This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
It's no secret that massive layoffs are currently devastating American workers. While industries across the spectrum are affected, from retail to manufacturing, the hardest-hit area is America's tech sector, with companies from Amazon to Microsoft to Meta cutting hundreds of thousands of jobs, over 23,400 tech jobs cut in April alone.
While automation and AI are conveniently blamed, hardcore reality comes into view when companies routinely cite "cost-cutting" and "corporate restructuring" – phrases that are often euphemisms for laying off American workers while hiring more foreign workers at lower wages.
At the same time, the government of India is openly celebrating the launch of its latest scheme to supercharge the export of Indian workers to the U.S. and other "high-income economies." Its goal is to facilitate the global mobility and employment of millions of migrant Indian workers directly at the expense of jobs for Americans.
Not just immigration, but a global labor-export campaign
India's "Global Access to Talent from India" initiative, or GATI, launched May 6, was personally championed by India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and other officials who essentially describe it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to redirect jobs, wages and even long-term industry trends away from Americans and into the pockets of India's government, its outsourcing giants and their international partners.
Calling this a "now or never" moment, India warns that the window of demographic advantage could close as competition mounts from African nations, the Philippines, Indonesia, Egypt, Vietnam, and Brazil, all vying for their own share of the global labor market.
Referring to a November 2024 think-tank report by two India-based entities, which projects a "global labor gap" of 45-50 million jobs in high-income countries by 2030, GATI sees a huge opportunity to flood foreign markets with its mass population to enter the global workforce. The document outlines a goal of doubling or even tripling the annual outflow of Indian workers, aiming for a "potential stock" of millions of Indian migrant workers overseas.
But the ambition doesn't end there. India is positioning itself as a "geostrategic partner" for major economies, hoping to be recognized as the world's "trusted migration partner" and rebranding its citizens as a global "talent brand." GATI predicts that this "talent gap" could expand dramatically over the next two decades.
Behind this bold new push, India has developed a structured and aggressive multi-horizon strategy to unlock its overseas labor potential. Through a combination of diaspora influence, bilateral negotiations, demand-side positioning, skill alignment, and financing mechanisms, India calls for a "whole-of-nation" effort to coordinate the mass movement of workers abroad, treating its citizens as a strategic export. At the same time, Jaishankar demands that destination countries eliminate their own protections and reshape their laws to accommodate this outflow.
This is not about mutual benefit, but about using foreign labor markets to solve India's unemployment and economic growth crises.
Outbound movement, remittance inflow
Thus, by its own admission, GATI has engineered a massive, state-backed campaign to export Indian labor on a scale never before seen. This isn't just about creating new job opportunities for Indians, it's about systematically opening foreign markets, expanding India's labor supply, and building a permanent ecosystem that channels workers – and wages – out of America and into India. According to a leader of one of the report's contributors, the India-based Boston Consulting Group, India's labor exports could grow to as many as 2.5 million workers per year.
Reality check: This is not a workforce solution for the United States. Indian officials publicly celebrate the higher wages their workers earn overseas, calling it "transformative" for India's economy, while U.S. companies line up to replace Americans with cheaper, more compliant foreign labor. The result is a hollowing out of America's middle class, not a win-win for both countries. What's unfolding in America is not an isolated series of layoffs, but rather a deliberate, top-down overhaul of the U.S. labor market, designed by Indian policymakers, embraced by corporate America, and propelled by relentless lobbying for ever more visas.
In fact, the GATI Foundation openly targets $300 billion in annual remittances, money siphoned from American paychecks and communities, to be spent and invested back in India. India's leaders make no secret of their endgame to use public-private partnerships to streamline recruitment, training, and job placement for Indian nationals, maximizing remittance flows and strengthening India's economic influence abroad.
These remittance inflows have become a critical pillar of India's economic strategy, pumping billions back into the country every year. Through GATI, India now aggressively markets itself as the world's "reliable labor supplier," positioning outbound migration as a strategic national asset.
Unfortunately, the true impact of all this is that every job handed to an Indian guest worker is one lost to an American family. Through the GATI Foundation's deep network of corporate partners, India is lobbying for looser visa rules and making Indian worker preference the "new normal" in major U.S. industries. Meanwhile, American companies are increasingly outsourcing everything from recruitment to training directly to Indian partners, ensuring that foreign nationals fill key roles while qualified U.S. citizens are left behind.
Thus, at its core, the GATI Foundation's blueprint is not about helping Americans or remedying genuine labor shortages, but about exploiting loopholes in U.S. immigration policy and leveraging global labor narratives to cement India's rise, at the direct expense of the American workforce.
The real agenda behind 'Global Talent Shortage'
The GATI Foundation was created to exploit what India calls a "demand-supply mismatch" in global labor markets. Citing projections that labor shortages in high-income countries could reach 250 million in 25 years, India pitches itself as the answer, if only Western nations open their doors to millions of Indian workers. The GATI Report frames this supposed crisis as an economic certainty, pushing the narrative that countries like the U.S. and Europe must ramp up labor migration or face disaster.
But this narrative falls apart on closer inspection.
These "shortage" projections ignore millions of Americans and Westerners who have been forced out of the workforce by layoffs, offshoring, and corporate cost-cutting. The "labor gap" is little more than an accounting trick, counting open positions that employers refuse to fill at fair wages and normal working conditions. Instead of investing in local workers, companies push for visas to import cheaper labor. And India stands ready to supply it.
The contradiction is glaring: GATI and its supporters claim automation and "Gen AI" are both eliminating jobs and creating labor shortages at the same time. It's a manufactured crisis, a narrative designed to benefit global corporations and foreign governments, but not American families.
In truth, India's campaign isn't about filling genuine labor gaps, but about lobbying for new visa categories, higher caps, and direct government-to-government deals to force open "mature" markets like the U.S., UK, Canada, Germany, and Japan. The GATI Report itself concedes that in these countries, mass inflows are possible only if their governments change laws and visa policies, not because the market demands it, but because India's lobby demands it.
After all, if there truly were a dire worker shortage, existing visa programs would be flooded with qualified applicants, and positions would fill quickly. Instead, India is manufacturing demand by lobbying for new pathways and is using its diplomatic muscle to export its unemployment crisis and the "remittance gold rush" that comes with it into Western economies.
As detailed in India's own 2024 Employment Report, India's job creation is not keeping pace with its exploding youth population. Far from being a demographic advantage, this so-called dividend is a growing liability, with millions of educated young Indians unable to find work at home.
But Jaishankar and the rest of India's leadership are not merely describing labor trends; they're demanding permanent, government-backed pipelines to move Indian workers into foreign markets, shifting the costs and consequences onto the United States and its citizens. The so-called "global talent shortage" is not a fact of economics, but a tool of policy propaganda crafted to dismantle labor protections, depress American wages, and entrench the power of foreign governments and multinationals, all at the expense of the American worker.
The skills Mirage: India's talent shortage cover-up
India promotes its vast, English-speaking workforce as the solution to the so-called global talent shortage, marketing the GATI scheme as a direct pipeline of world-class professionals. In truth, GATI is engineered to move as many people abroad as possible, papering over the persistent problems of quality, skills and employability that continue to plague India's workforce. Leaders like Jaishankar champion "skill development" and "global mobility," but India's own data reveals the reality: Fewer than half of Indian postgraduates are employable by international standards, according to India's Skill Reports. This isn't about quality; it's about numbers.
Thus, billions are funneled into crash courses, language bootcamps, and certifications, not to build genuine expertise, but to create a façade of qualification, often after jobs have already been promised overseas. Even in crucial sectors like healthcare, where Jaishankar boasts India can "solve" Western shortages, the fact remains: India struggles to meet its own domestic needs. Skill reports and experts like Dr. Lekha Chakraborty confirm that Indian training programs consistently fail to prepare graduates for real-world demands, leaving millions underserved and resources misallocated. Yet, rather than closing the skill gaps at home, the focus is on exporting as many workers as possible, regardless of whether they actually meet international standards.
The reality is, India isn't overflowing with world-class professionals; it's overflowing with people. Thus, the Indian government's real objective is to wedge as many Indian nationals as possible into good-paying American jobs, often regardless of true qualification or the local impact. Meanwhile, capable American workers are left behind, not due to a lack of ability, but because U.S. policymakers and corporations have bought into India's narrative and abandoned investment in the American workforce.
The hidden cost of investing in India's labor supply strategy
India has built a vast financial infrastructure to facilitate outbound migration, offering bridging loans, insurance, and rotating funds, all subsidized by public and private grants. For employers, it's cheaper to bring in Indian nationals than to invest in their own workforce.
But the GATI strategy doesn't stop at financing. India is demanding that host countries overhaul their own labor systems to accommodate and protect incoming foreign workers. Grievance mechanisms, legal mandates, and resource centers lock in rights for migrants, while incentives, including low-interest business loans and reskilling support, are used to tilt hiring toward foreign workers.
The hidden costs are staggering. American workers are not only undercut by lower-paid foreign labor, but are forced to compete with a workforce backed by another nation's government and a web of corporate allies. Meanwhile, U.S. training standards and credential requirements are undermined, eroding the value of American education and experience.
This isn't a temporary fix. It is a permanent, self-reinforcing system, channeling billions of dollars in remittances to India and institutionalizing foreign-worker preference in advanced economies. The outcome is inevitable: falling wages, lost jobs, and a steady erosion of America's sovereignty over its own workforce. Every dollar invested in this supply strategy is a dollar stolen from the American economy. It's time to demand a course correction, one that puts American skills, livelihoods and interests first.
Hiring from India is like signing a contract riddled with hidden clauses; by the time the consequences are clear, the damage is done. The American workforce deserves better. Those jobs belong to American workers, not a foreign government's export strategy.
A blueprint for displacement: India's cold, calculated framework
India's own analysis admits Indian certifications often aren't recognized overseas due to mismatched skill requirements and quality standards – a clear sign that many of the workers being pushed abroad are not actually qualified for the jobs at hand.
To get around these constraints, India's plan is to "harmonize demand-centric skilling," lobbying for international recognition of Indian credentials and pushing for government-backed loans to subsidize outbound migration. The goal isn't to meet genuine needs, but to bypass local standards and flood foreign markets, regardless of the consequences for host countries.
Every time a visa barrier is lowered or a new guest worker program is launched, it opens the door for India to embed even more of its surplus labor in Western economies. But the ambitions don't stop with white-collar tech jobs. India's leaders are playing a much longer and more aggressive game, openly targeting blue-collar visa categories like H-2A and H-2B, sectors that have long provided stability for American families and local communities.
Their policy documents make this crystal clear: India's strategy is to steadily lobby for the removal of visa caps, to institutionalize so-called "circular migration" so Indian workers can cycle through U.S. jobs indefinitely and to push for changes in immigration law that make Indian labor the default option for both high- and low-skill roles. This is not a temporary workforce solution; it's a step-by-step plan to permanently transform the American labor market in ways that serve India's interests while sidelining American workers at every level.
America's future: At a crossroads
Bottom line: As American companies outsource everything from recruitment to onboarding to Indian partners, foreign nationals are funneled into critical roles across tech, healthcare, engineering, and more, frequently at the direct expense of U.S. citizens. Accreditation standards are diluted. Worker protections are eroded. The playing field is tilted.
India's GATI initiative does not represent an invitation for partnership; it serves as a stark warning. As Indian leaders openly coordinate, lobby, and strategize to gain a foothold in U.S. job markets, too many American officials remain silent or, worse, actively complicit. Every so-called "strategic migration partnership" and each new visa pipeline laid is another brick in the wall separating American families from their own economic future.
The stakes could not be higher. This is not a tale of isolated layoffs or routine workforce shifts, but a deliberate, foreign-led transformation of the U.S. labor market. It is sold as progress but experienced as loss in every community facing layoffs, stagnant wages, and vanishing careers. Each time an American worker is replaced by a lower-paid Indian "guest worker," it marks another victory for India's national agenda and another defeat for the American middle class.
Unless action is taken, this pattern will only accelerate. American laws, corporations, and policymakers risk becoming tools for India's economic ascent while the American dream is steadily outsourced and rewritten. Americans must demand that their leaders defend their interests by rejecting foreign lobbying, putting an end to corporate collusion that enables mass visa fraud, and restoring a workforce system that prioritizes American citizens in their own country.
The choice is clear. Either the United States reclaims its labor market, its laws, and its future, or the nation will continue down a path where its greatest export is its own prosperity. History will not be kind to those who allowed this nation to be given away. Now is the time to draw the line: America first, in every job, every industry, and every decision. Otherwise, America's children will no longer compete with the "world" for the American dream – because that dream will belong to India.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Kristi Noem, President Donald Trump's head of the Department of Homeland Security, has announced that the "Quiet Skies" program, used by the government to surveil airline passengers, is being shut down.
"Today, I'm announcing TSA is ending the Quiet Skies Program, which since its existence has failed to stop a SINGLE terrorist attack while costing US taxpayers roughly $200 million a year," she announced.
"DHS and TSA have uncovered documents, correspondence, and timelines that clearly highlight the inconsistent application of Quiet Skies. The program, under the guise of 'national security,' was used to target political opponents and benefit political allies of the Biden administration," she continued.
"In addition to conducting our own internal investigation, I am calling for a full and thorough congressional investigation to uncover further corruption through this program. TSA will continue performing important vetting functions to stop security threats and ensure the safety of the American traveler. REAL ID, implemented on May 7 of this year, will further help bolster TSA security. The Trump administration will return TSA to its true mission of being laser-focused on the safety and security of the traveling public. This includes restoring the integrity, privacy, and equal application of the law for all Americans."
The program dates back several administrations, to Barack Obama in 2012, and was "to gather intelligence on passengers who presented a national security concern."
"It is clear that the Quiet Skies program was used as a political rolodex of the Biden administration — weaponized against its political foes and exploited to benefit their well-heeled friends," Noem said in a statement.
Multiple members of Congress had already criticized the program, including Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Rand Paul, who revealed the TSA actually tracked Tulsi Gabbard, now the director of National Intelligence.
The report this week also said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, contacted TSA about her husband, William "Billy" Shaheen, being subjected to enhanced screening and seeking an exemption.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
President Donald Trump has announced a travel ban on people coming from a dozen nations, since the United States simply does not have the ability to properly vet them.
There are new limits on travel from another seven nations because of their unacceptable rates of visa overstays.
Nationals from Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are barred, while there are limits on those coming from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
"As president, I must act to protect the national security and national interest of the United States and its people. I remain committed to engaging with those countries willing to cooperate to improve information-sharing and identity-management procedures, and to address both terrorism-related and public-safety risks. Nationals of some countries also pose significant risks of overstaying their visas in the United States, which increases burdens on immigration and law enforcement components of the United States, and often exacerbates other risks related to national security and public safety," Trump said.
"Some of the countries with inadequacies face significant challenges to reform efforts. Others have made important improvements to their protocols and procedures, and I commend them for these efforts. But until countries with identified inadequacies address them, members of my Cabinet have recommended certain conditional restrictions and limitations. I have considered and largely accepted those recommendations and impose the limitations set forth below on the entry into the United States by the classes of foreign nationals identified in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation."
Trump had taken a similar action during his first term, prompting leftists to claim it was a "Muslim ban," which it wasn't. The Supreme Court at that time affirmed his strategy.
A commentary at RedState noted that chorus already was in full voice again.
"The move came just days after an Islamic terrorist seeking to 'free Palestine' set several elderly Jewish women on fire in Colorado with Molotov cocktails. Mohamad Soliman had overstayed a tourist visa during the Biden years but was given work authorization in 2023, which ran out weeks before his attack."
It continued, "As you'd expect, the meltdown on the left began immediately. Accusations of racism and xenophobia are already flowing like milk and honey. Ah, yes, America's founders were big on the ideal of importing people from violent Islamic countries on visas. I'm not sure how this hurts our 'global leadership' either. Is the argument that Afghanistan, Iran, and Libya won't respect us anymore? Because I've got some news for Democrats if that's the case."
The commentary pointed out, "It objectively makes America safer not to offer visas to countries that breed terrorists. That's just common sense. To be clear, there's nothing racist about this ban. For one, Muslim is not a race, and not all the countries listed are predominantly Muslim. Two, the countries on the list are home to several different races. Three, I don't think I'm going to take my cues on what is un-American from a Democrat congresswoman who is more concerned about nations on the other side of the globe than her own."
The proclamation noted several of the nations regularly decline to accept the return of their own citizens, indicating a "blatant disregard for United States immigration laws."
Trump noted his restrictions during his first term "successfully prevented national security threats from reaching our borders and which the Supreme Court upheld."
He targeted aliens who "intend to harm Americans or our national interests" and said the U.S. "must identify such aliens before their admission or entry into the United States."
The announcement cited influence of the "Specially Designated Global Terrorist group," the Taliban, in Afghanistan and the fact the nation "does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. For Burma, it historically refused to cooperate with the U.S. to take back "removable nationals."
Like problems were cited for the rest of the nations, including Somalia.
"Somalia lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures. Somalia stands apart from other countries in the degree to which its government lacks command and control of its territory, which greatly limits the effectiveness of its national capabilities in a variety of respects. A persistent terrorist threat also emanates from Somalia's territory. The United States Government has identified Somalia as a terrorist safe haven. Terrorists use regions of Somalia as safe havens from which they plan, facilitate, and conduct their operations. Somalia also remains a destination for individuals attempting to join terrorist groups that threaten the national security of the United States. The Government of Somalia struggles to provide governance needed to limit terrorists' freedom of movement. Additionally, Somalia has historically refused to accept back its removable nationals."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court has called out many of America's "prestigious employers" for discrimination against the "majority."
The comments came in a unanimous decision that concluded Marlean Ames was the victim of unconstitutional discrimination because she is part of the majority, heterosexuals, but was denied a promotion and then demoted while two gays were given those positions.
She sued the Ohio Department of Youth Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, following the ruling, her case will return to the lower courts for a resolution.
The precedent, oddly, had been that members of a majority group such as heterosexuals were required to take an additional step in discrimination cases and document a "background" supporting the claim.
Thomas pointed out how ridiculous that was.
"The 'background circumstances' rule is nonsensical for an additional reason: It requires courts to assume that only an 'unusual employer' would discriminate against those it perceives to be in the majority. But, a number of this Nation's largest and most prestigious employers have overtly discriminated against those they deem members of so-called majority groups," he charged.
Then he identified the discriminatory agenda being used.
"American employers have long been 'obsessed' with 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' initiatives and affirmative action plans… Initiatives of this kind have often led to overt discrimination against those perceived to be in the majority," he said.
He blasted the lower court ruling that tossed Ames' case because of that "background" requirement.
"Judge-made doctrines have a tendency to distort the underlying statutory text, impose unnecessary burdens on litigants, and cause confusion for courts. The 'background circumstances' rule—correctly rejected by the Court today—is one example of this phenomenon."
He said requirement forced "a majority-group plaintiff to prove, in addition to the standard elements of a Title VII claim, that background circumstances 'support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.' This additional requirement is a paradigmatic example of how judge-made doctrines can distort the underlying statutory text."
He noted that nothing in Title VII actually creates such a requirement.
The ruling is considered a huge precedent for reverse-discrimination cases.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk, who has been working for months now with President Donald Trump in the Department of Government Efficiency to eliminate criminal activity, fraud, waste and corruption from the government, unleashed what amounts to a nuclear bomb in his battle with Trump now.
The two have had a falling out over the congressional plan to implement some of President Trump's agenda points: cutting some spending, making tax cuts permanent and such. Musk appears to want much bigger spending cuts while Trump is faced with the reality of a Congress where he has only a slim majority in the House, and split factions among the GOP members.
Musk recently left his role as a special government employee working with DOGE, which reports having found some $170 billion in waste that has been cut.
Trump said he asked Musk to leave, and suggested cutting government contracts with Musk, such as for use of the SpaceX ships to reach space; Musk responded with a threat to decommission SpaceX ships so they would not be available for the government.
Then Musk unleashed his big shot.
"Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files," he said.
Jeffrey Epstein, dead by apparent suicide several years ago while in jail awaiting further sex crime charges, reportedly had connections to some of the biggest names in America, including Bill Clinton, who traveled to Epstein's island, and Bill Gates.
Musk offered no evidence for his claim. But he called for Trump to be impeached.
But a report from Fortune said the two now are engaged "in a mud-slinging battle online."
Trump said he was very disappointed in Musk, and Musk claimed Trump would have lost the 2024 election without him.
The report said Trump is mentioned in Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs and the two men were photographed together, Trump long ago distanced himself from Epstein.
"So it's unclear what Musk is accusing Trump of, exactly. Fortune has reached out to Musk for more information. It's worth noting that Musk himself was also photographed with Ghislaine Maxwell, who in 2021 was found guilty of child sex trafficking, among other offenses, in connection with Epstein," the report said.
The Department of Justice is working on reviewing and releasing information about Epstein that the government holds, but many are unhappy it's not happening faster.
The back-and-forth began when Musk criticized the pending implementation of Trump's campaign promises, and Trump point out it cuts off $7,500 electric-vehicle subsidies from which the Musk-owned Tesla has benefited for years.
The two often have been compatriots, and enemies, consecutively. Musk was on two of Trump's advisory councils during his first term, but later stepped down. They also were at odds off and on in 2022 in social media.
Analysts have said both men could ramp up their dispute even further.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The Supreme Court has, in a unanimous decision, blasted the discrimination set up by the state of Wisconsin when it banned Catholic Charities Bureau of the Diocese of Superior from participating in the church's less-costly unemployment compensation program.
The 9-0 decision means that Catholic Charities now can avoid being ordered to participate in the state's own less efficient and more costly plan.
The state based its discrimination on the fact that the charities programs offers help to the poor and needy in ways that were not "typical" religious actions.
"At the heart of Catholic Charities' ministry is Christ's call to care for the least of our brothers and sisters, without condition and without exception," said Bishop James Powers, bishop of the Diocese of Superior. "We're grateful the court unanimously recognized that improving the human condition by serving the poor is part of our religious exercise and has allowed us to continue serving those in need throughout our diocese and beyond."
Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion, deciding Wisconsin violated the Constitution by imposing "a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological choices."
The ruling also noted "whether to express and inculcate religious doctrine through worship, proselytization, or religious education when performing charitable work are, again, fundamentally theological choices driven by the content of different religious doctrines."
According to Becket, which represented the religious organization, "Most Catholic dioceses have a social ministry arm that serves those in need. Catholic Charities carries out this important work for the Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin, by helping the disabled, elderly, and those living in poverty—regardless of their faith. This belief that ministry to those in need should not be limited to Catholics flows directly from Catholic Social Teaching and is embodied in the Church's 'corporal works of mercy'—which include feeding the hungry and sheltering the homeless."
Wisconsin law exempts nonprofits that run primarily for religious purposes from the state's unemployment compensation program. The leftists on the state Supreme Court, however, rejected that standard because Catholic Charities serves everyone, not just Catholics.
"Wisconsin shouldn't have picked this fight in the first place," said Eric Rassbach, of Becket. "It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn't religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion. Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors."
The decision said Wisconsin's arguments fail because "the State has not met its burden to show that the law's application is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Wisconsin contends that the exemption advances two principal interests. First, it argues that the law serves a compelling state interest in ensuring unemployment coverage for its citizens. The State, however, has failed to demonstrate that the theological lines drawn by the statute are narrowly tailored to advance that interest, particularly as applied to petitioners.
"Indeed, petitioners operate their own unemployment compensation system, which provides benefits largely equivalent to the state system. The distinctions drawn by Wisconsin's regime, moreover, are underinclusive, exempting religious entities that provide similar services (i.e., without proselytizing or serving only co-religionists) when the work is done directly by a church. Second, the State asserts an interest in avoiding entanglement with employment decisions based on religious doctrine. Resolving misconduct disputes for employees tasked with inculcating religious faith, the State argues, may require it to decide whether those employees complied with religious doctrine. The lines drawn by the exemption, however, are overinclusive in relation to that interest, for they operate at the organizational level, covering employees that do and do not inculcate religious doctrine in equal measure. This poor fit between the State's asserted interests and the distinctions drawn cannot satisfy strict scrutiny."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A North Carolina school is set to deliver an apology along with $20,000 to a student who was suspended for three days for saying "illegal alien."
The student, Christian McGhee, is a minor, so a court hearing is needed before the agreement is finalized.
But a report from CarolinaCoastOnline explained the deal is to resolve a federal lawsuit that challenged the school's punishment for his speech.
Court documents say an agreement is just awaiting a judge's approval.
The report explained that the 16-year-old who was suspended last year is "set to receive a public apology from the Davidson County Board of Education for mischaracterizing the student in a racially biased manner."
The First Amendment fight erupted last year when the student, at the time a sophomore at Central Davidson High School in Lexington, near Charlotte, asked his English teacher whether she was referring to "space aliens or illegal aliens who need green cards" during a vocabulary lesson.
School officials attacked him for "making a racially insensitive remark that caused a class disturbance," the lawsuit charges. The disturbance was a threat from another student reacting to his words.
The settlement will include an apology, but the parties have agreed that it will not be recorded or publicly discussed.
"Because Christian is a minor, a court hearing is required before the settlement can become final," said Dean McGee, in an interview with the DailyMail.com. He is no relation, but is with the Liberty Justice Center.
The deal also includes the board removing all references to racial bias that it inserted into his school record, and providing $20,000 in compensation.
The funds are to help with the costs of a new private school to which the student moved.
The lawsuit argued there was no legal justification for any suspension because his words were protected under the First Amendment. Further, the board refused even to respond to his mother when she tried to appeal the suspension.
His mother had confronted board members at a meeting: "Two members of this board, too busy to hear a mother's cry, yet not too busy to assault her character and one more attempt to hurt her child," she said, naming Alan Beck and Ashley Carroll. "Through your reckless attempt to slander my name, you have successfully re-traumatized my family. Your weak attempt to assault my character has failed, but your malicious character has been highlighted. It is my opinion that two members on this board are highly corrupt."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Wyoming has vast miles of open range inhabited by antelopes and rabbits, towering mountains, huge coal reserves, Grand Teton National Park, Devil's Tower, the Cheyenne Frontier Days rodeo, and mostly conservative neighbors, except for the leftists in Colorado to the south.
But it is a state with a tiny population, only one representative among the 435 in the U.S. House of Representatives, and it is heavily Republican.
When its former congresswoman, Liz Cheney, from a longtime Republican family that includes her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney, joined Democrats in their attacks on President Donald Trump during and after his first term, voters in the state unceremoniously booted her from office in a tally that went way beyond landslide proportions.
So, perhaps the status of the Democratic Party there isn't indicative of the situation Democrats are facing nationwide after their candidate, Kamala Harris, was blown out of the race by Trump in the 2024 presidential election, and they failed to gain a majority in either the U.S. Senate or House.
But then…
It is a report from Cowboy State Daily, whose reporter was in attendance at a recent meeting of party officials, who reported the party is losing about $5,000 per month.
And the report confirmed Democrats there formally adopted a vote that asked the publication to keep the details secret.
The online report, however, decided to go forward with information that it deemed the public should have.
The report explained the Democrats' treasurer confirmed the party is losing $5,000 a month, and in all accounts, as of May, had only about $36,000.
Already in 2025, the party has spent nearly $22,000 more than it has taken in.
Treasurer Dudley Case said, "Needless to say, that's an unsustainable loss. So we have to do some fundraising this year, some serious fundraising."
Officials said the party has taken in about $76,000 for the year.
But monthly expenditures are averaging more than $27,000.
When the Democrats realized their information and comments were in public, former Wyoming Democratic Party Vice-Chair Erin O'Doherty moved to order the press not to publish details.
The committee ultimately passed a motion formally requesting the outlet to keep the details secret.
"After consulting with its attorney and editors, Cowboy State Daily has opted to publish the party's budget issues as it believes them to be of public interest and political importance," the report explained.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Western standards for free speech repeatedly have come under attack in recent years in a number of court cases, and now the conviction of one protester in the United Kingdom has highlighted how close that nation has come to the full restoration of blasphemy prosecutions, which were abandoned in 2008.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University and counselor to Congress on constitutional issues, is warning about "how the United Kingdom has continued its erosion of free speech by pushing an effective blasphemy law."
The most recent development was the conviction of a London man of a "religiously aggravated public order offence" for burning a Quran.
It was Hamit Coskun, 50, a Turkish-born Armenian-Kurdish atheist, who was arrested for protesting the Islamic rule of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Ankara.
For his statements, he was slashed by a Muslim man with a knife, and because he was attacked, a judge, John McGarva, claimed his actions were "provocative" and were "motivated at least in party by a hatred of Muslims."
"Judge McGarva made clear that his views of Islam would not be tolerated in the United Kingdom," Turley explained, noting the judge claimed: "After considering the evidence, I find you have a deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers. That's based on your experiences in Turkey and the experiences of your family. It's not possible to separate your views about the religion to your views about the followers. I do accept that the choice of location was in part that you wanted to protest what you see as the Islamification of Turkey. But you were also motivated by the hatred of Muslims and knew some would be at the location."
Turley said there's "fear" that such laws attacking "hate" and that outlaw criticism of Islam will "constructively restore" blasphemy prosecutions in the U.K.
The Free Speech Union, representing Coskun, promised an appeal.
"A Turkish political refugee has been convicted of a criminal offence in Britain for burning a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish Consulate in London. The Free Speech Union (FSU) funded his defence. Now we need your help to fund his appeal. Hamit Coskun, who spent nearly 10 years in prison in Turkey for his political activism, was found guilty of a religiously aggravated public order offence. The case turned on a deeply troubling point: one of the Crown's main arguments was that because a bystander attacked him with a knife, he must have caused 'harassment, alarm or distress'. This is a dangerous precedent. It effectively creates a heckler's veto by violence, and opens the door to the return of blasphemy law in all but name. We're supporting Hamit not because we're anti-Islam, but because no one should be compelled to observe the blasphemy codes of a faith they do not share. Free speech includes the freedom to criticise religion. We will take this case to appeal. With your support, we can defend a fundamental principle of liberal democracy: no religion is beyond criticism."
Conservative politician Kemi Badenoch joined with a comment that "de facto blasphemy laws will set this country on the road to ruin."
The The Gateway Pundit reported that man who slashed Coskun, Moussa Kadri, later pleaded guilty to the assault.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Prosecutors in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, filed charges against a pro-life family, the Knotts, for explaining their pro-life views outside an abortion business.
They kept up the case, which essentially attacked the family members for their words, for months.
Then when the trial was scheduled, they "folded" and gave up the "wrongful criminal charges entirely."
Now, on behalf of the family, the American Center for Law and Justice is fighting back with a lawsuit against the city over its First Amendment violations.
"The arrest, prosecution, and ongoing threat of future enforcement have already achieved the government's apparent goal: silencing disfavored speech," the legal team explained about the prosecution. "This case exemplifies why the ACLJ exists: to defend the constitutional rights of Americans against government overreach and discrimination. We refuse to allow local officials to use vague ordinances as weapons against unpopular speech, and we will not stand by while religious and pro-life voices are silenced through selective enforcement."
The organization pointed out, "The First Amendment doesn't guarantee freedom from annoyance or inconvenience – it guarantees freedom of speech, especially for unpopular viewpoints that challenge the status quo. When government officials start deciding which messages deserve protection based on their own preferences, we're all at risk."
Being sought in the legal filing is a declaration that the ordinance manipulated by the city to charge the family is unconstitutional, an injunction ending its use, compensation for the constitutional infringements, return of the family's megaphone that police confiscated and more.
"This case is part of a larger assault on religious freedom and pro-life speech across America. From college campuses to city sidewalks, government officials are increasingly willing to silence religious viewpoints while protecting secular ones," the ACLJ explained. "The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment does not permit the government to make such distinctions. In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the Court emphasized that content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. In Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the Supreme Court held that viewpoint discrimination is an 'egregious form of content discrimination.'"
The ACLJ explained this case:
What happened to the Knotts family in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, represents a textbook case of viewpoint discrimination – an egregious violation of the First Amendment. The shocking details of their treatment reveal a deliberate pattern of government censorship based solely on the content of their pro-life message.
On December 28, 2024, the Knotts traveled to the Northeast Ohio Women's Center, an abortion clinic, to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights, engaging in sidewalk evangelism and pro-life advocacy. What happened next exposed a troubling pattern of government officials weaponizing local ordinances to silence religious and pro-life speech.
Zack used a battery-powered megaphone – quieter than ambient traffic noise – to share his life-affirming message from a public sidewalk. Meanwhile, abortion clinic escorts actively worked to drown out his speech using their own sound devices, including whistles and kazoos, while making threats against the couple.
One escort even told Zack to "suck-start a shotgun." During a previous encounter, Zack had told escorts how his mother-in-law had considered an abortion while pregnant with his now wife, and if she had gone through with it, his wife "should be dead." An escort interrupted, stating, "We can fix that."
Despite this harassment and the escorts' use of the same types of sound devices prohibited by the city's noise ordinance, only Zack was arrested and cited.
However, among the multitude of problems is that the "complaint" that triggered Zack's arrest mentioned only the pro-life speech, not the abortion kazoos and whistles and noise from the escorts.
Further the arresting officers never witnessed Zack using a megaphone, and they took a statement only from "Officer Oldham," who actually was working for the abortion business in security at the time, an "obvious conflict of interest."
And the threats made by the escorts never were prosecuted.
The fault rests with the city's ordinance, the report said, as it "prohibits amplified sound that might cause 'inconvenience or annoyance to persons of ordinary sensibilities.'"
That's "vague language that invites arbitrary enforcement," the ACLJ said.
Then there are the law's exemptions, which are biased. For example, it exempts amplified sound from "educational organizations and charitable organizations."
The lawsuit, on behalf of Zachary and Lindsey Knotts in U.S. district court in Ohio, charges it is unconstitutional for creating a two-tiered system of speech rights, is so vague as to leave in doubt its validity, and leaves total discretion to cops deciding what they don't like.
Also, it establishes a discrimination against certain viewpoints.