Tag Archive for: free speech

How Christians in Cuba Are Engaged in Civic Resistance under The Current Regime

/in , , , , , , , , /by

In his seminal work “The Politics of Nonviolent Action,” political scientist Gene Sharp cataloged 198 methods of nonviolent action. Wherever tyranny existed, the American scholar found a hopeful and creative form of civic resistance emerging from diverse populations. Through sit-ins, musical performances, and countless other forms of expression, men and women across the globe voiced their dissent against specific policies or systems.

Among these methods, Sharp included the “protest or support assembly.” He classified it as a method of “protest and persuasion,” aimed at making public support — or opposition — to a specific cause visible, while seeking to mobilize citizens and exert pressure on opponents without resorting to violence.

In Cuba, the long history of resistance against totalitarianism has involved recourse to both violence and peaceful demonstrations. And within this civic landscape, the protest or support assembly has carved out a space — one that is currently being championed by young Christians.

There are precedents. In April 2021, evangelical leader Marcos Antonio Perdomo was interrogated by the National Revolutionary Police (PNR) in Santiago de Cuba. He was reprimanded for continuing to hold worship services, thereby defying the Castro regime’s COVID-19 lockdown orders.

In solidarity with Perdomo, a group of some twenty believers gathered outside the Micro 9 Police Station and remained there until he emerged from the building.

Recently, there has been a surge in such displays of solidarity; their primary inspiration is a movement of young evangelical and libertarian influencers in Cuba that first emerged in late 2025.

The Christian content creators — Anna Bensi, Ernesto Ricardo Medina (of El4tico), Iván Daniel Calás, and David Espinosa — and, on the other side, the four members of the widely followed program Fuera de la Caja (Outside the Box), did not initially know one another. However, the thematic overlap in the issues they address eventually led them to collaborate, both on-camera and behind the scenes. The discourse of the Cristario axis — a blend of “Christian” and “libertarian” — is anti-socialist and pro-free market; it champions Cuba’s Christian heritage and envisions a future free from the leftist propaganda that has dominated the country for nearly seven decades. They represent a sort of crystallization of the “New Right” concept articulated by political scientist Agustín Laje: sovereigntists, patriots, conservatives, and libertarians united against totalitarian ideologies.

Since late 2025, this group has engaged in public education through videos disseminated via Facebook profiles and YouTube channels, covering topics such as the separation of powers, public service, totalitarianism, and religious and financial freedom; they have also dispelled myths surrounding the much-maligned concept of capitalism. This activity has placed them squarely under the regime’s microscope.

In an unfortunately familiar cycle — one seemingly lifted straight from the socialist political police’s playbook — repression begins in concentric circles radiating outward from the targeted individual.

First, the victim is “interviewed” and warned to abandon their dissident discourse; next, an attempt is made to recruit them as an informant for the intelligence apparatus; should they refuse to compromise, threats inevitably follow. The next circle to be targeted consists of friends and family members, who receive summonses and threats, pressured to “counsel” their loved one.

Thus, in April, the political police summoned Yusleidy Bosques — mother of Karel Daniel Hernández, a member of the group Fuera de la Caja (Outside the Box) — to the National Revolutionary Police (PNR) station located at Infanta and Manglar in Havana.

Caridad Silvente and Elmis Rivero (a U.S. citizen) — the mother and sister, respectively, of Anna Bensi — were also summoned and subjected to intimidation regarding the repercussions Bensi would face if she continued posting criticisms of the socialist system. Subsequently, both Silvente and Bensi were held under house arrest for a month and placed on the blacklist of “regulated” individuals — those barred from leaving the country.

However, alongside this subsequent wave of repression came a surge of solidarity. By my count, five solidarity gatherings took place within a span of seven weeks (from March 11 to April 25, 2026). On each occasion — during a summons issued to a member of the Eje Cristario or a family member — each woman gathered friends, followers, and leaders or brethren in the faith outside the police stations where the interrogations were taking place, remaining there until the interrogated individual emerged.

The solidarity assemblies held during this period were characterized by public prayers offered on behalf of the summoned individual, performed in circles formed directly in front of the police stations — all of which were located in Havana. Furthermore, each gathering was documented through selfies and photographs, which were uploaded immediately to social media; this revealed a shift in attitude regarding resistance to the totalitarian state — no longer marked by cautious apprehension, but rather by an openly displayed courage.

Another noteworthy element is that, from the very first assembly on March 11 (when Silvente went to the PNR Station in Alamar) to the one held on April 25 (the Bosques gathering at Infanta and Manglar), the number of participants steadily increased. While images from the first event show nine people gathered, the final assembly drew 19 attendees — an event that even featured a sort of bicycle caravan carrying a portion of the participants as they made their way to the police station.

Could these assemblies grow to become events involving dozens or even hundreds of citizens?

The regime shifted its strategy regarding summonses to police stations in May. Early that month, Castroist henchmen interrogated Amílcar Andrés Bravo — father of Abel and Bety, the young members of the Fuera de la Caja (Outside the Box) collective — but this time, the interrogation took place at his workplace: the Cuban Sports Research Center. Had the military authorities changed the location of the interrogation to prevent another solidarity assembly — one that might have been even larger than previous ones?

Alfredo G. Fominaya Roig, a student at the Pentecostal Theological University of Cuba, has participated in three of the recent solidarity assemblies held in Havana. Having himself become a influential figure — particularly through his Facebook profile — he has faced threats due to the videos he posts criticizing the regime.

The first solidarity assembly he attended was held in support of Anna Bensi, even though he knew her only through social media.

Alfredo recalls how the regime attempted to sabotage an assembly organized in support of the young woman. He was unable to attend another of the content creator’s summonses (on April 12) because the political police had — in a move described as “simultaneous and malicious” — issued a summons to David Espinosa; consequently, many people were already en route to support him in a different part of Havana.

Reflecting on the solidarity assemblies he has attended, he notes that while each offered a distinct experience, they shared certain common nuances. “The one constant is that we pray before the person who was summoned goes inside,” he says. “Then, during the wait, conversations spring up — along with mutual understandings, shared affinities, and friendships that grow increasingly solid with each passing time.”

Alfredo believes that “the dictatorship, in its attempt to sever that connection, has only succeeded in making us more united and stronger.”

These gatherings conclude only when the summoned individual emerges from the police station, where they are greeted “with joy and a keen curiosity to hear about their latest encounter with those Orwellian dogs,” recounts the young man affiliated with the Assemblies of God. In his case, he attended for the first time because he had asked a friend to let him know when the next solidarity assembly took place. He had seen photos of people gathered at a previous one and told himself that he was one of them. “In hard times, I couldn’t help but be where those who thought the same way I did were.”

The example of others who had come before him — spread through an open channel like social media — combined with ideological alignment and, most importantly, shared faith as a unifying bond, drew Alfredo to more than one of these acts of resistance. It remains to be seen whether the courage of others proves contagious and activates the civic responsibility of other Cubans during this decisive hour for the island.

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is The Washington Stand’s international affairs correspondent. He is an exiled journalist, writer, and producer who investigated in Havana about torture, political police, gangs, government black lists, and cybersurveillance. A graduate of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, he was a CBN correspondent, and has written for outlets like The Hill and Newsweek. He has appeared on Vox, Univision, and Deutsche Welle as an analyst on Cuba, security, and U.S. foreign policy.

RELATED ARTICLE:

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Marcel Villa: The Hazardous and Rewarding Work of Practicing Independent Journalism in Cuba (Part 1)

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Marcel Villa does not come from academia; he holds no formal degree certifying him as a journalist or photographer. Perhaps that is precisely why he is, today, one of the most intriguing communicators on the island — someone who does not take for granted the postmodernist dogmas prevalent in state-run higher education or in courses designed for the independent press. And that stance has come at a cost.

He recalls his teenage years as those of an undisciplined youth, “without much sense of future direction.” At age 21, he sat for the entrance exams and enrolled in law school through a special program for working students. He admits he chose the major “more out of family influence than any true vocation.”

In 2018, while in his third year of studies, his older brother — who has lived in Spain for the past 20 years — gifted him a camera. Almost simultaneously, he discovered the small world of the non-state press in a Havana that was experiencing the ultimately fruitless apertura (opening) initiated by Barack Obama.

The profession he chose is not an easy one. Practicing independent journalism in Cuba remains a pursuit subject to a level of persecution rarely seen elsewhere in the hemisphere. The Cuban Institute for Freedom of Expression reported that in the month of March alone, there was a surge in internet outages, arbitrary detentions, incarcerations, attacks, threats, and both psychological and physical assaults.

On the island — currently a focal point of international attention due to the potential for political change under pressure from the Trump administration — Villa uses video interviews, travel chronicles, and photojournalism to document a fractured nation that continues to survive despite socialism.

Here is Part 1 of my interview with Marcel.

How did you get your start in the world of the independent press?

It was in 2018, when I submitted a feature story to Play-Off Magazine — an independent Cuban sports publication. The piece was about a Dominican priest living in Havana who was using soccer as a tool for social change.

At the time — alongside my studies — I was working as a pizza maker at a cafeteria in Alamar; I would spend 12 or 13 hours there, working non-stop, for $10 a day. It was exhausting. I was just at the café when I received the news that Play-Off Magazine had accepted my feature story and that I would be able to contribute to them on a regular basis. Immediately afterward, I feigned a stomachache, hung up my apron, and walked out — never to return. That day, Play-Off became my job.

I wasn’t a photographer yet, nor did I aspire to be one; I was barely just learning how to use a camera.

My intention was to become a journalist, so I focused on writing the text, treating photography more as a supplement. Lacking formal professional training, I had gaps in my theoretical knowledge and errors in my writing — flaws I gradually corrected as I studied journalism manuals and my editors provided feedback. In that sense, Play-Off served as a school for me.

And when — and why — did you shift your focus to photography?

In 2019, I watched the film “The Pirates of Somalia,” and it sparked the idea for me to travel to the Isle of Pines. I thought: This will be my Somalia. Once there, I sought out stories that I could later turn into feature articles, chronicles, or even — I considered — an investigative piece. I laugh about it now, looking back, because the whole trip was incredibly ill-prepared. I hadn’t even arranged a place to stay.

I arrived on the island and knocked on the door of the very first house I saw that was renting out a room. I spent a week in the city of Nueva Gerona, burning through my savings; as a consequence of my journalistic wanderings around the city, I ended up being interrogated by State Security (SE — the political police) just hours before my scheduled departure.

The day after I returned to Havana, State Security contacted me again — but this time, they tried to recruit me as an informant within Play-Off. I refused, and for months afterward, I lived in fear that they would retaliate against me.

During that period, the era of openness in Cuba — sparked by the “thaw” under the Obama administration — was drawing to a close, and with it, the boom in independent media. Some magazines went on hiatus; many others simply didn’t survive. My trip to the Isle of Pines had been a complete fiasco. I was never able to land any actual journalistic assignments during my time there. Photography — both as an art form and a craft — was captivating me more and more.

All of this, combined with the apprehension left over from my run-in with State Security, led me to dedicate myself to photography full-time. Although I became a professional photographer and focused on more commercial genres, I continued to collaborate occasionally with Play-Off.

I dropped out of law school, knowing it was a profession I would never actually practice, and devoted myself full-time to studying and honing my skills with my camera. I completed a basic course at an excellent private institution called the Havana School of Creative Photography; everything else I learned on my own — through books, articles, and videos.

From that time until 2023, I shot Quinceañera celebrations, music videos, still photography, theater productions, fashion shoots, special events, nightlife scenes, and more. To make a living as a photographer in Cuba, you have to be extremely versatile, as the market is quite limited.

But then you returned to independent media — and not merely as a contributor, but by founding a publication of your own.

Yes. In 2022, together with three friends, I founded POB Magazine, an independent photography journal. We kept it running for a year using our own resources. Its editorial line was largely inspired by Play-Off; we used photography — along with the testimonies of photographers — as a window onto the reality of life in Cuba.

A series of cyberattacks on our website — occurring just days before our one-year anniversary — forced us to cease publication. We decided to put the project on hold until we could secure the necessary funding. While it was active, the magazine was very well received within the Cuban photography community; being its co-founder and director gave me significant visibility within the independent media landscape.

In that same year — the year POB Magazine went on hiatus — I returned full-time to the world of journalism, this time working as both a photographer and a video producer. I gradually began to move away from the more commercial genres of photography and video, shifting my focus instead toward photojournalism and documentary photography.

Since then, I have collaborated with most of the independent Cuban magazines and newspapers currently in existence — almost always anonymously. I also contribute regularly to El País, and on a couple of occasions, I have worked with El Confidencial — both based in Spain.

(Read Part 2)

AUTHOR

Yoe Suarez

Yoe Suárez is The Washington Stand’s international affairs correspondent. He is an exiled journalist, writer, and producer who investigated in Havana about torture, political police, gangs, government black lists, and cybersurveillance. A graduate of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, he was a CBN correspondent, and has written for outlets like The Hill and Newsweek. He has appeared on Vox, Univision, and Deutsche Welle as an analyst on Cuba, security, and U.S. foreign policy.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

SPLC Receives Long Overdue Congressional Scrutiny

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

After years of tolerating its unwarranted influence in federal decision making, Congress finally directed long overdue scrutiny at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in a Tuesday hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, “Partisan and Profitable: The SPLC’s Influence on Federal Civil Rights Policy.”

Subcommittee Chairman Chip Roy (R-Texas) organized the hearing, he said, “to examine a troubling reality: that one of the most politically motivated, financially lucrative and ideologically extreme nonprofits in America, the Southern Poverty Law Center, has been permitted to wield extraordinary influence over federal civil rights policy, federal law enforcement training, and the private sector mechanisms that increasingly dictate who is permitted to participate in civic life.”

The atmosphere was combative but collegial; Roy conferred frequently with Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), but neither pulled any punches in their statements. A large crowd of left-wing activists brought enough people (30 or 40) to fill every open seat in the audience, but aside from an admonishment for loud conversation while waiting for admittance, they managed to behave themselves.

Among the witnesses for the hearing was Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, which was the victim of an SPLC-inspired terror attack in 2012.

“On August 15, 2012, our organization experienced firsthand what happens when inflammatory rhetoric is legitimized by respected institutions,” Perkins testified. “That morning, an armed LGBTQ activist named Floyd Corkins entered FRC headquarters with a loaded semi-automatic pistol, nearly 100 rounds of ammunition, and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches. He later admitted to the FBI that his intention was to ‘kill the people in the building’ and stuff the sandwiches into his victims’ mouths as a political statement.”

Ever since the shooting, however, the SPLC has refused to remove FRC from its “hate map.”

“The SPLC once did legitimate civil rights work,” he assessed. “But today, even former SPLC insiders have acknowledged the organization’s internal ethical failures and ideological turn. Today, they play the game, blow the whistle, and call the penalties.”

Perkins decried the SPLC’s infamous “hate map” as “a political weapon aimed at silencing viewpoints they oppose. … Once a group is branded, the SPLC’s label functions like a digital scarlet letter — deployed to restrict speech, isolate organizations, and undermine constitutionally protected viewpoints.”

Fellow witness Tyler O’Neil, an author and expert on SPLC who serves as senior editor at The Daily Signal, explained how a hate map designation “chills some donors who are afraid that … their information might be leaked, and then they would face repercussions for giving to an organization they believe in.” In addition, he described how businesses such as Alphabet and Amazon used the SPLC as a trusted source for policing YouTube content and participants in the charitable Smile program.

Notably, the SPLC “hate map” does not simply keep a register of all “hate” groups, if such a term could be defined. Instead, it brands mainstream conservative organizations while ignoring most extreme groups on the Left, even those which participate in actual violence.

“By lumping mainstream conservative voices and organization in with actual Nazis and extremists, the SPLC delegitimizes any opinion to the right of whatever line the SPLC deems acceptable,” Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) argued in the hearing. “Richard Cohen, the former president of the SPLC, when discussing whether Antifa would be listed, was quoted as saying that, quote, ‘There might be forms of hate out there that you may consider hateful, but it’s not the type of hate we follow.’”

“This is precisely the SPLC’s intent: not to fight violence, but to silence political and cultural opponents’ one way or another,” Perkins emphasized. “The SPLC routinely lumps peaceful Christian ministries together with actual violent extremists, while ignoring radical groups on the political Left whose rhetoric or actions have resulted in real-world intimidation and violence.”

The underlying problem with this list is that “government agencies have used SPLC materials to shape training and threat assessments,” Perkins argued. “The Department of Defense and DHS previously used SPLC material in trainings that cast suspicion on Christian organizations. Local law-enforcement agencies circulated SPLC lists as though they were intelligence bulletins. Schools have incorporated SPLC materials into curricula presented to children as objective fact.”

“They have the freedom to speak and make lists. They can do it all day long,” Perkins reiterated. “But it’s when the government uses that list to marginalize citizens — you have taken a player, and you’ve made them a referee.”

The hearing revealed that SPLC’s irresponsible hate map designations are indefensible even to its allies. In the course of the hearing, minority witness Amanda Tyler, executive director of the left-wing Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, declared that “civil rights organizations like SPLC … play a vital role in the overall fabric of American society.” Yet, when asked to defend SPLC’s decision to put mainstream conservative groups on the “hate map,” Tyler demurred.

“Is Alliance Defending Freedom a hate group?” Rep. Bob Onder (R-Mo.) asked. After initially trying to deflect, Tyler had to admit, “I wouldn’t use that term.” But Onder wasn’t done:

Onder: “Is Turning Point USA, in your opinion, a hate group?”

Tyler: “Again, I don’t speak for SPLC —”

Onder: “I’m asking yourself and your organization. Do you believe Turning Point USA is a hate group, Miss Tyler?”

Tyler: “My organization doesn’t label groups.”

Onder: “Is Family Research Council a hate group?”

Tyler: “Same answer.”

On and on this went. Onder later asked the same question of Perkins. “No. None of those organizations” are “hate groups,” Perkins replied. “One of the things we all have in common: none of us advocate violence.”

The hearing also revealed the SPLC’s anti-Christian bias, made obvious by their listing of the Ruth Institute, a small Catholic charity in Louisiana. “In justifying putting them on the hate map,” O’Neil cited, “the SPLC quoted … the president of the Ruth Institute just saying that the Catholic Church believes — and this is the statement of faith for all Catholics, remember — that homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered.”

This anti-Christian bias is also the reason why FRC became the first major conservative organization to appear on the hate map in 2010. When asked why his organization was on the “hate map,” Perkins responded, “According to the SPLC, the reason is our biblical view of marriage and human sexuality. That is what causes them to classify us as a hate group.”

“Back in 2012, there was a Chick-fil-A Day, where nationwide people went to Chick-fil-A because Chick-fil-A at the time had made a statement in support of natural marriage. And because we, along with then-Governor Mike Huckabee, now Ambassador Huckabee, had promoted that day, Corkins went to the map of SPLC to find FRC.”

How times have changed. Before the hearing, a left-wing member of the audience was overheard outside the room saying, “good for Chick-fil-A” in the context of its recent decision to double down on DEI policies. Sometimes, the Left’s pressure campaigns do intimidate their targets.

Perkins denied that any aspect of a biblical view of marriage is hateful. At another point in the hearing, Rep. Mark Harris (R-N.C.) gave Perkins the chance to clarify.

Harris: “Is the Christian worldview hateful?”

Perkins: “No.”

Harris: “Is affirming that there are only two genders hateful?”

Perkins: “No.”

Harris: “Is believing God created marriage between a man and a woman hateful?”

Perkins: “No. It’s the reason we’re all here today.”

Harris: “Is the Christian worldview that teaches the very morals upon which this nation was founded, hateful?”

Perkins: “No sir.”

Harris: “And does disapproving of someone’s actions mean that you hate them?”

Perkins: “No.”

Democrats on the subcommittee were unconvinced. “FRC was designated as an anti-LGBTQ hate group by SPLC in November 2010 for its dissemination of false and denigrating propaganda about gays and lesbians,” insisted Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.), an open lesbian.

Yet the issue at hand was the SPLC’s “false and denigrating propaganda” about organizations like Family Research Council, which made its influence evident in Balint’s apparently heartfelt comments, “It is so disheartening … to come into this committee and be told that that somehow I don’t have a right to be here, and that somehow I am making Americans less safe just by existing, when tens of millions of Americans just want to live their life and be left alone.”

Christian conservatives believe no such thing. They simply affirm that God’s design for marriage and sexuality is best, without denying the reality that many people reject his design. If Balint and others feel anguish over a mischaracterization of conservative views, let the blame fall on those like the SPLC who have mischaracterized conservative views.

Other Democrats tried to deflect attention from the SPLC. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) sought to make the issue about the Trump administration, while Scanlon invoked a parallel to “McCarthy era” attempts “to paint Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders as dangerous communists.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) simply complained that “it’s quite unprecedented for us to use valuable committee time to target a specific group.”

“I see this as an attack on civil society, as a way to try to quash dissent, as a way to chill advocacy,” argued the minority’s witness, Ms. Tyler. “I really fear for the future of our pluralistic democracy if groups and individuals succumb to the intimidation. … When the state elevates certain ideologies and stigmatizes others, it erodes both free expression and free exercise.”

And that’s exactly why government agencies should permanently distance themselves from the SPLC’s biased, illegitimate “hate map.”

On August 15, 2012, the SPLC-inspired terrorist attack on FRC headquarters was foiled by the heroic efforts of building manager Leo Johnson, who overpowered and disarmed Corkins at the price of a bullet in his arm.

While visiting Johnson in the hospital that night, Perkins testified, “I asked Leo a question that had swirled in my mind all day: why did you not shoot Corkins when you had taken his gun and had it trained on him as you were bleeding and about to lose consciousness? Leo said, ‘Because God told me not to.’”

“That kind of restraint,” Perkins concluded, “the belief that life is sacred — is what the SPLC refuses to acknowledge in the very people it labels as dangerous.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

Partner with The Washington Stand to bring news from a biblical worldview to readers nationwide. From now until December 31, every gift will be doubled through our year-end Challenge Match.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘He Gave Them A Microphone’: Erika Kirk Demolishes Claims Her Husband ‘Incited Violence’

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Turning Point USA (TPUSA) CEO Erika Kirk preemptively rejected claims her late husband, TPUSA founder Charlie Kirk, encouraged violence during a CBS News town hall which aired Saturday evening.

Charlie Kirk was gunned down during a Sept. 10 TPUSA “Prove Me Wrong” event at Utah Valley University during which he was debating attendees. During the CBS event, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) senior writer Angel Eduardo asked Erika Kirk about a survey projecting one-third of college undergraduates support using violence to cut off disfavored speech.

“For the people who say that my husband might have incited violence — I know that was not your question, but I’m gonna put a squash on it before anyone else can attach to that — my husband never incited violence,” Kirk said shortly after she lashed out at those who attempted to justify her husband’s murder. “He never once said, ‘Go after them because they’re saying, ‘XYZ’ and they deserve to die.’ My husband never once said that. He never would.”

“What did he say?” Kirk continued. “‘Come to the front of the line, I’ll put my mike down. Tell me why you believe that.’ ‘Well, that’s interesting, I never thought of that, but have you thought of this?’ [To people] heckling and laughing at them, [he’d say,] ‘Stop. It took a lot of courage for them to come up here. Stop doing that.’ He gave them a microphone. He didn’t take away a moment for them to speak back, he gave them a microphone. And what did they do? They gave him a bullet in the neck.”

TPUSA has reportedly received over 100,000 inquiries about starting affiliate chapters since Kirk’s assassination, though some efforts to start high school chapters are meeting resistance in parts of the country. In Royal Oak, Michigan, for example, liberals criticized the school board for allowing a high school chapter to form, while an Albemarle County, Virginia, school board member came under fire for comparing TPUSA to the Ku Klux Klan.

In Prince William County, officials resisted the formation of a TPUSA chapter at Patriot High School, prompting one parent to light into the county’s school board.

“My husband knew that something as simple as having a conversation could change the world,” Mrs. Kirk said.

AUTHOR

Harold Hutchison

Media Reporter

RELATED ARTICLE: Charlie Kirk Show Breaks Silence To Address Candace Owens’ Conspiracy Theories

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

PERKINS: Hate’s Number One Agent

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order declaring Antifa a “domestic terrorist organization,” directing federal agencies to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle its illegal operations. The order came in the wake of recent violence — including the assassination of Charlie Kirk, where the shooter left bullet casings engraved with Antifa-themed messages.

Experts note that Antifa is not a single, structured organization but a terrorist-style network. Having worked in anti-terrorism, I know most of their operations and communications are hidden underground. But they are often aided by above-ground institutions that give cover, resources, or legitimacy to the network.

That is why any serious federal investigation must also examine connections — direct or indirect — between Antifa cells and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Once a storied civil rights group, the SPLC has become a spotter and targeteer for the Left. And in federal court, its role has already been linked to domestic terrorism.

The pattern is chilling. In 2010, the SPLC put my organization, Family Research Council, on its “hate map.” Two years later, homosexual activist Floyd Corkins entered our headquarters with 100 rounds of ammunition, intending to kill as many as possible. He critically wounded our building manager, who still managed to subdue and disarm him. Corkins confessed to federal investigators that he chose FRC because of the SPLC’s map.

In 2014, the SPLC began targeting Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise in its “Hatewatch” publications, urging GOP leaders to strip him of leadership. In June 2017, Steve was shot and nearly killed by a leftist at the congressional baseball practice. And in 2024, the SPLC included Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA in its “Year in Hate & Extremism” report. Within months, Charlie was assassinated.

Coincidence? I don’t think so. After the 2012 attack, appeals were made to SPLC to remove their online “hate map,” which listed the addresses of those they had smeared. They refused.

And the damage goes far beyond serving as a roadmap for assassins. Democratic administrations have used SPLC propaganda to infiltrate churches and harass veterans. The media has amplified SPLC’s credibility to cancel and silence conservatives. And corporate America has blood on its hands. Apple, JPMorgan Chase, Starbucks, and Disney have funneled millions directly to SPLC, while Amazon, GuideStar, and PayPal have used its biased labels to deny services and block donor-directed funds from organizations standing against the Left’s agenda.

The conclusion is unavoidable: SPLC’s fingerprints are all over the culture of targeting that fuels political violence. If the Trump administration is serious about dismantling Antifa, it must also expose and confront the SPLC’s role — and the corporations underwriting it.

The stakes are life and death. Unless we stop this toxic alliance, more Americans will be targeted for destruction by tortured souls inspired by the SPLC’s demonic work.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Texas Congressional Candidate Burns Qur’an, Leftist Media Outraged

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

If Valentina Gomez had posted a video of herself burning the Bible, the same people who are calling her a “bigot” and claiming that she is “desperate for attention” would be hailing her courage.

Note that in the avalanche of negative courage that Gomez has received for daring to burn the only religious text that leftists respect, not a single leftist “journalist” thought it newsworthy to ask her why she was burning the Qur’an, or to say even the smallest thing about why anyone might have any problem with the book. No, instead, all we get is a monochromatic “Valentina Gomez is bad for burning the holy book,” with no curiosity whatsoever about what might be in it that could be problematic. Nor do any of the establishment media stories about Gomez say anything about jihad terrorism at all, or about the death threats from jihad groups for anyone who burns the Qur’an, which makes burning it a stand against violent intimidation and bullying. The less the public knows about all that, the easier it will be for establishment media propagandists to portray her as an evil fascist.

WATCH: Texas Republican candidate Valentina Gomez is going viral after lighting the Islamic Qur’an

“Latina firebrand desperate for attention torches Quran in vile stunt to ‘end Islam,’” by Victoria Churchill, Daily Mail, August 26, 2025:

A Republican candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives is gaining attention for her latest social media stunt.

Valentina Gomez, running in the GOP primary for Texas’ 31st congressional District posted a video on X Monday of her burning the Quran with a flamethrower.

‘America is a Christian nation, so those terrorist Muslims can *** to any of the 57 Muslim nations. There is only one true God, and that is the God of Israel,’ she said in the video.

This isn’t the first time Gomez has tried to make a national splash by courting controversy.

Earlier this year, Gomez barged on stage during a Muslim event at the Texas Capitol, and used the occasion to decry Islam as the ‘religion of rape, incest, and pedophilia, where they bow down to a stupid rock, and a false prophet.’…

“MAGA candidate sparks backlash after burning Quran and promising to ‘end Islam’ in Texas,” by Oliver O’Connell, Independent, August 26, 2025:

There has been a furious reaction to an anti-Islamic campaign ad posted by a far-right MAGA congressional candidate in which she sets fire to the Quran with a flamethrower.

Valentina Gomez, who is running for Texas’ 31st District in 2026 as a Republican, shared the extreme video on X as part of her vow to “end Islam” in the Lone Star State.

Approximately one percent of Texas’s population is Muslim.

Gomez has a history of posting violent stunts and using hateful rhetoric against Muslims, the LGBT+ community, Black people, and immigrants, in an attempt to gain notoriety to further a flailing attempt at a political career that has so far gone nowhere.

“Your daughters will be raped and your sons beheaded, unless we stop Islam once and for all,” Gomez said before setting fire to a copy of the holy book.

“America is a Christian nation, so those terrorist Muslims can f*** off to any of the 57 Muslim nations. There is only one true God, and that is the God of Israel.”

Gomez’s video ended with her declaring that she is “powered by Jesus Christ.”

Condemnation came quickly in response to the clip.

“This isn’t politics. It’s incitement,” podcaster Brian Allen wrote on X. “When the mosques start burning, remember: this was the match and the Texas GOP handed her the lighter.”

Another X user added, “She will literally do anything for clout. Anything. Why is this person allowed to incite hate and murder?”

One X user wrote: “Get out of my state. We have no place for intolerance and hateful people who don’t believe in basic human rights such as THE FIRST AMENDMENT which allows for freedom of religion. Why don’t you learn the basics before running for office.”…

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Atlanta: Police officer Muhammad Muhammad accused of raping masseuse, threatening her with a gun

The UN’s Financial Crisis: Donor Fatigue, Disaffection, and Increased Spending on Defense

Swiss court rejects Tariq Ramadan’s rape conviction appeal; his lawyers are going to EU Court of Human Rights

Hezbollah On the Run In Lebanon, But Puts Up a Brave Front

Maine: Elderly leftist Hamas supporters disrupt ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new road

Australia accuses Iran of being behind two antisemitic attacks, orders ambassador to leave

RELATED VIDEO: Debunking the Fake History of Palestine — Robert Spencer on the Viktor Frankl Podcast

POSTS ON X:

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Google Is Upping Their Mind Control Efforts

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Ahead of a crucial midterm election, tech giant Google is ramping up its mind control efforts and censorship agenda against conservatives and right-leaning news outlets.

Google has a history of manipulating search results to the detriment of conservative and right-leaning news sites. In 2018, the Daily Caller News Foundation exposed the company’s biased fact-checking program that exclusively targeted conservative websites. One egregious ‘fact-check’ on the Daily Caller, which Google claimed to have originated from The Washington Post, turned out to be flagrantly incorrect and quoted language that never appeared in the Caller’s story. At the time, Google was defensive over the algorithms that underpinned the shoddy fact-check program and refused to give a clear answer on whether the algorithms or their own liberal bias were to blame.

It later suspended the program, crediting the DCNF’s investigation for their decision.

But once again, the tech giant is quietly influencing search results and shadow-banning conservative voices nearly a year out from the 2026 midterm elections.

AI’s Liberal Bias

Google recently added summaries generated by Google Gemini to the top results on its search platform. Gemini, an artificial intelligence platform, heavily relies on liberal news sites, YouTube (owned by Google), Reddit, and, perhaps worst of all, Wikipedia, an organization dominated by left-wing editors hostile to conservative politics and voices.

The new AI summaries also lead to drops in engagement. Rather than getting a balanced variety of sources in a single search, users are flooded with biased results from Gemini and then tend to stick with those instead of searching more.

Encountering an AI summary on Google tends to decrease user engagement with external links compared to those who see traditional search results, according to a Pew Research Center study published in July. Users often choose to conclude their browsing sessions on pages where AI summaries are present, rather than continuing to explore.

Additionally, engagement with links embedded within the AI summaries themselves is notably low, occurring in a mere 1% of all page visits that feature such summaries, Pew found.

Numerous liberal news sites have struck deals with OpenAI, Amazon, and Google to train their AI models using their reporting. According to conservative media watchdog Media Research Center, OpenAI only has two contracts with right-leaning outlets: Fox News and The New York Post.

Google has solely partnered with The Associated Press, raising even more concern over left-wing bias in its AI and possible antitrust violations.

‘Preferred Sources’ Canard

Google introduced a new feature in August that allows users to select their preferred news sources, claiming these sources will appear more frequently in its “Top Stories” page and in a separate section, “From your sources.”

However, MRC conducted two tests, both of which showed that the feature is laced with liberal bias and shadowbans right-leaning outlets.

MRC researchers set their preference to Fox News, The Daily Mail, and The New York Post, yet Google’s feature produced nearly all of their stories from liberal and left-leaning sources.

“Although all three of the outlets had recently covered Trump’s impending meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, only one appeared anywhere on the page. In fact, Google failed to show the part of the ‘Top Stories’ section labelled ‘From your sources’ section at all, merely placing a lone Fox News article to compete with nine left-leaning media results and two from the United Kingdom’s state-backed BBC,” they wrote.

In the second test, MRC researchers keyword searched “DC Crime,” “DNI Tulsi Gabbard,” and “Trump Russia Ukraine.” Google’s feature produced 18 articles that came from liberal outlets, compared to only 11 from right-leaning ones and 10 from centrist outlets.

“In each case, the preferred sources MRC researchers selected appeared at the top of results, but were nonetheless mixed with leftist sources. Google also featured these preferred sources in a separate section titled ‘From your sources,’ which was buried under two other sections, ‘Top news’ and ‘Also in the news,’” MRC wrote.

Age Verification Expands

Although Google has long required age verification for YouTube users, the company is now reportedly expanding the reach of its AI-powered age estimation tool to its search engine, according to Reclaim The Net.

The move has sparked fresh concerns about user privacy and Google’s dependence on complex, non-transparent algorithms.

Not only is Google spying on and tracking peoples’ behaviors, now access to everyday information might require age verification, transforming one of the internet’s most universally accessible tools into a more restrictive — and left-wing — gateway.

AUTHOR

John Loftus

Editor at Large. Sign up for John Loftus’s weekly newsletter here! Follow John Loftus on X: @JohnCFLoftus1.

RELATED ARTICLES:

WaPo: We Didn’t Attack The Daily Caller, And Don’t Know Why Google Did

Wikipedia Donations Go Toward Embedding Feminism And Racial Justice In World’s Largest Encyclopedia

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Four Key Cases SCOTUS Will Look at in 2025-2026 Term

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Over the past year, the U.S. Supreme Court has made several significant decisions and rulings, from protecting children from online pornography, allowing parents to opt their children out of LGBT promotion in the classroom, and empowering states to defund Planned Parenthood to halting the abuse of universal injunctions, ending workplace reverse discrimination, and letting states shield children from harmful gender transition procedures. The Supreme Court’s emergency docket was also filled — and often — with the nation’s highest judicial authority frequently siding with President Donald Trump on everything from immigration to transgender-identifying military servicemembers.

The Supreme Court’s next term, beginning in October, promises to keep the nine justices just as active. Here are some of the most important cases already on the Supreme Court’s docket for the next year.

Little v. Hecox

In United States v. Skrmetti, decided earlier this year, the Supreme Court determined that states are free to protect children from transgenderism; now, the court will decide whether states are free to protect women’s sports. In 2020, Idaho approved H.B. 500, a law barring biological males who identify as women from competing in women’s sports. Lindsey Hecox, a biological male who identifies as a woman, challenged the law in an effort to compete on Boise State University’s track and cross-country women’s teams. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that Idaho’s law violated the Equal Protection Clause and was, therefore, unconstitutional.

“Women and girls have fought for decades to achieve an equal playing field. Nowhere has that been more evident than in sports,” Idaho wrote in its appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal continued, “The last decade has exhibited a growing trend of males identifying as females competing against — and beating — females in women’s sports across the country.” Idaho pleaded, “This Court’s review is urgently needed to resolve [jurisprudential] splits and preserve the equal playing field women have fought to secure. … Every day the Ninth Circuit’s decision stands, female athletes suffer injustice. The petition should be granted without delay.”

West Virginia v. BPJ

Idaho specifically requested that the Supreme Court also take up the similar case of West Virginia v. BPJ, in order to firmly resolve questions surrounding the legal definitions of sex and gender and their treatment before the law. In response to a West Virginia law blocking biological males from competing in women’s sports, transgender-identifying 12-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson (the eponymous BPJ) filed a lawsuit, citing violations of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and Title IX. Clinton-appointed Judge Joseph R. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia originally prevented the state from enforcing the law but ultimately ruled that it was not unconstitutional. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit disagreed, writing that applying the law to BPJ “would treat her worse than people to whom she is similarly situated, deprive her of any meaningful athletic opportunities, and do so on the basis of sex.”

In its petition to the Supreme Court, West Virginia wrote, “This Court should set things right. The Fourth Circuit’s splintered decision casts into doubt similar laws in at least 24 other States, sows confusion about antidiscrimination law, ignores scientific evidence, and renders school sports an un-administrable morass.” The state continued, “In the end, the decision all but declares that any law recognizing differences between sexes is unlawful whenever that law runs counter to someone’s ‘gender identity.’”

Chiles v. Salazar

Idaho and West Virginia aren’t the only states tackling the issue of transgenderism. Colorado has also waded into the fray, but heading the other direction. In Chiles v. Salazar, Christian counselor Kaley Chiles is challenging a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy,” citing religious liberty violations. The law prohibits counselors and therapists from cautioning children against gender ideology and gender transition procedures but allows counselors and therapists to encourage gender ideology and gender transition procedures. Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit previously ruled against Chiles, allowing the Colorado law to stand.

The Ninth and Tenth Circuit Courts currently classify conversations between counselors and patients as “conduct,” which states are permitted to legally regulate, while the Third and Eleventh Circuit Courts recognize those conversations as constitutionally-protected free speech. “The Court should not allow this conflict to persist. Otherwise, counselors like Kaley Chiles and countless other professionals … will have First Amendment protections in some states but not others,” wrote Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys representing Chiles. “Constitutional rights should

not depend on geographical happenstance,” ADF attorneys wrote. They added, “This Court’s review is urgently needed to reaffirm that the government cannot censor messages ‘under the guise’ of regulating conduct…”

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin

New Jersey’s Attorney General, Democrat Matthew Platkin, subpoenaed First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, a group of pro-life pregnancy resource centers, demanding information on donors and doctors affiliated with the group. Platkin claimed to be investigating potentially misleading business practices, but First Choice Women’s Resource Centers claimed in a federal lawsuit that the AG’s actions had a “chilling effect” on pro-lifers’ First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association.

Both a U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that it properly belonged in a state court, not a federal court. While the Supreme Court isn’t expected to resolve the First Amendment claims, the justices will address the jurisdictional question, clarifying federal court jurisdiction over state actions infringing on First Amendment rights.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Pete Hegseth Sparks Criticism for Prayer to ‘King Jesus’ at Pentagon Event

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth led a prayer during a voluntary event at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, on Wednesday that addressed Jesus as king and invoked His wisdom for guidance, prompting critics to accuse him of violating the U.S. Constitution.

“King Jesus, we come humbly before you, seeking your face, seeking your grace, in humble obedience to your law and to your word,” Hegseth prayed. “We come as sinners saved only by that grace, seeking your providence in our lives and in our nation. Lord God, we ask for the wisdom to see what is right and in each and every day, in each and every circumstance, the courage to do what is right in obedience to your will. It is in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that we pray. And all God’s people say amen,” Hegseth added, to which some in the audience replied, “Amen.”

Hegseth noted that the voluntary 30-minute prayer event, which was called the “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service,” might become a monthly occurrence, according to The New York Times.

Hegseth appeared to mock The New York Times for its story on the service, noting how the left-leaning outlet was effectively forced to print a prayer to Jesus in its entirety. The New York Times has been critical of Hegseth, publishing stories implying he wants to start a new Crusade while highlighting his Latin “Deus Vult” tattoo, which drew scrutiny as the rallying cry of the First Crusade in 1095.

In January, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) sent a 33-page letter to Hegseth complaining about his tattoo, which she claimed indicated he is an “insider threat.”

Hegseth’s prayer this week has prompted pushback from some critics who claim it was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, a former Pentagon lawyer and now a law professor at Southwestern Law School, called the service “incredibly problematic,” according to CNN.

VanLandingham said the “core of the Establishment Clause is the state not endorsing a particular religion, but having a broadcast event is obviously an endorsement even if they don’t officially say, ‘this is a Pentagon event.’”

“I think it’s sponsorship in the true sense of the word, outside of funding — he’s advocating for this, he is putting his weight of the official Office of the Secretary of Defense behind a particular religious event and inviting someone to the Pentagon to conduct it,” she added. “That’s wrong.”

Military Religious Freedom Foundation founder Mikey Weinstein, whose nonprofit has endeavored to remove overtly religious symbols from the military for 20 years, invoked the Holocaust to criticize the prayer service, according to a Wednesday video he posted to his website.

“I’ve been asked by the media what I think this means and what the impact is, and my response is simple: it’s a holocaust, and I speak to you as somebody who suffered the fact that members of my family were actually slaughtered in the Nazi Holocaust,” he said. “It’s beyond description. It rips us under our Constitution [sic], and it’s something we can’t let happen.”

Erin Smith, who serves as associate counsel at First Liberty Institute, expressed support for Hegseth in a statement provided to The Christian Post.

Smith likened Hegseth’s religious exercise to that of the 26 U.S. Navy SEALs who sued the U.S. Department of Defense after being relieved of duty for refusing its COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds after being denied a religious exemption.

“Secretary Hegseth’s exercise of his religious faith is protected just like it was for the Navy SEALs we represented against the prior administration when it tried to kick them out for their faith objection to Covid requirements,” Smith said. “We commend Secretary Hegseth for standing up for the Constitution and against censorship.”

Phil Mendes, one of the SEALs in the lawsuit, was featured as a witness during Attorney General Pam Bondi’s first meeting of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias in the Federal Government last month.

Also speaking at the Pentagon event with Hegseth was Brooks Potteiger, pastor of Hegseth’s home church Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, which was established 2021 in Goodlettsville, Tennessee, near Nashville.

Potteiger delivered a prayer that suggested President Donald Trump and other leaders were appointed to their offices according to God’s sovereignty, and asked God to provide the president with wisdom and protection.

“We pray for our leaders who you have sovereignly appointed — for President Trump, thank you for the way that you have used him to bring stability and moral clarity to our land. And we pray that you would continue to protect him, bless him, give him great wisdom,” he said. “We pray that you would surround him with faithful counselors who fear your name and love your precepts.”

Potteiger’s church is a member of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), which was cofounded by Douglas Wilson in 1998 and formerly called the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches until its name was changed in 2011 to avoid association with the Confederacy.

This article was originally published in The Christian Post.

AUTHOR

Jon Brown

Jon Brown is a reporter for The Christian Post.

RELATED VIDEO: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: “Appealing to Heaven, to God, is a long-standing tradition in our military.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

At the University of Chicago, Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The pro-Hamas brownshirts at the University of Chicago noisily insist that they are only exercising its “right to free speech” when they demonstrators chant “From the river to the sea/Palestine will be free,” which, rightly understood, is a call for the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a 23rd Arab state. They are exercising their “right to free speech” when they harass Jewish students who are walking across the campus, or when they try to disrupt classes taught by “Zionist” professors. They call the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil by the government a violation of this Hamas collaborator’s “right to free speech.” But they are not about to accord the same “right to free speech” to pro-Israel groups on campus such as Maroons For Israel. More on this double standard can be found here: “Palestinian Supporters at My School Don’t Want Free Speech; They Want to Silence Jews,” by Joachim Sciamma, Algemeiner, March 26, 2025:

On March 11, 2025, University of Chicago students took to the quad, just as final exams were beginning, to oppose the arrest of Columbia University encampment organizer Mahmoud Khalil.

Khalil is accused of distributing pro-Hamas propaganda, including material labeled from the “Hamas Media Office.”  The University of Chicago student demonstrators invoked our school’s principles in defense of freedom of expression — labeling the arrest a violation of Khalil’s right to free speech.

Unfortunately, these protestors only agree with free speech when it is content they agree with….

Consider the following example: In February 2025, Israel confirmed that civilian hostages, Ariel, Kfir, and their mother, Shiri Bibas, had been murdered in Hamas captivity. Ariel was 4 years old, and his little brother was 9 months old when they were kidnapped….

Although the Bibas family’s true cause of death has been proven by forensic evidence, some of my peers at the University of Chicago still believe the terrorist propaganda that they perished at the hands of Israel.

In response to the murders, Maroons for Israel — the pro-Israel student organization on campus, of which I am the President– placed a University-approved installation on the Swift quadrangles in memory of Kfir Bibas on Monday, March 3.

By Friday, March 7, it was defaced; as far as we can tell, it was vandalized in broad daylight….

And that’s not the first time their hypocrisy has been on display. Last November, our approved banner explaining the danger of “globalize the intifada” rhetoric was dismantled and left in a dumpster.

Also, during an encampment on campus last spring, our approved installations were destroyed every evening, like clockwork, and every morning we had to rebuild them….

These students are also disrupting speaker events, and attempting to shut down opinions they disagree with. They called for the boycott of what they labelled “Zionist classes.” They invoke the principle of free speech when it suits them, but show open disdain for it otherwise….

Those anti-Israel “free speech” advocates tore down pro-Israel installations put up on the University of Chicago campus, not once, but every night. They defaced and tore pieces from posters with photographs of 4-year-old Ariel and 9-month-old Kfir Bibas, both of them murdered — strangled — by Hamas operatives. They pulled down the banner of a pro-Israel group explaining what the sinister slogan “globalize the Intifada” means, and left it in a dumpster. They want students to boycott “Zionist” classes. They want “free speech” for themselves, but wish to silence every possible expression of pro-Israel sympathies. The motto of these anti-Israel and antisemitic campus groups is the same everywhere, from Columbia to Berkeley: “Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee.”

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

The IDF Has Hamas Operating In Survival Mode

Prof deported for jihad terror links says Mahmoud Khalil shouldn’t be deported, it’s legal to be pro-Hamas

Canada: Muslim ‘non-profit’ organization ‘campaigns to endorse candidates based on Gaza support’

Palestinian Authority pays grants to terrorists from its General Intelligence Forces

‘Overwhelming number’ of Britons back mass deportation of illegal migrants and foreign offenders

RELATED VIDEOS:

Glazov Gang: The Left – Nothing Left But Mental Illness

Columbia University grads shred diplomas in protest over school’s cooperation

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ICE Asks Pro-Palestine Foreign Student To Surrender Himself After He Sues Trump

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) asked a Cornell University doctoral student and prominent pro-Palestinian protester to surrender himself for deportation proceedings after he preemptively sued the Trump administration, his lawyers said.

Momodou Taal’s lawyers said Friday that ICE ordered and pressured Taal to surrender after he sought a judge’s temporary restraining order to prevent the Trump administration from detaining and deporting him. He sought the restraining order after ICE sent agents to stake out his house, according to Taal’s representatives.

“ICE invites Mr. Taal and his counsel to appear in-person at the HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] Office in Syracuse at a mutually agreeable time for personal service of the NTA [Notice to Appear] and for Mr. Taal to surrender to ICE custody,” an email sent Friday by the Department of Justice prosecutors partly read, according to The Cornell Daily Sun.

An NTA is an initial step toward deportation, according to CNN.

The prosecutors said they “wanted to reach out to establish a line of communication, and relate some information concerning your client” while their application for admission to the federal court in New York was pending, according to the email.

“In the past 48 hours, this administration has taken unprecedented steps to bypass the courts, by pressuring our client, Mr. Momodou Taal, to surrender to ICE,” Maria Kari, one of Taal’s attorneys, wrote in part.

“The Trump administration responded to Momodou Taal’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the executive orders by sending agents to stake out his house,” wrote Eric Lee, Taal’s lead counsel. “When we asked the Court to enjoin the administration from detaining Mr. Taal as the case progresses, the administration responded by ordering him to surrender to ICE. This does not happen in a democracy.”

Taal’s lawyers and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) filed the lawsuit enjoining the Trump administration from using two executive orders to “authorize deportation or prosecution based on protected speech,” the ADC said March 16.

Taal and two other fellow plaintiffs — identified in the lawsuit as plant science doctoral student Sriram Parasurama and Professor of Literatures in English Mũkoma Wa Ngũgĩ — felt the “chilling effect” of the executive orders, which they argued “violate the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike by impermissibly restricting speech based on viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment,” according to the lawsuit.

Taal is a British-Gambian PhD candidate at Cornell’s Africana Studies and Research Center, the ADC noted. The Ivy League university suspended him twice in 2024 for disruptive on-campus political activities, according to the Cornell Daily Sun. The other two plaintiffs are U.S. citizens, according to the ADC.

All three plaintiffs “now fear government retaliation for engaging in constitutionally protected expression critical of U.S. foreign policy and supportive of Palestinian human rights,” the lawsuit partly read.

Kari said the case was “a litmus test for the state of free speech in America.” Lee said ICE‘s request for Taal to surrender should make every American outraged and keen to defend free speech.

Law enforcement agents appeared around Taal’s home and on the Cornell University campus — both in Ithaca, New York March 19, Taal posted on X. He claimed that the Trump administration was seeking to preventively detain him and reiterated his commitment to pro-Palestinian activism.

Taal posted Oct. 7, 2023 — the same day Hamas conducted a lightning terrorist attack on Israel — “Glory to the resistance!” The post drew criticism.

AUTHOR

John Oyewale

Contriubutor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Has Close Connections’: Trump’s DHS Nabs Another Foreign Student On Suspected Terror Ties

Columbia Bends The Knee To Trump

One More Deportation Achieved: A Sympathizer with Hezbollah

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Party Of Censorship Suddenly Cares About Free Speech

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

The party of censorship suddenly cares about free speech.

The reverse is true of Republicans who want to censor or else deport left-wingers who are anti-American but who are nevertheless protected by the First Amendment to voice those noxious opinions. But let’s focus on Democrats for now.

Democrats have long pushed to censor conservatives, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, when, in the highest reaches of the Biden administration, government officials worked to nuke conservatives off social media platforms for their dissenting views on, among other things, the virus’s origin. House and Senate Democrats, of course, cheered on the White House’s gross overreach while long using the guise of “misinformation” and “disinformation” to quash politically inconvenient facts or narratives.

But now, in the wake of pro-Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest at the hands of the Trump administration, numerous high-profile Democrats have become staunch defenders of free speech, despite their long history of advocating for censorship. It’s politics, after all.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer emphasized that he despises Khalil’s views on Palestine and Israel while also invoking the First Amendment.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries issued a similar statement, saying that absent a crime committed by Khalil, the Trump administration’s actions are “wildly inconsistent with the United States Constitution.”

Meanwhile, several ‘squad’ members and left-wing lawmakers didn’t dance around the issue of Khalil’s innocence as much as Schumer and Jeffries, but also came out strongly — suddenly — as fierce First Amendment advocates.

“We must be extremely clear: this is an attempt to criminalize political protest and is a direct assault on the freedom of speech of everyone in this country,” 14 House Democrats said in a letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

There is also an irony in all the left-wingers who claim speech is equivalent to violence, then those same activists go on to vandalize property on college campuses across the country and claim their violence is actually free speech.

It’s all a bit maddening, but par for the course in national politics, where every elected representative is a reflexive cheerleader, adopting principles or else abandoning them when it’s convenient to score points against the other side.

AUTHOR

John Loftus

Editor at large. Sign up for John Loftus’s weekly newsletter here! Follow John Loftus on X: @JohnCFLoftus1

RELATED ARTICLES:

Internal Democrat polling shows party in complete brand collapse

DOJ Reportedly Opens Investigation Into NYC Migrant Shelters

Subscribe to MR. RIGHT, a weekly newsletter about modern masculinity

RELATED: Trump’s Latest Legal Move Is Driving Massive Wedge Between Democrats

Democrats Devise Plan To Beat Republicans In Midterm Battle

RELATED VIDEO: This is what Mahmoud Khalil’s group did at Columbia University

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Lack of Moral Clarity,’ ‘Weakness of Political Will’ Explain the Left’s Issue with Free Speech: Expert

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

After Vice President J.D. Vance made his commitment to free speech clear during an address in Munich, CBS News’s Margaret Brennan did not take to it well.

During an interview with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Brennan compared Vance to Nazis. “[H]e was standing in a country where free speech was weaponized to conduct a genocide,” she said. “He met with the head of a political party that has far-right views and some historic ties to extreme groups. The context of that was changing the tone of it. And you know that.” Rubio promptly disagreed with the news anchor, emphasizing how “free speech was not used to conduct a genocide.”

He was also quick to explain that, “there was no free speech in Nazi Germany. There was none.” The tussle with free speech at CBS did not end with Brennan.

In a “60 Minutes” episode, a production of CBS, a German lawyer argued that “free speech needs boundaries.” In another episode, three German prosecutors touted similar claims. “They say, ‘No, that’s my free speech,’” remarked Dr. Matthäus Fink. “And we say, ‘No, you have free speech as well, but it also has its limits.’” The episode also featured a police raid on an individual for something they posted online. With the full support of CBS, they characterized the fact that it’s a criminal offense to insult someone in Germany as an effort “to bring some civility to the world wide web” through “policing speech online.”

On Tuesday’s “Washington Watch,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins addressed this issue head on. “So,” he asked, “why does the Left have such a significant issue with free speech?” Mary Hasson, the Kate O’Beirne senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, replied that part of the Left’s problem with free speech is that “they’ve lost their sense of moral clarity.” Ultimately, “if you don’t have a sense of what’s good … right … [and] true,” then “you don’t understand speech as being part of that search for the truth.”

As Hasson explained, speech that stops seeking after truth is “all about power. And that’s what we see here. … [W]hen you lose your moral clarity, when you no longer appreciate the truth, or even the sense that there is a truth, then it’s all about maintaining your power. And that’s where censorship comes in.”

Perkins agreed, stating that this kind of perspective makes it so that “up is down, down is up. Good is evil, evil is good.” The fact that Brennan asserted “that Nazi Germany was the product of free speech” is a clear example, he said, especially when Adolf Hitler’s Germany “suppressed any type of voice that was counter” to the regime.

In addition to the “lack of moral clarity,” Hasson suggested another factor is “a weakness of political will.” For instance, she pointed out that Germany has had “a terrible problem with criminal migrants,” which has caused their crime to spike. “[A]nd yet,” she added, “here they are spending all this energy trying to police what people are saying [online as] they’re doing a very poor job of policing criminality and actually protecting their own people.” As she put it, Germany is “no longer willing to call some things wrong and some things right.” And this, Perkins emphasized, is largely because, like with many leftist ideologies, “their ideas are indefensible.” “[T]hey don’t want to be challenged by free speech.”

Perkins noted that Hasson has experienced this “firsthand.” Hasson has been at the center of what it looks like to be called “hateful” just for disagreeing with someone. “For example, I was recently speaking at ASU and there was a segment of people among the faculty and students who protested my mere presence, even though I wasn’t there to talk about gender ideology per se. … [B]ecause I disagreed with them,” Hasson said, they felt “they were in danger and … not safe because of my ideas.” It all points to this “sense of trying to protect themselves from hurt feelings or from having their ideas challenged,” which is “not how you arrive at the truth.”

“That’s not how we have a free society,” she continued. A society “where we know what’s good and what’s true.” In fact, “we want to have this open conversation to be able to persuade others. But when you’re simply trying to avoid feeling bad, you don’t want to hear what other people have to say,” so conversation gets shut down. As Perkins stressed, “the freedom of speech, which is a part of our First Amendment freedoms, is critical.” It’s like “a pressure valve [that] allows people to vent … [and] express themselves. And when that is short circuited or suppressed, that’s when we have real problems.”

“I completely agree with you,” Hasson emphasized. “And in fact, if you look back at the … political regimes that have suppressed free speech, they don’t … stop people from thinking or seeking the truth or trying to share that truth with others. It all goes underground.” Instead of controlling society, the more authorities try to suppress these pursuits of free speech, the more likely “you’re going to have a rebellion, a revolt.”

Perkins said, “[W]e need more speech, not less, in my view. So, … how can those of us who cherish this First Amendment freedom work together, growing America’s respect for this freedom?” Especially when considering “some of the younger generation … don’t [seem to] have a healthy understanding of the importance of the First Amendment.”

“[A]gain,” Hasson stated, “part of it goes back to this idea that they’ve come to believe that they are too fragile to hear ideas that they disagree with, or that make them uncomfortable.” As such, “we need to be bold and … speak the truth, and to encourage our children to be resilient, to understand that they can and should engage with ideas that they disagree with.” If anything, she concluded, the skill of “self-censorship” often comes into play when talking to “people who are very different from [us.]”

In any conversation, Hasson concluded, we need “to listen, to engage, but then … be confident in speaking the truth.”

AUTHOR

Sarah Holliday

Sarah Holliday is a reporter at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DOGE Wins First Legal Battles, but Can It Last?

‘Good Riddance’: Trump Fires ‘Biden Era’ Prosecutors

It appears Democrats have finally picked a hill to die on

RELATED VIDEO: DEMS LOVE LOSING! Stephen Miller Torches Democrats, Says They Are ‘Determined’ to Lose

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

National Guardsman Challenges ‘No Christian in Command’ Policy

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

A former Idaho National Guardsman is suing the Gem State after he was removed from command for expressing his biblical views on human sexuality.

Major David Worley of the Idaho Army National Guard and attorneys with Liberty Counsel filed a lawsuit last week, alleging that Worley was “unlawfully, unconstitutionally, and unconscionably subjected to investigation, discrimination, retaliation, and punishment for the simple exercise of his First Amendment rights … to exercise his sincerely held religious beliefs without fear of discriminatory reprisal from his chain of command.” According to the lawsuit, the discrimination against Worley is rooted in comments he made when campaigning for mayor of Pocatello and, later, for Idaho State Senate.

While campaigning, Worley expressed his opposition to drag queen story hours, pornographic material in public school libraries, and gender transition procedures for minors. Liberty Counsel noted in a press release, “All of Worley’s protected speech occurred off-duty in his private capacity and before he took command of the Idaho Army National Guard’s Recruiting and Retention unit.” In 2023, a fellow National Guardsman who identifies as homosexual filed a complaint against Worley, alleging that the major’s religious beliefs constituted discrimination.

The Idaho Army National Guard subsequently suspended Worley from command and “illegally pressured him to resign without benefit of any counsel or notice.” He was told that if he did not resign he would “face significant and life-altering disciplinary proceedings.” When Worley rescinded his resignation on the advice of counsel, the Idaho Army National Guard launched a formal investigation into the complaints against him.

Although the investigation found that the complaints against Worley were “unsubstantiated” and that there was “no evidence Worley did anything wrong in the workplace,” the National Guard branch recommended a new policy requiring candidates for command be investigated — with examination of private social media posts being a key factor in such an investigation — to ensure that they do not adhere to any “toxic” or “concerning ideologies,” a supposed effort to “ferret out” any “extremism.” Liberty Counsel dubbed the directive the “No Christians in Command” policy.

Liberty Counsel founder and chairman Mat Staver said in a statement, “The Constitution simply does not allow the military to punish those with sincerely held religious beliefs or to specifically target religion for disparate and discriminatory treatment.” He called on Idaho’s Republican governor to rectify the wrong. “Governor Brad Little must ensure that the Idaho Army National Guard upholds federal and state law and protects the free speech of its service members. This discrimination against Major Worley must stop and his record must be cleared and his career restored,” Staver declared.

In comments to The Washington Stand, Arielle Del Turco, director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council, said, “The Idaho Army National Guard made an absolutely shameful decision when they removed an officer for his speech informed by his biblical worldview outside of his military role.” She continued, “We can hope that with the new Trump administration, we will see these violations of religious freedom in the military come to an abrupt halt. This highlights the importance for President Trump to set the tone as commander and chief and make it clear that the religious freedom of every servicemember and chaplain will be protected.”

Earlier this week, President Donald Trump issued an executive order terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives — including LGBT activism — in the federal government. The order comes amid numerous moves by the Trump administration to exterminate identity-driven ideology from all areas of the federal government. For example, LGBT and Black Lives Matter (BLM) flags and signage have already been prohibited from government buildings and DEI-supporting military leaders have been fired. Trump, along with Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth, have also announced a plan to halt and block military investigations related to alleged “extremism.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Signs Executive Orders Restricting Transgender Troops, Ending Military DEI Practices

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Media Censorship Money Trail Leads Back to U.S. State Department, House Committee Finds

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , /by

How far will the Biden administration go to block speech it doesn’t like? The outer limit may never be reached, but it does go international, according to an interim report by the House Committee on Small Business (HCSB) published earlier this week.

“The Global Engagement Center (GEC), an interagency body housed within the U.S. Department of State … circumvented its strict international mandate by funding, developing, then promoting tech start-ups and other small businesses in the disinformation detection space to private sector entities with domestic censorship capabilities,” stated the report. Additionally, “The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a private non-profit funded almost entirely by Congressional appropriations, violated its international restrictions by collaborating with fact-checking entities in assessing domestic press businesses’ admission to a credibility organization.”

The GEC’s proclivity toward domestic censorship was already exposed by a House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government report in November 2023, which exposed its collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and big-tech companies to censor disfavored political viewpoints during the 2020 election. This collaboration was separate from the DHS’s short-lived Orwellian innovation in the spring of 2022, the justly stillborn Disinformation Governance Board.

Where the HCSB broke new ground was in identifying ways that government funding was inappropriately subsidizing a burgeoning censorship industry — specifically by using foreign-only funds to subsidize domestic censorship projects. It focused on the GEC because it “is the only Federal entity known to this Committee: (1) whose purpose is countering foreign disinformation that threatens the United States, … [and] (3) that administers taxpayer dollars to small private entities that interfere with the ability of American businesses to compete online because of their lawful speech.”

The HCSB report identified multiple instances where GEC awards were subcontracted to other groups. This practice decreases the transparency of these awards, since the State Department has refused to inform the committee of all subaward recipients, and in some cases professes not to know who received a subaward. However, the committee did uncover enough information to raise further concerns about “GEC’s compliance with its international mandate.”

For instance, “one such award was to the Institute of War & Peace Reporting (IWPR), which administered a subaward

to the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, Inc. (Poynter),” detailed the committee. “This subaward was used to convince international news outlets to join Poynter’s International Fact-Checking Network’s (IFCN) Code of Principles. … To join the Code of Principles, organizations must apply and be accepted by the IFCN’s assessors.”

“It appears that[,] in implementing this award, GEC staff was added to a Google Group email in which IFCN assessors (including representatives from the NED and fact-checking organizations Snopes, Full Fact, and Poynter/IFCN) critiqued applicants, including domestic businesses such as The Daily Caller and its fact-checking organization,” continued the HCSB report. At the very least, this means that GEC staff were aware that, despite their strict international mandate, this award affected domestic, American media.

The committee also noted NED’s role in this domestic enterprise. “As set forth in its Articles of Incorporation and the National Endowment for Democracy Act, it is a violation of the NED’s mandate to operate domestically, and therefore to interfere with the operations of domestic press,” stated the report. It found evidence that NED staff weighed in, from their official email addresses, on the credibility of U.S.-based media organizations. On February 22, 2021, NED program officer Dean Jackson wrote:

“On the other hand, you really have to ask yourself if you want to be featured on a website with a history of [here he linked to a Snopes article claiming that ‘many’ Daily Caller writers had expressed white supremacist views, when in fact they exposed one who was immediately fired], next to headlines like [here he linked to a Daily Caller article titled, ‘Public Schools Are Becoming Cesspools Of Woke Liberal Activism. What Happened?’]. It’s something everyone has to answer for themselves. I personally wouldn’t lend them the credibility.”

Jackson worked for a federally-funded organization whose strictly international mandate prevented them from interfering with the operations of domestic press. Yet, using his work email, he publicly opined about the credibility of a domestic news organization based on how they covered domestic education topics.

Jackson no longer works for NED. In fact, he left NED in June 2021 for a position with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a left-wing group. During his two years there, he also worked as an analyst on the January 6 subcommittee. Jackson’s post-NED resume demonstrates not only his political leanings but also the left-wing ecosystem in which the National Endowment for Democracy exists.

The political bias on display with NED underscores why federally-funded non-governmental organizations should stay out of domestic media markets in the first place. In the last century, the U.S. government founded Voice of America (VOA) to counter propaganda coming from hostile foreign governments. But it restricted VOA’s reach on U.S. soil precisely to safeguard the freedom of the press. The committee report recognized that organizations like GEC have a role to play in countering propaganda from new hostile actors, ranging from pro-terrorist Imams to states like Iran, Russia, and China.

But there should still be guardrails to protect the freedom of domestic, American press from undue government interference. The HCSB report describes how the GEC and NED overrode those guardrails.

The HCSB identified another award “to a small domestic business” that was “not subject to international restrictions” and affected domestic news media. The GEC awarded contracts to Park Capital Investment Group, LLC (Park Advisors), which had a residential address on the GEC contract list and is now defunct. In 2020 and 2022, Park Advisors sub-awarded a total of $75,000 to a tech start-up, NewsGuard, which created new methodology for evaluating the trustworthiness or “health” of news organizations.

The HCSB did not have to search far to find bias in NewsGuard’s ratings. It found misleading headlines in mainstream media articles (regarding the Trump assassination attempt and a malicious misquotation to imply that Trump promised a “bloodbath” if he lost the election) and noted that these headlines did not affect NewsGuard’s scoring system.

In a few short years, NewsGuard has “partnered with three of the top five global advertising agencies and five of the top ten ad exchanges,” as well as Microsoft, YouTube, and other companies to discredit certain news organizations and “influence[] thousands of ad buys.” The report suggests, at least implicitly, that NewsGuard’s rapid rise was due in part to the patronage of the GEC.

The HCSB report is only an interim report because of aggressive stonewalling on the part of the State Department. To date, the committee has reviewed 40 hours of interviews and hearings, as well as 6,185 pages of documents, but largely from other sources. “The Committee sent an initial request for award records to the GEC on June 7, 2023,” the report summarized. “Subsequent requests for additional documentation were made over the course of one year, during which the Committee gave significant leeway in time and scope to State. Despite these accommodations, only two heavily redacted lists of awardees were produced, with none of the requested award application, risk assessment, or contract information.”

After 14 months of such delays, the small business committee issued a subpoena for the relevant documents. The State Department responded that it would take them 21 months — nearly a whole Congress — to fulfill it. This is an unacceptably long time, the report noted. Not only has the State Department already had months to collect the information, but the State Department should already have many of the documents compiled in response to requests from other committees. “The aforementioned failures are all indicative of a wider problem experienced by other committees — that the Biden-Harris Administration does not properly adhere to Congressional oversight,” they stated.

“The Federal government is a primary component of the CIC [censorship-industrial complex], and it is this nexus which concerns the Committee,” summarized the HCSB report. Due to the nature of the committee, their particular area of concern is the award of State Department grants to small businesses. “There are some awardees who tout ideological beliefs as fact, and work to diminish the reputation of American businesses if their speech negates those narratives,” it stated. “The Committee has received only a fraction of the documents it requested and subpoenaed from the GEC …. There is much more to learn[,] and transparency is in short supply.”

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.