This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The white woman who was knocked unconscious last month by a black mob in Cincinnati broke down in tears Wednesday as she reacted to the outpouring of love and financial support she's receiving from the public.
"My little one who needs the help, we were going to be on the streets. I just don't even know what to say!" cried Holly, who covered her face as she burst into tears during an interview with Benny Johnson, the journalist who created her GiveSendGo fundraiser page.
As of Wednesday, total donations were approximately $530,000, with gifts from across America including one from Hollywood actor Charlie Sheen.
Through her crying, Holly said she was impressed by "the love from everyone and the humanity and the wishes and the peace.
"It just made me see how many people out there are still good because for so long I thought the whole country was full of shame and hate.
"I just want you all to know, too, that you guys have a community of love. I don't even know what to say. You're all just beautiful humans and let's just keep moving forward with love."
Johnson noted: "You haven't just shown kindness, you've saved a life. God bless every one of you. Remember, we are America."
Online reaction to Holly's tears includes:
"This is so raw and real and touching – I'm humbled to be a part of the community of Americans who came together to support this woman and her family."
"This brought tears to my eyes. Holly's strength and gratitude are incredibly moving. It's amazing to see people come together in love and compassion a true reminder of the heart and soul of this country. Praying for her continued healing and safety."
"God Bless the true American spirit that shows love when we need it most."
"This is very heartbreaking makes me sad and angry, at the same time!!! GOD BLESS YOU, HOLLY!!!!!"
"The American people are the best! It's unfortunate that a small segment of our society cause pain and suffering to their fellow Americans! There are more good people in this country than bad and it's not even close!"
"This is so touching. Nothing more American than rallying around in total support no questions asked! Amen!"
"This must be overwhelming. Of course several Cincinnati leaders are stuck that the brawl was not targeted. Can you imagine what the press would be had been if a white group beat a middle age woman of color for trying to break up a fight? Downtown needs to feel a boycott."
"The Democrats' campaign of hate, terrorism, and mob violence must stop. Politicians who continue to incite and endorse racial and political violence must be prosecuted and imprisoned, or sued civilly, and bankrupted. I hope Holly secures the best law firms available and launches civil suits against the mayor and police commissioner of Cincinnati and the others involved in creating the conditions of the attack, to completely bankrupt them as it seems clear that this is the only way things will change. Hopefully, she can take some of the donated money and move to a safer place to live."
The FBI announced a fifth person allegedly involved in the vicious beatings was arrested this week, and is reportedly Holly's personal attacker.
Patrick Rosemond was taken into custody in Atlanta, Georgia, on Monday afternoon, and is facing charges of felonious assault and aggravated riot.
WLWT-TV in Cincinnati reported: "Rosemond is the suspect accused of hitting the victim named Holly."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For the first time, Americans can see exactly how a major U.S. employer outsources American jobs, not in vague terms, but through formal documentation. A binding contract between Prudential Financial Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions lays out a step-by-step playbook for eliminating American jobs and shifting the work to foreign workers overseas.
This isn't theory, it's in writing. The document provides rare black-and-white evidence of how U.S.-based work is "transitioned" out of the country. While Americans have heard stories about being forced to train their replacements, this agreement reveals the actual process behind those headlines: how Prudential worked with Cognizant to plan, schedule and execute a full transfer of work to offshore teams, with American employees pushed out in the process.
The devil is in the details: The betrayal in black and white
Section 1.1(b) of the agreement openly states that the work previously handled by Prudential employees would be "eliminated" and reassigned to Cognizant. These weren't new jobs. They were the same roles Americans had been doing – application support, software maintenance, reporting – all now classified as functions to be transitioned out.
The language is careful but clear. Cognizant wouldn't just be stepping in to help; it was there to take over. The contract also gave Cognizant the right to perform any "incidental" tasks needed to complete the work, even if not spelled out directly. In other words, it had wide authority to expand its control over operations once embedded.
The built-in replacement plan
The contract's Transition Services section describes the process by which Cognizant would assume responsibility for Prudential's internal IT operations. A detailed transition plan was required, complete with milestone dates and task lists, all designed to avoid disruptions to business continuity. But what the contract avoids saying outright is what's plainly obvious: This plan definitively phases out American workers in favor of a lower-cost, offshore workforce.
This wasn't a case of hiring extra help. It was a direct replacement strategy. Cognizant was required to observe how Prudential's in-house team handled the work, copy it, and then eventually take it over – permanently. The agreement mandated a phased approach so the transfer wouldn't appear sudden. But behind the corporate phrasing was the harsh reality: The American team had to teach the offshore team how to do their jobs before being let go.
American workers forced to hand over their jobs
The agreement also makes it clear that Prudential would manage the entire transition internally. The company appointed project leads and gave Cognizant open access to internal systems, documents and staff. These staff were expected to help onboard the new offshore teams. But the contract offered them no job protection, no bonus, no role in the future structure. Their job was to help with the transition … and then leave.
Foreign labor in, American labor out
From the very first deliverables listed, it's clear what this contract was meant to do. The top priority: "Set up an offshore development center," or ODC. That's a dedicated office or facility in another country, in India in this case, where a foreign team will take over work that was once done in the U.S. This ODC becomes the new home base for handling core operations.
Right after that came the requirement to build and carry out a "knowledge transition plan," which is the process of transferring everything the American workers knew to the new offshore team. These steps weren't optional, they were the foundation of the entire deal. The rest – maintenance, bug fixes, reporting and support – were tasks already being done by U.S. employees. Now, those responsibilities were being prepared for transfer abroad.
Engineered dependence on foreign labor
The contract also included a unique clause about "non-billable" consulting hours. For every dollar Prudential spent, it received free consulting hours from Cognizant. But here's the catch: Those hours were heavily weighted toward India-based services. Once Prudential spent over $1 million in a month, it earned up to 800 hours of free offshore consulting, far more than what it would get from U.S.-based support. That structure created a clear incentive: The more Prudential outsourced to India, the more "free" services it received. The longer it stayed with Cognizant's offshore model, the deeper its dependence became.
They even set up what's called a Center of Excellence, or CoE, a permanent team focused on building deep expertise around Prudential's systems. This team, made up mostly of Indian business analysts and engineers, was responsible for mastering the technology, guiding decisions and supporting long-term operations. Although the contract labeled this effort "non-billable," meaning Prudential didn't pay extra for it, the long-term effect was significant. It wasn't just about supporting the transition, it was about anchoring control overseas.
The transition team: Locked out for good
As part of the transition, Cognizant assigned two full-time managers: an account manager and a transition manager. These weren't back-office roles, they were embedded into Prudential's leadership chain, given the responsibility to oversee the transition and manage future staffing. They represented Cognizant's permanent leadership presence inside Prudential's operations.
While Cognizant controls the operation, Prudential still directs staffing decisions, and there is a clause prohibiting Cognizant from rehiring former Prudential employees unless Prudential explicitly allows it. That means even if laid-off American workers wanted to come back through the vendor, they couldn't. Their exit is final and contractually reinforced.
That clause closed the door on U.S. workers returning under the new model, even if they were qualified. They had trained their replacements and that was the end of the road – for them.
The technology transfer and foreign control
Another section lays out the software licensing structure: Prudential granted Cognizant, including its India-based affiliates, full legal rights to use its proprietary software systems to perform services. That meant Indian offshore teams were authorized to access and operate systems containing personally identifiable information (PII) and sensitive financial data tied to Prudential's American clients. Cognizant assumed liability for its offshore teams' use of the software, but the control and the data were now fully remote.
Map, transfer, replace, terminate
The contract's "Assumptions" section lays the groundwork for how the offshoring will take place. Prudential committed to giving Cognizant access to all documentation, systems, meeting rooms and even American employees themselves. These Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) were instructed to guide Cognizant's team, help them learn the job and ensure that knowledge transfer was successful. This wasn't just outsourcing. It was a fully coordinated transfer of control, with the U.S. workforce footing the labor to make it happen.
It also commits to giving Cognizant's offshore team access to engagement-specific software and guarantees coordination support to bridge the onshore-offshore model. This section confirms that Prudential is not just outsourcing the work; it is actively managing the transfer of knowledge, tools, systems and control to a foreign team.
This section also outlines the assumed support Prudential will provide to Cognizant for free, even for work that isn't directly billable, further demonstrating how the employer is actively facilitating the transfer of jobs offshore.
Labor displacement as deliverable
Once the handoff was underway, Cognizant assumed even more responsibility. The contract required performance tracking, called SLAs, only after the American team had fully trained the offshore team. These metrics kicked in after the replacements were operational, once the domestic team had been phased out.
The human handoff: Americans train their replacements
The "Pre-Knowledge Transition" phase required Prudential to grant access to all systems and assign American employees to begin the onboarding process. These employees were tasked with training the very people who would take their jobs. They hosted Q&A sessions, performed software demos and wrote training manuals. Their required deliverables were detailed: everything from system diagrams to escalation charts to maintenance plans. All of it handed over through a central knowledge repository.
This section confirms the most direct and personal part of the offshoring process: American workers are required to conduct classroom-style training, Q&A sessions, hands-on demos and even "reverse shadowing" to prepare the offshore team to fully take over their jobs.
During "Guided Support," the offshore team began taking control, with U.S. workers watching, guiding and validating the handover. This was the final leg of the transition. Americans were still involved, but only to support the full shift to India.
By the final phase, "Governance," the offshore team had full control. Prudential created a model where multiple vendors like Cognizant could operate with zero dependence on the original American workforce. The system was now re-designed to run without them.
The final handoff: Offshore replacement takes over
In the "Steady State" phase, Cognizant took full ownership of support, system fixes and enhancements. All technical documentation and service records were already prepared by the displaced U.S. team. Their role was over.
An internal staffing chart shows how this played out in numbers. In nearly every functional cluster, offshore workers outnumbered or replaced American workers entirely. U.S.-based workers were billed at $67/hour. Their replacements in India were billed at $22.50/hour for the same tasks. In some cases, the U.S. presence disappeared completely. It wasn't just a shift. It was a swap.
Terminating the Americans
The "Termination Assistance" section confirmed the final step. Even after the official transition ended, Cognizant had to remain on-site for three months to continue support and hand off operations, either to another vendor or back to Prudential. But that handoff would not include the U.S. workers who trained them.
Cognizant was required to provide full services during the wind-down, including answering all Prudential questions, turning over documentation and ensuring the transition remained smooth. It wasn't a contingency plan; it was the final clause in a structured replacement contract.
Prudential is responsible for training Cognizant, providing Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), documentation and ongoing guidance. Once transition is complete, Cognizant takes over full support, including issue resolution and warranty periods, ensuring any operational gaps during handover are still managed by the incoming vendor.
Key takeaway: Prudential is contractually obligated to train and hand over all responsibilities to Cognizant, replacing internal American workers with foreign vendor labor while maintaining service quality. This transition plan makes the displacement of domestic employees a built-in feature of the agreement.
The fine print that erased the American worker
For American workers, this contract spelled the end of their roles, permanently. There were no offers of rehiring, no retention plans and no support to help them transition. Instead, many were forced to train the offshore teams replacing them, document the systems they built and hand over guidance, only to be let go once those teams took over. What followed wasn't just job loss; it was the full relocation of high-skilled tech and operations work from the U.S. to foreign labor hubs, especially India.
This move wasn't accidental, it was outlined and executed by contract. And with it came a long-term shift in hiring patterns, salary trends and the regional demand for technical talent. As part of the deal, Cognizant's offshore teams, including those in India, a country with poor data privacy protections, were given access to sensitive information like Social Security numbers and financial records tied to Prudential's American clients. These foreign teams were assigned system maintenance, bug fixes and production support – meaning the digital backbone of a major U.S. firm was now handled overseas. This wasn't just about saving money, it was about restructuring the system. American workers built the tools, ran the systems, trained the replacements and were erased from the future. It's a story happening across the country, quietly and legally, one contract at a time.
The bigger picture? India has turned job displacement into an export model. While Americans lose high-paying jobs, India gains service contracts, trade credits and political leverage, without ever building the products or taking the risk. U.S. companies opened the door and India optimized the model. Now, they call it a "services export." But what they're actually exporting isn't services, it's Americans' jobs.
Unless the U.S. confronts these offshoring pipelines, tightens visa loopholes and stops rewarding companies for abandoning American workers, the massive bleed will just continue. The future of America's workforce is being written in fine print, and clearly it's time to read it out loud.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
As President Donald Trump expresses his support for Sydney Sweeney and her American Eagle jeans commercial, the celebrity is now being heckled in public.
At her latest movie premiere Sunday night in Hollywood, a heckler targeted the actress, yelling: "Stop the ad! That is being racist."
"Sydney plays it cool and unbothered, disappearing into the movie house," reports TMZ.
President Donald Trump has also jumped into the controversy, and upon learning the actress is a registered Republican, he told reporters: "Now I love her ad. If she is a registered Republican, I think her ad is fantastic."
The president also went on Truth Social Monday to praise Sweeney, while trashing woke Jaguar for its woke featuring non-binary characters.
Trump indicated: "Sydney Sweeney, a registered Republican, has the 'HOTTEST' ad out there. It's for American Eagle, and the jeans are 'flying off the shelves.' Go get 'em Sydney!
"On the other side of the ledger, Jaguar did a stupid, and seriously WOKE advertisement, THAT IS A TOTAL DISASTER! The CEO just resigned in disgrace, and the company is in absolute turmoil. Who wants to buy a Jaguar after looking at that disgraceful ad. Shouldn't they have learned a lesson from Bud Lite, which went Woke and essentially destroyed, in a short campaign, the Company.
"The market cap destruction has been unprecedented, with BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SO FOOLISHLY LOST. Or just look at Woke singer Taylor Swift. Ever since I alerted the world as to what she was by saying on TRUTH that I can't stand her (HATE!). She was booed out of the Super Bowl and became, NO LONGER HOT. The tide has seriously turned – Being WOKE is for losers, being Republican is what you want to be. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
One online commenter suggested to Sweeney: "Make another ad! This time wear white jeans!"
And another posted a montage of what average haters of Sweeney look like.
Meanwhile, U.S. Border Patrol has come out with its own jeans ad, declaring: "Our horse patrol unit has great jeans," and that "it's not just what we ear every day, it's in our DNA."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Actually convicted of abducting girl, bashing her head, stuffing her in car and hauling her away to rape her
An Islamic Center in Minnesota has written to a judge handling the case of a man convicted of child rape seeking leniency for him over "this situation," when he "abducted the 12-year-old girl from her backyard, bashed her over the head, and transported her in his car, where he raped her before she was able to escape."
It is the Post-Millennial that described the advocacy by the Al-Ihsan Islamic Center of St. Paul, Minn., on behalf of Qulinle Dirie, who is "member" of that community.
The 42-year-old Dirie was sentenced to 12 years in prison after being found guilty by a jury of first-degree sexual conduct, which was the minimum sentence guidelines allowed, the report said.
After his conviction, the Islamic Center contacted the judge, Michael Burns, asking for leniency.
"The situation [Dirie] is currently facing comes as a deep shock to all of us," the letter states. "It does not reflect the man we know – a man whose actions have consistently reflected family and community.
"We respectfully ask that this letter be considered as a sincere reflection of who Qalinle Dirie truly is."
The Islamists in the center said he was "an active volunteer in our mosque." He was there regularly for prayers, Ramadan and community events.
He helped "elders find rides home" and even helped clean up.
Further, it counseled that Dirie was born in Somalia and lived in refugee camps in Kenya.
With that, the center said he has faced "the challenge of starting over in a new culture."
The center said, "His service has never been about recognition — just a quiet commitment to supporting the spaces that hold our community together."
Explained the report, "For the Islamic center, that's a good enough reason to support a child rapist. "
Accompanying the center's letter was a letter where the convict's family explained that Dirie "is a deeply good man whose presence enriches the lives of those around him."
Alpha News reported, "According to criminal charges, the victim had contact information for a 'Mohamed Muuse' in her phone. When asked about that person, the victim said 'Mohamed Muuse' was the man who assaulted her. Using that cellphone contact, a sting operation was set up by the victim's family several weeks after the assault. Dirie arrived at the victim's home and was taken into police custody."
Prosecutors said for the court record that he continues to deny that he committed the assault.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lawmakers in the United Kingdom are warning of the likely "chilling effect" on speech, as well as the actual threats to those targeted with such accusations, should parliament move forward with a scheme that involves defining "Islamophobia."
Islamophobia already is defined by those on the left as "the irrational fear of, hostility towards, or hatred against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general."
They claim Islamophobia is "primarily a form of religious or cultural bigotry."
They even have a derogatory name for those they arbitrarily convict of such attitudes: "Islamophobes."
Actually, the term most often is used against those who have criticisms of Islam, whether it be for religious reasons, the fact that Islam is connected today to terrorism worldwide through some of its factions, or whether it involves demands made by Muslims on others in society, such as in European cities where there are now no-go zones for non-Muslims.
Leftists blame the surge in such attitudes on "the radicalization of Christian nationalist and far-right groups with growing hostility towards Muslims."
But then similar attitudes exist for and against all religious traditions, and seldom do appear the words "Hinduphobe," or "Christianphobe" or "Buddhaphobe," "Shintophone" or "Sikhphobe."
Now a report at the Christian Institute in the U.K. explains members of the House of Lords are warning against adopting a proposed definition.
"In a letter signed by 36 members of the House of Lords, the peers called the attempt at a definition 'misguided' and stated that it would only increase division in communities."
The report said the Labour Party already defines the word as "Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness."
But it's not that easy to pin down what it means, the report said, and what damage could be inflicted.
Those objecting warned while the definition would be non-statutory, there would be problems, particularly in universities: "defining Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred and urging universities to prohibit it will inevitably inhibit legitimate academic research about Islam."
They cited Trevor Phillips, who was suspended from the Labour Party for Islamophobia offenses, but later was clear.
And there would be problems with legitimate criticisms of Islam.
They pointed out: "Sarah Champion, the Labour MP who exposed the grooming gangs in Rotherham, was shortlisted by the Islamic Human Rights Commission for 'Islamophobe of the Year', as was Baroness Casey."
Grooming gangs in various U.K. cities are part of those "no-go" zones and have repeatedly assaulted and abused young girls.
"There are already laws on the statute books that protect Muslims and other racial and religious groups from hatred and discrimination, such as the sections of the Public Order Act 1986 that criminalize stirring up racial and religious hatred, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Equality Act 2010," the lawmakers noted.
"Embedding an official, government-approved definition of a particular form of racial or religious hatred in civic speech codes – and threatening people with penalties if they breach those codes – is a wholly inadequate way of tackling hatred and discrimination," they warned.
The institute said, "A new term risks confusing criticism of Islam as a religion – a democratic right – with hostility to Muslims as people. This confusion is most explicit with the term Islamophobia."
It continued, "Formally embracing a concept of 'cultural racism' risks threatening the freedom to criticize aspects of Islamic culture. A member of an organization that has signed up to this kind of definition could be disciplined for Islamophobia if they criticize mandatory female head coverings or suggest that U.K. law is preferable to Shariah [Islamic religious] law."
The House of Lords members who object to the plan represent multiple parties.
They explained an "official definition" likely would create additional conflicts.
The letter also challenged the logic behind defining "Islamophobia" or "Anti-Muslim Hatred" at all, particularly in light of protections already provided by the law.
Their letter was to Dominic Grieve, head of a "Working Group on 'Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred," which, in fact, is made up solely of Muslims or those with Muslim heritages, except for one member.
The letter said, "If you are genuinely concerned about the potential of the definition to have a chilling effect on free speech, why not include members of free speech advocacy organizations in your group, as well as representatives of the world's other major religions? The monocultural character of your group suggests that whatever definition it comes up with will likely include legitimate criticisms – as well as accurate observations – of the religion of Islam, such as the historical fact that it has, on occasion, been imposed on subjugated populations by force."
Further, too, there was alarm.
Criticism by Muslims of suggestions already made is "an example of how any definition of 'Islamophobia/Anti-Muslim Hatred' is vulnerable to being weaponized by Muslims seeking to protect their communities and their religion from legitimate criticism."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The fight over pro-life activists who want to protest near abortion businesses, displaying signs offering to adopt babies, and more, has gone on again and again across the United States.
Many times the battles are the result of ignorance on the part of city officials who fail to recognize that speech, in fact, is protected by the U.S. Constitution.
But the arguments often take up court time, and incur costs for those targeted anyway.
It appears that might not be the case in Carbondale, Illinois.
There, city officials cited in a lawsuit brought by the American Center for Law and Justice on behalf of pro-life activist Brandon Hamman have failed to respond to the accusations.
They only filed a motion for summary judgment, the ACLJ said, "without filing any responsive pleading to our complaint."
"When the ACLJ filed suit to defend Brandon's constitutional rights, we expected the city to file an answer denying our allegations. Instead, they made a critical procedural error that has blown their case wide open. … Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b)(6), this means they have legally admitted to every single allegation we made against them. This changed everything."
The legal team explained, "The city's own lawyers have handed us a constitutional confession."
It described the situation as a "stunning procedural misstep."
Their admissions now include that they discriminate against religious speakers simply because they advocate for the sanctity of life.
The client, Hamman, "embodies the heart of the pro-life movement. As a dedicated Christian missionary and sidewalk counselor, Brandon serves through his ministry, Gospel for Life. His ministry offers hope and practical support to women facing crisis pregnancies. His work flows directly from his deep faith and belief in the sanctity of every human life," the ACLJ reported.
He was peacefully displaying signs near an abortion business in Carbondale in April, signs that included "We will adopt your baby." "Love your preborn neighbor as yourself" and more.
But Community Development Manager John Lenzini and city attorney Jamie Snyder targeted him.
They "declared that Brandon's pro-life signs were 'commercial' and therefore prohibited and when he cited the First Amendment, Lenzini said he didn't have that right.
They threatened him with citations.
"By failing to file an answer, the city of Carbondale has been forced to admit some truly damaging facts in our complaint," the report said, including viewpoint discrimination, selective enforcement, denial of permit rights, and no legitimate safety concerns.
"These admissions are devastating. Now, the city could ask the court to relieve them of these admissions – but doing so would require them to publicly acknowledge their procedural mistake and demonstrate inexcusable neglect. Such a motion would be an admission that their legal team failed to follow basic federal court procedures, undermining their credibility before the very judge who will decide this case," the legal team noted.
The case, the ACLJ said, represents a troubling pattern across the country, of "government officials weaponizing vague ordinances against pro-life Christians, while allowing other forms of expression to proceed freely."
The judge handling the case now has been delivered a proposed motion for summary judgement that would declare Carbondale's ordinance unconstitutional and an injunction preventing future discrimination.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The professional who just got laid off never expected this. They worked hard their whole life. Always had a plan B, C and D. Never without a job. Never needed a handout. Now, for the first time, they're facing the unknown, the unemployment line.
The recent college graduate, diploma in hand, who spent four years living on Top Ramen, buried in textbooks and study groups, was told the degree was the ticket to success. Stay in school, study hard, and there will be a future waiting for you.
The stay-at-home mom who's always believed in raising her children full-time would prefer to keep doing just that, nurturing her family, providing the care only a mother can give. But with food prices rising and their household on the edge, she's forced to return to work for the first time in years. Not because she wants to, but because she must.
These Americans all know the challenge ahead. They know they'll need to fight for the job that helps them keep their home, pay their bills, feed their families and contribute to their communities.
What they don't know is this: There aren't enough jobs for Americans anymore.
And worse, they're not just competing with each other. They're competing with millions of work-authorized foreign nationals who are now legally walking into the same job market.
In 2024, while the U.S. economy only created 2.2 million new jobs, the federal government approved over 5.56 million employment authorizations for foreign nationals. That's more than twice as many workers added to the job pool than jobs created.
And it wasn't an isolated year. From 2022 to 2024 America issued over 18 million work permits through a patchwork of visa programs, asylum cases, student extensions and executive actions. During that same three-year period, only 9.7 million jobs were created.
Millions of hardworking Americans, just like the laid-off parent, the young graduate and the mother returning to work, are entering a job market that's already saturated. Not because of natural supply and demand, but because the government is flooding the system with foreign competition.
The government's role
Many Americans assume that employment-based immigration is tightly controlled, limited in number and directly tied to job availability. In reality, that is not how the system works.
Each year, the U.S. government issues millions of work authorizations to foreign nationals through a variety of immigration categories. These include asylum applicants, individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), H-1B temporary skilled workers, international students participating in post-graduation work programs such as Optional Practical Training (OPT) and STEM OPT and other similar work visa programs.
Most of these programs do not require a specific job offer to exist at the time of approval. In many cases, there is no legal obligation for employers to demonstrate that they attempted to hire a U.S. worker first. Additionally, several of these programs have no annual cap, meaning there is no fixed limit on how many individuals can receive work authorization each year.
As a result, foreign nationals may be granted the legal right to work in the U.S., sometimes for multiple years, without any link to actual job openings or confirmation that the U.S. labor market has unmet demand. There is no built-in labor market test, no requirement to prioritize American workers and no formal mechanism to align these approvals with the number of available jobs. In practice, this means that millions of work-authorized foreign nationals can enter the job market each year, even during periods of high unemployment or limited job growth for U.S. citizens.
American workers left behind
For American workers, whether they're behind the wheel of a truck, fixing engines, building homes, caring for patients, writing code, or stepping out of college with a degree, the impact is personal and immediate. When the federal government authorizes millions of foreign nationals to enter the workforce each year, it floods the job market and stacks the deck against American citizens.
This is no longer limited to so-called "low-skilled" jobs. The displacement is happening across the board, in white-collar careers, government contracts, hospitals, classrooms and tech companies. And because there's no hard limit on how many employment authorizations can be issued, the floodgates stay wide open.
Employers, enticed by lower costs and fewer obligations, are increasingly turning to foreign workers with temporary status. Americans aren't being passed over because they lack skills, but because the system itself has been rewired to favor foreign labor over American talent.
The result is a quiet restructuring of the U.S. labor market, one where citizenship, hard work and sacrifice no longer guarantee opportunity. The data makes this shift hard to ignore. According to the Federal Reserve's FRED database, foreign-born men have consistently been employed at higher rates than American-born men, a trend that persisted through 2024. In recent years, that employment gap has remained steady, averaging 15% to 17%. This pattern points to a deeper structural preference where foreign workers are being favored, while American workers are being pushed aside.
A betrayal hidden in plain sight
The numbers speak for themselves, American workers are now competing in a labor market reshaped by federal immigration policy, one that adds millions of foreign workers each year without regard to job availability.
Across the country, parents, recent graduates, veterans and working families are doing everything they were told would lead to success, earning degrees, gaining experience, showing up day after day, only to find fewer opportunities waiting for them.
Not because they lacked the skills or experience, but because millions of foreign nationals were approved to enter the workforce ahead of them, many of whom will work for lower wages, tolerate unsafe conditions, skip benefits and stay silent rather than risk losing their place. Not because they choose to, but because it's the only way to be more appealing than an American who can do the same job.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The long-running saga of Kilmar Abrego Garcia continues, as two Obama-appointed judges on Wednesday ordered the MS-13 gang member to be released while precluding ICE from arresting him.
Bill Melugin of Fox News reported: "Maryland federal judge Paula Xinis has just issued an order that will block ICE from arresting 'Maryland man' Kilmar Abrego Garcia upon his release on bail in Tennessee for his federal human trafficking charges.
"Judge Xinis is also ordering a 72 hour pause on any effort to deport him to a third party country without 'sufficient notice' and 'due process.'
"Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran illegal alien alleged MS-13 gang member and alleged repeat wife beater, is facing federal human smuggling charges in Tennessee, and a judge there is deciding whether to release him pending trial. The government had indicated it would take him into ICE custody in Tennessee if he was released pending his federal case.
"Judge Xinis has now blocked the Trump administration from taking him into ICE custody upon his release."
"WTF?!" exclaimed online journalist Nick Sortor in reaction to the news.
"They're forcing a FOREIGN MS-13 WIFE BEATER back onto our streets. IGNORE THE COURT! ARREST HIM!"
CBS News reported: "The Tennessee judge, Waverly Crenshaw, denied the Justice Department's request to revoke the magistrate judge's order allowing Abrego Garcia to be released while awaiting a criminal trial, writing that the government 'failed to carry its burden of showing that no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure Abrego's appearance or the safety of others.'"
"These rulings are a powerful rebuke of the government's lawless conduct and a critical safeguard for Kilmar's due process rights," Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, said.
"A federal judge has now barred ICE from taking him back into custody and ordered that any future deportation attempt must come with advance notice. After the government unlawfully deported him once without warning, this legal protection is essential."
A federal grand jury in Tennessee had indicted Garcia for "transporting undocumented migrants within the United States."
He and co-conspirators from El Salvador, Mexico, Guatemala and America are accused of trafficking illegal immigrants from 2016 through 2025.
Garcia pleaded not guilty last month to charges of human trafficking.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A horror story worthy of Edgar Allen Poe or Stephen King has been documented by Lila Rose, the noted pro-life activist who runs Live Action, among other endeavors.
It involves two homosexual men who contracted with a surrogate for a baby, but when she needed to deliver early because of a cancer diagnosis, they insisted that their "property" die.
A report at Not The Bee explained the sequence of events triggered by a gay duo who "boldly nominated themselves for the Most Hideously Evil Monsters of the Year Award."
It documented how the homosexuals could not force the surrogate to abort, but once the baby was born, it became their "property." They simply allowed no life-saving efforts at all, and the baby died.
The surrogate tried a number of solutions, offering to adopt the baby, but the duo demanded "a death certificate."
The report noted, "The couple, who had 'paid' for the surrogate mother's baby, refused to accept the child due to the increased risk of health problems. Instead, they wanted him to die. And with life-saving care withheld, the baby boy did die shortly after he was born."
Rose explained surrogacy, "enables people to act as if they are entitled to other people's reproductive abilities – the body of the woman whose womb they are renting. It also treats children like property to be bought, sold, and killed."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., is now officially gone from the House of Representatives as Sunday was his last day on the job, leaving 219 Republicans and 212 Democrats in the chamber.
In June, Green announced he would be leaving the House, saying: "It is with a heavy heart that I announce my retirement from Congress. Recently, I was offered an opportunity in the private sector that was too exciting to pass up."
"As a result, today I notified the Speaker and the House of Representatives that I will resign from Congress as soon as the House votes once again on the reconciliation package."
Journalist Nick Sortor noted: "He just ran for re-election months ago, and is now resigning because he wants a different job. These people are incredibly selfish. We need a STAUNCH MAGA Republican in this seat!"
Green called serving the Volunteer State's 7th congressional district "the honor of a lifetime."
"They asked me to deliver on the conservative values and principles we all hold dear, and I did my level best to do so. Along the way, we passed historic tax cuts, worked with President Trump to secure the border, and defended innocent life. I am extremely proud of my work as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and want to thank my staff, both in my 7th District office, as well as the professional staff on that committee," Green said.
The Republican also noted he had previously prepared to depart in the last Congress, but then changed his mind.
"Though I planned to retire at the end of the previous Congress, I stayed to ensure that President Trump's border security measures and priorities make it through Congress," he explained.
"By overseeing the border security portion of the reconciliation package, I have done that. After that, I will retire, and there will be a special election to replace me."
Green last week endorsed Matt Van Epps to replace him in the House, telling Fox News Digital: "Matt Van Epps has my complete and total endorsement."
He revealed he served in the same U.S. Army special operations unit as Van Epps, which he called "a brotherhood that cannot be replicated anywhere else."
"Congressman Green has left some very large shoes to fill, but I'm ready to step in and continue his work on behalf of Tennesseans," Van Epps told Fox News.
Numerous Republicans have already tossed their hat into the ring for the congressional seat, including U.S. Army veteran Jonathan Thorp, Montgomery County Commissioner Jason Knight, Mason Foley of Main Street Health, and state Reps. Jay Reedy, Lee Reeves and Jody Barrett.
Fox News Digital noted: "Even with Green's departure from Congress, it's a safe bet to assume his House seat will stay in Republican hands.
"The district voted for Trump by more than 20 percentage points over former Vice President Kamala Harris last year."