Foreign workers are replacing Americans — now it’s happening in medicine



For years, Daniel Horowitz has been sounding the alarm about the deliberate replacement of American workers with foreigners. From H-1B visas to the OPT program for foreign graduates, the conservative commentator has been exposing the policies that keep Americans — especially young graduates — barred from high-paying tech, software engineering, and other STEM jobs.

Now the same pattern is hitting medicine.

Right now, many highly qualified American medical graduates are losing residency spots to foreign medical graduates.

On a recent episode of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz,” Horowitz and Houston ENT specialist Dr. Mary Talley Bowden dove into the startling statistics and offered a clear solution to the issue harming would-be American doctors.

Horowitz bemoans the reality that taxpayer dollars via Medicare are going toward programs that won’t even guarantee American students a residency placement. “We’re basically funding our replacement,” he says.

Dr. Bowden points to the shocking numbers from the residency match.

“6,600 foreign medical students got residency spots, and meanwhile … over 1,300 U.S. medical students did not get a spot,” she says, arguing that Americans are “getting the leftovers at that point.”

But it’s not just residencies — Americans are also being shut out of medical schools. “We are rejecting about 30,000 American students a year from medical school,” Dr. Bowden adds.

The solution, she says, is straightforward: Fill residency spots with American graduates first, then offer any remaining positions to foreign graduates. “We could just say, ‘Hey, everybody in the U.S. has to match first, and then we can do a match for the foreign residents,’” she tells Horowitz, who strongly agrees.

“No foreigner should be admitted into a medical school or residency program until every qualified American has a spot,” he says.

To hear more, watch the full episode above.

Reactions to SCOTUS ruling on conversion therapy come pouring in



In a case with potential far-reaching consequences in states with similar laws, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, that a Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors was unconstitutional.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, has gained a wide mix of reactions from think tanks, politicians, and media personalities alike.

'They believe it is more natural for a man to be a woman than for a man to be a man.'

Blaze News previously reported that the Daily Wire's Matt Walsh ripped into Jackson's dissent, saying that her opinion "just proves again that she is the most unfit, unqualified, unhinged lunatic to ever hold a seat on the Supreme Court."

Others celebrated the positive aspects of the case, touting the decision as a win for all of the victims who have been caught in the crosshairs of gender ideology.

RELATED: SCOTUS rules on law banning 'conversion therapy' — and 2 liberal justices break rank

DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images

Terry Schilling, the president of the American Principles Project, told Blaze News, "The Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for religious believers, parents, and, most importantly, vulnerable children. Colorado Democrats have shown they will stomp on the rights of anyone who stands in the way of the well-heeled gay and transgender lobby whether it is bakers, doctors, or desperate families."

"It should not take the lengthy legal battles or the Supreme Court to rein in the liberal war against reality. That is why fed-up Colorado families are appealing straight to voters to protect children from extremist Democrats," Schilling continued.

Ashley McGuire, author, radio host, and senior fellow at the Catholic Association, likewise showered the Supreme Court's decision with praise.

In a statement to Blaze News, McGuire said, "Efforts by left-wing ideologues to force health care professionals to violate their personal and religious beliefs have failed again. We applaud the Supreme Court's decision to protect the religious liberty and free speech rights of therapists in today's 8-1 ruling in the case of Chiles v. Salazar. This ruling also protects vulnerable children and upholds the rights of parents to seek care for their children in line with their personal beliefs."

The ruling is primarily a First Amendment case, which, notably, does not issue any opinion or ruling on the efficacy, morality, or legality of so-called conversion therapy itself, defined in the ruling as any treatments or attempts "to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity."

The issue, in simple terms, was that the law forced the plaintiff and other counselors who deal in the relevant field to adopt an affirming approach to minor patients who may have been confused about their sexual orientation or gender identity and were seeking to change it.

BlazeTV's Daniel Horowitz summed up this issue in a statement shared with Blaze News:

It is shocking how it has taken years to affirm such a basic right as two adults contracting with each other to engage in verbal therapy to affirm natural sexuality. It is even more shocking how the left believes a doctor can pursue a physical action to unnaturally change gender with castration, but you are banned from merely speaking with someone in support of their existing natural sexuality. They believe it is more natural for a man to be a woman than for a man to be a man. Their understanding of authentic individual rights as it intersects with governmental powers is as perfectly corrupted as one can imagine.

Democratic leaders, on the other hand, expressed their disapproval of the decision. In a reply to the Associated Press' report on X, California Governor Gavin Newsom said, "Conversion therapy is discredited junk science that inflicts harm on LGBTQ youth. The Supreme Court's decision is disappointing and puts vulnerable kids at risk."

On a lighter note, some social media users pointed out the humor of this decision being released on the so-called Transgender Day of Visibility, March 31.

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

Trump should not fill Alito’s seat with a ‘meh’ in robes



At the beginning of the year, one of my crystal-ball predictions for 2026 was that Samuel Alito and/or Clarence Thomas would retire so President Trump could replace them before the midterms.

Recent reporting suggests that prediction may prove correct, especially with speculation that Alito is considering stepping down. So I checked with some sources to see which names are circulating as possible replacements.

Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?

The reality is Alito is not easily replaced. He has been one of the best Supreme Court justices of this century. His successor cannot be some C-plus or B-minus judge with a fuzzy record and a habit of folding at the wrong moment. The stakes are too high.

That is why one name worries me: Judge Andrew Oldham.

Trump already passed on Oldham for the Supreme Court in 2020 and for good reason. What remains of our constitutional republic does not have time for a “meh” nominee.

Oldham, a former general counsel to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), now serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A quick look at his record shows a pattern that should alarm anyone hoping for another Alito.

Let’s start with life.

Alito authored the phenomenal majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade, one of the most wicked decisions in American history. Oldham’s record points the other way. In 2000, Bill Clinton’s FDA treated pregnancy as an “illness” to justify accelerated approval of abortion drugs as the supposed “cure.” Years later, a Trump-appointed district judge rightly rejected that decision, and a Trump-appointed circuit judge backed him. Oldham, however, became the first circuit judge to side with the Clinton FDA’s position on procedural grounds.

The American Family Association called that decision “shockingly weak” at the time. The Supreme Court effectively vindicated that criticism in 2024 when it overturned Oldham by a 6-3 vote.

Why should our side ever put a judge on the Supreme Court who sides with the left on the sanctity of life for any reason?

The concerns do not stop there.

AFA, which tracks judicial nominations as well as any group on the right, has also described Oldham as “soft” on COVID shot mandates. He earned that reputation when he wrote an opinion saying schools need not require children to wear masks, not because masks do not work, but because schools could instead adopt other COVID policies involving vaccines, plexiglass, hand sanitizer, distancing, and more.

The opinion was so weak that no other judge joined it.

Then came gender ideology. Last year, my Blaze Media colleague Daniel Horowitz reported on Oldham siding against doctors and with the Biden administration’s edict that they must perform gender-transition procedures on children by refusing even to hear their challenge. Oldham had a chance to join a Trump-appointed judge who rejected Biden’s grotesque mandate. He passed.

His immigration record raises more red flags.

RELATED: Supreme Court sides with Catholic parents against California on student gender notification — for now

Photo by Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Oldham declined to back a Trump-appointed district judge who ruled against allowing illegal aliens to receive cheaper in-state college tuition than out-of-state Americans. That alone should have disqualified him from serious consideration.

Thankfully, Trump’s Justice Department sued last year to end that practice in Texas, where Oldham’s former client is governor. Once the Justice Department sued, Texas finally conceded the point. Now left-wing groups want the courts to restore that anti-American policy. And which legal precedent are they citing? Oldham’s.

You cannot make it up.

Nor was that his only immigration failure. Oldham also ruled against Abbott when the governor declared an invasion at the southern border two years ago. Does that sound like a judge ready to overturn Plyler v. Doe, the disastrous precedent that for illegal immigration serves much the same function Roe once served for abortion?

Now sensing that his moment may have arrived, Oldham appears to be trying to retcon himself as a reliably based jurist. Even Slate has noticed the pattern — the judicial equivalent of a comb-over meant to hide an obvious weakness. The result has been embarrassing. He now gets overturned with some regularity by one of the most right-leaning Supreme Courts in recent memory.

That tends to happen when ambition outruns conviction.

Oldham once lobbied Barack Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren, of all people, to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Now he wants conservatives to view him as Alito’s natural heir. That kind of ideological shape-shifting should make everyone nervous. When a man’s career seems driven more by advancement than by principle, it becomes hard to know where he actually stands.

That was never a question with Alito.

Replacing a sure thing requires another sure thing. Oldham is not that. Maybe he has good explanations for parts of his record. But maybe Trump can do better.

This may be Trump’s last chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice. It would amount to a self-own of historic proportions for the most based president of modern times to replace Alito with someone appreciably weaker than a George W. Bush appointee turned out to be.

Is the GOP’s hyper-fixation on the SAVE Act allowing a much darker threat to fester?



The SAVE Act, which would require individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections, is currently stalled in the Senate. Republicans, led by President Trump and Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), are adamant on pushing it through, as it prevents noncitizen voting.

But is the GOP so hyper-fixated on passing it that it’s glossing over an even bigger threat?

According to Blaze Media’s Daniel Horowitz, the answer is yes.

“All you hear going into this new week is ‘the Save Act, the Save Act.’ Do you see what minutia that is when you look at the magnitude of what we're facing just with Islamic immigration?” he asks.

On this episode of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz,” the no-nonsense conservative analyst breaks down why the SAVE Act is actually a distraction from more pressing immigration issues.

“We basically let in ... several million people that believe in at least civilization jihad, don't like America, cultivate a climate where you have several hundred thousand people that downright support terrorism as a form of fulfilling their jihad,” says Horowitz.

In light of this looming threat, the SAVE Act is “so small potatoes,” he argues, calling it “an idolatrous bill“ that ignores the real problem.

“It's illegals being counted in the census, noncitizens being counted in the census, bringing in mass waves of people that become citizens and legally vote Democrat. That is a much bigger issue than the actual illegal voting,” Horowitz declares.

“Having Hezbollah, Hamas, Shabab, and Al-Qaeda-supporting Muslims in the millions in this country is a much bigger deal than the freaking SAVE Act,” he continues.

But stricter vetting isn’t the answer, he says.

Citing his interview with former Muslim Danny Burmawi, Horowitz contends that Islam is “not a religion” so much as it’s “a state” with its own “system of governance.”

Unlike in the Middle East, where governments often have to limit or modify strict Islamic practices to keep the state functional and avoid total dysfunction, Muslim immigrants in the West are free to express support for jihad and terrorism.

“We're trying to run our state, and they're able to actually implement a full unfettered, unadulterated Islamic state within the confines of our state. And that's how you have a greater concentration of jihad now in the West than you have even in the East,” says Horowitz.

Instead of focusing on the SAVE Act, he argues that the GOP’s attention should be fixated on “[shutting] off the new flow” of Muslim migrants and denaturalizing and deporting those here legally who support foreign terrorists.

“The Constitution is not a suicide pact,” he declares. “States are going to have to say no to mass migration — illegal and legal.”

To hear more of Horowitz’s in-depth breakdown, watch the full episode above.

Is your baby formula safe? Florida finds heavy metals in 16 of 24 top brands



Most parents who purchase baby formula trust that if the product is on the supermarket shelf, it must be safe for their child, but according to findings from the Healthy Florida First initiative, many of the top formula brands tested positive for heavy metals.

The state-led program, spearheaded by Governor Ron DeSantis (R), first lady Casey DeSantis, and Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo through the Florida Department of Health, aims to build a healthier Florida through independent testing and publication of contaminants in everyday foods.

On a recent episode of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz,” Horowitz interviewed Casey DeSantis about what Florida’s health initiative uncovered about 24 top-selling baby formulas and what parents can do to ensure that their children are receiving the best nutrition.

A Consumer Reports investigation released in March 2025 found potentially harmful levels of heavy metals, including arsenic and lead, in some of the 41 baby formulas tested. Around the same time, HHS and the FDA announced Operation Stork Speed, which increased testing for heavy metals and contaminants, reviewed nutrient standards, and strengthened oversight of infant formula safety.

Despite this initiative, DeSantis says that according to infant formula testing conducted by Florida’s Department of Health, “there hasn’t been much change at all.”

“And honestly, since we had our results coming out, I haven't heard anything from some of these baby formula manufacturers. And so it's like at what point in time is enough enough?” she says, calling metal toxicity in baby formula “unconscionable and unacceptable.”

Out of the 24 baby formulas tested, Florida’s Department of Health found that 16 contained one or more heavy metals exceeding current safety standards.

“Could you give us a summary of those shocking findings?” asks Horowitz.

“Sixteen out of the 24 had high levels of mercury. Two had lead. These are problematic heavy metals, right? They don't just leave the body. They're there for a while,” says DeSantis, “and our surgeon general said, you know, when you're exposed to this early in life in these quantities over the course of a year or two, your risk of getting cancer goes up exponentially.”

“I would encourage moms and dads and grandparents to go to exposingfoodtoxins.com because there you can see specifically which ones are better than others,” she adds.

“Don't tell me it's the manufacturing process and there's nothing that we can do, because certainly there are some manufacturers that are doing it better. So we should, as consumers, push to drive change because that's the right thing to do on behalf of families.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

Forget Greenland — we’re losing the real green land that feeds America



The world is abuzz with chatter about the United States’ pursuit of Greenland, but Daniel Horowitz, Blaze Media host of “Conservative Review with Daniel Horowitz,” says we ought to consider prioritizing a different kind of green land: “our pastures, our farms, our ranches.”

America’s food security, or lack thereof, is an issue that should deeply concern every American, he says. Between rising beef prices, the “endless shrinkage of ranchers exiting the farming business,” “the consolidation of corporate farms,” the “corporate monopoly of meat processors,” “inflation-driven land depreciation,” and the “government’s steering capital to data centers instead of ranches,” America’s ability to feed her people is growing weaker by the day.

Horowitz confesses he has grown weary of the Trump administration’s geopolitical distractions and obsession with building AI data centers when “the future of [America’s] food security is what matters.”

“We should be pushing for a Manhattan project for cheap and abundant food, for more ranchers, more farmers, more utilization of the land to produce American-made beef rather than cloud-based AI slop that's actually now about to pop as a bubble and is not really getting us anything,” he says.

Yet Horowitz sees this prioritization not as a purely conservative misstep, but as a clever pivot by the left.

The shift toward prioritizing AI over food production, he argues, is just progressives’ latest trick in their long game: “jiu-jitsuing” conservatives’ support for “functional energy” and funneling it toward “building their surveillance, transhumanist cloud” to create a world where “we own nothing, are dependent on government,” small businesses (including ranchers and farmers) are crushed, and we’re all forced to “put our lives on the cloud.”

Based on several Davos speeches delivered at this year’s World Economic Forum conference, it appears that fossil fuels are back in style with the elites, but Horowitz warns that their plan is to “siphon it all off for their cloud-based, transhumanist" trashing of the internet.”

“Consuming all of our land — not for food, farming, ranching — but for cloud. That's what this is all about,” he says.

He accuses the Trump administration of “literally digging our own grave” by handing power-hungry elites tax breaks, streamlined regulations, and priority land access for massive data centers, all while pushing policies that would block states and localities from using basic zoning rules to safeguard farmland and ranching.

In short, their efforts are paving the way for the destruction of farmland to build “massive power-sucking dung holes,” where our data will be stored and likely used to surveil us.

What this administration should be doing, Horowitz says, is “getting out of the way of ranchers and farmers so that we have safe, healthy, abundant, cheap food and protein in this country.”

To learn more about the boots-on-the-ground fight for food security in America, Horowitz interviews Texas cattle rancher and co-founder of the Beef Initiative Cole Bolton.

To hear their conversation, watch the full episode above.

Trump ‘needs to be honest’: Tariffs, the court, and a housing market built on lies



The Supreme Court’s latest delay in its tariff case is fueling speculation that justices are trying to craft a behind-the-scenes compromise to avoid market shock — even if it means quietly curbing presidential trade authority.

But Daniel Horowitz explains that the tariff ruling may be less important than the remedy itself, especially as another crisis tightens its grip on Americans: a frozen, inflated housing market that government policy continues to prop up instead of letting it reset.

“I think what they’re trying to do is two things. ... One is, they want to do it with as little disruption as possible. So they’re trying to think how that remedy works. And number two, I think particularly maybe for Thomas and Alito, they’re trying to figure out how not to get involved in a political question,” Horowitz tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace on the “Steve Deace Show.”


“And that’s really where I am. As you well know, I don’t believe the court should ever be the arbiter of a fundamental political disagreement. If it’s a problem, Congress should oppose and deal with it,” he continues.

Trump has also announced his plan to go after residential homes being bought up by global corporations like BlackRock, which sounds great to everyday Americans, but Horowitz believes the solution is even simpler.

“It was announced, no more, you know, BlackRock owning of homes, residential, you know, mass production of, or acquisition, I should say, of residential homes, things of that nature,” Deace says.

“This is a primary thing that the young male demographic that voted our way in the last election cares about. It’s a primary driver of the current situation in the economy. Not to mention the fact it’s the greatest source for individual liquidation that exists right now to the average American,” he continues.

“We’re sitting on all this liquid that could go back into the economy if we can get the housing market moving. What should they be doing, do you think?” Deace asks.

“Very simple. Let the bubble pop. And I know it sounds very simplistic, but it’s something that they refuse to do, and everything that they’re proposing will further fuel it. Corporate ownership is a symptom of the problem, not the problem,” Horowitz responds.

“The president needs to be honest with people. The biggest problem with the president economically is he doesn’t understand the mutual exclusivity of things. So, he wants insurance to cover everything, but he wants premiums to go down, right? He wants the welfare state, but he doesn’t want inflation. He wants seniors to have a checking account in the form of fake housing on unrealized gains, but he wants young people to be able to afford them,” he continues.

“If you want to actually get the economy back to what we all said we did, which is a broad-based income economy rather than an asset bubble, you’ve got to pull the plugs on all the things doing this. And it’s the exact opposite of what the president is saying,” he adds.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The ticking clock no conservative wants to admit about 2026 midterms



Conservatives across the nation are already fretting over 2026’s midterm elections, convinced that a Democrat wave would tie the Trump administration’s hands for the president’s final two years.

But BlazeTV hosts Steve Deace and Daniel Horowitz argue that’s the wrong mindset entirely. Rather than obsessing over winning elections they argue Democrats will almost certainly take, Republicans instead must be laser-focused on enacting permanent, fortress-like reforms right now — while they still hold power — before the window slams shut.

“Will we jam through what it is we came to achieve — enduring victories — and meet the moment before that door slams?” asks Horowitz.

On this episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” Deace and Horowitz lay out a stark warning: Republicans have a narrow window to enact bold, lasting reforms before the inevitable Democratic wave hits in 2026.

A Democrat wave, argues Horowitz, is almost inevitable given that the economy “is really bad” and “going to get worse.”

“I don't want to hear about the 2026 midterms. I don't want to hear about the presidential,” he says.

“It's not a question of how many seats will the Democrats win in a Congress that doesn't do anything anyway. The question is: Will you use the power you currently have at the federal and state level to cement enduring change, open an economic path, alleviate the demographic time bomb, and build fortresses around policies?”

If the Trump administration fails to make deep, structural reforms that are difficult to reverse before the inevitable swing back at midterms, Horowitz warns that come 2029, we’ll be right back in the same boat we were in in 2021, when the Biden regime ushered in the unholy trinity: “January 6 persecution,” the reign of BLM, and “COVID fascism.”

“In 2021, we had no benefits of the Trump presidency left. We cannot be in that position in January 2029,” he stresses. “So now is the time to sow in tears so we reap in joy.”

Deace agrees and imagines a “doomsday scenario” where the Trump administration fails to make permanent changes and the Democrats win big in the midterms, taking control of both the House and the Senate.

“Not only is President Trump under a constant threat of impeachment, so is Pete Hegseth. So is RFK Jr. So is Marco Rubio. … I have no idea if you can impeach a senior adviser to the president like Stephen Miller. I'm sure they will figure out a way,” he says.

“But on top of that, we then watch them repeal the filibuster in the Senate at the exact same time … so then they can do whatever they want. That outcome cannot be permitted to happen,” he adds.

Horowitz says there are two things that must happen before midterm elections.

“Number one, at the federal level, you have to think of systemic reforms that Trump will go to the mat with Congress” over — full immigration/foreign worker moratorium, repealing Obamacare outright, and capping/devolving welfare programs to the states — so Democrats can't just flip them back easily when they return to power.

Number two: “Jazz up your base and entice them to actually vote for something in a general [election],” while also focusing on primaries to elect strong, fighter-type leaders who will actually stand firm and build "fortresses" when Democrats come back swinging.

If these two things don’t happen, he warns “we’re going to face the Fourth Reich with nothing but a feather in our hands as a weapon.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Big Tech colonization is real — zoning laws are the last line of defense



How much of America’s rural landscape, power, water, quality of life, and heritage will be wiped out by one industry — AI data centers? Big Tech firms won’t say. Evidently, it’s as much as we’re willing to tolerate.

David Sacks and his Silicon Valley allies know the stakes. They tried to slip a provision into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to block all zoning and regulation of AI facilities. Why? Because the only way to cover the country with thousands of hyperscale data centers is to turn rural America into one giant industrial park — with no transparent public plan, no limits on power or water use, and no end in sight.

Zoning remains one of the few tools citizens can use to say no — not just to data centers, but to the entire agenda of unaccountable technocracy.

Before Mark Zuckerberg’s Manhattan-sized complexes even break ground, the United States is already on track for these facilities to consume more energy annually than Poland — a nation of 36.6 million people — used in 2023. That’s not a tech “footprint.” That’s a tech crater.

But a counterrevolution is building.

Loudoun County: The canary in the coal mine

If you want to see America’s future under digital colonization, look at Loudoun County, Virginia. The growth of hyperscale data centers there is so unnatural that some neighborhoods now want to rezone themselves as industrial just to escape.

Patricia Cave says life in her Arcola neighborhood has become impossible, as she and her neighbors have become essentially barricaded by server farms.

“Living on Hiddenwood Lane is no longer an option,” Cave told the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors last year. “We can’t be victims again to political winds that are bigger than us — and we can’t be a human buffer.” The only way she and her neighbors can sell their homes — at pennies on the dollar — is to convert them to industrial property.

Just 10 years ago, Cave’s neighborhood was ringed by rural farmland. Now, with 200 data centers covering roughly 49 million square feet in what’s known as Data Center Alley, you can’t escape their reach. About one-third of Loudoun County’s data centers now sit near residential areas.

Frederick County: Drawing a line

In Frederick County, Maryland, officials saw the writing on the wall and set a hard limit: No more than 1% of the county’s landmass can be used for data centers. It’s a rare example of local government acting to protect the character, environment, and livability of their communities before the tech giants could hollow them out.

Monroe County: Fighting for their ground

In Monroe County, Georgia, residents fought off a proposed rezoning that would have put a massive data center next to homes and farms. The company behind it claimed it would bring jobs. Locals pointed out the reality: a handful of maintenance workers, huge power demands — 1.1 gigawatts, more than the daily usage of a million households — and a future of noise and light pollution.

Residents won — for now.

The pattern is clear

Local victories are more the exception than the rule. The reality is that Big Tech companies are expanding across America with little or no resistance.

Tech companies claim these facilities are the backbone of the future. In reality, they’re engines of resource consumption — each one sucking up hundreds of millions of gallons of water and enough electricity to power the equivalent of large cities in counties with populations in the low five figures.

RELATED: Is this how we beat China? Trump’s AI dream guts small-town USA

Photo by blackdovfx via Getty Images

Meta, for example, wants to drop a 1.2-gigawatt behemoth in tiny Cheyenne, Wyoming — enough juice for 1 million homes. In drought-stricken Texas, Microsoft, OpenAI, and others are pushing the Stargate project, a cluster of hyperscale data centers around Abilene that would guzzle the power of millions of homes and drain staggering amounts of water. Smaller facilities in Texas have already consumed 463 million gallons in 2023 and 2024.

The profits leave town. The costs — environmental, economic, and social — stay behind.

But the real danger is Washington overriding local efforts to preserve local residents' way of life. If Congress strips away zoning authority in the name of “progress,” the only “progress” will be toward an industrialized, unlivable countryside.

Why zoning matters

Public zoning meetings are the last places where ordinary citizens can stop these projects. Federalizing control would silence local voices. In court, zoning remains one of the few tools citizens can use to say no — not just to data centers, but to the entire agenda of unaccountable technocracy.

For once, the stakes are obvious: if we lose local control, we lose the fight. Loudoun County shows what surrender looks like. Frederick County and Monroe County show what resistance can achieve.

It’s time to choose.

Soldier discharged under Biden after refusing COVID vax finally gets justice, thanks to Trump



Mark Bashaw, a former lieutenant in the U.S. Army, finally has a measure of justice after he was criminally convicted and discharged for refusing to abide by COVID-related protocols implemented under President Joe Biden.

In August 2021, then-Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin imposed a COVID vaccine mandate for members of the military, claiming the shots were critical for maintaining healthy, ready armed forces. Those like Bashaw who refused were required either to work from home or to subject themselves to COVID testing before going into the office, where they would have to wear a mask.

Bashaw — the company commander of the Army Public Health Center in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland — refused to abide by those directives. As a result, he was convicted by a court martial in 2022 of failing to obey lawful orders.

In a 2023 social media post, he claimed he had been court-martialed because he "refused to participate with lies." Following his conviction, he was involuntarily discharged.

Some 8,000 service members were similarly discharged from the military for refusing the shot. However, Bashaw is believed to have been the first to be court-martialed for failing to adhere to the COVID protocols issued by Austin, The Hill reported.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump issued Bashaw a full and unconditional pardon.

Bashaw's conviction did not result in any jail sentence, but it did give him a criminal record. Trump's pardon wipes his record clean.

Bashaw celebrated the news of his pardon on social media: "I just received a Presidential Pardon from President Donald J. Trump. I am humbled, grateful, and ready to continue fighting for truth and justice in this great nation. Thank you, Mr. President @realDonaldTrump and to your incredible team."

After thanking others, including former U.S. Attorney for D.C. Ed Martin, Bashaw's post added: "Time for accountability!" It also included an image that described COVID as a "plandemic."

RELATED: Ed Martin floats names of 'gatekeepers' in Biden autopen controversy; Trump accuses exploiters of 'TREASON'

Photo by Craig Hudson For The Washington Post via Getty Images

Blaze News senior editor Daniel Horowitz applauded Bashaw's courage despite his "unfathomable" suffering "under the Biden-controlled DOD."

"It’s easy to be a hero now that COVID tyranny has been universally repudiated and it no longer costs anything to take a stand. Yet, Bashaw risked his entire career and even time in the brig for standing up for the rule of law and the medical ethics of public health," Horowitz told Blaze News.

Horowitz also thanked Trump for making good use of his pardon powers: "Well played, Mr. President."

BlazeTV host Steve Deace, who has long railed against the COVID shots, was likewise pleased to hear that Trump intervened in Bashaw's case.

"This is another commendable act of penance by President Trump for the mistakes of his first administration during the scamdemic, which set the stage for the outright tyranny imposed by whoever was making decisions for Biden the last four years. His language at times certainly has its bravado, but President Trump is really showing great humility in unraveling the original COVID narrative his first term succumbed to," Deace said in a statement to Blaze News.

RELATED: Damning new episode of BlazeTV's 'The Coverup' blows lid off Biden's 10-year pardon for Fauci

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

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