New Research Suggests Americans Revolting Against Left’s Favorite Special Interest
So-called 'toxic ideologies'
Christian students are pushing back — and universities are cracking
As one of the last conservative Christians serving as a tenured philosophy professor at a public university, I’ve had a front-row seat to the intellectual circus that critical theory and intersectionality have unleashed on higher education. I call it out on X and Substack. Professors from ASU’s Barrett Honors College and English Department have attacked me for doing so, calling me a “joke” and a “sloppy thinker.” This is the abuse anyone receives for defending God’s word.
But something new — and encouraging — is happening.
Christian students are speaking up. They are filing complaints. They openly quote Scripture in their assignments. And in this case, the university backed down.
Students are calling it out, too.
Last week at the University of Oklahoma, two instructors were removed for blatant viewpoint discrimination against a Christian student. If even 5% of cases like this see daylight, the DEI structure will start to crack within the academic year. If the polls are right, 97% of faculty identify as left or far left. What we see now — open disdain for Scripture — is not an anomaly. It’s the visible edge of a worldview that has captured entire campuses.
Beneath the surface sits the full intersectional framework, built on one central assumption: Christianity is the axle around which oppression supposedly turns.
The assignment that exposed the bias
The student’s psychology assignment was simple: a 650-word response to a study about gender norms and bullying among middle-schoolers.
She wrote: “Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth.”
She grounded her argument in Genesis, explained God’s creation of male and female, and correctly defined ezer kenegdo as “a helper equal to man.”
In short, she used: Scripture, theology, linguistic analysis, and a historical ethical framework. That is a well-reasoned paper in the humanities. Except when the worldview is Christian.
The instructor’s response?
“Your reaction paper contradicts itself, uses personal ideology over empirical evidence, and is at times offensive.”
And then the tell: “Every major psychological, medical, pediatric, and psychiatric association acknowledges that sex and gender is neither binary nor fixed.”
This is false. No serious biology text claims human sex is nonbinary. Disorders of development exist, but disorders do not replace design.
The deeper problem stood out like a vegan at a Texas barbecue: The Bible does not count as evidence. Even if the rubric justified deductions, dismissing Scripture as “personal ideology” exposed the bias.
Quote Judith Butler or Michel Foucault, and the academy nods solemnly. Quote the Bible, and you lose points.
The modern university’s dogma is simple: The Bible is never admissible. Everything else is.
Christians have known this for decades and quietly self-censored to protect their grades and academic futures. Which raises the question: How did we arrive here?
How we got here
Hostility toward Christianity did not appear overnight. It grew slowly through deliberate gatekeeping. Hiring committees screened out conservatives, shaping departments where 90%-97% of faculty became ideological clones. Administrators learned to view biblical faith as bigotry. DEI offices began to enforce viewpoint discrimination while denying it.
Fair hiring does not produce a 97% monoculture. That is ideological capture.
Christians allowed it because they confused niceness with faithfulness. Niceness — a word that never appears in Scripture — is fear disguised as virtue. It keeps people quiet so they can stay liked.
The left used a strategy straight from Marx, who took it straight from the enemy (“devil,” meaning accuser): Accuse Christians of oppression; rewrite history so the West is defined by its sins, never its virtues; demonize Scripture and its adherents; and weaponize shame to silence dissent.
It worked — for a time. The spell is breaking.
No neutrality
Many Christians assumed universities were neutral. They aren’t. They never were.
Every institution aligns with one of two cities: “the City of God” and “the City of Man.”
The City of Man controls the universities. This is not hyperbole. Romans 1 describes it plainly.
Those who reject God do not become neutral observers. They become evangelists for a rival religion. That rival religion has doctrines:
- The Bible is oppressive.
- Christianity is harmful.
- Gender is unlimited.
- Identity is self-created.
- The highest good is “authenticity.”
- The greatest sin is disagreement.
A new orthodoxy rules the campus, and the Oklahoma student violated it — praise God that she did.
Something has changed
Christian students are not taking the abuse quietly any more. They are speaking up. They are filing complaints. They are quoting Scripture openly in their assignments. And in this case, the university backed down. The instructors were removed.
Even on a left-dominated campus, viewpoint discrimination remains illegal — even if DEI treats it as sacred ritual.
If this continues, the monopoly may begin to break — maybe even by spring break.
RELATED: Why the kids are not all right — and Boomers still pretend nothing’s wrong
What you can do
As someone inside the system, here is my advice.
Follow those speaking publicly. We are few, but we are here — and we are not silent.
Equip your children. They will face hostility. They will be mocked. They will be graded down unless they can respond intelligently. Ask pointed questions on campus tours. Get administrators on record renouncing DEI discrimination — then hold them to it.
Consider alternatives. Trade schools, Christian colleges, apprenticeships, online programs — all viable. Many offer a serious education without forcing students through gender theory with Judith Butler 101. Seek professors who teach the great works with a biblical foundation.
Speak boldly. The gospel is not a whisper. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel,” the Apostle Paul writes in Romans, “for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes.”
Christian students are rediscovering that courage. It is long past time the rest of us did, too.
Is this the insidious reason Biden's FBI chose 'Arctic Frost' for anti-Trump weaponized investigation?
"Arctic Frost" was an FBI operation greenlit in April 2022 by former Director Christopher Wray and ex-Attorney General Merrick Garland that targeted various individuals supportive of President Donald Trump and/or skeptical of the results of the 2020 election.
The investigation, which was formally assigned to special counsel Jack Smith in November 2022, ultimately resulted in the four-count indictment Smith filed in August 2023 accusing Trump of attempting to disrupt the lawful transfer of power.
It turns out that the partisan nature of the investigation was baked in at the outset — right into its name.
'They were so out of control, and thought they never would get caught.'
Following Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R) publication of documents on Friday showing that Wray, Garland, and former Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco approved the opening of Arctic Frost, Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, stated that “what you should know is that they were so out of control, and thought they never would get caught, that they named this investigation after an orange to mock Trump.”
RELATED: Damning new docs reveal who's on Biden admin's 'enemies list,' expose extent of FBI's Arctic Frost
Arctic frost is the name of a satsuma mandarin orange hybrid. Early in its investigation into Operation Arctic Frost, the Oversight Project revealed that "the corrupt FBI agents who opened this case named it this to mock" Trump.
Many of Trump's detractors — including disgraced former FBI Director James Comey — have in years past suggested that he has an orange pigmentation.
In addition to serving as a nod to fellow Trump antagonists, the alleged naming of the operation as an intended insult to Trump signals that it was, from its very inception, nothing more than a partisan campaign aimed at the ruination of the president and his allies.
Blaze News has reached out to the FBI for comment.
Editor's note: Mike Howell is a contributor at Blaze News.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Government bias and billionaires shouldn’t decide who gets affordable medicine
The Louisiana Pharmacy Benefit Manager Monitoring Advisory Council met last month with an unusual guest — one who came with a clear conflict of interest.
Dr. Alex Oshmyansky, founder and CEO of the Mark Cuban-backed Cost Plus Drug Company, was invited to brief the council on PBMs. But his company directly competes with them. No PBM representatives were invited to speak or respond. What could have been an informed policy discussion turned into an unbalanced promotional session for a single competitor — and that does not serve patients.
The one-sided hearing
Pharmacy benefit managers have long been in Mark Cuban’s crosshairs. He claims PBMs create “an inefficient market” and lack transparency. Those complaints underpin his partnership with Oshmyansky to form Cost Plus Drug Company, a business designed to bypass PBMs entirely.
If Louisiana’s leaders want real reform, they must start by restoring fairness — and remembering who the system exists to serve.
At the hearing, Oshmyansky presented his company’s views on PBMs without challenge or rebuttal. The absence of PBM voices left the council with a distorted view of the system it’s supposed to oversee.
That imbalance creates two serious problems.
First, it deprives the council of a complete understanding of how PBMs work — what services they provide, how they negotiate lower drug prices, and how Louisiana’s new PBM regulations are already being implemented. Without hearing from the industry itself, policymakers risk forming conclusions based on partial information and advocacy, not evidence.
Second, when public bodies accept one-sided testimony, patients lose. PBMs manage drug coverage for millions of Americans, ensuring access to affordable medicines and stable pharmacy networks. When their perspective is ignored, regulations may raise costs, reduce access, or disrupt care for the very people the state claims to protect.
Political hostility and government bias
The broader political context in Louisiana makes this even more troubling. Gov. Jeff Landry (R) has pushed to ban PBMs entirely — an extreme measure that would upend how prescription coverage operates in the state. Meanwhile, Attorney General Liz Murrill has sued CVS, one of the nation’s largest PBMs, for warning consumers about the potential fallout of such a ban.
These moves reveal a pattern: State leaders are treating PBMs not as partners with critical expertise but as enemies. That approach replaces policymaking with politics and undermines public confidence in fair regulation.
RELATED: The maligned and misunderstood player that Big Pharma wants gone
Reform through balance, not bias
The PBM industry isn’t above reform. Greater transparency and accountability are necessary. But good policy starts with balance. The council should convene a second meeting — this time with PBM representatives at the table alongside Cost Plus Drug Company. The proceedings should be public and transparent.
Patients deserve policies based on facts, not billionaire-backed bias. Regulation shaped by evidence, not resentment, is how states protect health, affordability, and trust.
If Louisiana’s leaders want real reform, they must start by restoring fairness — and remembering who the system exists to serve.
AI in the classroom is here — what parents need to know
For decades, artificial intelligence was something students only encountered in science fiction books. They read stories about robots, ultramodern computers, and machines that could think for themselves. But in just the past few years, the AI revolution has leapt off the page and into real life, quickly reshaping virtually every aspect of our society, including our education system.
The AI revolution is happening so quickly that we must work fast to wrap our heads around the reality and implications of it in education before it’s too late. For parents, especially those concerned about what’s happening in our schools, AI represents both an opportunity and a potentially serious threat. Like social media before it, this technology is advancing faster than most of us can keep up with, and the decisions we make today will determine how it influences our kids for the rest of their lives.
AI doesn’t have to be a threat to our children. But if parents don’t get involved now, this powerful technology will shape our kids without our vital input.
If you are a parent, you cannot afford to ignore what AI is doing in education. Here are five things every parent must understand:
AI is already in your child’s classroom
The AI revolution isn’t some looming event; it’s already here. Schools throughout the country are already adopting “smart” learning platforms, tutoring apps, and grading and curriculum systems powered by AI.
Some school districts are experimenting with AI software that generates lesson plans, constructs writing assignments, and even helps teachers communicate with students. One platform called MagicSchool bills itself as “the go-to AI assistant for educators worldwide, designed to simplify teaching tasks, save time, and combat teacher burnout.” MagicSchool has existing relationships with numerous public school systems, including Atlanta, Denver, New York City, Seattle, and many others.
This means decisions about how your child learns, what material they see, and even how their performance is evaluated are increasingly influenced by Big Tech algorithms. The question is: Who controls those algorithms, and what values are embedded into them? Parents deserve answers before handing their children’s education to algorithms.
AI is a great tool and could be a great indoctrinator
AI can certainly be a valuable tool for educators and students. It can open the door to new levels of personalized learning that provide help to struggling students.
Used well, it can identify where a child is falling behind and provide extra practice, tailor lessons to a student’s strengths and weaknesses, and even spark new excitement for subjects that once felt out of reach. In an educational environment where one-on-one interaction is lacking, AI could offer desperately needed specialization.
AI can also carry significant hidden biases. The people who design AI systems decide what information is “correct,” what is “misinformation,” what viewpoints are acceptable, what viewpoints are “harmful,” and how to present material. For example, several studies show that the leading AI models have left-leaning political slants. These entrenched biases, coupled with the personalization capabilities of AI, could be a very powerful tool for indoctrination.
If you think debates over curriculum were intense before, imagine an invisible algorithm quietly steering how your child learns history, civics, or even basic facts about the world. AI could become the most effective indoctrination device ever placed in a classroom.
AI comes with major privacy and safety risks
AI feeds on data. And when it comes to schools, that is your child’s data. Everything from test scores and study habits to behavioral patterns and even emotional responses can be collected, stored, and used to refine Big Tech algorithms.
Where does that data go? Who has access to it? Can it be sold, tracked, or used years later when your child applies for a job or college? Parents must demand transparency and strict limitations. Protecting the privacy of all children in the age of AI is essential.
Lawsuits are already popping up on this issue. For instance, Google is currently facing a lawsuit over allegations that it collected data on millions of students through its educational tools, raising serious privacy concerns about how much information tech companies gather on kids without parental consent.
AI can damage mental health
Education is about far more than memorizing facts. It includes mentorship, human connection, and building social and emotional skills that prepare kids for life. If AI tutors, chatbots, or grading systems replace too much of a teacher’s role, children risk becoming isolated and less resilient.
Parents need to insist that AI supplements teachers, not replaces them. A screen is no substitute for a caring adult who knows your child, believes in them, and holds them accountable.
Another risk comes from what researchers call “AI sycophancy.” This is when chatbots or AI tutors simply tell students what they want to hear, reinforcing their opinions instead of challenging them. Over time, that can stunt critical thinking and give kids a distorted sense of reality. This is especially troubling in an educational setting.
Parents must be the first line of defense
The lessons of social media are clear: Parents cannot rely on bureaucrats, politicians, or tech companies to put kids’ best interests first.
The same is true with AI. Parents have the right and responsibility to ask tough questions. What AI tools are used in your child’s school? What data is being collected? What guardrails are in place? And most importantly: Who is in control?
RELATED: Virtual schooling a viable alternative? Thank woke teachers, school closures, and AI
Parents should also demand policies that protect children’s privacy, dignity, and freedom of thought. Our kids’ future is too important to leave in the hands of unaccountable algorithms.
AI doesn’t have to be a threat to our children. But if parents don’t get involved now, this powerful technology will shape our kids without our vital input. Parents must lead the way in demanding transparency, accountability, and human-centered education.
Our children deserve schools that prepare them for the future without compromising their privacy, freedom, or humanity. That’s only possible if parents step up now, before it’s too late.
Principal defamed teacher as racist in school-wide email — now school board owes him over half a million dollars
A Maryland principal accused a teacher of committing a "hate-bias incident" during his class. However, a jury determined that the teacher had been defamed and awarded him more than half a million dollars.
A teacher at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School was accused of making comments in a classroom that were deemed to be racist. Citing the complaint, Bethesda Today reported that Daniel Engler, who taught at the Bethesda school for 18 years, made the alleged controversial remarks to the students in his classroom on Feb. 8, 2023.
'[Teachers are] human and are not mistake-free and have good hearts, and they should be treated that way.'
The next day, Vickie Adamson, the school's vice principal at the time, and another school administrator met with Engler. He was placed on paid leave Feb. 10, 2023.
Two days after the alleged questionable comments, Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School Principal Sheldon Mooney sent an email letter to the school community describing the interaction as a "hate-bias incident."
"A teacher said to several African American students that he was ‘unable to distinguish them from other African American students’ in the classroom,” Mooney wrote in the letter. "This is unacceptable and harmful behavior not in alignment with our school or districtwide values of respect and inclusivity."
"Let me be clear, discrimination of any kind must not be tolerated," Mooney wrote before referring to the school policy against "insensitivity, disrespect, bias, verbal abuse, harassment, bullying, physical violence or illegal discrimination toward any person."
The Montgomery County Police Department was reportedly notified of the situation.
Bethesda Today reported, "The email was vetted by numerous Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) administrators, according to court testimony."
While Engler wasn’t named in the letter, the lawsuit alleged that he was "readily identifiable." Engler's lawsuit claimed that the high school's student newspaper, the Tattler, contacted him regarding the accusations.
According to the defamation lawsuit filed by Engler in August 2023, he claimed that school officials didn't offer him the opportunity to provide his side of the story or give him notice about the school-wide email to staff, parents, and students.
Engler claimed he was attempting to keep students in their assigned seats to help him learn their names in his 10th-grade health class.
Citing Engler’s complaint, Fox News reported that two students later told the school's assistant principal that he said he wouldn’t be able to tell them apart if they didn’t sit in their assigned seats — a comment they believed was racial because they are black.
In Engler's complaint, he denied “saying what the students alleged or making any type of racial comment.”
Engler asserted in court that he "did not do anything that could reasonably be classified as a ‘hate-bias incident.’"
RELATED: Teacher tried to hire student to murder husband — but student's mom foiled $2,000 plot: Court docs
According to Bethesda Today, Engler testified on July 17 that the school-wide email "publicly humiliated him, destroyed his reputation and his relationship with students, and caused him to be fired as coach of the B-CC club rowing team."
Mooney's attorney, David Kaminow, argued in court that his client wasn’t at fault, as multiple Montgomery County Public Schools administrators were involved in the decision to send the community letter — which they said was necessary to quell rumors about the incident.
Engler's attorney, David Wachen, argued that the investigation was half-hearted and relied on statements from 15-year-olds who not only contradicted themselves but whose version of events conflicted with accounts from other students. Wachen also noted that officials at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School had never previously sent a school-wide message about other alleged hate or bias incidents.
Wachen said that school officials had a "shoot first and ask questions later" strategy.
Engler claimed that he was forced to seek treatment from several mental health professionals due to the situation.
Engler reportedly went on disability leave for a year and a half before returning to teach at another school in the district.
"I love teaching. I love coaching," Engler told Fox News. "And I really care a great deal about the relationships I have with those kids and helping them learn how to become adults in the best way possible. To lose the confidence of the kids, the trust of the kids, based on what the kids' leadership had to say about me, was devastating. It was identity-stealing."
Following the seven-day trial, a Montgomery County Circuit Court jury awarded Engler damages last week. A jury of six determined that the Montgomery County School Board defamed Engler. According to Bethesda Today, the court awarded Engler $500,000 in damages, along with $18,000 in prejudgment interest, for a total of $518,000.
Engler described the verdict as "a tremendous relief."
"[Teachers are] human and are not mistake-free and have good hearts, and they should be treated that way," Engler told Bethesda Today. "I believe this verdict is an illustration that what I’m saying is true … so that means a great deal to me."
Montgomery County school board spokesperson Christie Scott said that the board wasn’t able to comment on the verdict.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
CEO’s Salary At Defunded Corporation For Public Broadcasting Could Fund A Radio Station For Years
If the CPB board cared about keeping rural broadcasting viable, it would not have spent $19.3 million on CPB salaries and benefits in 2022.'One big psy op': Musk rips liberal media for hypocrisy over Cory Booker's 'Nazi salute'
Democratic Senator Cory Booker (N.J.) gave a fiery speech on Saturday at the California Democratic Party's 2025 state convention in Anaheim. Following his remarks, the senator pressed his hand to his heart, then extended it in a salute to the crowd.
Whereas Democrats and elements of the liberal media previously expressed horror at the sight of Elon Musk making the exact same gesture during a speech in January — some characterizing it as a Nazi salute — they did not appear similarly troubled when Booker did the same thing.
Musk joined Republicans and other critics in highlighting the selective outrage over the weekend, noting, "Fate loves irony, but hates hypocrisy."
A tale of two salutes
Musk gave an excited speech in January at the Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., following President Donald Trump's second inauguration.
— (@)
"This was no ordinary victory. This was a fork in the road of human civilization," said Musk, who previously admitted to having Asperger's, a syndrome on the autism spectrum. "This one really mattered. Thank you for making it happen!"
The billionaire then slammed his chest, then saluted both the crowd and the American flag, adding, "My heart goes out to you."
Some of the media outfits and Democrats who previously painted Trump and his allies as fascists in the lead-up to the election seized on the gesture as confirmation of their fears.
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) stated that "regardless of any justification, his salute last night at Donald Trump's inauguration rally can only be interpreted as a Seig [sic] Heil salute that is synonymous with Nazi support for Hitler."
"Jews around the world are scared because of the contemptible rise in antisemitism, and Musk's conduct only increases the problem," continued Goldman. "Musk must issue an immediate apology, and President Trump must disavow and denounce his actions."
'All sides should give one another a bit of grace.'
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.) claimed on MSNBC, "Elon Musk did [the] heil Hitler salute. He did. And of course he did."
Democratic Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York claimed that it was a "Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity."
The media similarly feigned horror and characterized the gesture as a Nazi salute. For instance:
- PBS News captioned the footage on YouTube, "Elon Musk appears to give fascist salute during Trump inauguration celebration."
- Politico Europe ran an article with the headline "Elon Musk's 'Nazi' salute sparks fury from Europe's left wing."
- Deadline claimed that Musk "offered Donald Trump supporters what looked a lot like a Nazi salute."
- Then-CNN host Jim Acosta said on air that Musk "used a hand gesture that looked like a Nazi salute."
- MSNBC's Rachel Maddow seized upon the gesture as further evidence for the Nazi smear that her network and Democrats pushed in the lead-up to the election.
Musk noted at the time, "Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The 'everyone is Hitler' attack is sooo tired."
Despite the apparent eagerness on the left to frame Musk as a Nazi, some proved willing to admit that the narrative was bogus.
The Anti-Defamation League, for instance, stated that Musk "made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute."
"In this moment, all sides should give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt, and take a breath," added the ADL.
Hypocrisy
Booker spoke Saturday at a convention attended by California Democrats including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Robert Garcia. Garcia was among those who condemned Musk for his gesture earlier this year.
"Real change does not come from Washington. It comes from communities. It comes from the streets," said Booker. "It comes from the people who's standing up and have shown over and over again — against the powerful, against the elected, against the rich — that the power of the people is greater than the people in power."
Booker made the Musk-styled heartfelt gesture after whipping up the crowd, then walked off stage.
Footage of Booker's gesture made the rounds online, prompting comparisons between his gesture and the one previously made by Musk. Critics, observing that the gesticulations were virtually identical, suggested that the absence of pearl-clutching and condemnations from the media or Democrats this time around was further evidence of their hypocrisy and double standards.
Libs of TikTok, for instance, noted that when Musk made the gesture, Newsweek ran an article titled "80 Years After Auschwitz, Elon Musk Keeps the Fascist Salute Alive," but painted Booker as a man wrongfully accused in an article titled "MAGA Accuses Democratic Senator Cory Booker of Doing 'Nazi Salute.'"
'The mainstream media is totally corrupt.'
Newsweek performed some mental gymnastics in its coverage of the reaction to Booker's gesture, writing that "the gesture is similar to the ones made by Musk and Bannon but not made as forcefully, the video shows."
"Pure trash propaganda," wrote Libs of TikTok.
Musk responded, "Legacy media like Newsweek lie relentlessly."
"Here's a list of all the news networks who have not covered Cory Booker's salute: - NYTimes - CNN - Washington Post - MSNBC - NPR - USA Today - Reuters - Axios - ABC News," wrote former nuclear scientist for the Department of Energy Matt Van Swol. "Every single one of them wrote stories on Elon Musk's 'salute' … … do you get it yet?"
"Legacy media is one big psy op," responded Musk.
RELATED: Trump commends Elon Musk as he departs from DOGE: 'Americans owe him a great debt of gratitude'
Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) tweeted, "The mainstream media is totally corrupt."
"In January, Democrats and the Left were hyperventilating about this false smear of Elon and the stenographers in the media went to work," wrote Stefanik.
"Neither Elon Musk or @CoryBooker are giving the Nazi salute. Americans see thru this obvious and destructive double standard by the totally broken media and Democrat Party."
"If Elon Musk is a Nazi for doing this gesture ... Cory Booker is one too," wrote Angela Belcamino, host of "Last Week on X." "Sorry, I don't make the rules."
A spokeswoman for Booker suggested in a statement to Forbes that Booker's gesture was somehow different from Musk's, writing, "Cory Booker was obviously just waving to the crowd. Anyone who claims his wave is the same as Elon Musk’s gesture is operating in bad faith. The differences between the two are obvious to anyone without an agenda."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
‘False Statements’ And ‘Manipulation’: House Report Shreds FBI For Downplaying Motives Of Congressional Baseball Shooter
'[T]he Bureau completely botched the investigation into this politically motivated attack,' said Rep. Rick Crawford.Trump orders Corporation for Public Broadcasting to end funding for NPR and PBS: 'Outdated and unnecessary'
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday directing the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and relevant agencies to terminate federal funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service — not exactly the news that socialists may have wanted to hear on May Day.
"The CPB Board shall cease direct funding to NPR and PBS, consistent with my Administration's policy to ensure that Federal funding does not support biased and partisan news coverage," wrote Trump. "The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding."
Trump also targeted the liberal outfits' indirect federal funding, directing the CPB — which has an operating budget of over $535 million for fiscal year 2025 — to ensure that "licensees and permittees of public radio and television stations, as well as any other recipients of CPB funds, do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS."
The loss of this indirect funding will be the more devastating.
While NPR claims that less than 1% of its annual operating budget comes in the form of grants directly from the CPB and other federal sources, multitudes of CPB-funded public radio stations in NPR's massive syndication network pay for its programming.
Blaze News previously reported that consolidated financial statements show that the organization secured over $96.1 million in "core and other programming fees" in 2023, $93.2 million in 2022, $90.4 million in 2021, and $92.5 million in 2020.
"These station programming fees are one of NPR's primary sources of revenue," noted the media outfit. "The loss of federal funding would undermine the stations' ability to pay NPR for programming, thereby weakening the institution."
PBS similarly receives taxpayer dollars indirectly from CPB-funded public TV stations that pay for its programming.
According to PBS, its flagship "News Hour" program, for instance, receives roughly 35% of its "annual funding/budget from CPB and PBS via national programming funds — a combination of CPB appropriation funds and annual programming dues paid to PBS by stations re-allocated to programs like ours."
A spokesman for PBS, which has over 330 member television stations, indicated earlier this year that the organization receives 16% of its funding directly from the federal government each year.
"Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage," Trump noted in his order, titled "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media."
That is certainly not the case with NPR and PBS.
The Media Research Center conducted a study from June 1, 2023, to Nov. 30, 2024, analyzing political labels used by anchors, reporters, and contributors on PBS' "News Hour." PBS staff threw around the term "far right" or some variation thereof 162 times but used the term "far left" only six times.
PBS reporters and guests routinely deemed social conservatives and Trump-adjacent Republicans as "extreme" or "extremists," and liberally applied the "fascist" label to Trump or his policies.
Meanwhile, the organization clamped down on unfavorable characterizations of failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and other Democrats, writing the "Marxist" and "communist" labels off as "slurs."
Another MRC study published last year tallied every comment made by PBS journalists during the Republican and Democratic national conventions. Of the 191 minutes of PBS commentary on the Republican National Convention, 72% of opinionated comments were reportedly negative, and only 28% were positive. The PBS' DNC coverage was alternatively sycophantic.
NPR's bias is similarly so substantial that Peabody Award-winning business editor Uri Berliner was willing to throw away 25 years at the outfit just to call it out.
Berliner, a liberal who characterized himself as something akin to the stereotypical NPR listener — "an EV-driving, Wordle-playing, tote bag-carrying coastal elite" — noted in an April 2024 op-ed that NPR had effectively transformed into a Democratic propaganda machine, working strenuously to "damage or topple Trump's presidency," in part by "hitch[ing] our wagon to Trump's most visible antagonist, [then-]Representative Adam Schiff," and amplifying the Russia collusion hoax.
'Neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.'
In addition to boosting "Russiagate" propaganda, Berliner noted that NPR — where 87% of the Washington, D.C., editors and reporters were registered Democrats and none were registered Republicans — evidenced its unmistakable bias with its coverage of the COVID-19 lab leak theory and the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, both of which the network downplayed.
The White House highlighted other examples indicating an ideological bent at NPR, noting for instance that it:
- declared the Declaration of Independence to be a document with "flaws and deeply ingrained hypocrisies";
- apologized for calling illegal immigrants "illegal";
- concern-mongered about the choice of young men to abstain from masturbating to pornography;
- "routinely promotes the chemical and surgical mutilation of children as so-called 'gender-affirming care' without mentioning the irreversible damage caused by these procedures"; and
- "suggested doorway sizes are based on 'latent fatphobia.'"
The White House similarly blasted PBS for its bias, noting that it produced a documentary making the case for reparations and produced a movie celebrating a transvestic teen's "changing gender identity."
— (@)
Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who has long written about the need to defund public broadcasting, previously told Blaze News that NPR and PBS "gave up any attempt at appearing impartial or objective in any way," adding that in the case of NPR, the choice of Katherine Maher as CEO was a crystal-clear message that things won't soon change for the better.
"Maher, on the record, is calling Trump racist. She was an enthusiastic supporter of Kamala Harris," said Gonzalez. "She's on the record as saying the First Amendment and our obsession with truth is getting in the way of consensus. Well, gee — that's the CEO of NPR. Anything else you need to know?"
Trump noted that "no media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize."
"The CPB's governing statute reflects principles of impartiality: the CPB may not 'contribute to or otherwise support any political party,'" continued the president. "The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS. Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens."
In addition to emphasizing the biased nature of NPR and PBS, Trump noted that the ubiquity of media alternatives precludes any need for taxpayers to continue the liberal outfits.
'Trump is working to ensure taxpayer dollars are no longer wasted on progressive pet projects.'
"Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence," added the president.
Trump further directed the heads of all federal agencies to "identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS," and tasked Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to investigate the liberal outfits for possible employment discrimination.
Trump gave the CPB board until June 30 to effectuate his order.
When NPR learned of a draft for the order, it stated earlier this month, "Eliminating funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would have a devastating impact on American communities across the nation that rely on public radio for trusted local and national news, culture, lifesaving emergency alerts, and public safety information."
"We serve the public interest. It's not just in our name — it's our mission. Across the country, locally owned public media stations represent a proud American tradition of public-private partnership for our shared common good," added the liberal outfit.
PBS CEO Paula Kerger reportedly said last month than an order to defund her organization would "disrupt the essential service PBS and local member stations provide to the American people."
The CPB, which is not a federal agency, has already filed suit against Trump because the White House attempted to fire three of its board members.
"Because CPB is not a federal agency subject to the President's authority, but rather a private corporation, we have filed a lawsuit to block these firings," the corporation said in a statement obtained by CNN.
The CPB is likely to seek to block this effort as well.
The White House noted that "President Trump is working to ensure taxpayer dollars are no longer wasted on progressive pet projects, but rather used to benefit hardworking Americans."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Today's top stories
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com