USDA exploring possibility of mass vaccinations for American poultry despite RFK Jr.'s warnings



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warned earlier this year that vaccinating poultry against highly pathogenic avian influenza A (H5) viruses might transform farms into incubators for mutant viruses — viruses that could potentially leap to humans.

"All of my agencies have advised against the vaccination of birds," Kennedy told Fox News' Sean Hannity, "because if you vaccinate with a leaky vaccine — in other words, a vaccine that does not provide sterilizing immunity, that does not absolutely protect against the disease — you turn those flocks into mutation factories."

"They're teaching the organism how to mutate," continued Kennedy. "And it's much more likely to jump to animals if you do that."

Despite Kennedy's concern — which is apparently shared by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration — the U.S. Department of Agriculture is looking seriously at mass vaccinations for American poultry.

A USDA spokesperson told Blaze News that the USDA "is exploring the viability of vaccinating poultry for HPAI" but noted that the "use of any vaccine has not been authorized at this time."

This vaccine exploration appears to have taken on greater energy in February when egg prices were reaching record highs.

After flying south of $3 between 1994 and 2022, the price for a dozen eggs began to rise dramatically during the second half of the Biden era, then even higher earlier this year, reaching an all-time average high of $6.22 in March.

RELATED: The 'cage-free' myth: Why everything you think you know about ethical eggs is wrong

Allen J. Schaben/Getty Images

Although there were multiple factors at play — including the shift in various states to cage-free hens and record consumer demand — the price spikes were largely driven by the mass exterminations of commercial and backyard bird populations ordered by the USDA in response to HPAI viruses.

Blaze News previously noted that between Feb. 8, 2022 — when the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service first confirmed bird flu belonging to the clade 2.3.4.4b in an American commercial flock — and March 2025, the USDA directed the extermination of over 166.41 million birds. Fewer egg-laying birds naturally means diminished supply and higher prices.

'Vaccination in any poultry sector — egg layers, turkeys, broilers, or ducks — will jeopardize the entire export market for all U.S. poultry products.'

In a Feb. 26 op-ed, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins outlined "five steps to tackle avian flu and bring down costs for American families."

In addition to dedicating up to $500 million to help American poultry producers implement "gold-standard" biosecurity measures, increasing financial relief to farms whose flocks are affected by avian flu, removing "unnecessary regulatory burdens on egg producers where possible," and considering temporary import options, Rollins said her agency would "provide up to $100 million in research and development of vaccines and therapeutics, to improve their efficacy and efficiency."

Although egg prices have returned to relatively normal levels, a USDA spokesperson told Blaze News that the agency continues "to evaluate the potential use of vaccines."

"Before making a determination, USDA, in consultation with federal partners, will solicit feedback from state officials, veterinarians, farmers, the public health system, and the American public," said the spokesperson. "USDA is working with federal and state officials and industry stakeholders to develop a potential plan for vaccine use in the United States."

Reuters indicated that industry members anticipate that the agency will complete its plan in July.

RELATED: Cleaning up Biden’s bird flu mess falls to Trump

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (left) and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins (right). Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

There is some controversy over the potential mass vaccination of poultry on the business side of the equation.

Dr. John Clifford, a former USDA chief veterinary officer who advises the USA Poultry & Egg Export Council, told Reuters that chicken meat producers would be dealt a crushing blow if importers stopped importing U.S. poultry over concerns that vaccines were masking the presence of HPAI in flocks.

Some industry groups are, however, warming up to the idea.

Although the National Chicken Council previously suggested that "vaccination in any poultry sector — egg layers, turkeys, broilers, or ducks — will jeopardize the entire export market for all U.S. poultry products," they have since suggested they are on board with the program if exports go unaffected.

The United Egg Producers are apparently even more gung-ho, having helped hatch a plan suggesting an initial vaccination for baby chicks, a subsequent booster shot, then routine testing.

Nicolas Hulscher, an epidemiologist and administrator at the McCullough Foundation, has suggested mass poultry vaccinations are unwise, telling Blaze News that Kennedy's "worries about mass animal H5N1 bird flu vaccination are fully grounded in robust science."

'Biosecurity remains the best and most prudent approach to mitigate the impact of the disease today.'

When asked about the possibility that the USDA might nevertheless proceed with the mass vaccination agenda, Hulscher said that "the USDA is ignoring the glaring risks of creating dangerous mutant strains with their plans to mass vaccinate poultry against bird flu amidst a bird flu animal pandemic."

Blaze News senior editor Daniel Horowitz drove home the point in a recent op-ed, noting that "leaky, waning vaccines that rely on suboptimal antibodies against rapidly mutating viruses can lead to immune tolerance and imprinting. This can cause the immune system to misfire, resulting in negative efficacy. Any short-term protection against severe disease often comes at a long-term cost as the viruses adapt and grow stronger."

Hulscher suggested that the best way forward when tackling HPAI in domestic flocks is better biosecurity: "Installing surface-air purification systems into farms, combined with iodine-based nasal/oral prophylaxis for farm workers, is a much less risky option than mass vaccination."

On this, it appears the USDA agrees.

The agency spokesperson told Blaze News that in the meantime, "because biosecurity remains the best and most prudent approach to mitigate the impact of the disease today, USDA also continues pursuing collaborative efforts with poultry farmers and companies on education, training, and implementation of comprehensive biosecurity measures."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Illegal labor isn’t farming’s future. It’s Big Ag’s crutch.



I’m a strong supporter of President Trump. I respect his drive to secure our borders, restore national sovereignty, and bring real vitality back to the American economy.

But the Department of Homeland Security’s latest move — limiting workplace enforcement and putting a stop to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on agricultural employers — cuts against the very heart of the America First agenda. It protects the same corporate giants that are bleeding rural communities dry.

If DHS and USDA want to fix agriculture, they need to stop hiding behind the word ‘farmer’ when they’re really talking about corporate middlemen.

Let’s not kid ourselves: This policy isn’t about helping “farmers.” It’s a gift to foreign-owned industrial agriculture giants like JBS and other multinationals that built their business models on cheap labor, government handouts, and total control over every link in the supply chain.

These are the corporations responsible for wiping out independent family farms across the country.

The Biden administration let Big Ag off the hook. Is Trump really about to follow suit?

Hiring legally and thriving

You don’t need to hire illegal workers to run a successful farm or ranch. In fact, some of the best in the business don’t.

Look at White Oak Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia. Or Polyface Farm in Swoope, Virginia. Or Meriwether Farms out in Wyoming. These aren’t fantasy models. They’re real, thriving operations built on legal labor, strong local roots, and, when needed, carefully managed visa programs.

They don’t rely on mass illegal labor. They don’t need to.

What they do is create real jobs. They pay honest wages. They bring life back to rural towns.

Will Harris is the biggest employer in Bluffton — not because he cuts corners on labor, but because he heals the land, strengthens his community, and delivers food independence.

This is what Trump’s golden age of American farming should look like: self-reliance, real prosperity, and pride in a job well done.

A free pass for Big Ag

With this new policy, DHS basically gave corporate amnesty to the likes of Tyson, Smithfield, JBS, Cargill — you name it. These are companies that depend on cheap, illegal labor to keep their bloated, centralized model afloat.

We’ve been down this road before. Remember Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty? Legalization now, enforcement later — except “later” never came.

And now, we’re repeating the same mistake.

This policy protects a broken system built on:

  • Top-down corporate control
  • Massive consolidation
  • Debt traps and labor abuse
  • De facto open borders
  • Slave-wage labor
  • Legal loopholes for billion-dollar companies

What we’re left with is what journalist Christopher Leonard called “chickenization” — a corporate takeover of the food system that treats farmers like serfs and workers like machines.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s loyalty to these monopolies has already hollowed out towns, forced families off their land, and turned our food supply into a global pipeline where cartel-linked produce replaces homegrown independence.

This doesn’t serve America. It serves the bottom lines of a few mega-firms that like open borders and look the other way on enforcement.

And whether it admits it or not, this is how the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals get implemented — quietly, through broken farms, outsourced jobs, and illegal hires.

RELATED: Trump orders ICE to ramp up deportations in Dem-controlled cities following MAGA backlash over selective pause on raids


Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

This isn’t just about agriculture. It’s about national security.

A nation that can’t feed itself without breaking its own laws isn’t sovereign. And one that lets multinationals run roughshod over the heartland while outsourcing production to places run by cartels is heading for trouble.

We can do better

If DHS and USDA want to fix agriculture, they need to stop hiding behind the word “farmer” when they’re really talking about corporate middlemen.

Trump has a chance to change course — one that truly puts Americans first. That means backing the producers who follow the law, hiring citizens or legal workers, and building food systems that support independence, not dependence.

Independent farmers and ranchers are ready to help. They’ve already shown what works: strong property rights, legal labor, fair water access, and a commitment to community.

This isn’t some policy wish list. It’s already happening.

And it’s winning.

Let’s not give our food, our land, or our future back to the monopolies that wrecked the past.

White House moves to correct apparent errors in landmark MAHA report



The White House moved to correct errors in the highly anticipated MAHA report Thursday after inconsistencies and inaccuracies were found in the citations.

The errors in the MAHA report were first reported by NOTUS on Thursday. They included broken links and studies that apparently did not exist. The White House later uploaded the corrected version of the report, and the administration maintained that the errors do not refute the substance of the report.

"I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed, and the report will be updated," press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday. "But it does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government."

'It’s time for the media to also focus on what matters.'

RELATED: Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?

Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The Department of Health and Human Services similarly stated that they were simply formatting errors and that they don't change the historic findings in the report.

"Minor citation and formatting errors have been corrected, but the substance of the MAHA report remains the same — a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children," an HHS spokesperson said. "Under President Trump and Secretary Kennedy, our federal government is no longer ignoring this crisis, and it’s time for the media to also focus on what matters."

However, these errors seem to go beyond formatting as the administration is suggesting. The citations included broken links and even pointed to numerous studies that reportedly do not appear in the issues of the journals cited and may not even exist at all.

"The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with," Katherine Keyes, an epidemiologist listed as an author, told NOTUS. "We’ve certainly done research on this topic, but did not publish a paper in JAMA Pediatrics on this topic with that co-author group, or with that title."

RELATED: Elon Musk formally departs from DOGE following a tumultuous tenure

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The report itself, which was spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., focused on identifying root causes for various health epidemics affecting American children, including chronic diseases, obesity, autoimmune conditions, and behavioral disorders. Some of these root causes include ultra-processed foods, pesticides, and exposure to chemicals, as well as "overmedicalization."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

‘We can eat happiness, or we can eat stress and violence’: Regenerative farmer explains intersection of food, soil, and joy



If you’ve been hearing the term “regenerative farming” a lot lately, it’s because the method has soared in popularity in recent years, especially in the United States. From Big Food giants, including Walmart, Pepsi, and General Mills, to individuals seeking to produce their own food, the nation is steadily moving toward this sustainable system that addresses some of the biggest threats to both agriculture and people. By adopting this holistic approach, farmers can address soil degradation and biodiversity loss that harm their farms, while also reducing reliance on chemical fertilizers, animal hormones, and food additives that pose threats to people and animals.

On a recent episode of “Back to the People,” Nicole Shanahan interviewed author, farmer, and regenerative farming advocate Joel Salatin to get a better understanding of how this holistic system benefits everyone involved.

Salatin spent his early years on his parents’ farm in Venezuela. However, when their chickens, which were vastly healthier and more hygienic than the local farmers’ stock, began dominating the market, the community accused their family of “witchcraft and voodoo” and drove them out.

“So we fled the back door, and machine guns came in the front door,” he tells Nicole.

Their family came back to the United States and began Polyface Farms, a diversified, multispecies regenerative farm in Virginia, which Salatin still operates today.

Unfortunately, the persecution followed them home. Instead of superstitious locals, today Salatin faces threats from the “industrial agriculture system that views life from a mechanical standpoint.”

“I've been called a bioterrorist and a Typhoid Mary and a starvation advocate” because “we don't vaccinate; we don't medicate; we're using compost instead of chemical fertilizers; we're moving the animals around on the pasture instead of just leaving them in one field all the time; the chickens are outside where they can get fresh air and sunshine and exercise,” he explains.

He tells Nicole he’s embraced the moniker “the lunatic farmer.” If being a lunatic means you’re stewarding God’s creation well, the insult is actually a badge of honor.

“We are stewards of a niche of God's creation that is unbelievably beautiful, complex, relationally oriented, and symbiotic,” he says. “One of the problems in mainline industrial agriculture today, I think, is a general kind of underlying, almost unspoken philosophy that nature's against us and nature is a reluctant partner that I have to beat into submission and dominate.”

This “wrestling, contested kind of relationship” with nature, however, is unnecessary, and that’s what regenerative farming understands that Big Food and Big Ag don’t. When we try to control nature with chemicals, we’re causing problems not only in the environment but also in our own bodies.

“We are routinely ingesting things that are foreign to our microbiome,” says Salatin.

The billions of microbes in our stomachs and digestive tract, he explains, are essentially “first cousins” to the “biome in the soil, to the biata in the soil.”

“If you look at human skin and you look at soil and you do a cutaway side profile ... they almost look identical,” he explains. “What we're feeding our internal village of microbiomes needs to be something that they are familiar with, that they understand, and they don't understand Coca-Cola and Velveeta cheese.”

But it’s not just soil and humans who benefit from regenerative farming. Livestock fairs remarkably better, too. Emphasis on rotational grazing that mimics natural herd movements and using natural alternatives to antibiotics, hormones, and chemical dewormers results in healthier, happier animals.

“We've learned over the many years, especially from our gourmet chefs, that all of our meats cook about 15% to 20% faster than regular conventional factory-farm stuff,” says Salatin.

The disparity is likely due to differences in adrenaline levels.

“Most of the livestock in the U.S. live in very stressful environments, where their whole life they're drip, drip, drip, dripping adrenaline, which tightens everything up. Our animals are happy; they never secrete adrenaline,” Salatin explains.

“We can eat happiness, or we can eat stress and violence.”

To hear more about Salatin’s story and regenerative farming, watch the episode above.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole's compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Who is bankrolling the anti-MAHA movement?



Several agricultural agencies came out and criticized President Donald Trump's highly anticipated MAHA report that was released on Thursday. After thoroughly reviewing the records, Blaze News uncovered who is behind many of these anti-MAHA groups.

The MAHA report's findings suggested that exposure to agricultural chemicals like pesticides and insecticides are one of the many root causes that have contributed to chronic diseases and health epidemics afflicting American children. Several studies found that these "crop protection tools" have "raised concerns about possible links between some of these products and adverse health outcomes," according to the report.

The through line in this thorough report is that pesticides may be harmful, and the industry players may not have been transparent about it.

RELATED: RFK's highly anticipated MAHA report paints dark picture of America's health crisis

Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

For example, one of the most common herbicides, known as glyphosate, has been found to have a number of health effects "ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation, and metabolic disturbances," according to the report.

The MAHA report also noted that there are great disparities in research conducted by pesticide manufacturers compared to non-industry research, which may be a result of bias. One of the many analyses cited in the report found that 50% of non-industry research deemed a common pesticide harmful compared to just 18% of industry-funded studies.

The through line in this thorough report is that pesticides may be harmful, and the industry players may not have been transparent about it.

Various agricultural groups categorized the MAHA report, specifically the concerns about pesticides, as "baseless" and a source of "misinformation." At the same time, many of these groups have been direct beneficiaries of companies and corporations that manufacture or promote the very same chemicals.

RELATED: 100 days of MAHA: What has Robert F. Kennedy Jr. done so far to make America healthy again?

Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said the MAHA report "sows seeds of doubt and fear" and called the White House's endorsement of the report "deeply troubling." Notably, Blaze News found that multiple local chapters of the Farm Bureau have collectively received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants from Monsanto, a subsidiary of Bayer Global, which manufactures agricultural chemicals and GMO technologies.

Some of this money has been allocated for various disaster relief programs, while some has gone toward political action committees. For instance, the Oregon Farm Bureau PAC has received over $130,000 from Monsanto from 2007 to 2017, much of which was "raised during an annual golf tournament" hosted by the Oregon Farm Bureau to "raise money for its political activities."

The American Farm Bureau did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

RELATED: HHS scrapping COVID jab recommendations for pregnant moms and kids: Report

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Similarly, Elizabeth Burns-Thomson, the executive director of Modern Ag Alliance, said the report would be guided by "misinformation" rather than science. Modern Ag Alliance, which was founded by Bayer Global, represents over 100 agricultural agencies that advocate for "crop protection tools." Some of the members of the Modern Ag Alliance also include the American Soybean Association, the National Corn Growers Association, and the National Association of Wheat Growers.

The ASA, NCGA, and NAWG, along with the International Fresh Produce Association, issued a statement saying the MAHA report "baselessly attacks" the American food industry and caters to the "opinions and preferences of social influencers and single-issue activists."

Since 2010, the ASA, NCGA, and NAWG have all individually received multiple donations totaling over $120,000 from CropLife, according to publicly available tax filings. CropLife is an organization that calls itself the "national trade association that represents the manufacturers, formulators, and distributors of pesticides." The IFPA has also been sponsored by Bayer multiple times in recent years.

The ASA, NAWG, and Modern Ag Alliance did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News. NCGA and IFPA redirected Blaze News back to its original statement on the report.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Is Trump’s USAID freeze hurting American farms? Here’s the TRUTH.



In the wake of President Trump’s USAID freeze, the left is up in arms about all the alleged suffering taking place abroad as a result of cut funding. There are even complaints about the impact on U.S. farms that send food overseas.

“I've seen on left-wing Twitter and Instagram and other places increasing noise about how Trump's moves against USAID actually hit small farms, hit mid-range farms and American businesses,” says Blaze News senior politics editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford.

Is it true that American farms and the recipients of the food they produce are suffering as a result of Trump’s USAID freeze?

To answer this question, Christopher speaks with his wife, Sarah Bedford — an expert on the history of USAID.

According to Sarah, on paper, these food programs, such as Food for Peace, appear to be “[addressing] food insecurity in impoverished nations.” This stated mission fuels the left’s narrative that “Trump's moves on USAID are hurting starving people who really need this help.”

However, the reality is that “if the intention is to deliver food aid in the most efficient manner possible to the people who need it the most, then no, these programs don’t work,” she says.

“They actually end up costing a lot more money than they would otherwise if USAID went into these local economies and bought the food assistance locally from local producers, stimulating the economies they're trying to help,” she explains. This localized aid would also spare the United States a fortune in “shipping costs” and “expensive American crops.”

Sarah points to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti as an example of how USAID “[suppresses] local markets.”

Because USAID “dumped surplus American crops” into the nation, “the economic recovery for Haiti was a lot more difficult,” she says.

However, this isn’t just the case when it comes to natural disasters. Many USAID programs actually hinder economic development in general because the goal is to get rid of surplus American crops, not to help stimulate and grow the economies of impoverished nations.

In fact, “food insecurity in some parts of the world has gotten worse since the U.S. started dumping surplus agricultural products abroad,” says Sarah, giving the example of a rice farmer who can’t “sell his wares at the local market” because he’s “being completely undercut by free American rice.”

Further, instead of just donating surplus crops, the U.S. government is now purchasing them “at prices that are arbitrary and that help special interests in the agricultural sector.”

The fact of the matter is that “economic development in some of these heavily agricultural economies is just not the goal of these [USAID] programs,” says Sarah.

As for the claim that Trump’s USAID freeze is hurting American Big Agriculture, Sarah says, it’s true.

“The USAID programs are great price supports for these companies, a lot of which are already enjoying USDA subsidies as well. So if the intention is for this USAID program to act as an agricultural subsidy, then it's doing great, but it's not supposed to be that. It's supposed to be efficiently delivered food aid,” she says.

On top of that, USAID is also how “the U.S. pedals soft power to increase U.S. influences in places where, if the U.S. were to withdraw its presence, Russia or China or another adversarial nation could come in and grow their influence in these developing nations,” adds Sarah, noting that “whether that's a good use of American taxpayer dollars” is up for debate.

“Donald Trump ran on and won on a promise to stop spending taxpayer money to chase these sort of nebulous foreign policy goals, so in a lot of ways what he's doing [with USAID] is consistent with that promise, as well as the promise to cut government spending,” she says.

To learn more, watch the clip above.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

If We Want Healthier Americans, We Should Help Women Quit Their Jobs

The amount of time needed to produce slow food is hard to square with also holding down a full-time job out of the home.

Cities can turn blue; homesteads will keep America red



Americans are now familiar with the iconic red-blue political map. In the 2024 election results, a bird’s-eye view shows much of the country’s landmass as blood red, while blue dominates the large urban centers. This city vs. country divide remains the most significant factor in America’s political polarization. Every policy we pursue should encourage rural growth, not urban expansion. Donald Trump’s supporters should be cautious about the direction some are taking his “freedom cities” idea.

The right broadly agrees that the federal government owns too much land in the West and should sell it to states or individuals. However, the goal should be to strengthen rural life in Western states, not urbanize the land with “15-minute city” concepts. These constructs would likely attract liberal voters who support that mindset, undermining the goal of fostering rural empowerment.

The issue isn’t a lack of new construction. It’s the soaring cost of building, driven by general, debt-fueled inflation.

Trump announced his plan in March as part of “Agenda 47” to build 10 “freedom cities” on 3.2 million acres of federal land. The cities would be selected through a contest, with the best development proposals winning. Trump has suggested that the housing crisis stems from a lack of supply rather than inflation or monetary policy and that building cities in rural, red America could help solve it.

However, with urbanist Doug Burgum likely leading this project and “tech bro” billionaires influencing its direction, the plan risks backfiring. It could introduce venture socialist ideas that act like a “nuclear bomb” on red America, turning red states into blue ones. Instead of fostering rural growth, it could advance the World Economic Forum’s dream of “15-minute cities” — but with a MAGA stamp of approval.

Bringing tech bro liberalism to red America

Wealthy tech entrepreneurs played a key role in funding Trump’s election victory, driven by their disenchantment with the radical direction of the Democratic Party. However, they are not full allies of the movement. Many remain socially liberal, support increased legal immigration, and prioritize high-tech public-private partnerships over cultural and political concerns.

“When new cities are built in the U.S., new industries can form, and a new middle class can emerge,” said Nick Allen, a tech entrepreneur close to Trump, in an interview with the Epoch Times. Allen, a member of the Frontier Foundation, a group pushing for these cities, added, “The outsized role that the tech community is probably going to play in this administration has generally made me more optimistic about the potential for doing some version of Freedom Cities.”

Well, that is exactly why I’m not optimistic. Incoming Interior Secretary Doug Burgum would likely oversee this plan. Burgum, a known urbanist and supporter of the “carbon neutral” agenda, has criticized America for being “built for automobiles and not designed for people.” He has lamented the lack of “investment into building the infrastructure for multimodal transportation” and blamed cars for rising housing prices.

As governor of North Dakota, Burgum established the North Dakota Housing Initiative Advisory Committee to focus on “improving housing availability, affordability, and stability” — phrases often used by planners pushing for 15-minute cities and car-free urban bubbles. Burgum also founded the Kilbourne Group, an organization dedicated to creating vibrant urban centers and revitalizing downtowns.

Do we really want this “yuppie” mindset shaping the development of states like Wyoming, Montana, Utah, and Idaho?

Economically, this plan echoes China’s “ghost cities” and could worsen the very factors driving housing scarcity and high prices. Pumping borrowed and printed cash into these projects would inflate the money supply, funneling loan guarantees and crony contracts to tech developers. The result? Attracting liberal yuppies to red states while enriching venture socialists.

Defenders of this idea argue they want to create autonomous, low-regulation economic opportunity zones. However, if these cities are not structured like rural homesteads, they will attract liberal voters who could eventually flip these red areas blue. Under their quasi-autonomous proposal, these cities would also remain somewhat immune to directives from Republican-controlled legislatures.

The truth about the housing crisis

The rush for new housing construction rests on a false premise. Supporters claim there is a massive housing shortage, while others argue that zoning laws are stifling the housing market.

In reality, even with the freest zoning laws imaginable, homes would remain unaffordable. General inflation and Federal Reserve interest rate policies have created a generational gap in mortgage rates, locking up the resale market and driving housing prices higher.

Housing construction remains strong, according to the National Association of Home Builders. Over the past 10 months, builders issued 846,446 single-family home permits nationwide — a 9.4% increase from 2023. The number of homes under construction or already completed has reached its highest level since the 2007 housing bubble. Overall, the supply of new homes has risen by 70% over the past three years.

The issue isn’t a lack of new construction. It’s the soaring cost of building, driven by general, debt-fueled inflation. The housing market also suffers from the Federal Reserve’s policies, which created an asset bubble by purchasing $2.5 trillion in mortgage-backed securities. By keeping interest rates artificially low for a generation, the Fed incentivized cheap borrowing.

When inflation spiked, the Fed rapidly raised rates, triggering a “death trap” for homeowners who now refuse to sell and face significantly higher mortgage payments.

Today, deficits and inflation remain so high that even recent Fed rate cuts have failed to lower mortgage rates. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note — which heavily influences mortgage rates — has climbed 85 basis points since the Fed cut rates by 50 basis points on September 19.

Simply put, the housing crisis stems from debt-driven inflation, not a lack of supply.

The cost of new homes is now nearly the same as existing homes for the first time in modern history. This isn’t a supply issue; it’s an unnatural housing bubble and an interest rate cliff that has frozen the existing inventory market. While other minor factors contribute, this remains the clear culprit.

Spending massive amounts to create red-state cities would ironically worsen inflation — the very factor driving the housing crisis. The solution isn’t building more homes. We need to tackle inflation. If federal land must be repurposed, it should prioritize quality of living over quantity. A better alternative to “freedom cities” is “freedom homesteads.”

A new Homestead Act

Rather than urbanizing red-state America, a better plan would encourage conservatives nationwide to move to red states organically by re-ruralizing the country. The federal government should sell parcels of land — between 10 and 50 acres — to individuals, allowing them to live and farm as they see fit. This would create the ultimate version of freedom: a rural-based economic freedom zone.

Promoting rural land use would counteract the harmful effects of farm bills, which distort markets in favor of specific crops. This approach would attract people aligned with rugged individualism, not urbanization, making red states even redder.

By incentivizing privacy and self-reliance, we would avoid high-tech surveillance schemes that threaten to transform America into a version of China. True freedom lies in wide-open spaces, not congested cities.

Homesteading ended in 1979 with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, which created the Bureau of Land Management. The Bureau of Land Management leviathan has since restricted the rights of farmers and ranchers, including the Bundy family, by closing access to private lands or historically public-use lands.

Today, much of America’s land is being bought up by foreign actors, converted for green energy projects, or used for subsidized government crops. In some cases, landowners are paid not to farm, artificially supporting agricultural prices for Big Agriculture.

If Trump wants to usher in a new era of American prosperity, he should look to the past for inspiration — not into the technocratic abyss.

Trump’s victory exposes the deep state’s worst fears



Something extraordinary happened in the 2024 election. Conservatives, independents, and even former Democrats rose up and delivered a historic rebuke to the far left. The electoral map didn’t show a mere victory for Donald Trump — it was a political bloodbath. Moreover, for the first time in decades, Republicans are poised to take control of nearly every level of government.

This election was an unmistakable message from voters: America is sick, and we demand a cure.

Institutions meant to safeguard our liberties have become vectors for corruption, collusion, and control.

But before we can tackle the disease, we must diagnose it. What, exactly, is the mandate voters handed to Trump and the GOP? What is the problem that we demand they fix?

The answer is as clear as it is uncomfortable: The United States as we knew it no longer exists. Our freedoms — our sovereignty — have been systematically eroded by forces intent on transforming America into something unrecognizable.

Two of Donald Trump’s first promises as president-elect spoke directly to this. He vowed to eliminate the deep state and end censorship. The fact that these issues even need to be addressed shows how far we’ve strayed.

These proposed changes from the Trump administration are promising, but Trump cannot do this alone. The corruption afflicting this country is systemic. It’s a cancer that has spread through every organ of the body politic, from unelected bureaucrats in Washington to powerful corporations and media conglomerates. This rot has metastasized, just as it did in Europe under Fabian socialism and cultural Marxism. It must be excised.

But how did we get here? The left didn’t stumble into control of our institutions by accident. Its dominance over the media, universities, and culture was the result of a decades-long operation to manufacture consent.

The strategy is laid out plainly in a book by leftist thinker Noam Chomsky: “Manufacturing Consent.” Chomsky wasn’t wrong in his analysis — he was just dead wrong in his prescription. Over the decades, the left co-opted his blueprint to manipulate public opinion, consolidate power, and push its progressive agenda.

The proof is in the state of America today. Look at how the media has been consolidated. In the 1980s, 90% of American media was controlled by over 50 companies. Today, six massive conglomerates control the vast majority of what we read, watch, and hear.

They control the flow of information, shaping narratives to keep the public in the dark. They decide what is “normal” and what is “fringe.” They’ve convinced generations of Americans to accept obvious falsehoods as truth.

This media-industrial complex works hand in glove with the government and elite institutions. It has labeled anyone who questions its authority as a “conspiracy theorist” or “extremist,” all while cozying up to Big Tech and using censorship as a tool to silence dissent.

Donald Trump has promised to sign an executive order on day one banning federal agencies from colluding to censor Americans. He plans to fire bureaucrats who’ve participated in these unconstitutional practices and roll back the protections that allow tech giants to act as unaccountable gatekeepers.

But this is only the beginning.

The cancer runs deeper than just Big Tech or biased news outlets. It extends to the very systems meant to serve and protect us. Government agencies like HHS, NIH, and FDA now prioritize profits for Big Pharma and Big Food over the health of Americans. The military-industrial complex wages endless wars without congressional approval — in our name but without our consent. Institutions meant to safeguard our liberties have become vectors for corruption, collusion, and control.

Every organ of our national body has been infected. And the first step in curing this disease is restoring the free flow of information — our eyes and ears.

Without independent media, without honest debate, the cancer will keep coming back. That’s why I call on this incoming administration to prioritize breaking up media monopolies, ending corporate-government partnerships, and empowering alternative platforms.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. We must act now or risk losing the republic altogether. The American people have made their mandate clear: We demand accountability, transparency, and freedom.

It’s time to clean house.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Big Pharma And Big Food Are Shaking In Their Boots At A Second Trump Era

The incoming Trump administration poses a major threat to the unholy alliance between pharmaceutical giants and Big Agriculture.