This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced Ukrainian officials have agreed to President Donald Trump's newest proposal to end the Russia-Ukraine war.
It now will go to Russia, with American hopes that officials there also will agree.
Social media announced, "JUST IN: President Trump has secured a ceasefire agreement from Ukraine, according to Secretary Rubio. Rubio says the ball is now in Russia's court."
He explained, "Today, we've made an offer that the Ukrainians have accepted, which is to enter into a ceasefire and into immediate negotiations to end this conflict."
He said the goal is the end the war "in a way that's enduring and sustainable and accounts for their interests. their security. their ability to prosper as a nation."
Rubio thanked the King of Saudi Arabia for holding the discussions.
"We'll take this offer now to the Russians. We'll hope that they say yes. That they'll say yes to peace," Rubio said.
Trump National Security Adviser Mike Waltz said the world has gone, under Trump's leadership, from wondering if the war was going to end to working on how it will end.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'It's a crucial component of their ministry's outreach to those who might never step foot in a conventional church'
Los Angeles County has decided to ban meetings of Church on the Beach, a Christian group that for years has obtained a permit to meet on the county's public beach for worship.
And the American Center for Law and Justice is challenging the decision.
The legal team has sent a detailed demand letter to officials there, outlining the constitutional violations of singling out one organization because of its viewpoint and discriminating against members.
"Our letter made it clear that the county's actions violate well-established First Amendment principles as articulated by the Supreme Court in cases like Widmar v. Vincent and Lamb's Chapel. We've given the County until March 20, 2025, to provide assurances that this discriminatory policy will be ended and that churches will be free to use the beach under the same generally applicable rules as nonreligious gatherings," the legal team explained in an online report.
The church for 18 years has been serving its community faithfully by holding services on Redondo Beach, with proper permits from the county.
"Approximately 120 people gather every Sunday morning to worship in God's creation, with many attendees specifically choosing this setting because they have had difficult or negative experiences in traditional church buildings. The beach location isn't merely a preference – it's a crucial component of their ministry's outreach to those who might never step foot in a conventional church," the ACLJ reported.
Members have made sure their gatherings don't obstruct pathways, block traffic or cause any other disruption. They've even relocated when other events are scheduled.
But then just months ago the county changed its practices to target the church, telling the pastor the Department of Beaches and Harbors would no longer issue yearly permits for religious activities.
The county announced "grandfathered" groups would be allowed only six events per year, with $250 permit fees required for four.
It also is restricting the meetings to specific locations.
"The key fact: None of these rules apply to nonreligious groups. Even more concerning, a county official told the pastor that churches 'don't need the beach' because they can 'meet in a building' – a statement that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both religious freedom and the specific ministry of Church on the Beach," the ACLJ reported.
The report called the county's agenda a "textbook case of religious discrimination," as "Public beaches, like parks, are traditional public forums where the government cannot restrict speech based on its content without meeting the highest legal standard of strict scrutiny."
The ACLJ explained, "As the Supreme Court also stated in Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, streets and parks 'have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. . . . In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity.' A public beach is a type of public park and subject to the same rules; religious viewpoints cannot be targeted for discrimination."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Top author exposes the deep rot in academia, including Harvard's defense of plagiarism and the Marxist ideologies undermining our education system
Dr. Carol Swain's story is proof that the American dream is real – but it's under attack.
From growing up in poverty to earning degrees from top universities, she defied the odds through hard work and faith, only to face the corruption of elite institutions firsthand.
In her latest book, "The Gay Affair," she exposes the deep rot in academia, including Harvard's defense of plagiarism and the Marxist ideologies undermining our education system. If we don't fight back, we risk losing our nation's future.
Now is the time to stand for truth, demand accountability, and take control of our children's education. Read "The Gay Affair" and join the fight to restore integrity in America.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
'Excellent! We need to stop dancing around this mental illness'
"All hell just broke loose."
That's how a congressional meeting Tuesday is being described after a U.S. representative introduced a fellow member of Congress, who is transgender, by his original gender.
"I now recognize the representative from Delaware, Mr. McBride," said Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas.
"Thank you, Madam Chair," was the snarky response from Rep. "Sarah" McBride, who was born Tim McBride.
That's when U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., interrupted Chairman Self, saying, "Would you repeat what you just said when you introduced a duly elected representative from the United States of America? Please!"
"I will," replied Self. "The representative from Delaware, Mr. McBride."
"Mr. Chairman, you are out of order," said an outraged Keating. "Have you no decency? I mean, I have come to know you a little bit, but this is not decent."
"You will not continue [the meeting] with me unless you introduce a duly elected representative the right way."
Self then banged the gavel and said, "This hearing is adjourned."
Reaction online includes:
"OMG! This is the funniest sh* you will see today! Complete chaos just broke out after Rep. Keith Self called McBride a man like he is!"
"It's Mr. Tim McBride. They need to stop playing pretend."
"Mr. McBride is the correct way to address a biological MALE. Keith Self deserves a medal of honesty."
"He is a dude. I know it. Y'all know it. He knows it. Everyone in that room knows it. His constituents know it. Hard to believe we're in a timeline when you get accused of being 'out of order' for calling a man 'mister.'"
"Excellent! We need to stop dancing around this mental illness."
"ROFL!!!!! Epic."
Rep. Keith Self is a legend for this ."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Department of Justice has gone to the D.C. Court of Appeals to halt an order from a "superjudge" who is preventing President Donald Trump's decision-making and management of the executive branch.
"Superjudge' is a derogatory term that has surfaced to describe those federal judges who take it upon themselves to say that Trump cannot manage the executive branch of our government as he chooses, as the Constitution allows.
It is the Gateway Pundit that explains the fight is over a decision by a Barack Obama judge who told the administration it must restore Gwynne Wilcox to a position on the National Labor Relations Board.
The DOJ's action is a request for an emergency motion halting the ruling from the judge, Beryl Howell, and the judge has been ordered to respond.
"This appeal arises from an order of the district court reinstating a principal officer of the United States whom the President has lawfully fired. The court's unprecedented order works a grave harm to the separation of powers and undermines the President's ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution," the filing explained. "The government seeks a stay of the order pending appeal and respectfully requests an immediate administrative stay."
Howell claimed, in last week's ruling, that Trump's dismissal of the executive branch employee was a violation of the law.
Trump had fired Wilcox from a position as general counsel to the board.
"Trump's decision to fire pro-union members Gwynne Wilcox and the labor board's general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo got pushback from the agency and was described as an 'unprecedented and illegal' move," the report explained.
And Wilcox promised to fight her dismissal.
Howell's opinion shocked many, with its comparison of Trump to a "dictator."
Howell claimed, "A President who touts an image of himself as a 'king' or a 'dictator,' perhaps as his vision of effective leadership, fundamentally misapprehends the role under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional order, the President is tasked to be a conscientious custodian of the law, albeit an energetic one, to take care of effectuating his enumerated duties, including the laws enacted by the Congress and as interpreted by the Judiciary."
Howell claimed the president doesn't have the authority to remove members of the NLRB at will.
Howell cited a 1935 case in claiming Wilcox was protected from dismissal.
That case, known as Humphrey's Executor, does provide some protections for specific individuals, but there also is a movement to see it overturned at a faulty precedent, with Justice Clarence Thomas previously criticizing the standard.
"Humphrey's Executor poses a direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people . . . Our tolerance of independent agencies in Humphrey's Executor is an unfortunate example of the Court's failure to apply the Constitution as written. That decision has paved the way for an ever-expanding encroachment on the power of the Executive, contrary to our constitutional design," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats in Congress hate it.
"It's bananas. It's insane," U.S. Rep. Jim Himes, D.-Conn., told CNN. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D.-Fla., agrees: "It is utterly preposterous to suggest that we are going to send our military into Panama to, quote, 'take back the Panama Canal.'" House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., speaks for virtually all his congressional peers when he insists, "House Democrats believe that we are not sent to Washington to invade Greenland, rename the Gulf of Mexico or seize the Panama Canal by force!"
But as President Donald Trump stated explicitly during his March 4 speech to Congress, the nation and the world: "My administration will be reclaiming the Panama Canal – and we've already started doing it. Just today, a large American company announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal and lots of other things having to do with the Panama Canal and a couple of other canals."
The Panama Canal, Trump pointed out, "was built at tremendous cost of American blood and treasure. 38,000 workers died building the Panama Canal. They died of malaria, they died of snakebites and mosquitoes. Not a nice place to work. They paid them very highly to go there, knowing there was a 25% chance that they would die – the most expensive project also that was ever built in our country's history."
Trump's inaugural address: 'China is operating the Panama Canal, and we didn't give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we're taking it back.'
Concluded the 47th president: "It was given away by the Carter administration for $1. But that agreement has been violated very severely. We didn't give it to China. We gave it to Panama, and we're taking it back."
'Going to a battlefield'
The astonishingly gruesome process of constructing the Panama Canal – commenced by America in 1904 and completed a decade later – was undertaken to fulfill the centuries-old dream of connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, thereby saving ships from 21-23 extra days at sea by being able to cross through what would become a 51-mile-long waterway.
However, "the Panamanian isthmus proved to be one of the most difficult – and deadly – spots in the world in which to construct a channel," explains History.com:
Death could strike in the form of an 18-ton boulder or miniscule, malaria-carrying mosquitoes that bred by the millions in festering swamps and puddles. … "The working condition in those days were so horrible it would stagger your imagination," recalled laborer Alfred Dottin. "Death was our constant companion. I shall never forget the train loads of dead men being carted away daily, as if they were just so much lumber."
The most dangerous work took place as laborers carved a ditch 45 feet deep and at least 300 feet wide through an eight-mile mountainous stretch known as the Culebra Cut."
Nicknamed "Hell's Gorge," the Culebra Cut was a cauldron of noise with roaring locomotives and belching steam shovels where risks of death ranged from drowning to electrocution. Workers blasted away at the mountains with upwards of 60 million pounds of dynamite, which could ignite prematurely in the tropical Panamanian climate. …
Flooding regularly submerged equipment, and the unstable ground could give way at any instant. "The work of months or even years might be blotted out by an avalanche of earth," lamented a senior U.S. administrator.
Particularly for workers partially deafened as a side effect of drinking quinine to ward off malaria, the inability to hear made deadly railroad accidents a regular occurrence. In an oral history, George Hodges remembered a fellow worker who fell trying to hop on a train and the wheel of another train "cut his body right in two…as if he had been chopped with a machete."
As one laborer, Antonio Sanchez, explained, working in "the cut" was just like "going to a battlefield."
Fast-forward six decades. In 1976, Democratic presidential candidate Jimmy Carter, campaigning against Gerald Ford, publicly promised – as did Ford – that he would not support transferring the canal from U.S. ownership to Panama, an idea that was then popular with the elites, but not the American people. Yet when he won the presidency, Carter changed his mind and, in 1977, signed the Carter-Torrijos Treaties, transferring total control of the canal to Panama, to take effect on Dec. 31, 1999.
Interestingly, during the 1980 presidential election, Ronald Reagan expressed his firm opposition to turning the canal over to Panama … and then defeated Carter in a historic landslide, with a staggering 489 Electoral College votes to Carter's 49.
"When it comes to the [Panama] Canal," Reagan said, "we built it, we paid for it, it's ours, and … we are going to keep it!"
China's plans for world domination
Today, the big issue cited by Trump and other administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is what has long amounted to the de facto control of the Panama Canal by the nation widely regarded as America's most dangerous geopolitical adversary.
How can that be, many wonder? What happened to the Monroe Doctrine, that revered 200-year-old foreign policy stance established by the fifth U.S. president, James Monroe, holding that any major intervention in the Western Hemisphere – i.e., North, Central or South America – by a foreign power constitutes a potentially hostile act against the U.S.?
U.S.-based China expert Gordon Chang – author of several books about China's barely disguised plans to dominate the world, including his 2024 bestseller, "Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America" – says the Panama Canal has long been a "chokepoint" that Beijing wants to control.
And as Secretary of State Marco Rubio told SiriusXM's Megyn Kelly on Jan. 30: "If the government in China in a conflict tells them to shut down the Panama Canal, they will have to. And in fact, I have zero doubt that they have contingency planning to do so. That is a direct threat."
Indeed, as WorldNetDaily reported in February, shortly after Rubio expressed to Panama's leadership President Trump's concerns over Chinese influence over the canal, Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulina stated that he would not renew a 2017 "memorandum of understanding" by which Panama joined China's "Belt and Road Initiative."
"Under that program, China funds the construction and development of infrastructure, such as ports, and then takes control of them for its own profit and empire building," WND reported, adding: "In the case of the canal, [China] has worked on ports at both ends, creating the possibility that it could shut down the canal if it seemed in the best interests of the Chinese Communist Party. It also has been building bridges over the canal, which would offer the same option."
Rubio explained to Panamanian officials that "the United States cannot, and will not, allow the Chinese Communist Party to continue with its effective and growing control over the Panama Canal area." And in Congress, a bill has been introduced directing the U.S. to negotiate the repurchase of the canal from Panama.
Meanwhile, Trump's March 4 prime-time announcement that "a large American company announced they are buying both ports around the Panama Canal" referred to BlackRock, the huge U.S.-based investment and asset-management firm. BlackRock purchased the critical ports from CK Hutchison Holdings Limited, officially described as a "Hong Kong-based and Cayman Islands-registered multinational conglomerate corporation" formed in 2015 by a merger of Cheung Kong Holdings and its main associate company Hutchison Whampoa.
However, just as with most things concerning Communist China, massive subterfuge and deception are involved. For Hutchinson Whampoa – as a few reality-based media organizations have noted, including this RealClearHistory analysis from January – has been identified as "a front Chinese company that was owned by Chinese military intelligence." In the report, author Miguel A. Faria succinctly demystifies China's longtime control of the Panama Canal:
The United States built the Panama Canal early in the 20th century with American sweat, toil and money, only to give it away to a leftwing Panamanian dictator via a dubious treaty. The Panamanians, in turn, ceded the Canal to Hutchison Whampoa, a front Chinese company that was owned by Chinese military intelligence. At about the same time, another Chinese front organization, the Hong Kong-based Hutchinson Port Holdings, obtained a 50-year lease to operate the two strategic ports at either end of the Panama Canal. Thus, in case of hostilities, U.S. shipping routes would be cut off and bottled up in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, encircled by the Chinese and their allies Cuba, Venezuela and Panama. To this day, the Chinese deny that they control the Panama Canal, and the American media seem to believe them. President-elect Donald Trump does not.
Indeed, the American media have rarely if ever sounded the alarm over this serious threat to U.S. security located right in "America's backyard" (as Central and South America are commonly referred to in the U.S. global security context). Legacy media stories today instead obsess over Trump's supposed "expansionist agenda," his "land grab" obsession and his dangerous vision of "a new U.S. imperialism."
There are a few exceptions, however, including WorldNetDaily, one of the only American media organizations that has sounded the alarm not just recently – but for decades. More than 25 years ago – before the canal was even turned over to the left-wing Panamanian government – WND founder Joseph Farah was passionately making virtually the same arguments Trump has been making during his second term as president.
In "Clinton's Panama Canal admission," published Dec. 1, 1999, just weeks before Carter's "gift" of the canal to Panama would take effect (one of many articles Farah wrote during the late '90s warning about Chinese control of the vital waterway), he focused on then-President Bill Clinton's public admission that, indeed, China was running the Panama Canal!
Was it a Freudian slip? Was it a gaffe? Or was it President Clinton finally being honest about something for the first time in his life?
I refer to the statement he made yesterday with regard to the Panama Canal transfer to a group of reporters in the Oval Office before leaving for the West Coast. …
Here it is, folks. Hold on to your hats – especially all of you people who scoffed when I began telling you three years ago that the Communist Chinese were taking over the Panama Canal.
"I think the Chinese will in fact be bending over backwards to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner," Clinton said. That's verbatim. Those are his words, not mine. Clinton, who has until now denied that the Chinese were to take control of the strategic canal, admitted it publicly.
And, as if to underline his admission and seemingly to ensure there could be no misunderstanding of his words, Clinton elaborated. … He compared the operation of the canal to China's campaign to win admission to the World Trade Organization, which sets the rules for global trade.
"They'll want to demonstrate to a distant part of the world that they can be a responsible partner," the president said. "And I would be very surprised if any adverse consequences flowed from the Chinese running the canal."
Oh, absolutely. Responsible. Partner. Competent. Fair. Those are all words I readily associate in my mind with the totalitarian government in Beijing. Don't you?
Well, there you have it, folks. Goodbye Panama Canal. The Bamboo Curtain just moved into the Western Hemisphere – officially, that is.
After all, I gave you this history long ago. I told you about the fact that a Chinese government company – a front for the military – Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., was to begin operation of the ports on both ends of the strategic waterway Jan. 1. It has been the Clinton administration and its many apologists in Congress and the press who have laughed, ridiculed the idea. Chinese military shill Alexander Haig suggested I should be jailed for making such accusations.
And now the truth has finally come out through an unusually candid admission by Clinton. He is telling us now what has been obvious to anyone familiar with the transfer of the canal. He is admitting what former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Thomas Moorer stated in our pages some time back.
Clinton says we can rely on the good intentions of the Chinese to maintain access to the canal. Doesn't that reassure you? The Chinese, who, as we speak, are rounding up tens of thousands of religious dissidents and interning them, threatening to attack Taiwan and working overtime on developing military technology that could only be used to attack the United States, should be trusted on this Panama Canal deal because it's a chance for them to show how responsible they really are.
This is nuts!
When are the American people going to wake up? Clinton is so embarrassed by this deal on the canal that he is not even going to attend the transfer ceremonies. Why? If he doesn't have any second thoughts and believes giving away the Panama Canal to a hostile foreign power is still a good idea, why not go wave the flag next month at the ceremony?
… If ever there was a time – an opportunity – to pressure the politicians to reverse what will someday be judged a historic blunder, it is now. If you really have the guts to stop this thing, America, wake up and take action now. You won't have to risk your life to write a letter to your senators and representatives in Washington or fill out a simple online petition today.
Your kids, however, may someday pay for our mistakes with their blood if you sit silent through this official treachery.
The same day, Dec. 1, 1999, this writer published a detailed news article on WND, headlined "In 2000, it's China Canal," which included exclusive comments from former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer, who assured WorldNetDaily that China's takeover of the canal "would be catastrophic for the U.S."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The room includes a teleprompter positioned directly in front of Joe and a smaller desk for when he would play his role as president
A top adviser to President Donald Trump, Alina Habba, has made a video using the "fake" Oval Office where Joe Biden allegedly filmed some of his speeches.
The room includes a teleprompter positioned directly in front of where Biden would sit, and a smaller desk for him to use.
"The whole setup looks like a Hollywood studio," social media charged.
"You guys, I just finished a show. Look at the room that they put me in," she said. "We're in Biden's fake Oval Office, everybody."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
More than 1,000 people, mostly minority Christians and Alawites, have been murdered across Syria in one of the deadliest periods since longtime President Bashar al-Assad, a member of the Alawite sect, was forced out of power just months ago, according to reports.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and local reports have confirmed the massive death toll as war has erupted between forces of the current government power there now and pro-al Assad fighters.
A report from Newsweek explains the Sunni Islamist Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham group, which has al-Qaida origins, attacked Syria and took down al-Assad.
Then late last week clashes between Syrian government forces, under the al-Sham group and pro-al Assad forces erupted in Jableh, leaving hundreds dead.
"The SOHR says the initial attacks started after government forces were working to detain a wanted person and were ambushed by al-Assad loyalists. The AP reported that pro-Assad gunmen took control of Qardaha, Assad's hometown," the report said.
The report cited Joshua Landis, of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, who said, "A total of 353 Alawite civilians lost their lives in #Syria yesterday, and dozens more were injured with varying degrees of severity."
"The Secretary-General strongly condemns all violence in Syria and calls on the parties to protect civilians and cease hostilities. The Secretary-General is alarmed by the risk of escalating tensions among communities in Syria at a time when reconciliation and peaceful political transition should be the priority," explained a statement from Stephane Dujarric, of the United Nations Secretary General.
The Washington Examiner reported the conflict included now Syrian President Abu Mohammad al Julani sending thousands of troops in to respond to a disturbance from "anti-government forces."
Israel strongly condemned the violence, with the statement from Defense Minister Israel Katz, "Now he's taken off the mask and exposed his true face: A jihadist terrorist of the al-Qaida school who is committing horrifying acts against a civilian population."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
And social media notes 'insulting the voters' has worked so well for Democrats
Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Democrat and the junior senator from Michigan, is insulting the American voters and a social media commenter praised her for doing that, as that "innovative strategy" worked "wonders in 2016 ('basket of deplorables') and in 2024 ('You're all fascists!')"
Slotkin, whose profile just now is based on her delivery of the Democrat response to President Donald Trump's recent address to Congress, said, while appearing on a leftist show, "I think there's a feeling in the country I often say this we're about to turn 250 years old. Right. We're still pretty young for a country. These are our, like like our angry teenage years. Right. We are going through this push and pull where we're happy we're sad, we want this we want that. And what do you do when you have a teenager who's threatening themselves and others. You just try to get 'em through this period alive."
She explained that a country, like a teen, needs to have time "so that their brain can fully form and you can come back to… kinda what the country…"
Actually, the U.S. right now is the world's oldest uninterrupted democracy, being established in 1789.
On social media were responses that included:
"Amazing! Democrats refuse to be reflective on their election loss. They're lashing out and blame everyone else but themselves. Now they've started insulting and blaming voters. …"
And, "I hope @SenatorSlotkin keeps comparing the voters of this country to angry teenagers. Insulting the voters is an innovative strategy that worked wonders in 2016 ('basket of deplorables') and in 2024 ('You're all fascists!'). I'm sure this will reap whirlwinds in 2028."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Janet Mills, the Democrat governor of Maine who openly defied President Donald Trump's executive orders regarding men who say they are women and insist on competing in sports events reserved for women, now is facing a recall effort.
She earlier was targeted by the Department of Education for apparently violating Title IX laws after she slashed with Trump at a meeting of the National Governors Associatin.
The fight was over Trump's landmark executive order signed on February 5, which provided that biological men could not compete in women's sports. States that allow it will be subject to losing federal funding from the U.S. Department of Education.
Mills issued a statement publicly that she was refusing the president's order.
Now a report from the Center Square explains a recall campaign has been launched against her.
The report notes that it appears unlikely that the recall to remove her from office would succeed in the Democrat-majority state, but an online petition already has gathered some 30,000 signatures in just a week.
"The petitioner, Melissa Moulton, said she is 'deeply disappointed' in Mills' policies and the governor's pushback on President Donald Trump's efforts to prohibit transgender males from competing in women's sports," the report explained.
"I believe strongly that her policies are not in alignment with the wishes and values of the majority of Mainers," Moulton explained. "The feeling of disconnect between the populace and leadership is palpable and widespread."
The dispute is happening more and more often these days as advocates for the transgender lifestyle choice have been getting more and more aggressive.
They claim that it's discrimination to refuse permission for a man who says he is a woman to compete in women's sports. Actually, that argument ignores the rights of women in those sports, including the rights to privacy in intimate settings like showers and locker rooms.
The report noted, "Trump has vowed to withhold federal funding from any states that fail to comply with his executive order banning transgender athletes in girls' and women's sports."
Her response to the president was, "See you in court."
The report noted the investigation, by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights, determined that the Maine Department of Education is in violation of Title IX, a 1972 civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools that receive federal funding.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has the option of taking the state to court over the violations.
In Maine, while the law allows lawmakers to remove the governor by petition, it does not give the same right to citizens. And the Maine legislature is dominated by leftist Democats.
The report said Moulton wants residents to sign anyway, to "voice our collective dissent" to Mills' agenda.