President Trump officially outlaws gain-of-function research



In a massive win for the Make America Healthy Again movement, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order banning all federal funding — present and future — for gain-of-function research abroad.

The order will also deputize the National Institutes of Health and other agencies to identify biological research harmful to public health or threatening to national security.

As Trump signed the executive order, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had a few comments of his own.


“This is a historic day. The end of gain-of-function research funding by the federal government, and also controls by private corporations on gain-of-function studies,” Kennedy said while standing next to the president. “This was the kind of study that was engaged in by the United States military and intelligence agencies, beginning in 1947.”

“By 1969, the CIA said that they had reached nuclear equivalency — that they could kill the entire U.S. population for 29 cents a person,” he continued. “That year, President Nixon went to Fort Detrick and announced a unilateral end to this kind of research — what they call dual-use research.”

Dual-use research, Kennedy explained, was “for vaccination and also for military purposes.”

Nixon then persuaded over 180 countries to sign the bioweapons charter in 1973, which essentially put an end to gain-of-function research across the globe — until the 9/11 and anthrax attacks — which led to the Patriot Act.

“The Patriot Act had a provision, a little known provision in it, that said that although the bioweapons charter is still in effect, and the Geneva Convention is still in effect, U.S. federal officials who violated it cannot be prosecuted,” Kennedy added.

“Now, you hear this and you’re like, ‘Well, they already told us that they were not supposed to be engaging in gain-of-function research, but they were,’” Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” comments.

“And they weren’t doing it with someone who you would call maybe our ally. They were doing it with, of course, China, which I just feel like it takes a basic level of intelligence to be like, ‘That’s a bad idea. That’s not a good idea,’” she continues.

And a bad idea it was.

“You’ve got America's health institutions implicated in the development of that man-made virus,” Gonzales says. “It makes you wonder how many more have happened or are on the way that we just don’t know about yet.”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump bans dangerous gain-of-function research, but will Congress follow through?



Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order banning federal funding for gain-of-function research abroad, particularly in countries like China and Iran, deemed to have insufficient research oversight. The order also pauses certain domestic research involving infectious pathogens and toxins until a safer, more transparent policy is developed. It aims to reduce the risk of lab-related incidents, like those associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, but doesn’t hinder U.S. innovation in biotechnology.

“This could be one of the most consequential things that Donald Trump will do in his entire presidency,” “Blaze News Tonight” host Jill Savage says.

“This is something that’s just pure justice that needed to be done to save this country from all the crap that we’ve been through in the last few years,” adds Blaze News editor in chief and co-host Matthew Peterson.

He notes that even President Obama, in response to concerns about biosafety risks following lab incidents, paused federal funding for certain gain-of-function research. Fauci, however, “thwarted Obama” and took his research abroad.

“Fauci was able to weasel his way out and continue this dangerous research throughout the world,” Peterson says. “This has to end,” and Trump’s executive order “is a great beginning.”

While it is certainly a good start, Jill points out the obvious next step: “We need people in Congress to step up to the plate.”

“In order to implement the mandate, you need Congress,” Peterson agrees, adding that sadly, “there isn’t a sense of urgency with a lot of these people.”

“Congress isn’t used to getting the job done,” he says. They like to “wait out the executive” and “slow roll things.”

That’s why it’s “vital that everyone out there start calling them and putting pressure on your congressmen.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode 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.

Sacrificing children on the altar of science: How the COVID-19 response hurt our most vulnerable



When COVID-19 washed up on American shores, everyone, including children, were believed by the top scientists in the country to be at grave risk. However, once the threat to children was found to be minimal, children instead became suspected of being “super spreaders.”

“Empirical evidence was being ignored, and instead, the officials were following theory. They made up all sorts of contrived reasons,” David Zweig, investigative journalist and author of “An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions,” tells Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable.”

Despite the fearmongering surrounding schools reopening and children’s status as “super spreaders,” the fact that cases went down in places like Europe after children went back to school didn’t phase the scientists.


“What that does suggest, of course, is that children were not super spreaders, schools were not driving the pandemic,” Zweig tells Stuckey. “The point is, the evidence was there that this wasn’t dangerous, this wasn’t increasing cases, and it was ignored, and it was dismissed with these contrived reasons.”

While the mainstream media and “the science” was focused on the potential harm faced by the immunocompromised, what they didn’t seem to care about was how social isolation, masks, and digital learning would affect children in the most formative years of their lives.

“There is something disordered in asking kids to sacrifice on behalf of adults,” Stuckey tells Zweig, adding, “There is something inherently unjust about that.”

“What they aren’t understanding, perhaps, is the incredible harm on so many children, millions of kids, and you have to think about what kind of society, as you said, what kind of society does this to children?” Zweig agrees.

“No one was saved by long-term school closures. No one was saved from masking 2-year-olds. No one was saved by barriers on desks and all this other nonsense. This was only harm. No trade-off. No benefit,” he continues.

“Even beyond the horrors of child abuse,” he says, which he notes became more prevalent during COVID, “there were plenty of kids who became anorexic and bulimic, screen time skyrocketed during the pandemic and never kind of went back down, anxiety, depression.”

"I talked with a lot of mental health professionals for children. Their practices were exploding during the pandemic, and it wasn’t because of people dying, let me be very clear about that. It was directly correlated with kids being kept out of school,” he explains.

Politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) claimed that their hard stance on COVID was only so strict because it was worth it to save even one life — but Zweig knows that couldn’t be further from the truth.

“You’re taking one or more lives to ostensibly try to save that one life. It was extraordinarily foolish,” Zweig says.

“Toxic empathy,” Stuckey chimes in. “It blinds you to reality and morality, and you ignore the victim on the other side of the moral equation.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

From trauma to truth: How Florida’s surgeon general found courage to challenge the pandemic narrative



On a recent episode of “Back to the People,” Nicole Shanahan interviewed Dr. Joseph Ladapo — a Nigerian-American physician and health policy researcher currently serving as the surgeon general of Florida.

One of the subjects they discussed was Dr. Ladapo’s role during the pandemic. Unlike the great majority of doctors who championed masks, social distancing, and lockdowns, Dr. Ladapo was courageous enough to report the truth: “The government was doing it wrong.”

“You rose to national fame because of your early findings on the lockdowns. You studied the science around mask efficacy and mask mandates and school closures, and like Jay Bhattacharya, you came to the conclusion that the federal government had it wrong,” says Shanahan. “I still remember hearing about how Florida was going to reopen before any other state did, and that was really under your guidance and leadership.”

“Honestly, Governor DeSantis deserves all the credit,” says Dr. Ladapo.

However, his courage to speak the truth traces all the way back to a childhood tragedy.

“I was a victim of sexual abuse,” he tells Nicole.

He adds that it “stunted my emotional development — my ability to emotionally connect with other people."

It wasn’t until adulthood when he met and fell in love with his wife that he was able to finally deal with the abuse in his past.

“Because my wife is so intuitive, she found a guy, a Navy SEAL named Christopher Maher. ... And he's very talented healer, and I ended up going to work with him ... and it was the most transformative experience I could ever imagine,” says Dr. Ladapo.

“When you get rid of 95% of the garbage we carry around to protect ourselves, guess what? You have more access to your love, you have more access to courage, you have more access to virtue.”

Nicole is shocked and encouraged by Dr. Ladapo’s vulnerability.

“You generally don't hear that level of honesty from people, especially people in official government roles,” she says. “You're the surgeon general. You are literally the mouthpiece for health in your state, and to hear you use that position of power to talk about healing trauma and what comes from it and through it is so powerful.”

Dr. Ladapo’s story about his journey to well-being isn’t an isolated event, though. It’s a signal that the tides in this country are turning, especially as they relate to health.

“Think about if every person in a position of power ... did that kind of work on themselves,” says Nicole.

“The world would look totally different — definitely for people in positions of power, but even for everyone because we are all powerful. We are all reflections of God's love and God's light and God's consciousness,” says Dr. Ladapo.

To hear more of the conversation, 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.

Minnesota AG Ellison Defends 'Routine' Meeting With Feeding Our Future Fraudsters, Saying He Wasn't Aware of FBI Investigation Into Them

Keith Ellison was not aware of a federal investigation into the sprawling Feeding Our Future fraud scheme when he took a friendly meeting with its perpetrators in December 2021, the Minnesota attorney general said in a Star Tribune op-ed. His defense flatly contradicts a statement his office released months later crediting him with working "for two solid years" to "hold Feeding Our Future accountable," including by assisting the investigation in its early stages.

The post Minnesota AG Ellison Defends 'Routine' Meeting With Feeding Our Future Fraudsters, Saying He Wasn't Aware of FBI Investigation Into Them appeared first on .

White House endorses COVID lab leak theory, but will anyone be held accountable?



On April 18, the White House publicly endorsed the COVID lab leak theory. The government’s official COVID website was also redirected to a new page titled “Lab Leak: The True Origins of COVID-19,” which contends that the virus originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, and was leaked by accident.

The revamped site criticizes Anthony Fauci, David Morens, Andrew Cuomo, the WHO, EcoHealth Alliance, and the Biden administration, among others, for actively promoting false information and covering up the truth.

It cites five points to support the lab leak claim:

1. “The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.”

2. “Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.”

3. “Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research (gene altering and organism supercharging) at inadequate biosafety levels.”

4. “Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.”

5. “By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t.”

After years of the Biden administration and his loyal media allies promoting a lie, it’s refreshing to see the government proclaim the truth.

But while Glenn Beck sees the website as “an amazing thing,” the information on it isn’t exactly news.

“Most of this stuff we had within six or eight months of the actual outbreak,” he says.

The real question is: “Who’s going to jail over this?”

The other question is: Why doesn’t the legacy media seem interested in correcting the narrative?

“Millions of people died here. You'd think that it would be something [the media] would focus on and draw a lot of attention to and continue to kind of beat the drum until someone was held responsible, and they don't seem to have any interest in that,” says co-host Stu Burguiere, noting that most of these outlets “have run an op-ed” about the lab leak theory and called it good.

“If we make a mistake, we correct it because it drives us crazy that we made the mistake, and I don’t want anybody to believe that I’m standing behind something that is wrong and a lie,” says Glenn.

The legacy media clearly doesn’t have the same convictions.

“They knowingly lied” about COVID, Joe Biden’s cognitive state, and Russiagate, and yet, “There’s no consequence.”

“They’re not going to lose any advertisers. The New York Times hasn't lost any real money because of this. Their people just continue to watch,” says Glenn.

To hear more of the conversation, 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.

Comer refers disgraced former NY Gov. Cuomo to DOJ for criminal prosecution: 'Caught red-handed'



Andrew Cuomo resigned as New York governor in August 2021 after a report by the state attorney general corroborated 11 women's sexual harassment claims against him. Investigators said that by groping employees and "making numerous offensive comments of a suggestive and sexual nature," the Democratic leader created a workplace "filled with fear and intimidation."

Cuomo, likely counting on New Yorkers to forgive or forget, now has his sights set on Gracie Mansion, the home of the mayor of New York City.

While currently fighting socialist Assembly Member Zohran Mamdani for dominance in the lead-up to the Democratic primary election in New York City's mayoral race, Cuomo may soon also have to fight federal criminal charges.

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) referred Cuomo to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution on Tuesday, evidently hoping Attorney General Pam Bondi will take the matter more seriously than her predecessor, who ignored the October referral of former Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio).

'It was a calculated cover-up.'

In his October criminal referral to former Attorney General Merrick Garland, Wenstrup, chair of the now-disbanded Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, noted, "Mr. Cuomo provided false statements to the Select Subcommittee in what appears to be a conscious, calculated effort to insulate himself from accountability. The Department of Justice should consider Mr. Cuomo's prior allegedly wrongful conduct when evaluating whether to charge him for the false statements."

Comer again seeks to hold the former governor accountable for allegedly making criminally false statements regarding his manipulation of a supposedly independent report concerning New York's COVID-19 nursing home tragedy.

"Andrew Cuomo is a man with a history of corruption and deceit, now caught red-handed lying to Congress during the Select Subcommittee's investigation into the COVID-19 nursing home tragedy in New York," Comer said in a statement.

"This wasn't a slip-up," continued Comer. "It was a calculated cover-up by a man seeking to shield himself from responsibility for the devastating loss of life in New York’s nursing homes. Let's be clear: Lying to Congress is a federal crime."

In March 2020, the Cuomo administration issued a directive stating, "No resident shall be denied re-admission or admission to [a nursing home] solely based on a confirmed or suspected diagnosis of COVID-19. [Nursing homes] are prohibited from requiring a hospitalized resident who is determined medically stable to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission."

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic noted in a September report that as a result of this directive, over 9,000 COVID-19 patients were readmitted or admitted to nursing homes between March 25, 2020, and May 8, 2020, "causing predictable but disastrous consequences."

A February 2021 study undertaken by the Empire Center for Public Policy concluded that Cuomo's March 25 guidance "was associated with a statistically significant increase in resident deaths" — deaths Cuomo and his administration were later found to have undercounted.

"Statewide, the findings imply that COVID-positive new admissions between late March and early May, which numbered 6,327, were associated with several hundred and possibly more than 1,000 additional resident deaths," said the study.

'What difference does it make in any dimension to anyone about anything?'

Adding insult to injury, congressional investigators determined that Cuomo "personally drafted and edited portions" of a Feb. 11, 2021, New York State Department of Health report that blamed the spike in nursing home deaths on nursing home staff rather than on his directive.

"An analysis of the timing of admissions versus fatalities shows that it could not be the driver of nursing home infections or fatalities," said the report.

Last year, Cuomo testified before Congress in a seven-hour closed-door interview. The Democrat claimed he was unaware of his devastating March 25, 2020, nursing home directive and suggested that nursing homes were not actually forced to admit COVID-positive patients.

When asked about the real death count, Cuomo channeled another controversial Democrat's callousness, telling congressional investigators, "Let's say there's a 3,000 differential, 2,500. Who cares? What difference does it make in any dimension to anyone about anything? Do you know what I'm saying?"

While evidently prickled by this and other comments, House Republicans took issue with the former governor's claims that "(1) he was not involved in the review or drafting of this Report, (2) he did not have any discussions about a peer-review of the Report, and (3) he did not have any knowledge of individuals outside the NYSDOH reviewing the Report."

All three claims are, according to the Comer, "demonstrably false."

"Mr. Cuomo must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law," Comer said in his Monday statement.

Cuomo spokesman Rich Azzopardi said in a statement obtained by NBC News, "This is nothing more than a meritless press release that was nonsense last year and is even more so now. As the DOJ constantly reminds people, this kind of transparent attempt at election interference and law-fare violates their own policies."

"Referrals like these — which have been also made against Planned Parenthood, Hillary Clinton, and Anthony Fauci — don't have to be resubmitted with a new administration, so the only point to doing this is politics," added Azzopardi.

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

James Comer Requests DOJ Prosecute Andrew Cuomo For Allegedly Lying To Congress

'Caught red-handed lying to Congress'

Fauci Refuses To Take Media Questions At Protested Florida Speaking Event

While Anthony Fauci retired in 2022, his wife was recently laid off by cuts to Fauci’s former agency, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Neoliberalism implodes in a crisis of truth and trust



Since the Enlightenment, liberalism has aimed to remove politics from the political. Given that human history is largely defined by clashing worldviews and violent conflict, the impulse to tame this dynamic is understandable. Liberalism, grounded in secular neutrality and rule of law, sought to suppress the passions that drive men to war. Its answer was to distribute power widely enough so that no single leader’s rage or charisma could lead a nation into chaos.

This project has reached its apex in today’s managerial neoliberal regime, where secular humanism serves as the ruling creed and experts, housed in supposedly impartial institutions, are tasked with determining truth. But the cracks in this foundation began forming long ago.

In the liberal order, the collapse of institutional credibility marks a crisis of truth. And so far, the only answer from the ruling class has been to scream, 'Shut up!'

Our ruling class members have willingly torched the credibility of the very institutions they rely on for legitimacy — all in pursuit of temporary political advantage. That destruction has accelerated a collapse that now feels inevitable. Liberalism faced an epistemological crisis and failed to meet the challenge. Like every tradition that cannot defend its intellectual ground, it is watching its authority erode into dust.

Neutral governance comes with clear benefits. It claims to free society from bitter conflicts over religion and identity. It promises a greater scale of cooperation by stripping away regional particularities — traditions, customs, prejudices — that make governing diverse populations difficult.

Even technical differences tied to nationhood, like currency, units of measurement, or contract law, obstruct trade. But by creating institutions that claim neutrality in matters of faith, culture, and commerce, liberalism increased the scale of possible coordination. It built what amounts to a “minimum viable morality,” a lowest common denominator that allowed incompatible systems to function together.

The problem? That same minimum morality now appears insufficient to hold anything together.

Instead of serving specific peoples with particular needs, modern institutions — staffed by credentialed experts — aim to impose rational, universal standards on everyone. The promise is simple: equal treatment under a neutral system. The administrators of this system are chosen not for their biases, but for their supposed objectivity.

These institutions soon become more than arbiters — they become the final authority on truth. In the liberal order, they are the only legitimate source of knowledge. If it isn’t institutional, it isn’t real.

The economic benefits of this arrangement are obvious. Large-scale cooperation yields immense material gains. Yes, traditions and religious customs may erode in the process, but who can argue with abundance? Prosperity silences most dissent.

As long as the ruling class preserves the credibility of the institutions, the system works. Managerial liberalism turned experts into a new priestly caste — with one crucial difference: This priesthood could actually make it rain. As long as the economy grew and the promises were kept, no one questioned the myth of neutral expertise. All the boats were rising. Why complain?

Unfortunately for the liberal order, human beings are predictably flawed. The institutions were never truly neutral, and the experts were never infallible. Over time, the ruling class got greedy. They stretched their credibility to justify wars and push social engineering — even when it clearly wasn’t in the public interest.

As their grip on power tightened, they grew bolder. Those who ran the system began treating institutional trust as a political currency to be spent. They traded legitimacy for short-term advantage, eroding the very foundation that kept their authority intact.

This trend hit its apex during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Across the board — from the World Health Organization to local physicians — experts promoted obvious falsehoods to maintain power. The betrayal was staggering.

After watching that coordinated institutional collapse, the public started asking uncomfortable questions. If medical professionals — the most trusted experts in life-and-death matters — could lie, what else has the system lied about? Elections? Wars? Economics? History? Suddenly, everything is up for re-examination.

This moment terrifies the ruling class. Its members' entire strategy relied on institutional consensus to shape truth and steer public opinion. This is why disillusioned liberal voices like Sam Harris or Douglas Murray, once celebrated for challenging orthodoxy, now beg the public to get back in the box and stop asking questions.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with how we know what we know. Under managerial neoliberalism, experts — and the institutions they populate — became the foundation of knowledge itself. Truth was whatever the expert consensus declared it to be.

Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (no relation) argued that the survival of any tradition depends on its ability to confront and resolve an epistemological crisis. In the liberal order, the collapse of institutional credibility marks just such a crisis. And so far, the only answer from the ruling class has been to scream, “Shut up!”

MacIntyre also insisted that resolving a crisis requires more than adopting a new framework. It demands understanding why the old one failed. But the current elite show no capacity for that kind of reflection. Instead of humility, we get hysteria — mockery, censorship, and cancellation from experts who should be asking how they got it so wrong.

The global neoliberal order has hit an epistemological wall, and its expert class members lack the wisdom or self-awareness to break through it. They will continue screeching and lashing out in defense of a collapsing worldview. But the truth is unavoidable: The era of rule by experts is ending.

This crisis brings danger, yes — but also opportunity. A new paradigm is emerging. And whatever comes next, it will not be governed by the priests of consensus.