President Trump takes decisive action on controversial virus research linked to the COVID-19 pandemic through a new executive order.
According to the New York Post, Trump signed an executive order Monday prohibiting all federal funding for gain-of-function research in China, Iran, and other nations lacking proper oversight of these experiments. The move comes more than five years after the COVID-19 outbreak, which U.S. intelligence agencies believe likely originated from a laboratory accident.
The executive order targets experiments that enhance the infectiousness of viruses and bacteria, with particular focus on research similar to that conducted on bat coronaviruses by EcoHealth Alliance and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The order also implements a temporary pause on all research involving infectious pathogens and toxins until new enforcement policies are developed.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called the signing a historic moment, marking the end of federal government funding for gain-of-function studies. He explained that these experiments, also known as dual-use research, had been intermittently conducted from World War II until 2001.
The order deputizes the National Institutes of Health and other agencies to identify biological research that could threaten public health or national security. It also tasks the FBI and HHS with identifying potential threats similar to the Wuhan laboratory situation.
NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya emphasized that most scientific research would continue normally under the new restrictions. He noted that gain-of-function experiments, which make pathogens more virulent and transmissible to humans, pose unnecessary risks.
Federal officials have struggled to track the full extent of gain-of-function research conducted in China and other nations. A Department of Defense Office of Inspector General review discovered at least seven grants totaling more than $15.5 million that went to research organizations in China through subrecipients.
The NIAID, then under Dr. Anthony Fauci's leadership, and USAID channeled over $1.4 million in grants through EcoHealth to the Wuhan laboratory between 2014 and 2021. This funding supported a project titled "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence."
EcoHealth Alliance President Dr. Peter Daszak testified to Congress last year about the organization's involvement, admitting that Chinese biosafety regulations were less stringent than U.S. standards. He also acknowledged limited access to the Wuhan Institute's genomic data.
Sen. Joni Ernst praised Trump's decision, emphasizing her long-standing opposition to sending taxpayer dollars to China for what she termed "sketchy pseudoscience." The FBI, Energy Department, and CIA have all indicated that a laboratory leak was the most likely explanation for the COVID-19 outbreak.
According to HHS Secretary Kennedy, the research ban addresses serious concerns about biological weapons development. He cited China's ongoing work with AI and CRISPR technologies, along with similar programs in Russia and Iran.
Trump's executive order received support from various government agencies and officials who have been critical of previous oversight failures. The Pentagon's internal watchdog highlighted significant data limitations in tracking such research funding.
President Trump signed this landmark executive order to prevent potential future pandemics originating from laboratory accidents in countries with inadequate safety protocols. The order specifically targets gain-of-function research in China, Iran, and other nations while implementing stricter oversight measures for biological research that could impact public health or national security. The FBI and HHS will collaborate to identify and prevent emerging threats similar to the Wuhan laboratory situation, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy regarding potentially dangerous scientific experiments conducted overseas.
A former Bush administration housing official has made extraordinary claims about a secret network of underground facilities built by the U.S. government.
According to the New York Post, Catherine Austin Fitts, who served as assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development under President George H. W. Bush, alleges that approximately $21 trillion in taxpayer money was secretly channeled into building elaborate underground "cities" designed to shelter the wealthy and powerful during catastrophic events.
Fitts, now 74, made these claims during an appearance on Tucker Carlson's podcast, where she detailed an extensive network of roughly 170 bunkers constructed across the United States since 1998. She suggests these facilities extend beyond mainland America, with some reportedly situated beneath the ocean along U.S. coastlines.
Fitts bases her assertions on a 2017 report by Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore, which identified substantial "unauthorized spending" within the Departments of Defense and Housing and Urban Development between 1998 and 2015.
The former housing official claims these underground facilities are interconnected through an advanced transportation system and powered by classified military technology. She specifically referenced unexplained aerial phenomena as potential evidence of this secret energy system.
During her podcast appearance, Fitts suggested these installations serve multiple purposes beyond emergency shelters, including hosting what she termed a "secret space program."
The concept of government bunkers is not without precedent in American history. The Cheyenne Mountain Complex, currently operated by the U.S. Space Force, stands as a testament to Cold War-era preparedness.
From the 1950s through the 1990s, a classified congressional bunker operated beneath West Virginia's Greenbrier resort, designed to house the entire Congress during potential catastrophes.
These historical facilities demonstrate the government's long-standing commitment to continuity of operations during national emergencies.
Fitts' interview with Carlson ventured into more contentious territory beyond the bunker allegations. She expressed views about COVID-19 vaccines containing DNA-modifying ingredients and suggested the existence of a global conspiracy involving mind control.
While speaking to Tucker Carlson, she provided this explanation of the alleged secret energy system:
I'm convinced that this energy exists. If you look at a lot of the really fast ships, flying around the planet, they're not using classical electricity.
The former investment banker suggested these facilities are not limited to U.S. territory, claiming similar installations exist worldwide.
Former Assistant Secretary Catherine Austin Fitts' claims about a $21 trillion underground network of cities have added to ongoing discussions about government preparedness and classified installations. While she presents no concrete evidence for these allegations, she points to economist Mark Skidmore's 2017 report on unauthorized government spending as supporting documentation. The controversy highlights the historical reality of government bunker programs while raising questions about current classified infrastructure projects and their potential purposes.
A federal judge's decision on a contentious North Carolina Supreme Court election race has placed Democratic Justice Allison Riggs and Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin at the center of a heated legal battle.
According to Newsweek, U.S. District Judge Richard Myers, a Trump appointee, blocked Republican efforts to throw out over 60,000 ballots in the 2024 North Carolina Supreme Court election, effectively securing Democratic incumbent Justice Allison Riggs's victory.
The ruling comes after Griffin initiated legal proceedings following his narrow defeat in the election, where Riggs maintained a lead of 734 votes out of more than 5.5 million ballots cast. The contested ballots primarily involved military and overseas voters who either failed to provide proper photo identification or had never resided in the United States but claimed North Carolina residency through their parents.
Judge Myers emphasized that removing votes six months after Election Day would violate citizens' due process and equal protection rights. His decision directly challenges recent state appeals court rulings that sought to invalidate thousands of voter ballots deemed ineligible.
The ruling specifically addressed disparities in how overseas military and civilian voters were treated across different counties. Myers ordered the State Board of Elections to certify the results showing Riggs as the winner, though he included a seven-day window for Griffin to appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The judge's decision reflects growing concerns about attempts to alter election outcomes after votes have been cast and counted. His ruling stressed the importance of maintaining consistent election rules to preserve public confidence in democratic institutions.
Following the court's decision, Justice Riggs took to social media to express her satisfaction with the outcome. She emphasized her commitment to upholding constitutional principles and the rule of law in her role in North Carolina's highest court.
Griffin's campaign has maintained a cautious stance, stating that their legal team is reviewing the order and considering their next steps. The seven-day window provided by Judge Myers leaves open the possibility of further legal challenges.
The disputed ballots fall into two main categories: votes from military or overseas voters lacking proper photo identification documentation and ballots cast by overseas voters who have never lived in the U.S. but claim North Carolina residency through their parents.
Judge Myers outlined his reasoning in a detailed court ruling, stating:
The cure process offends equal protection principles because it treats overseas military and civilian voters casting ballots in certain counties differently than others who are identically situated. Permitting parties to 'upend the set rules' of an election after the election has taken place can only produce confusion and turmoil [which] threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves.
A Trump-appointed federal judge has blocked Republican efforts to invalidate over 60,000 ballots in North Carolina's Supreme Court election, effectively preserving Democratic Justice Allison Riggs's victory over Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin.
The ruling addresses constitutional concerns about voter rights and equal protection, particularly regarding military and overseas voters.
While Griffin's team has seven days to appeal the decision to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the State Board of Elections has been ordered to certify results showing Riggs's 734-vote margin of victory in an election that saw more than 5.5 million votes cast.
A historic transformation unfolds at SpaceX's Starbase facility in southern Texas as residents cast their ballots to establish the aerospace hub as an independent municipality.
According to Breitbart, the incorporation of Starbase as a city received overwhelming support, with 212 voters endorsing the measure while only six opposed, marking a significant milestone for Elon Musk's space venture in the Lone Star State.
The newly incorporated city, spanning approximately 1.6 square miles along the southern Texas coast, will operate under its own governance structure. Bobby Peden, a SpaceX vice president, secured the position of mayor in an uncontested election alongside two city commissioners who are also employed by the aerospace company.
The establishment of Starbase represents a culmination of SpaceX's long-term investment in the region, which began in 2012 with initial land acquisitions in Boca Chica. The company's commitment to the area intensified in 2024 when it commenced construction of housing developments and essential infrastructure.
The incorporation vote reflects the growing influence of SpaceX in Texas, particularly following the company's headquarters relocation from California to Starbase in July 2024. This move aligned with CEO Elon Musk's broader strategy of consolidating his business operations in Texas.
The development mirrors historical patterns of company towns that were prevalent during the mid-20th century, where corporations maintained significant control over local infrastructure and housing. This modern interpretation of the concept has sparked discussions about corporate influence in municipal governance.
The establishment of Starbase as a city has implications for approximately 500 residents in the surrounding area. Local community members have expressed concerns regarding the environmental impact of SpaceX operations, citing issues such as noise pollution, light disruption, and rocket debris.
Elon Musk, who shared the news on X, has demonstrated his expanding Texas footprint by announcing plans to relocate his social media company X from San Francisco to Austin. These strategic moves underscore the entrepreneur's growing investment in the state.
The Texas Legislature is currently reviewing legislation that would grant Starbase authority to implement specific measures, including the ability to close local highways during rocket launches and restrict access to nearby Boca Chica State Park.
The incorporation vote highlighted the unique demographic composition of Starbase's electorate, with the majority of the 283 eligible voters being SpaceX employees. This characteristic of the voting population has raised questions about corporate influence in local governance structures.
The city's establishment introduces a new model of municipal organization where aerospace industry operations intersect with local government functions. The arrangement provides SpaceX with unprecedented control over local infrastructure and development decisions.
The creation of this specialized municipality reflects broader trends in corporate-driven urban development, particularly in the aerospace sector, where operational requirements often necessitate specialized governance structures.
SpaceX's Starbase facility has evolved from a remote launch site to become Texas's newest municipality, following a decisive vote by local residents. The incorporation as a city, approved by an overwhelming majority of 212 to 6 votes, establishes a new framework for aerospace operations in southern Texas. Under the leadership of newly elected Mayor Bobby Peden and two city commissioners, all SpaceX employees, the 1.6-square-mile city will navigate the complex balance between corporate interests, environmental concerns, and community needs while setting precedents for future corporate-municipal partnerships in the aerospace industry.
CBS's flagship news program aired a controversial segment about President Donald Trump's executive orders targeting law firms, even as parent company Paramount faces a $20 billion lawsuit and crucial merger negotiations.
According to the Daily Mail, 60 Minutes dedicated its final 14 minutes on Sunday to criticize Trump's efforts to pressure law firms that have opposed him, despite warnings from network executives that it could further antagonize the president amid ongoing legal battles.
The segment featured host Scott Pelley describing Trump as the "first felon in the Oval Office" while examining his administration's executive orders targeting law firms deemed unethical. This controversial broadcast comes as CBS and Paramount Global face a lawsuit from Trump over alleged deceptive editing of an October interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.
Former Perkins Cole partner Marc Elias appeared on the program to denounce Trump's actions against law firms. He compared the president's tactics to mob-style intimidation, suggesting firms are being coerced into compliance through threats.
The executive orders have led to some firms agreeing to provide $600 million in free legal work for causes Trump supports. Five major law firms, including Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, have already committed to these arrangements.
Attorney John Keker argued that the president's actions constitute bribery, claiming the exchange of legal services for favorable treatment violates federal law. A federal judge recently blocked one such executive order against Perkins Cole, declaring it unconstitutional retaliation.
The segment aired amid significant internal tension at CBS News following the resignation of 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens. In his departure letter, Owens cited increasing corporate interference in editorial decisions.
Former executive producer Owens stated:
It has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it - to make independent decisions based on what was right for 60 Minutes, right for the audience. The show is too important to the country.
Paramount owner Shari Redstone reportedly requested delays in sensitive Trump coverage during merger discussions, creating friction with newsroom staff committed to editorial independence.
Host Scott Pelley openly addressed the mounting pressure from parent company Paramount during last week's broadcast. He acknowledged the company's attempts to supervise content more closely as it seeks approval for an $8.4 billion merger with Skydance Media.
The Federal Communications Commission, under Trump's administration, must approve the proposed merger. They are also investigating whether CBS violated news distortion rules in their October Harris interview.
Parent company Paramount has been actively working to settle the lawsuit with Trump's legal team, hoping to resolve the Harris interview controversy and smooth the path for merger approval.
The controversial 60 Minutes segment highlights the ongoing tension between corporate interests and journalistic independence in American media. Paramount Global faces pressure from multiple directions as it attempts to balance its news division's editorial freedom with business objectives. President Trump's $20 billion lawsuit against CBS and Paramount Global stems from allegations of deceptive editing in Vice President Harris's October interview. The case coincides with the network's parent company seeking crucial regulatory approval for its merger with Skydance Media, while also facing an FCC probe into potential news distortion violations.
A public feud between Prince Harry and the British royal family intensifies as the Duke of Sussex speaks out about his deteriorating relationship with King Charles over security arrangements.
According to the Daily Mail, a close friend of King Charles revealed that the monarch cannot reconcile with his son due to Harry's tendency to publicize private family conversations.
The revelation comes after Prince Harry's recent BBC interview where he claimed his father "won't speak to me" over his ongoing legal battle regarding UK security arrangements. The Duke also made controversial remarks about not knowing "how much longer" his father has left to live, which palace insiders considered to be in poor taste given the King's current cancer diagnosis.
Ken Wharfe, a former royal protection officer who served Princess Diana and young princes William and Harry, criticized the Duke's claims of being "stitched up" in his security case. Wharfe emphasized that Harry should show humility toward his father if he wants to improve his situation.
The security expert explained that Harry cannot expect full protection when visiting the UK since he is no longer a working royal. He noted that the government and police have offered alternative security arrangements based on risk assessment.
Palace sources indicated that King Charles has been prevented from intervening in Harry's security case due to constitutional restrictions, as the monarch is considered the fountain of justice in the UK legal system.
Robert Hardman, the King's biographer, clarified that Charles's inability to speak with Harry stems from legal constraints rather than personal choice. The situation is complicated by Harry suing the government in courts where his father serves as the ceremonial figurehead.
Royal insiders suggest that reconciliation remains unlikely unless Harry stops his litigation efforts and ceases discussing family matters publicly. The relationship has been further strained by Harry's previous revelations in his memoir "Spare" and interviews.
A palace source emphasized that the King has always maintained this was an issue for the government and courts to resolve, making it constitutionally improper for him to intervene.
A close friend of King Charles revealed the monarch's growing frustration with Harry's public statements and handling of the security dispute. The source indicated that what particularly upset Charles was Harry's failure to respect the constitutional principle preventing royal intervention.
The situation has reached a point where Harry claims it is now "impossible" to bring his family, including children Archie and Lilibet, back to the UK. This development follows his recent court loss regarding taxpayer-funded police protection.
Financial implications have also emerged, with Harry facing approximately £1.5 million in legal costs following his unsuccessful appeal against the security arrangements decision.
Prince Harry's relationship with the British royal family continues to deteriorate amid his ongoing legal battle for UK security protection. The Duke of Sussex's recent BBC interview and public statements about King Charles have widened the rift between father and son, with palace insiders suggesting reconciliation remains unlikely. The situation is further complicated by constitutional restrictions preventing King Charles from intervening in Harry's security case, as well as the monarch's reported frustration with his son's public handling of private family matters. Until Harry ceases litigation and public discussion of family issues, experts suggest the possibility of reconciliation remains remote.
The legendary investor Warren Buffett made a surprise announcement during Berkshire Hathaway's Annual Shareholders Meeting in Omaha.
According to Daily Caller, the 94-year-old chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway revealed his plans to retire by the end of the year, naming Greg Abel, the company's vice chairman of non-insurance operations, as his successor.
The announcement came near the conclusion of the meeting, where Buffett addressed 40,000 shareholders. He disclosed that only his children, Howie and Susie, were aware of his decision beforehand, while the news would come as a surprise to the remaining board members at their upcoming meeting.
Abel, a 62-year-old Canadian executive from Edmonton, joined Berkshire in 2000 after successfully transforming CalEnergy from a small geothermal energy company into a diversified energy business. The announcement appeared to catch Abel off guard, though he has been considered the heir apparent since 2021.
Buffett expressed confidence in Abel's leadership capabilities during the four-hour question-and-answer session. He emphasized that the decision to maintain shareholdings was based on his belief in Berkshire's improved prospects under Abel's management.
Abel committed to maintaining Buffett's patient investment philosophy and indicated his readiness to utilize Berkshire's substantial cash reserves of $347 billion when promising investment opportunities arise.
The "Oracle of Omaha" began his investment journey at a remarkably young age, purchasing his first stock at 11 and filing taxes by 13. His most significant achievement came in 1960 when he acquired Berkshire Hathaway, then a struggling textile mill.
Buffett shared his thoughts about the transition with shareholders:
Tomorrow, we're having a board meeting of Berkshire, and we have 11 directors. Two of the directors, who are my children, Howie and Susie, know of what I'm going to talk about there. The rest of them, this will come as news to, but I think the time has arrived where Greg should become the chief executive officer of the company at year end. I could be helpful, I believe, in certain respects, if we ran into periods of great opportunity or anything.
Under Buffett's leadership, Berkshire transformed from a suit-lining manufacturer into a diverse conglomerate comprising numerous companies. The company achieved a historic milestone by becoming the first non-tech U.S. company to reach a $1 trillion valuation.
Despite stepping down as CEO, Buffett, currently the world's fifth-richest person according to Forbes, plans to remain involved with the company. He indicated his willingness to provide guidance during significant opportunities or challenging periods.
The transition marks a pivotal moment for Berkshire Hathaway as Abel prepares to take the helm of one of the world's most successful investment conglomerates. His appointment represents both continuity and evolution in Berkshire's leadership approach.
The change in leadership maintains strong ties to Buffett's investment philosophy while introducing new perspectives through Abel's operational expertise.
Warren Buffett's retirement announcement marks the end of a remarkable 55-year tenure as CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, during which he transformed a failing textile company into a trillion-dollar conglomerate. The transition to Greg Abel's leadership represents a carefully planned succession, with Abel's selection as heir apparent dating back to 2021. As Berkshire Hathaway prepares for this historic change, Abel stands ready to lead the company with $347 billion in cash reserves while maintaining Buffett's patient investment philosophy.