This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump was left unscathed by a pair of impeachment campaigns orchestrated by Democrats, specifically then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, during his first term.

One was over a phone call with Ukrainian officials in which he asked for an investigation into what later was documented as a Biden family influence peddling operation there, and the other over his opinions and comments about the 2020 election.

The Democrat-majority House voted to impeach each time, but he was acquitted of charges in the Senate each time.

Now an extremist in the Democrat party is starting another movement.

This time it's to impeach Trump for "dastardly deeds."

It was U.S. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who claimed there now are, by Trump, "dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done.'

He also said this will be a "grass-up" movement. "When the people demand it it will be done."

The Gateway Pundit described Green as an "unhinged far-left House Democrat."

The report described the "insane rampage" that apparently was triggered by Trump's comments during a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump suggested the idea of the U.S. taking over control of the Gaza Strip, from which terrorism has been emanating for decades, to redevelop it.

Green, the report said, was triggered into a "total meltdown."

Green shouted, "I rise today to announce the movement to impeach the President has begun! I rise today to announce I will bring articles of impeachment against the president for dastardly deeds proposed and dastardly deeds done!"

Nick Sorter commented online: "They're so freaking mad that they're being exposed. Impeachment worked SO WELL last time, didn't it Democrats?"

An impeachment over "dastardly deeds," of course, would be based on a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which now does not include "dastardly deeds" as grounds for impeachment.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The Iranian regime is at its most vulnerable point in decades. Faced with mounting internal dissent after four major nationwide uprisings in the past seven years, growing international isolation, severe blows to their regional strategy, and tightening economic and diplomatic pressure by the international community, the mullahs in Tehran are racing against time. Their desperate push to accelerate their nuclear weapons project is not a show of strength but a sign of profound weakness. Now, Iran's nuclear ambitions are once again at the forefront of global security concern.

For years, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) has warned that Iran's nuclear program is not meant for peaceful purposes. Tehran has systematically deceived the world while working toward nuclear weapons capability. The West is gradually recognizing this reality.

On Feb. 4, President Trump signed a new memorandum reinstating the 'Maximum Pressure' policy.

This move will further restrict Iran's access to financial markets, intensify sanctions on individuals and entities tied to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and prevent the regime from acquiring the resources needed to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

According to news reports, Trump's order, among other things, orders the U.S. treasury secretary to impose "maximum economic pressure" on Iran, including sanctions and enforcement mechanisms on those violating existing sanctions!

The Iranian people, who have long suffered under the brutal dictatorship, have shown unwavering resilience. Over the past four decades, 120,000 political activists, the overwhelming majority of them affiliated with the main Iranian resistance movement, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), have been executed. Inside Iran, protests have erupted in nearly every major city. From factory workers to teachers, students to retirees, all have taken to the streets demanding change. The regime's response has been predictably violent – mass arrests, torture and executions. But this has not deterred the Iranian people; it has only made them more determined.

Iran's accelerated nuclear ambitions: A sign of desperation

A recent U.S. intelligence assessment confirmed what the NCRI has been exposing for years: Iran is fast-tracking its development of a nuclear weapon. Tehran knows that it may not have the luxury of time. With growing internal unrest and external pressures mounting, the regime is desperate for leverage. By rapidly assembling a nuclear capability, it hopes to blackmail the international community into easing sanctions and granting concessions.

For too long, world leaders have played into this strategy. Iran's leadership understands that nuclear brinkmanship creates panic in diplomatic circles. It uses the threat of weapons development to extract favorable deals from Western negotiators. But history has proven that such negotiations only embolden the regime. The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) failed to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions; it merely gave the regime financial resources to suppress the Iranian people and to fund further instability across the region.

The Free Iran Rally: A global call to action

As the world is grappling to define a correct policy on Iran, thousands of Iranians and supporters of democracy will gather in Paris Feb. 8 for the Free Iran Rally. The event, organized by the NCRI, is not just another protest – it is a powerful declaration that the Iranian people reject the dictatorships of both the shah and the mullahs and demand democratic change. They support the 10-point plan of Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the president-elect of the NCRI, for a free, democratic republic, which calls for separation of government and religion, gender equality, coexistence with the rest of the world and a non-nuclear Iran.

Among those attending will be former political prisoners, activists and international political leaders who recognize that the time for decisive action is now. This rally will shine a spotlight on the Iranian people's struggle and serve as a counterweight to the regime's propaganda. It will remind world leaders that appeasement is not an option – only a free, democratic Iran can bring stability to the region.

Why this matters now

The world faces a critical decision: Will it continue to ignore Iran's nuclear ambitions and human-rights violations, or will it stand with the Iranian people in their quest for freedom? The NCRI has long argued that the only sustainable solution is regime change from within by the Iranian people and the organized resistance. The Iranian people have proven they are ready for this change, but the international community has a duty to stand on their side.

The Free Iran Rally will make clear that the Iranian people, not the mullahs, should determine their nation's future. The international community must take concrete action and stand on the side of Iran's democratic opposition and prevent the regime from acquiring nuclear capability. It is time to act decisively.

The Iranian regime is on borrowed time. Internal unrest is growing, its economy is in shambles, and its nuclear ambitions are being exposed. The NCRI and the Free Iran movement are leading the charge.

The days of appeasement must end. The Iranian people are ready for change. It is time for the international community to stand with them.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Tragically, it was a day of "nines." It occurred on 9 February 2001; it happened 9 miles south of Oahu, Hawaii; and the accident claimed nine lives.

Who would have thought it could ever happen? Due to the total unlikelihood of such an occurrence, one wonders how long it took for those onboard the Japanese fishing boat and research vessel – the 191-foot Ehime Maru – to even realize what was happening before it quickly sank.

It is a big ocean, yet on that day, the nuclear attack submarine USS Greenville (SSN-772), in an emergency surfacing maneuver, unwarily surfaced right underneath the Japanese ship. The sub's rudder sliced into the hull of the Ehime Maru, causing it to sink in a matter of minutes.

While 25 survivors were rescued, nine aboard the fishing vessel, including four high school students, died. But imagine the horror the survivors experienced being lifted up out of the sea as clear skies on a bright sunny day betrayed signs of any immediate danger.

As it turned out, there had been no real emergency on the submarine. It was simply conducting an emergency ascent from the depths below to demonstrate to civilian visitors onboard how quickly it could be done.

However, the accident put the lie to the concept that little ships operate in big oceans. In the Ehime Maru's case, it turned out to be a very small ocean indeed.

Due to this collision, however, the Navy made significant changes to submarine surfacing maneuvers. The absence of any repeat incidents almost a quarter of a century later demonstrates success in "enlarging" the ocean for surface vessels by implementing new measures for their safety.

Similarly, when it comes to aviation, the "Big Sky Theory" suggests that "collisions between aircraft are unlikely due to the vastness of airspace." Of course, that big sky is severely reduced as aircraft converge in proximity to the same airport. This was the scenario on the evening of Jan. 29, 2025 at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA).

An American Airlines passenger jet on approach to the airport and a U.S. Army Blackhawk helicopter on a night training mission heading for Ft. Belvoir in Virginia, collided in midair at 8:47 p.m.

There were no survivors as 67 people lost their lives (64 on the jet and three on the helicopter) as the two aircraft exploded and fell into the Potomac River.

Much more operating room existed for the two ships involved in the accident off of Oahu as the flight path of these two aircraft was restricted due to heavy traffic.

It will undoubtedly take months for an investigation into the cause of the air disaster to be completed. Clearly, however, among the cast of characters involved both in the air and on the ground, someone dropped the ball.

Some factors possibly contributing to the disaster include the answers to the following:

• Did an understaffed control tower – while still in compliance with federal regulations – create an overburdened air traffic controller (ATC)?

• Was the helicopter crew undermanned? (An expert suggests there should have been two crew chiefs rather than one, thus enabling a pair of eyes to simultaneously scan both sides of the aircraft for any approaching planes.)

• Was the helicopter observing its maximum altitude restriction of 200 feet? The evidence is somewhat confusing on this as the tower detected it at a lower altitude than it actually was in order for the collision to have occurred. But it does appear the helicopter was definitely off-course from one of the standard routes helicopters were to fly when near DCA. One report indicates the helicopter was for some reason transitioning between two of these routes.

• As the helicopter was conducting an "annual evaluation" flight in which a senior instructor pilot evaluates a junior pilot and if the altitude restriction was exceeded, how could the former not have observed it unless, perhaps, there was an altimeter malfunction?

• Pilots on both aircraft were in direct contact with the ATC, but were they able to communicate with each other since they normally operate on different frequencies?

• Mysteriously, the responses from the helicopter to the ATC were sent via text, rather than audio. Why was this, especially when the situation warranted instantaneous communication via audio?

• A video of the collision gives the appearance that the helicopter targeted the jet, raising the question of who was flying it at the time – the senior or junior pilot – and was there anything in either pilot's personal history to suggest this may have been a suicide mission? Interestingly, the senior pilot's social media account was quickly scrubbed after the accident.

• Did a last-minute landing change for the jet by the ATC, resulting in an adjustment of its flight path to a shorter runway, cause any confusion?

• Did swirling crosswinds have an impact?

• Based on the communication exchange between the helicopter pilot and the ATC indicating the former had the jet in sight, was a misidentification made?

At a post-crash press conference, President Donald Trump implied that his predecessor's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policy could have been a factor but did not articulate exactly how. The investigation will undoubtedly focus on the training and experience of all involved and their superiors as well. If the senior helicopter pilot was inexperienced, the DCA flight corridor should never have been used for an annual evaluation.

Despite a nighttime sky, visibility was clear. ATC audio reveals less than 30 seconds before the crash, the helicopter was specifically asked if it could see the jet. The helicopter crew responded, "… aircraft in sight, request 'visual separation.'"

This term refers to an ATC method used to ensure aircraft are kept apart in such confined flight areas. While instructed to pass behind the jet, less than 13 seconds later the collision occurred.

While the loss of 67 souls is a great tragedy, an ultimate result of the investigation into this air disaster will lead – as it did to "enlarging" the oceans for safe travel by surface traffic due to the 2001 sinking – to a similar enlargement of the skies for safer air travel.

The federal judge who halted President Trump's sweeping freeze on federal spending has doubled down on her initial ruling.

Judge Loren AliKhan of Washington, D.C, issued a temporary restraining order after non-profit groups complained that they still can't access funding - even after the administration claimed to undo the spending freeze.

"For many, the harms caused by the freeze are non-speculative, impending, and potentially catastrophic,” AliKhan, a Biden appointee, wrote.

Trump spending freeze blocked again

At a Monday hearing, AliKhan heard from the Justice Department and lawyers representing a group of non-profit organizations that depend on federal funding.

Those groups say they are still having trouble accessing federal money despite the White House's apparent reversal last week.

A federal judge in Rhode Island has separately blocked the freeze, which is also being challenged by over 20 Democratic states.

"The fundamental question in this case is whether the president and his advisors can tell agencies that, consistent with their own statutory authorities, they should pause funding to ensure that the funding is executed consistent with the president's priorities," Justice Department lawyers said.

"The answer to that question has to be `yes.'"

White House pulled memo

As part of Trump's radical overhaul of the federal government, the White House paused $3 trillion in federal grants and loans to ensure that spending is aligned with Trump's priorities.

Democrats, disoriented by Trump's blitz of executive orders, rallied against the freeze and accused Trump of stepping on Congress' power of the purse to pinch programs for the poor and vulnerable.

A day after the judge initially blocked the administration's memo, it was rescinded by the Trump administration. The White House said the reversal was meant to end "confusion" surrounding the president's actions and that the recission should "effectively end" the court case.

Freeze still in effect?

In her Monday ruling, Judge AliKhan fired back, calling the memo's recission merely superficial and an attempt to block a court battle on a live issue.

She pointed to evidence from non-profit groups that the funding freeze is still active, as well as comments from press secretary Karoline Leavitt to that effect.

"The rescission, if it can be called that, appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to prevent this court from granting relief," the judge wrote in her order.

While the administration argues that a brief pause on spending is within Trump's authority, the judge disagreed, finding the Office of Management and Budget does not have a "blank check" to further Trump's agenda.

While critics have long doubted the sincerity of their love for each other, Donald Trump and his wife Melania are going strong in their marriage after 20 years. So what's their secret? 

Sharing insight on the dynamic between the world's most powerful man and his loyal wife, Melania's advisers credit her "soft power" and ability to let her husband shine as keys to the couple's success.

"There is something in her – the strong woman – but at the same time, there is the soft power; she’s really good at balancing her husband,” the first lady’s official photographer, Régine Mahaux told Hello! magazine.

Melania's "soft power"

Melania has cut a bold figure as she returns to her role as First Lady with more confidence, and a more receptive nation, than she had the first time. Her official White House portrait, which showed her in a power pose and business suit, broke with convention. Her striking inauguration outfit was also widely seen as an assertion of her personal identity.

These gestures of independence come after Melania shared some political differences with her husband in her best-selling memoir released in 2024.

"We spoke about it. And I said, you have to write what you believe. I’m not going to tell you what to do. You have to write what you believe,” President Trump told Fox News’s Bill Melugin.

“But I said you have to stick with your heart. I’ve said that to everybody, you have to go with your heart.”

While Trump respects Melania's personal autonomy, she takes her duties as a wife and mother very seriously, creating a harmonious balance in the family.

“She’s always in the right place. She’s always behind her husband. He’s in the light; she doesn’t need the light. She’s a very good No. 2,” Mahaux said, adding, “It’s always her husband first, and I like that; she has strong family values, to be a good wife and to make sure they’re happy.”

"She loves him"

Meanwhile, those who work closely with Melania say she's anything but cold and aloof.

"She will also make a coffee for you herself. So if you have a vision of a woman surrounded by servants, you are wrong," her stylist, Hervé Pierre, said.

While long dismissed by some as a trophy wife, Melania has proven her loyalty to the president through a series of trials - standing by his side as he survived assassination attempts and criminal prosecutions on his journey back to the White House.

“Sometimes I wonder how she could have the courage to keep on going; they’ve gone through so much. She’s committed. She loves him and he loves her," Mahaux said.

Although members of the public have their own preconceived notions of what their marriage is like, it's clear that the President and his wife are truly committed to each other. It is difficult to imagine them making it this far if that wasn't the case.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A little-known rule of the Food and Drug Administration allows the government, pharmaceutical companies and universities to bypass "informed consent" requirements when involving individuals in certain clinical research or trials for new drug approval.

WorldNetDaily spoke to Brian Ward, the creator of CovidPenalty.com, a consultant and expert in regulations governing the $600 billion biomedical research industry. Ward reached out to WND to express concern that universities, for example, have been authorized to conduct trials using investigational compounds without the explicit consent of participants.

As Ward explained, in February 2024 Democrats finalized a new rule that fundamentally amended how clinical trials can be conducted in the United States. "Before the new rule was enacted," he told WND, "if a person's identifiable private information was known, the clinical trial's sponsor was lawfully bound to obtain the individual's legally effective informed consent before involving them."

Identifiable private information, or IPI, refers to data that can be used to trace an individual's identity or, when combined with other data, can identify the individual.

For example, suppose an individual undergoes surgery. After the patient is removed, college students arrive to study the efficacy of a new antibacterial cleaning agent. The students do not look at medical charts or obtain data relating to the surgery. In that case, the students do not need to obtain the individual's consent to research because no data is involved that can be traced back to the individual.

However, if the students were to examine the patient's medical chart or obtain the date, time and patient's code, they are legally required to obtain that individual's legally effective informed consent, because that data directly identifies the individual or can be used to trace his or her identity.

The IPI requirement has always served as a buffer between the researcher and the individual, ensuring the individual participates only after having granted legally effective informed consent.

Legally effective informed consent means the sponsor must ensure that the individual is not pressured to participate in the research activity when the opportunity to participate arises.

Research is broadly defined as any activity for which a person's IPI is known, and data obtained from their interaction with the activity adds to the generalizable knowledge of the product. For example, hospitals routinely administer investigational drugs to patients undergoing cancer treatment. In every instance, the hospital must obtain the individual's legally effective informed consent because the individual's IPI is known, and how he or she responds to the drug's treatment is added to the drug's generalizable knowledge.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Just as President Donald Trump's agenda includes wiping out the government-tech conspiracies that launched and executed millions of censorship moves during the administration of Joe Biden, one already-leftist online source is beginning its own campaign to censor anything conservative.

It is Wikipedia, which has been busy embedding feminism and racial justice in its databanks, labeling Zionism as "colonialism," distorting the history of the Holocaust, concealing details about Hunter Biden's scandals, and has been slammed as "thought police" by one of its own founders, that is taking censorship to its own new level.

A report at Newsbusters said the website platform now has a "protocol that directly and unerringly produces the worst descriptions about conservatives and Republicans by virtually guaranteeing that right-leaning media sources cannot be cited."

Already, its previous CEO, Katherine Maher, pushed it into left field by making sure not a single right-leaning outlet was deemed "reliable."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Already, some 20,000 federal workers have accepted President Donald Trump's buyout offer for them to be paid through September, but leave their federal positions now and look for other work.

That's despite alarm from federal employee unions and even some state officials.

Axios reported that an official in the Trump administration said the 20,000 workers are the ones who have accepted the offer … so far.

The deadline was set for Thursday for takers to line up to participate.

Axios pointed out, "It's a significant number of people – about 1% of the federal workforce."

The report noted the White House targeted 5% to 10% of the employees participating, but the deadline hasn't been reached, and Trump very well could extend it, as he's negotiated deadlines for multiple other projects he's launched.

Employee unions have been raising alarms against the plan, as Trump is unlikely to allow the departing workers to be replaced, which could mean a lower number of workers in the unions, and paying union dues.

The administration official who spoke with Axios pointed out it's just one piece of the puzzle, with Trump plans already for massive reductions in the USAID program, in the Office of Personnel Management, and many more.

"The buyout offer entitles federal employees to stop working more or less immediately and continue to be paid through Sept. 30," the report said. The benefit comes from a short-term payout for a reduction in salary obligations for the federal government for years to come.

Critics claim there's no guarantee of payment, and they assume Congress would need to approve the plan, but Trump and his advisers say they are just following through on their commitment to restructure the government in ways that benefit taxpayers.

Some of those accepting the offer might have been intending to retire, or leave, anyway, the report noted.

Part of the program is that those workers who remain will be working in office, no longer being allowed to work from home.

Some on social media expressed their personal doubts.

And Consumer Affairs said 11 leftist attorneys general, led by New York's Letitia James, who orchestrated one of the Democrats' lawfare assaults on Trump, now on appeal, said, "President Trump's so-called buyout offers are nothing more than the latest attack on federal workers and the services they provide. These supposed offers are not guaranteed. Federal employees should be cautious and follow the guidance of their unions to protect their rights."

She claimed, "Attacking our federal workforce will only cause more chaos and confusion for Americans, and will diminish the quality of services our government provides."

Actually, millions of federal workers were offered the buyout program, as part of Trump's plan to remove waste, fraud and inefficiency from the federal government.

The federal employees also were told that those who did not take the offer were not guaranteed to keep their jobs.

"The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal employees union, released information for its members warning them that employees who accepted the offer were not guaranteed its benefits. The National Federation of Federal Employees similarly warned its members against accepting the offer," the report said.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Just as President Donald Trump's cost-cutting campaign is reaching its stride, members of Congress are developing their own suggestions for saving taxpayers' money, including from the tax-supported Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio, which benefit by hundreds of millions of dollars.

In fact, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., the chair of the new Delivering on Government Efficiency subcommittee, has summoned NPR chief Katherine Maher and PBS chief Paula Kerger to answer questions.

Reports call the strategy a "direct challenge to what conservatives have long criticized as taxpayer-funded propaganda for the left."

For instance, NPR refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop scandal in 2020.

Officials there explained, "We don't want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don't want to waste the listeners' and readers' time on stories that are just pure distractions."

Actually, the laptop evidence revealed much about scandals involving the Biden family, including information about its years-long influence peddling operations that appeared to involve Joe Biden himself. The family, according to a later report from Congress, took in tens of millions of dollars – in return essentially for giving people access to Joe Biden as vice president, then president.

Joe Biden himself once openly bragged about threatening Ukraine with the loss of American support if they didn't fire a prosecutor looking into a company that was paying Hunter Biden a million dollars a year to be on its board.

The publicly funded operations more recently claimed that Elon Musk, a key adviser to Trump and tasked with cutting government waste, fraud and abuse, gave a "fascist salute" at a rally.

Greene said, "PBS and NPR receive the tax dollars of hard-working Americans to stay on the air. Their coverage should serve every single American, not just a narrow slice of like-minded individuals and ideological interest groups. Notably, NPR refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story in an attempt to protect then-candidate Joe Biden leading up to the 2020 presidential election. Just hours after President Trump was sworn in for the second time, PBS falsely implied that @elonmusk made a fascist salute at the President's inaugural rally.

"This kind of one-sided reporting, which attacks over half the country to protect and promote its own political interests, doesn't deserve a single cent of American taxpayers' money. I look forward to bringing the president of each of these so-called 'media' outlets before my brand-new DOGE Subcommittee to explain to me—and to the American people—why they deserve to continue receiving public funding. To me, it looks like a great place for @DOGE to save some extra $."

Musk said it was an excellent idea.

NPR gets about one-quarter of its budget from taxes; PBS about 40%, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The decision by NPR, too, to essentially cast aside "truth" in its priorities also has earned criticism.

Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley pointed out that even "respected editor, Uri Berliner," wrote a scathing condemnation of political bias at NPR, but the outlet still "doubled down on its one-sided coverage."

And, he noted, "What is striking is how NPR's shrinking audience righteously opposes any effort to withdraw public subsidies. While dismissing the values or views of half the country, they expect those citizens to support its programming. What would the reaction be if Congress ordered the same subsidy for more popular competitors like Fox Radio?"

He explained outlets "have every right to offer their own slanted viewpoints or coverage. They do not have a right to a federal subsidy to insulate them from the response of consumers."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Trump's agenda long has included making America's education system better, with one component being a plan to shut down the federal Department of Education and turn those responsibilities back to the states.

Now an order to begin that process is in the works, according to a report from NBC News, which cited sources "familiar with the plans."

Trump was on video during his campaign explaining, "One other thing I'll be doing very early in the administration is closing up the Department of Education in Washington D.C., and sending all education and education work and needs back to the states. In total American society pours more than $1 trillion a year into public education systems but instead of being at the top of the list, we are literally right smack — guess what — at the bottom."

Trump already has moved on the nation's education industry, issuing an order to expand school choice and directing the federal bureaucrats to issue guidance to states about how they can use federal funds to promote that.

While Trump cannot unilaterally close down a federal agency, his orders can move the education industry that direction.

Last summer, Trump also said then nation would be helped by cutting federal funding for schools pushing the racist "critical race theory" and opening civil rights reviews of schools that discriminate against Asian Americans.