This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats dislike President Donald Trump.
After all, he beat the party's admired icon Hillary Clinton. And their sitting president, Joe Biden.
They've orchestrated years of undermining, of subterfuge, or doubt, of lawfare against him.
So when one Democrat supports a Trump agenda point, it gets attention.
That's what has happened with Janet Napolitano, who was the homeland security secretary for Barack Obama back in the day.
She now is on record explaining that the things Trump has done for America on its border are "useful."
In an interview, she said, "I think the border needs to be secure. … Many of the things that the Trump Administration has done on the border, from an operational standpoint, have been useful in that regard."
The Democrat hate for Trump has spilled out again just recently because of the leftist and pro-illegal alien riots that have developed in Los Angeles, and apparently now are spreading across the country.
They were triggered last weekend when federal officers started delivering warrants and making arrests in an investigation into illegal cartel money laundering, and other charges.
Democrats have said they dislike the violence that is being caused by leftists in the city, but they also dislike Trump's response, which was to send in National Guard troops to quell the violence and restore peace, a project on which forces still are working.
It was ABC that pointed out Democrat senators "were walking a line between criticizing the White House for sending troops to put down protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles, and the violence the administration says caused it to act."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
American voters chose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton for president back in 2008. In 2016 they chose Donald Trump over Clinton.
Since then, she's repeatedly harped on how the election was stolen from her and even these days, sarcastic comments often target her for being "jealous" that Jill Biden was president, not her.
That, of course, plays on the evidence of Joe Biden's mental decline while he was in the White House, and questions about exactly who was making decisions.
But even those scenarios look to end up taking second place to the mockery of Clinton's insistence, in her newest episode, of continuing to tell other people what she thinks.
That's when she went on social media to call the Los Angeles riots, triggered by federal law enforcement warrants and arrests in a criminal cartel investigation of money laundering and more, to say they are "peaceful demonstrations."
Fox News noted it was the first and only comment from Clinton, as of Tuesday morning, about the riots.
"California Governor Newsom didn't request the National Guard be deployed to his state following peaceful demonstrations. Trump sent them anyway," she wrote. "It's the first time in 60 years a president has made that choice. Trump's goal isn't to keep Californians safe. His goal is to cause chaos, because chaos is good for Trump."
Social media watchers noted immediately that while Clinton wanted other people to hear her voice, she was uninterested in others' comments: She turned off that feature on her post.
"Ever notice that only leftists disable comments?" California Republican Liberty Caucus chair John Dennis posted.
And Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican, informed her, "'These are not peaceful Hillary."
Fox said the situation allowed Clinton to be "brutally mocked" for her "delusional" comment.
Because of Clinton's imposed limits on comments, "Social media users were able to respond to Clinton through quote engagements, but not through direct replies as of Tuesday morning," Fox reported.
Another commenter pointed out, "Accusing the National Guard of causing chaos is a serious allegation that requires serious proof. I see none."
Another, posting an image of fire raging as rioters waved a Mexican flag, said, "Hillary Clinton is delusional if nothing else."
When federal officers tried to deliver warrants and make arrests in their criminal investigation, rioters soon targeted them with thrown rocks, physical attacks and worse. Cars were torched.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Following years of science-defying agendas imposed by the Joe Biden administration for students, teachers and more, the U.S. Department of Educations has concluded that sororities are for women.
A commentary in the Daily Signal explains the precedent that is a direct hit on the common pro-LGBT agendas that have been imposed on colleges and schools, especially the "T" agenda, which claims men can become women and vice versa.
Following science, that doesn't happen, as being male or female is embedded in the body down to the DNA level, and no chemical or surgical treatment changes that.
"The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights just affirmed what every sorority woman in America knew the first time she walked into her chapter—a sorority is for women," the report explained.
"A sorority that admits male students is no longer a sorority by definition and thus loses the Title IX statutory exemption for a sorority's single-sex membership practices," the department statement said.
"Translation: If you let men in, you're not a women's organization anymore. You're just another coed club—one that fails to understand basic biology and forces radical leftist groupthink on its female members," the report said.
."This Education Department clarification carries enormous weight—it reaffirms the long-standing legal basis for single-sex sororities under Title IX," the report said.
The report cited the fracas that developed at the University of Wyoming in 2022.
Then, "Kappa Kappa Gamma's national leadership forced its University of Wyoming chapter to accept Artemis Langford, a 6-foot-2, 260-pound man, despite the protests of women in the house. When some brave sorority members took legal action, they were dismissed as bigots," the report said.
"According to court documents, multiple female collegiate sorority members testified that Langford would linger in common areas in the KKG house, stare at them, and become visibly aroused. To add insult to injury, the activist judge told the young women they had no right to define what 'woman' even means in their own sorority," it explained.
The report said the Office for Civil Rights in the federal government now is investigating the school for "allegedly allowing males to join and live in female-only intimate and communal spaces."
The report explained sorority officials, from Kappa Kappa Gamma as well as Phi Mu actually expelled longtime members for opposing males inside sorority houses.
"We watched as Payton McNabb—the young woman permanently injured by a trans-identifying male volleyball player—was kicked out of Delta Zeta for daring to confront a man wearing a dress in the women's restroom on her college campus at Western Carolina University," the report said.
The report said, "Here's the reality: Title IX has had a carve-out for single-sex organizations almost from its inception. That means sororities and fraternities have a legal right to exist as women-only and men-only spaces. But if you start letting men who 'identify as women' into the sisterhood, you forfeit that protection. The colleges and universities that support you are now on notice: Support a sorority that admits men and you lose the legal exception."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For months, Tesla and SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump together used the Department of Government Efficiency to seek out and destroy corruption, criminality, fraud, and waste in government spending.
Reports suggest that about $170 billion was saved, and work continues even after Musk's time as a temporary special government employee expired.
But a war of words erupted between the two last week as Congress was considering a plan to put into law the cuts. Musk was furious that there weren't more cuts, while Trump was working within the reality of a divided Congress, where even his own GOP party had fractures.
Accusations went back and forth, with the Epstein files mentioned. Threats of impeachment, contract cancellation, and more erupted.
But the two intense government and industry leaders now may be heading toward a reconciliation.
Musk has apologized, conceding some of his comments went too far.
And Trump has confirmed he could work through his reactions, and come to "no hard feelings."
A report from Fox News revealed that Trump said in a new interview he's open to reconciliation.
"Look, I have no hard feelings," he told "Pod Force One with Miranda Devine. "I was really surprised that that happened. He went after a bill that's phenomenal. He just — I think he feels very badly that he said that, actually."
The report noted the two "traded fierce social media barbs" after Musk called the congressional cost-cutter a "massive, outrageous, pork-filled" plan.
The bill has been adopted by the House and is pending in the Senate. It is meant to extend Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as well as provide new funding for the border and defense.
Trump said he is open to mending fences. "I guess I could, but we have to straighten out the country. And my sole function now is getting this country back to a level higher than it's ever been. And I think we can do that."
Musk, meanwhile, said, "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far."
The nation's top public health authority, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has just made a decision on vaccines that is sending shockwaves through Washington D.C.
In one fell swoop, Kennedy has fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine advisory panel, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.
While announcing the move, Kennedy repeated his familiar criticism that vaccine guidance has been compromised by industry-backed science.
"A clean sweep is necessary to reestablish public confidence in vaccine science," Kennedy said in a statement.
"ACIP's new members will prioritize public health and evidence-based medicine. The Committee will no longer function as a rubber stamp for industry profit-taking agendas."
Kennedy was narrowly confirmed to his Cabinet position by the Senate, overcoming skepticism of his critical comments on vaccines. He downplayed his anti-vaccine views at the time, although he never actually recanted them.
Since becoming the nation's top public health official, Kennedy has taken a series of moves to "make America healthy again," targeting ingredients in the food supply and bringing vaccines under closer scrutiny.
Kennedy's critics see his latest move as a public health coup that will introduce anti-vaccine policy at the CDC's influential committee.
The impacts of Kennedy's move could be far-reaching, since most doctors follow ACIP's recommendations, which also influence which shots get covered by insurance. Critics of Kennedy's move say it will lower vaccination rates, resulting in a rise in preventable disease.
Some vaccines "won't be recommended at all" and other some shots could "no longer be reimbursable by insurance companies", said Peter Lurie, a former FDA official.
"As a consequence, we will see still further declines in vaccination rates, and then a resurgence of the diseases that they could have prevented," he said.
Defending the move, Kennedy pointed out that all 17 members of ACIP were appointed by the Biden administration, which has faced criticism for politicizing the COVID vaccine. A recent Senate report found that the CDC waited months to alert the public to myocarditis risks as the Biden administration was pressuring the nation to get the shot.
Kennedy said that not removing the current ACIP members would leave the Trump administration unable to appoint a new majority until 2028.
"The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine," Kennedy wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
So far, Kennedy has largely kept his pledge to not limit access to vaccines, but the CDC recently removed the COVID-19 vaccine from the CDC's immunization schedule for "healthy children and pregnant women."
Republican senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), one of the key senators who had to be persuaded to confirm Kennedy, said he is watching the nix developments carefully.
“Of course, now the fear is that the ACIP will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion,” Cassidy said in a social media post. “I’ve just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I’ll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.”
A group of anti-ICE protesters stormed Trump Tower on Monday to demand the return of immigrants "kidnapped" by the Trump administration.
The small demonstration of "mostly grey-haired" protesters, the New York Post notes, was a muted echo of the migrant riots that have raged for days in Los Angeles.
The New York Police Department arrested 24 people who occupied the lobby of Trump's iconic Fifth Avenue building. There was no immediate report of charges being filed.
The protesters voiced complaints about aliens who have been deported to El Salvador's infamous CECOT prison without "due process". The Trump administration brought one of those immigrants, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, back to the United States last week to face charges of human trafficking.
“We are demanding that the administration bring back everyone from CECOT to the United States, release them ICE custody, return them to their homes and families and allow them their day in court,” the protesters said.
The protesters ignored multiple police commands to disperse, and the cops ended up dragging them out in zip-ties.
"This is the New York City Police Department. You are occupying these premises unlawfully and without permission. I am ordering you to leave these premises now. If you refuse to leave, you may be subject to arrest,” police said.
Anti-ICE demonstrations have been spreading across the country after an explosion of violent unrest in Los Angeles over the weekend. Trump has deployed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to protect federal property and restore order in the nation's second-largest city, where rioters have blocked roads and attacked law enforcement with concrete blocks and fireworks.
The protests in Los Angeles have been the largest, and most violent, to date in response to Trump's second-term immigration crackdown. Episodes of lawlessness have been observed on a smaller scale in other cities, including New York, where mobs of rioters have also attempted to block ICE operations around federal buildings.
New York mayor Eric Adams has warned that anarchy in the Big Apple will not be tolerated.
“The escalation of protests in Los Angeles over the last couple of days is unacceptable and would not be tolerated if attempted in our city,” Adams said during a press conference Monday alongside NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch.
Despite the violent backlash ICE has received, more than half of voters approve of Trump's deportation plans, a new CBS poll found.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In June 2023, under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Defense and India's Ministry of Defence launched the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem, or INDUS‑X, as part of the broader Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology. Two months later, in August, a formal DoD factsheet publicly announced the mission: to catalyze partnerships between startups, academia and private capital for the development of artificial intelligence, so-called intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms and autonomous systems.
However, beneath the glossy presentation, a one-sided dynamic emerged: India leveraged U.S. infrastructure, funding and know-how, while American firms saw little to no parallel opportunity.
In its first year, INDUS‑X underwrote innovation challenges that awarded more than $1.2 million in U.S. taxpayer dollars to Indian startups. The Defense Innovation Unit and India's iDEX jointly selected firms like Pixxel, Zeus Numerix and OceanComm to receive direct U.S. funding for defense-centric prototypes. As confirmed by the U.S. Department of Defense, "Indian winners were awarded direct U.S. funding for defense prototypes."
Asymmetrical access: Why U.S. startups are left out
INDUS-X has served not only as a platform for technological collaboration, but as a strategic funnel for U.S. capital and institutional support into India's defense startup ecosystem. Through a series of targeted initiatives, including investor strategy sessions in New Delhi, university-based workshops at the Indian Institutes of Technology and curated public-private matchmaking events, INDUS-X has helped channel American venture capital and innovation mentorship directly into Indian firms. These activities, facilitated by the U.S. Department of Defense and its innovation arms, are part of a coordinated effort to fast-track India's role in emerging defense technologies.
Yet, while Indian startups are being actively embedded into the U.S. defense innovation infrastructure, American companies have not been afforded equivalent access to Indian government resources, funding mechanisms or procurement pathways. The disparity is stark.
There is no evidence of American defense startups receiving reciprocal integration into Indian programs such as iDEX, DPEPP or DRDO-backed accelerators, the flow of benefits, investment, exposure and development support remaining decisively one-way.
According to a Reuters report, INDUS-X directly supported seven Indian startups by offering them access to key U.S. defense institutions such as the Defense Innovation Unit, or DIU, and facilitating strategic connections with American defense contractors.
These firms, all privately held and Indian-owned, were elevated through a pipeline of mentorship and opportunity that would be difficult to replicate for any U.S. startup seeking a foothold in India's restricted defense marketplace.
The most visible outcomes of this strategic imbalance are seen in the rise of three Indian startups: Pixxel, PierSight and Zeus Numerix. Each has transitioned from early-stage ventures into internationally positioned defense contractors, thanks in large part to their direct integration into INDUS-X activities. Pixxel, which specializes in hyperspectral imaging satellites, won a five-year contract with the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office, followed by a NASA agreement to support Earth observation missions. With momentum from these engagements and continued visibility through INDUS-X channels, Pixxel went on to raise over $60 million in funding to expand its satellite constellation and defense service offerings.
These outcomes reflect more than just startup success; they signal a fundamental policy posture that prioritizes the integration of foreign firms into U.S. defense ecosystems while offering no structural path for reciprocal benefit. In doing so, the INDUS-X framework inadvertently positions U.S. defense innovation as a subsidy for a foreign competitor's strategic industrial growth.
In effect, American taxpayer-funded innovation, capital and infrastructure are being deployed to strengthen competitive Indian firms, with no structural obligations for India to return the favor.
American startups, in contrast, remain sidelined. They have no standing in India's major defense procurement streams, such as those backed by India's Defence Research and Development Organisation are shut out of Indian funding platforms, and cannot participate in critical Indian defense supply chains unless subsumed under Indian multinationals. No U.S. firm has received defense-offset considerations or procurement opportunities via India's Defence Production & Export Promotion Policy.
Moreover, there is no bilateral agreement requiring reciprocal access, no ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) equivalent audits, no harmonized export-control regime and no enforcement mechanism preventing the re-export or militarization of shared technology by India.
The result is a clear one-way transfer of U.S. innovation into India's defense industry, with no obligation or mechanism to ensure American firms receive comparable benefits. While U.S. companies must navigate rigorous compliance regimes and face sales restrictions, Indian companies are free to build and export U.S.-enhanced technologies, now in direct competition with American defense suppliers, aligned with India's long-term strategy of becoming a global defense leader.
India's global dominance ambitions: A strategic misalignment
India's deeper strategic agenda complicates its role in U.S. defense partnerships. Far from casual aspirations, India's vision of global leadership in technology and defense is formally embedded in national doctrine.
India's Defence Production & Export Promotion Policy (DPEPP) 2020 explicitly aims to transform that nation into a $25 billion defense manufacturing powerhouse, with $5 billion earmarked for exports this year, supported by a sharp pivot toward self-reliance, domestic R&D and foreign market penetration.
In 2021, the Confederation of Indian Industry and Indian think-tank NITI Aayog together unveiled Technology Vision 2047, explicitly envisioning India as a global leader in AI, defense technologies and manufacturing, and launching the country on a path to reshape global industrial and security architectures. That vision has found international voice through CII's influence at the G20, B20 and World Economic Forum, where it advocates global supply chain realignment under a "new digital order led by Indian innovation."
India's aspirations to emerge as a leading global power in defense manufacturing has clearly benefited from the expansion of collaboration from the U.S. and India, seen in increased private sector participation, growing exports and significant foreign direct investments in advanced technologies. India contributes this growth for enabling their global competitiveness against other major defense exporters like the U.S.
Rather than creating a "mutual acceleration ecosystem," INDUS-X has functioned as a quiet handover, transferring high-value American defense know-how to an unregulated foreign innovation base while U.S. startups are locked out and the U.S. loses its competitiveness – all in a space the U.S. has historically dominated.
Collectively, these initiatives make one thing clear: India does not perceive itself as a collaborative peer, but as a future global power rewriting rules in economics, security and technological governance. Integrating such a nation into core U.S. defense systems, without binding oversight, clear reciprocity or national security safeguards amounts to strategic overreach. While framed as mutual advancement, the current structure of INDUS‑X reflects strategic vulnerability for the U.S.
India's strategic end-run: From backdoor acquisition to open access
India's pursuit of U.S. defense and dual-use technology has never been accidental; it has been methodical, persistent and, above all, strategic. As far back as the 1980s, Indian military doctrine openly prioritized the acquisition of civilian technologies with latent military applications. This was not a secret. India's own policymakers declared space and commercial payloads should always be dual-capable, explicitly framing innovation as a means to military advancement.
Former Indian president and missile program architect Abdul Kalam repeatedly stressed the importance of artificial intelligence, robotics and nanotechnology, not merely for development, but as vital instruments of future warfare.
This backdoor acquisition strategy was not limited to rhetoric. On Sept. 9, 2008, the U.S. Justice Department announced a five-count indictment against Indian national Siddabasappa Suresh and Rajaram Engineering Corporation for illegally supplying India's government with high-performance testing equipment critical to ballistic missile systems and spacecraft development, technology tightly regulated under U.S. export control law. The items were covertly routed through shell companies and third parties, circumventing licensing requirements meant to safeguard national security.
Despite this clear pattern of circumvention, India has remained outside the bounds of international nonproliferation agreements. It is one of just three nations, including Israel and Pakistan, that has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Yet in 2008, the United States granted India an unprecedented exception. Under intense lobbying pressure and in pursuit of "strategic alignment," the Bush administration overturned decades of U.S. and global policy by approving the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement, giving New Delhi access to American nuclear technology without requiring the full safeguards or disarmament commitments imposed on treaty-bound states.
The outcome was immediate and consequential. India continued developing nuclear weapons outside international inspection. It maintains an arsenal of an estimated 164 plutonium-based warheads and refuses to permit full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency inspections of its facilities. India has never signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and continues to reject legally binding commitments to halt fissile material production.
The cost of these decisions continues to mount. In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy approved Holtec International to transfer sensitive nuclear reactor technology to three Indian entities: Holtec Asia, Tata Consulting Engineers and Larsen & Toubro. The authorization was granted under 10 CFR Part 810, a regulation governing the transfer of nuclear know-how to foreign nations. That this approval came despite India's unresolved proliferation risks and lack of disarmament transparency is, as one former Pentagon official put it, a case of "policy dressed up as progress."
The Biden administration's 2025 guidance easing Missile Technology Control Regime restrictions now allows for expanded exports of long-range missile and space-launch technologies to "trusted partners," including India. According to Breaking Defense, this shift was justified under the banner of deterring adversaries and boosting U.S. defense exports. But it also opens the door to foreign actors with well-documented histories of diversion and repurposing.
Political capture, willful blindness: A history of theft, threat and subversion
This historical pattern of exploitation has not only gone unaddressed, it has been codified into policy.
What began as selective leniency in the name of diplomacy has now matured into institutional complicity. By extending high-trust privileges to a state that refuses to adhere to basic international nonproliferation norms, the United States has paved a pathway for systemic abuse. The U.S.-India technology partnership, once envisioned as a strategic hedge, has become a liability, one where national security, industrial advantage and the integrity of American innovation are quietly traded for geopolitical optics and corporate appeasement.
What began as a so-called innovation partnership has rapidly become a dangerous channel for uncontrolled technology transfer. Under the INDUS-X framework, Indian firms have been granted access to some of America's most sensitive defense research and infrastructure ranging from DARPA-aligned R&D to U.S. university test ranges and federally funded laboratories without the legal guardrails normally required to protect national security.
Through the INDUSWERX consortium, American academic institutions like Penn State, Texas A&M and the University of Maryland opened their doors to Indian startups, giving them exposure to dual-use technologies in artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and next-gen sensing. These are not symbolic gestures, they are accelerants. Yet, this access was not governed by traditional safeguards like International Traffic in Arms Regulations, end-use monitoring agreements or export-control compliance. The lack of enforcement mechanisms means that once U.S.-origin innovations are handed over, they can be replicated, commercialized or militarized by Indian entities with no legal consequences.
This arrangement is not happening in a vacuum. India remains on the U.S. Trade Representative's "Priority Watch List" for chronic intellectual property violations, technology theft and forced localization policies. India has a long and well-documented record of diverting sensitive foreign technologies for military use ranging from missile guidance systems to satellite surveillance components. And yet, despite past sanctions and espionage cases involving Indian defense agencies and shell companies, the U.S. government is now proactively facilitating access.
At its core, INDUS-X is not collaboration, it is capitulation. America is extending defense-grade access and taxpayer-funded innovation to a foreign government that refuses binding transparency, evades nonproliferation norms and has openly weaponized its diaspora and corporate networks to manipulate U.S. policy. This is not a strategic hedge against China; it is the quiet erosion of America's technological edge and security autonomy enabled by leaders too compromised or complacent to draw the line.
If the United States fails to reverse course, the outcome will not be shared prosperity or mutual deterrence; it will be the outsourcing of America's future, one critical system at a time. Congress must act now, not with more memoranda, but with investigation, suspension and enforcement before this bilateral subversion is fully inside the gates.
Blindness or sanctioned sabotage?
This is not a story of collaboration gone awry, but is the final chapter in a long play of exploitation disguised as alliance. What began decades ago as selective engagement has metastasized into a full-scale erosion of American sovereignty, carried out not by an enemy at the gates, but by a partner inside the wire. The INDUS-X initiative has handed India the keys to America's most sensitive defense technologies, research labs, dual-use innovations and taxpayer-funded programs, while asking for nothing in return. There are no export controls. No reciprocal access. No legal enforcement. And no strategic rationale that justifies this level of vulnerability, other than political cowardice or captured leadership.
India has never concealed its ambitions. Its officials say it openly: All innovation must serve national defense. All collaboration must support industrial supremacy. All foreign partnerships must feed domestic dominance. From satellite surveillance to missile guidance to AI warfare, India has converted foreign technology into military advantage and now, under INDUS-X, it has found its clearest, most direct channel yet, funded, facilitated and fast-tracked by the United States government.
This is not accidental; it is orchestrated. It is not innovation sharing; it is industrial surrender. And while Indian firms scale globally with American tools, American startups are locked out of Indian markets, buried under bureaucracy and blocked from basic procurement access.
Americans are subsidizing their competitor and mentoring their replacement. And in so doing, America is inadvertently undermining the very foundation of its own defense-industrial base.
Let it be said clearly: India is not a passive recipient of American generosity, but an aggressive and calculated competitor with a proven record of technology diversion, nuclear opacity, IP theft and economic coercion. It has refused to sign every major nonproliferation treaty, violated export laws and used shell entities to evade restrictions. It sits on the U.S. Trade Representative's Priority Watch List for intellectual property theft – and yet is being granted unfettered access to next-generation U.S. defense innovation through universities, incubators and federal labs with no strings attached.
And now, through U.S. government initiatives, all of this has been normalized, legitimized and institutionalized. Whether willful blindness or sanctioned sabotage, no serious government and no president committed to protecting American security would allow such a lopsided framework to exist, unless their hand was forced or their knowledge or will were absent. This is the Biden administration's most dangerous export: not a product, but permission for a foreign rival to hollow out America's military advantage under the banner of partnership.
Americans must care. Because what's at stake is not just technology or trade; it's their national defense, their economic future and their global leadership. Every satellite launched with stolen specs, every drone built on borrowed code, every AI model trained on American innovation but wielded by foreign interests is a threat that the U.S. helped fund. Americans are not deterring their adversaries, but are supplying them. Instead of building resilience, they are outsourcing it.
If Congress fails to act, and if the American people stay silent, then what comes next will not only be betrayal; it will be defeat by design. The U.S. must immediately investigate, defund and unwind INDUS-X. And it must impose binding oversight, restore compliance standards and reassert control over its own innovation systems.
Because if that does not happen, then the next great leap in military power will not be made in America. It will be made with American tools under a foreign flag.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A national organization that claimed it could censor and restrict the speech of its members, including their speech as private individuals, is reversing course.
And it could be because it faced a lawsuit over its practices.
The Washington Stand reports the abrupt course reversal has been confirmed by the National Association of Realtors.
The organization had attacked a member who worked in Virginia, and also served as a local pastor.
It was Wilson Fauber who was put in a bull's-eye by leftists in the organization who demanded that he be punished for sharing Bible verses and sermons on sexuality on his personal social media accounts.
It was in 2024 that the Virginia NAR claimed Fauber's posts violated its rule that bans "harassing speech."
Because of its leftist ideology, specially protected people included those with characteristics including "religion, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity."
His online comments were bashed during his 2023 Staunton City Council campaign, and complaints were filed by two group member who didn't know him, but still alleged "hate speech."
Just days ago, the national group "announced a pivotal amendment to Standard of Practice 10-5, as reported by The Christian Post: 'In the amendment to Standard of Practice 10-5 … the NAR clarified that the rule can only regulate a realtor's speech that is made in their professional capacity in furtherance of their real estate practice,'" the report said.
Before that change, the group claimed the authority to regulate professional and personal speech.
Fauber said, "This is a massive victory for free speech and religious freedom not just for me, but for all 1.5 million members of the National Association of Realtors."
The report said he attributed the change to his looming lawsuit against the NAR as well as advocacy in state legislatures like in Texas.
Victoria Cobb, of The Family Foundation, called on the state organization to "compensate [Fauber] for the losses to his business and reputation" caused by the censorship scheme.
Arielle Del Turco, of Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty, told the Stand, "It is totally inappropriate for a professional association to punish its members for expressing their sincerely held religious beliefs in their private capacity."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Boasting the plan will put "the lives of young Americans on the right financial path," the White House announced on Monday the Republicans' domestic policy bill will create a $1,000 investment account for every American newborn.
"The passage of the one Big Beautiful Bill will literally change the lives of working, middle class families across American by delivering the largest tax cuts in history, increasing the child tax credit, and by creating this incredible new 'Trump Account' program…"
The contribution "would be placed in an index fund tied to the overall stock market and managed by the child's legal guardians. The accounts will start at $1,000 per child and guardians or other private entities can contribution up to $5,000 additional … every year throughout the child's life," explained a report from CNN.
Michael Dell, founder of Dell computers, said, "The creation of investment accounts for every child will compound into substantial nest eggs providing support for education, home ownership, and starting families."
Officials for Uber, Altimeter Capital, ARM Corp., Salesforce, ServiceNow, Robinhood and Goldman Sachs joined the president in the announcement.
The president explained, "It is a pro family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they'll really be getting a big jump on life, especially if we get a little bit lucky with some of the numbers and the economies."
The recipient of the account could access funds when they turn 18 for schooling, training or a first-time home purchase. The full balance could be released at age 30.
House Speaker Mike Johnson noted, "If you have a 401(k), you understand the power of investing early for the future. Trump Accounts take that same principle and they apply it from the very beginning of Americans' lives … It's a bold, transformative policy that gives every eligible American child a financial head start from day one … Trump Accounts are all about setting up the next generation for success."
House Ways & Means Committee Chair Jason Smith added, "The Trump investment accounts will be a game-changer for new parents even before their newborn baby can walk or talk. Their child will have money saved to one day learn a trade, start a business, or to buy a home. Every child born under this policy will have a better shot at a future. It does not matter if they live on a city block or on a county road — this will make a significant difference to their lives."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Just as President Donald Trump is cracking down on criminal activity by illegal aliens in Los Angeles – there have been a couple days of riots opposing federal law enforcement raids on cartel operations there – one governor has gone the other direction.
He's signed a new law that expands his state's protections for illegal aliens, who under federal law actually have committed crimes by entering the United States without permission.
A report at Complete Colorado outlines what the new scheme adopted by a Democrat majority legislature and signed by Democrat Gov. Jared Polis means.
As of now, state judicial and legislative branches, and local governments, are barred from sharing personal immigration-related data with federal officials. Federal authorities now are denied access to childcare facilities, hospitals and schools, unless they have a warrant.
Also, local governments cannot work with federal law enforcement agencies to detain someone facing civil immigration proceedings, and any information on an enrolled child or patient cannot be shared with federal investigators.
Among other restrictions, the report explained.
The bill, signed recently, is the Protect Civil Rights Immigration Status, and was a top priority for leftists in the legislature.
The report explained state lawmakers are continuing to be "isolating Colorado from the Trump administration's deportation policies."
State practice in Colorado already had limited interaction and information sharing between local and federal officers.
Despite the facts embedded in state law, Polis still claimed that state and local agencies work with federal agents "identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting criminals, regardless of their immigration status."
Technically, all those who are in the United States illegally are in violation of the federal law, and are "criminals."
Violators of the law would face a $50,000 fine, the report said.
Further, the law prevents jails from delaying the release of a criminal illegal alien when requested by a federal immigration official. And it "allows the governor to deny entry into Colorado to another state's National Guard troops for immigration enforcement unless 'the military force from another state is acting on federal orders and acting as a part of the United States armed forces,'" the report said.
And illegal aliens no longer need to document that they've applied for lawful status before gaining the special privilege of in-state tuition.
The report noted Rob Natelson, senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Denver-based Independence Institute, cited the "constitutional absurdities" of the agenda.
For instance, the bill recites the 10th Amendment states' rights, but neglects to explain that immigration is not one of the powers "reserved to the states."