Featured

Home Featured
Featured posts

Trump Files Amicus Brief To ‘Immediately’ Stop Biden Sale Of Border Wall

    7
    Trump at the border wall via Wikimedia Commons

    President-elect Donald Trump filed a legal brief in support of an effort by states to “immediately” stop the Biden administration’s sale of border wall materials, saying the action is “possibly criminal.” 

    On Thursday, Trump filed an amicus brief in support of a legal effort by Texas and Missouri who filed lawsuits earlier this week.

    According to Fox News, Texas and Missouri filed a motion earlier this week in a district court in the southern district of Texas to hold a status conference to determine if the government is in breach of the court’s permanent injunction from earlier this year. That injunction barred the Biden administration from using funds obligated for wall construction for anything other than that purpose. 

    Read more:

    “The Court should issue an order directing the Defendants to immediately stop any ongoing sale of border-barrier materials to private parties pending the Court’s review of Defendant’s conduct, and the Court should swiftly conduct a searching examination of the Government’s conduct, by formal discovery if necessary, to examine the Government’s compliance with the law, the Constitution, and the Court’s injunction,” Trump’s amicus brief states. 

    The Biden administration has been auctioning off border wall parts since at least 2023, with parts listed for sale on auction marketplaces, after it abruptly shut down most border wall construction in 2021.

    Those auctions have continued, with border officials telling Fox that auctions now occur weekly and have been for some time. However, the practice made news last week, when The Daily Wire published video showing parts being transported and cited Border Patrol agents who said the goal was to clear them out before Christmas.

    Trump’s amicus brief states that if officials in the Biden administration are “deliberately selling off border-wall materials at a major financial loss to the Government to obstruct the pro-wall policy of Congress and President Trump, such conduct likely constitutes a criminal act, such as a conspiracy to defraud the United States.” 

    “At the very least, the reported conduct raises troubling concerns of potentially criminal behavior,” the filing states. 

    Trump Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize For Middle East Policy

      3
      Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

      Former President Donald Trump has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize yet again.

      New York. Rep. Claudia Tenney (R) nominated Trump for the prize over his “historic” Abraham Accords treaty.

      “Donald Trump was instrumental in facilitating the first new peace agreements in the Middle East in almost 30 years,” Tenney told Fox News Digital in a statement. “For decades, bureaucrats, foreign policy ‘professionals’, and international organizations insisted that additional Middle East peace agreements were impossible without a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Trump proved that to be false.”

      Tenney also noted that the prize has been awarded in the past for the peace accord between Israel and Egypt in 1978 as well as the Oslo Accords in 1994. However, there has been no recognition for Trump’s role in brokering an agreement between Israel and four of its Arab neighbors.

      “The valiant efforts by President Trump in creating the Abraham Accords were unprecedented and continue to go unrecognized by the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, underscoring the need for his nomination today. Now more than ever, when Joe Biden’s weak leadership on the international stage is threatening our country’s safety and security, we must recognize Trump for his strong leadership and his efforts to achieve world peace. I am honored to nominate former President Donald Trump today and am eager for him to receive the recognition he deserves,” Tenney said.

      Trump, who is currently leading in the Republican primaries, has been nominated for the Abraham Accords peace agreement several times but did not receive the award during his presidency.

      In 2020, Trump was nominated a third time by a group of Australian lawmakers.

      “What he has done with the Trump Doctrine is that he has decided he would no longer have America involved in endless wars, wars which achieve nothing but the killing of thousands of young Americans and enormous debts imposed on America,” Australian legal scholar David Flint told Sky News Australia at the time. “He’s reducing America’s tendency to get involved in any and every war.”

      The Nobel Peace Prize will be announced in October.

      House Democrats File Bill to Form 25th Amendment Commission to Assess Trump’s Mental Fitness

      8
      The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

      Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) is leading the latest Democratic push to remove President Donald Trump from office—but like past efforts, this one faces steep odds, even as it draws a larger bloc of support.

      Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has rolled out a new bill backed by roughly 50 House Democrats that would create a commission to evaluate Trump’s mental fitness under the 25th Amendment.

      The proposal would assemble a bipartisan panel of physicians and former top officials to determine whether Trump is “mentally or physically unable” to carry out his duties.

      “The Constitution explicitly vests Congress with the authority to create a body that will guarantee the successful continuity of government by responding to presidential incapacity to discharge the powers and duties of office,” Raskin said. “We have a solemn duty to play our defined role under the 25th Amendment by setting up this body to act alongside the Vice President and the Cabinet.”

      He added, “Public trust in Donald Trump’s ability to meet the duties of his office has dropped to unprecedented lows as he threatens to destroy entire civilizations.”

      Raskin has also formally pushed for a medical evaluation of the president, citing what he called “incoherent, volatile, profane, deranged, and threatening” public comments tied to the Iran conflict.

      But here’s the reality: the effort is a long shot.

      Republicans still control both chambers of Congress, meaning the bill is unlikely to pass—and even if it did, Trump could veto it. More importantly, the 25th Amendment would require Vice President JD Vance and the Cabinet to sign off on removing Trump, a scenario widely seen as improbable.

      Even in the unlikely event that hurdle were cleared, Congress would still need a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate to make any removal permanent.

      In other words, this is far from a realistic path to ousting the president.

      Still, the size of the backing is notable. About 50 Democrats have signed on, making this one of the more organized removal efforts of Trump’s second term so far.

      It also comes amid a broader wave of attempts by Democrats to challenge Trump’s presidency—from new impeachment articles filed by multiple lawmakers to calls for the 25th Amendment following his escalating rhetoric on Iran.

      That pattern isn’t new. Trump was impeached twice during his first term, with both efforts ultimately failing to remove him from office in the Senate. Now, similar political battles are resurfacing, though with slightly broader coordination this time.

      The White House quickly dismissed Raskin’s latest push.

      “Lightweight Jamie Raskin is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person,” said spokesperson Davis Ingle. “President Trump’s sharpness, unmatched energy, and historic accessibility stand in stark contrast to what we saw during the past four years when Democrats like Raskin intentionally covered up Joe Biden’s serious mental and physical decline from the American people.”

      Trump himself has defended his rhetoric, arguing his hardline stance forced Iran to the negotiating table and helped secure a temporary ceasefire.

      For now, Raskin’s plan is unlikely to go anywhere. But the growing number of Democrats backing it—and the renewed push for impeachment and removal—signals that the political fight over Trump’s presidency is only heating up.

      Biden DOJ Wants Even Harsher Sentences for Key Jan. 6 Rioters

      3
      Elvert Barnes, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

      ANALYSIS – First, let’s be clear. I was at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, as a security contractor for a foreign TV news crew. I witnessed the chaos firsthand and was not happy about it. 

      I strongly condemned those who violently rioted there in an article the very next day.

      In my piece, I even said they should go to jail, just like any other violent rioters.

      And they should. But Joe Biden’s DoJ isn’t content with ‘hard time’ for some of these rioters. They want a much longer time.

      To also be clear, at the Capitol that day I saw tens of thousands of peaceful protesters before the riot. And saw many ‘rioters’ who weren’t violent.

      Meanwhile, I have written about how many peaceful Jan. 6 protesters have been persecuted unfairly, and how harshly many violent rioters have been treated compared to equally violent Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters.

      Some of it is due to the Biden Department of Justice (DoJ) being hyper-political and overzealous, and part of it is the fact that these folks are getting tried and sentenced in the ‘People’s Republic of DC.’

      When I first read of the case of Stewart Rhodes, head of the Oath Keepers, I thought he was one of the few who should get serious jail time. He and his gang were part of an organized, violent cadre that went to the Capitol to create violent chaos.

      This is why they were charged and convicted of ‘seditious conspiracy’ – the only ones to be found guilty of that serious charge.

      But when I heard he had gotten 18 years, I was floored. Child molesters get less time. Repeat violent offenders get less time. Even convicted spies sometimes get less time.

      Eighteen years is a lot of time.

      Even so, federal prosecutors are not satisfied with the severity of the jail terms delivered by the federal judge overseeing the case.

      In the case of Rhodes, they wanted 25 years.

      U.S. District Court Judge, and Barack Obama appointee, Amit Mehta sentenced Rhodes, and his colleagues, harshly due what he characterized as a dangerous criminal conspiracy aimed at violently derailing the transfer of presidential power.

      But even if you believe these knuckleheads were intent on blocking the certification of the Electoral College vote, their chances of ‘derailing the transfer of presidential power’ two weeks later, on Jan 20, were little to none.

      This is why Mehta’s sentences, while harsh, were still less than the prison terms prosecutors recommended and years below an agreed-upon “guidelines range” based upon their charges.

      Of the others convicted of seditious conspiracy, Florida Oath Keeper leader Kelly Meggs received a 12-year term instead of the 21 DOJ wanted. Roberto Minuta of New York was sentenced to 4.5 years instead of 17. Joseph Hackett of Florida got a 3.5-year sentence; DOJ sought 12 years. 

      Ed Vallejo of Arizona was sentenced to 3-years, while DOJ wanted 17. And David Moerschel of Florida was sentenced to three years instead of the 10 DoJ wanted.

      All of these are significant sentences in federal prison. A few might be deserved, but Biden’s DoJ isn’t happy with that. They want these folks to suffer even more. 

      If only DoJ was that zealous with other political crimes, and criminals, Hunter Biden might actually be in jail.

      Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.

      Supreme Court Allows Trump To Partially Enforce Birthright Citizenship Order

        1
        Duncan Lock, Dflock, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

        Just in…

        The Supreme Court granted a partial stay Friday of President Donald Trump’s request to block lower courts from issuing universal injunctions, granting a par victory for the administration as it looks to execute many of its top priorities via executive order and action. 

        In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines allowed President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship to go into effect in some areas of the country, for now, by curtailing judges’ ability to block the president’s policies nationwide. 

        Ruling that three federal district judges went too far in issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump’s order, the high court’s decision claws back a key tool that plaintiffs have used to hamper the president’s agenda in dozens of lawsuits. 

        But it does not yet definitively resolve whether Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship are constitutional, a hefty legal question that could ultimately return to the justices. 

        “The applications do not raise—and thus we do not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, writing for the majority. “The issue before us is one of remedy: whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions.”

        “A universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power,” she added.

        This is a breaking news story. Please check back for updates.

        Is Doug Mastriano Planning a Senate Run?

        2
        Photo via Wikimedia Commons

        While Doug Mastriano’s November gubernatorial loss disappointed Republicans retired Army colonel-turned-state senator seems ready to strategize for the future.

        A new report from POLITICO reveals Mastriano’s first steps toward a potential Senate run in 2024 and it seems clear he’s not ready to throw in the towel when it comes to pursuing higher office.

        “What do you do with a movement of 2.2 million?” he told POLITICO. “We’re keeping it alive.”

        “We’ve seen people in the past, other Republican gubernatorial candidates, they rise and they disappear when they lose. Why?” he asked. “You have people that love you and support you.”

        Mastriano affirmed he is “praying” about whether to go forward with a potential Senate run in 2024. After God, his wife, Rebbie, will have the final word he said.

        However, if Mastriano does decide to mount a Senate campaign the Republican would run in a primary for the right to take on Democrat Sen. Bob Casey. Which is likely to be a considerable challenge due in part to Sen. Casey’s familial history in the Keystone State.

        POLITICO noted that “no one in the Pennsylvania GOP establishment is eager for that matchup. “

        Casey’s father, former Gov. Robert Casey Sr., signed abortion regulations into law that went all the way to a landmark Supreme Court case, where they were largely kept intact. Mastriano even noted that Casey Sr. was “more pro-life than most Republicans” before insisting Sen. Casey is incapable of living up to his father’s legacy.

        “I think he’s a huge disappointment. He’s nothing like his dad,” he said.

        Still, all signs point to the fact Mastriano is taking steps to position himself for a possible run. He’s planning an upcoming rally in central Pennsylvania, which will feature Trump lawyer Christina Bobb and conservative media personality Wendy Bell as speakers. Mastriano also led a hearing on the East Palestine train derailment over the border from the incident in western Pennsylvania, and he successfully pushed a committee he chairs to subpoena Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw to testify.

        He also hired Dan Cox, the unsuccessful Maryland gubernatorial nominee, as his chief-of-staff which has fueled speculation he might want to run for higher office again. He seemed to confirm the link during the interview.

        “Hmm,” he said, laughing. “Gute erkennung. As the Germans say, ‘Good deduction.’”

        Trump Official Refers New York AG Letitia James For Prosecution – Again

        0
        Alec Perkins from Hoboken, USA, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

        A senior Trump administration official has made new criminal referrals against New York Attorney General Letitia James.

        Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte said in a letter Wednesday to prosecutors in Florida that James may have falsified information on a homeowner’s insurance application submitted to Fort Lauderdale-based Universal Property Insurance. In a separate letter to prosecutors in Illinois, Pulte alleged that James may have also provided false information on an application to Allstate.

        The referrals mark the latest development in a series of legal actions pursued by officials in President Trump’s administration against James, a longtime political adversary. In a Truth Social post Wednesday night, President Trump wrote that James had been “referred again for criminal prosecution for alleged homeowner insurance fraud.”

        One of the referrals was sent to Jason Reding Quiñones, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Quiñones is currently leading an investigation into Obama-era officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, related to intelligence findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to benefit Trump. Last year, Quiñones also sought records connected to special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump.

        The second referral was sent to Andrew Boutros, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

        Abbe Lowell, an attorney for James, rejected the allegations and criticized the administration’s actions.

        “abusing their power to pursue a vendetta against her by trying to rename, refile, and repeat baseless allegations.”

        “These desperate tactics will fail — just as every previous attempt has failed — and exposes an Administration that has abandoned its responsibility to the American people in favor of petty political payback,” Lowell said.

        The new referrals follow a previously dismissed federal case against James. Last fall, she was charged in federal court with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution, based on allegations that she misrepresented details about a property in Virginia to secure more favorable mortgage terms. James denied wrongdoing, and the charges were later dismissed.

        The earlier indictment came after Pulte referred James for possible mortgage fraud, though the charges ultimately focused on a different property than the one cited in his referral. A federal judge dismissed the case in November, ruling that interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan had been unlawfully appointed. A separate case brought by Halligan against former FBI Director James Comey was also dismissed, and two federal grand juries later declined to re-indict James on bank fraud charges.

        According to the original indictment, James purchased a Virginia home in 2020 using a mortgage that required the property to be used as a second residence, but she allegedly rented it out as an investment property to obtain a lower interest rate.

        James has argued that she is being targeted for political reasons, particularly after she sued Trump in civil court during the period between his presidential terms. A New York judge found Trump and his company liable for fraud and ordered them to pay hundreds of millions of dollars, though an appellate court later overturned the financial judgment.

        In court filings last year, James’s attorneys accused Pulte of using the Federal Housing Finance Agency — which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — as a “weapon to be brandished against President Trump’s political enemies.”

        CBS News previously reported that prosecutors have also examined financial transactions between James and her longtime hairdresser, Iyesata Marsh, as part of a separate line of inquiry. Pulte has since sought a protective security detail, citing threats he said were connected to the case.

        Former Vice President Mike Pence Chimes In On Trump’s Strikes On Iran

        1
        Mike Pence via Gage Skidmore Flickr

        Former Vice President Mike Pence is offering strong praise for President Donald Trump’s military strikes on Iran—an endorsement that comes despite the long-standing and highly public rift between the two former running mates.

        In an interview with Fox News Digital, Pence applauded Trump for what he described as decisive leadership in confronting Iran, while also criticizing a growing isolationist faction within the Republican Party.

        “It’s one of the things I give President Trump great credit for,” Pence said this week.

        Pence’s comments arrive nearly three weeks into ongoing U.S. military strikes against Iran, part of a broader escalation that has drawn sharp criticism from some populist and anti-war voices aligned with the MAGA and “America First” movements. Those critics argue the operation risks entangling the U.S. in another prolonged conflict overseas.

        But Pence, a longtime advocate of a more traditional Republican foreign policy rooted in strong global engagement and deterrence, rejected those concerns. He framed Trump’s actions as a rejection of isolationism within the party.

        “Around this administration, and to some extent in this administration, there have been some increasingly loud voices calling for America to pull back from our role as leader of the free world. Isolationist voices have taken hold in some quarters of the Republican Party,” Pence said.

        “But fortunately, President Trump turned a deaf ear to those voices last year when he struck Iran, and this year, when he launched Operation Epic Fury,” Pence emphasized. “I think it’s greatly to his credit.”

        Pence argued that Trump’s approach aligns with the broader Republican base.

        “I think it’s reflective of where the overwhelming majority of Republicans are. Republicans understand that America is the arsenal of democracy, that we’re the leader of the free world, that we have obligations to lead,” he said.

        The former vice president also drew on his firsthand experience serving alongside Trump during their time in the White House.

        “I’ve told people many times, I’m proud of President Trump for making the decision to launch operation Epic Fury. But I’m not surprised, because the President I served with is no isolationist.”

        The praise is notable given the fractured relationship between the two men. Pence and Trump have been estranged since the final days of their administration, particularly following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Trump publicly pressured Pence to reject the certification of the 2020 election results—something Pence refused to do, citing constitutional limits. The fallout led to years of mutual criticism, with Pence at times condemning Trump’s actions and Trump frequently targeting Pence in speeches and on social media.

        Despite that personal and political break, Pence has occasionally continued to support Trump’s policy decisions—especially on national security—reflecting enduring alignment on certain ideological priorities even as their political alliance has dissolved.

        The current conflict underscores those stakes. U.S. and Israeli strikes have reportedly killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and severely weakened Iran’s military leadership and infrastructure. In response, Iran has launched retaliatory attacks across the Middle East, targeting Israel and regional neighbors.

        The conflict has also had major global economic consequences. Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure and disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have halted roughly 20% of the world’s oil supply, sending fuel prices sharply higher in the U.S. and worldwide.

        Against that backdrop, Pence doubled down on his support for the administration’s aggressive posture.

        “I couldn’t be more proud of President Donald Trump for making the decision to send our troops directly against an enemy that has literally claimed thousands of American lives, including nearly 1,000 service members,” he said.

        He added that Trump has “unleashed the armed forces of the United States to take the fight directly to the source of global terrorism. And I think at the end of the day, the American people understand that this is a fight that we have to win, and it’s going to be important that we finish the threat that Iran has posed to the American people, to our cherished ally, Israel, to nations across the region and across the West, once and for all.”

        Pence concluded by offering advice he would give Trump if asked:

        “To finish the threat that the mullahs and Tehran have posed to the people of this country once and for all.”

        MAHA Year One: How Trump & RFK Jr. Are Rebuilding American Health

        1
        By Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America - Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CC BY-SA 2.0,

        For decades, Americans were told a story about their health that no longer matched reality. We were assured that food was safe, that regulators were vigilant, that medical advice was insulated from politics and profit, and that rising chronic disease was an unfortunate but unavoidable byproduct of modern life. Meanwhile, the health of the nation deteriorated in plain sight. Obesity climbed year after year. Childhood chronic disease became common rather than exceptional. Autism rates surged. Cancer diagnoses among children rose. By the time President Trump returned to office, 76.4% of Americans were living with at least one chronic disease. Eight out of 10 children could not qualify for military service. What should have been treated as a civilizational emergency was instead normalized, until that long-running failure of honesty and accountability culminated during the COVID-19 pandemic, when public health leaders abandoned transparency, misled the public, and, under Dr. Fauci’s direction, shattered trust in medical professionals and the institutions meant to serve them.

        The collapse of trust that followed COVID did not occur in a vacuum. It was the culmination of years of regulatory capture, scientific arrogance, and a public health establishment that confused authority with truth. Americans were ordered, not persuaded. Dissent was pathologized. Data was selectively presented. Vaccine policy was enforced through mandate rather than transparency. Dr. Fauci became the symbol of an anti-science regime that claimed infallibility while revising its claims in real time. When institutions insist on obedience while refusing accountability, trust does not merely erode; it implodes.

        It is against this backdrop that the Make America Healthy Again initiative must be understood. MAHA is not a branding exercise or a partisan slogan. It is a course correction. President Trump’s decision to place Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the helm of HHS was not an appeal to nostalgia or name recognition. It was an explicit rejection of the managerial consensus that presided over the chronic disease explosion. The mandate was simple and radical: identify root causes, dismantle regulatory capture, and tell the truth even when it disrupts powerful interests.

        Skeptics ask whether one year can matter. The answer depends on what one expects a first year to do. MAHA was never going to reverse decades of metabolic, environmental, and institutional decay overnight. Its purpose was to reorient the system, establish credibility, and force long-delayed questions back into the open. By that standard, the first year has been historic.

        Start with the scope of institutional change. President Trump signed an executive order establishing the MAHA Commission, chaired by Secretary Kennedy, with a singular focus on chronic disease. For the first time in generations, chronic illness was treated not as an actuarial inevitability but as a policy failure demanding investigation. This alone marked a break with orthodoxy. Under previous administrations, chronic disease spending rose to $1.3T annually while prevention remained an afterthought. When Kennedy notes that the federal government once spent essentially nothing on chronic disease, he is not making a rhetorical point. He is diagnosing a structural blind spot.

        The results are already visible. Thirty-seven states have enacted legislation advancing MAHA-aligned reforms. Nearly 100 MAHA-related bills have passed nationwide. Eighteen states secured SNAP waivers to restrict taxpayer-funded junk food purchases that directly fuel obesity and diabetes. These are not symbolic victories. They are structural incentives aligned with public health rather than industry convenience.

        Food policy has been the most visible arena of reform, and for good reason. The American diet did not become toxic by accident. It was engineered through regulatory loopholes that allowed synthetic additives to enter the food supply under the GRAS standard with minimal oversight. MAHA moved quickly to overhaul this system. Agreements now cover roughly 40% of the food industry, committing to remove petroleum-based synthetic dyes. The dairy industry has pledged to eliminate artificial dyes from ice cream by 2028. These changes matter because they reset norms. Once voluntary reform becomes expected, resistance collapses.

        The same logic applies to infant health. Operation Stork Speed was launched to expand access to safe and nutritious infant formula while removing heavy metals that had no business entering baby food in the first place. For parents who watched institutions minimize legitimate safety concerns during COVID, this shift toward precaution and transparency has been decisive in rebuilding trust.

        Critics often ask whether MAHA is anti-science. The premise is backward. MAHA is anti-dogma. It insists that science earns authority through openness, replication, and humility. This is why vaccine policy has been reframed around informed consent and gold standard trials rather than mandates. Honesty about uncertainty is not weakness. It is the precondition of credibility. Public trust returns when institutions stop pretending to be omniscient.

        This emphasis on trust extends beyond food and vaccines. HHS issued guidance restoring biological truth, recognizing that there are two sexes, male and female. This was not culture war theater. Medicine depends on biological reality. When institutions deny observable facts for ideological reasons, patients notice. Restoring clarity restores confidence.

        MAHA’s critics also underestimate the importance of state-level experimentation. Utah’s decision to ban added fluoride in public drinking water did not impose a national mandate. It reopened a conversation that had been closed by bureaucratic inertia. Communities are once again allowed to weigh risks and benefits rather than defer to outdated consensus.

        Health care delivery itself has not been ignored. Prior authorization has long functioned as a hidden tax on patients and physicians, delaying care while enriching intermediaries. Secretary Kennedy and CMS Administrator Oz secured industry commitments to streamline this process across health plans. Less paperwork means faster treatment and lower burnout. These are the reforms patients feel immediately.

        Drug pricing has followed the same philosophy. President Trump’s most favored nation order is being rapidly implemented to align U.S. prescription drug prices with those paid abroad. This is not price control masquerading as populism. It is a refusal to subsidize global markets at the expense of American patients. Lower prices are a public health intervention.

        Physical health has returned to the cultural mainstream as well. The Pete and Bobby Challenge, launched by Secretary Kennedy alongside Defense Secretary Hegseth, did something that countless white papers failed to do. It made fitness visible again. A nation where most children cannot meet basic physical standards is not merely unhealthy. It is vulnerable.

        The MAHA Commission’s release of the Make Our Children Healthy Again strategy, outlining more than 120 initiatives, signaled that childhood chronic disease is no longer being treated as a mystery or a taboo. New data linking rising thyroid and kidney cancers among children demands answers. Autism rates demand answers. MAHA has made clear that asking these questions is not forbidden. It is required.

        Perhaps the most underestimated achievement of the first year is cultural rather than regulatory. Trust is returning because institutions are speaking plainly. The public understands that special interests once thrived behind closed doors. They know they were sold better cigarettes and sugar smacks with a health halo. What they demanded in 2024 was not perfection. It was honesty.

        President Trump and Secretary Kennedy have delivered the first credible attempt in decades to dismantle the alliance between bureaucratic power and corporate profit that hollowed out public health. The appointments at NIH, FDA, and CMS reflect this shift. These are not partisan enforcers. They are reformers tasked with ending capture and restoring the mission.

        No serious observer should claim that the work is finished. Chronic disease did not emerge in one year, and it will not be eliminated in one term. But trajectories matter. Incentives matter. Trust matters most of all. After years in which Americans were told to comply and not question, MAHA has reopened the social contract between the public and medicine.

        Public health cannot function without consent. Consent requires trust. Trust requires truth. That is the chain MAHA is rebuilding. It is why the first year matters. Not because every problem has been solved, but because the system has finally been pointed in the right direction.

        If you enjoy my work, please subscribe: https://x.com/amuse.

        Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

        Report: Georgia Grand Jury Recommended Multiple Indictments

          1
          Donald Trump via Gage Skidmore Flickr

          The special grand jury that investigated possible election interference by former President Donald Trump and others in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election results recommended indictments against multiple individuals, according to its forewoman Emily Kohrs.

          She declined to discuss specific indictments or give any names.

          The news comes more than a month after the Atlanta grand jury completed its investigation into Trump and his allies. (RELATED: Georgia Jury Concludes Trump Criminal Investigation Report)

          Their decision on whether or not to recommend indictments went directly to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D).

          If Willis decides to indict anyone, including Trump, they will be forced to travel to Georgia.

          As The New York Times reports:

          “It is not a short list,” the forewoman, Emily Kohrs, said, adding that the jury had appended eight pages of legal code “that we cited at various points in the report.”

          She declined to discuss who specifically the special grand jury recommended for indictment, since the judge handling the case decided to keep those details secret when he made public a few sections of the report last week. But seven sections that are still under wraps deal with indictment recommendations, Ms. Kohrs said.

          Asked whether the jurors had recommended indicting Mr. Trump, Ms. Kohrs gave a cryptic answer: “You’re not going to be shocked. It’s not rocket science,” adding “you won’t be too surprised.”

          The investigation in Atlanta has been seen as one of the most significant legal threats to Mr. Trump as he begins another run for the presidency. In November, the Justice Department named a special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee two Trump-related criminal investigations. And last month, the Manhattan district attorney’s office began presenting evidence to a grand jury on whether Mr. Trump paid hush money to a porn star during his 2016 presidential campaign, laying the groundwork for potential criminal charges against the former president in the coming months.

          This story is developing. Click refresh for the latest updates