‘Finna get kirked’: Kansas man arrested after allegedly threatening to shoot Trump



A 24-year-old Kansas man is in federal custody after allegedly threatening on Facebook to kill President Donald Trump.

Jaden J. Read was arrested after the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Kansas charged him with making threats against the president, according to a Monday Justice Department press release.

'Let's shoot Trump honestly, where's our shooter?'

Read allegedly claimed to know exactly where President Donald Trump would speak during his visit to the Wichita area on Monday.

"IK where your speech will be. Already mapped out roofs around. Finna get kirked since yall couldn't help him," Read allegedly wrote.

"Kirked" is a reference to the assassination of Charlie Kirk and has become popular among left-wingers wishing death on conservatives.

A Crime Stoppers tip made on Thursday pointed authorities to Read's comments under a KAKE News Facebook post about the president's upcoming trip, according to the DOJ.

"Let's shoot Trump honestly, where's our shooter? I'm tired of living this money life," the one comment allegedly read.

"I just got a 308 and 305 round and I'm killing this pedo," Read also allegedly posted.

RELATED: Justice Department seeks to BLOCK ballots of 20,000 alleged noncitizen voters in California

Photo courtesy of Charlie Kirk

Under a separate post from KWCH 12 News, Read allegedly wrote, "Can we shoot him in Kansas please I will myself."

The rooftop comment came about a minute later, according to prosecutors.

It follows the July 2024 attempt on Trump's life. Thomas Crooks shot and wounded the then-candidate from a rooftop in Butler, Pennsylvania.

Charlie Kirk was shot from a rooftop at Utah Valley University in September 2025.

The complaint was filed Saturday, and Read was arrested in Clearwater the same day. He will remain in custody until a detention hearing, according to the DOJ. No hearing date has been made public.

If found guilty, Read faces up to five years in prison under the federal law barring threats against the president.

The Secret Service, U.S. Marshals Service, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Kansas Highway Patrol, and Wichita Police Department were all involved in the investigation, according to the release.

Trump went ahead with his Monday event at Heartland Credit Union Arena in Park City, just north of Wichita.

U.S. Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser issued a stern statement for would-be assassins and those threatening the president online or offline.

"Political violence and threats of political violence will not be tolerated," he said in the release.

"The First Amendment allows for robust disagreement, but there are constraints," Kriegshauser said, cautioning people "to stay within the bounds of constitutionally protected speech."

The Secret Service, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Kansas Highway Patrol, U.S. Attorney's Office, and Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The attorney listed for Read did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.

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

Meta pays big to settle monster lawsuit — and the terms will turn social media upside down



A historic lawsuit spanning the United States and its territories ended abruptly this week, and its terms will make major changes to how children use social media.

The lawsuit brought forth by 29 states accused Mark Zuckerberg's Meta platforms of knowingly being addictive and harmful to young users.

'This framework will only work if all our peers join us.'

The case has been in trial since August 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and it only took about a week for Zuckerberg and co. to come to an agreement with the accusing parties.

On Wednesday morning, a settlement was announced that will have Meta paying up to $18 billion over 10 years, while implementing new child safety protocols on its platforms, Variety reported.

Social media overhaul

New rules include a "hard cap" on daily time limits for children, totaling a combined two-hour daily limit across Instagram and Facebook, with mandatory pauses after 15 minutes of continuous use.

Children will be blocked from accessing Meta platforms from 12 a.m. to 6 a.m., in addition to limited school-time access, with push notifications blocked for children between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. during the school year on weekdays.

Age "assurance" measures were described as being "robust," while Meta promised more parental control, safeguards against bullying, and limitations on harmful content.

The catch — and it's a big one — is that the usage limits are planned for just five years. At the same time, Meta said that it will drop its allowed usage to only 60 minutes for 10 years if Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube adopt comparable terms.

The settlement payments also depend on other social platforms adopting similar policies. About 70% of the money will be allocated to participating states over the 10-year period, but the remaining 30% will only be released if YouTube and TikTok implement a one-hour daily limit, the night mode policy, and age assurance measures.

As well, YouTube and TikTok must each pay an amount that matches the 30% sum figure, Variety reported.

RELATED: Federal agents wanted to search his phone — now they say the trick he used to stop them is a crime

David GRAY/AFP/Getty Images

The lawsuit was led by California AG Rob Bonta, with the settlement garnering his state between $1.5 and $2.1 billion, if approved.

Let the spin begin

"Today, we have secured a settlement with Meta that will make social media less dangerous for our kids and make a world of a difference for children and their families," Bonta said in a statement. "Meta has agreed to make massive transformations that will reduce the risk of harm from its platforms — and will do it within months."

According to Reuters, Meta denied wrongdoing in the settlement, which absolves it of accusations that its platforms are designed to have addictive features and knowingly exposed children to mental harms, among other claims.

Meta chief legal officer C.J. Mahoney said publicly that the new framework "will empower parents to easily manage how their children access our platforms."

"This framework will only work if all our peers join us," Mahoney added.

"Because teens move fluidly across dozens of apps, we need an industry-wide solution. We therefore call on our industry peers, TikTok and YouTube, to implement this new framework, right away. As a parent, I'm proud of both the work Meta has done to protect kids historically, and of this new groundbreaking agreement. But its success depends on all other social media platforms following Meta's lead," he concluded.

RELATED: RIP your nostalgia — the top owner of kids' TV shows is giving its characters a high-tech makeover

Enrico Fabian/The Washington Post/Getty Images

In a statement provided to Blaze News, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation said that the settlement is "one step [in] Big Tech's reckoning" for the harms it has enabled against children.

Executive Director Haley McNamara said the settlement is "a crucial step to hold Meta accountable for protecting children, and we commend the state attorneys general for carrying these cases forward."

"Attention must now turn to Congress to establish a foundation for Big Tech companies like Meta to follow when it comes to protecting children online," McNamara added.

Meta expects to accrue around $10 billion in legal expenses its third quarter of 2026.

As noted by Georgia's Office of the Attorney General, the case included 52 attorneys generals across 47 states (excluding Florida, New Mexico, and Texas) and the jurisdictions of Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

There's a catch

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier explained in a post on X why his state did not join the settlement. Uthmeier called the payouts "peanuts" that are inequal to the "profound harms" Meta's features have inflicted on kids.

"A slap on the wrist for a trillion-dollar corp that'll pay more to lawyers than to the states. We'll see them at trial," the Florida AG said.

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

Mark Zuckerberg wants AI to save America from itself



It hasn’t been an easy path for Mark Zuckerberg. However you keep score on his performance as a major figure in American life, he has survived attacks from the highest levels of government against his business, reputation, and livelihood. Few major figures in tech, with the possible exception of his longtime mentor, investor, and friend Peter Thiel, have endured quite the same treatment. Simply put, Zuck won’t quit.

That indestructible attitude has carried straight into AI. Amid criticism, naysaying, and ridicule, Zuckerberg has refused to concede the race to the leading hyperscalers. Now, as those frontier companies hit their own buzz saw of criticism, Zuck has dropped a long manifesto laying out his vision for America’s technological future and Meta’s place in it.

Liberal democracy must discipline superintelligence. Superintelligence must revive liberal democracy. Each is supposed to save the other.

The most striking thing is not that Zuckerberg wants Meta to win. It is what he thinks victory requires. Despite years of periodic hostility from the U.S. government, he has positioned Meta as perhaps the most explicitly pro-American player in the AI industry. He is betting the farm on the proposition that America’s political principles — not merely its capital, engineers, or computing power — are what can carry us through the age of superintelligence.

That’s a gigantic wager, and it arrives at an awkward moment. Dissatisfaction with America’s actual system of government is near a breaking point. More Americans are asking whether the assumptions grounding the regime are viable any more — or even true.

Even many who still defend America’s founding principles believe the government we actually have has become corrupt, broken, and badly detached from them. The appetite for a “new founding,” on the left and the right, keeps growing. Yet the country is too divided and degraded for any ordinary political movement to break through to the other side.

That frustration is part of why so much American energy, ingenuity, money, and willpower have poured into the narrow goal of building the most powerful technology possible — something that may soon go far beyond what any individual human being can comprehend or control.

The irony is brutal. Technological prowess was once among America’s great sources of pride. Now millions of people increasingly experience it as a curse from hell rather than a blessing from God. They already feel reduced to peonage and stripped of agency by institutions they do not trust. And now tech, they fear, is preparing to sweep the refuse we have become into the trash.

Not so fast, says Zuck. His argument begins with a surprisingly old-fashioned insight: Human beings disagree. They struggle, suffer, compete, fear, and want incompatible things. No technical breakthrough abolishes politics because no technical breakthrough can reconcile every human value at once.

“There is no technological solution that can align with everyone’s opposing interests and values at once,” Zuckerberg writes. "Any singular superintelligence would have to prioritize some values over others." His answer is not perfect alignment but a balance of power — the same basic insight, he argues, that underlies Western democratic institutions.

That is why America’s humbler principles — dispersing power, allowing people to define their own goals, and trusting them to work things out for themselves — matter so much in Zuckerberg’s vision. Paradoxically, political humility produces personal ambition. It renews energy more reliably than any genius, planner, or guru could ever manufacture from above.

RELATED: Is this the number-crunchers’ come-to-Jesus moment?

Inkoly/Getty Images

If this sounds familiar, it should. Zuckerberg is singing from the hymnal of good old-fashioned liberal democracy. His wild idea is that machines powerful enough to transform human life beyond recognition are best developed by patriotic Americans who still believe liberal democracy is basically right about how human beings ought to live together.

And here is the problem.

If liberal democracy brought us to a point where the American government has largely expunged liberal-democratic habits from its own operation, how exactly are we supposed to encode those habits into superintelligence?

Do you believe your vote counts?

Do you believe legislative, executive, and judicial power are effectively separated?

Do you trust your fellow citizens to form judgments and pursue their own plans?

Do you think most of us still possess the maturity, education, thoughtfulness, and patriotism that self-government demands?

In other words: Do Americans still believe in liberal democracy strongly enough to teach it to machines?

That is where Zuckerberg’s argument becomes both elegant and unnerving. The same country that increasingly doubts its political order is now being asked to use that order as the operating principle for technologies more powerful than any previous institution.

Many Americans, meanwhile, are trapped between two impulses: burn it all down or run for the hills. Almost nobody has a plausible alternative regime that could actually work here, much less arrive through a peaceful and orderly transition. People feel bereft of political options, which is one reason the hunger for some higher, almost spiritual answer keeps growing.

The trouble is that whatever spirituality emanates from the upper reaches of the tech world often combines the creepiest and least American aspects of the hippie and the nerd.

Zuckerberg’s answer is startlingly different. He is not proposing that superintelligence replace liberal democracy. He is proposing that the arrival of superintelligence may force Americans to recover it. The new computational powers will be so immense that only a political order committed to dispersed authority, pluralism, and limits can keep a handful of self-appointed global masters from remaking everyone in their own image.

RELATED: The path to America-first AI

Yunping liang/Getty Images

That is the real bet: AI does not redeem liberal democracy because the machines become wise. AI redeems it by making the alternatives intolerable.

It is a surprisingly elegant and tantalizing vision. But there is one catch. For it to work, Americans will have to treat AI the way they treat liberty itself — not as an accessory or afterthought, but as something woven into daily life. Maybe you personally can remain mostly outside it. But if most Americans do, Zuckerberg strongly implies, the country may not generate the distributed competence, power, and agency his model requires.

So Zuckerberg’s wager runs in both directions. Liberal democracy must discipline superintelligence. Superintelligence must revive liberal democracy. Each is supposed to save the other.

Maybe that circle is virtuous. Maybe it is impossible.

But Mark Zuckerberg has placed his bet. Now? It’s your turn.

Saying Meta hurts kids' health, state lawsuits demand $1T in penalties



Mark Zuckerberg has spent over 20 years building the Facebook brand, but it could all come to an end in one fell swoop.

Parent company Meta used words like "outlandish" and argued there was no historical precedent for its proposed punishment in recent legal filings for a lawsuit that could completely wipe out the company.

'A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.'

Twenty-nine states are currently engaged in a lawsuit against Meta that accuses the company of violating child privacy laws that bar the collection of data from underage users.

The online company is facing court battles from almost every cardinal direction, but four particular states are threatening Meta with penalties of $1.4 trillion, which nearly equals its entire valuation; according to Yahoo Finance, Meta's market cap is $1.48 trillion.

Meta responded to the sum in documents from the case in California, saying the "sheer magnitude" of the demands from the attorneys general "offends constitutional and ethical limits."

"In just a single one of their 'Remedy Chart' calculations, the AGs seek over one trillion dollars in penalties and disgorgement, and they then layer on various other double-counting charts," Meta wrote.

The massive sum comes from the AGs in California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey, who reportedly came up with the figure by estimating every under-13 user in each state that could have been affected by Meta's policies.

"Each of these charts applies the maximum statutory penalty to every teen and purported under-13 user and every monthly instance of time spent at certain arbitrarily-selected thresholds," Meta claimed.

Meta argued, "A sanction of that size has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement. Indeed, the Federal Trade Commission recently described a '$1 billion penalty' as 'the largest ever in a case involving an FTC rule violation."

RELATED: New Senate bill punishes chilling of online speech — if it passes

HECTOR GUERRERO/AFP/GettyImages

Meta further argued that the demands made were in "gross disproportion" to the alleged violations, and are "unsubstantiated" and "outlandish."

The defense went on, calling the trillion-dollar figure a "construct of lawyers" that counts the same individuals "many times over."

The aforementioned jurisdictions are also looking to pin claims of misleading the public on Meta, which they say "prioritized profits over the safety of kids."

A spokesperson for the California attorney general's office told the New York Post that Meta helped fuel the mental health crisis that is "impacting a generation of American children."

"The California Department of Justice looks forward to holding Meta fully accountable at trial in August," the spokesperson added. The two sides will meet in court on August 18 in Oakland, California.

RELATED: Meta had 17-STRIKE policy for sex traffickers, ex-employee says

Christian Ender/Getty Images

Another parallel claim Meta is battling accuses the company of being aware of the harm its platforms can cause.

A former employee alleged that Meta stopped internal research that would have shown that ceasing use of Facebook saw users become less depressed or anxious. Blaze News reported on this portion of the lawsuit in November, which allegedly included a study called Project Mercury.

Project Mercury was allegedly initiated in 2019 to "explore the impact" of Meta apps and how they can affect "polarization, news consumption, well-being, and daily social interactions."

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

Wikipedia Founder’s Ban From His Own Website Confirms The Left’s Censorship Scheme Is Far From Over

Wikipedia’s treatment of its founder is the perfect prophecy for anyone tempted to believe that we’ve won the free speech war for good.

Meet The Georgia Pastor Suing His School District For ‘Discrimination’ Against Christian After-School Program

'If we don't stand up for our freedoms at home, then when does it stop? If we just let it go, we'll never stay free.'

How the H-1B visa replaces American workers



Mary, a veteran Silicon Valley marketer who can’t find a job, considers herself a victim of an H-1B visa program run amok.

Her story, a U.S. native replaced by a foreign-born employee who is willing to work at a significantly lower wage, has become commonplace, particularly in the tech industry. Adding insult to injury, she says, her CEO, who hails from India, told her to train the man he selected to replace her before laying her off.

Despite stints at Google and Cisco and two years of job-hunting, Mary can no longer compete in a job market saturated with foreign-born H-1B visa holders. “I had experience. I should have walked right into these corporate jobs, but I didn't. Why? Because Silicon Valley is flooded with people who work for two-thirds of the price, or even half price,” said Mary, who asked to be identified only by her first name.

Companies, on average, save nearly $100,000 per worker over six years by hiring an H-1B worker rather than an American.

U.S. tech workers like Mary are at the center of a battle brewing in Washington, D.C., over reforming the troubled H-1B visa program, which is designed to fill highly skilled positions when qualified American workers can’t be found. The controversy pits tough-on-immigration Republicans and some Democrats against the most formidable of opponents — Big Tech, the primary beneficiary of a program considered by critics to be little more than a pipeline of cheap labor.

In the last few decades, the California dream has gone global, as U.S. tech firms have filled their ranks and C-suites with employees born abroad. Intel is no longer the company of its founders, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore, but of Malaysian-born Lip-Bu Tan, its CEO since March 2025. Microsoft is led by Satya Nadella; Alphabet Inc. by Sundar Pichai; Adobe by Shantanu Narayen; IBM by Arvind Krishna; and T-Mobile US by Srinivas Gopalan — all of whom were born in India.

All told, a remarkable two-thirds of the Valley’s nearly 400,000 tech jobs are now held by those born abroad, according to a 2025 report from the think tank Joint Venture Silicon Valley. Today, more tech workers were born in India (23%) and China (18%) combined than in the U.S. (34%).

Low-cost talent

The influx of low-cost Asian talent has clearly helped fuel profits in one of America’s most influential sectors. But there is a downside to this tech boom — the sidelining of U.S. workers thanks to the H-1B visa program. Created in 1990, the federal program has morphed into a vehicle for employers, particularly in the nation’s tech centers, to recruit much cheaper foreign labor at the expense of U.S. tech workers, according to Harvard economist George J. Borjas.

While the H-1B program spans multiple industries, it is overwhelmingly concentrated in tech. Last year, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Tata Consultancy, and Google were the biggest visa users, with Amazon alone recording more than 13,000 applications. These companies find the savings from hiring foreign workers hard to resist. The job of software developer, for instance, accounts for 38% of all H-1B visa workers, according to a 2026 paper by Borjas. And these foreign software developers earn about 30% less than their U.S. counterparts, the economist estimates.

Since many of these tech jobs pay six figures, the savings quickly add up. Borjas estimates that companies, on average, save nearly $100,000 per worker over six years by hiring an H-1B worker rather than an American. The arrangement “redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants,” Borjas wrote in 2016. That, in turn, helps account for the soaring stock prices of Big Tech since the 2008 financial crash.

RELATED: America should eliminate the H-1B and replace it with THIS

El Nuevo Herald/Getty Images

False rationale

The vaguely written H-1B law has been easy for companies to exploit. Hassan Abdullah, an immigration attorney and H-1B advocate, said the supposed congressional basis of the law — to fill highly skilled jobs with foreigners if Americans aren’t available — has always been a fiction. “The actual regulations don’t necessarily say that's required,” said Abdullah, who helps companies get the visas. “Throughout all my years, I’ve never had to even consider that as a factor.”

One of the most glaring weaknesses of the law, critics say, is that most companies applying for these visas are not required to demonstrate that they were unable to find qualified American workers. Only companies with more than 15% of their workforce on H-1Bs must make small efforts to recruit U.S. citizens.

Companies are required to pay foreign workers at least the “prevailing wage” for the occupation and region, a provision that should theoretically reduce the incentive to hire employees from Asia. But the process relies on self-reporting and has been easy to manipulate because salaries are calculated using broad regional averages that often fail to reflect real market wages in the technology sector.

As a result, the number of H-1B visa workers has skyrocketed. 2025 was a banner year, with 406,348 approved visas, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Seventy percent of those visas were issued to Indians. That compares with a total of 275,317 visa approvals in 2015.

Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt, who is part of the MAGA wing of the GOP, reacted to these numbers on X, calling the program “a national security nightmare. Enough. No more flooding the market with 400k+ H-1B visas while our people and our sovereignty gets screwed."

After foreign-born employees take on leadership roles, including CEO, they attract and hire more foreigners by tapping their own professional and social networks.

With criticism of the visas dovetailing with broader anti-immigration sentiments, the Trump administration has made the most serious move yet to restrict the program. Six months ago, USCIS announced a new $100,000 fee that companies must pay per new H-1B worker living outside the U.S. While official figures have not yet been released, some immigration experts estimate that the fee may lead to a 30% to 50% decline in new visa applications.

“This is the first year we have not filed any H-1B visas for people outside the U.S. because tech companies don’t want to pay the $100,000 fee,” said immigration attorney Navdeep Meamber, who is based in Silicon Valley.

But companies have found a work-around. Meamber said she has seen an increase in the number of clients filing for the visas for workers already in the U.S., particularly those such as students who transferred from other visa types to H-1Bs.

“The $100,000 fee is discouraging some employers from bringing in brand-new H-1B workers, but it is not reducing the numbers, because foreign students, especially those who get on the Optional Practical Training program, can move into the H-1B pipeline without paying that fee,” said attorney Rosemary Jenks, a campaigner for immigration reform with the Immigration Accountability Project. “So there are still plenty of H-1B visas being issued every year.”

American ingenuity

Silicon Valley wasn’t always dominated by foreigners. Some claim the true birthplace of Silicon Valley can be found in a garage at 367 Addison Avenue in Palo Alto. It was there that David Packard, a native of Colorado, and Bill Hewlett of Michigan founded Hewlett-Packard in 1939. Robert Noyce, a native son of Iowa and co-inventor of the integrated circuit, critically made from silicon, gave name to the valley after the substance. With his colleague, Gordon Moore of San Francisco, they founded Intel in 1968.

Throughout the postwar years, America’s booming tech industry was largely pioneered by natives. By the 1980s, however, concerns were raised about the dwindling number of young people available to fill STEM jobs in the future. Erich Bloch, director of the National Science Foundation, told the American Council on Education in 1985: “The pool of potential students from U.S. schools will become smaller. Demographic projections, of which you are all aware, show the number of 18- to 24-year-olds declining by about 20% over the next decade.”

The 1990 Immigration Act created the H-1B visa, a temporary work visa lasting a few years aimed at filling the labor shortages Bloch had warned about. Since then, tech firms have sometimes struggled to find employees, particularly specialized engineers, during times of rapid growth. But whether the industry faces a persistent shortage of American workers is a matter of debate among economists and labor analysts.

Major technology companies reject the criticism that the H-1B system is primarily a source of cheap labor. Executives stress that the program allows American firms to recruit engineers and researchers with advanced technical expertise in areas where qualified talent can be scarce.

They also contend that many H-1B workers are paid high salaries and that access to global talent helps keep American companies competitive against rivals.

Critics of the visas point to waves of layoffs accompanied by the growth in H-1Bs as evidence that a labor shortage is nothing more than a fig leaf. Michael Capuano of the Federation for American Immigration Reform wrote in a blog post last year,

Google laid off 951 U.S. employees in 2024, but found room for 1,058 new H-1B workers. Apple laid off 735 people in 2024, but signed on 864 new H-1B employees. Microsoft laid off 3,426 workers from 2022 to 2024 and hired 3,259 new H-1Bs during that same period.

A 2023 analysis by the Economic Policy Institute similarly found that the top 30 H-1B employers hired more than 34,000 new H-1B workers in 2022 while laying off at least 85,000 employees during the same period.

In addition to cheaper talent, critics say H-1B visas also provide a captive workforce. Because employers can sponsor visa holders for permanent residency, many workers become heavily reliant on keeping their jobs in order to remain in the United States. Critics argue that this dynamic discourages employees from changing companies or demanding higher wages, with some likening the system to a form of indentured servitude.

Tribalism at play

Critics say favoritism has also contributed to foreign dominance of the tech sector. After foreign-born employees take on leadership roles, including CEO, they attract and hire more foreigners by tapping their own professional and social networks.

Kevin Lynn, executive director of the Institute for Sound Public Policy, argues that “professionalism doesn’t exist in these IT departments any more,” adding that “when you look at the hiring, it gets very tribal. It’s really India versus the rest of the world.”

Microsoft saw the number of decisions on H-1B applications rise from 2,983 in 2014, when Nadella became CEO, to 6,258 in 2025. Google’s numbers jumped from 2,309 in 2015, when Pichai took the top job, to 7,868 in 2025. During these years, these companies also grew, making it hard to know if the percentage of foreign workers increased. At IBM, H-1B decisions have remained consistent since Arvind Krishna was named the leader.

Meamber, the immigration lawyer, disputes the idea that companies run by foreign-born leaders are more likely to rely on labor from their home countries. “The CEO doesn’t even know who is being hired. ... These decisions are being taken at a lower level by the HR team and by the recruiters,” she said.

Stephen Vivien, an engineer, said he witnessed Indian employees helping each other get hired by sharing interview questions when he worked at Google. “There were a lot of H-1B workers ... there's a network.” he said.

“When one Indian guy would be coming up for his interview; the other Indian guys who had [already] gotten hired would call and share the questions.”

RELATED: America didn’t lose its tech edge — globalist CEOs gave it away

Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg/Getty Images

In April, a New York jury found New Jersey-based Cognizant Technology Solutions liable for $8.4 million after a former executive sued the company, which was founded in India, for discrimination against non-Indian and non-South Asian workers. The executive argued he was passed over for a promotion and was later fired for raising concerns about bias against non-Indian employees.

The decision follows a separate successful lawsuit brought by three other employees against Cognizant in 2017, all similarly claiming discrimination against non-Indian workers, though the company is appealing and denies all allegations. In both lawsuits, juries found in favor of claims that Cognizant had used the H-1B program as a tool to discriminate against American workers. Since 2009, the company has received tens of thousands of H-1B visa approvals.

Reformers vs. Big Tech

While restrictions to the program have yet to meaningfully slow its growth, some Republicans have called to abolish it. In February, Florida Rep. Greg Steube (R) introduced the EXILE Act, which would end the H-1B visa program entirely.

A proposed reform that might gain more bipartisan support targets the ineffective prevailing wage requirement that allows firms to underpay foreign workers. One idea floated by Republicans would create a minimum salary requirement for H-1B workers that is much higher than the current pay scale, thus removing the financial incentive to replace U.S.-born workers.

Ro Khanna, the Democrat congressman representing much of Silicon Valley, said on the "All-In" podcast last year that “there’s definitely abuse. ... It needs to be corrected” in the H-1B program. Khanna said a new prevailing wage standard would be a reform he could support.

But legislation that would raise labor costs would be opposed by Big Tech, armed with its war chest of money and influence in Washington. Jenks, the lawyer, said H-1B reformers face a tough fight. “The donors on this issue include all of the high-tech companies, whether it’s Microsoft, Facebook, all of them,” she said. “They put millions and millions of dollars every year into lobbying.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire. The article was reported in conjunction with a GB News documentary, which can be viewed here.

Florida female, 29, and her children's 15-year-old male babysitter accused of shooting at woman's car after Facebook dispute



A 29-year-old Florida female and her children's 15-year-old male babysitter are accused of shooting at a woman's car after a Facebook dispute earlier this week.

The Volusia County Sheriff's Office said Tuesday night's shooting outside a Deltona home stemmed from a dispute between the female suspect — Ines Jonjic — and the victim, WESH-TV reported.

'Are you guys sure he’s a babysitter?'

The station, citing the arrest report, said the victim became "highly upset" after Jonjic "took an image of [the victim's] infant from her Facebook page, added malicious comments, and sent it to [the victim]."

Deputies said the victim then decided "she wanted to have a face-to-face conversation with Jonjic" and drove to Jonjic's home on Hemingway Drive, WESH reported.

However, deputies said Jonjic and a 15-year-old boy — whom they later discovered was the babysitter for Jonjic's children — pointed guns at the victim and fired several shots at her vehicle, the station said.

More from WESH:

The victim drove away and noticed she had a flat tire. However, according to the arrest report, "instead of immediately notifying law enforcement, she called roadside assistance, had her tire repaired, and drove home." Deputies eventually met with the victim and discovered bullet holes in several of her car windows.

Investigators said it took about five hours for Jonjic and the teen to exit the home after deputies arrived. Once inside, deputies said they found marijuana and cocaine throughout the residence.

Detectives located .380-caliber and 9-millimeter shell casings in the garage. Jonjic admitted to shooting at the victim's vehicle, according to the arrest report.

Jonjic was charged with shooting into an occupied vehicle, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a specified area, possession of a Schedule II controlled substance, possession of a Schedule IV controlled substance, two counts of possession of a new legend drug without a prescription, and possession of narcotics paraphernalia, the station said.

Jail records indicate that Jonjic was still behind bars as of Friday afternoon.

RELATED: Florida mom accused of kicking youth football player on field; during arrest she actually screams, 'I'm the one who got hit!'

The 15-year-old babysitter denied firing a gun at the victim, WESH reported.

However, the station said he was charged with shooting into an occupied vehicle, possession of a firearm by a delinquent, trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute within 1,000 feet of a specified area, and violation of probation.

WESH added that he already was on probation for an unrelated drug possession charge.

The Facebook post from the sheriff's office about the incident has attracted more than 1,000 comments, and the commenters haven't held back — particularly in regard to the teenage male's stated job.

  • "Babysitter sure lol," one commenter said.
  • "That ain't a 'babysitter'..." another user declared.
  • "Are you guys sure he’s a babysitter?" another commenter wondered.
  • "Who has a 15-year-old male with priors babysitting at their house at 5:30 a.m.?" another user asked. "Sounds like she's missing a few charges."
  • "A 15-year-old babysitter @ 5 a.m. while she is home?" another commenter queried.

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

Biden’s COVID censorship machine takes a hit: Missouri wins landmark ban on federal threats to Big Tech



A landmark settlement delivered a blow to the censorship industrial complex that silenced Americans during the COVID era.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) announced Tuesday that Missouri had reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. government in its Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, which accused the Biden administration of violating Americans' First Amendment rights by directing social media companies to censor speech challenging the government's COVID messaging.

'For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours.'

Schmitt filed the lawsuit against the Biden administration while serving as Missouri attorney general, before securing his Senate seat.

The agreement included a 10-year Consent Decree that enforces a narrow permanent injunction on the surgeon general, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. The injunction prevents them from threatening social media companies with any form of punishment if those companies fail to remove or suppress content that contains protected speech.

However, this ban applies only to posts made on Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, and YouTube by the specific plaintiffs in the case, including Missouri and Louisiana government officials and agencies acting in their official capacity. It does not extend to other social media networks or content posted by the general public.

"The Parties also agree that government, politicians, media, academics, or anyone else applying labels such as 'misinformation,' 'disinformation,' or 'malinformation' to speech does not render it constitutionally unprotected," the agreement reads.

The court must first approve this settlement agreement.

RELATED: BlazeTV's 'The Coverup' exposes how the censorship industrial complex silenced Americans during COVID

Eric Schmitt. Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

"We just won Missouri v. Biden," Schmitt wrote in a post on X. "As Missouri's Attorney General, I sued the Biden regime for brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missouri families — censoring the truth about COVID, the Hunter Biden laptop, the open border, and the 2020 election. They tried to turn Facebook, X, YouTube, and the rest into their private speech police, labeling dissent 'misinformation' while they pushed their narrative on the American people."

Schmitt called the Consent Decree the "first real, operational restraint on the federal censorship machine."

He explained that it "directly binds the Surgeon General, the CDC, and CISA: no more threats of legal, regulatory, or economic punishment. No more coercion. No more unilateral direction or veto of platform decisions to remove, suppress, deplatform, or algorithmically bury protected speech."

"For every working Missouri family tired of being silenced by their own government: this victory is yours. The heartland fought back, and the heartland delivered," Schmitt concluded.

RELATED: 'Karma is a b***h': Trump taps epidemiologist targeted by Biden admin and censored online to run NIH

Photo by Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Benjamin Weingarten, a senior contributor at the Federalist, addressed the victory's narrow application.

"This decree is limited to the plaintiffs, but as precedent, and practically, its impact may prove orders of magnitude more powerful in protecting disfavored speech," Weingarten wrote, calling it "a momentous blow for the First Amendment."

National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had to withdraw as a plaintiff in the case after being appointed by the Trump administration, called the settlement "a huge win for all Americans."

"Huzzah! The consent decree in Missouri v. Biden is a historic victory for free speech in the US. Though I had to switch to the government side in the case after I became NIH director, I've never been more pleased by 'losing' in my life," he wrote.

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