Is the AI boom really about intelligence — or building a surveillance state?



Artificial intelligence has already transformed the way Americans work and research.

But BlazeTV host Daniel Horowitz believes the public is being sold an inflated vision of artificial general intelligence — and pouring staggering resources into the wrong model to achieve it.

“I actually like AI,” Horowitz tells BlazeTV host Steve Deace. “And I believe for narrow tasks, edge computing, localized sovereign data ... there’s a lot of good stuff being done.”

“My concern is, we’re misallocating resources away from the most useful, least painful, least consuming analogues of AI and using an all-of-government approach towards this AGI, which in my view is the least useful ... most expensive, really unfeasible the way they’re trying to do it, and also problematic,” he explains.

“For the average person out there, like me, that only knows about AI doing that or asking ChatGPT questions, help them understand the distinction that you just drew in ways that would relate to their understanding of the technology,” Deace says.


“If you want an ‘ask me anything,’ what they did was get people addicted to it, and then they’re like, ‘OK, it doesn’t cost anything,’” Horowitz explains.

“But then it does. Actually, we’re going to have to build five hyperscales in every county, and this much power, and yada yada, and make everything else more expensive,” he says.

“So, now that’s an ROI thing,” he continues. “It’s not that there is no use to artificial general intelligence, right — this open-ended generative AI. It’s not that there’s no use to it. It’s that there is a question of an ROI in the way they’re going about doing it.”

“Is it accurate to say that you believe, therefore, we’re overselling this technology to the American people based on what you just told us?” Deace asks.

“We’re overselling the need and utility of centralized cloud hyperscale model for AI. In terms of deploying it in low latency, narrow at the edge, there's things like the Iron Dome in Israel. You know, Israel has no hyperscale,” Horowitz replies.

“My core thesis is what they’re selling you on — again, and people could disagree with me, but my contention is that, just the opposite. Not only am I not opposed to it, I believe they are doing what government does in health care and many other sectors,” he continues.

“They’re misallocating resources towards a bubble and to Oracle’s grift of their 1970s technology of a centralized cloud in an impossible way that would perpetually have to scale in a way that either becomes obsolete or unfeasible,” he adds.

Horowitz goes on to explain that one of the only reasons this is being done is “a surveillance state.”

“Remember, China doesn’t have nearly as many of these because they built their surveillance state — in large part from these same companies, by the way — before AI. So, they already have it. They don’t need it,” he says.

And what Horowitz finds extremely concerning is that auto companies have just “won the rights to your texts when they get cycled through the car player.”

“They got all of it, and they won in court that they’re able to keep it,” he says.

“Your car, your home, your appliances. They would ideally want every step you make, every breath you take,” 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.

SCOTUS just redefined citizenship — but it’s not the final word



Eleven years ago, after the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obergefell redefined marriage, Daniel Horowitz published his book “Stolen Sovereignty," warning that a day was coming soon when the court would redefine what citizenship means — “the ultimate question” of every civilization.

Today, his prediction came true. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of birthright citizenship — determining that any child born in the United States, regardless of the parents’ immigration status, is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment.

Now that the gavel has fallen, what is needed, says Horowitz, is not an “analysis of the [majority] opinion,” but a willingness to “[look] forward” to what comes next.

On this episode of “Conservative Review,” Horowitz explains why this SCOTUS ruling is only a travesty if we allow it to be.

“The important thing is not what the court said but what Trump and the Republican Party in control of Congress and, frankly, the red states … will do with this opinion,” he declares.

Calling the ruling “the Waterloo moment of judicial supremacism,” Horowitz argues that the executive and legislative branches have “an obligation to act in concert with what [they] know to be true” — namely, to “say no and not issue it.”

Because the judiciary lacks the power of the purse or the sword, its rulings are not self-executing on the other branches; they depend on the executive and legislative branches choosing to give them effect.

“The action item from here is very simple,” says Horowitz.

“Congress, in budget reconciliation and/or the appropriation bills to fund the government past October 1, [fiscal year] 2027, must prohibit the funding for the issuance of passports and, obviously, birth certificates to people [who] cannot show that one parent is a [legal permanent resident].”

As for the executive branch, it “should just say no,” Horowitz states bluntly.

“This should be Trump’s entire focus — just this,” he says. “All the political capital they're going to expend on holding up the NDAA, holding up the Farm Bill ... — it needs to be for defunding the issuance of … citizenship documents to illegals and tourist visas.”

To accept a ruling from SCOTUS — made up of unelected, life-tenured judges — as unassailable law, Horowitz warns, is like allowing “tyranny worse than King George” to govern our land.

“How fortuitous and tragic that it's on the week of July Fourth 250th celebration … that we are being told that [] the unelected branch, without consent, could engage in social transformation without representation … that they could determine [birthright citizenship] with finality, including allowing the entire world to come in and dilute our citizenship and help vote and determine everything else as well,” he exclaims.

“That is not a thing. That is something that we never adopted, and it cannot and must not go through.”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Corporate giants vs. the family farm: New initiative targets the monopolies pillaging rural America



The American family farm is being systematically wiped out as corporate monopolies are taking over our food supply.

That’s why Joe Maxwell of the Farm Action Fund has launched the bipartisan Rural Independence Initiative — to take on what BlazeTV host Daniel Horowitz calls the pillaging of rural America.

“We just released a paper along with the launch of the Rural Independence Initiative, a bipartisan, cross-partisan organization, the only political organization that’s pro-healthy food, pro-farmer, pro-rural America,” Maxwell tells Horowitz.

“We want candidates that will fight for markets — fair and free markets — healthy food, and economic independence from monopoly control,” he explains, pointing out that he doesn’t care whether they’re Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.


Maxwell says this is because “both parties are working against the people and for corporate monopoly oligarchy control of our economy.”

“And therefore, what we eat, what we can raise, how we’re going to produce it, and then ultimately control of our government,” he adds.

“Exactly, because if you look at the farm bills, which are always overwhelmingly bipartisan, they’re pushed by both parties, the same monopolization of the land, obsessive support for very specific things, very specific crops, often not even for food,” Horowitz agrees.

“So, they’ll say, ‘I’m for rural America, America’s farms, America’s heartland.’ But the reality is, they’re all on the same side. They’re all against us,” he adds.

And while Maxwell is fighting for rural America, what he’s fighting for isn’t special treatment, but fairness.

“A rural worker will make about $24,000 a year less than the average metropolitan worker. ... Rural grandparents will see more of their grandchildren die before the age of 1 than metropolitan grandparents, and rural grandchildren will lose their grandparents three years earlier than metropolitan,” he explains.

“So, the policy has to begin with a lens towards representing people, individual businesses — whether that’s a meat packer or a light manufacturer in rural America or whether that’s the farmer,” he continues. “We have to break the grip that these companies have on these sectors to restore the wealth and the quality of life for rural Americans.”

The 3 biggest lies justifying massive AI data centers DEBUNKED



Right now, massive AI data centers are gobbling up rural land, uprooting the farms and ranches that could guarantee America’s food sovereignty.

This Big Tech land-grab is often rationalized with a number of defenses: beating China in the AI race, creating rural jobs and economic growth, and advancing technology and national security.

But Daniel Horowitz insists that we’re being lied to.

“We're being told that we need to gobble up all of our land — by the way, often with foreign investors — because somehow that is the only way to excel at artificial intelligence,” he says.

But “the surest way of achieving this dystopian nightmare of this techno-feudalism, where we own nothing, is to take the scarcest and most precious resource of land from its decentralized control of American households, homesteaders, ranchers, farmers, small businesses, and centralizing it behind the global tech moguls.”

On this episode of “Conservative Review,” Horowitz, alongside CEO of Fractal Web and AI software expert Michael Cation, dismantles the AI data center advocates' three biggest arguments.

- YouTube

1. The China argument

According to the data center advocates, America must build massive, hyperscale data centers — and sacrifice rural land and power for them — to achieve AI dominance and beat China in the global race.

But Horowitz calls this a “false choice.”

They argue that this is “the only way of achieving dominance in AI, when in fact, you're actually going to go backwards and misallocate resources away from what is an auspicious use of AI,” he says.

Further, in trying so hard to build these hyperscale data centers to beat China in the AI race, America is rezoning and handing over huge amounts of rural farmland and power infrastructure to massive corporate developers — many of them foreign-owned. Horowitz points to President Trump recently floating the idea of allowing China to invest $1 trillion in U.S. land and factories.

“We need that to beat China, but then somehow we're just going to have China own more American infrastructure and land at a time where I thought we all wanted to ban that,” he says, calling it “hypocrisy.”

2. The rural jobs/economic growth argument

Another argument claims that building giant data centers in rural areas will bring thousands of construction and operational jobs, generate big tax revenue, attract more businesses, and deliver much-needed economic growth and prosperity to struggling small towns.

Horowitz condemns this argument as a scam, claiming that these massive centers will only deliver mostly temporary, low-quality construction work performed by imported or illegal labor, destroy productive farmland, spike local crime, and provide almost no lasting economic benefit to actual residents.

“Laramie County Planning Commission is planning an 800-unit man camp that could house up to 5,600 workers, which is more than most towns in Wyoming, and we all know who monopolizes those jobs: a bunch of illegal aliens,” he says.

Citing an article from Wyoming’s Cowboy State Daily outlet, he reads, “Man camps in similar locations have led to an increase in property crime, DUIs, drug crimes, and violent crimes.”

3. The advancing technology and national security argument

Another argument perpetuated by the data center advocates contends that massive, hyperscale data centers are essential for advancing cutting-edge AI technology and protecting national security because only these giant centralized facilities can provide the enormous computing power, massive data processing, and rapid innovation needed to stay ahead of rivals like China in critical areas like defense, intelligence, and technological superiority.

Again, Horowitz throws the red flag. He and Cation dispute this claim by arguing that giant centralized data centers are actually a national security liability and the wrong path for real technological progress.

“AI is not all about cloud-based LLMs for data centers. … With edge computing, you could actually do so much more on local servers, local devices,” says Horowitz.

He points to Israel’s Iron Dome as an example. It’s a highly effective defense system that relies on localized edge computing — fast, on-site AI processing in distributed batteries — rather than depending on giant, vulnerable centralized data centers.

If it did rely on massive data centers, it would “a huge security” risk, especially in Israel's ongoing war with Iran, he argues.

Cation, an expert in computing infrastructure, drives home the national security point with this powerful rebuttal: “In the defense world … large data centers [are] called high-value targets. … The thing that can’t be destroyed are distributed systems.”

Together, they argue that the real future of secure and effective AI lies in edge computing, narrow AI, and fractal computing — decentralized systems that are faster, cheaper, more resilient, and far less vulnerable than massive, centralized data centers.

To hear more, watch the episode above.

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.