China is arming itself with minerals America refuses to mine



The global energy system is buckling under the weight of its own contradictions. Electricity demand keeps rising, yet policymakers insist that renewables alone can carry the load. Artificial intelligence, electric vehicles, and a wave of reindustrialization are driving consumption far faster than today’s grid can support. Nowhere is that tension more visible than in the United States, where soaring demand collides with aging infrastructure and unrealistic clean-energy mandates.

America stands at a crossroads. One path deepens dependence on foreign supply chains dominated by China. The other rebuilds domestic energy strength, restores industrial capacity, and creates high-wage jobs. The question isn’t whether a green transition will happen — it is who will own the minerals, the infrastructure, and the economic power behind it.

Energy dominance is not a slogan. It is the practical foundation of American greatness.

Electricity demand jumped nearly 4% in 2024, almost double the decade’s average. Data centers, electrified transport, and manufacturing growth are reshaping the energy landscape. The International Energy Agency projects global data-center power use will more than double by 2030, approaching 1,000 terawatt-hours. In the U.S., these facilities alone could soon account for 10% of national consumption.

Without major investment in reliable, affordable energy, this surge will strain the grid and weaken American competitiveness.

We have already seen the danger of relying on foreign suppliers. While Western governments debated climate rhetoric, China quietly secured control over the minerals the modern economy runs on — lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and rare-earths. Beijing now refines more than 70% of the global supply.

These materials aren’t optional. They are the foundation of EV batteries, grid storage, wind turbines, solar panels, and the defense systems that protect U.S. interests. Allowing China to dominate them puts both the economy and national security in a vulnerable position.

President Trump recognized that threat early. His energy-dominance agenda expanded domestic production, cut regulatory barriers, and revived investment in mining and industrial infrastructure. That legacy now forms the basis for a renewed push to bring extraction, processing, and refining back to U.S. soil.

The economic impact is substantial. Every new lithium mine, copper refinery, or processing plant means high-wage jobs, stronger rural communities, and a revived manufacturing base.

Private enterprise is already moving faster than any government program. BGN International — one of the world’s most dynamic energy and commodities firms — has expanded its American operations in liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas, the fuels that underpin grid reliability. BGN is also moving aggressively into critical minerals, supplying copper, aluminum, and rare-earth elements essential for the grid, clean-energy systems, and the emerging AI economy.

By linking American producers to global demand, BGN strengthens domestic supply chains and ensures that the value stays in the United States.

Meanwhile, Energy Transfer continues to expand its network of pipelines and terminals that move oil, natural gas, and the feedstocks needed for mineral processing and clean-tech manufacturing. Together, companies like Energy Transfer and BGN form the quiet engine of America’s comeback — building the infrastructure that powers the future, from LNG terminals to mineral-supply hubs in the Midwest.

This is what a real energy transition looks like: not offshoring, not dependence, but American innovation paired with American resources and American workers. The shift to cleaner energy can either hollow out the country or rebuild it. The difference lies in where we source, refine, and transport the materials that make it possible.

RELATED: ‘Reminiscent of the Manhattan Project’: Trump administration launches massive next-gen AI program

Nelson Ching/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Every ton of copper or rare-earth minerals refined at home is another step toward energy security — and another paycheck for an American worker.

America’s shale reserves, its underdeveloped mineral deposits, and its unmatched private-sector capacity give it every advantage in this new industrial age. What the country needs is leadership that understands the link between energy independence, manufacturing strength, and national power.

By investing in the fuels, minerals, and infrastructure that keep the lights on and the factories running, the United States can secure both its prosperity and its freedom.

Energy dominance is not a slogan. It is the practical foundation of American greatness. The world is entering an era in which whoever controls energy and critical-mineral supply chains controls the global economy. By unleashing its entrepreneurs and trusting its workers, America can lead that era on its own terms.

The next American century will not be powered by dependence or bureaucratic mandates but by free enterprise, industrial competence, and the spirit of self-reliance. Critical minerals and energy independence are not merely economic issues. They are matters of national pride, national security, and American leadership.

Trump’s Caribbean ‘drug wars’ are forging a new Monroe Doctrine



For decades, we’ve been told America’s wars are about drugs, democracy, or “defending freedom.” But look closer at what’s unfolding off the coast of Venezuela, and you’ll see something far more strategic taking shape. Donald Trump’s so-called drug war isn’t about fentanyl or cocaine. It’s about control — and a rebirth of American sovereignty.

The aim of Trump’s ‘drug war’ is to keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

The president understands something the foreign policy class forgot long ago: The world doesn’t respect apologies. It respects strength.

While the global elites in Davos tout the Great Reset, Trump is building something entirely different — a new architecture of power based on regional independence, not global dependence. His quiet campaign in the Western Hemisphere may one day be remembered as the second Monroe Doctrine.

Venezuela sits at the center of it all. It holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves — oil perfectly suited for America’s Gulf refineries. For years, China and Russia have treated Venezuela like a pawn on their chessboard, offering predatory loans in exchange for control of those resources. The result has been a corrupt, communist state sitting in our own back yard. For too long, Washington shrugged. Not any more.

The naval exercises in the Caribbean, the sanctions, the patrols — they’re not about drug smugglers. They’re about evicting China from our hemisphere.

Trump is using the old “drug war” playbook to wage a new kind of war — an economic and strategic one — without firing a shot at our actual enemies. The goal is simple: Keep the hemisphere’s oil, minerals, and manufacturing within the Western family and out of Beijing’s hands.

Beyond Venezuela

Just east of Venezuela lies Guyana, a country most Americans couldn’t find on a map a year ago. Then ExxonMobil struck oil, and suddenly Guyana became the newest front in a quiet geopolitical contest. Washington is helping defend those offshore platforms, build radar systems, and secure undersea cables — not for charity, but for strategy. Control energy, data, and shipping lanes, and you control the future.

Moreover, Colombia — a country once defined by cartels — is now positioned as the hinge between two oceans and two continents. It guards the Panama Canal and sits atop rare-earth minerals every modern economy needs. Decades of American presence there weren’t just about cocaine interdiction; they were about maintaining leverage over the arteries of global trade. Trump sees that clearly.

RELATED: A war on Venezuela would be a war on reality

Photo by PEDRO MATTEY/AFP via Getty Images

All of these recent news items — from the military drills in the Caribbean to the trade negotiations — reflect a new vision of American power. Not global policing. Not endless nation-building. It’s about strategic sovereignty.

It’s the same philosophy driving Trump’s approach to NATO, the Middle East, and Asia. We’ll stand with you — but you’ll stand on your own two feet. The days of American taxpayers funding global security while our own borders collapse are over.

Trump’s Monroe Doctrine

Critics will call it “isolationism.” It isn’t. It’s realism. It’s recognizing that America’s strength comes not from fighting other people’s wars but from securing our own energy, our own supply lines, our own hemisphere. The first Monroe Doctrine warned foreign powers to stay out of the Americas. The second one — Trump’s — says we’ll defend them, but we’ll no longer be their bank or their babysitter.

Historians may one day mark this moment as the start of a new era — when America stopped apologizing for its own interests and started rebuilding its sovereignty, one barrel, one chip, and one border at a time.

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

Plugged in, checked out: The Dept. of Energy needs a reality surge



The Department of Energy needs a complete overhaul.

Congress established the DOE in 1977 in response to the 1973 oil crisis, consolidating a patchwork of energy-related programs under one roof. The department took over the management of nuclear programs, national research labs, and a variety of alternative energy efforts. Its 2025 budget tops $50 billion. It supports 14,000 employees and a staggering 95,000 contractors across 83 field locations.

The Department of Government Efficiency should scrutinize the DOE’s effectiveness like any other federal agency. But this department demands a different kind of review. The issue isn’t just waste or mismanagement. It’s mission.

Energy is the lifeblood of any advanced society. The DOE should pursue one overriding goal: making America energy-independent with a long-term strategy for cheap, abundant power. That’s not what it’s doing.

Yes, the energy sector should remain a free-market enterprise. But it’s also a national asset. Energy production and distribution are essential to American sovereignty, economic security, and global influence. That makes the DOE more than just another bloated bureaucracy — it’s a strategic liability unless restructured with purpose.

If the DOE can’t define that purpose, the DOGE must.

Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity.

One of the department’s core missions should be to secure American energy independence. This is not just good policy — it’s a national security imperative.

Wars are won or lost based on the ability to fuel military and industrial operations. If America can’t meet its own energy needs, it risks becoming dependent on hostile regimes that can — and will — weaponize energy supplies against us.

Previous administrations have sabotaged this mission. The DOE should not focus on environmental goals like reducing carbon emissions. Those objectives often conflict with the department’s strategic purpose. “Climate change” is not a scientific certainty — it’s an ideological construct. Sea levels have risen 400 feet over the past 20,000 years, submerging the ruins of countless ancient civilizations, and none of that was caused by human industry.

Yet the Energy Department continues to throw billions at preventing a hypothetical sea rise of just a few feet — this time supposedly caused by human activity. That’s not just wasteful; it’s dangerously off mission. Nearly 40% of recent DOE budgets have gone to renewables and carbon capture. That funding should be powering the country — not chasing climate fantasies.

It’s absurd. America holds vast fossil fuel reserves — thanks to innovations like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling — that can provide cheap, reliable energy. These resources can make us energy-independent and globally competitive. The DOE should clear the way for fossil fuel extraction and pipeline construction, starting with permitting on federal lands and aggressive deregulation.

At the same time, the department should end all spending on alternative energy development — except nuclear.

The free market, not the federal government, should drive innovation. The DOE needs to stop subsidizing every corner of the energy industry, fossil fuels included. Government handouts distort markets, discourage competition, and reward political connections instead of performance. Cronyism, fraud, and corporate capture follow wherever subsidies go. A healthy, well-capitalized U.S. energy sector doesn’t need government favors — it needs government to get out of the way. Let consumers, not bureaucrats, decide the winners.

To sharpen its focus, the Department of Energy must shed every responsibility not central to its mission. Environmental policy belongs with the Environmental Protection Agency. Government-run electricity operations, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, should be sold to private firms.

The DOE has no business in genomics. It should transfer its Human Genome Project work elsewhere. The Pentagon — not the DOE — should manage the nuclear weapons stockpile. The department should also end its subsidies for synthetic fuels like ethanol, which distort agricultural markets and drive up food prices. Many of its remaining research functions should be reassigned to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or the National Science Foundation.

The department should also abandon appliance efficiency mandates that degrade performance, frustrate consumers, and increase costs.

It must reject the Biden administration’s bloated Green New Deal agenda, which has dragged the DOE into a fantasyland of bureaucratic overreach. The department should withdraw from the energy-related provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and related executive orders. These distractions must be repealed and the associated spending eliminated immediately.

The DOE needs to recognize the direction the world is headed: toward an electricity-dominated future. Electric vehicles are only the beginning. Rapid population growth, AI, crypto mining, robotics, and automation will all drive explosive demand for electricity. We’ll need fossil fuels to supply the grid for now — but that supply will become harder to access just as demand surges. The DOE must plan accordingly, not wander off chasing green illusions.

The coming surge in electricity demand cries out for a modern-day Manhattan Project — this time led by the Department of Energy. The DOE should lead a national effort to radically expand, modernize, and harden the electric grid. It must accelerate the development of small-scale nuclear fission reactors and push to make nuclear fusion commercially viable.

Nuclear energy — especially fusion — is clean, powerful, and virtually limitless. While the private sector should continue optimizing fossil fuel and alternative energy technologies, the DOE must draw up the blueprint for America’s energy future. It should clear regulatory obstacles that block meaningful progress.

So what should the DOGE do with the DOE? Strip away every distraction and narrow its mission to one goal: ensuring America has cheap, abundant, reliable energy. Everything else belongs on the chopping block.

Louisiana’s lawsuits undermine Trump’s vision of energy dominance



One of Donald Trump’s main objectives over the next four years is to restore America’s energy independence. “Drill baby, drill!” didn’t make it into his second inaugural, but it might as well have. He and his team, led by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, went straight to work on efforts to reduce the nation’s dependence on energy imported from politically unstable parts of the world.

To get there, they’ve got to overcome lots of roadblocks. One of them, strangely enough, emanates from the newly renamed Gulf of America, where Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has seemingly partnered with settlement-seeking trial lawyers and radical environmentalists on activities that impede the growth of the nation’s energy sector.

You’d think the leaders of a state hunting for every dollar it can find would consider the revenue impacts before deciding whether to go on with lawsuits.

Energy analyst David Blackmon pointed out in a recent Forbes column that Landry is a plaintiff in lawsuits against energy producers working to help Trump fulfill his promise of energy independence. This doesn’t make much sense. Perhaps the president asked him about it when both were in New Orleans for Super Bowl LIX.

Even if he didn’t, here are the facts: 43 lawsuits have been filed, starting in 2013 while Landry was serving in the U.S. Congress. These lawsuits, brought by several Louisiana parishes, aim to hold private entities responsible for coastal erosion — a problem that, like many environmental issues, is a “commons” problem.

This means that because coastal erosion generally happens in nature, no single person or entity is automatically responsible unless a court finds that someone or something is. With states and local governments facing budget constraints, they have increasingly partnered with special interests to ask courts to hold deep-pocketed corporations accountable for the costs of remediation.

As Blackmon also noted, the Louisiana-based Pelican Institute for Public Policy, a nonpartisan think tank, found the state has suffered significant economic consequences because “when the risk of getting sued increases, the expected costs faced by companies increases, and as a result, drilling activity decreases.”

In its report, Pelican found:

  • Between 53 and 74 fewer oil wells were drilled offshore Louisiana than would have been drilled if the threat of lawsuits was lower in the state.
  • This decrease in drilling activity led to economic losses in the range of $125.7 million to $320.3 million during those 34 months for Louisiana’s oil and gas economy, which work out annually to something in the range of $44.4 million to $113 million per year.
  • Given that the average royalty rate in the coastal zone of Louisiana is approximately 20%, Pelican estimated Louisiana’s state and local governments lose $8.9 million per year to $22.6 million per year in royalty revenue.

Focus on that last point. According to the think tank, Louisiana is “losing more in royalty revenue than oil and gas producing companies are losing in profit, which are likely less than 20% of revenues on average, due to litigation risk.”

You’d think the leaders of a state hunting for every dollar it can find would consider the revenue impacts before deciding whether to go on with the lawsuits. Instead, as the state’s attorney general, Landry supported the parishes’ right to bring claims under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act and agreed not to endorse any substantive defenses raised by defendants.

Landry’s critics complain this decision may have compromised his obligation to uphold state law since, significantly, the courts later affirmed some of these defenses. In any event, it has left some of them asking if he favors the interests of the plaintiff bar over those of the oil and gas industry, a critical economic driver in the state he leads.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has recently forecasted that natural gas and oil will be the most used fuels in the U.S. through 2050. Trump’s day-one executive order on “Unleashing American Energy” encourages “energy exploration and production on Federal lands and waters, including on the Outer Continental Shelf, in order to meet the needs of our citizens and solidify the United States as a global energy leader long into the future.”

It’s basic economics. Increased energy demand (as the EIA predicts) combined with continual increases in supply produce lower prices. By suing the producers for billions, the governor and the other plaintiffs are handcuffing the companies providing abundant and affordable energy. Landry, unusual for such an allegedly market-friendly conservative, appears to be on the opposite side of President Trump when it comes to promoting America’s energy dominance.

Senate Republicans take the lead in the race for reconciliation



Senate Republicans unveiled their proposed reconciliation budget on Friday before the House was able to come to an agreement.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) called the budget resolution the "blueprint that unlocks the pathway for a fully paid-for reconciliation bill," addressing the border, the military, energy independence, and fiscal concerns. This budget is intended to serve as a blueprint for the Senate's two-bill approach, while the House is focusing on putting forward one "big beautiful bill."

House Republicans have made their own efforts to chip away at the reconciliation process.

"To those who voted for and support real border security and a stronger defense in a troubled world, help is on the way," Graham said in a statement Friday. "This budget resolution jump-starts a process that will give President Trump's team the money they need to secure the border and deport criminals and make America strong and more energy-independent."

The bill was published just hours before Senate Republicans are set to meet with President Donald Trump for dinner at Mar-a-Lago Friday night. At the same time, House Republicans have made their own efforts to chip away at the reconciliation process.

Top House Republicans huddled in the White House on Thursday for five hours, even postponing Speaker Mike Johnson's scheduled meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The day after, Johnson told reporters that reconciliation talks were still ongoing, even blaming the delays on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.).

"It may not be today, but it will be through the weekend," Johnson said. "We got a few more people we got to talk with and a couple more boxes to check. But we are almost there."

As of this writing, House Republicans have not put forward their own budget proposal.

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

Big Oil turns on Trump over Paris accord exit for all the wrong reasons



One of Donald Trump’s priorities upon returning to the Oval Office in January is to withdraw the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. This move is welcome news for those who oppose the decarbonization agenda, which undermines freedom, prosperity, and mobility. Given that petroleum the bête noire of the global climate cult, you might expect major oil companies would support U.S. withdrawal from the agreement. That doesn’t appear to be the case.

Soon after Trump’s intentions for the Paris agreement became clear, major oil companies signaled their opposition to his decision. Instead, they favor continuing down the path of heavy regulation and government subsidies for their industry, aligned with the priorities of the global climate community. As reported by Fox News, “Big Oil is calling on President-elect Donald Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement after withdrawing from the treaty during his first term.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Why would companies whose primary business is extracting and selling petroleum align themselves with an unelected body openly hostile to oil and committed to achieving "net zero" production within a generation?

Unfortunately, this approach is a betrayal to those who have long defended Big Oil as a pillar of capitalism. Big Oil’s actions now appear to be in direct conflict with free-market principles.

By supporting government-mandated climate compliance, major oil companies can eliminate competition from smaller players in the short term, consolidating their market dominance. In the long term, they aim to secure government grants and subsidies for carbon-related initiatives, positioning these as a significant revenue stream.

ExxonMobil has made it clear that it sees the government as its future largest customer, carbon-related initiatives as its primary product, and government funding as its main revenue source. In the short term, the company seeks to leverage government power, under the Paris Climate Agreement, to eliminate competition from independent oil producers.

The Wall Street Journal reports that ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods opposes Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from the climate accord. According to the article, Woods argues against the withdrawal, citing ExxonMobil’s efforts to expand outreach to government officials and advocate for “global carbon accounting measures.”

While the specifics of “global carbon accounting” remain unclear, it seems far removed from real-world generally accepted accounting principles. It is reasonable to assume that this concept involves government officials distributing taxpayer money to favored entities — a group Woods clearly intends for ExxonMobil to join.

The WSJ story goes on to say that ExxonMobil and other major oil companies are lobbying the incoming GOP leadership to preserve tax credits included in Joe Biden’s “signature climate law,” the Inflation Reduction Act. These credits reward technologies like carbon capture, in which the companies are heavily invested.

The IRA is a boon for Big Oil’s carbon-related projects. During an energy conference last March, Woods voiced his support for the legislation, stating, “I was very supportive of the IRA — I am very supportive of the IRA …”

In plain terms, ExxonMobil wants more taxpayer money and federal tax credits to fund its carbon mitigation initiatives. Meanwhile, you better believe small, independent drillers in West Texas are left out of these taxpayer subsidies. ExxonMobil, by contrast, is angling to make taxpayer subsidies a major source of revenue.

The Guardian in August highlighted how ExxonMobil has pivoted its business strategy to heavily rely on government subsidies for its carbon capture and storage operations. The company launched its Low Carbon Solutions division in 2021 and began lobbying for direct government funding. Through the Inflation Reduction Act, ExxonMobil secured a subsidy of $85 per ton of captured carbon. Dan Ammann, head of the Low Carbon Solutions unit, said the carbon capture business could eventually become “larger than ExxonMobil’s base business.”

It’s disheartening to see a once-iconic American oil company transform into a post-capitalist entity that depends heavily on government funding for its revenue.

Trump’s selection of Chris Wright as energy secretary offers a glimmer of hope for the American petroleum industry.

In the oil patch, Wright’s appointment has been met with much rejoicing. As the founder and CEO of Liberty Energy, Wright understands well the challenges faced by independent oil producers. Unlike major oil company executives who apologize for their industry and align themselves with climate activists, Wright unapologetically defends the petroleum sector. Described as a “dedicated humanitarian on a mission to better human lives by expanding access to abundant, affordable, and reliable energy,” Wright has earned respect across the industry.

But Wright’s fight to protect American oil won’t just involve battling left-wing advocates of net-zero policies. He will also face opposition from major oil company executives who have aligned with radical climate agendas, working to suppress independent producers while ceding control of the oil business to the government. He’ll need all the help he can get.

US energy independence is under threat from a court ruling



Two new energy enterprises in the Port of Brownsville were on the cusp of ushering in a new era of business and industry for the region. Together, they would bring in billions of dollars in investment, provide major infrastructure improvements, and create thousands of jobs.

And they would lead to a domino effect of benefits for the community, such as the $30 million Texas A&M training facility that broke ground at the port this year.

This is not governmental cooperation through agency and legal means. It’s obstructionist.

Both projects received the green light in the federal permitting process, and one had even begun construction.

But then everything came to a screeching halt at the whim of a court in Washington, D.C.

For the sake of the people of South Texas, this unprecedented move — tossing out preapproved permits, including one for a facility that is already under construction — needs to be challenged.

The Rio Grande LNG terminal, projected to be one of the world's largest liquified natural gas export projects, would cost an estimated $18 billion. It is expected to generate 5,000 construction jobs, over 400 permanent positions, and potentially another 3,000 indirect jobs in the local community.

Meanwhile, Texas LNG was finalizing its investment plans to start construction. This project, too, was set to invest billions and create thousands of jobs throughout its construction phase.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had approved permits for both projects. The companies went above and beyond to comply with environmental regulations, even incorporating a carbon capture and storage facility to reduce emissions. Ironically, the court cited these environmental efforts as the reason to revoke their permits. In response, both projects have now abandoned their carbon capture efforts to comply with the court’s demands.

As Charles McConnell, a former official in the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration, wrote, “This is not governmental cooperation through agency and legal means. It’s obstructionist.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has urged FERC to appeal a court decision that halted the construction of two major liquefied natural gas terminals. Cruz’s letter to the FERC chairman stressed the need for regulatory clarity to ensure that legal disruptions do not discourage investors from backing future projects that could position America as the world’s leading energy producer.

“If project developers come to believe that federal permits can be overturned due to procedural missteps by the regulator, apart from any actions or fault by the developers, U.S. infrastructure projects will slow and stall,” Cruz wrote.

But for the people of South Texas, this outlandish reversal is a lot more personal. We need more industry and business to help our region flourish. The projects were expanding business access to South Texas significantly. Rio Grande LNG was already in the process of making the channel another 10 feet deeper to make the Port of Brownsville accessible to more ships. With the federal court ruling, all that progress will come to an end — and with it, a golden opportunity to turn South Texas into a hub of prosperity.

It’s easy to get lost in the legal jargon of the permitting process and lawsuits. But what FERC and the courts do has real-world implications for everyone in South Texas. More industry leads to more jobs, and more jobs lead to more opportunities, which in turn would create more opportunities for South Texans to escape poverty.

The new LNG developments could set the region up for success in decades to come — but not if bureaucratic obstructionists continue to stand in the way.

Why It’s Terrifying That China’s Nuclear Capabilities Have Lapped The United States

China’s steady climb to the peak of nuclear energy technology underscores the need for a decisive American response.

DeSantis Outlines Earliest Actions Of His Administration If He Wins

'I think we can get it done'

Why The ‘#StopWillow’ Movement On TikTok May Be A CCP Influence Campaign

The apparent TikTok influence campaign highlights the app's power and danger.