This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump already has won a $16 million settlement from Paramount for a "60 Minutes" interview with then-candidate Kamala Harris that was charged with being, essentially, a campaign ad for the Democrat.

And he's collecting $15 million from ABC because George Stephanopoulos falsely claimed a jury found Trump liable for rape, when it didn't.

Now he's getting another payout, this time from YouTube for its censorship scheme that deprived Trump of access to some social media opportunities.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

It's shaping up as a fight between what now is known to have been the weaponization of the federal government against Donald Trump by Democrats, and claims that Trump now is weaponizing the government against those who participated in the now-debunked "Russiagate" conspiracy theory Democrats launched against him during his first campaign.

The trigger is a federal indictment of ex-FBI chief James Comey for obstruction and lying.

He was, of course, a key player in the Russiagate lies, having had his FBI launch an investigation of Trump and his campaign during 2016 based on the wild claims that he was conspiring with Russia, a fabrication that Barack Obama had been told was being assembled by failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.

Comey posted on social media his claim to innocence which focused more on blaming Trump, and boasting about how he and his family were "standing up to Donald Trump."

But social media pointed out how even going to social media to make statements was banned for Donald Trump when the Democrat weaponization was at its most aggressive.

And social media pointed out the multiple lawfare cases against Trump and dozens of others, assembled by the Democrat power structure at the time.

Kash Patel, the current FBI chief, said the bureau under his management is just calling "the balls and strikes."

He said claims of politicization – now – are "wildly false" and come "from the same bankrupt media…"

Some of the evidence in the case already is in the public record, including on video:

GOP members of Congress suggested it was about time.

President Trump, who long has been calling for prosecutions over the Russiagate conspiracy theory and the lies it involved, was blunt, "Whether you Corrupt James Comey or not, and I can't imagine too many peple liking him, HE LIED! It is not a complex lie, it's very simple, but IMPORTANT one. There is no way he can explain his way out of it. He is a Dirty Cop, and always has beren, but he was just assigned a Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge, so he's off to a very good start. Nevertheless, words are words, and he wasn't hedging or in dispute. He was very positive, there was no dbout in his mind about what he said, or meant by saying it. He left himself ZERO margin of error on a big and important answer to a question. He just got unexpectedly caught. …"

Democrats lined up with the claims that it is a "malicious prosecution."

Democrat Sen. Mark Warner said, "This kind of interference is a dangerous abuse of power. By ousting a respected, independent prosecutor and replacing him with a partisan loyalist, Trump is undermining one of the most important U.S. Attorney's offices in the country and eroding the rule of law itself."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

For years, ever since the January 6, 2021, protest at the U.S. Capital, a protest intended to raise questions about the legitimacy of the Joe Biden presidential race win, a protest that turned violent for a percentage of the protesters and included a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed Ashli Babbitt, there have been questions about what the FBI did to instigate trouble.

After all, that was the FBI that had falsely created a "Russiagate" investigation of President Donald Trump on no more than the desire of failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, whose scheme to link Trump to Moscow has been explained to Barack Obama.

Now a report in the Blaze reveals the bureau had 274 plainclothes agents embedded in those crowds.

"Disclosure by the FBI to Congress answers a long-simmering question but does not reveal what the agents did that day," the report explained.

"A senior congressional source said the number is not necessarily a surprise, since the FBI often embeds countersurveillance personnel at large events. But given the FBI's until-now steadfast refusal to disclose the level of its presence at the Capitol, the figure might still be viewed with skepticism in some quarters."

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Inspector General previously has claimed the FBI had no "undercover personnel" in the crowds that day when they were protesting the election. That election was the one impacted by at least two undue influences.

One was Mark Zuckerberg's decision to interfere by handing out $400 million plus to local elections officials who often used the cash handouts to recruit voters in Democrat districts. The second was the FBI's decision to interfere by telling media corporations to suppress information about Biden family scandals documented in a laptop computer abandoned by Hunter Biden at a repair shop. The FBI knew, at the time, the scandals were true, and a subsequent polling discovered that had that knowledge been reported routinely, enough voters would have withheld their support from Biden to cause him to lose the election.

It was in 2024 that the OIG said, "We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6."

The report noted that same report conceded there were 26 FBI "confidential human sources" in the crowd that day, including several who participated in illegal actions by entering the Capitol building after police closed it down.

There was a Democrat-biased committee assembled by ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi several years ago assigned to "investigate" the events that day. Its members orchestrated evidence and testimony in order to place blame on President Donald Trump.

One of the factors involved was that Pelosi refused to seat GOP nominees for the committee, instead insisting on picking only her own candidates.

Now there's a new committee, led by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga.

He said, "With that many paid informants being in the crowd, we want to know how many were in the crowd, how many were in the building, but I also want to know, were they paid to inform or instigate?"

Previously court testimony already had listed nearly 50 FBI agents and others from the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, U.S. Army counterintelligence and others who were on hand.

The report noted, "Undercover Metropolitan Police Department officers have acknowledged inciting the crowds by helping protesters climb over barriers, encouraging them to continue on to the Capitol, and applauding those committing vandalism."

A report at the Gateway Pundit pointed out former FBI Director Chris Wray "lied and lectured House Republicans for accusing the FBI of planting informants/operatives/agents inside the massive crowd of Trump supporters on January 6, 2021."

The report said Wray testified to Congress in 2023 he "does not believe" undercover FBI agents were on hand.

It came during a confrontation with Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz.

Biggs said at the time Wray would be "held accountable," a phrase that has taken on new meaning with this week's indictment of ex-FBI chief James Comey for obstruction and lying to Congress.

The publication said it previously had identified "20 different confirmed incidents and operations involving federal, state, and local government operatives who infiltrated the massive Trump crowds…"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

"It's not some sort of automatic deal where you can just say, 'Stare decisis,' and then turn off your brain."

That's the reasoning that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas explains was why the faulty Roe v. Wade precedent that fabricated a constitutional right to abortion had to fall.

Also, the Chevron ruling that used to give, but no longer does, great weight to bureaucrats' decisions on how the American government should be running.

It is in a report at Courthousenews that explains Thomas' defense of the court's "purge of longstanding precedents."

Stare decisis is the legal concept of upholding precedents that exist.

He was speaking at Catholic University Law School.

Thomas described those precedent-following decisions like cars in a train. New cases are new cars and they simply following wherever the train goes.

But that can provide problems.

"We never go to the front to see who's driving the train or where it is going, and you could go up there to the engine room and find out it's an orangutan," he explained.

The court also has made significant changes to standards for affirmative action, ruling that universities cannot use race as an admissions qualifier, and changing up requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

Now pending is Humphrey's Executor, which dates to 1935 and addresses presidential authority over regulatory board members.

This, of course, was triggered by President Donald Trump's decisions to cut government expenses by eliminating federal jobs and changing up the managers who are running a lot of government operations.

He also wants those running various government processes to be aboard with his Make America Great Again agenda, not a holdover from Joe Biden's administration who would do everything possible to stop the president's success.

The report said Thomas pointed out that some rulings have been "disregarded," even though they've never been formally abandoned, such as a 1927 ruling affirming forced sterilization that was used to support eugenics.

"Do we believe that you can go around sterilizing people just because the case has been decided?" Thomas asked.

He said, "I do give respect to the precedent, but the precedent should be respectful of our legal tradition and our country and our laws and be based on something," Thomas said.

The Roe decision was overturned because it based its power on "implied" rights, also described as "substantive due process," those that judges perceive could be suggested in the Constitution, but are not actually there.

Due process is there, not "substantive due process."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently addressed that issue.

The case used to overturn Roe, Dobbs, "laid out the evidence to demonstrate that Roe was incorrect to say that a right to terminate a pregnancy had been deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the American people," said Barrett.

That same argument now is expected to be presented to the high court again, this time in a fight over same-sex marriage.

A county clerk, Kim Davis in Kentucky, was jailed within days of when the high court, then filled with leftists who no longer are on the bench, created "same-sex marriage" nationwide.

That decision also was based on implied rights.

Davis not only was jailed for refusing to sign marriage licenses for homosexual duos, she was sued by those duos, and while one jury cleared her of wrongful behavior, the other ordered her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars damages.

But her state quickly created a religious exemption for county clerks, in the law, and Davis had not discriminated because she withheld her signature from ALL marriage licenses, planning to wait until the dispute was resolved.

At the time the Obergefell case allowed the then-majority liberal justices to fabricate same-sex "marriage," there were warnings the ruling could be used against people of faith, those the values of family that have endured for millennia, and more.

All of those warnings were rejected by progressives and other leftists as likely not to exist, or be extremely rare.

Now that those observations have been proven wrong, there is a new movement, a new sentiment, that the precedent fabricated in Obergefell, a precedent that even dissenters on the Supreme Court warned was unrelated to the Constitution, should be overturned.

It's in a report in the Federalist that experts now confirm, "We can either recognize gay marriage or recognize children's right to their mother or father. We can't have both."

That's according to Katy Faust, of Them Before Us, an organization that advocates for the right of children to their biological parents.

"Marriage has, throughout our country and nearly every other culture throughout history, been the pathway to secure that right. But as every one of the 38 countries which have legalized gay marriage has learned, when you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, you make mothers and fathers optional in parenthood. The problem is, from the child's perspective, their own mother and father are never optional. Not in terms of their identity, their development, their safety, or their rights," she said.

The report in the Federalist warns the "tentacles" of the decision now are "in media, schools and curricula."

"The decision has left in tatters the single most important institution in society — marriage and family — while ushering in an LGBT indoctrination agenda, annual state-enforced homosexuality, a boost to the rent-a-womb industry, and a burgeoning acceptance of eugenics to service the rent-a-womb industry," the report warned.

The backlash has been developing for some time already. The report noted support for "gay marriage' among Republicans has dropped 14% since 2021, when it reached its high.

Thomas, at the time Obergefell was released, said, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [right of married persons to obtain contraceptives], Lawrence [right to engage in private, consensual sex acts], and Obergefell," he wrote.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Congress, and President Donald Trump, decided that the abortion industry in America should not be getting taxpayers' money all the time.

The lawmakers adopted and Trump signed his "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that cut the tax cash flow to abortionists.

So nationally, they sued, alleging in court papers they have a constitutional right to funding from taxpayers.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

The United States of America actually was on the road to being "the more perfect union," according to Hillary Clinton.

But then … white Christian men!

The elder statesperson of the Democrat Party, who was first lady, who was secretary of state, and who failed miserably in two campaigns for the White House, once losing to Barack Obama and once losing to Donald Trump, has opinions certainly valued by a part of America.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of President Donald Trump's major campaign goals was to secure the nation's borders, following years of easy access for illegal aliens including criminals and terrorists under Joe Biden's regime, and remove those illegally in America.

Americans voted for that very agenda. And so far, his work has effected the removal of about two million.

Hundreds of thousands by deportation but also about 1.6 million who have left voluntarily.

The White House earlier discussed how many of those arrested for being in the country illegally also had criminal convictions, or pending criminal charges.

Now a report at the Washington Examiner said more than two million illegal aliens have left the U.S. in the days since Trump took over the White House.

"The Department of Homeland Security announced Tuesday morning that more than 400,000 illegal immigrants had been deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement since late January," the report said. "An additional 1.6 million people chose to leave the U.S. rather than face arrest, detention, and deportation by the government."

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the DHS said, "The numbers don't lie: 2 million illegal aliens have been removed or self-deported in just 250 days — proving that President Trump's policies and Secretary Noem's leadership are working and making American communities safe."

She said the messaging from the Trump White House, its enforcement of border laws, its agenda to pursue illegal alien criminals and much more, all have been pushing those in the country illegally to leave.

The report continued, "The Washington Examiner reported in mid-September that immigration policy analysts anticipate that the Trump administration's deportation operations are still in their infancy as it hires 10,000 more deportation officers and expands immigrant detention sites nationwide."

DHS said on Tuesday, "DHS is just getting started thanks to President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, which is surging hiring efforts and turbocharging the arrests and deportations of illegal aliens."

One of the bigger obstacles the Trump national security agenda has faced has been resistance from so-called "sanctuary" locations, where cities or states insist on concealing and protecting illegal aliens from federal law enforcement efforts.

In California, officials even went so far as to impose a ban on federal officers wearing masks, which they have done to protect their identities and their families from attacks when they are doxed by activists.

Federal officials have responded that the so-called requirement will have no impact on the actions of federal officers. Entry level judges in the federal court system also repeatedly have blocked Trump's security plans, and many of those rulings have been overturned on appeal.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump, joined by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and several other health officials, revealed science on Monday that suggests the exploding number of autism cases in America may be linked to the use of the painkiller acetaminophen, commonly known by the trade name Tylenol, or vaccinations demanded for children.

The result is that new Food and Drug Administration recommendations will discourage women from using it during the entirety of a pregnancy.

RFK Jr. said he ordered research into all causes of autism.

He said the evidence shows clinical and laboratory studies suggest a link between Tylenol use during pregnancy and autism.

Now a physicians' notice is coming from the FDA about the possible link.

HHS said clinicians should "exercise their best judgment" regarding painkillers needed during pregnancy, he said.

Studies, he said, show Tylenol use can extend some illnesses.

"We expect this to be first announcement over coming years," he said of autism, a "complex" condition.

He also said further review is going on into childhood vaccines. Research on that potential link he said, has been "actively discredited" in the past and so more studies are under way now.

He said whatever is discovered will be released.

The government also announced $50 million in research grants for a variety of projects on the topics at hand.

Scientists will consider environment, biology, genetics and more, officials.

Trump said he's been alarmed over autism rates for 20 years, when he met with RFK Jr. in his New York business office to talk about the problem.

Trump said the incidence of autism was one in 20,000, then one in 10,000, and most recently is one in 31 among children.

For boys that's one in 12, he said.

"Everyone should be grateful for those trying to get the answers to this complex situation," he said.

He suggested the evidence shows "there's something artificial" impacting children because of the exploding number of cases, and he cited some population groups, like the Amish who avoid shots and vaccinations, who have an autism rate of very near zero.

Trump said, "All pregnant women should talk to their doctors about limiting use of this medication."

And he said doctors use a "vat of 80 different vaccines" to inoculate children.

Letters are going to all Americans doctors about the new warnings.

Science actually shows that there's a possible link between the relationship acetaminophen use and autism cases, administration officials said.

A report in USA Today said, "The report comes after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vowed to find the cause of rising autism cases."

The report claimed acetaminophen, often sold under the brand name Tylenol, has long been considered the "safest" option for managing headaches, fever and other pain during pregnancy.

The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine suggested large surveys have reported that between 40% and 65% of pregnant women use acetaminophen at some point during their pregnancy.

The report confirmed, "By 2022, the U.S. autism rate in 8-year-olds was 1 in 31, or 3.2%, up from 2.77% in 2020, 2.27% in 2018 and 0.66% in 2000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

Kennedy has cited an "autism epidemic" in the U.S., from "environmental toxins."

The concept is not entirely new. Multiple prior studies have suggested such a link, while other studies have claimed to have discounted it.

The report said, "A large study encompassing over 100,000 participants found that higher-quality studies tended to find a link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and neurodevelopmental disorders in children, according to the report published Aug. 14 in BMC Environmental Health."

"Given the widespread use of this medication, even a small increase in risk could have major public health implications," said study author Dr. Diddier Prada, assistant professor of population health science and policy, and environmental medicine and climate science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

"More than two dozen studies around the world have linked a pregnant person's frequent use of acetaminophen to autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, in their child. But several studies have also found competing evidence," the report said.

Kenvue, the makers of Tylenol, said acetaminophen continues to be the safest pain-relieving option for pregnant women and, without it, women are in danger of suffering a potentially harmful fever or using riskier alternatives to alleviate pain, the report said.

The Mayo Clinic explained the autism spectrum disorder is a condition "related to brain development that affects how people see others and socialize with them. This causes problems in communication and getting along with others socially. The condition also includes limited and repeated patterns of behavior. The term 'spectrum' in autism spectrum disorder refers to the wide range of symptoms and the severity of these symptoms."

It explained, "Autism spectrum disorder includes conditions that were once thought to be separate — autism, Asperger's syndrome, childhood disintegrative disorder and a form of widespread developmental disorder that isn't specified."

The Scientific American said, "There is no simple answer to what causes autism, more than 50 years of scientific research has shown. It is a complex neurodevelopmental condition that arises from a constellation of genetic factors and environmental influences."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Just how many federal laws and regulations are there?

Even a blog at the Library of Congress said that's "nearly impossible" to estimate.

Suffice it to say there are tens of thousands of laws, and multiple regulations and rules for each.

The problem is that the rules and regulation are created by bureaucrats, not members of Congress when they wrote the law, and as such, they sometimes do more than Congress intended. Or allowed.

Now, there's a new artificial intelligence tool that is intended to help voters sort out which rule or regulation goes too far. Just when did some bureaucrat simply go too far and put into writing something Congress didn't intend.

Think, perhaps, of some of the fights that have erupted in recent years. It is allowable for the government to dam a waterway and flood a farmer's land, damaging his crops and walk away from the problem? A rule said OK, but the courts ruled Congress said no.

Or can a federal agency simply confiscate cash from a traveler because they have cash, without filing any charges or beginning any legal case. Multiple agencies have done it; and some court rulings have said no.

There's now a new Nondelegation Project that has been launched by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

It traces "powers Congress has delegated to federal agencies. By systematically linking each federal regulation to its authorizing statute, our database fills a critical gap in understanding the true scope of modern rulemaking by unelected officials," the organization announced.

The project is intended to "decode power delegated to federal agencies. Informed by the legal landscape shaped by Loper Bright and the end of Chevron deference, the Project provides policymakers, litigators, and scholars with a clear, data-driven view of how congressional delegations have enabled the growth of the modern administrative state."

"By tracing regulatory authority back to its statutory roots, the Nondelegation Project supports more accountable governance and stronger legislative oversight."

The tool was developed by Patrick McLaughlin, a visiting research fellow at PLF, and shows whether Congress granted agencies broad, open-ended powers or gave them narrow, specific instructions.

"That distinction is crucial in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent decisions in West Virginia v. EPA, which developed the major questions doctrine, and Loper Bright, which restored meaningful judicial review of agency power," the foundation explained.

Critically, it reveals "which regulations may now be vulnerable to challenge."

For example, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has been given by Congress a "general delegation 3,309 times.

For the EPA it's 2,752, and for the Food and Drug Administration it's 1,155 times.

"Americans deserve a government where Congress writes laws, not unelected bureaucrats," said McLaughlin. "This tool sheds light on the extent to which agencies have relied on vague or sweeping grants of authority to expand their reach. It provides lawyers, lawmakers, and the public with a new way to hold the administrative state accountable."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

President Donald Trump has gone to the Supreme Court seeking an order halting a passport plan that has "no basis in law or logic."

It is D. John Sauer, the nation's solicitor general, who explained to the court that a lower court decision that allows people "to select their own sex designation" regardless of their biological sex should be halted.

"Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person's biological sex—especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President's constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments," Sauer told the justices in his petition.

"That injunction injures the United States by compelling it to speak to foreign governments in contravention of both the President's foreign policy and scientific reality. As the lower courts have declined to stay this baseless injunction pending appeal, this Court's intervention is warranted," Sauer said.

A report in the Washington Examiner explained it was Joe Biden who pursued a plan that let people "select" their listed sex on passports.

Since the beginning of such designations, U.S. passports have allowed people to list male or female on their passports.