Trump declares victory on 'climate change hoax' after Bill Gates issues concession memo



President Donald Trump said opponents of the "climate change hoax" had won the struggle after Bill Gates said supporters should pivot their efforts.

Gates has been a longtime proponent of policies to fight climate change, but on Monday he took a far more moderate tone that accepted the survivability of slightly higher global temperatures.

'Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue.'

"I (WE!) just won the War on the Climate Change Hoax," the president wrote on his Truth Social account.

"Bill Gates has finally admitted that he was completely WRONG on the issue," he added. "It took courage to do so, and for that we are all grateful. MAGA!!!"

Gates issued the announcement in a memo titled, "Three tough truths about climate."

He described the previous view on climate change as the following: "In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us — just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature."

He added: "Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong."

Gates opined that governments may have to "invest in cooling centers and better early warning systems for extreme heat and weather events," and added that people "will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future."

RELATED: Trump shuts down UN-backed effort to impose global climate change tax, calling it a 'scam'

Gates went on to say that the world's efforts are better spent trying to reduce poverty and disease.

"The doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it's diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world," he added.

The billionaire concluded, "The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been."

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

Glenn Beck warns: Amazon layoffs & Bill Gates' climate flip signal the energy war splitting America in two



In September, Amazon raised warehouse worker pay to over $30/hour, framing the wage hike as an effort to enhance employees' experience. However, earlier this week, the company contradicted its human-centric initiative when it suddenly slashed 14,000 corporate jobs in accordance with its plans to invest heavily in artificial intelligence.

Longtime climate change fearmonger Bill Gates also published a memo on his Gates Notes blog, where he wrote: "Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries – it will not lead to humanity's demise” — a stunning contradiction to his yearslong alarmist rhetoric.

While Amazon and Gates’ shifting narratives may appear unrelated, Glenn Beck says they both hint of a dark future on the horizon.

And it all centers around power — but not the political or economic kind.

“I mean energy,” says Glenn. “The world is starving for energy.”

But energy means different things to different people. Amazon’s push for AI-driven commerce represents one side of the playing field — the side that craves unrestricted energy abundance via fossil fuels and nuclear power. Gates' long history of climate alarmism, though recently softened, embodies the other side's push for "green" energy only — restrictive renewables and emission caps that will surely starve innovation.

It all boils down to “global fascism on one side” and “Marxist degrowth” on the other, says Glenn, noting both frameworks are deeply flawed.

However, both sides will have good and bad parts. The Marxist degrowth crowd will be pro-human workers and real food but anti-capitalism and fossil fuels. The growth-centric fascist crowd will promote capitalism and oil drilling but also Big Ag and Big Pharma, unrestricted artificial intelligence, and other dystopian technologies, like digital IDs.

But where does that leave someone like Glenn, who’s pro-human workers, ethical AI, oil drilling, real food, and capitalism but anti-climate change, Marxism, and globalist initiatives, like digital IDs, 15-minute cities, and central bank digital currencies?

He warns we’re headed into a time where we’re going to be asked to choose between these two options.

“This is the split that is coming, and I believe the Marxist global warming side is going to be extraordinarily appealing to a lot of people,” says Glenn, warning that it’s “a utopia that can never survive.”

The other camp, however, is equally as flawed. So what do we do?

We choose the “third way,” says Glenn.

“It's the U.S. Constitution.”

To hear more of Glenn’s analysis, watch the clip above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

CNN data analyst dumps cold water on climate alarmism: It 'has not really worked'



Although elites like Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates have been pushing climate alarmism on the masses for decades, most people have never bought what they were selling. In fact, data shows that climate change has not been a defining issue for many people for a long time, one CNN analyst argued.

CNN data analyst Harry Enten demonstrated that the American people's concern about climate change has remained surprisingly consistent for decades and has even possibly declined in more recent years.

"What are we talking about? Greatly worried about climate. You go all the way back to 1989, it was 35%. 2000, 40%. 2020, 46%. And in 2025, look at that — it's 40%, the same number as we had 25 years ago back in 2000, and then only just five points higher than we had back in 1989. Really we've just seen consistency on this issue," Enten explained.

'It will not lead to humanity's demise.'

Enten showed that the number of Americans who see climate change as a top issue is and has been negligible for roughly the past four years. One 2025 poll indicated that just 17% of Democrats believe climate change will make staying in their home area "harder," Enten revealed.

Noting Gates' recent tone shift on the issue, Enten said most people would "agree" with Gates' new assessment that climate change won't be the end of humanity.

RELATED: Bill Gates quietly retires climate terror as AI takes the throne

Photo by Patrick van Katwijk/Getty Images

"The bottom line is that the climate change message that folks who, of course, believe that climate change is real and is quite worrisome, simply put, has not really worked with the American people,” Enten said.

Just this week, Gates altered his approach to climate change, one of his trademark issues.

"Although climate change will have serious consequences — particularly for people in the poorest countries — it will not lead to humanity's demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future," Gates wrote in his October 28 essay, "Three tough truths about climate."

"The biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been," Gates continued.

While Gates did not completely dismiss his emphasis on climate change, this shift comes after at least 20 years of efforts to raise concern in the public consciousness about an existential threat. Gates famously warned that the climate was a bigger issue than COVID in the midst of the pandemic in 2020.

"Whether or not he's following the science or public opinion, there does seem to be a shift here," CNN anchor John Berman told Enten.

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

Bill Gates quietly retires climate terror as AI takes the throne



For decades, Americans have been told that climate change is an imminent apocalypse — the existential threat that justifies every intrusion into our lives, from banning gas stoves to rationing energy to tracking personal “carbon scores.”

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates helped lead that charge. He warned repeatedly that the “climate disaster” would be the greatest crisis humanity would ever face. He invested billions in green technology and demanded the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050 “to avoid catastrophe.”

The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch.

Now, suddenly, he wants everyone to relax: Climate change “will not lead to humanity’s demise” after all.

Gates was making less of a scientific statement and more of a strategic pivot. When elites retire a crisis, it’s never because the threat is gone — it’s because a better one has replaced it. And something else has indeed arrived — something the ruling class finds more useful than fear of the weather.

The same day Gates downshifted the doomsday rhetoric, Amazon announced it would pay warehouse workers $30 an hour — while laying off 30,000 people because artificial intelligence will soon do their jobs.

Climate panic was the warm-up. AI control is the main event.

The new currency of power

The world once revolved around oil and gas. Today, it revolves around the electricity demanded by server farms, the chips that power machine learning, and the data that can be used to manipulate or silence entire populations. The global contest is no longer over barrels and pipelines — it is over who gets to flip the digital switch. Whoever controls energy now controls information. And whoever controls information controls civilization.

Climate alarmism gave elites a pretext to centralize power over energy. Artificial intelligence gives them a mechanism to centralize power over people. The future battles will not be about carbon — they will be about control.

Two futures — both ending in tyranny

Americans are already being pushed into what look like two opposing movements, but both leave the individual powerless.

The first is the technocratic empire being constructed in the name of innovation. In its vision, human work will be replaced by machines, and digital permissions will subsume personal autonomy.

Government and corporations merge into a single authority. Your identity, finances, medical decisions, and speech rights become access points monitored by biometric scanners and enforced by automated gatekeepers. Every step, purchase, and opinion is tracked under the noble banner of “efficiency.”

The second is the green de-growth utopia being marketed as “compassion.” In this vision, prosperity itself becomes immoral. You will own less because “the planet” requires it. Elites will redesign cities so life cannot extend beyond a 15-minute walking radius, restrict movement to save the Earth, and ration resources to curb “excess.” It promises community and simplicity, but ultimately delivers enforced scarcity. Freedom withers when surviving becomes a collective permission rather than an individual right.

Both futures demand that citizens become manageable — either automated out of society or tightly regulated within it. The ruling class will embrace whichever version gives them the most leverage in any given moment.

Climate panic was losing its grip. AI dependency — and the obedience it creates — is far more potent.

The forgotten way

A third path exists, but it is the one today’s elites fear most: the path laid out in our Constitution. The founders built a system that assumes human beings are not subjects to be monitored or managed, but moral agents equipped by God with rights no government — and no algorithm — can override.

RELATED: How Bill Gates and friends turned global health into a profit machine — at your expense

AvigatorPhotographer via iStock/Getty Images

That idea remains the most “disruptive technology” in history. It shattered the belief that people need kings or experts or global committees telling them how to live. No wonder elites want it erased.

Soon, you will be told you must choose: Live in a world run by machines or in a world stripped down for planetary salvation. Digital tyranny or rationed equality. Innovation without liberty or simplicity without dignity.

Both are traps.

The only way

The only future worth choosing is the one grounded in ordered liberty — where prosperity and progress exist alongside moral responsibility and personal freedom and human beings are treated as image-bearers of God — not climate liabilities, not data profiles, not replaceable hardware components.

Bill Gates can change his tune. The media can change the script. But the agenda remains the same.

They no longer want to save the planet. They want to run it, and they expect you to obey.

Bill Gates, Who Spent a Fortune Warning About 'Climate Disaster,' Now Says It 'Will Not Be the End of Civilization'

Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates, who spent tens of millions of dollars funding far-left climate initiatives and authored a book warning of "climate disaster," is now changing his tune on global warming and urging activists to divert their attention to other progressive causes.

The post Bill Gates, Who Spent a Fortune Warning About 'Climate Disaster,' Now Says It 'Will Not Be the End of Civilization' appeared first on .

Bill Gates does stunning about-face on climate 'doomsday' claims: 'This view is wrong'



Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates alleged in a 2021 work of climate alarmist agitprop that if humanity failed to eliminate so-called greenhouse gas emissions, "climate change will keep getting worse, and the impact on humans will in all likelihood be catastrophic."

In addition to championing a radical upheaval of modern life — advocating for major changes to the way people travel, grow their food, and manufacture goods — in the interest of staving off some prophesied disaster, the billionaire backed the development of an aerosol technology that would dim the sun and trigger a global cooling effect.

'Using more energy is a good thing.'

After spending years fear-mongering about the calamities that would supposedly visit humanity unless governments kneecapped certain industries, regulated into extinction certain behaviors, and redistributed wealth to the right places, Gates has acknowledged that climate change "will not lead to humanity's demise."

In a Monday memo titled "Three tough truths about climate," Gates rejected the "doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilization. The evidence is all around us — just look at all the heat waves and storms caused by rising global temperatures. Nothing matters more than limiting the rise in temperature."

"Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong," Gates wrote just weeks ahead of the 2025 U.N. Climate Change Conference in Brazil, where participants will enjoy easy access to the venue thanks to the government's decision to flatten over 8 miles of rainforest.

Gates suggested that if the world takes "moderate action" to curb climate change — doing what it's presently doing or just slightly more — the Earth's average temperature 75 years from now will be only 2-3 degrees higher than it was in 1850.

RELATED: Al Gore wrong again: Study delivers good news for Arctic ice trends, bad news for climate hucksters

Photo by BAY ISMOYO/AFP via Getty Images

During a 2021 online Harvard Science Book Talk, Gates spoke of dying corals, acidifying oceans, forest fires, and disappearing beaches. He further claimed that unless various changes in global practices were undertaken, "It's going to be essentially unlivable at the Equator by the end of the century."

He has since adopted a more optimistic outlook, suggesting that warming might make Iowa eventually feel more like Texas, and Texas more like northern Mexico, and that life in countries near the equator may require governments "to invest in cooling centers and better early warning systems for extreme heat and weather events" — but that "people will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future."

In addition to admitting that climate doomsday isn't coming and that the global temperature that radicals frequently cite as a metric for universal well-being "doesn't tell us anything about the quality of people's lives," the billionaire stated that "using more energy is a good thing," as "more energy use is a key part of prosperity."

Gates indicated that his newfound optimism about so-called climate change is the result, in part, of recent policy changes, innovation-driven emission cuts, and corresponding readjustments in emissions projections, but his change in tune appears to primarily come down to priorities.

"The doomsday outlook is causing much of the climate community to focus too much on near-term emissions goals, and it's diverting resources from the most effective things we should be doing to improve life in a warming world," Gates wrote, stressing later in the document that "the biggest problems are poverty and disease, just as they always have been."

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

Glenn Beck exposes the specific billionaires who funded the No Kings protests



Last weekend, thousands of people across the United States gathered to march under the banner of No Kings — a slogan coined to capture progressives’ resistance to the so-called authoritarian tendencies in President Donald Trump's second administration.

One major issue for No Kings protesters as well as politicians who joined the events, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is the influence of billionaires, particularly in politics and media, which is why they criticize figures like Elon Musk.

But there’s an irony to their complaints.

“If this movement is truly against billionaires and the powerful, why is it funded by billionaires and the powerful?” asks Glenn Beck.

The No Kings movement was intentionally orchestrated to look like grassroots resistance, but the deeper you dive into its inner workings, the more it becomes clear: “This isn't a rebellion. This is strategy,” says Glenn. “This is not grassroots. This is astroturf.”

If the movement was really about keeping kings out of America, then these same marchers would have taken serious issue with Joe Biden, who forced an experimental vaccine on the American people under the threat of job loss and hospital restrictions.

“You would think no kings would mean all of that was wrong, but it doesn't. This is not about dismantling power. This is about rearranging power,” Glenn reiterates.

Those powerful billionaires who protesters claim to oppose were the very people who designed and funded this entire movement.

Reports from multiple media outlets, including Fox News and Breitbart News’ Peter Schweizer, George Soros via his Open Society Action Fund granted $3 million to Indivisible — a progressive nonprofit founded in 2016 for the sole purpose of resisting Trump policies — to help orchestrate the No Kings protests.

“But it goes on. Soros' larger network, the Open Society Foundation, gave over $7.6 million to the same operation. So now we're almost at $11 million,” says Glenn.

But Soros is just where the funding trail begins. Follow the money, and it will lead you to the Arabella Advisors Network — “a billion-dollar-a-year dark money empire that launders donations from the uber wealthy donors to grassroots activism.”

Keep going down the trail and you’ll find that the Bill Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation all provided significant funding to networks supporting the No Kings protests.

But it keeps going. The Tides Foundation also made significant contributions, as did Neville Roy Singham, a U.S.-born billionaire with ties to the Chinese Communist Party who’s known for funding radical leftist groups.

“You have a small club of financial elites that are bankrolling what investigative journalist Peter Schweizer calls ‘Riot Inc.,”’ says Glenn.

“It is the permanent protest industrial complex. This is not just conjecture; this is not opinion. This is now documented fact,” he adds.

IRS filings, annual reports, and public statements all paint the same picture: “Billionaires are funding the outrage machine.”

To hear more, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How Bill Gates and friends turned global health into a profit machine — at your expense



Since the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing network of nongovernmental organizations, politicians, and corporations have pushed for sweeping global health initiatives. They lobby for massive funding, insisting it will prevent the next international health crisis.

Groups such as the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, and the U.S. government have saturated the media with calls for “equity” and “preparedness.” Together, they established the Pandemic Fund — a financial pool designed to channel money into their shared vision of global health management.

It takes little imagination to see how a fund directed by Gates-linked institutions could steer money — intentionally or not — toward companies in which he holds a stake.

According to its website, the Pandemic Fund “finances critical investments to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response capacities at national, regional, and global levels, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries.” In practice, it serves as a central clearinghouse for governments, NGOs, and business coalitions to move money under the banner of “health security.”

The funds flow to “implementing entities” such as the World Bank; the WHO; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and UNICEF. These organizations, in turn, decide how the investments are distributed — and to whom. Each claims to act on behalf of public health, but their reach and influence often extend far beyond medicine into politics, surveillance, and control.

Convenient ambiguity

Who actually gets paid to implement these objectives? What do “surveillance” and “prevention” mean in practice? How is “preparedness” measured? Which corporations manage the process, and whose services are contracted for the lab upgrades? None of these questions has a straight answer. The fund’s language reads like a bureaucratic fog — dense, opaque, and unaccountable.

What the Pandemic Fund does provide is a clear list of donors: the United States, the Gates Foundation, and several European governments. It also highlights 47 active projects spanning 75 countries.

What it doesn’t provide is equally telling. The site omits the names of officials who manage the money in each country, the ownership of the laboratories, and the companies installing the surveillance systems. Even the identities of those delivering “medical support” remain concealed behind the veil of “global cooperation.”

Conflicts of interest

Beyond its opacity, the Pandemic Fund is riddled with conflicts of interest. The Gates Foundation ranks among its largest institutional donors, while Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, acts as an “implementing entity” responsible for distributing those same funds.

Gavi’s own website acknowledges that the Gates Foundation was both a founding partner and a seed donor, contributing $750 million at its launch in 2000. That relationship alone should raise questions. Gavi now helps allocate the Pandemic Fund’s grants, meaning one of its original funders plays a direct role in deciding where new money goes.

The potential conflicts run deeper. Bill Gates has invested heavily in Moderna and BioNTech, two of the world’s leading mRNA vaccine manufacturers. The Gates Foundation funded Moderna’s early mRNA work, and public records show that Gates himself owns more than 1 million shares of BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer to produce the COVID-19 vaccine.

It takes little imagination to see how a fund directed by Gates-linked institutions could steer money — intentionally or not — toward companies in which he holds a stake.

The web of influence extends into policy enforcement. The World Health Organization’s director-general oversees the International Health Regulations, a global framework that allows governments to impose quarantine, testing, or vaccination requirements during declared health emergencies. The United States accepted the IHR in 2005 but rejected the most recent amendments adopted in 2024, formally withdrawing from those obligations in July of this year.

Even so, the structure remains in place. If Washington — or any other government — adopted tighter compliance measures, it could channel money from the Pandemic Fund to purchase vaccines and “countermeasures.” Pharmaceutical companies would profit handsomely from policies that treat mass vaccination as the first and only line of defense. The more the world relies on vaccines as a universal solution, the more secure the profits for investors like Gates.

The Gates Foundation’s influence doesn’t stop at funding or investment. It appears on the WHO’s list of official “non-state actors,” a category that allows direct collaboration on projects and participation in committee meetings. In other words, the foundation helps set global health standards and then funds the programs that enforce them.

RELATED: Researchers tied to Fauci’s COVID cover-up still scoring big NIH grants

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

American taxpayers foot the bill

At the end of the chain, American taxpayers pay for it all. Washington’s seemingly benevolent $700 million “donation” to the Pandemic Fund comes straight from the U.S. Treasury. Every dollar funneled into this global health consortium began as someone’s paycheck.

In practice, the fund operates less like a charity and more like a taxpayer-financed slush fund for international health bureaucrats and private interests. The U.S. government collects money from citizens, passes it through the fund, and watches as the Gates Foundation, the WHO, and their network of NGOs redirect it to vaccine manufacturers, foreign governments, and organizations with which they maintain deep financial and institutional ties.

This system of influence moves wealth in one direction — up and out. Money leaves the hands of American workers and flows to a global health elite that hides behind the language of “pandemic prevention.” The slogans of safety and preparedness disguise a network that rewards insiders and deepens the dependence it claims to end.

Congress and federal auditors need to dig into where this money actually goes and who profits from it. Americans deserve to know whether their taxes support genuine public health or line the pockets of the same institutions that cashed in during the last pandemic.

Say no to synthetic: America needs real meat, not lab slop



The push for lab-grown and artificial meat is no accident. It is a coordinated campaign to reframe how Americans think about food. From glowing media coverage to celebrity endorsements, the message is clear: Ranching is destructive, eating real meat is backward, and the future belongs to synthetic substitutes.

Beneath the glossy propaganda lies a troubling experiment — one that threatens the livelihoods of ranchers, undermines food security, and hands more control of the food supply to corporate and global elites.

What ‘fake meat’ really means

Plant-based “meat” products like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use plant matter mixed with additives to mimic the flavor and texture of beef. Lab-grown “meat” is even more radical: animal cells cultivated in bioreactors through a chemical process, then marketed as the real thing.

These companies aren’t simply offering another option at the grocery store. They are trying to redefine what counts as food — and consolidate who controls it.

Both are ultra-processed concoctions. They imitate rather than nourish, raising serious questions about their long-term effects on human health.

Under normal circumstances, such products would remain niche novelties. But with heavy investment from billionaires like Bill Gates, development has accelerated. Gates has argued that “all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef” and poured millions into the industry. At the same time, mainstream media outlets have worked overtime to present lab-grown and plant-based meats as inevitable, urgent, and morally superior.

Follow the money

The driving force is not consumer demand. It is financial interest. These companies aren’t simply offering another option at the grocery store. They are trying to redefine what counts as food — and consolidate who controls it.

Consumers are told they are “saving the planet.” In reality, they are enriching investors and empowering corporations that want to dominate the food supply chain.

What’s in it?

The supposed “better” alternatives raise their own health concerns. Plant-based burgers are not vegetables pressed into patties but chemical cocktails that include methylcellulose, a laxative additive, and soy leghemoglobin, a genetically engineered substance designed to mimic myoglobin, the protein in meat that people often mistake for blood.

Lab-grown meat, even less tested, relies on processes with no precedent at scale. Regulators are barely beginning to study safety issues. Meanwhile, we already know ultra-processed foods shorten lives. A 19-year study linked high consumption of such foods to a 31% higher mortality rate, along with increased rates of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

To assume that fake meat will escape these dangers is wishful thinking.

The attack on ranchers

If this were merely a matter of consumer choice, the stakes would be lower. But the movement does more than promote itself. It vilifies ranching, branding cattlemen as climate villains.

That message lands hardest when ranchers are already under siege. U.S. cattle numbers have fallen to 86.7 million head — the lowest since 1951. Since 2017, more than 100,000 beef operations have closed, a 15% decline. Rising feed costs, volatile markets, and the dominance of giant packers already squeeze small producers. Fake meat could finish the job.

RELATED: Florida bans lab-grown ‘meat.’ Who’s next?

Photo by Nick Otto for the Washington Post

When family ranches collapse, food production falls even more under the control of corporate giants and investors with little connection to rural America. Transparency disappears. Communities lose their anchor. Consumers end up beholden to whoever controls the labs.

This push isn’t about “helping the planet.” It’s about gaining control and consolidating power.

What policymakers can do

Markets work only when buyers get honest information and producers compete on equal footing. State and federal officials should:

  • Require clear labels (“plant-based” or “cell-cultivated”) so shoppers know what they are buying.
  • Police false environmental or health claims.
  • Enforce competition laws to keep big buyers from crushing small ranchers.
  • Improve price transparency.
  • Help local producers connect with consumers and earn fair value for sustainable grazing.

Supporting ranchers and strengthening antitrust enforcement would do more for food security and public health than subsidizing experimental startups.

Keep food real

Fake meat is sold as progress. In reality, it risks damaging our health, weakening our food supply, and destroying the ranchers who have long fed the nation.

Even if lab-grown meat proves harmless, centralizing control over food erodes transparency, accountability, and community. The future of food should not be synthetic. It should be local, rooted in real ranching, and kept in the hands of Americans who have nourished this country for generations.