World Economic Forum anoints BlackRock CEO after investigation into Klaus Schwab goes nowhere



German economist Klaus Schwab founded the World Economic Forum in 1971 with the aim of engaging "the foremost political, business, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agenda."

During his tenure, the WEF founder made no secret of his desire to radically reshape the world, pushing for a "Great Reset" of capitalism, pressuring businesses to commit to eliminating carbon emissions, grooming a network of future politicians, and characterizing "misinformation and disinformation" as two of the greatest threats facing humanity.

'You have to force behaviors. At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors.'

Under Schwab's leadership, the WEF also informed the masses in 2018, "You'll own nothing. And you'll be happy."

After five decades in the role, Klaus Schwab announced on April 1 that he was stepping down as chairman.

The WEF originally indicated that Schwab would complete his departure by January 2027; however, he stepped down on April 21 after his organization launched an investigation into allegations that he engaged in financial and ethical misconduct.

The forum announced on Friday that the investigation found "no evidence of material wrongdoing by Klaus Schwab" as well as who would replace him: Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, and André Hoffmann, vice chairman of the Swiss drug company Roche. The billionaire duo will serve as co-chairs.

RELATED: 'Dystopian nightmare': AFT boss Randi Weingarten announces curriculum partnership with World Economic Forum

Brian Kaiser/Bloomberg via Getty Images

"This moment marks a pivotal transition for the World Economic Forum. The board will now focus its attention on institutionalizing the Forum as a resilient International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation," the forum said in a statement. "This next chapter will be guided by the original mission developed by Klaus Schwab: Bringing together government, business, and civil society to improve the state of the world."

Schwab's mission might be easier to accomplish with Fink at the helm, given that he also runs the world's largest asset manager, which reported $11.58 trillion in assets under management in the first quarter of this year and has offices in 30 countries.

Fink, like his predecessor, was an early champion of handcuffing investing to liberal environmental, social, and governance agendas and has evidenced a willingness to socially engineer human behavior.

'What's emerging now is globalization's second draft.'

When discussing the imagined importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion in a 2017 interview, Fink said that "behaviors are going to have to change. This is one thing we’re asking companies. You have to force behaviors. At BlackRock we are forcing behaviors."

Years later, Fink vowed in a letter to shareholders to "embed DEI into everything we do."

While BlackRock dropped its DEI goals earlier this year, citing "significant changes to the U.S. legal and policy environment related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) that apply to many companies," the WEF could afford Fink another vehicle to push the divisive agenda abroad.

Fink also apparently shares Schwab's globalist outlook.

Fink noted in a recent op-ed in the Financial Times that "globalization is now coming apart," thanks in part to the Trump administration's "backlash to the era of what might be called 'globalism without guardrails.'" The BlackRock CEO, evidently not a fan of nationalism, expressed cautious optimism that "what's emerging now is globalization's second draft."

Fink suggested in a joint statement with Hoffmann that the need for the forum is greater than ever and that it "can serve as a unique catalyst for cooperation, one that fosters trust, identifies shared goals, and turns dialogue into action."

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

WHO’s war on FDA: Science or sour grapes over US cuts?



In a brazen slap to both American science and American sovereignty, Dr. Reina Roa — Panama’s top health bureaucrat and the incoming head of the World Health Organization’s anti-tobacco treaty summit — is openly attacking the credibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In an official July 8 communication, Roa dismissed the FDA’s evidence-based reviews of reduced-risk nicotine products such as e-cigarettes and pouches, arrogantly questioning the agency’s independence simply because its conclusions don’t align with the WHO’s ideological agenda.

If the global public health community truly wishes to reduce the burden of smoking, it must start by respecting the integrity of scientific bodies like the FDA.

This is not a harmless bureaucratic quibble. It is an extraordinary and unfounded rebuke of one of the world’s most respected regulatory institutions — and, by extension, an insult to the United States. Moreover, it’s a refusal to acknowledge an ever-growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating that non-combustible nicotine products are dramatically less harmful than smoking.

Roa’s claim that “there is no independent scientific consensus not affiliated with the tobacco industry confirming that these products pose a substantially lower risk” is demonstrably false. The global scientific consensus on this matter is overwhelming and spans continents, ideologies, and public health traditions.

Against science

The U.K.’s Royal College of Physicians stated in its landmark 2016 report “Nicotine without Smoke” that “the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation … is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco.” Public Health England, now the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, famously concluded that vaping is “at least 95% less harmful than smoking.”

In 2018, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found “substantial evidence that exposure to toxic substances from e-cigarettes is significantly lower compared with combustible tobacco cigarettes.” Cancer Research U.K. is clear that “e-cigarettes are far less harmful than smoking,” and Action on Smoking and Health in Britain echoes that “the evidence is increasingly clear that vaping is much less harmful than smoking.”

International bodies agree. New Zealand’s Ministry of Health, France’s National Academy of Medicine, Canada’s Centre on Substance Use and Addiction, and Australia’s National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health have all publicly confirmed that vaping and other non-combustible nicotine products are significantly less harmful than smoking.

This is not outlier science. It is the core of responsible and evidence-based policymaking.

Willful ignorance or …?

Roa’s suggestion that these positions do not represent a true scientific consensus reflects either willful ignorance or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Worse, it insinuates that the FDA, a regulatory agency known for setting some of the toughest product standards globally, may be compromised or manipulated by the tobacco industry. This is an outrageous accusation bordering on outright defamation.

What a turnaround for the WHO. In its 2015 study group report, it recommended that “regulatory strategies developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration could be used as a basis for deciding on best practices.”

Yet now that the FDA has authorized vapes, heated tobacco, and nicotine pouches as “appropriate for the protection of public health,” Roa signals that the WHO has suddenly changed its mind — raising the question of whether her position has more to do with U.S. funding cuts for the WHO than with public health.

It would be troubling enough if this false rhetoric came from a fringe voice. But an official communique from the Ministry of Health of Panama and incoming president of the 11th Conference of the Parties, the key global gathering for setting tobacco policy under the WHO’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, should be held accountable.

The role should demand evidence-based leadership and the ability to unify countries around the shared goal of reducing smoking-related death and disease. Instead, Roa’s rejection of accepted fact signals a concerning unwillingness to engage with real-world data and a disregard for the urgent need to provide smokers — especially in developing nations — with accurate information.

Science demands better

Questioning the FDA’s independence is not only offensive to American regulators and public health professionals but also an error that weakens the credibility of the WHO. Tobacco harm reduction is not an American invention, nor is it industry propaganda. It is a public health strategy rooted in the principle of reducing risk for people who either can’t or won’t quit nicotine entirely. The WHO’s own Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty explicitly mentions harm reduction, yet it continues to sideline this approach in practice.

RELATED: It's time to end the WHO's secret grip on American health care

Photo by FABRICE COFFRINI/Getty Images

By downplaying the FDA’s role and dismissing the broad scientific consensus, Roa undermines the credibility of public health institutions worldwide and fuels mistrust in regulatory science. Ironically, in accusing others of lacking independence, she raises questions about her own objectivity in presiding over COP 11 — the most important international public health meeting of the year. Such a gathering should be conducted impartially, without an atmosphere that attempts to exclude the settled consensus about reduced-harm products.

Roa’s remarks betray the very mission of the WHO and the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control treaty. If the global public health community truly wishes to reduce the burden of smoking, it must start by respecting the integrity of scientific bodies like the FDA, embracing credible evidence wherever it originates, and recognizing that harm reduction is not a threat — it’s an opportunity.

Democracy promotion is dead: Good riddance



What passes for intellectual heft at the Atlantic is any criticism of President Donald Trump. In the Atlantic’s pages and its digital fare, you can read the now-discredited musings of David Frum, who helped bring us the endless wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; the inane foreign policy arguments of Max Boot; the interventionist prescriptions of Anne Applebaum; and now, the democracy promotion of political science professor Brian Klaas, who, in a recent article, blames President Trump for killing “American democracy promotion.”

If Klaas is correct, that is one more reason that Americans need to thank President Trump.

Klaas’ first priority is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights.

One would have thought that the debacles in Afghanistan and Iraq would have humbled our nation’s democracy promoters — but they haven’t. One would have thought that the failed foreign policy of Jimmy Carter would have humbled those who wish to make “human rights” the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy — but it didn’t. One would have thought that the chaos facilitated by the so-called “Arab Spring” would engender prudence and introspection among the democracy promoters — but it is not so.

Professor Klaas wants the world to become democratic and for U.S. foreign policy to lead the effort in bringing the globe to the promised land.

Rewriting history

The Trump administration, Klaas writes, has “turn[ed] against a long-standing tradition of Western democracy promotion.”

Perhaps Klaas has never read George Washington’s Farewell Address, in which he counseled his countrymen to conduct foreign policy based solely on the nation’s interests. Or perhaps he missed John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, address, in which he cautioned against going abroad in search of monsters to destroy and reminded his listeners that America is the well-wisher of freedom to all but the champion only of her own.

Perhaps Klaas believes that Wilsonianism is a “long-standing” American tradition, but in reality, it is mostly limited to starry-eyed liberal internationalists and neoconservatives.

Klaas mentions the “democracy boom” under President Bill Clinton, which was nothing more than a temporary consequence of America’s victory in the Cold War. Yet Klaas thinks it was the beginning of “shifting international norms” where freedom and democracy triumphed in “the ideological battle against rival models of governance” and “had become an inexorable force.”

Here, Klaas is likely referring to Francis Fukuyama’s discredited theory of the “end of history.” We have since discovered, however, that history didn’t die and that democracy is fragile, especially in places and among civilizations that have little democratic experience.

Fukuyama was wrong, but Samuel Huntington was right when he wrote about the coming “clash of civilizations.” One wonders if Klaas has read Huntington or Toynbee — or Spengler for that matter. Or, even more recently, Robert Kaplan’s “The Tragic Mind.”

Authoritarianism disguised as ‘democratic’

Klaas criticizes Trump for praising dictators, but President Woodrow Wilson praised Lenin and President Franklin Roosevelt praised Stalin. Klaas says that Trump is indifferent to democracy and human rights. No, Trump simply refuses to make them the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy, which is a “long-standing” tradition that stretches back long before Wilson to our founding fathers.

However, neither Wilson nor FDR wanted America to right every wrong in the world, as Klaas does. Klaas wants his “human rights” and democracy agenda “backed by weapons.” He laments that authoritarian regimes no longer need to fear the “condemnation” and the “bombs” of the American president.

Klaas’ leftism is revealed when he condemns the United States for helping to replace Mossaddegh with the pro-American shah of Iran, overthrowing the Marxist regime of Patrice Lumumba in Congo, helping to overthrow Allende in Chile, and cozying up to other authoritarian regimes.

RELATED: Vance makes one thing abundantly clear ahead of Trump's big ceasefire meeting with Putin

Bonnie Cash/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images

The professor also might want to read Jeane Kirkpatrick’s “Dictatorships and Double Standards” to learn that sometimes doing these things is in America’s national interests. Klaas’ leftism jumps off the page when he refers to the illegal aliens removed by the Trump administration — many with criminal records — as “foreign pilgrims.”

Some of those “foreign pilgrims” raped and killed Americans. But Klaas’ first priority is not America or its citizens; it is using American treasure and blood to promote his chimerical notions of global democracy and universal human rights. He is anti-Trump precisely because Trump’s foreign policy is America First. Let’s hope Klaas’ style of democracy promotion is dead.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

Mass Immigration, Legal Or Illegal, Is Incompatible With National Survival

Mass deportation of illegal immigrants is not enough to save America. We have to recover an insistence on assimilation.

World Economic Forum Founder Reportedly Busted For Luxury Spending, Creepy Behavior

$1.16 million in purchases by Schwab and his wife

Welcome to Rent Nation, where no one owns and no one is free



For generations, homeownership has been a cornerstone of the American dream. It meant stability, responsibility, and the chance to pass wealth to the next generation. It gave people a stake in their communities.

But that dream is slipping away. And it’s not by accident.

If we want Americans to remain free and self-governing, they must be able to own their homes and their futures.

We are drifting into a rental society. Fewer families can afford to buy a home, while massive investment firms and corporate landlords are buying up the housing supply and turning America into a nation of tenants.

This is hardly the natural evolution of the market. Rather, it’s the result of decades of bad policy, turbocharged by emerging technology and justified by global elites who’ve decided that private property is both outdated and unsustainable.

The corporate land grab

The “renters’ revolution” emerged from bad policy. For years, local, state, and federal governments have made it more difficult and expensive to build homes. Zoning restrictions choke supply.

Environmental rules delay development. Add in the unintended consequences of government-backed mortgage schemes in the Bill Clinton era, which played a major role in the 2008 housing market crash, and you’ve got a system that makes homes less attainable, despite the stated intentions of the enacted policies.

Into that broken system stepped Wall Street. After the crash, investment giants like Blackstone began buying up foreclosed homes in bulk, turning millions of single-family homes into rental properties. Much of this trend is made possible by emerging technology.

Today, institutional investors use artificial intelligence and algorithmic tools to scan markets and make instant cash offers, often outbidding families looking to buy their first homes. Companies such as Invitation Homes own tens of thousands of properties, all of which are managed through centralized apps, automated lease terms, and data-driven pricing tools.

We are experiencing a market shift — from millions of individual owners to a few corporate landlords.

Ideological push against ownership

This shift is also being encouraged, explicitly and implicitly, by international organizations pushing a post-ownership future. The World Economic Forum’s “you’ll own nothing and be happy” slogan was presented as a prediction, not a policy.

But look closer, and you’ll see that many World Economic Forum and United Nations initiatives actively promote this shift. The U.N.’s Sustainable Development Goals call for denser high-rise cities, a move away from single-family zoning, and new restrictions on suburban development, all in the name of “sustainability” and “equity.”

It’s a coordinated ideological push to replace ownership with access, property with subscriptions, and permanence with flexibility. And the consequences are already showing.

The price of being a permanent renter

When you don’t own your home, you don’t control it. You follow the rules set by someone else. That might mean no pets, no subleasing, and often no firearms on the premises.

As environmental, social, and governance scores, smart devices, and digital IDs creep into the rental landscape, we are fast approaching a future where landlords, driven by corporate and political incentives, can enforce ideological compliance under the guise of lease terms.

Renting means you’re always paying, never building. Homes have long been the foundation of middle-class wealth in America. When families are locked out of ownership, they’re locked out of that opportunity. The result is a cycle where equity flows upward to institutional investors while working families remain stuck on the hamster wheel.

RELATED: Property taxes are killing middle-class ownership nationwide

Photo by: Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

The “renters’ revolution” isn’t without psychological and cultural costs too. People who own their homes are more likely to put down roots, raise families, get involved in their communities, and feel a stake in the future of the country. Renters, especially when forced into that role, often feel transient and disempowered. That rootlessness is breeding disconnection and resentment.

The political fallout

These psychological costs have political consequences. Younger Americans, who increasingly see homeownership as unattainable, are also more likely to believe the system is rigged against them.

And who can blame them? They’re being told that capitalism failed them, when in reality, it’s crony capitalism, ESG corporatism, and global central planners who’ve rigged the game. But that distinction is often lost — or intentionally obscured. This increases the potential for them to turn to the siren song of socialism or further government action.

This is not just an economic problem. It’s a civic one. A society where most people don’t own anything is a society that’s easier to control, easier to manipulate, and easier to pacify. If we want Americans to remain free and self-governing, they must be able to own their homes and their futures.

We need lawmakers to investigate the concentration of housing in corporate hands. We need to roll back ESG-driven distortions in markets and rethink zoning rules that throttle supply. We should do more to promote first-time homeownership, rather than punishing it. And we must restore the idea that private property is not just an economic good — it’s a political necessity.

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



Imagine Arab sheik-funded AI supercenters dotting rural America, staffed by foreign labor, draining local water and power, and hollowing out small-town life — all so Big Tech can build its digital technocracy. Sounds like the globalist Agenda 2030 schemes we’ve warned about for years. But shockingly, it’s now become the Trump administration’s top priority.

President Trump’s team is pushing to override red-state zoning laws and fast-track thousands of these massive data centers. The losers? Small-town Americans. The winners? The “rich men north of Richmond.”

Who is looking out for the people when Trump and the globalists are on the same side? “We have to beat China” is the rallying cry — a lazy excuse to silence questions and crush local regulations. But we need AI that serves productivity, not a technocracy that rules over us.

Noise levels hit 96 decibels. Imagine a leaf blower that never turns off. Would you want that in your backyard? It may be coming sooner than you think.

Trump’s “Stargate” plan would spend a staggering half-trillion dollars — public and private — to build thousands of AI data centers. It’s like rushing to amputate a limb. Sometimes it’s necessary, but any sane person would demand second and third opinions first.

Yet, instead of debate, we got betrayal. Tucked quietly into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a provision from AI czar David Sacks banning all state regulation of AI systems for 10 years. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) gaslit us, claiming this would stop California’s tech tyranny. In truth, it targets Trump’s own base: farmers, ranchers, and rural voters. Just like eminent domain carve-outs for green energy, it strips local power to benefit Big Tech.

— (@)

Even before Stargate breaks ground, rural Trump country is already grappling with AI data centers draining water, electricity, and property values. Telling locals to shut up because “we must beat China” is pure demagoguery.

Copying China’s playbook

Meanwhile, the same administration opening the floodgates for these projects is also welcoming hundreds of thousands of Chinese tech students. This is déjà vu from the post-9/11 security state. Back then, we cracked down on Americans while doubling immigration from the very regions funding terror. It was never about safety — it was always about the grift.

Across Trump country, protests are swelling against these land and energy grabs. You can almost hear Oliver Anthony’s lyrics echoing over the farmland: “These rich men north of Richmond ... wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do.”

The point of AI should be to improve our lives — not force us to sacrifice local resources and freedoms so it can exist as a modern Baal.

Troubling open-ended questions about what this “data god” will be used for lay heavily on these conversations, and it’s quite hard not to envision it being used for control. We’re told we must become like China to beat China, yet what we’re building is arguably worse. And the more immediate consequence will be irreparable damage to our rural landscapes and national power grid.

Rural communities bear the cost

Is it any wonder rural communities want to use local zoning laws to at least slow this stampede? These areas have land, fewer regulations, and desperate politicians eager for new investment. Big Tech knows exactly who to target.

Virginia’s Loudoun and Prince William Counties were early victims. Now, the industry is setting sights on Northwest Georgia, rural Oklahoma, Texas, and Arizona. What these projects promise is anything but rural tranquility.

RELATED: Trump bets big on AI to make America dominant again

Photo by Alvarez via Getty Images

A single proposed project in American Township, Ohio, for example, was slated to cover nearly 170 acres. Consider that 4,750 of these leviathans were expected to break ground just this year. What’s going to happen to America’s countryside once the thousands of data centers scheduled for this year alone are built, in addition to the subsequent thousands we can expect in the coming years?

According to the Institute for Energy Research, by 2030, data centers’ electricity consumption is on track to surpass the entire electricity consumption of Japan today. In the United States, that number will account for almost half of the growth in electricity demand between now and 2030. In short, in just a few years, data centers will consume more energy than what is currently required for manufacturing all energy-intensive goods — such as aluminum, steel, and cement — combined.

The strain on water is even more concerning. A single large data center can consume upwards of five million gallons of water per day to cool the vast arrays of servers — the equivalent of a small city. Much of the water use is consumptive, meaning it evaporates and is not returned to the local watershed.

In water-scarce regions, such as Arizona — one of the primary locations targeted for these water centers — this can put a tremendous strain on already limited resources, creating a new and powerful competitor for a resource that is essential for farming, ranching, and residential life.

The daily toll of these data centers in rural America is already steep. Backup generators and cooling fans roar day and night. Locals near Virginia sites compare it to “a lawnmower in your living room 24/7.” Noise levels hit 96 decibels. Imagine a leaf blower that never turns off. Would you want that in your backyard?

It may be coming sooner than you think.

Moreover, thousands of AI data centers would destroy much of America’s rural landscapes — rolling hills replaced by giant, windowless warehouses. Yes, ugly infrastructure like power plants is sometimes essential — but at least they provide energy to the community. These data centers take energy away. A handful would be one thing. Thousands amount to a dystopia.

A better AI future

The United States could secure its lead in the AI era not by copying foreign actors’ brute-force, centralized strategy — which imposes staggering burdens on local communities — but by fostering an agile, resilient, and open ecosystem. Instead of merely stockpiling raw processing power, we should prioritize building AI systems that are accurate, reliable, globally accessible, and seamlessly integrate with existing technology.

Decentralized AI infrastructure, often pairing AI with blockchain, offers a smarter path. It keeps data under local control, bolsters privacy, complies with local laws, and dramatically cuts the risk of catastrophic breaches tied to massive single points of failure. It also encourages flexibility, allowing open-source models to flourish and adapt more quickly than bureaucratic mega-projects ever could.

If we truly want an AI future that serves American families — not Big Tech oligarchs or foreign monarchs — we must champion technology that empowers people, protects communities, and respects the land. Anything less isn’t just bad policy. It’s a betrayal of the very America these rural voters fight to preserve.

Trump isn’t hiding a client list — he’s too busy saving the country



President Trump’s official repudiation of the Jeffrey Epstein conspiracy theory has caused considerable consternation and conflict on the right. But with that comes an opportunity to grow.

MAGA’s enduring fascination with this supermarket tabloid story represents one of the weaknesses of populism: namely, a tendency toward histrionic and grandiose speculation that leads to nowhere productive. To be blunt, the Epstein saga was a waste of bandwidth, and now that Trump and his team have ripped off the bandage, we can move on to bigger and more compelling issues like those on which Trump campaigned.

Neither Trump nor his Cabinet is at fault for failing to satiate those who were never going to accept anything less than a conclusion that Epstein was part of a grand conspiracy.

Suppressing the Epstein “client list” does not rank highly on the list of concerns of globalist elites, I wager, and it’s not the hill for MAGA to die on either.

For instance, the demographics of Western nations are obviously changing artificially — a change that appears to be politically motivated. Transnational elites care very much about keeping the Great Replacement moving along, and Trump is standing in their way. This is an example of a “conspiracy theory” that is both true and important. Thanks to Trump, we may finally have a chance of addressing it.

Another wild goose chase

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act delivers historic investments in immigration enforcement — progress that would have seemed impossible during his first term. That term, after all, was largely derailed by a different conspiracy theory peddled by the left: Russiagate.

Now, the same kind of baseless smears are coming from the right. Elon Musk, Trump’s newest rival, has insinuated — without evidence — that Trump was involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. On Musk’s platform, X, those accusations echo among conspiracy theorists and open anti-Semites (the term applies here), who claim, again without proof, that Epstein blackmailed Trump as part of an Israeli intelligence operation.

Some have twisted Trump’s curt response to an Epstein question during a Cabinet meeting into something sinister. But the simpler explanation is that he has more pressing matters. He’s negotiating trade deals, working to end two foreign wars, and responding to fresh political attacks over the Texas disaster.

Meanwhile, Democrats have eagerly seized on Musk’s smear. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who served on the January 6 committee, now demands that the administration “publicly release all documents in the Epstein files that mention or reference Donald Trump.”

Why should Trump spend a minute entertaining a baseless character assassination?

Foolishness doesn’t equal sinister

Attorney General Pam Bondi likely made a mistake when she pandered to the base with talk of a “client list.” But the blame doesn’t fall on Trump or his Cabinet for failing to satisfy people who were never going to accept anything short of a sweeping global conspiracy.

The belief that Epstein left behind a neatly organized archive of blackmail material implicating the world’s most powerful figures is a sensational claim — and sensational claims require actual evidence. Trump hasn’t released a “client list” because it almost certainly doesn’t exist. Yet in the minds of true believers, the absence of proof becomes proof of a cover-up.

RELATED: The Epstein files may be Trump’s biggest liability yet

Photo by Patrick van Katwijk/Getty Images

Epstein was an enigmatic and deeply corrupt figure. The public’s interest in his crimes and demand for justice are understandable. But the facts matter. His only known accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, is serving 20 years in federal prison. Epstein himself has been dead for six years.

That death came before COVID, before Trump’s supposed political downfall, and before his extraordinary comeback. Everything has changed since then. The right now holds real political power — thanks to Trump. But power only matters if we stay focused and use it.

Time to move on

Contrarian speculation isn’t virtuous on its own. Sometimes, the truth is just boring — and a serious movement should be willing to accept that. In our populist age, many reflexively reject anything that sounds conventional. But for a right-wing movement finally regaining strength, chasing ghosts is a good way to squander momentum.

It’s also unfair to Trump. Yes, he’s imperfect. But supporters often project their own agendas onto him, expecting him to fulfill missions he never promised to carry out. At no point during his campaign did Trump make the “client list” a top priority — and rightly so.

We’re fortunate to have him back in the White House. He’s using his time to govern, not indulge every conspiracy theory floating around online.

How Clarkson’s Farm Debunks Globalist Lies About England And Mass Migration

Jeremy Clarkson has become an icon of the farming world, a living rebuke to the artificial, technocratic, globalist, and humorless world order that prevails in the West.

Trump keeps endorsing the establishment he vowed to fight



Donald Trump’s endorsement of Karrin Taylor Robson in December marked one of the most baffling moves of his political career. Still riding the momentum of his victory, Trump pre-emptively backed a known RINO for Arizona governor — nearly 19 months ahead of the 2026 primary. The endorsement fit a troubling pattern: early-cycle support for anti-Trump Republicans who hadn’t lifted a finger for the movement, while stronger MAGA candidates waited in the wings.

If Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promises, he needs to reassert deterrence against weak-kneed incumbents and withhold endorsements in open races until candidates prove themselves.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help.

Arizona illustrates why MAGA must push back hard on Trump’s errant picks. Robson, a classic McCain Republican, publicly criticized Trump as recently as 2022. She ran directly against MAGA favorite Kari Lake in the 2022 gubernatorial primary. Maybe she could merit a reluctant nod in a general election, but nearly two years before the primary? With far better options available?

And indeed, better options emerged. Months later, Rep. Andy Biggs — one of the most conservative voices in Congress and a staunch Trump ally — entered the race. The Arizona drama had a partially satisfying resolution when Trump issued a dual endorsement. But dig deeper, and the story turns sour.

Top Trump political aides reportedly worked for Robson’s campaign, raising serious questions for the MAGA base. Their loyalty seemed to shift only after Robson refused to tout Trump’s endorsement in her campaign ads.

Which brings us to the million-dollar question: Why would Trump endorse candidates so subversive that they feel embarrassed to even mention his support?

The Robson episode is an outlier in one way: Most establishment Republicans eagerly shout Trump’s endorsement from the rooftops. Yet the deeper issue remains. Without MAGA intervention, Trump keeps handing out endorsements to RINOs or to early candidates tied to his political network — often at the expense of better, more loyal alternatives.

A pattern of bad picks

Some defenders claim Trump backs incumbents to push his agenda. That theory falls apart when so many of those same RINOs openly sabotage it.

Take Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Jen Kiggans (R-Va.). Both received Trump’s endorsement while actively working against his legislative priorities — pushing green energy subsidies and obsessing over tax breaks for their donor class. These aren’t minor policy differences. These are full-spectrum RINO betrayals.

Trump wouldn’t dare endorse Chip Roy (R-Texas) for dissenting from the right, so why give cover to Republicans who consistently undermine his mandate from the left?

And don’t chalk this up to political necessity in purple districts. Trump routinely gives away the farm in safe red states, too.

Here's a list of Trump’s Senate endorsements this cycle, straight from Ballotpedia — and it’s not comforting.

You’d struggle to find a single conservative in this bunch. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, and Jim Risch of Idaho all represent the globalist mindset that Trump’s base has spent years fighting. So why did Trump hand them early endorsements — before they even faced a challenge? What exactly is he getting in return?

Well, we know what his loyalty bought last cycle.

After Trump endorsed Mississippi’s other swamp creature, Roger Wicker, against a MAGA primary challenger in 2024, Wicker walked into the chairmanship of the Armed Services Committee — and now he’s stalling cuts to USAID. That roadblock has helped keep the DOGE rescissions package from reaching the president’s desk.

Wicker isn’t the only one. Several of Trump’s endorsees have publicly criticized his tariff agenda. Whether or not you agree with those tariffs, the pattern is telling. Trump only seems to call out Republicans who dissent from the right. Meanwhile, the ones who oppose him from the left collect endorsements that wipe out any hope of a MAGA primary.

Ten years into the MAGA movement, grassroots candidates still can’t gain traction — and Trump’s endorsements are a big part of the problem.

Instead of amplifying insurgent conservatives, Trump often plays air support for entrenched incumbents. He clears the field early, blasting apart any challenge before it forms. That’s how we ended up stuck with senators like Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (La.) — both from red states — who routinely block Trump’s nominees and undermine his priorities.

Trump endorsed both Tillis and Cassidy during the 2020 cycle, even as grassroots conservatives geared up to take them on. In fact, almost every red-state RINO in the Senate has received a Trump primary endorsement — some of them twice in just 10 years. That list includes Moore Capito, Graham, Hyde-Smith, and Wicker.

Saving red-state RINOs

What’s worse than endorsing RINOs for Congress in red states? Endorsing RINOs for governor and state legislature.

Yes, Washington is broken. Even in the best years, Republicans struggle to muster anything more than a narrow RINO majority. But the real opportunity lies elsewhere. More than 20 states already lean Republican enough to build permanent conservative power — if we nominate actual conservatives who know how to use it.

The 2026 election cycle will feature governorships in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming, to name just a few. These races offer a chance to reset the Republican Party — state by state — with DeSantis-caliber fighters.

Instead, we’re slipping backward.

RELATED: Reconciliation or capitulation: Trump’s final go-for-broke play

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

Trump has already endorsed Rep. Byron Donalds for Florida governor — nearly two years before the election. In most red states, Donalds would look like an upgrade. But Florida isn’t most red states. Florida is the citadel of conservatism. It deserves a contested primary, not a coronation. Donalds hasn’t led the way DeSantis has — either nationally or in-state — so why clear the field this early? Why not at least wait and see whether DeSantis backs a candidate?

And don’t forget about the state legislatures.

Freedom Caucuses have made real gains in turning GOP supermajorities into something that matters. But in Texas, House Speaker Dustin Burrows cut a deal with Democrats to grab power — then torched the entire session. Conservative voters are eager to remove Burrows and the cronies who enabled him.

We’ll never drain the swamp this way

This is where Trump should be getting involved — endorsing against the establishment, not propping it up.

Instead, he’s doing the opposite.

Trump recently pledged to back Texas House Speaker Dustin Burrows and his entire entourage of RINO loyalists — just because they passed a watered-down school choice bill that also funneled another $10 billion into the state’s broken public-school bureaucracy.

The same pattern holds in Florida.

The House speaker there, Daniel Perez, has consistently blocked Governor Ron DeSantis’ agenda, including efforts to strengthen immigration enforcement — policies that are now a national model. Despite this, Perez cozied up to Byron Donalds. Donalds returned the favor, but refused to take sides in the Perez versus DeSantis clashes. He also ducked the fights against Amendments 3 and 4. So what exactly qualifies Donalds to become Trump’s handpicked candidate in the most important red state in America?

This new paradigm — where candidates secure Trump endorsements just by parroting his name — has allowed RINO governors and legislators to push corporatist policies while staying firmly in Trump’s good graces. They wrap themselves in the MAGA brand without lifting a finger to advance its agenda.

That’s not the movement we were promised.

At some point, conservatives must face the hard truth: The swamp isn’t being drained. It’s getting refilled — with Trump’s help. We can’t keep celebrating Trump’s total control of the GOP while hand-waving away the RINOs, as if they’re some separate, unaccountable force. Trump has the power to shape the party. He could use it to clean house.

Instead, he keeps using it to protect the establishment from grassroots primaries.

At the very least, he should withhold endorsements until candidates prove they can deliver on the campaign’s promises. Don’t hand out golden Trump cards before they’ve earned them.

Mr. President, please don’t be such a cheap date.