This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An insider to that years-long Democrat lawfare campaign against President Donald Trump has confirmed in testimony to Congress that it was the Barack Obama Department of Justice that vetoed plans to accuse Hillary Clinton of gross negligence in her email scandal.
That scandal developed just as she was running her failed campaign, as the Democrat nominee, to become president in 2016.
She set up a private computer server in her home and, allegedly in violation of the federal law, ran government secrets through it. She notably allegedly used a hammer to destroy some of her communications devices at the time.
She was not charged after then-FBI chief James Comey claimed an independent investigation had made clear that no reasonable prosecutor would take the case.
Online reports are calling it a "bombshell" from ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
She also has been in the headlines as the paramour with whom former FBI agent Peter Strzok exchanged messages about how they would not allow Trump to become president, because of an insurance policy.
That whole scenario, in fact, involved multiple government agencies under Obama's tenure, a scheme from Clinton to distract voters' attention from her own scandal by falsely tying Trump to Russia, and much more.
A new report outlines Page's testimony, earlier this year.
She confirmed Obama's DSOJ ordered lawyers not to even consider charging Clinton over that email scandal.
A Fox News report explained Rep. John Ratcliffe, during the hearing, brought up several questions.
"You're making it sound like it was the department that told you: you're not going to charge gross negligence because we're the prosecutors," he said.
Page interrupted, "That is correct."
At the time of the email scandal, Comey, now under investigation for allegedly lying to Congress, claimed in a broadcast speech, "What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done honestly, competently and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear."
Trump's response included that that "makes the Obama justice department look exactly like it was, a broken and corrupt machine."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The fight is between two people who never married but whose daughter now is nearly a teen. And the coming decision by the Maine Supreme Court will determine if judges in that state can simply overturn the constitutional religious rights of parents.
The battle has been outlined by Liberty Counsel, which explained the judge's trial court ruling in the dispute between mother and father is well into the extreme range, or beyond.
For example, the judge ruled that the custodial mother "is a fit parent EXCEPT for the fact that she is a Christian."
The war erupted over the non-custodial father's opposition to Christianity, specifically demanding to ban his daughter's attendance at a Christian church.
But, based on the "counsel" to the court from a "Marxist former sociality professor," the judge said the daughter "cannot associate with any of her church friends or any member of Calvary Chapel Portland."
And, "If Ava meets a new friend outside of Calvary and that person begins attending Calvary, Ava must cut ties with that friend."
And, "Ava cannot attend ANY Christmas, Easter, or any other Christian event or celebration at ANY church, including any wedding, funeral, or even hospital visits with anyone associated with Calvary Chapel."
And, "Ava cannot have any contact or participation with ANY religious organization (which would include Salvation Army or a food bank, homeless shelter, or crisis pregnancy center."
And, "Ava cannot read the Bible or religious literature or be exposed to any 'religious philosophy'"
But even with that extremism, the judge wasn't done with his anti-Christian agenda, Liberty Counsel reported.
"The judge mocked Ava and Emily's faith by purposefully refusing to capitalize the word 'God' — something I have never seen," reported Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver, who argued the little girl's case before the state Supreme Court last week.
"The judge even chastised Emily for allowing the church pastor to pray for Ava. And the judge ruled that Emily could not take Ava to ANY church unless Matt approves. And Matt has steadfastly refused to approve ANY church."
Newsweek wrote that the judge's order was "unusually sweeping."
"The state's high court must now determine whether judges can curtail a fit parent's religious practices based on findings of potential psychological harm, a question that could reshape how courts nationwide weigh parental rights, religious freedom and expert testimony in custody disputes," the report said.
Staver pointed out to the court, "There is no finding of abuse or neglect" in the record, which only shows an incident where the child experienced "anxiety."
The agenda to comply with the anti-Christian wishes of the father and his advisers violates the Constitution regarding the mother's rights, he said.
A lawyer for the father, Matthew Bradeen, claimed it is a compelling state interest to violate the rights of the mother, Emily Bickford.
Staver described the lower court's ruling as reeking of "hostility."
That decision gave Bradeen totalitarian control over religious decisions for the girl, soon to be 13.
A report from WCSH-TV said Bradeen's "expert" witness looked at Calvary Chapel's sermons and then claimed they were a "psychological risk."
At issue is the fact that courts are not allowed to sit in judgment of religious beliefs or doctrines.
Liberty Counsel explained the background: "Matt Bradeen never married Emily after she became pregnant over a dozen years ago. The relationship ended before Ava was even born. Emily had primary custody of Ava, and Matt had visitation rights. Ava and Emily had been attending Calvary Chapel, an evangelical Christian church in Portland, ME, for 3½ years. Ava informed her father last year that she was excited to be baptized. But whereas most parents would be overjoyed, Matt found an ACLU judge and flew in a Marxist former sociology professor from California to testify that Calvary Chapel (and any church that believes the Bible) are 'cults' that cause psychological harm to children."
Staver explained of the recent court hearing, "The majority of justices said the order is hostile toward religion and that it used a 'nuclear option' by taking all decision-making away from an unquestionably fit parent regarding the religious upbringing of her daughter."
A ruling is expected in the coming weeks.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday part of the reason beef prices have been soaring in America is due to the invasion of illegal aliens during the Biden administration, claiming many migrants brought diseased cattle with them.
Appearing on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel, Bessent was reacting to a statement by Omaha Steaks CEO Nate Rempe, who predicted: "By third quarter of '26, families are going to see $10-a-pound ground beef in the grocery store."
Bessent said: "The beef market is a very specialized market. It goes in long cycles, and this is the perfect storm again, something we inherited.
"And there's also, because of the mass immigration, a disease that we'd been rid of in North America, made its way up through South America as these migrants they had brought some of their cattle with them."
"So part go the problem is we've had to shut the border to Mexican beef because of this disease called the screwworm. So we're not gonna let that get into our supply chain."
According to the Centers for Disease Control, "New World screwworm is a species of parasitic fly that can cause myiasis and feeds on live tissue. It primarily affects livestock, but it can also infest people."
When asked how long before Americans would feel an impact of reining in the overall cost of living, Bessent replied: "I think we're going to see a substantial acceleration in the economy in the first [and] second quarter [of 2026]."
"I think Americans are gonna feel it in the first quarter, second quarter. I think 2026, thanks to President Trump's signature plans, is gonna be a great year for working Americans, for the markets. I call it parallel prosperity. Main Street and Wall Street can both do great but I think Main Street's gonna have a great year in 2026."
Meanwhile, tariffs are being removed from several household items not generally produced in the United States, including coffee, cocoa and bananas, and Bessent said he expects prices on those items to drop.
"This is a complete trade policy," he explained. "Now we are going to see it affect the prices."
Bessent also made a bold prediction about the U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming ruling about President Trump's tariffs.
"This is one of President Trump's signature policies, and traditionally the Supreme Court does not interfere with a president's signature policy," he explained.
"I would push this back on the Supreme Court. I don't think this ruling is gonna go against us, but if it does, what's their plan for refunds?" Bessent added.
"I don't think the Supreme Court wants to wade into a mess like that."
The Treasury secretary was also asked about a Wall Street Journal report suggesting China was already reneging on its agreement to provide the U.S. military with rare-earth magnets.
"We haven't even finished the agreement," Bessent said.
"I am confident they will honor their agreement, and if they don't we have lots of levers."
Asked if one of those levers were to remove China from U.S. financial markets, Bessent responded: "All options are on the table but I believe we will have to go into this believing [Chinese] President Xi will keep his agreements."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A collective of religious organizations has issued a statement declaring transgenderism "holy" and confirming that God makes mistakes, but they are such that man can fix them.
"During a time when our country is placing their lives under increasingly serious threat, there is a disgraceful misconception that all people of faith do not affirm the full spectrum of gender — a great many of us do," said the statement issued over the signatures of officials from the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ (UCC), the Unitarian Universalist Association, the Union for Reform Judaism, an association of Quakers and others.
A report at the Christian Post said the statement declaring transgenderism "holy" was "in direct rebuke of a vote by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to bar transgender procedures in Catholic healthcare facilities."
But the rebuke actually was directed toward God, in support of an ideology that He makes mistakes in the gender assignments of individuals but human physicians can offer corrections for those mistakes.
The pages-long statement was self-described as a "landmark" comment "proclaiming that transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people are worthy of love, support, and protection."
Signers included Unitarian Universalist Sofía Betancourt; Barry Crossno of the Friends General Conference; Cecilia Eggleston of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches; Yvette A. Flunder of The Fellowship of Affirming Ministries; Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Union for Reform Judaism; Jihyun Oh of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.); Teresa Hord Owens of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ); Karen Georgia Thompson of the United Church of Christ (UCC); Rabbi Deborah Waxman of Reconstructing Judaism; and the Episcopal Church.
The paper asserts, "Let it be known instead that our beloveds are created in the image of God – Holy and whole."
The demands are directed "to the American public, political leaders, and moral teachers."
"As such, we raise our voices in solidarity to unequivocally proclaim the holiness of transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people, as well as the recognition of the entire spectrum of gender identity and expression," it states.
Further, it describes as important efforts of "religious leaders" to speak out.
"When people of faith and conscience stay silent in the face of oppression, we are all made less whole. When people of faith and conscience speak out against that which violates the sacred in its own name, we have the power to stay the hand of sin. Transgender, nonbinary, and intersex people are vulnerable today. Our faiths, our theologies, and our practices of prophetic witness call on us to say with one voice to transgender people among us: 'You are holy. You are sacred. We love you. We support you, and we will protect you.'"
The Christian Post explained the leftist ideologists complained, "Too many entrusted with positions of power are demonizing transgender people, blaming them for acts of violence, and criminalizing their very right to occupy space in our common life. The fear that many transgender children, their families, and their loved ones experience is unacceptable. The drive to limit the ways that transgender, intersex, and nonbinary people authentically live their lives – by limiting the medical care they receive, ignoring and sometimes provoking acts of violence against them, preventing them from traveling freely, or keeping them from participating in public activities — is a betrayal of our deeply held values as people of faith."
Few efforts are around today that "limit" the ways people live. However, there are a multitude of efforts to prevent the delivery of various chemicals to children, and the accompanying body-mutilating surgeries the transgender agenda includes.
Further, there are efforts to prevent forcing American taxpayers from funding such extremist agendas.
The statement claimed, "Our scriptures vary, but they share a common conviction. As we make justice our aim we must give voice to those who are silenced. Our shared values, held across many faiths, teach us that we are all children of God and that we must cultivate a discipline of hope, especially in difficult times."
The Christian Post warned, "The statement went on to suggest that opposing transgenderism is sinful, reiterating the belief that transgender, nonbinary and intersex individuals are intrinsically holy, which is the only attribute of God magnified to the third degree of repetition in the Bible."
Betancourt's biography boasts that she teaches "womanism and Earth justice," and follows a statement from U.S. Catholic bishops that Catholic hospitals won't participate in transgender activism, based on years of deliberation, Vatican guidance, and a 2023 doctrinal note, "Moral Limits to the Technological Manipulation of the Human Body."
"Catholic health care services must not perform interventions, whether surgical or chemical, that aim to transform the sexual characteristics of a human body into those of the opposite sex, or take part in the development of such procedures," the bishops said in the 2023 doctrinal note.
Of course, being male or female is embedded in the human body down to the DNA level and cannot be changed.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A judge has ruled against Rep. LaMonica McIver's claim of immunity from charges over her interference with operations at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility.
The ruling also rejected the New Jersey Democrat's claim of selective enforcement, which she said was a result of President Donald Trump's antipathy to her.
She was indicted by a grand jury and pleaded not guilty to counts of assaulting, resisting, impeding and interfering with a federal officer.
The incident triggering the case was at an ICE facility in Newark, N.J., where she and other leftists arrived and demanded to be given access to the facility, because as a member of Congress she was exercising "oversight."
The charges explain she hit a federal agent with her arm, grabbed him, and struck another agent in a scuffle.
She earlier avoided censure in the House.
But the new ruling keeps alive the case against her.
U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper denied McIver's motion to dismiss the case. She had claimed vindictive prosecution and immunity under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause for Congress.
"The alleged criminal conduct did not occur during Defendant's inspection of Delany Hall, instead it occurred during an inexplicable delay of Defendant's oversight inspection. Although Defendant bears no fault in the delay, her alleged intervention into the Mayor's questionable arrest had no cognizable connection to any legislative function protected by the Speech or Debate Clause," the judge ruled.
"Defendant's active participation in the alleged conduct removes her acts from the safe harbor of mere oversight. Lawfully or unlawfully, Defendant actively engaged in conduct unrelated to her oversight responsibilities and congressional duties," he wrote.
A leftist legal team claimed that the prosecution now is "a brazen act of political retaliation and a worrying misuse of federal power and resources."
This after the Joe Biden administration weaponized the CIA, the FBI, and the DOJ against President Trump and brought a long list of different cases against him, going so far as to secretly spy on the telephone records of sitting U.S. senators.
According to the Hill, federal law allows Congress to conduct oversight visits of ICE facilities, but prosecutors said McIver, after arriving, sought to block the arrest of Democrat Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who is not a lawmaker and was ordered to leave. McIver tried to restrain and 'slammed her forearm' into one officer as she and others circled the mayor, the indictment charges.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
In a land that has been turned from a desert into lush croplands, a first-of-its-kind project is taking place: Israeli officials are replenishing a depleted water level in the freshwater Sea of Galilee with washed ocean water.
Precipitation in the drainage has been scarce in recent years, only 40% of what was expected last year, and the location provides water to vast regions around it.
So, according to a report in the Times of Israel, the lake with the "dangerously low" level was being raised as desalinated water is being pumped into it by the nation's Water Authority.
It is the first ever attempt in the world for such a project, the report said.
"The groundbreaking project, years in the making and a sign of both Israel's success in converting previously unusable water into a vital resource and the rapidly dropping water levels in the country's largest freshwater reservoir, was quietly inaugurated on October 23," the report said.
The water is flowing down the seasonal Tsalmon Stream to the Sea of Galilee at the Ein Ravid spring, near what is Israel's emergency drinking source.
The project is expected to raise the water level by a fraction of an inch each month, according to Firas Talhami, in which of water rehabilitation work in northern Israel.
The report noted Israel pulls hundreds of millions of cubic meters annually from the lake to supply local communities and augment its supply of desalinated water, however, that withdrawal is expected to be limited for a time now.
Currently, one pipe is sending about 264,000 gallons of water into the lake per hour.
The report said, "Tests carried out by scientists have indicated that the project will not have any significant deleterious effect on ecosystems, though there have also been some concerns that the desalinated water could harm local ecology by diluting the lake's relatively high salinity."
The work on the project was begun after drought years in 2013 to 2018, when the lake's level dropped significantly.
The report said Israel now desalinates enough water to supply most of its own population, with leftovers for nearby nations.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
For all the Trump administration's efforts to strengthen and revitalize the U.S. military following its disastrous, DEI-infected leadership under the Biden administration, service members are making it clear that real accountability regarding the military's highly controversial – and enormously damaging – COVID-19 shot mandate must be forthcoming for members' trust to be restored.
The many adverse effects linked to the COVID-19 shot have left service members feeling disillusioned. After all, thousands lost their careers, their rank, their pay and more, leading them to call for accountability from those who mandated and enforced the shot. Without real accountability, countless service members claim they cannot restore their trust in the military. Indeed, many members admit they will not recommend for their family or friends to join the military.
A small, independent, unscientific survey recently conducted by this reporter, just to ascertain the unvarnished views of dozens of current service members, supports this contention. Sixty-three out of 66 respondents, 95% – who were actively serving in the U.S. military – agreed that, on the heels of the tyrannical enforcement of the COVID-19 shot, including the refusal to honor religious exemption requests, accountability now is a must for them to regain trust in America's armed services.
The 2025 survey can be contrasted with a prior survey from 2023, homing in on issues such as trust in leadership as it relates to one's ability to follow their oath to the Constitution and more. Factors affecting the decrease in survey participants in 2025 compared to 2023 – some had since resigned, retired or been discharged from the military due to the COVID-19 mandate -were addressed in a prior WorldNetDaily article concerning force readiness and more.
In the 2023 survey during the Biden administration, virtually all respondents – 226 out of 229 (97%) – said they did not trust their senior leaders at the Department of Defense (general rank and flag officers) to follow their oaths to the Constitution and obey all laws. In the 2025 survey, which had a smaller number of participants, 62 out of 66 respondents (94%) shared the same sentiment of distrust towards their leaders in the recently renamed Department of War.
Similarly, in 2023, 170 of the 229 (74%) respondents reported that they do not trust their unit leaders (immediate supervisors one to two levels up) to follow their oaths to the Constitution and adhere to all laws. In comparison, the 2025 survey indicated that 46 of the 66 (70%) respondents felt the same.
The two surveys also attempted to assess whether service members believed senior leaders (general rank and flag officers) had their best interest in mind. In 2023, 227 out of 229 respondents (99%) answered "No," while in 2025, 62 out of 66 respondents (94%) gave the same response.
Similarly, when questioned about their unit leaders (immediate supervisors one to two levels up), 144 of 229 (63%) and 32 of 66 (48%) replied "No" in 2023 and 2025, respectively.
To gain some perspective, WND spoke with four survey participants who consented to share their opinions anonymously, emphasizing that their views do not represent those of the Department of War or their individual military branches.
A member of the Marine Corps said, "Leadership will fall in line with any administration's directives [to avoid putting] themselves or careers under scrutiny." He also argued that "not all commanders are created equal, as some are better than others and the level of care they have towards their troops vary." Nonetheless, he added, "even the best of them would put the preservation of their careers superior to any interest that their subordinates may have that would conflict with that."
Another service member said that, generally speaking, senior leaders close to retirement or promotion are "questionable," as many are "not willing to rock the boat in a way that could threaten their careers or promotions." Thus, regarding accountability, he said, "Senior leadership will point fingers in all directions and deflect accountability as quickly as they can."
With regard to upholding oaths to the Constitution, one Army service member told WND, "Almost all of DoD commanders demonstrated compliance in unlawfully implementing the COVID-19 mandates, and most of these commanders remain in service." In his opinion, "These commanders cater to political winds rather than the Constitution, striving first for promotions with careers measured by political compliance."
A second member of the Army agreed with the previous statement, but added, with regard to accountability over the shot mandate: "Nothing has changed, and there was no remedy from the abuse of administrative powers to injure and harm countless soldiers."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to take the case involving former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who faces a catastrophe because of a leftist ruling creating same-sex "marriage" across the country by extremists who no longer are on the bench.
It is Kim Davis who now faces $360,000 in penalties for the "hurt feelings" of homosexuals who bypassed other marriage license channels and sought her out to try to force her to publicly violate her Christian faith and issue them a marriage license.
"Davis was jailed, hauled before a jury, and now faces crippling monetary damages based on nothing more than purported hurt feelings," explained Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver.
"By denying this petition, the high court has let stand a decision to strip a government defendant of their immunity and any personal First Amendment defense for their religious expression. This cannot be right because government officials do not shed their constitutional rights upon election. Like the abortion decision in Roe v. Wade, Obergefell was egregiously wrong from the start.
"This opinion has no basis in the Constitution. We will continue to work to overturn Obergefell. It is not a matter of if, but when the Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell."
Davis, in fact, had been caught up in the disaster that marriage ruling created. While the Supreme Court created same-sex marriage, it ignored the simultaneous need for recognition of individuals' constitutional rights, leaving Davis facing a demand to violate state law and her own religious rights.
The Supreme Court's denial of a review was without a ruling on the merits.
"By declining to hear the case, SCOTUS leaves the wrongly decided Obergefell opinion in place. The court also leaves unresolved an important constitutional question of whether the First Amendment's complementary protections of Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause protect government officials sued in their individual capacity for actions taken based on their religious beliefs," Liberty Counsel, which represented Davis, said.
Also left in place was the claim from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that held Davis personally liable for a same-sex couple's "hurt feelings" from not getting a marriage license from Davis due to her upholding her religious views on marriage.
When the Obergefell case was announced, it was based on the implications of the Constitution, not any actual wording since marriage is not addressed in the Constitution. It, like the failed Roe decision earlier creating abortion, a decision that later was struck down, demanded a social change not mentioned in any way by the authors of the Constitution.
So believing marriage as a union between one man and one woman, Davis ceased issuing any marriage licenses from June 29 to early September 2015 while she sought an accommodation for her religious beliefs.
"But two sets of plaintiffs, including David Ermold and David Moore, sought to mock Davis' Christian faith by forcing her name on their marriage license through litigation. Their attempt failed when Gov. Steven Beshear agreed that the altered license without Davis' name was valid. From early September onward, licenses were issued without Davis' name on them. In December 2015, newly elected Governor Matt Bevin issued an executive order granting the accommodation Davis sought. Then in April 2016, the Kentucky legislature unanimously codified the religious exemption by removing the names of all clerks from the state's marriage licenses," Liberty Counsel said.
However, David Bunning, a leftist federal judge, didn't wait for democracy to take effect, and immediately put her in jail for her Christian faith.
Liberty Counsel pointed out the nature of the attack on Davis. "Ermold and Moore could have gone to any number of nearby clerks to get a marriage license. But they wanted Davis' name on their license. In 2017, Ermold and Moore amended their complaint and sued Davis in her individual capacity for emotional distress for 'hurt feelings.' In addition to six days in jail, Davis was held liable for $360,000 in damages and attorney's fees over their 'hurt feelings' stemming from her religious expression."
Muiltiple judges had dissented from the creation of same-sex marriage – it was adopted by only a single vote from one leftist justice. And the minority warned of the threat to the Constitution that the social-engineering decision crated.
Justice Clarence Thomas said that Obergefell would have "potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty."
The Syracuse Law Review has explained that the arguments used to overturn Roe also apply to the Obergefell "same-sex marriage" decision.
In fact, both the abortion and same-sex marriage creations rely on "substantive due process," a doctrine adopted by some justices over the years to create "implied fundamental rights."
"Through various opinions, the Court has recognized a right of personal privacy, which has been extended to other activities such as inter-racial marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing," the analysis said. To manufacture same-sex "marriages," the court relied on "substantive due process" to claim same-sex "marriage" is constitutionally protected.
Thomas said, "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous'…we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Lee Zeldin, President Trump's administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is warning of "far more severe, drastic" layoffs at the EPA as the federal government shutdown continues.
"It was about three weeks ago where EPA had a 4,000 staff furlough kick in, Zeldin said on "Sunday Morning Futures" with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox News Channel.
"This is the last pay period before a far more severe, drastic furlough is going to kick in at the EPA."
The administrator explained there would be "impacts for environmental protection across the board."
"The Office of Air and Radiation, we're talking Clean Air Act, we're talking about air pollution, they're gonna be operating at less than 15%," he said. "The Office of Water which is responsible for the Safe Drinking Water Act will be operating at less than 40%.
"Big impacts at the Office of Land and Emergency Management. Think Superfund, Brownfield, emergency response. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance will be down over 70%. That is enforcement and compliance of the environmental laws of this country.
"So I don't want to hear congressional Democrats in the future talking about how important it is to be dealing with Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and these other laws if right now they're talking about this environmental impact as leverage to be able to gain more power.
"We at the EPA want to be operating with a federal government that's open, employees at the office and getting paid. Unfortunately we're at a crossroads moment where congressional Democrats are choosing to use this as leverage and it's wrong."
Zeldin indicated he came into office with an employee staff size of about 16,000, and expected that number to be 12,000 by the end of this year.
Prior to his stint at the EPA, Zeldin unsuccessfully ran for governor of New York, and he was asked about the big change in New York City with last week's election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor.
"Drastically, it's a sad moment where I feel bad for the New Yorkers who tried to stop it," Zeldin responded.
"I feel bad for the former New Yorkers who have fled. But I don't feel bad for those who voted for it and others who decided to stay on the sidelines."
"The Democratic Party chose to nominate a guy who is a socialist, who is a communist, who has talked about defending the police and will absolutely set the New York City back."
"This isn't even the Democratic Party of a few years ago. The far left is tail-wagging the dog here and is taking over the Democratic Party and it's harming all of America because of it."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Texas, the Lone Star State, has long been the beating heart of American patriotism and a fierce defender of border security. Indeed, for years Texas led the charge against the Biden administration's reckless open-border policies, calling for sovereignty, safety and jobs for its own citizens.
But when the conversation shifted from illegal immigration to legal immigration – the kind that quietly replaces thousands of white-collar professionals through rampant abuse of America's H-1B visa program – Texas has remained largely silent, offering no clear defense of its citizens in this new front of the immigration battle.
OPINION: H-1B VISA HOLDERS ARE KEY TO THE TEXAS ECONOMY
The Trump administration's decision to raise H-1B visa application fees to $100,000 reignited a long-ignored but crucial debate: Who really benefits when American companies import foreign workers instead of hiring American citizens? The H-1B system, popular among tech giants and India-based outsourcing firms, was originally billed as a way to fill rare skill shortages. In practice, however, it has become a giant corporate loophole to lower costs and sidestep the U.S. labor force.
Brown University Professor Dany Bahar recently told Austin-based daily radio news show Texas Standard that Trump's new $100,000 H-1B filing fee is crippling, saying: "It's a way to shoot yourself in the foot, because essentially what it's doing, it's keeping foreign talent away from the United States."
He added, "It's telling people 'do not come,' but a very specific group of people, people who bring talent that is very hard to find in the United States." Although Bahar describes this policy as if it unfairly rewards only a "very specific group," that's the entire point of the policy: Americans' immigration system was designed to favor the genuinely exceptional, not every foreigner that wants to replace Americans by working at a lower cost to the employer.
The new frontier of legal immigration
Few states depend more on these visas than Texas. The issue isn't a shortage of homegrown talent, it's the surge of India-based tech multinationals that have built sprawling U.S. operations across the state.
In Plano, Wipro run sprawling tech hubs. HCLTech calls Frisco home for its American operations. L&T Technology Services and TCS have set up "innovation centers" in Houston, Austin and Dallas – not to train Texans, but to anchor their imported workforces. Each year, these firms dominate the list of H-1B petitioners nationwide.
2023 State Immigration Statistics: Nonimmigrants
Politically, Texas has built its image around protecting borders and defending American jobs. Yet many of the same leaders who vow to guard against illegal crossings remain silent, or complicit, when it comes to legal immigration programs that hand advantages to multinational corporations at the expense of Americans.
The result is an economic contradiction: While working-class Texans are told their state is fighting for them, white-collar professionals are quietly replaced by foreign labor marketed as "specialty skills." The damage is the same: Local jobs disappear, wages stagnate and the next generation's opportunities shrink.
Dismantling the deception: The hidden scale
Bahar frames H-1B as "a very, very small program" capped at 85,000 and filled only after employers "can't" hire Americans. However, Bahar, a professor of international and public affairs, appears to be wildly out of touch with immigration reality.
While Bahar calls H-1B "small," capped at 85,000 visas per year, that number is a sleight-of-hand. Universities, nonprofits and government contractors are exempt from the cap, creating a shadow stream of approvals that dwarfs the official limit.
When dependents are added, H-4 visas for spouses and children, the real figure balloons. In 2024, according to the U.S. State Department, 219,659 H-1B and 139,874 H-4 visas were issued, 359,533 total. That's four times higher than Bahar's figure. For years, this statistical illusion has been used to downplay the true scale of foreign labor inflow and its effect on American employment.
The H-1B program isn't a precision instrument to fill national shortages; it's a lottery. Visas are distributed at random, not by skill, wage level or economic need. Employers aren't required to prove they've exhausted domestic candidates before hiring abroad. That safeguard only appears in the PERM (Permanent Labor Certification) stage, when companies apply for green cards. If there truly were a skilled labor shortage, corporations would embrace that safeguard. Instead, they cleverly design myriad ways to avoid finding qualified Americans.
Job ads are drafted with inflated requirements that few domestic candidates will meet. Notices are intentionally placed where they are unlikely to be seen. Ads are run only in the bare-minimum formats required by regulation. Immigration lawyers routinely advise firms to pause PERM filings during layoffs to avoid being forced to offer the same jobs back to recently fired Americans. It's a giant charade of compliance.
The manufactured myths of 'high skill' and 'labor shortage'
Bahar claimed "firms in the United States … were not able to fill those vacancies in the local markets and therefore they are asking the government through a visa process to let them bring a foreign worker who will be able to fill that vacancy." That statement ignores years of documented cases where H-1B workers weren't brought in to fill shortages; they were brought in to replace Americans at lower cost.
In 2015, Disney made headlines when American IT employees were ordered to train their own H-1B replacements supplied by HCL. At Southern California Edison, hundreds of U.S. tech workers were displaced by imported contractors. The University of California required staff to train incoming HCL hires. AT&T, fresh off a $3 billion tax break, outsourced 16,000 American jobs and shut down 44 call centers. At Bank of America, employees were forced to train their replacements, a practice the company called "essential for knowledge transfer."
These are not isolated anecdotes, but are part of a pattern: American workers are displaced while visa pipelines remain open and expanding.
Yet Bahar, arguing that the program is small and beneficial, insists the H-1B is a "high-skilled" program concentrated in technology and high-tech industries. It's true that computer-related jobs make up over 60% of H-1B roles, but that's not because of a lack of American talent. It's because outsourcing firms have captured the system. Studies show 94% of Indian engineering graduates lack employable skills and fewer than 5% can complete a basic programming task. Still, Indian nationals now dominate the vast majority of H-1B approvals, particularly in the very tech jobs U.S. graduates are losing.
Supporters often frame H-1B hiring as access to rare, high-end talent. But the government's own numbers show otherwise. Employers must classify H-1B jobs under one of four wage levels: Level 1 (entry-level) through Level 4 (experienced professional). Employer records reveal that 83% of H-1B registrations fall into Levels I and II, both below the U.S. median wage.
In computer and math occupations, the largest category, 271,000 of 315,000 filings were placed at these lowest tiers. In business and finance, nearly 80% fell into the same category. Across the top five industries, as little as 14% reached the higher wage levels.
If the H-1B truly addressed "rare shortages," employers would be offering higher wages, not lower ones. Instead, the filings cluster at the bottom, proof that the program isn't about innovation or scarcity. It's about cost-cutting. The H-1B system has become a corporate discount program, replacing qualified Americans with cheaper labor under the false promise of "global competitiveness."
Admitting the truth
When asked whether the U.S. is capable of producing its own talent, Bahar framed the issue as a question of global competition, arguing that America must "produce at a lower cost" to remain competitive and that "foreigners bring the experience and know-how" to make that possible.
That statement reveals more than he likely intended. It's the quiet confession of the globalist mindset, one that measures strength not by independence, innovation or self-sufficiency, but by how cheaply Americans can be replaced. Bahar's argument reduces U.S. competitiveness to labor cost, not capability. It's the same justification multinational corporations have used for decades to offshore manufacturing jobs to China and now white-collar careers to India.
By that logic, America's future depends on importing low-cost talent instead of investing in its own people, which isn't competition – it's capitulation. The notion that "the most talented people around the world want to come to the U.S." may sound flattering, but it's strategically misleading. The H-1B system doesn't primarily attract the best and brightest; it imports the cheapest and most compliant. The majority of these workers are funneled through outsourcing and body-shop firms whose sole purpose is to undercut U.S. wages while transferring intellectual property, data and innovation abroad.
Bahar's rhetoric, "produce at a lower cost," is the exact phrase global consulting firms use in their offshoring manuals. It's the vocabulary of de-industrialization, the same reasoning that hollowed out America's factories, small towns and middle class. Only now it's being repackaged as a "high-tech" strategy to justify the same betrayal under a new name.
If America's path to "global competitiveness" is to pay its engineers, programmers and analysts less, then the model itself is broken. True strength lies in raising American capability, not in racing to the bottom of the global wage scale. A nation that can build rockets, power grids and AI systems certainly doesn't need to outsource its intelligence. What it needs is leadership willing to defend it.
The false gospel of 'global competitiveness'
Asked whether Trump's higher H-1B fees might strain U.S.-India relations, Bahar's focus turned immediately to tariffs and "integration into the global economy." He warned that such policies could make relationships "difficult" and suggested that America's effort to protect its own labor force amounts to "isolation."
That framing exposes the real priority – not the wellbeing and prosperity of American workers, but the preservation of India's economic access to the United States. Bahar wasn't warning about harm to diplomacy; he was lamenting a threat to a system that allows India to extract jobs, wages and intellectual property from America under the label of "partnership."
By calling efforts to secure American industry "isolation," Bahar mirrors the same rhetoric used for decades by multinational lobbyists and foreign trade groups. The message is always the same: Global integration equals progress and any defense of national interest is regression. But behind that polished language lies a stark reality: dependence. The more America "integrates," the more it is outsourcing its production, its workforce and its sovereignty to nations that view the U.S. market as an economic feeding ground.
India's dominance in the H-1B system isn't a side effect of globalization, it's the centerpiece of a deliberate strategy. Through aggressive lobbying, trade negotiations and influence networks like the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), India has built its economic growth model on exporting its labor while importing America's wealth. Bahar's comments align neatly with that strategy: Pressure U.S. policymakers to keep the pipeline open, label resistance as "isolation," and frame dependence as "cooperation."
However, what he calls diplomacy is, in reality, dependency and what he calls integration is the erosion of economic sovereignty. Protecting American workers from systemic displacement isn't isolationism; it is survival. A strong nation trades on fair terms. A captured one bargains away its future.
The human cost of corporate globalism
The victims of this system are not theoretical. Across the country, thousands of U.S. professionals have been forced to train their own replacements, foreign contractors imported through the same visa channels Bahar praises. At Disney, Southern California Edison and Bank of America, American employees were replaced en masse, their experience devalued and their loyalty betrayed.
When Texas-based employers chase low-cost foreign labor, they aren't just saving a dollar, they're putting American families' livelihoods on the line. The surge of visa-driven recruiting and corporate outsourcing across the Lone Star State signals a profound shift – away from American workers and toward offshore profit. And everyday Texans are paying the price.
Bahar called the H-1B program a gateway for "high-skilled workers" that helps the U.S. "stay competitive globally." But as the interview progressed, he repeated the same talking points – the "small program" myth, the "shortage" excuse and the "high-skill" trope, recycled lines that have been used for years to sanitize exploitation.
That's why dismantling these myths with verifiable data, hard evidence and documented harm is no longer optional; it's a national imperative. Because until the truth is restored, it won't be foreign contractors or corporate lobbyists who pay the price. It will be Americans, the very people the U.S. government's system was supposed to protect, who lose their jobs, their futures and their country's promise, one "visa" at a time.