Stop feeding Big Tech and start feeding Americans again



America needs more farmers, ranchers, and private landholders — not more data centers and chatbots. Yet the federal government is now prioritizing artificial intelligence over agriculture, offering vast tracts of public land to Big Tech while family farms and ranches vanish and grocery bills soar.

Conservatives have long warned that excessive federal land ownership, especially in the West, threatens liberty and prosperity. The Trump administration shares that concern but has taken a wrong turn by fast-tracking AI infrastructure on government property.

If the nation needs a new Manhattan Project, it should be for food security, not AI slop.

Instead of devolving control to the states or private citizens, it’s empowering an industry that already consumes massive resources and delivers little tangible value to ordinary Americans. And this is on top of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s execrable plan to build 15-minute cities and “affordable housing.”

In July, President Trump signed an executive order titled Accelerating Federal Permitting of Data Center Infrastructure as part of its AI Action Plan. The order streamlines permits, grants financial incentives, and opens federal properties — from Superfund sites to military bases — to AI-related development. The Department of Energy quickly identified four initial sites: Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee, Idaho National Laboratory, the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky, and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

Last month, the list expanded to include five Air Force bases — Arnold (Tennessee), Davis-Monthan (Arizona), Edwards (California), Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst (New Jersey), and Robins (Georgia) — totaling over 3,000 acres for lease to private developers at fair market value.

Locating AI facilities on military property is preferable to disrupting residential or agricultural communities, but the favoritism shown to Big Tech raises an obvious question: Is this the best use of public land? And will anchoring these bubble companies on federal property make them “too big to fail,” just like the banks and mortgage lenders before the 2008 crash?

President Trump has acknowledged the shortage of affordable meat as a national crisis. If any industry deserves federal support, it’s America’s independent farmers and ranchers. Yet while Washington clears land for billion-dollar data centers, small producers are disappearing. In the past five years, the U.S. has lost roughly 141,000 family farms and 150,000 cattle operations. The national cattle herd is at its lowest level since 1951. Since 1982, America has lost more than half a million farms — nearly a quarter of its total.

Multiple pressures — rising input costs, droughts, and inflation — have crippled family farms that can’t compete with corporate conglomerates. But federal land policy also plays a role. The government’s stranglehold on Western lands limits grazing rights, water access, and expansion opportunities. If Washington suddenly wants to sell or lease public land, why not prioritize ranchers who need it for feed and forage?

The Conservation Reserve Program compounds the problem. The 2018 Farm Bill extension locked up to 30 million acres of land — five million in Wyoming and Montana alone — under the guise of conservation. Wealthy absentee owners exploit the program by briefly “farming” land to qualify it as cropland, then retiring it into CRP to collect taxpayer payments. More than half of CRP acreage is owned by non-farmers, some earning over $200 per acre while the land sits idle.

RELATED: AI isn’t feeding you

Photo by Brian Kaiser/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Those acres could support hundreds of cattle per section or produce millions of tons of hay. Instead, they create artificial shortages that drive up feed costs. During the post-COVID inflation spike, hay prices spiked 40%, hitting $250 per ton this year. Even now, inflated prices cost ranchers six figures a year in extra expenses in a business that operates on thin margins.

If the nation needs a new Manhattan Project, it should be for food security, not AI slop. Free up federal lands and idle CRP acreage for productive use. Help ranchers grow herds and lower food prices instead of subsidizing a speculative industry already bloated with venture capital and hype.

At present, every dollar of revenue at OpenAI costs roughly $7.77 to generate — a debt spiral that invites the next taxpayer bailout. By granting these firms privileged access to public land, the government risks creating another class of untouchable corporate wards, as it did with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two decades ago.

AI won’t feed Americans. It won’t fix supply chains. It won’t lower grocery bills. Until these companies can put real food on real tables, federal land should serve the purpose God intended — to sustain the people who live and work upon it.

How Bill Gates and friends turned global health into a profit machine — at your expense



Since the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing network of nongovernmental organizations, politicians, and corporations have pushed for sweeping global health initiatives. They lobby for massive funding, insisting it will prevent the next international health crisis.

Groups such as the World Health Organization, the Gates Foundation, and the U.S. government have saturated the media with calls for “equity” and “preparedness.” Together, they established the Pandemic Fund — a financial pool designed to channel money into their shared vision of global health management.

It takes little imagination to see how a fund directed by Gates-linked institutions could steer money — intentionally or not — toward companies in which he holds a stake.

According to its website, the Pandemic Fund “finances critical investments to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response capacities at national, regional, and global levels, with a focus on low- and middle-income countries.” In practice, it serves as a central clearinghouse for governments, NGOs, and business coalitions to move money under the banner of “health security.”

The funds flow to “implementing entities” such as the World Bank; the WHO; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and UNICEF. These organizations, in turn, decide how the investments are distributed — and to whom. Each claims to act on behalf of public health, but their reach and influence often extend far beyond medicine into politics, surveillance, and control.

Convenient ambiguity

Who actually gets paid to implement these objectives? What do “surveillance” and “prevention” mean in practice? How is “preparedness” measured? Which corporations manage the process, and whose services are contracted for the lab upgrades? None of these questions has a straight answer. The fund’s language reads like a bureaucratic fog — dense, opaque, and unaccountable.

What the Pandemic Fund does provide is a clear list of donors: the United States, the Gates Foundation, and several European governments. It also highlights 47 active projects spanning 75 countries.

What it doesn’t provide is equally telling. The site omits the names of officials who manage the money in each country, the ownership of the laboratories, and the companies installing the surveillance systems. Even the identities of those delivering “medical support” remain concealed behind the veil of “global cooperation.”

Conflicts of interest

Beyond its opacity, the Pandemic Fund is riddled with conflicts of interest. The Gates Foundation ranks among its largest institutional donors, while Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, acts as an “implementing entity” responsible for distributing those same funds.

Gavi’s own website acknowledges that the Gates Foundation was both a founding partner and a seed donor, contributing $750 million at its launch in 2000. That relationship alone should raise questions. Gavi now helps allocate the Pandemic Fund’s grants, meaning one of its original funders plays a direct role in deciding where new money goes.

The potential conflicts run deeper. Bill Gates has invested heavily in Moderna and BioNTech, two of the world’s leading mRNA vaccine manufacturers. The Gates Foundation funded Moderna’s early mRNA work, and public records show that Gates himself owns more than 1 million shares of BioNTech, which partnered with Pfizer to produce the COVID-19 vaccine.

It takes little imagination to see how a fund directed by Gates-linked institutions could steer money — intentionally or not — toward companies in which he holds a stake.

The web of influence extends into policy enforcement. The World Health Organization’s director-general oversees the International Health Regulations, a global framework that allows governments to impose quarantine, testing, or vaccination requirements during declared health emergencies. The United States accepted the IHR in 2005 but rejected the most recent amendments adopted in 2024, formally withdrawing from those obligations in July of this year.

Even so, the structure remains in place. If Washington — or any other government — adopted tighter compliance measures, it could channel money from the Pandemic Fund to purchase vaccines and “countermeasures.” Pharmaceutical companies would profit handsomely from policies that treat mass vaccination as the first and only line of defense. The more the world relies on vaccines as a universal solution, the more secure the profits for investors like Gates.

The Gates Foundation’s influence doesn’t stop at funding or investment. It appears on the WHO’s list of official “non-state actors,” a category that allows direct collaboration on projects and participation in committee meetings. In other words, the foundation helps set global health standards and then funds the programs that enforce them.

RELATED: Researchers tied to Fauci’s COVID cover-up still scoring big NIH grants

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

American taxpayers foot the bill

At the end of the chain, American taxpayers pay for it all. Washington’s seemingly benevolent $700 million “donation” to the Pandemic Fund comes straight from the U.S. Treasury. Every dollar funneled into this global health consortium began as someone’s paycheck.

In practice, the fund operates less like a charity and more like a taxpayer-financed slush fund for international health bureaucrats and private interests. The U.S. government collects money from citizens, passes it through the fund, and watches as the Gates Foundation, the WHO, and their network of NGOs redirect it to vaccine manufacturers, foreign governments, and organizations with which they maintain deep financial and institutional ties.

This system of influence moves wealth in one direction — up and out. Money leaves the hands of American workers and flows to a global health elite that hides behind the language of “pandemic prevention.” The slogans of safety and preparedness disguise a network that rewards insiders and deepens the dependence it claims to end.

Congress and federal auditors need to dig into where this money actually goes and who profits from it. Americans deserve to know whether their taxes support genuine public health or line the pockets of the same institutions that cashed in during the last pandemic.

Trump’s tariffs haven’t sparked predicted trade war



For months, Americans were warned by the media about a global economic trade war that would begin in the wake of President Trump’s tariffs — but it hasn’t happened.

“All the fearmongering was totally wrong,” the Heartland Institute’s Justin T. Haskins tells BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler on “The Liz Wheeler Show.” “It was just totally and completely wrong.”

“As of right now, the data that we have clearly shows that the tariffs that have gone into effect have not dramatically increased prices for consumers. We obviously are not in the midst of an economic catastrophe or something like that,” he continues.

Haskins also points out that “revenues are up” and “tax revenues are up.”


“That’s a good thing because we have a gigantic deficit problem in this country and a gigantic government debt problem long-term, and this could be a potential solution to that,” he explains, though he notes that the mainstream media is not reporting any of the good.

“If you just were to Google this story and look around the internet, you’ll see people say that the tariffs are causing lots of inflation. You’ll see it in headlines all over the place, and I just want to give real data from the government that proves that that’s not the case,” Haskins says.

Haskins points to the CPI inflation rate, which is the standard used for measuring inflation.

“In July, the 12-month inflation rate from July 2024-2025, 2.7%, is basically the same as in June. That’s less than what it was in December and in January before Trump was even president. So at that point it was around 3%,” Haskins explains.

“So the inflation has actually gone down over the past eight months, if you’re just comparing it in that way. If you start looking at individual numbers, parts of the economy prices, CPI prices in specific parts of the economy where you would expect to see tariffs causing inflation, if tariffs do cause inflation, you’re not seeing it,” he says.

One example Haskins uses is with clothing, of which, he explains 97% is not made in the United States.

“We are seeing prices actually go down … so if tariffs are causing inflation, then you would think that would be one area where you’d expect to see prices soaring, and we’re not seeing that.”

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

How the Supreme Court can shut off the left’s migrant-to-school pipeline



The National Education Association, America’s largest teachers' union, held its annual convention earlier this month. The union’s resolutions — leaked to me by a union member — had nothing to do with improving education. Instead, the NEA declared war on the Trump administration.

One resolution committed the union to “defend birthright citizenship,” and another one to “support students’ right to organize against ICE raids and deportations.” Yet another declared support for “the mass democratic movement against Trump’s authoritarianism” and “the Los Angeles-based movement to defeat Trump’s attempt to use federal forces against the state of California and other states and communities.”

Forcing taxpayers to fund education for illegal immigrants undermines the rule of law and creates perverse incentives for further illegal immigration.

These resolutions confirm yet again that teachers’ unions are more invested in political activism than in prioritizing education.

In fact, NEA President Becky Pringle is an at-large member of the Democratic National Committee. Such actions expose teachers’ unions for what they really are: little more than an arm of the Democratic Party, pushing a radical agenda that puts taxpayers on the hook for funding the K-12 education of illegal immigrants.

With a conservative-leaning Supreme Court and growing public support for immigration enforcement, the time has come to revisit Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 ruling that forced states to provide free public education to children regardless of their immigration status. Reversing that decision would restore basic fairness for taxpayers and bring education policy back in line with the will of the American people.

The post-Plyler disaster

The court decided Plyler v. Doe on a narrow 5-4 vote, reflecting deep division even at the time. Today’s court, reshaped by President Trump’s appointments, has a stronger constitutional foundation to strike it down. The legal terrain has shifted. The original ruling was shaky then and looks even weaker now.

Legally, the case for overturning Plyler is strong. Conservative scholars argue that the 43-year-old ruling overstepped federal authority by compelling states to allocate resources for individuals who are not lawfully present. States have a sovereign right to prioritize their citizens and legal residents when allocating finite resources.

Meanwhile, conservative legal scholars argue that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment — used to justify the decision — does not require states to educate those in the country unlawfully. That clause was written to protect citizens and lawful residents, not to extend taxpayer-funded benefits to those who violate immigration law.

RELATED: School censorship backfires in costly free speech beatdown

z_wei via iStock/Getty Images

Forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for illegal immigrants’ education undermines the rule of law and encourages more unlawful entry. Public sentiment aligns with this view. A June CBS News/YouGov survey found that 54% of Americans support President Trump’s deportation efforts, a stance that helped propel him back to the White House last year. A June InsiderAdvantage poll found that 59% of Americans — including 89% of Republicans — support Trump’s decision “to deploy National Guard and federal military in downtown Los Angeles.”

A 2013 Phi Delta Kappa International/Gallup poll revealed that 55% of Americans oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund education for children of illegal immigrants, with a staggering 81% of Republican voters in agreement. (Perhaps that’s why Gallup hasn’t asked the question again.)

Taxpayers bear the cost, but teachers’ unions reap the rewards.

Public school funding is tied to enrollment. More students — regardless of legal status — mean more money for school districts. Illegal immigrant students often qualify as English language learners, which brings in even more per-pupil funding through federal and state grants.

The surge in English learners creates a demand for specialized teachers. Hiring more staff means more union members — and more dues. The unions grow stronger and richer with every new student who requires extra services.

So when teachers’ unions protest immigration enforcement or attack Trump administration policies, they aren’t defending children. They’re protecting their bottom line. It’s all about the cash, not compassion. They’ve prioritized financial and political power over the interests of American citizens and legal residents, and they expect you to keep paying for it.

Two ways forward

Two strategies could pave the way to overturn Plyler v. Doe.

First, states like Texas, Oklahoma, and Tennessee are expanding school choice programs that exclude illegal immigrants from taxpayer-funded benefits such as private school scholarships and education savings accounts. These programs give parents greater control over their children’s education, but unions have launched aggressive campaigns to block them.

If unions sue to stop these programs on the grounds that they violate Plyler, they’ll likely lose. The ruling required states to provide free public education to illegal immigrants. It said nothing about private scholarships or alternative funding streams.

That legal distinction matters. The court’s conservative majority could uphold these state programs and clarify that Plyler doesn’t apply outside the public school system. Such a decision wouldn’t just protect school choice — it could also erode the Plyler precedent and clear a path to overturn it entirely.

That would return power to the states and allow elected leaders — not unelected judges — to decide how taxpayer dollars are spent.

The second way involves red-state lawmakers taking direct aim at Plyler.

Republican legislators in states like Tennessee have introduced bills to block taxpayer funding for the K-12 education of illegal immigrants. Tennessee recently put its bill on hold while seeking federal guidance on whether the move would jeopardize broader education funding.

If teachers’ unions sue to stop these laws, they risk a high-stakes loss.

A legal defeat could weaken Plyler and give states new authority to draw clear lines around who qualifies for taxpayer-funded education. One ruling could reshape national policy — and force a long-overdue debate about who pays, who benefits, and who decides.

The National Education Association’s unhinged resolutions reflect a desperate push to preserve a broken status quo. Its opposition to border enforcement isn’t about students — it’s about protecting funding, growing membership, and consolidating power. The Supreme Court should revisit Plyler v. Doe and reaffirm a basic principle: Taxpayer resources must serve those who respect the rule of law.

Report: Biden Gave ‘Millions’ In Tax Dollars To ‘Soros-Backed NGO,’ Group Pushing Men In Women’s Prisons

'The American people overwhelmingly rejected these soft-on-crime, defund-the-police policies in the last election because they undermined the safety and security of their communities.'

Biden’s bureaucrats scramble to protect their taxpayer slush fund



Democrats love to preach about “fiscal responsibility” — but only when it involves raising taxes. The moment someone suggests cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, they panic like a cornered animal. That’s exactly what’s happening now with the Department of Government Efficiency.

This new initiative aims to do something any rational person should support: eliminate wasteful spending and root out fraud in Washington. Yet, Democrats treat it like a personal attack. Why? Because waste isn’t a flaw in their system — it’s the foundation of their political machine.

Now that the DOGE is daring to ask, 'Should we maybe stop setting money on fire?' Democrats are in full meltdown mode.

For decades, the left has built its empire on a bloated, unaccountable government that burns through taxpayer dollars with no regard for efficiency, effectiveness, or common sense. Every redundant program, every duplicate agency, and every absurd study — like researching shrimp on treadmills or “equitable tree planting” — isn’t just a mistake. It’s a jobs program for the Democrats' allies and a slush fund for their agenda. They don’t want a lean, effective government. They want an ever-expanding bureaucracy that secures their power.

The numbers don’t lie. Every year, Washington wastes hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on blatant fraud and inefficiency. This isn’t about minor accounting errors — it’s about reckless spending. Examples include $2.1 million for a climate change video game, $6 million to boost Egyptian tourism, and $28 million for forest camouflage uniforms for Afghan soldiers — in a country that is 99% desert.

These aren’t isolated incidents. This is standard operating procedure in Washington. Now that the DOGE is daring to ask, “Should we maybe stop setting money on fire?” Democrats are in full meltdown mode.

Protect the bloat, launder money

This is the part where Democrats insist that cutting waste means slashing “essential programs” for the poor. It’s the same lie they use every time someone suggests fiscal responsibility. They’ve played this game for years — protect the bloat, fund their allies, then cry poverty when called out.

The truth is, government waste isn’t helping struggling Americans. It’s lining the pockets of left-wing nonprofits, corrupt contractors, and activist organizations that exist solely to keep Democrats in power.

Look at the grift. Teachers’ unions, “climate justice” groups, and woke diversity consultants rake in massive taxpayer-funded grants and contracts. Then, miraculously, they donate millions right back into Democrat campaign coffers. This isn’t governance — it’s money laundering. The system is designed to take your money, hand it to Democratic donors, and have those donors funnel a cut back to the politicians who keep the racket alive.

That’s why the same politicians who claim to fight for the working class will prioritize a taxpayer-funded gender studies program in Pakistan over helping American workers. These programs don’t exist to help people. They exist to expand the federal government, create more Democrat voters, and funnel more money to the ruling class. The moment you try to stop it, you become their enemy.

That’s exactly what’s happening with the DOGE. The moment the Department of Government Efficiency started investigating wasteful spending, bureaucrats and Democratic politicians began working behind the scenes to undermine it.

A program designed to stop fraud and waste should have bipartisan support. Instead, Democrats are sabotaging it at every turn.

Democrats accuse DOGE of being “politically motivated,” which is laughable coming from the same people who weaponized the FBI, Justice Department, and nearly every federal agency against their political enemies. They claim it will “harm essential programs” — a tacit admission that these so-called essential programs are riddled with fraud and waste. They whine that the DOGE is a “power grab,” when in reality, it’s the first serious effort in decades to cut off the ruling class from its unlimited taxpayer-funded piggy bank.

Bureaucracy on defense

It’s not just politicians who are panicking. The unelected bureaucrats who run Washington like their personal kingdom are scrambling to stop the DOGE from doing its job. The permanent D.C. establishment isn’t just packed with Democrats — it’s a revolving door of career operatives cycling between government jobs, left-wing nonprofits, academia, and the media. These people depend on government bloat to maintain their influence. Cut the waste, and you cut their power. That’s why they’re mobilizing to block the DOGE from delivering the accountability Americans expect.

What’s truly infuriating is that Democrats have the audacity to claim cutting waste is “anti-government.” No, what’s anti-government is creating a system so dysfunctional, corrupt, and wasteful that Americans lose faith in it entirely. That’s exactly what the left has done to Washington. Leftists turned the federal government into a money pit that funds everyone except the people it’s supposed to serve. Now that someone is finally trying to fix it, they’re throwing a tantrum.

Meanwhile, they’re funneling hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to Ukraine with no oversight. They’re ignoring billions in welfare fraud while hiring 87,000 new IRS agents to shake down small business owners and working Americans. At the same time, Medicaid fraud alone drains over $100 billion a year from taxpayers. Where is their concern for fiscal responsibility when it comes to their own spending?

Nowhere — because this was never about responsible government. It’s about power, control, and keeping their political machine well-funded.

The same people who demand “fairness” and “transparency” in government never want to discuss where the money goes. They don’t want you asking why Soros-backed nonprofits keep receiving federal grants. They don’t want you questioning why the Clinton Health Access Initiative has received millions from USAID. They don’t want you to notice how taxpayer money is laundered through activist groups and handed out like candy to political allies. Because once you do, their entire narrative collapses.

The American people are fed up with seeing their hard-earned money wasted on corruption, fraud, and leftist activism disguised as government programs. The DOGE is finally doing what no one in Washington has dared to do — demand accountability. That’s why the left is panicking. Once Americans see how much of their money has been stolen, wasted, and funneled into the Democratic machine, the backlash will be relentless.

Democrats aren’t worried that the DOGE will cut “essential programs.” They’re terrified it will expose how much of their political power depends on fraud. They know that once Americans see the truth, they won’t just demand cuts to wasteful spending — they’ll demand the removal of every corrupt politician who enabled it.

And that reckoning is long overdue.

REVEALED: The dark history of USAID



President Donald Trump and the DOGE team have begun unraveling the absurd spending of taxpayer dollars by investigating USAID — and it appears it’ll never end.

USAID was created by President John F. Kennedy in an executive order that made it a tool of American foreign policy to combat Russian or Soviet communist subversion worldwide, and it was supposed to stay that way.

Once the Cold War ceased to be a threat, USAID had to find a reason to exist.

“It lost its sense of mission and lost its focus. It started looking for new functions, and in looking for new functions, it brought on more and more and more contractors, and it became an entity of its own,” J. Michael Waller, who subcontracted with USAID in the late '80s and early '90s, tells Jill Savage and Matthew Peterson of “Blaze News Tonight.”


“I never wanted anything to do with them after the mid-90s when I saw they were becoming a club of friends and cronies in the Washington Beltway area and all their friends around the country and around the world, and then you had people in USAID making top government salaries leaving to become top contractors with USAID and getting paid a ton more money,” Waller explains.

“It became this sense of careerism,” he continues, “where you work your way to the top in order to become a contractor, and you leave your say $150,000 a year job to become a contractor for $250,000 a year. And then if you start up your own contracting company with USAID you’re allowed to make a 10% profit on top of the gross value of the contractor.”

Federal law allows CEOs of government contractors to make over $600,000 a year.

“If you’re paying yourself as a CEO, you get your CEO salary, plus all of that profit margin, so you can become a millionaire in a very short time,” he adds.

Want more from 'Blaze News Tonight'?

To enjoy more provocative opinions, expert analysis, and breaking stories you won’t see anywhere else, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Pentagon Scraps Biden-Era Policy Subsidizing Travel Expenses For Employee Abortions

In a major win for America’s unborn, the Trump Defense Department officially revoked a Biden-era policy that authorized the use of taxpayer money to subsidize agency employees’ abortion-related travel expenses. In a memo issued Wednesday, Defense Travel Management Office Deputy Director Sarah Moore notified the Pentagon’s Military Advisory Panel that the Biden administration’s policy of […]

Indiana Republicans Should Defund Group That Sued For ‘Nonbinary’ Driver’s Licenses

Gov. Braun should defund the left-wing Indiana Legal Services, which seeks to undermine Indiana values with 'nonbinary' driver's licenses.

Democrats Hijack Doug Collins’ Confirmation Hearing To Push Extreme Abortion Agenda

'We will be looking at that issue when I get in there to confirm that the VA is actually following the law.'