Hans actions cited by the assembly weren’t illegal, others saying they were insufficiently serious to warrant impeachment, and some saying the impeachment motion itself didn’t reach requisite two-thirds majority.   

While Han’s case has been resolved, tension is soaring as the country awaits the court’s ruling on Yoon’s impeachment. The court, which gets the final word on the National Assembly’s impeachments, hasn’t said when it will announce a decision. If Yoon’s impeachment is upheld, South Korea must elect a new president within 60 days. Otherwise, he will retake the presidency, which would surely cause even more national friction.

As anxiety over the pending Yoon decision increases, huge demonstrations have been organized in recent days by both supporters and opponents of Yoon. Saturday saw dueling protests in Seoul comprising tens of thousands split into two dueling, chanting masses separated by a makeshift barrier composed of police buses. 

Polls in recent weeks showed that South Koreans preferred Mr. Yoon’s ouster to his reinstatement roughly three to two. But in a deeply divided nation, Parliament’s decision to impeach him has also galvanized the political right. — New York Times

In another visible sign of the perceived volatility of the situation, the Constitutional Court’s physical security has been enhanced, with razor wire now seen atop its walls. Rhetoric is running hot. “If President Yoon is not reinstated, there will be a civil war,” Pastor Jun Kwang-hoon, who has organized pro-Yoon demonstrations, told a crowd on Saturday. He says the drive to restore Yoon to office is a battle against “Communist reds.”

Despite Jun’s prediction, as is the case in the West, the likelihood of political violence might be higher if the left comes out on the losing end. As Sogang University political science professor Shang E. Ha told the Times: 

“If [the Constitutional Court] endorses Yoon’s impeachment, there will be some commotion, but the political landscape will quickly shift toward a presidential election. But if he returns to office, even those who have been waiting patiently for a ruling will take to the streets. We will see riots.”

That’s not to say the South Korean right is thoroughly nonviolent. When a judge issued a warrant to arrest Yoon for insurrection in January, Yoon backers vandalized a courthouse. On another occasion, two Yoon partisans self-immolated to protest his impeachment. 

Bracing for the Yoon ruling, South Korea is set to impose a range of extraordinary measures for the day of the announcement: Some 14,000 police will be on standby, schools will close, and authorities have called for trash bins, rocks, empty bottles and other potential makeshift weapons to be removed from the streets. 

Buckle up…

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

President Trump on March 20, 2025, ordered the following: “The Secretary of Education shall, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”

That is interesting language: to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” is not the same as closing it. And what is “permitted by law” is precisely what is in dispute. 

It is meant to feel like abolition, and the media reported it as such, but it is not even close. This is not Trump’s fault. The supposed authoritarian has his hands tied in many directions, even over agencies he supposedly controls, the actions of which he must ultimately bear responsibility. 

The Department of Education is an executive agency, created by Congress in 1979. Trump wants it gone forever. So do his voters. Can he do that? No but can he destaff the place and scatter its functions? No one knows for sure. Who decides? Presumably the highest court, eventually. 

How this is decided – whether the president is actually in charge or really just a symbolic figure like the King of Sweden – affects not just this one destructive agency but hundreds more. Indeed, the fate of the whole of freedom and functioning of constitutional republics may depend on the answer. 

All burning questions of politics today turn on who or what is in charge of the administrative state. No one knows the answer and this is for a reason. The main functioning of the modern state falls to a beast that does not exist in the Constitution. 

The public mind has never had great love for bureaucracies. Consistent with Max Weber’s worry, they have put society in an impenetrable “iron cage” built of bloodless rationalism, needling edicts, corporatist corruption, and never-ending empire-building checked by neither budgetary restraint nor plebiscite. 

Today’s full consciousness of the authority and ubiquity of the administrative state is rather new. The term itself is a mouthful and doesn’t come close to describing the breadth and depth of the problem, including its root systems and retail branches. The new awareness is that neither the people nor their elected representatives are really in charge of the regime under which we live, which betrays the whole political promise of the Enlightenment. 

This dawning awareness is probably 100 years late. The machinery of what is popularly known as the “deep state” – I’ve argued there are deep, middle, and shallow layers – has been growing in the US since the inception of the civil service in 1883 and thoroughly entrenched over two world wars and countless crises at home and abroad. 

The edifice of compulsion and control is indescribably huge. No one can agree precisely on how many agencies there are or how many people work for them, much less how many institutions and individuals work on contract for them, either directly or indirectly. And that is just the public face; the subterranean branch is far more elusive. 

The revolt against them all came with the Covid controls, when everyone was surrounded on all sides by forces outside our purview and about which the politicians knew not much at all. Then those same institutional forces appear to be involved in overturning the rule of a very popular politician whom they tried to stop from gaining a second term. 

The combination of this series of outrages – what Jefferson in his Declaration called “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object” – has led to a torrent of awareness. This has translated into political action. 

A distinguishing mark of Trump’s second term has been an optically concerted effort, at least initially, to take control of and then curb administrative state power, more so than any executive in living memory. At every step in these efforts, there has been some barrier, even many on all sides. 

There are at least 100 legal challenges making their way through courts. District judges are striking down Trump’s ability to fire workers, redirect funding, curb responsibilities, and otherwise change the way they do business. 

Even the signature early achievement of DOGE – the shuttering of USAID – has been stopped by a judge with an attempt to reverse it. A judge has even dared tell the Trump administration who it can and cannot hire at USAID. 

Not a day goes by when the New York Times does not manufacture some maudlin defense of the put-upon minions of the tax-funded managerial class. In this worldview, the agencies are always right, whereas any elected or appointed person seeking to rein them in or terminate them is attacking the public interest. 

After all, as it turns out, legacy media and the administrative state have worked together for at least a century to cobble together what was conventionally called “the news.” Where would the NYT or the whole legacy media otherwise be? 

So ferocious has been the pushback against even the paltry successes and often cosmetic reforms of MAGA/MAHA/DOGE that vigilantes have engaged in terrorism against Teslas and their owners. Not even returning astronauts from being “lost in space” has redeemed Elon Musk from the wrath of the ruling class. Hating him and his companies is the “new thing” for NPCs, on a long list that began with masks, shots, supporting Ukraine, and surgical rights for gender dysphoria. 

What is really at stake, more so than any issue in American life (and this applies to states around the world) – far more than any ideological battles over left and right, red and blue, or race and class – is the status, power, and security of the administrative state itself and all its works. 

We claim to support democracy yet all the while, empires of command-and-control have arisen among us. The victims have only one mechanism available to fight back: the vote. Can that work? We do not yet know. This question will likely be decided by the highest court. 

All of which is awkward. It is impossible to get around this US government organizational chart. All but a handful of agencies live under the category of the executive branch. Article 2, Section 1, says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Does the president control the whole of the executive branch in a meaningful way? One would think so. It’s impossible to understand how it could be otherwise. The chief executive is…the chief executive. He is held responsible for what these agencies do – we certainly blasted away at the Trump administration in the first term for everything that happened under his watch. In that case, and if the buck really does stop at the Oval Office desk, the president must have some modicum of control beyond the ability to tag a marionette to get the best parking spot at the agency. 

What is the alternative to presidential oversight and management of the agencies listed in this branch of government? They run themselves? That claim means nothing in practice.

For an agency to be deemed “independent” turns out to mean codependency with the industries regulated, subsidized, penalized, or otherwise impacted by its operations. HUD does housing development, FDA does pharmaceuticals, DOA does farming, DOL does unions, DOE does oil and turbines, DOD does tanks and bombs, FAA does airlines, and so on It goes forever. 

That’s what “independence” means in practice: total acquiescence to industrial cartels, trade groups, and behind-the-scenes systems of payola, blackmail, and graft, while the powerless among the people live with the results. This much we have learned and cannot unlearn. 

That is precisely the problem that cries out for a solution. The solution of elections seems reasonable only if the people we elected actually have the authority over the thing they seek to reform. 

There are criticisms of the idea of executive control of executive agencies, which is really nothing other than the system the Founders established. 

First, conceding more power to the president raises fears that he will behave like a dictator, a fear that is legitimate. Partisan supporters of Trump won’t be happy when the precedent is cited to reverse Trump’s political priorities and the agencies turn on red-state voters in revenge. 

That problem is solved by dismantling agency power itself, which, interestingly, is mostly what Trump’s executive orders have sought to achieve and which the courts and media have worked to stop. 

Second, one worries about the return of the “spoils system,” the supposedly corrupt system by which the president hands out favors to friends in the form of emoluments, a practice the establishment of the civil service was supposed to stop. 

In reality, the new system of the early 20th century fixed nothing but only added another layer, a permanent ruling class to participate more fully in a new type of spoils system that operated now under the cloak of science and efficiency. 

Honestly, can we really compare the petty thievery of Tammany Hall to the global depredations of USAID?

Third, it is said that presidential control of agencies threatens to erode checks and balances. The obvious response is the organizational chart above. That happened long ago as Congress created and funded agency after agency from the Wilson to the Biden administration, all under executive control. 

Congress perhaps wanted the administrative state to be an unannounced and unaccountable fourth branch, but nothing in the founding documents created or imagined such a thing. 

If you are worried about being dominated and destroyed by a ravenous beast, the best approach is not to adopt one, feed it to adulthood, train it to attack and eat people, and then unleash it. 

The Covid years taught us to fear the power of the agencies and those who control them not just nationally but globally. The question now is two-fold: what can be done about it and how to get from here to there? 

Trump’s executive order on the Department of Education illustrates the point precisely. His administration is so uncertain of what it does and can control, even of agencies that are wholly executive agencies, listed clearly under the heading of executive agencies, that it has to dodge and weave practical and legal barriers and land mines, even in its own supposed executive pronouncements, even to urge what might amount to be minor reforms. 

Whoever is in charge of such a system, it is clearly not the people.

In the quiet hours of the night, a sudden knock at the door can provoke fear and confusion. But according to Massad Ayoob, a renowned firearms expert and self-defense instructor, the way we respond in such moments can be the difference between life and death.

“Why on earth would you open that door to begin with?” Mr. Ayoob asked during a discussion on home defense strategies on the Wilson Combat YouTube channel. His advice was direct: avoid opening the door entirely unless absolutely necessary. Modern technology – like affordable doorbell cameras and intercom systems – can effectively mitigate risks by allowing occupants to see and communicate with visitors without exposing themselves.

According to Mr. Ayoob, who has decades of experience as a firearms instructor and expert witness in self-defense trials, the most common late-night visitor is not an intruder but rather a local police officer. Police typically deliver urgent news or safety warnings at odd hours—information regarding stolen vehicles, dangerous criminals nearby, or tragic news about loved ones.

“They’re there at 3 a.m. to tell you that at 2 a.m. they recovered your stolen car that you didn’t realize was missing,” Mr. Ayoob explained. Officers might also be delivering “an untimely death notification” or warning of “a burglar or a very dangerous felon in your area.”

Ayoob strongly advises against opening the door visibly armed. “When you open that door with a gun in your hand, shotgun, carbine, or pistol, what do you suppose it’s going to look like to the officer?” He stresses that such scenarios often result in tragic misunderstandings, noting that “every single one of those cases I’m aware of, the courts have found for the officer.“

His advice on safely answering unexpected late-night visitors emphasizes preparation, clear communication, and cautiousness. If the situation demands opening the door, Mr. Ayoob recommends discreetly carrying a handgun concealed—not visible—to avoid misunderstandings. He cautions against openly brandishing weapons such as shotguns or rifles, as these can trigger a defensive response from law enforcement.

“Be prepared,” he urged. “Have your cell phone right there with you,” and if you think it’s not actually a police officer – immediately dial 911 to confirm whether an officer has in fact been dispatched.

Mr. Ayoob also highlighted the importance of firearm safety and proper selection. He advised choosing handguns with manual safeties or double-action triggers, making them safer to carry discreetly during tense situations.

Finally, Ayoob underscores the importance of preparation and education: “Think it out beforehand. Waking up at three o’clock in the morning out of deep REM sleep is a lousy time to start thinking how you’re going to handle an unexpected situation.” Ensuring all household members understand these precautions could save lives.

Watch:

Authored by Andrew Lowenthal via The Brownstone Institute,

Over the past three weeks, anyone interested in free speech (or not) has been on the receiving end of a non-consensual firehouse of flood-the-zone information warfare. Every man and his DOGE has chimed in, capturing via screenshot a score of Osama bin Laden of censorship hideouts – “It’s USAID!” “It’s NED!” “It’s NIH”!

USAID in particular has been made responsible for everything, from funding chemtrails in Naples to biting your own cheek. It’s a shame the word misinformation is of so little use anymore.

USAID is important, but the censorship happens via a system comprising hundreds, possibly thousands, of organisations, small and large. Is there a secret bunker? I don’t know, it isn’t impossible, but the approach is cartoonish. There are key nodes, organisations, and networks that are more important than others, particularly those that hand out money. In fact “complex” was the term that quickly gained favour during the Twitter files, precisely because it captured the system’s complexity – it’s what made it work and minimised public scrutiny.

Over the past couple of months, liber-net has built a database of almost 1,000 federal government awards from 2016-2024 that went towards countering “misinformation” and other similar censorship pretexts. That work aims to complement the mapping of the Censorship Industrial Complex we did for Matt Taibbi. That work looked partly at government funding but focused more on the leading censorship organisations and their often public and private support.

Not all of the 1,000 grants logged are dubious, but many are. We’ve been going through each by hand – reading their project pages, papers, and reports to find out how big a problem they are. Can AI help? Yes to a degree but from what we’ve tried, AI can’t yet really understand why one grant is horrible and the next one is just a bit meh.

The map above is a sketch of where we think the funds have come from to date based on the analysis we’ve been able to do. I emphasise sketch because out of the almost 1,000 awards, I still have another 300-400 to review. Of the 500+ I have looked at so far, around 200 are highly problematic, and another 100 are extremely dubious.

Keep in mind we are looking only at grants that could be considered “censorship” so anything that looked at “misinformation,” “hate speech,” “information integrity,” “information operations,” “content moderation,” “fact-checking” et al. We aren’t looking at grants for dubious woke culture war projects that have set the internet aflame the past couple of weeks.

To give you an idea, the grants include NSF money to Meedan (one of Twitter’s four go-to organisations for Covid “misinformation”) to develop AI to spy on encrypted private messaging groups to weed out so-called “misinformation,” including to create and scale “tip lines” “to millions of users” – aka snitching on a mass scale.

Or more NSF money to the University of Illinois to “track locations, people, and organizational affiliations of dubious COVID-19 information” based on whether they questioned CDC guidance.

Once we’ve finalised reviewing the remaining grants we’ll produce a much more accurate map and systemic analysis of how much each agency was funding censorship, and who they were paying to do it. This teaser is because I have a bee in my bonnet about the dynamite fishing I am seeing where a net, if not a rod, would be more useful.

The downside of dynamite is that it is indiscriminate. The Free Press reported last week people like Chris Rufo were falsely accused of being a USAID shill because a computer program said so. In my previous post, I pointed out other errors being circulated as social media influencers feasted on fresh DOGE kills.

Again, this isn’t to say that USAID isn’t in large part a massive covert operation – it should be shut down and the actual humanitarian work shifted to an entirely new agency. But our research shows a lot more censorship grants from the State Department (not getting shut down) and the National Science Foundation, to say nothing of the Pentagon which has dropped, among a slew of problematic awards, up to one billion dollar counter “disinformation” contracts. To compare that to a $100k grant to an irrelevant woke NGO in Kenya is like putting an ant next to a whale.

It’s a complex complex! It will take more than lobbing off a few government branches to get to the root of it, to say nothing of the private foundations supporting censorship, and the slack the EU will no doubt pick up.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Prices for some of the most common breakfast staples have fallen over the past month. While attention has primarily focused on President Trump’s countermeasures — which have helped arrest the rise in egg prices and send them tumbling in recent weeks — orange juice prices are now on track to post their sharpest quarterly decline in over 50 years.

Bloomberg data shows that if losses of 45% persist through the end of the month, the first quarter would mark the largest quarterly decline since the second quarter of 1967.

Prices have been halved from $5 a pound in mid-December to around $2.50. 

As we previously mentioned in December, prices hovered over $5 on production figures in Florida, sliding to 1930 levels. There are shifting consumer behavior trends of falling demand for the sugary citrus drink usually paired with eggs and bacon. 

Data from Nielsen and the Florida Department of Citrus show a 7% drop in juice volumes sold this season through February. The latest drop adds to the ongoing trend of shifting consumer habits, with orange juice consumption halved since the DotCom peak.

In addition to plunging OJ prices, egg prices have been more than halved in just a few weeks after President Trump announced a plan to offset a loss of domestic production following Biden-Harris’ reckless culling of 150 million egg-laying hens. 

• Supply Chain Sabotage? Biden “Killed 8 Million Chickens” Right Before Trump Entered Office

Breakfast is about to become cheaper in the weeks ahead.