How Texas slammed the gate on Big Tech’s censorship stampede



Texas just sent a blunt message to Silicon Valley: You don’t get to censor Texans and then run home to California.

In a world where Big Tech routinely decides who may speak and who must be silenced, Defense Distributed v. YouTube, Google, and Alphabet has become a defining moment in the national fight over digital free expression. The shock isn’t the censorship at issue; it’s the fact that Big Tech — for once — lost.

In a time when Americans are desperate for leaders willing to stand up to media and tech conglomerates, Texas showed what real resolve looks like.

Defense Distributed, a Texas company, committed the unpardonable offense of promoting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Our videos and ads — some of them simply announcing court victories — were throttled, suppressed, or removed by YouTube and Google. None of this surprised us. These platforms built vast empires on controlling information and burying viewpoints that fall outside their ideology.

Texas prepared for this fight

The surprise is that Texas saw this coming and armed itself for the conflict. HB 20 — now Chapter 143A of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code — directly prohibits viewpoint-based censorship by major platforms. The law doesn’t hint, suggest, or politely advise. It states outright: Social media companies may not censor Texans for their viewpoints, and lawsuits brought under this chapter stay in Texas courts no matter what boilerplate corporate contracts say.

So when Defense Distributed filed suit, YouTube and Google reached for their favorite escape route: forum-selection clauses that force nearly every challenger into California courts, where Big Tech enjoys home-field advantage. It’s a delay tactic, a cost-inflation tactic, a shield against accountability — and it almost always works.

But Texas slammed that door shut before they reached it.

No escape

HB 20 doesn’t merely frown on these clauses; it voids them. The statute declares that any attempt to waive its protections violates Texas public policy — public policy the law describes as “of the highest importance.” The legislature anticipated Big Tech’s usual playbook and locked the gates years in advance.

The federal court recognized this. Judge Alan Albright ruled that transferring the case to California would directly undermine Texas’ strong public policy. Under federal law, courts cannot enforce a forum-selection clause that contradicts a state’s deeply rooted interests — especially when the legislature spells those interests out with the clarity found in HB 20.

Silicon Valley does not hear the word “no” very often. Big Tech’s money, influence, and political allies usually clear the path. But in a federal courtroom in the Lone Star State, Texas’ commitment to protecting its citizens from ideological censorship outweighed Silicon Valley’s customary dominance. The court refused to let YouTube and Google drag the case back to California.

The fight stayed in Texas — exactly where the legislature intended.

A national shift and a model for states

The timing matters. Americans now understand that Big Tech can shape elections, suppress dissent, and curate truth itself. HB 20 was mocked by the press, attacked by activists, and targeted by corporate lobbyists from the moment it passed. Yet today, it stands as one of the most potent legal tools in the country’s fight against digital censorship.

HB 20 is no longer just a statute; it is proof that a state with conviction can push back and win.

RELATED: Big Tech CEOs should leave policy to the politicians

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

This victory is more than a procedural ruling. It affirms that Big Tech’s era of unchallenged authority is not inevitable. Defense Distributed didn’t merely keep our lawsuit in Texas; we preserved the principle that powerful corporations cannot hide their censorship behind “terms of service” fine print.

Texas drew a line in the sand, and — for once — Silicon Valley stopped.

In a time when Americans are desperate for leaders willing to stand up to media and tech conglomerates, Texas showed what real resolve looks like. This ruling promises that citizens still have a fighting chance, that speech still matters, and that even the world’s largest corporations remain subject to the laws of a state determined to defend its people.

Here’s A List Of Unique, Made-In-America Gifts From Each State

The American Dream – that if you work hard, anyone can get ahead— is fulfilled by the risk takers who start businesses.

If red states can’t deliver DOGE promises, what can they deliver?



The DOGE revolution has identified federal waste, forced Washington politicians to rethink their spending habits, and exposed the decades-long crusade by Democrats to funnel taxpayer money into activism. In a state like North Dakota — a deep-red stronghold — you’d expect Republicans to seize November’s America First mandate and gut bloated budgets.

Think again. Too many unprincipled legislators are choking on the swamp’s fumes, betraying the voters who rejected the status quo. It’s time to call them out.

Politicians care more about re-election and climbing the ladder than they do about your wallet. They’ll dodge tough cuts to keep their seats, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

North Dakota’s Legislative Task Force on Government Efficiency — a state-level DOGE — was established by House Bill 1442 to tackle the state’s $20.3 billion 2025-27 budget. The mission: Slash waste, end duplication, and put taxpayers first.

For fiscal conservatives, it looked like a dream come true. But after its first meeting July 30, conservatives are sounding the alarm. This committee is packed with spendaholics who will keep the gravy train rolling for as long as they can.

If we want real cuts, we need to stop coddling politicians and start fighting in Republican primaries.

Some get it; some don’t

Credit where it’s due: the leadership is solid. Chairman Rep. Nathan Toman (R-Mandan) is a budget hawk. Vice Chairman Sen. Chuck Walen (R-New Town) has a good record with his conservative base. Both men understand that North Dakota’s budget bloat calls for a chainsaw, not a Band-Aid.

But their grit is drowned out by a committee built to fail — thanks to GOP leaders afraid of losing votes by cutting unnecessary funds. Legislative Management appointed Senate Minority Leader Kathy Hogan (D-Fargo), a Democrat who has never met a spending bill she didn’t love, especially in human services and health care. Her role is to protect the status quo, not shrink it.

RELATED: Don’t let rural America become the next New York City

Photo by StanRohrer via Getty Images

Then there are Republican Reps. Glenn Bosch and Robin Weisz — appropriations loyalists who rubber-stamped 99% of the state budget. They are not reformers. Expecting them to cut waste is like asking a fox to guard the henhouse.

State problem, national roots

This isn’t just North Dakota’s mess — it’s politics everywhere. Red-state Republicans talk tough about fiscal discipline but crumble when the time comes to act. Why? Cutting spending risks votes, dries up PAC money for re-election, and alienates lobbyists.

It’s why North Dakota GOP leaders play nice with Hogan. It’s why Bosch and Weisz keep the spending spigot open. And it’s why our $36.2 trillion national debt keeps climbing.

Politicians care more about re-election and climbing the ladder than they do about your wallet. They’ll dodge tough cuts to keep their seats, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

The only fix: Primaries

The DOGE is a great idea. But across red states, task forces like North Dakota's stall when Republicans fear backlash more than they fear waste. Without legislators willing to fight, this will become another powerless committee generating reports nobody reads.

The fix? Get serious in Republican primaries.

In North Dakota, Citizens Alliance is backing challengers to big spenders like Bosch, Weisz, and their allies. In Pennsylvania, the group has added more than 55,000 GOP voters — 250 per day — because primaries are the contact sport that scares RINOs straight. In Idaho, Citizens Alliance helped oust Senate President Pro Tempore Chuck Winder in 2024 and backs more than 40 lawmakers with proven conservative records.

North Dakota needs that same fire if it wants the state task force on government efficiency to roar instead of roll over. Republicans who dodge the DOGE mandate aren’t just failing — they’re betraying voters who demanded lasting reform. If they can’t bring a bulldozer to budget bloat, they don’t belong in leadership.

Sex offenders can’t adopt. But they can buy a baby?



Last week, a gay couple — Logan Riley and Brandon Mitchell — went viral for posting photos of the baby boy they acquired through surrogacy. What began as a celebration quickly unraveled after it emerged that one of the men is a convicted sex offender.

Social media users raised obvious concerns. Was this arrangement in the best interest of the child? What risks come with separating a baby from his mother and placing him with unrelated adult males, one of whom has a record of sex crimes? Critics asked these questions and were met, as usual, with accusations of bigotry from gay activists. But once the facts surfaced, the activists who rushed to defend the couple fell silent.

Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.

The pattern is familiar. Critics of surrogacy are smeared until reality breaks through the narrative. By then, the damage is done — and the child is the one who suffers.

From fallback to moral imperative

The original case for gay adoption was flimsy. It presented same-sex couples as a last resort, a solution for children who would otherwise languish in the foster system. Even its advocates admitted that two men raising a child could not replicate the contributions of a mother and father. The goal was to offer love and stability in the absence of better alternatives.

That framing has since disappeared. As the LGBTQ movement moved from acceptance to dominance, the rhetoric shifted. Gay adoption was no longer a concession. It was equal to heterosexual couples adopting, then it was superior. Religious adoption agencies that prioritized married mothers and fathers were accused of discrimination and extremism. State governments and national organizations began steering children toward same-sex households, now presented as the cultural ideal.

Once equality became unquestionable dogma, the conversation shifted again. Adoption was no longer enough. Activists turned to surrogacy — not to rescue unwanted children, but to commission biologically related ones. The moral justification evaporated. This wasn’t about saving lives so much as satisfying adult desires.

Adoption and surrogacy are not the same

Surrogacy is sometimes described as a form of adoption. That’s misleading. Adoption involves accepting responsibility for a life that already exists, often in difficult circumstances. Surrogacy deliberately creates a child to be separated from his mother and sold to strangers.

The physical and emotional toll on the mother is severe. Surrogates are often poor, vulnerable, and pressured into contracts they don’t fully understand. Children are ordered like designer fashion accessories. There are cases of forced abortions, abandoned babies, and severe trauma — all downstream from the commodification of life.

This is not a rare byproduct. It is built into the practice.

The risk to children is real

Children raised by unrelated adults face increased risks of abuse. One study found that preschool-aged children are 40 times more likely to be abused in a household with a stepparent than in one with both biological parents. The data is not absolute, but the trend is clear: Adults, especially men, are far more likely to abuse children to whom they are not biologically related.

This should alarm anyone watching the rise of surrogacy arrangements, particularly those involving male couples. These are homes where the child has no biological connection to either adult. And in some cases, as with Riley and Mitchell, one of the men has a criminal record that would disqualify him from adopting under state law.

RELATED: Trump moves to defund hospitals mutilating kids for money

chrupka via iStock/Getty Images

In Pennsylvania, sex offenders are barred from adopting. But surrogacy remains unrestricted. The child in this case remains in the custody of a man the law has deemed unfit to parent.

This is not some oversight. It is a structural and legal failure.

The moral inversion is complete

We are told that the buying and selling of human beings was one of history’s greatest evils. Our education system and popular culture treat slavery as the ultimate moral horror. Yet, in the name of equality and inclusion, we now celebrate the legal sale of children — so long as it occurs under the banner of LGBTQ rights.

And so we have elevated identity above accountability. In any other context, a convicted sex offender taking custody of a newborn would be a national scandal. But when the arrangement involves a same-sex couple, basic standards are suspended. The child becomes secondary to the cultural narrative.

Enough of this

Surrogacy did not enter the mainstream through a national debate or democratic vote. It arrived through the back door, marketed as compassionate and modern. Most people didn’t understand the process. They didn’t consider the ethical costs. That time has passed. Ignorance no longer justifies our complacence.

We now see surrogacy for what it is: a commercial industry that exploits vulnerable women and treats children as consumer goods. The law must catch up with the reality.

This is not just a problem for gay couples. Surrogacy as a practice should be banned for everyone. No adult has a right to manufacture a child for personal fulfillment. No amount of wealth, influence, or legal maneuvering justifies the creation of human life as a transaction.

Children are not accessories. Women are not rental space. And no one should be allowed to buy a baby — least of all someone who wouldn’t be permitted to adopt one.

AI faces death by a thousand state regulations



Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis' recent hostility toward artificial intelligence — and his promise of regulatory action — stands in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s apparent embrace of the technology.

While President Trump celebrates multibillion-dollar private-sector investments in AI and frames it as essential in the technological race against China, DeSantis warns that AI is “very dangerous” and insists that policymakers must control it through regulation.

Limiting AI regulation to the federal level is the only way the administration can make space for a vibrant and innovative American AI industry.

As states continue to pass legislation that either conflicts with or adds tension to federal efforts, the path forward for the American AI industry grows murkier. Innovators and consumers alike deserve a unified national framework that reduces costs and legal uncertainty.

One solution, already floated during reconciliation discussions over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would be an AI regulatory moratorium. This kind of pause could help eliminate conflicting or redundant state and federal policies, allowing Congress to actively shape a coherent regulatory landscape.

In the coming days, Trump is expected to announce a new White House AI plan, one that will likely cast the AI race as central to America’s power competition with China. The plan is also expected to reaffirm the administration’s belief that a light-touch regulatory approach is essential for U.S. dominance.

“You cannot regulate your way to winning the AI race,” AI and crypto czar David Sacks said in an interview with CNBC — a clear sign of the administration's deregulatory approach.

States going rogue

State governments, however, are not following suit. More than 1,000 state-level AI-related bills have been introduced in 2025 alone. This wave of state legislation fosters uncertainty and risk, not only due to contradictions in the laws themselves but also because of redundancy and compliance overload.

Take, for example, SB 1213 in Pennsylvania, which outlaws the use of AI in the production of nonconsensual sexual imagery. Fine, but Congress already passed and President Trump signed the Take It Down Act earlier this year. The federal law prohibits the publication of nonconsensual imagery — including content generated with AI. Companies are now forced to navigate two separate statutes covering the same issue. For smaller AI startups, this patchwork is a regulatory nightmare.

RELATED: The AI takeover isn’t coming — it’s already here

Photo by BlackJack3D via Getty Images

With the sheer volume of state-level AI laws, this situation will only grow more dire, tackling everything from copyright and user safety to privacy and data security. Even in cases where Congress and the states agree on the policy response, creating two differing statutes leads to legal uncertainty for both consumers and businesses.

A threat to innovation

As with earlier waves of digital innovation, the spread of state-level rules threatens to undermine the Trump administration’s efforts to establish a light-touch regulatory approach. Whether state laws contradict or merely duplicate federal ones, each additional statute brings new compliance demands — and new barriers to entry.

If the Trump administration is serious about its pro-AI agenda and promoting innovation and development, it must push for an AI regulatory moratorium. Without it, states have the power to water down — or outright defeat — federal efforts to foster growth.

Limiting AI regulation to the federal level is the only way this administration can make space for a vibrant and innovative American AI industry.

Trump Scores Big SCOTUS Victory Over Department Of Education

Trump’s attorney in the High Court, the Missourian John Sauer, has set a record for quickly and repeatedly prevailing.

Exclusive: 18 States Are Still Letting Dudes Dominate Girls’ Sports, Compliance Tracker Shows

'While young female athletes and students are forced to share single-sex spaces with biological males, leaders in states like California and Maine continue to play politics at the expense of women’s rights.'

Trump delivers on education, but activist judges stand in the way



President Donald Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at abolishing the Department of Education and returning most of its resources to the state level, delivering on one of his biggest campaign promises. While the order is a step in the right direction, Trump alone can’t dismantle the department. Jimmy Carter first created the agency, and later, Congress cemented it into law, meaning only Congress can dismantle it. The president can’t just wave a magic wand and make it disappear.

Democrats would have you believe that Trump’s executive order is a constitutional crisis — that education is, and always was intended to be, under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This simply is not the case.

Today, the Department of Education operates beyond its charter, and activist judges make law from the bench.

According to the Department of Education Organization Act, the federal government never intended to usurp state and local governments' authority over education:

It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies.

The ED has metastasized into the opposite of its original intention. Instead of protecting local control, the agency has become a federal behemoth dictating curriculum, policy, and administration at every level — a total inversion of its founding purpose.

Moreover, the founding document states that “the establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the federal government over education.”

That didn’t age well, did it? Today, the federal government wields tremendous authority over what schools teach, how they operate, and who gets funding. It’s a bureaucratic monstrosity that Congress never intended to exist in its current form.

This pattern of government action straying away from its original intention is nothing new. In recent memory, the authors of the Patriot Act have bemoaned how the government currently uses the Act to broaden federal authority beyond its indented scope. However, one lesson from history always holds true: Once you give the government an inch, it takes a mile — every single time. America’s founders knew this, and that’s why they designed a system of checks and balances.

Overreach spreads to the courts

The left’s backlash against Trump’s actions on the Department of Education highlights a broader issue: government institutions, particularly the courts, overstepping their authority. Judges are increasingly issuing rulings based on ideology rather than law, using injunctions as a tool to block Trump’s policies with little to no recourse for appeal.

This is judicial activism. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not write it. Imagine a football referee deciding that a touchdown is suddenly worth 10 points instead of six — just because he feels like it. That’s exactly what activist judges are doing — changing the rules mid-game to fit their agenda.

The Constitution’s framers foresaw the potential for activist judges and offered solutions to keep them in check. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton states that judges should not have life tenure unless they maintain “good behavior,” meaning they can be removed if they step out of line. In Federalist 81, Hamilton goes farther, making it clear that judges can be impeached if they abuse their power.

History has since established precedent. In the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia had to stop interfering with Cherokee land. Georgia ignored it. The judge could rule about the legality of the case, but ultimately, he lacked the final authority to enforce the law.

I’m not suggesting that we ignore the courts entirely. However, we must recognize that the judiciary was never meant to be the ultimate authority. It was designed to be the weakest branch of government — it has no army, no budget, and no enforcement power beyond its rulings. Congress holds the purse strings, and the president commands the military.

Time to restore balance

The president’s move to cut the Department of Education, along with his other major checks against our unhinged federal bureaucracy, is a step in the right direction. But it’s not enough to just trim it — we need to restore it to its original purpose or dismantle it entirely.

Likewise, we need to rein in the courts. Judges should not be legislators in robes, and it’s this unchecked power that has enabled the federal bureaucracy to mutate into its current form today. Congress has the power to check them, and it’s time that lawmakers use it.

Our founders designed a system where no single branch could dominate the others. But today, the Department of Education operates beyond its charter, and activist judges make law from the bench. We have strayed far from the system of government America’s founders envisioned.

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.

CBS Claims Southern States Are Too Poor, Incompetent To Handle Disaster Recovery

While interviewing VP J.D. Vance, CBS's Margaret Brennan claimed southern states are too poor and incompetent to handle disaster recovery.

3 Million ‘Temporary’ Migrants Will Now Sway Congressional Seats Thanks To Census Bureau Change

A Census Bureau change enables blue states to keep congressional seats because their population is propped up with illegal aliens.