Saturday, June 14, 2025

SMITH: How Trump’s Third Circuit Picks Can Save the Second Amendment.

President Trump recently announced the nomination of attorney Emil Bove to fill one of two vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Let’s hope that Mr. Bove’s views on the Second Amendment were thoroughly vetted, because the vacancies on the Third Circuit provide a rare opportunity for President Trump to protect the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.

The Third Circuit covers the states of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. For many cases that do not go to the United States Supreme Court, it is the last word on some hotly debated constitutional issues arising in those states.

The court is currently evenly split with six Republican- and six Democrat-appointed active judges. President Trump now has the chance, with his two judicial appointments, to put the court firmly in Republican control. And that will make it unique among the federal circuit courts of appeal—a Republican-controlled court overseeing the rabidly anti-gun state of New Jersey and the mostly anti-gun state of Biden’s Delaware.

PROSPECT OF A LIFETIME.

This is the prospect of a lifetime for the Second Amendment movement. It goes beyond the mere potential to invalidate New Jersey’s bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines and its “sensitive places” (gun-free zones) laws, which are all issues currently pending before the Third Circuit. While those outcomes would be significant in their own right, their importance is enhanced by the “circuit splits” they would create with other courts of appeals.

The United States Supreme Court, for the most part, gets to pick and choose which cases it takes. One of the criteria it considers when deciding whether to take a case is whether the lower courts disagree about a legal issue the case presents—i.e., whether there is a circuit split. One of the reasons it has been so hard to get the Supreme Court to review Second Amendment cases is that it has been difficult to generate circuit splits.

The majority of the anti-gun states – states like California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Hawaii, and Maryland – are in circuits with courts controlled by anti-gun judges, which means that when those anti-gun states’ laws are challenged, they tend to be uniformly upheld by the federal circuit courts where they are located. To compound the headaches for the Second Amendment movement, the anti-gun courts in those blue state jurisdictions cite to the anti-gun courts in the other blue state jurisdictions who in turn cite to the anti-gun courts in other blue state jurisdictions and so on… thereby creating an unvirtuous circle of anti-constitutionalism concerning the right to bear arms; and along with that no “circuit split” for the Supreme Court to resolve. 

SNOPE V. BROWN.

We have seen this play out with the recent denial of Supreme Court review in Snope v. Brown, an ”assault weapons” case from Maryland.

Four votes are needed to grant review, and three Justices indicated they would have granted review (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch), while a fourth justice (Justice Kavanaugh) wrote a concurrence in the denial, indicating that the Court should consider this issue in the future but not yet. Had there been a circuit split, it would have been more difficult for Justice Kavanaugh and the other justices to justify putting off review in what should be a straightforward win for the Second Amendment.

But there is a light on the horizon. If the Third Circuit were transformed into a reliably pro-Second-Amendment court, the likelihood of generating circuit splits on Second Amendment issues would increase dramatically. This, in turn, would increase the opportunities for the Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment cases on the grounds of existing circuit splits.

The Third Circuit has shown signs that there are some strong judges who respect the right to bear arms already on the bench, as evidenced by its lopsided en banc ruling in favor of the Second Amendment in the Bryan Range v. Garland case. Mr. Range had been disarmed for a decades-old non-violent, welfare fraud offense due to the effect of a federal law, which disarms anyone convicted of a “felony” for life. The Third Circuit en banc ruled 13-2 that this gun control law violated the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Range.

It is imperative that President Trump appoint judges to the Third Circuit who are rock-solid on the Second Amendment. Of course, one nomination has already been made, and given the administration’s support of Second Amendment issues, we hope proper vetting was done, but there is still one nomination to go.

show less

President Trump recently announced the nomination of attorney Emil Bove to fill one of two vacancies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Let’s hope that Mr. Bove’s views on the Second Amendment were thoroughly vetted, because the vacancies on the Third Circuit provide a rare opportunity for President Trump to protect the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.

show more

BUILD, BABY, BUILD! – Democrats are Trying to Stop Trump’s Housing Market Solutions.

Arguably, America’s decades-long housing crisis was one of the issues that helped propel President Donald J. Trump into office—and rightly so. Decades of establishment failures (read: self-enrichment) have worsened an already dire situation. Soaring prices, stagnant wages, regulatory bottlenecks, and Bidenflation pushed home ownership further out of reach for ordinary people. Trump’s answer on the campaign trail has been consistent and correct: build more homes, and clear the roadblocks that make them unaffordable in the first place.

Under Biden, the home price-to-income ratio hit a record high. In 2022, a median-priced home cost 5.6 times more than the median household income. That’s the worst spread since the early 1970s. The reasons are obvious: inflation, interest rates, excessive taxes, environmental restrictions, and a shrinking supply of available homes.

Trump’s approach is straightforward: get Washington out of the way, and get America building again. Most Democrats, by contrast, seem to want to avoid this outcome. Despite finally admitting that Biden was an effective Oval Office vegetable, they still won’t repudiate Bidenomics. Naturally, they’re lashing out at private sector investment in the single-family rental (SFR) market—one of the few sectors offering working families a path to stability and home ownership.

Single-family rentals are not the problem. They’re part of the solution. They provide access to good neighborhoods and schools at a lower monthly cost than owning outright, which is often critical for my generation, especially those who graduated at the onset of the 2008 crisis and recently endured COVID lockdowns. Right now, renting can save families about 40 percent compared to mortgage payments. Even in a world where we want more home ownership, that matters.

Yet California, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina lawmakers are pushing legislation to cap the number of homes providers can own. These proposals are based on the false assumption that providers reduce housing supply. The data doesn’t actually support these claims, by the way. According to the Mercatus Center, institutional investors have never accounted for more than 2.5 percent of home purchases in a single quarter. That’s not exactly a takeover of the market.

Private investment increases the housing supply, creates jobs, and expands options. Attacking the private sector may score points on MSNBC, but it won’t build a single home.

Democrats are attempting to restrict the very actors capable of building, maintaining, and managing housing stock. This is a destructive approach to one of America’s biggest problems. Trump understands what’s required: deregulate, incentivize construction, and keep the government as far out of the situation as possible.

If Washington wants to help Americans become homeowners again, it should stop demonizing investors and remove obstacles. That means cutting bureaucracy, slashing taxes, rolling back zoning restrictions, and encouraging development. It means leadership with clarity and urgency—something the Biden White House never displayed.

Trump has. He’s laid out the blueprint. Americans need affordable homes. The private sector is best placed to deliver. All that’s required is the political will to stop worsening the problem.

Image by Pexels/Brett Sayles

show less
Arguably, America's decades-long housing crisis was one of the issues that helped propel President Donald J. Trump into office—and rightly so. Decades of establishment failures (read: self-enrichment) have worsened an already dire situation. Soaring prices, stagnant wages, regulatory bottlenecks, and Bidenflation pushed home ownership further out of reach for ordinary people. Trump’s answer on the campaign trail has been consistent and correct: build more homes, and clear the roadblocks that make them unaffordable in the first place. show more

PALUMBO: Alex Soros Inherits a Web of Influence in Ukraine – Including Over the Zelensky Regime.

This is an excerpt from Matt Palumbo’s new book The Heir: Inside the (Not So) Secret Network of Alex Soros), published with permission exclusively for The National Pulse’s readers. Purchase a copy of this must-read book, here.


All eyes have been on Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, but Alex Soros’ meddling has gone largely unnoticed as his mingling with America’s elite makes headlines.

Alex’s involvement in the country was a long time coming.

His father George Soros had his flag planted there for decades. A nation plagued by corruption, George saw opportunity, and has used Ukraine to further his quest to spread his vision of a so-called “open society,” and attack his political opponents in the U.S.

The Open Society Foundations has invested at least $230 million Ukraine since 1991. Among George’s activities in Ukraine have included funding the Maidan Protests that led to the election of Petro Poroshenko. This was followed by George being put on Ukraine’s National Investment Council. The Council is now headed by Zelensky, and there’s been no reporting to indicate that George ever left it.

Since the war escalated, Alex has become a cheerleader for it, which he’s played an active role in, both trying to shape policy in America in the Biden administration to the benefit of Ukraine, and to cement a role for himself in a post-war Ukraine.

He’s boasted access – quite publicly, to the entirety of the Zelensky administration.

Alex has had at least four meetings with Andriy Yermak, Zelensky’s “right-hand man” that he appointed to be Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine. In addition to being Zelensky’s Chief-of-Staff, he’s also part of the Headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, the Armed Forces of Ukraine’s higher command and control body.

According to the Kyiv Post, Yermak is the second most influential person in Ukraine, and no one in the country is closer to Zelensky than he is.

Yermak has been is plagued by corruption allegations. Just a month after he became Chief-of-Staff, video surfaced showing his brother discussing appointments to government jobs, suggesting he could use position to get people those cushy jobs. An investigation into Yermak’s brother was later dropped by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, which the OSF were active supporters of the creation of.

The corruption whiff around Yermak? Alex doesn’t care; it’s a feature, not a bug. A greased wheel for a machine that thrives on chaos.

During Trump’s first term, Yermak was contacted by Giuliani, who urged him to open an investigation into Hunter’s role at Burisma, which he refused to cooperate in and personally advised Zelensky to not get involved in, protecting Joe Biden.

Alex and Yermak met in Kyiv on November 7, 2023, December 9, 2023 and May 13, 2024, and August 27, 2024. The two were also pictured together at Davos in January 2025. On social media, Alex touts a close relationship with Yermak. There, they publicly exchange birthday wishes and compliments like old friends.

Meetings with Zelensky himself were in the cards.

On December 9, 2023, Alex was invited by President Zelensky and his wife Olena Zelenska to speak at the first meeting of the “International Coalition of Countries for the Return of Ukrainian Children.” At the coalition meeting, Soros announced that OSF would partner with the Ukrainian First Lady’s foundation, The Olena Zelenska Foundation, and donated one million dollars to its projects.

Alex wrote in a tweet “Thank you President @ZelenskyyUa for inviting me back to #Ukraine to speak at the first meeting of the “International Coalition of Countries for the Return of Ukrainian Children.” Honored to partner with you on this important initiative to bring back the Ukrainian children — as many as 700,000 —stolen by Russia.”

It’s an amusing juxtaposition to comments Zelenesky made in 2020 when he tried to downplay Soros influence over Ukraine to the point of pretending to not even know who George Soros was; “I am not familiar with a person named Soros. I have never met him. The question of the influence of Mr. Soros on Ukraine – I do not feel it. I think this is all an exaggeration.”

That came after he had already bowed to Soros’s power early on.

Weeks after Zelensky was elected in 2019, the Ukraine Crisis Media Center (USMC) issued a statement of “red lines” Zelensky was not to cross – as if he wasn’t the real President.

The UCMC’s funding came from the Soros family’s International Renaissance Foundation, the Embassy of the United States, Kyiv, USAID, NATO, and other quasi-CIA groups with the vague professed purpose of “promoting democracy.”

The core demand was to “protect the values ​​that Ukrainians fought for during the Revolution of Dignity” – a reference to the 2014 George Soros-backed “Maidan Uprising.” In 2014 George wrote an article calling for the “spirit of the Maidan” to be preserved.

The USMC was upset that Zelensky had appointed members of Viktor Yanukovych’s government (who lost to the Soros-backed Poroshenko). UCMC warned that any crossing of these “red lines” would lead to “political instability” and a “deterioration of international warnings,” reading more like a threat than a caution.

Among the red lines included Zelensky holding a referendum on the negotiations to be used with Russia on the principles for a peaceful settlement, negotiating with Russia without any members of their “Western partners,” initiating any actions that may contribute to the reduction or lifting of sanctions against Russia, and implementing policies against the International Monetary Fund.

Other red lines included any policies that would accommodate the nearly fifth of the country that’s Russian, such as preventing him from restoring Russian TV channels, disallowing him from reviewing Poroshenko’s language law that prohibits anyone from state positions if their knowledge of Ukrainian is insufficient, or supporting the Russian Orthodox Church (which Zelensky later banned, earning him a condemnation from Pope Francis).

But it had weight – and it was a reminder of who was really in charge.

Zelensky may have been democratically elected, but he didn’t do it alone if this group can have so much power in what he is and isn’t allowed to do. Considering Zelensky’s desire for seemingly endless war, which reached its peak during the epic White House showdown between him and Trump, his behavior does make more sense in this context. Zelensky has, to a t, followed the rules the USMC laid out for him.

And now that same level of influence is being wielded in Alex.

This is an excerpt from Matt Palumbo’s new book The Heir: Inside the (Not So) Secret Network of Alex Soros), published with permission exclusively for The National Pulse’s readers. Purchase a copy of this must-read book, here. Image via Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya’s on Flickr.

show less

This is an excerpt from Matt Palumbo’s new book The Heir: Inside the (Not So) Secret Network of Alex Soros), published with permission exclusively for The National Pulse's readers. Purchase a copy of this must-read book, here.

show more

EXC – MATT GAETZ: President Trump Protects America from Biden’s Vetting Failures – Now He Should Make the Foreigners Pay for it.

In a world rife with evolving national security threats, immigration policy must be more than a humanitarian exercise—it must be a firewall. Unfortunately, that firewall developed gaping holes under the Biden government, as evidenced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) June 2024 report. The report makes clear what many of us have long feared: that systemic failures in our immigration and asylum vetting process are putting Americans at unnecessary risk. Fortunately, President Donald Trump has the record and the roadmap to fix it.

The OIG’s findings paint a troubling picture.

Between October 2017 and March 2023, over 400,000 affirmative asylum applicants were not properly vetted because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) failed to fully utilize all federal databases, including critical classified data sources.

Meanwhile, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) lacked access to key information to screen migrants crossing the border. This isn’t a clerical error—it’s a critical national security vulnerability, potentially allowing bad actors to exploit our follies.

EXTREME VETTING.

President Trump’s Executive Order 14161, signed in early 2025, wisely recognized this danger and moved to restore rigorous screening processes across the federal government. In contrast to the Biden era’s open-door naïveté, EO 14161 returns to the core doctrine that defined Trump’s first term: extreme vetting.

The term—coined by Trump in 2016—captured the national mood then and remains even more relevant today. But reinstating vetting protocols isn’t enough. We must fund them sustainably and fairly. The solution? Charge visa applicants from high-risk countries a supplemental fee to finance their own enhanced background checks.

Think of it as a “national security co-pay.”

If you want to enter the United States from a nation with a documented history of terrorism, failed governance, or limited identity infrastructure—Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and the like—you must pay an “extreme vetting fee.” This is not a punishment; it’s policy with a purpose. The U.S. taxpayer should not be financially penalized for shouldering the costs of assessing whether a Syrian national spent the last five years working in a store or a sleeper cell.

America has finite resources. The Biden government failed to allocate or coordinate those resources, allowing asylum backlogs to balloon while scrutiny waned. Their own Inspector General literally wrote the book on the damage. Trump can fix that—not by throwing more taxpayer money into the bureaucratic bonfire–but by making the system’s users pay into it.

Some will cry foul, claiming this introduces a barrier to entry for impoverished refugees. But let’s be honest: if someone from a terrorist hotbed can’t afford an extra $200 so we can dig deeper into their background, do we want them? This is not about denying access to the truly vulnerable; it’s about denying entry to those who think of our vetting process as a box-check instead of a national security gauntlet.

And yes, deterrence has its place. If a would-be applicant from a war-torn region rethinks their plans because the vetting process is too rigorous or too costly, that’s not a bug—that’s a feature. The United States is not obligated to open its doors to every person seeking a better life. It is obligated to protect its citizens first. Every dollar we fail to spend wisely on immigration security is a dollar we may spend responding to attacks, criminal activity, or even bureaucratic chaos.

JOINING AN INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS.

Let’s also address the elephant in the policy room: even under the best conditions, verifying the identities and intentions of migrants from unstable nations is extraordinarily difficult. In Afghanistan, for example, biometric data may be inconsistent, records may have been destroyed, and corruption can undermine documentation. In Syria, passport fraud is rampant, with ISIS and other groups having exploited government printing presses to produce fake credentials. In these cases, the notion that we can vet applicants on a shoestring budget is laughable. We need not just more data, but more time, more cross-agency collaboration, and more human intelligence—all of which cost money.

President Trump understood this from the outset. His original travel restrictions in 2017, heavily criticized then, were eventually upheld by the Supreme Court because they reflected a sober assessment of risk, not an arbitrary rejection of immigrants. Critics shouted “Muslim ban” while ignoring the actual methodology: countries were chosen not based on religion, but on their ability—or failure—to provide reliable information for vetting. That principle should guide any future Trump policy, only now with added teeth: If we go to extraordinary lengths to confirm that someone is not a threat, they should help pay for that effort.

Such a policy would not be unprecedented. The United Kingdom already charges noncitizens visa fees scaled by category and risk. Australia levies surcharges for security and medical screenings. These countries understand that sovereignty is not free, and neither is safety. By implementing a risk-based pricing model for visa vetting, the U.S. would join this rational global consensus.

PAYING FOR THE LOCKS.

Moreover, this strategy would help depoliticize immigration enforcement. Instead of debating abstract quotas or arbitrary bans, we would apply an objective financial filter tied directly to risk. Want to migrate from a stable, transparent country? Fine—your visa costs stay low. Want to enter from a nation where vetting takes three times longer due to fractured civil registries and terrorist infiltration? Prepare to pay more for the privilege.

Most Americans support this kind of common-sense approach. A 2023 Pew Research poll found that 72 percent of Americans favor stronger vetting for migrants from high-risk countries, and a majority believe immigration should be tied to national interest rather than emotional appeals. The Biden government ignored this sentiment. A second Trump term must embrace it. Trump has secured our Southern Border with Mexico – now he must clean up Biden’s mess and secure our visa process.

“Extreme vetting” is not a buzzword—it’s a necessary evolution in a dangerous world. The most effective way to operationalize it is through a sustainable, self-funding mechanism that aligns with fairness, accountability, and national interest. The Trump Administration can make it official policy: If you want to come to America, you’ll have to go through the front door—and help pay for the locks.

Matt Gaetz served on the Judiciary and Armed Services Committees of the United States House of Representatives from 2017-2024. He hosts “The Matt Gaetz Show” nightly on One America News.

Image by Gage Skidmore (CC)

show less
In a world rife with evolving national security threats, immigration policy must be more than a humanitarian exercise—it must be a firewall. Unfortunately, that firewall developed gaping holes under the Biden government, as evidenced by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) June 2024 report. The report makes clear what many of us have long feared: that systemic failures in our immigration and asylum vetting process are putting Americans at unnecessary risk. Fortunately, President Donald Trump has the record and the roadmap to fix it. show more

How Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill Passed the House and What Happens Next.

HOW IT HAPPENED. 

President Donald J. Trump‘s Big, Beautiful Bill has passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a single vote. Now, it heads to the Senate, where it will face significant changes before being reconciled ahead of a final vote. While the budget reconciliation bill faced opposition from a bloc of lawmakers in the House Freedom Caucus and a bloc of so-called moderate Republicans from New York, an eleventh-hour intervention by President Trump brokered a compromise that cleared the way for its passage.

The final stretch to pass the Big, Beautiful Bill in the House began early Wednesday morning when the House Rules Committee took up the legislation at 1:00 AM. The committee proceeded to work almost 24 hours straight, with Democrats offering a slew of poison pill amendments that had to be voted down by Republican committee members before House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) brought what is called a “manager’s amendment.” The manager’s amendment contained last-minute alterations to the bill aimed at appeasing House Freedom Caucus members. At the same time, the moderate opposition had been assuaged earlier with a compromise on the legislation’s state and local tax deduction (SALT) cap.

After two major huddles with President Trump over the last two days, House Republicans, just before midnight on Wednesday, were ready to bring the Big, Beautiful Bill to the floor and begin the process for a final vote on passage. Early Thursday morning, President Trump’s budget plan, with provisions sought by both the House Freedom Caucus and the group of “moderate” Republicans from New York, passed the lower chamber in a vote of 215 to 214, with one abstention.

Only two Republicans voted against Trump’s budget plan, Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Warren Davidson (R-OH), while Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, abstained. Notably, the Democrats have lost three congressional seats since March due to the deaths of Reps. Sylvester Turner (D-TX), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), and Gerry Connolly (D-VA).

WHAT WAS IN IT?

Most of the significant provisions in the Big, Beautiful Bill, previously reported by The National Pulse, were left largely unchanged. The legislation makes the expiring provisions in the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, ensuring that Americans do not face a significant tax increase next April. Additionally, the bill still contains Trump’s campaign pledges for no taxation of tips, overtime, and social security.

However, to secure the votes of the New York Republican delegation—including Reps. Mike Lawler (R-NY), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), and Nick LaLota (R-NY)—the cap on the SALT deduction was raised further to $40,000 for single filers, though it contains phase-outs for higher income earners. Conversely, the House Freedom Caucus secured significant changes to Medicaid and food stamp programs, including the addition of new work requirements that will begin in 2026. Other significant changes from the initial bill are expedited phaseouts of the green energy tax credits enacted under former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and tweaks to a bevy of more niche tax provisions, including the standard deduction.

Importantly, the budget reconciliation bill provides significant funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This will allow for a rapid expansion in the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation agents, which currently number under 6,000. Likewise, the bill also contains the bulk of the Defense Department (DoD) budget—which effectively removes a key point of leverage for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Schumer has previously threatened to hold up appropriation bills for both DHS and DoD unless Republicans meet Congressional Democrats’ discretionary spending demands. Placing the DHS and DoD budgets in the Big, Beautiful Bill prevents Schumer from acting on this leverage.

WHAT IS NEXT?

The budget reconciliation bill now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to undergo significant changes, as the dynamics and policy priorities of the upper chamber of Congress differ from the House. Two critical aspects of the House bill that will likely face changes are its overall impact on the budget deficit and changes to Medicaid.

Fiscal hawks in the Senate want more substantial budget savings, which could mean that spending cuts are brought forward in the legislation’s budget window or current cuts are expanded. However, another bloc of Republican senators, including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), have publicly signaled they are less keen on cuts or major changes to Medicaid, meaning the provisions fought for by the House Freedom Caucus could be nixed in the Senate.

Over the next several weeks, or so, Senate Republicans will piece together their version of the Big, Beautiful Bill and, under budget reconciliation rules, pass the legislation by a simple majority of the chamber. Senate Democrats are unable to filibuster legislation taken up under budget reconciliation.

After passage, the House and Senate will appoint members from each chamber to serve as conferees and reconcile the two different versions of the budget legislation. Republican leaders in Congress indicate they are currently aiming to have the final, reconciled bill passed through both chambers and on President Trump’s desk for his signature by July 4. That goal could end up being pushed back several weeks, with some believing July 31 would be the latest date for passage.

show less

HOW IT HAPPENED. 

show more

Chemical Roulette: How China’s Knockoff Drug Pipeline Threatens American Lives.

Whether we like it or not, the peptide craze is massive right now. From semaglutide to NAD+ and hundreds more, even your faithful correspondent has been known to tinker with these amino acid compounds that pledge anything from more energy to rapid weight loss. Don’t worry, I’m not on the Ozempic. I love eating too much for that. But there is much to be said for some of these recent discoveries. I love my NAD, which is extremely useful for my energy levels. Anyone who knows me consistently comments on my ability to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. So I use all the legitimate shortcuts I can get.

But as I’ve begun researching the origins of some of these compounds, I’ve stumbled upon a dark but predictable pitfall: Chinese knock-offs.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), I’ve found, is dithering around right now issuing warning letters, while Communist China is flooding America with illegal drug ingredients, fueling a black market of compounded weight-loss injections that could put Western lives at risk. Even one of my own NAD+ nasal sprays, which I thought was from a reliable U.S. supplier, turned out to be a Chinese-origin compound. It went straight into the garbage after that.

What’s happening is clearly no accident. It exploits weak enforcement and massive demand — a vacuum the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has always been ecstatic to fill, across various sectors. Now they appear to be doing it through U.S.-based compounders and telehealth grifters who ignore the law and mix unauthorized drugs with unverified, frequently non-sterile materials.

A good case study is tirzepatide, the main ingredient in something called Zepbound, used for weight loss and sleep apnea. After a two-year shortage, the FDA declared the supply stabilized in December. That should have ended compounding, which is only allowed when a drug is in short supply. Instead, rogue operators are still selling knockoff versions. When the FDA gave them a March 19 deadline to stop, they ignored it.

Semaglutide—the base for Ozempic—is next. The same players are already dismissing the FDA’s cutoff, which is actually today, May 22. Court orders are toothless, as they know the agency lacks the spine to enforce its own rulings. This isn’t civil disobedience. It’s lawlessness—and it really could put people in danger.

The Partnership for Safe Medicines recently noted that compounders import “suspicious, unauthorized, and illegal ingredients,” many of them from China. Remember, this is the same CCP that’s already smuggled fentanyl into America, pumped flavored vapes into schoolyards, and now sees a gold rush in unregulated “weight-loss drugs.” It’s exploitation disguised as commerce.

These drugs aren’t just illegal — they’re unsafe. Tirzepatide and semaglutide are injectables. They must be sterile. I should know, having tried many of the injectable NAD options in recent months. It’s nothing to take lightly or haphazardly. However, shipments from China have arrived as non-sterile liquids. That’s a threat to patient safety. The FDA has long warned that using non-sterile ingredients in compounded injectables can be “serious and potentially life-threatening.”

In 2012, 64 Americans were killed in a fungal meningitis outbreak linked to a Massachusetts compounder making injectable pain meds under filthy conditions. That disaster should have been a wake-up call. Instead, it may be a prequel.

The FDA has already logged more than 700 adverse events from these compounded weight-loss drugs, including 100 hospitalizations and 10 confirmed deaths. Those numbers, by the way, are likely undercounts.

With no oversight or consistency in dosages, patients are blindly injecting whatever arrives in the mail — and hoping for the best.

FDA-approved drugs are more expensive. Big Pharma has Big Problems. But at least these products are tested, traceable, and can be held to account. Compounders, contrarily, fly under the radar, work around safety protocols, and open the door to chaos.

Eli Lilly, Roche, and Regeneron are all currently investing in American facilities (thank you, President Trump) with at least some semblance of responsibility. In a post-COVID world, the idea of having more drugs in the U.S. supply with little to no accountability as to their origin baffles me.

The MAGA movement has the chance to shut the door on China here. President Trump’s efforts to rebuild domestic manufacturing and reassert American health sovereignty are underway. But that means encouraging U.S. production, enforcing the law, and choking off the Chinese pipeline of counterfeit precursors.

Dodgy compounding operations need to be shut down, and their suppliers exposed. Americans should stop playing chemical roulette with mystery injections made from foreign substances. The CCP isn’t going to stop trying to poison you for profit. They’ve found the loophole.

This isn’t just some boring regulatory issue I stumbled upon—it’s a national security and a personal health issue. We should never be forced to gamble on ingredients smuggled in from a hostile regime. And no foreign adversary should profit from an inability or unwillingness to enforce American laws.

show less

Whether we like it or not, the peptide craze is massive right now. From semaglutide to NAD+ and hundreds more, even your faithful correspondent has been known to tinker with these amino acid compounds that pledge anything from more energy to rapid weight loss. Don't worry, I'm not on the Ozempic. I love eating too much for that. But there is much to be said for some of these recent discoveries. I love my NAD, which is extremely useful for my energy levels. Anyone who knows me consistently comments on my ability to work 16 hours a day, 7 days a week. So I use all the legitimate shortcuts I can get.

show more

SMITH: President Trump Should Fix This Troubling White House Press Briefing Room Issue NOW.

When Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addresses the media and the American people, the shadow of the room’s namesake looms over her shoulder. The White House Press Briefing Room is officially named the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room.

Brady, a former White House Press Secretary, was shot during the assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981. But most Americans today are more likely to associate the name with the left-leaning gun control organization than with the man himself.

Is that really how we want to represent the pro-American, pro-Constitution Trump White House?

The connection between the name “Brady” and the White House press room is no political coincidence. The room was named after Brady 19 years after he was shot, on February 11, 2000, by gun control advocate President Bill Clinton.

Clinton had positioned himself as a major proponent of the anti-gun movement. He attacked gun manufacturers and signed the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban. In his remarks naming the press briefing room, Clinton applauded Brady for helping to “strengthen our Nation’s gun laws” while cautioning that “[t]here is more work to do, and Jim and [his wife] Sarah are ready to do it.”

Naming one of the most famous locations in America after a shooting victim whose name has become synonymous with the modern gun control movement was a political move in favor of Clinton’s anti-gun position—a move that President Trump should now counter by removing the name.

Clinton unveils the Brady Briefing Room plaque in 2000.

The work of Brady and his wife in furthering gun control was a sharp contradiction to the National Rifle Association (NRA)-endorsed Ronald Reagan. Following the Reagan assassination attempt, Brady and his wife, Sarah, actively promoted the gun control agenda. Sarah joined the National Council to Control Handguns (which became the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence the same year the press briefing room took Brady’s name) and quickly rose within its ranks, first being elected to the board in 1985 and then becoming chairman in 1989. She was the chairman of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its sister organization, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, for many years.

The Brady organization’s website boasts about President Clinton naming the room for James Brady, stating:

On February 11, 2000, President Clinton officially named the White House Press Briefing Room ‘The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room’ in Jim’s honor. A plaque honoring Jim for his service as White House Press Secretary now hangs in that room.

Their mission statement makes it even more explicit:

“Brady has one powerful mission — to unite all Americans against gun violence. We work across Congress, the courts, and our communities with over 90 grassroots chapters, bringing together young and old, red and blue, and every shade of color to find common ground in common sense. In the spirit of our namesakes Jim and Sarah Brady, we have fought for over 45 years to take action, not sides, and we will not stop until this epidemic ends. It’s in our hands.”

Given what the Brady name now connotes, it should no longer be associated with a White House hallmark. And certainly not conflated with any basic constitutional freedoms.

That the press room is named after Brady is a distinct irony given the importance of the right to bear arms in protecting the First Amendment’s right to free speech. Totalitarian regimes rely on gun control to stifle public dissent and, indeed, the free press. So why is the press briefing room named for opponents of the Constitution’s Second Amendment?

Administrations may change, but the White House as a building must always represent the nation and the people objectively. Permanently naming the press briefing room after someone as politically charged as Brady contradicts that goal. Imagine the outrage if the Trump administration renamed it the NRA Press Briefing Room. The Democrats would (rightly) have conniptions.

To pay homage to our nation’s illustrious heritage, President Trump should rename the press room after historical figures such as James Madison or Benjamin Franklin. Both are American heroes.

Madison was the Father of the Constitution and the fourth President of the United States. He shaped the United States into the great nation that it is today. He was a staunch proponent of freedom of speech and religious liberty—two freedoms the colonists were denied under tyrannical British rule. He also drafted the Bill of Rights, which enshrined forever our fundamental personal freedoms such as speech, religious practice, the right to bear arms, freedom of the press, and more. Benjamin Franklin signed the Declaration of Independence, helped craft the U.S. Constitution, and was a prominent author and publisher.

The White House Press Briefing Room should not bear a name with such modern-day political connotations. It’s time to either restore neutrality or honor a longstanding American legacy.

Mark W. Smith is a constitutional attorney, bestselling author, and host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment Channel on YouTube. His X handle is @FourBoxesDiner.

show less

When Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addresses the media and the American people, the shadow of the room’s namesake looms over her shoulder. The White House Press Briefing Room is officially named the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room.

show more

What is the ‘Big, Beautiful Budget Bill’ and How Does This Whole Thing Work (Or Not)?

📰 PULSE POINTS:

❓WHAT HAPPENED: President Trump’s flagship budget bill—meant to lock in his 2017 tax cuts and deliver more relief for workers—is moving through Congress via the reconciliation process. However, internal Republican divisions threaten to derail the plan.

👤WHO WAS INVOLVED: House Speaker Mike Johnson is pushing to pass the bill by May’s end, but Republicans like Mike Lawler and Elise Stefanik want changes to the SALT deduction, while hardliners demand Medicaid cuts. Trump, meanwhile, opposes both cutting Medicaid and hiking taxes.

⚠️FALLOUT: Disagreements over SALT deductions, Medicaid cuts, and public land sales have splintered GOP unity. With Democrats unanimously opposed, the bill’s survival hinges on near-total Republican support, currently far from guaranteed.

📌SIGNIFICANCE: Without a resolution, Americans face a $4.5 trillion tax hike as Trump’s 2017 cuts expire. Failure could force Trump to oppose his own bill, risking a political embarrassment and undermining GOP midterm messaging.

IN FULL:

President Donald J. Trump’s much-touted “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill” is taking shape in Congress as the House of Representatives and Senate delve deep into the budget reconciliation process. The legislation, a budget reconciliation bill, circumvents the Senate’s filibuster rules, meaning that only a simple majority of the upper chamber is needed to pass it into law. Notably, the core content of the bill includes a permanent extension of President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, additional tax relief for American workers, and funding for border security and the White House’s mass deportation program.

Currently, designated Republican lawmakers in the House are hammering out the final legislation. However, policy differences between the two chambers threaten to halt the process. While House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) continues to state he intends to pass the House version by the end of May, internal House Republican disagreements over key tax provisions suggest the May deadline is overly optimistic. Meanwhile, cuts to Medicaid and a federal land sales provision are also causing consternation in the Senate.

WHAT IS A RECONCILIATION BILL?

While a reconciliation bill is more straightforward to pass through Congress than typical legislation, the process is constrained by several rules governing what can be included in the budget measure and its ultimate impact. Reconciliation bills must deal with mandatory spending, the federal government’s debt limit, or revenue measures.

According to Congressional rules, the Senate can, in theory, take up three reconciliation bills each year, dealing with each of the three subjects independently. Additionally, the legislation is subject to a provision known as the “Byrd Rule”—enacted by the late Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)—which stipulates that a reconciliation bill cannot increase the federal deficit after a 10-year budget window and cannot alter the Social Security program.

Notably, the current reconciliation bill contains critical provisions making several of President Trump’s 2017 tax cuts permanent. If the bill fails, Americans would face a massive tax increase totaling $4.5 trillion over the next ten years.

THE ‘SALT’ PROBLEM. 

Negotiations over the bill have stalled because of changes made to the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction under the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Right now, the SALT deduction is limited to $10,000. This cap means that taxpayers in high-tax states—most of which have Democratic governors—can only deduct up to $10,000 of their state and local tax payments from their federal income taxes.

The SALT deduction has become a significant issue for House lawmakers. Some moderate Republicans from swing districts in Democrat-controlled states want to lift the cap on this deduction to levels in place before the 2017 tax cut. Representatives Mike Lawler (R-NY), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), and Nick LaLota (R-NY) from New York are strong supporters of restoring the deduction. These Republican lawmakers work with House Democrats, who tried to lift the SALT cap during former President Joe Biden’s time in office but were unsuccessful.

Some conservative House Republicans want to eliminate the SALT deduction completely. They believe this deduction unfairly transfers money from low-tax Republican states to high-tax Democrat states. These lawmakers also argue that eliminating the SALT deduction could help fund new tax relief measures in the bill.

THE MEDICAID DILEMMA. 

While the debate over the future of the SALT deduction has thrown up one roadblock to the passage of President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill,” a brewing fight over Medicaid threatens to derail the legislation entirely.

House Republicans are deeply divided over proposed cuts to the government healthcare program. Moderates and some Trump allies uphold President Trump’s promise not to slash Medicaid funding. However, conservative House lawmakers are pushing for deep cuts to Medicaid, arguing that the spending reduction is the only way to keep the reconciliation bill budget neutral, as required by the Byrd Rule.

House lawmakers must identify either $1.5 trillion in spending cuts or new revenue to cover the federal revenue loss created by making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent. To enact new tax relief, such as Trump’s “No Tax on Tips,” “No Tax on Overtime,” and “No Tax on Social Security” proposals, the House will need to find even more spending reductions or generate new tax revenue from other sources.

President Trump has repeatedly emphasized he will not sign a budget bill that cuts Medicaid or Social Security. This pledge, and resistance among some Republican members, has left reconciliation negotiators scrambling to identify other methods to keep the legislation at least revenue-neutral. A similar divide over cuts to Medicaid exists in the Senate.

Without a consensus on addressing the government healthcare program, some lawmakers are pushing for new revenue-raising measures, such as increasing federal income taxes on top earners or upping the capital gains tax. The first idea has gained some steam among influential Republicans, though House leadership insists tax increases are a non-starter.

FEDERAL LAND SALES. 

The newest hurdle facing the reconciliation bill is a provision approved by the House Natural Resources Committee that would authorize an expansion of oil, gas, coal, and mineral leases on public lands and waters. Additionally, the committee passed a provision allowing the sale of some tracts of federal lands in Nevada and Utah. The leasing changes and federal land sales would raise an estimated $18 billion in new revenue—a small but noteworthy offset to the overall legislation’s cost.

While the leasing and land sales provisions help reduce the total cuts or revenue increases needed to keep the reconciliation bill budget-neutral, they have opened the bill to new avenues of opposition, with several lawmakers declaring them non-starters. Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) has previously said that new federal land sales are a non-starter for him and that he’d oppose any bill that includes the provision. Additionally, Western state Senators in the upper chamber are drawing similar red lines to the land sales measure.

WHAT’S NEXT?

Republican House leaders say they intend to unveil a finalized reconciliation bill this coming week and aim to pass it on to the Senate by the end of the month. However, with only a narrow majority and likely uniform Democratic Party opposition, Speaker Johnson cannot afford to lose more than a handful of Republican votes. This means the significant divides over SALT, Medicaid, and federal land sales must be resolved far ahead of any final votes on passage for the reconciliation bill.

If the House negotiations continue to break down, Republican leaders may be forced to turn to President Trump to put political pressure on holdouts. However, even on that front, Trump has clarified that he will not back cuts to Medicaid. Should House conservatives succeed in slashing funding for the government healthcare program, Trump could find himself opposing his own “Big, Beautiful Budget Bill.”

show less

📰 PULSE POINTS:

show more