Boston Municipal Court Judge Mark Summerville must have flunked Constitutional Law 101 from whatever law school he managed to graduate from. He apparently doesn’t realize
that he can’t go after federal agents for enforcing federal immigration law
.
Summerville held an Immigration and Customs Enforcement
agent named Brian Sullivan in contempt for detaining an illegal alien charged by local authorities with lying on a driver’s license application. The judge even ordered the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office to investigate the ICE agent for “obstruction of justice.”
The alien, who was going under the alias of Wilson Martell-Lebron in Summerville’s courtroom, is actually
a Dominican named Juan Carlos Baez with prior drug convictions who is illegally in the country. ICE picked Baez up as he was leaving the municipal court.
A Constitutional Law Tutorial for the Judge
Since you, Judge Summerville don’t seem to understand basic constitutional law, here is an explainer.
The Supremacy Clause
of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution
provides that the Constitution and all federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” no matter what their state laws or state constitutions may provide “to the Contrary.” That means state court judges like you, Summerville. It means that federal immigration laws override state laws that would prevent enforcement of those federal laws.
And local DA’s prosecuting federal agents under state law for carrying out their duties under federal law? You can’t do that, judge. If you hadn’t skipped class, you would have no doubt read the seminal U.S. Supreme Court
case on this issue, In re Neagle
(1890).
In that case, a local sheriff in California tried to prosecute for murder a deputy U.S. Marshal who was protecting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field from an assassination attempt by a disgruntled former member of the California state supreme court, who was unhappy over court rulings that went against his wife.
You would expect to see this kind of unbelievable plot in a Hollywood movie, which is why the case is so well known.
The key point: The U.S. Supreme Court said that federal officers and agents who are acting within the scope of their federal authority and carrying out their duty to enforce federal law are immune from prosecution by state and local prosecutors. That means you, judge, as well as the Suffolk County District Attorney.
A “Disturbing Case”? Check Out the Case of Your Colleague
You, judge, are quoted as saying what ICE did was “a disturbing case” and “a case of obstruction of justice.” Really? How ironic. Here’s a suggestion. Review the federal criminal indictment in 2019 of your colleague, Massachusetts state court Judge Shelley M. Richmond, for obstruction of justice, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and obstructing a federal proceeding.
She was indicted for helping an illegal alien who was also in her courtroom on local charges avoid being taken into custody by a waiting federal agent on a federal immigration detainer warrant. She instructed her bailiff to release the alien through the backdoor of the courthouse so the alien would not encounter the waiting federal agent in the courthouse lobby—after ordering the agent out of her courtroom.
The only reason Richmond did not go to trial was because she accepted
a generous plea deal with the U.S. Justice Department. Justice dismissed the federal charges conditioned on her submitting herself to the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct for her misbehavior.
Lesson concluded, your Honor. You will be tested.
Punishing ICE Agents for Doing Their Job is What’s “Disturbing”
Federal agents carrying out their duties to detain illegal aliens under federal immigration law are immune from punishment or prosecution by judges and local prosecutors who want to obstruct such enforcement. But local judges and other local officials, including law enforcement officials, are not immune from federal prosecution
for violating federal laws that prohibit concealing, harboring, transporting, or taking other actions intended to protect aliens illegally in the United States.
Summerville is correct when he says this is a disturbing case. But what is disturbing is his attempt to punish an ICE agent for doing his job and his attempt to order the local DA to go after that agent. The only individual involved in this “disturbing case” who is trying to “obstruct justice” as the judge claims, is the judge himself.
Top Republican House leaders have formally requested that ActBlue
, one of the Democratic Party
’s largest political action committees, turn over documents related to its governance and operations.
In a letter dated April 2 to ActBlue President and Chief Executive Officer Regina Wallace-Jones, the chairmen of the House committees
on the Judiciary, Oversight and Government Reform, and Administration requested documents and testimony from two employees of the organization.
The names of the employees whose testimony was requested were redactedin the version of the letter that was made public.
A source familiar with the investigation told The Daily Signal, “We expect ActBlue employees to participate in the transcribed interviews and submit the required documents.” The source explained, “If they fail to comply, all options are on the table.”
An ActBlue spokesperson told The Daily Signal, “As we have historically done, ActBlue will continue to respond to requests from the House committees.”
In their letter, the committee chairs said that they were seeking “to investigate ActBlue’s fraud-prevention policies and practices, which may allow bad actors to make fraudulent political donations, including from foreign sources.”
ActBlue is one of the largest fundraisers
for the Democratic Party, and claims to have raised
more than $16.7 billion for Democrats since it was founded in 2004. Prior to the recent turmoil in leadership, it was a widely trusted source for liberal giving.
ActBlue has come under increasing scrutiny since it announced a wave of departures
of top staff in February.
The resignations included the organization’s highest-ranking legal officer, the chief revenue officer, and the assistant research director.
ActBlue has received donations from some of the Democratic Party’s most important fundraisers, including thousands of dollars
from LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.
The Daily Signal has previously reported
that the group may have received millions of dollars through fraudulent donations, according to testimony from some elderly Americans. One such individual, a retired Yale University professor
, testified in a signed affidavit that he believed the donations in his name did not reflect his actual donation frequency or dollar amount.
The organization also reportedly locked out
Zain Ahmad, the last remaining member of the group’s general counsel’s office as of Feb. 26, from his email and other internal platforms. The letter from the House chairmen highlighted the organization’s actions toward Ahmad, who has been put on leave
, and noted that ActBlue’s union reportedly told the group’s board
that “those of us who work with our legal team in our day-to-day do not have clear direction on how to proceed with our work in their absence.”
The House letter noted that fraudulent political donations “could amount to interstate criminal conduct,” citing a legal case that resulted in a Chinese national’s criminal conviction for improper donations.
To that end, the letter requested that ActBlue provide information to explain who among its staff is responsible for federal law compliance. It also asked for documentation and communications related to alleged misconduct and staff resignations, specifically in regard to former ActBlue Vice President for Customer Service Alyssa Twomey and members of the ActBlue’s office of the general counsel.
The letter’s deadline for the requested information is April 16.
DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Ben & Jerry’s
founders are trying to take their brand back after parent company Unilever allegedly barred them from criticizing President Donald Trump in the lead-up to his return to the White House.
Cofounder Ben Cohen is now publicly lobbying to buy Ben & Jerry’s back as Unilever prepares to spin off its entire ice cream division. The plea follows years of internal strife over the brand’s progressive messaging, culminating in a recently revealed claim that Unilever blocked the company from posting any anti-Trump political statement during his most recent inauguration
.
“Despite four decades of progressive social activism—and years of challenging policies under both Democratic and Republican presidents—criticizing Trump was now too taboo for the brand synonymous with ‘Peace, Love, and Ice Cream,’” Ben & Jerry’s attorneys recently wrote in a court filing
against Unilever.
Today we launch Pecan Resist! This flavor supports groups creating a more just and equitable nation for us all, and who are fighting President Trump’s regressive agenda. Learn more and take action here >> https://t.co/Bi8YE1FvOZpic.twitter.com/Kr6CKBX1sc
Ben & Jerry’s complaints about Unilever tamping down on their political messaging came to a head when Peter ter Kulve, president of the company’s ice cream division, allegedly blocked a planned anti-Trump Inauguration Day post—then bragged at an “ice cream townhall” that Nelson Peltz, another Unilever executive, had introduced Trump to Elon Musk
.
“Within twenty-four hours of Mr. ter Kelve blocking the Inauguration Post on the grounds that it was ‘partisan,’ he hosted an Ice Cream Townhall, where he publicly touted that Mr. Peltz had been the one to introduce Elon Musk to Donald Trump,” the lawsuit reads.
Ben & Jerry’s activist streak, once a source of mutual pride, has become a corporate liability for Unilever in recent years. Controversies surrounding Ben & Jerry’s statements on social justice and foreign policy— particularly its decision to halt sales in Israeli territories
in 2021—drew backlash from shareholders and political leaders alike. Unilever eventually sold off its Israeli operations in defiance of the brand’s wishes, igniting internal legal friction and spotlighting the deep cultural rift between the conglomerate and its supposedly autonomous subsidiary.
“In the year 2000, Unilever loved us for who we were,” Cohen said
in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “Now we’ve gone separate ways in our relationship. We just need them to set us free.”
Now, as Unilever exits the ice cream business, Cohen is scrambling to line up progressive investors in hopes of taking the brand independent again. But with the company’s social justice baggage now viewed as a liability, it’s unclear whether the brand can find a buyer without shedding the politics its founders see as sacred.
The original 2000 acquisition deal allowed Ben & Jerry’s to retain control over its “social mission,” a clause that proved combustible as the brand veered further leftward—championing causes from Black Lives Matter
to land reparations
for American Indians
.
“Ben & Jerry’s is a company with a soul,” Cohen continued. “Business is the most powerful force in our society, and for that, it has responsibility to the society.”
Unilever’s $7.5 billion ice cream business includes other major names like Magnum and Breyers, and the company has not yet disclosed whether it will sell Ben & Jerry’s as a standalone asset or include it in a broader IPO.
Unilever did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
Nations once relegated to the margins of economic discourse are now sprinting toward prosperity, their trajectories propelled by a single, unifying force: energy
.
Energy is indispensable. From the huge AI data centers
in the U.S. to the mega-scale manufacturing factories in China, affordable and dependable energy supplies make all the difference between living and thriving.
Access to domestic energy resources—or the ability to secure imports—unlocks a cascade of opportunity: Jobs multiply, infrastructure rises, and governments gain the fiscal muscle to invest in their people.
Nestled along South America’s northern coast, Guyana was once an afterthought in global economic discourse. Today, it is the world’s fastest-growing economy, with gross domestic product skyrocketing by a staggering 63% in 2022
and 38% in 2023. It is projected to grow another 27% this year.
Guyana’s growth leaves even the vaunted “Asian Tigers”—Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—in the dust. By 2025, analysts project a still-robust expansion of more than 14%, driven by the relentless output of the Stabroek Block
, 6.6 million acres of oil reserves off the country’s Atlantic shoreline. The 2015 Liza discovery, a 10-billion-barrel bonanza, has transformed this nation of 810,000 into an energy powerhouse.
The fiscal windfall—$2.57 billion in 2024 alone
—has funded infrastructure upgrades, health care expansions, and education reforms. As Upstream Online reports, Guyana’s per capita income has quadrupled since 2019, a feat unimaginable without oil.
Niger: Africa’s Pipeline to Prosperity
Half a world away, in the arid expanses of West Africa, Niger is scripting a similar tale. Long known for uranium and subsistence farming, this landlocked nation is poised to ride an oil boom
that could redefine its future.
The key? The Niger-Benin pipeline, a 1,212-mile conduit that promises to ferry crude from Niger’s Agadem Rift Basin to the Atlantic coast. After diplomatic hiccups with Benin were resolved in August 2024, production was expected to surge past 110,000 barrels per day (bpd) in the coming years. GDP is forecast to soar as a result.
Senegal: Gas Lights the Way Forward
Further west, Senegal is joining the energy-driven renaissance. The Sangomar oil field, which began production in June 2024, and the Greater Tortue Ahmeyim (GTA) natural gas project, straddling the Senegal-Mauritania border, are rewriting the nation’s economic playbook.
In 2024, the Sangomar field exceeded its initial target
, producing 16.9 million barrels of crude oil compared to the planned 11.7 million. With oil output exceeding 100,000 bpd and GTA is poised to deliver liquefied natural gas (LNG) to global markets, Senegal’s GDP growth is projected to hit double digits in 2025, among the highest in Africa.
Senegal’s GDP growth was around 10% in 2024, and energy exports were projected to account for 30% of government revenue in 2025. Crucially, gas-fired power plants
are slashing electricity costs, enabling industries to thrive.
Côte D’Ivoire: Diversification Through Hydrocarbons
Côte D’Ivoire, long reliant on cocoa and coffee, is emerging as West Africa’s quiet energy giant. The country has exceeded initial estimates for production from its Baleine oil and gas field.
Oil production has doubled since 2020 to 60,000 bpd, while natural gas—supplying 72% of the nation’s electricity—has lured industries from across the region. The country plans to reach
200,000 barrels of oil per day and 450 million cubic feet of gas daily by 2028.
Thanks to rapid oil and gas development, Cote d’Ivoire has managed to reduce its poverty rate from 55% in 2011 to 37% in 2021 (the latest data available). With oil output projected to more than triple in next four years, the poverty rate could drop to single digits.
Energy poverty
, not climate change, remains the immediate threat to these regions and continues to plague the future of millions of Africans and South Americans. Solar panels and windmills cannot power steel mills, factories, or cities.
The governments of Guyana, Niger, Senegal, and Côte D’Ivoire understand this. They are prioritizing their citizens’ livelihoods over “carbon-reduction” targets drafted by so-called elites in Brussels or New York.
Their success exposes the vacuity of net-zero dogma and reaffirms a timeless truth: Energy abundance is the foundation of human progress.
Not long ago, the United States was an uncontested superpower. Nor was it that long ago that the United States fielded a military that was qualitatively unrivaled, and perhaps the most powerful and most advanced military in history. But that supremacy may be in danger unless the U.S. initiates drastic reforms.
The film details the dramatic nuclear weapons
buildup of the People’s Republic of China.
China Challenges America’s Role as Preeminent Global Superpower
A peer adversary
, the People’s Republic of China
is guided by authoritarian principles antithetical to America’s commitment to safety, security, and prosperity. Today, China maintains not only the world’s largest navy
, but also engages in aggressive maritime behavior against their regional democratic neighbors, namely the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam—all American allies or partners. They explicitly threaten the security of Taiwan, a liberal democracy that has long supported the U.S.-led free and open world order. And they continue to modernize and militarize at a pace unseen
since the height of the Cold War.
America’s role as the preeminent global superpower is increasingly challenged, and even the U.S. military now faces serious challengers. In the strategic arena, the United States may be on a path to becoming a second, or even third-tier nuclear power.
Washington ignores these facts at its peril. The public needs to understand what is at stake: the U.S.’ ability to deter attacks, safeguard American interests, and protect our allies.
Breathtaking Exposes the Crisis of America’s Strategic Deterrence
For these very reasons, the Heritage Foundation produced Breathtaking
, featuring elected officials, former senior policy makers, and senior military commanders explaining the crisis of America’s strategic deterrence in clear, accessible terms for all viewers to understand.
The 14-minute film begins by setting the stage. How did the United States get to this point? How did an authoritarian regime like China gain such power?
The United States was complacent, as Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) reminds us. After the Cold War, Americans fell for the fallacy that America had contained Russia and liberal democracy would inevitably prevail across the globe. Not so.
Rebeccah Heinrichs, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, explains that the fear of nuclear weapons soon turned to the fear of terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11. And as American focus shifted to extremist groups, the United States ignored any notion of another cold war with a nuclear-armed, revisionist authoritarian state.
Here and now, the United States is facing the consequences of two decades of complacency and misdirected focus.
The U.S. Dismantled Its Nuclear Arsenal While China Races to Build Up
A series of unfortunate and miscalculated decisions by the federal government has resulted in the mass dismantlement of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, which today is roughly 85% less
than what we fielded at the height of the Cold War. Worse, our newest warhead in the remaining arsenal is more than 35 years old
.
The Chinese race to nuclear dominance is indeed breathtaking. As Admiral Charles Richard, former Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, explains in the documentary, no nation in recent history has expanded its strategic nuclear capabilities as rapidly as China is doing now.
Over the last five years, China has tripled its nuclear arsenal, and they are expected to field over 1,000 warheads by 2030, says Robert Joseph, former Under Secretary of State. And beyond the disparity in arsenal size is a disparity in arsenal diversity, as Robert Peters, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, explains in the film.
Running Behind in Tactical Nuclear Weapons
Strategic nuclear weapons are the massive, city-destroying weapons that people often think of. Tactical weapons, on the other hand, have less explosive power and are designed to be used on smaller targets such as a single aircraft carrier or military base.
Essentially, tactical weapons give nations the options to scale attacks
—in other words, they afford the ability to respond to limited strikes with low-yield nuclear weapons that are comparable, and far less destructive.
China has built an arsenal that includes modern tactical nuclear weapons. Of the couple hundred the United States maintains, most are deployed in Europe
and the rest are kept across the United States. This means that we have limited options with no in-theater, tactical weapons to combat an increasingly strong China.
And all the while China refuses to engage in any kind of arms control or even risk reduction talks with the United States.
What the U.S. Must Do
Should a protracted conflict break out between the United States and China, the U.S. military will be at a gross nuclear disadvantage.
That is, unless the United States moves quickly to:
Modernize the nuclear arsenal. This, in turn, will require a reformed and equipped defense industrial base.
Diversify the existing arsenal and focus on building tactical nuclear weapons to be deployed in the Western Pacific theater.
Ensure homeland security with the development of air and missile defense through an Iron Dome for America.
Sen. Fischer emphasizes that the foremost responsibility of the federal government is national security. If Washington cannot protect American lives from foreign threats, nothing else matters.
This is precisely the compelling case made in Breathtaking. This documentary is not meant to be fearmongering or flashy. Instead, it’s intended as a sober strategic analysis. Breathtaking delivers an earnest, well-informed warning about the extent of our nuclear decline and makes clear to the American people and their elected leaders what must be done to reverse it.
With urgency and tact, the United States can still build the arsenal it needs to defend American interests and ensure the security, peace, and prosperity the American people deserve.
President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs
on dozens of foreign trading partners have unleashed a rapid response abroad, as Europeans leaders urged negotiations while pondering retaliatory measures Thursday.
Trump spoke of such negotiation requests in his Wednesday speech
as he previewed the tariffs, saying, “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors and everyone else who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs I say: terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate your currencies.”
Donald Trump’s message to Keir Starmer,
“To all of the Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kings, Queens, Ambassadors, who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs”
“I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate your currencies”
In some instances, countries have scrambled to suggest dropping tariffs bilaterally. The Israeli government, for example, said it would drop tariffs
on U.S. goods before the tariffs were set to go into effect.
But European leaders responded with indignation even as they pushed for negotiations. Ursula von der Leyen,
the president of the European Commission, said, “We’re now preparing for further countermeasures to protect our interests and our businesses if negotiations fail.”
“There is an alternative path. It is not too late to address concerns through negotiations. … We will work towards reducing barriers, not raising them,” she said, adding: “I know that many of you feel let down by our oldest ally.”
United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer similarly called for negotiations with the threat of possible countermeasures, saying,
“Our intention remains to secure a deal, but nothing is off the table.”
In Spain, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced a plan to pour 14 billion euros into the Spanish economy to mitigate damages from Trump’s tariff rollout.
Sánchez pledged to combat the U.S. tariffs.
Vamos a superar esta crisis injusta e injustificada, protegiendo a nuestras empresas y trabajadores, y sin renunciar a la justicia social, la igualdad, la sostenibilidad o el multilateralismo.
Porque nuestros valores no están en venta. Pero nuestros productos y servicios sí. pic.twitter.com/ZSNggov3un
“I’m convinced that we are going to overcome this unjust and unjustified crisis, which some have decided to put the world in,” he said in Spanish.
“We’re going to keep working for European integration, defending multilateralism, opening ourselves to the world, seeking new partners that respect our interests and also share our values.
”
Von der Leyen also hinted at “seeking new partners,” posting an image of herself meeting with Central Asian leaders and saying that “in today’s world, this [cooperation] matters more than ever.”
Nevertheless, the vigorous response from European leaders indicates Trump’s tariffs are likely to have a significant effect on EU economies.
I once stood within the halls of academia, benefiting from the generous funding of the National Institutes of Health
. I was part of the system, a researcher fueled by grants that were supposed to propel scientific progress.
But after years inside the machine, I have come to a sobering conclusion: the NIH
is fundamentally broken and morally corrupted. Corruption, waste, and fraud are not occasional lapses but systemic failures. The agency must be gutted and reformed if we are to salvage scientific integrity.
One of the most damning indictments against the NIH
is the reproducibility crisis. Science is supposed to be built on verifiable, repeatable results, yet the vast majority of research funded by the NIH fails this basic test.
A widely cited survey in the journal Nature found that a staggering 70% of scientists surveyed reported failing to reproduce published research. Worse still, in a landmark study by Dr. Glenn Begley, only 11% of oncology studies that were reviewed could be replicated—meaning that 89% of these supposedly groundbreaking cancer studies were essentially worthless.
While these statistics are of studies in general and not just of those funded by the NIH, this shows that many in the scientific community, including many of those funded by the NIH, are working with potentially unreliable data.
This crisis is not just a theoretical concern; it has real-world consequences. False leads misdirect entire fields, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and delaying real medical breakthroughs. And yet, despite these revelations, the NIH continues to funnel money into the same broken system without demanding accountability or reform.
The problem extends beyond faulty studies—it is exacerbated by the complicity of major academic journals. If a study aligns with a prevailing political narrative, it often gets published regardless of scientific rigor.
Nowhere was this clearer than in the handling of COVID-19’s
origins. Prestigious journals like Science and Nature Medicine published papers that promoted the politically convenient theory that the virus originated from a wet market, despite glaring holes in the data. Subsequent email leaks revealed that former NIH Director Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci actively pushed this misleading narrative.
This was not an accident. These journals, reliant on grants and government ties, have abandoned scientific objectivity. They do not face consequences for publishing fraudulent research. When a study is eventually debunked, at most, a quiet retraction is issued—long after the damage has been done. Even today, these journals refuse to retract the faulty COVID-19 origin
studies, underscoring their unwillingness to prioritize truth over ideology.
Beyond the issue of fraudulent studies, the NIH’s grant distribution system is a financial disaster. I saw firsthand how NIH grants—often exceeding a million dollars each—are handed out to principal investigators who have no training in financial or personnel management.
These researchers, brilliant in their fields but clueless in budgeting, routinely squander taxpayer money. Lab managers (often research assistants with no financial expertise) oversee massive budgets with little to no oversight. The result? Expensive lab equipment gathering dust, unnecessary purchases of antibodies and reagents, and a total lack of accountability.
What’s worse, principal investigators often manipulate the system to justify continued funding. One of the most common fraudulent tactics is using old data—research conducted before receiving the grant—to fabricate progress. Since there is virtually no oversight from the NIH on how grant money is actually spent, this deceit is easy to execute and nearly impossible to detect. It is a free-for-all with taxpayer money, and there is no mechanism in place to hold bad actors accountable.
Even when fraud is exposed, punishment is nonexistent. Universities and researchers caught red-handed in scientific misconduct face no real repercussions. Journals simply issue retractions, and the guilty parties move on to prestigious positions elsewhere.
Consider the scandal at Duke University, where researchers were caught in 2018 engaging in massive scientific fraud, allegedly submitting falsified research data to keep and win multimillion dollar research grants from the NIH and EPA. While Duke paid the federal government $112.5 million to settle the case, instead of severe consequences, those involved simply moved on. One of the key figures even landed in a leadership role at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Another example is the fraudulent Alzheimer’s research that misled the entire field for years. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, President Donald Trump’s nominee for NIH director, recently highlighted during his confirmation hearing how a series of falsified studies led to a cascade of misleading research that set back Alzheimer’s treatment by decades. Hundreds of studies, all built on a foundation of lies, consumed untold amounts of funding and diverted resources away from legitimate research. Yet, those responsible faced little more than a tarnished reputation.
So, what’s the solution?
The NIH, as it stands today, is beyond reform. It is not simply suffering from mismanagement; it is an institution riddled with systemic corruption. The solution is drastic but necessary: The NIH must be gutted.
Funding should be stripped from ineffective programs, and a new oversight mechanism must be established to ensure transparency and accountability. Grants should no longer be handed out to researchers with no financial acumen. Journals that publish fraudulent research should face consequences beyond a mere retraction.
Most importantly, the scientific community must reclaim its integrity. If research cannot be replicated, it should not be funded. If fraud is uncovered, there must be real consequences. The American people deserve better than a corrupt, self-serving bureaucracy that prioritizes its own survival over genuine scientific advancement.
I once believed in the NIH. I sure did. I still believe in the power of research to change lives.
But after seeing the corruption, waste, and deceit firsthand, I can no longer stay silent. The NIH is not the solution to our scientific woes—it is the problem. Until it is torn down and rebuilt with accountability and merit at its core, science will continue to fail the very people it claims to serve.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
Medicaid and Medicare
are on a path that should concern all Americans, but with the right leadership, we can turn their trajectory around.
On its current course, Medicare, the government-run health insurance program for seniors, will fall off a financial cliff in as little as a decade—maybe even sooner. Meanwhile, Medicaid, the program that pays for health care for the poor, now covers more people than Medicare
, placing an enormous strain on both state and federal budgets.
As a nation, we face a chronic disease epidemic, and along with it, a crisis of unsustainable rising costs, high demand, and worsening patient outcomes. Over the past five years, Medicaid spending has surged by some 50%—another unsustainable trend that diverts funds from schools, roads, bridges, and high-speed internet.
Together, Medicare and Medicaid will each spend roughly a trillion dollars this year. That’s why we urgently need a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator who can rescue Medicare
and fortify Medicaid.
As both programs fall under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, we need a leader with a fresh perspective—one who prioritizes patient care while ensuring financial stability. This role demands someone who has experienced these programs at the grassroots level, where patients, doctors, and hospitals intersect.
This person must be an exceptional communicator, capable of managing a $2 trillion budget and transforming an organization of 6,000 employees who oversee the health needs of 140 million Americans. This budget accounts for nearly a quarter of federal spending in a system that already overspends by $2 trillion annually.
Above all, we need someone who can help us in our mission to Make America Healthy Again.
Thankfully, we have just the person for the job: Dr. Mehmet Oz.
To America, he’s Dr. Oz: a world-renowned heart surgeon and the trusted star of a hit TV show. Some may also recognize him as an innovative inventor of lifesaving heart devices, holding both an M.D. and an MBA.
But to me, Dr. Oz is a fellow physician and a good friend. He’s a devoted father of four and grandfather of four. He’s a person who cares deeply about finding solutions—a problem-solver ready to tackle the challenges of Medicaid and Medicare
head-on, focusing on the health and safety of every American and ensuring those who rely on these programs continue to receive the care they deserve.
Dr. Oz is uniquely equipped to modernize health care. He will harness cutting-edge technology and responsibly integrate artificial intelligence to meet patients’ needs. He’ll champion transparency and prioritize quality outcomes over mere quantity of care or coverage.
By empowering patients and providers with choices, he’ll drive higher-quality care. He’ll strengthen telehealth and address the distinct challenges of rural communities, along with those of the inner city. Thinking outside the box, he’ll uncover innovative solutions to our health care woes with full transparency.
Put simply, Dr. Oz is the right leader at the right time to execute President Donald Trump’s and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy’s vision to Make America Healthy Again.
With his expertise, compassion, and bold leadership, he will transform the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services into a beacon of fiscal responsibility and patient-centered care. There’s no one better suited to save Medicare
, strengthen Medicaid, and secure a healthier future for all Americans.
I look forward to his swift confirmation and the work he will do to address our health crisis. With Dr. Oz, Secretary Kennedy, and President Trump at the helm, the best is truly yet to come for our health care system and its patients.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
At the Capitol grilling of the PBS and NPR
CEOs on March 26, Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, asked PBS boss Paula Kerger, “Would you believe that PBS is fair and objective and nonpartisan?”
Kerger said, “Yes.”
Fallon then noted that on “Washington Week with The Atlantic” in 2023, host and Atlantic magazine editor Jeffrey Goldberg pronounced President Joe Biden
as mentally “quite acute.” Fallon asked Kerger if there were “any dissenting opinions” on that episode. Kerger professed ignorance. Fallon assured her there was not. So, when Biden failed on the debate stage in 2024, Fallon said the world found out who was lying: “the Democrats, Jeffrey Goldberg and PBS.”
Hours after this hearing, “PBS News Hour” put on Jeffrey Goldberg for almost seven unchallenged minutes to toot his own horn for having the fortune of Team Trump messing up and including him in a chat on the private encrypted app Signal as officials discussed bombing the Iran-backed Houthis
in Yemen.
But that segment was nothing compared to two nights later, when Goldberg hosted a very special, self-glorifying 30-minute episode of “Washington Week with The Atlantic.” As usual, his supporting cast was unanimously left-wing Democrat
journalists: the husband-and-wife team of New York Times reporter Peter Baker and New Yorker writer Susan Glasser, the very biased PBS White House reporter Laura Barron-Lopez, and Shane Harris of … The Atlantic. No dissenting opinions on Goldberg’s heroic journalistic stance. Super cozy.
The crew then echoed each other that this Signalgate scandal was enormous and unprecedented, and of course, as Goldberg said, “a dumb mistake.” Yes, don’t include an editor whose magazine endorsed President Donald Trump’s opponents in the last three election cycles. That’s profoundly dumb.
You could tell you were observing a liberal bubble when the name “Biden” never came up, so no mention of Team Biden using Signal on their phones before Team Trump did. No one would confuse a successful strike on the Houthis with Biden’s deadly Afghan withdrawal fiasco.
After the energetic claim that the details of this conversation must be considered “classified information”—to dissent from this is “farcical”—they turned to lashing the Trump team for pushing back on the press. They were supposed to apologize sheepishly, and the story would vanish within 48 hours. Assuming there would be a brief episode in anti-Trump bias is “farcical.”
An apology to Trump supporters would be in order. But it should be recognized that PBS and Team Goldberg are out to destroy Trump and empower the Democrats. They are not going to go gently away after an “oops” message.
Barron-Lopez proclaimed Trump’s people base their actions on lies and attempt to discredit stories attacking them. She cued up Goldberg: “Do you think there’s a lesson for the press?”
Goldberg broke out the old “just continue to do your job” line, when we know he feels his job is to destroy Trump. “You have to be willing to be intimidated in order to have an effective bully, right?” Then he said, “I don’t want to be self-righteous or anything (heaven forbid!), but if you have the truth and you’re aligned with the truth … ultimately, the voters, the citizens will recognize reality.”
This leaves the impression: “And vote for Democrats next time.”
This is the reality of what PBS is—an arrogant, unanimous left-wing channel. For Paula Kerger to lie to Pat Fallon and say their objective and nonpartisan oozes contempt for the public who funds their partisan propaganda.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., is a fighter. The week after 9/11, he dropped out of the University of Arizona to join the Navy and accomplished his goal of becoming a Navy SEAL. In 2023, he brought that fighting spirit to Congress, where he’s been proven prescient on major issues such as America’s actual role in the Ukraine war and the need to rein in out-of-control government spending from agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development
.
Crane joined this week’s episode of “The Signal Sitdown”
on the heels of a bombshell report
from The New York Times about the extent of U.S. involvement in Ukraine and in the midst of major negotiations between Republicans in the House and Senate on cuts to government spending.
The Arizona congressman was onto the U.S. Agency for International Development before the Department of Government Efficiency drew attention to it this year.
After Crane co-sponsored a piece of legislation from former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz in August 2023 to abolish USAID, he brought an amendment to the House floor to slash USAID funding in half.
“Democrats stopped it and Republicans stopped it,” Crane recalled. The amendment failed, with 102 in favor to 326 opposed. A majority of House Republicans—114 of them to be exact—voted against Crane’s amendment.
“I only knew the tip of the iceberg of what was going on at USAID,” Crane said. “Now that Elon [Musk] has come in and been able to look behind the scenes and bring his computers and his team in there to actually evaluate what’s going on there, … we’ve learned more and more and more.”
“It’s kind of like Ukraine
,” Crane said of the GOP shift against USAID. “Republicans are starting, I think, to wake up a little bit to the situation.”
With Donald Trump out of office, Republicans in Washington reverted to the status quo. Despite protestation from conservatives, Congress kept sending American taxpayer dollars overseas to foreign countries like Ukraine.
“When I look at this whole situation as a former warfighter myself, I’ve just been concerned about it the entire time,” Crane said of America’s involvement in foreign conflicts. “It seems like we just go from never-ending war to never-ending war, and after five, 10, 20 years … we have to ask ourselves a couple hard questions. Was this worth the blood and treasure that we spent?”
“When you’re up here [in Washington, D.C.,] you realize how many people who have never been to war, never buried a buddy, never had to go console a Gold Star Mother,” nonetheless make military decisions, Crane said. It’s no surprise, then, that these members of Congress keep voting for war. “It’s almost as if they’ve never seen a war that they didn’t want us to be involved in.”
Trump’s return has caused Republicans to come back to their senses, especially on matters of U.S. foreign policy, he argued.
“I’m grateful for the president in trying to bring peace in the Middle East, trying to broker peace talks between Russia and Ukraine,” Crane added. The House Republican
sees ending the wars as part of Trump’s larger effort “to realign us geopolitically.”
“I think a lot of what he’s doing is kinda like Monroe Doctrine 2.0 and trying to lock down the Western Hemisphere, and at the same time trying to prevent us from this idea that we should be some world police force,” he said.
Pulling off this pivot will require the Trump administration to purge the military of woke ideologies that not only undercut its lethality but push the U.S. into foreign wars.
During his military career, Crane said he ”watched the military become what it’s become and just completely inundated with DEI
.” At one point in the discussion, Crane recalled a meeting in a Capitol intelligence facility where Navy admirals repeated leftist slogans when Republicans asked simple questions about military funding for DEI.
“I’m very concerned for many of the people that I know within the military just because we’ve gone from having a military that was focused on lethality to, in many ways, a military that’s often distracted by many of these woke cultural agendas like diversity, equity, and inclusion,” Crane added.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is the change agent the military badly needed, Crane suggested. “He’s really, in my opinion, changing the culture, not only with eliminating a lot of the DEI and woke programs,” but by “showing our troops that he’s willing to get down and dirty and work out with them and hang out.”
“That’s not something you see a lot,” Crane confided. “That’s not something you see a lot from generals or admirals, let alone the secretary of defense.”
