Colorado is at the center of a heated debate following the enactment of SB25-003, a stringent gun control law signed by Democrat Gov. Jared Polis, which establishes some of the toughest regulations on semiautomatic firearms in the nation.
The legislation, sure to run afoul of conservative Second Amendment champions, requires a minimum of 12 hours of training, a written test with at least 90% proficiency, and an eligibility certification from a county sheriff to purchase, transfer, or manufacture most semiautomatic firearms, as the Daily Caller reports.
The introduction of this legislation has prompted a sharp response from Colorado Republicans and gun rights advocates, who argue the law violates constitutional freedoms. They contend that the obstacles and costs created by these requirements restrict lawful gun ownership. Ty Winter, a prominent Republican voice, expressed that these fees hinder basic rights, saying the bill unjustly places a financial barrier on self-defense.
Winter also emphasized the broader implications of Second Amendment rights, insisting these are fundamental American values. He believes it's not merely about personal defense but about maintaining freedom. He criticized what he perceives as excessive regulation that distracts from effective crime control.
In contrast, supporters of the law argue it is a necessary step to curb gun violence. They highlight that restrictions on high-capacity magazines are crucial in reducing mass shooting casualties. State Sen. Tom Sullivan emphasized, "High-capacity magazines are what put the ‘mass’ into mass shootings." Still, opponents argue the law doesn't adequately tackle crime. They reference other crime statistics in Colorado, such as the state's high rankings in bank robberies and auto thefts, as proof the law misdirects focus. This ongoing debate raises questions about the effectiveness of such laws and the best strategies to combat crime.
Additionally, Republican legislators are preparing legal challenges, questioning the law's alignment with the Supreme Court's standard related to historical firearms legislation. They have also called on Pam Bondi and the Justice Department's “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force” to intervene.
A resolution for an advisory opinion on the law’s constitutionality has been introduced by State Rep. Max Brooks. This step underlines their determination to scrutinize the law's legal foundations. Meanwhile, groups like the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners are expected to spearhead federal court challenges.
The law contributes to placing Colorado alongside states like California and New York, which have enacted similarly tough gun regulations. However, unlike these states, Colorado faces unique challenges, including a lawsuit prepared by parties who claim the law is unconstitutional.
Enforcement of the measure is set to begin in 2026, and it will be overseen by the 64 county sheriffs across the state. This raises concerns about consistent application, which could vary significantly by region. Such variability might further complicate legal and practical challenges regarding its enforcement.
As the discussion unfolds, Winter is rallying support from national gun rights groups and the media. He insists that this attention is necessary to prevent what he describes as a significant infringement on Second Amendment rights in the state. Although Republicans have vocalized their opposition, they clarify their role as legislators, not legal representatives. Winter noted their decision to rely on the Department of Justice to advance their cause further. Meanwhile, opponents of the law continue to mobilize, orchestrating collective legal efforts.
Proponents, however, maintain that the law is a progressive move that prioritizes safety over accessibility. They argue it will have a significant impact in mitigating gun-related fatalities. Yet, the ongoing discourse suggests the debate on gun control in Colorado will persist, possibly setting the stage for influential judicial decisions yet to come.
If upheld, SB25-003 could serve as a model for other states considering stricter gun laws. However, the anticipated legal battles may also influence broader federal gun policy discussions. Both sides of the argument await resolution, knowing the outcomes could resonate beyond state lines.
As the situation progresses, both advocates and opponents remain entrenched in their positions. The controversial nature of SB25-003 suggests it could become a landmark case in shaping the future of gun legislation in the United States. The nation watches as Colorado navigates this complex landscape.
A former magistrate judge's sudden resignation in Las Cruces, New Mexico, has led to a series of dramatic events involving alleged connections to a Venezuelan terrorist organization.
According to Breitbart, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials arrested former Magistrate Judge Joel Cano and his wife Nancy at their Las Cruces residence on Thursday following the discovery of their alleged involvement with members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
The arrests came after ICE agents found Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, a 23-year-old Venezuelan national with suspected ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, living on the Canos' property. Ortega-Lopez, who entered the United States illegally through Eagle Pass, Texas, in December 2023, was discovered to be in possession of multiple firearms and ammunition.
Joel Cano's fall from grace marks a stark contrast to his previous 23-year career with the Las Cruces Police Department. After serving as a magistrate judge since 2010, his career came to an abrupt end following the ICE raid that exposed his alleged connection to the gang member.
The New Mexico Supreme Court has taken decisive action, ruling that Cano can never again hold judicial office in the state. The couple is currently being held without bond at the Dona Ana County Detention Center, with Joel charged with tampering with evidence and Nancy facing conspiracy to tamper charges.
Federal investigators uncovered disturbing evidence linking Ortega-Lopez to gang activities, including social media posts showing him at shooting ranges with various firearms, including AR-15-style rifles equipped with suppressors.
Further investigation revealed that additional firearms were discovered in a neighboring property owned by Nancy Cano's daughter. Social media evidence showed Ortega-Lopez displaying Tren de Aragua gang tattoos, a particularly concerning detail given the organization's recent designation as a foreign terrorist organization by President Trump and the State Department.
Ortega-Lopez's presence in the United States stems from the overcrowding crisis at the Eagle Pass detention facility, which led to his release just three days after his illegal entry. His case highlights ongoing concerns about border security and the handling of detained migrants.
The Venezuelan national was documented handling multiple weapons, including semi-automatic pistols and rifles. Investigators found videos showing him operating firearms with concerning proficiency, including reloading techniques.
ICE officials executed both a search warrant and a probable cause warrant at the Canos' residence, leading to their arrests. The timing of Joel Cano's resignation, just one week before his arrest, has raised questions about his knowledge of the impending law enforcement action.
The case has attracted significant attention from federal authorities, particularly due to the Tren de Aragua gang's recent designation as a Transnational Criminal Organization. The involvement of a former judge and law enforcement officer adds another layer of complexity to the investigation.
Ortega-Lopez remains in custody pending a detention hearing scheduled for April 30 in the New Mexico District Court. Prosecutors argue he presents a significant flight risk.
Joel and Nancy Cano's arrest represents a significant development in the fight against transnational criminal organizations. The former magistrate judge and his wife were taken into custody at their Las Cruces home, facing charges related to harboring a member of the Tren de Aragua gang, which has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The investigation continues as authorities examine potential additional charges, including harboring an illegal alien and providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
A high-stakes legal battle between former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and one of America's most prominent newspapers reaches its conclusion in a Manhattan federal court.
According to Fox News, a federal jury has ruled that The New York Times did not libel Sarah Palin in a 2017 editorial that allegedly linked her to the 2011 mass shooting that injured former Representative Gabby Giffords and left six people dead.
The verdict came after approximately two hours of deliberation in the retrial of the case, marking the second time a Manhattan federal jury has sided with the newspaper.
This decision follows years of legal proceedings that began when Palin first filed the lawsuit in 2017, claiming the editorial falsely connected her to the tragic Arizona shooting.
The controversial editorial was published in response to another shooting incident at a Republican congressional baseball practice that severely wounded Representative Steve Scalise. The Times issued a correction the following day after realizing the error in their editorial.
Former editorial page editor James Bennet, who took responsibility for rushing the story, delivered an emotional testimony during the trial. During his appearance in court, he expressed remorse for the editorial's contents.
NYT spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha expressed gratitude toward the jury, emphasizing the significance of the verdict in upholding press freedom principles. She stated:
We want to thank the jurors for their careful deliberations. The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.
The case's path to this verdict has been marked by significant legal developments and procedural complexities. In 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff dismissed the case while simultaneously allowing the jury to reach its verdict, anticipating an inevitable appeal.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan intervened in 2024, overturning the previous ruling. Circuit Judge John Walker Jr. explained the reasoning behind the decision for a retrial, stating:
We have no difficulty concluding that an average jury's verdict would be affected if several jurors knew that the judge had already ruled for one of the parties on the very claims the jurors were charged with deciding.
The appeals court's decision led to the current retrial, which ultimately produced the same outcome as the initial trial. The timing of Judge Rakoff's dismissal in the first trial was deemed problematic, necessitating a new proceeding.
Palin's legal team has not yet indicated their plans regarding a potential appeal of this latest decision. The verdict represents another setback for the former vice presidential candidate in her pursuit of legal action against the newspaper.
The case highlights the ongoing tension between press freedom and public figures' rights to protect their reputations. The jury's decision reinforces the high bar public figures must clear to prove defamation against news organizations, particularly when dealing with honest mistakes that are promptly corrected.
The conclusion of this trial marks another chapter in a years-long legal dispute between Sarah Palin and The New York Times over a 2017 editorial that sparked controversy. The Manhattan federal jury's decision to rule in favor of the newspaper for the second time demonstrates the challenges public figures face in proving defamation claims, especially when publications acknowledge and correct their mistakes promptly. As Palin's team contemplates their next move, the case continues to serve as a significant precedent in media law and freedom of the press.
A startling discovery at a judge's residence in Las Cruces, New Mexico, has led to significant repercussions in the local judicial system.
According to New York Post, Doña Ana County Magistrate Judge Jose "Joel" Cano submitted his resignation following a Department of Homeland Security raid that resulted in the arrest of a Venezuelan national with alleged ties to the notorious Tren de Aragua gang at his home.
The raid, which took place on February 28, led to the arrest of 23-year-old Cristhian Ortega-Lopez, who had been living in Cano's property. Federal agents also seized four firearms from the residence of Cano's daughter after obtaining search warrants based on social media evidence linking Ortega-Lopez to the Venezuelan prison gang.
Judge Cano, who had served on the bench since 2011, submitted his resignation letter on March 3, making no reference to the arrest. The Democratic judge's letter, obtained through official channels, expressed gratitude for his time serving but remained notably silent about the circumstances leading to his departure.
The state supreme court and Third Judicial District Court didn't receive Cano's formal resignation until March 31. Barry Massey, spokesperson for New Mexico's Administrative Office of the Courts, confirmed that the governor will appoint a replacement to serve through the remainder of Cano's term, which was set to end in 2026.
The timeline of events reveals that Ortega-Lopez had developed connections with Cano's family over the course of a year, initially helping the judge's wife with household maintenance tasks.
Ortega-Lopez entered the United States illegally in 2023 near Eagle Pass, Texas, climbing over a barbed-wire fence. Due to overcrowding at a US Customs and Border Patrol facility, he was released despite his unauthorized entry.
Nancy Cano, the judge's wife, offered Ortega-Lopez accommodation in their home's "casita" after he lost his apartment in El Paso. During his stay, he reportedly developed a close relationship with the judge's daughter, April Cano, who owned several firearms.
Court documents indicate that Ortega-Lopez acknowledged his awareness that his immigration status prohibited him from possessing firearms. Nevertheless, evidence suggests he had access to weapons through his connection with the judge's daughter.
Law enforcement's investigation uncovered social media images showing Ortega-Lopez with tattoos and making hand gestures associated with Tren de Aragua. Prosecutors included this evidence in their detention filing, emphasizing the security threat he posed.
From the court documents, prosecutors stated:
The Defendant is a danger to the community because he is a member of the United States designated Foreign Terrorist Organization Tren de Aragua and regularly associates with other members.
The operation that led to Ortega-Lopez's arrest was part of a larger investigation that resulted in the detention of three other Venezuelan illegal migrants.
If convicted of being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm or ammunition, Ortega-Lopez faces up to 15 years in prison. The case has drawn significant attention to potential security vulnerabilities within the judicial system. The incident has sent shockwaves through New Mexico's legal community and raised questions about the relationship between public officials and undocumented immigrants. The position of magistrate judge will be included on the 2026 ballot, allowing voters to select a new permanent replacement for the role previously held by Cano.
A federal probe into Harvard University's overseas funding sources intensifies as President Donald Trump and House Republicans increase pressure on the prestigious institution.
According to Just The News, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into Harvard's foreign donations while the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal funding to the university.
The Education Department's probe comes amid growing concerns about Harvard's transparency regarding international funding sources and its handling of various campus issues, including antisemitism and diversity programs.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon emphasized the university's obligation to maintain transparency about its relationships with foreign entities. The administration expressed particular concern about potential manipulation by actors deemed hostile to American interests.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, led by Chairman James Comer and Rep. Elise Stefanik, has initiated their own investigation into the university's compliance with civil rights laws.
The Department of Homeland Security, under Secretary Kristi Noem, terminated two grants worth $2.7 million, citing Harvard as "unfit to be entrusted with taxpayers' dollars."
President Trump took to Truth Social to challenge Harvard's tax status, suggesting potential reclassification as a political entity. His administration's demands include eliminating DEI programs and addressing antisemitism concerns.
Trump's statement on Truth Social reflected his strong stance:
Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting "Sickness?" Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!
The university received approximately $686 million in federal funding during the 2024 fiscal year alone, according to the House Oversight Committee.
Harvard President Alan Garber defended the institution's autonomy against government interference. He emphasized the importance of academic freedom in higher education.
Garber's response highlighted concerns about government overreach: "No government - regardless of which party is in power - should dictate what private universities can teach."
Critics have questioned the administration's push for "viewpoint diversity" at universities, viewing it as potential interference in academic independence.
The ongoing crisis at Harvard reflects broader tensions between the Trump administration and elite academic institutions. The investigations target both financial transparency and ideological concerns. The university faces unprecedented scrutiny over its international funding sources, with federal authorities demanding complete disclosure of foreign donations and relationships. Multiple government agencies continue to apply pressure through various means, from congressional investigations to funding cuts, signaling a coordinated effort to reform Harvard's policies and practices.
A 26-year-old Guatemalan national has been indicted on charges related to the unauthorized entry of a teenager into the United States.
Juan Tiul Xi is accused of illegally bringing a 14-year-old girl into the country and falsely claiming familial ties to gain legal custody of her, as Breitbart reports.
The suspect allegedly crossed into the U.S. unlawfully in 2023. He reportedly resides in Cleveland, Ohio, without legal status. Authorities claim that Tiul Xi facilitated the illegal entry of a young Guatemalan girl, urging her to adopt a false identity as his sister.
Charges state that Tiul Xi provided the girl with an alias to facilitate her classification as an Unaccompanied Alien Child (UAC). As a UAC, she was temporarily housed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) while awaiting placement decisions. Tiul Xi allegedly submitted false information to the ORR, including a fraudulent sponsorship application asserting his familial relationship to the girl.
The sponsorship, based on erroneous information, led to ORR releasing the girl into Tiul Xi’s care in early September 2023. Federal authorities discovered the discrepancies, leading to a subsequent federal grand jury indictment.
The indictment against Tiul Xi includes accusations of encouraging illegal immigration for financial purposes, submitting false statements, and aggravated identity theft. These charges reflect severe allegations given the implications for U.S. immigration policy and child protection laws.
Statements from the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Public Affairs indicate the gravity of these charges. A press announcement regarding the indictment was issued on a recent Friday, intended to bring public awareness to the case.
The case has sparked conversations about immigration enforcement and the well-being of minors entering the United States. Pamela Bondi, who currently holds the position of U.S. attorney general, voiced her concerns. Bondi emphasized the necessity for protective measures against child trafficking in light of border issues.
Bondi stated that the previous administration's strategies contributed to vulnerabilities exploited by traffickers. Her comments underscored a commitment to tackling these issues to ensure justice for affected children. The indictment has intensified debates surrounding U.S. border management policies under President Joe Biden's leadership.
In response, Stephen Miller, serving as White House Homeland Security advisor and deputy chief of staff for policy, offered harsh criticism. Miller's statement suggested dissatisfaction with media portrayal of border policy impacts. He pointed to previous border policies as accruing insufficient scrutiny.
Tom Homan, who serves as President Trump’s border czar, commented on public sentiment regarding immigration. Homan remarked that most Americans advocate for the humane removal of individuals residing illegally in the country. His comments also highlighted the ongoing national discourse around fair immigration practices.
Homan articulated the broader perspective regarding legal immigration processes. He underscored the commitment of individuals diligently waiting to enter the U.S. through legal channels. Continued unauthorized immigration, he suggested, creates setbacks for those adhering to legal processes.
With discussions ongoing, the case of Juan Tiul Xi remains pivotal in shaping future policy conversations. The indictment not only draws attention to immediate legal proceedings but also contributes to the broader narrative around immigration control and child protection. As the legal system evaluates the case, its outcomes could influence multilevel policy reforms.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's ruling to uphold Governor Tony Evers' use of veto power to extend educational funding for 400 years has ignited a constitutional debate.
The court's decision highlighted the contentious interpretation of the governor's veto authority and its implications for policy and legislation in Wisconsin, as the Washington Examiner reports.
In July 2023, Evers exercised his veto by modifying elements of the state budget to extend a $325 per student funding increase mandated for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, extending this increase to the year 2425. This move stirred controversy, leading to a legal challenge from the Republican Party, which questioned the constitutionality of altering the budget's timeline so drastically.
The Republican-led lawsuit argued that the governor's actions were an overreach, suggesting that changing the budget's text in such a significant way circumvented the legislative process. Despite these assertions, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in favor of Evers' veto, with a narrow 4-3 decision. The court's liberal justices formed the majority, underscoring the ideological divide within the state’s high court.
The majority opinion acknowledged the startling nature of a 400-year modification. However, it justified the decision by stating that the state’s constitution does not constrain the extent to which vetoes can influence policy change, regardless of magnitude. This interpretation of the constitution sparked differing opinions among the justices.
The conservative wing of the court expressed strong concerns about the implications of the ruling. They indicated that the decision grants the governor excessive power to reshape policy without proper legislative endorsement. One dissenting opinion painted a picture of legislative process disruption, highlighting that by altering the bill's text, the governor could essentially enact law independently of the legislature. This depiction underscores the tension between different branches of the state government.
Evers celebrated the court's decision as a triumph for the state’s educational system. He highlighted what he said was the benefit for Wisconsin's children and public schools, aligning his actions with historical precedents of veto use by previous governors. His statements emphasized continuity in gubernatorial practice rather than a break from tradition.
The Republican Party of Wisconsin, however, criticized the ruling as an example of "judicial activism." They voiced dissatisfaction with the court's decision, arguing that it prioritizes political outcomes over constitutional fidelity. According to them, residents of Wisconsin expect the Supreme Court to serve as a check on executive power, not as an enabler.
The current decision brings Wisconsin's unique partial veto power into focus, which has been a topic of debate for decades. The governor can modify appropriations by changing text and numbers presented in bills, an authority that has historically been wielded by both parties.
The ruling establishes a precedent that might influence future interpretations of gubernatorial power in Wisconsin. With four liberal justices supporting the veto, the decision reflects the intricate balance between executive authority and legislative intent. It raises questions about the separation of powers and the extent to which one branch can revise the outcomes of another.
Critics of the decision fear that this opens the possibility of more extreme modifications in future budgetary exercises. The tension between ensuring effective governance and maintaining legislative participation remains a crucial issue that the state continues to navigate.
As the dust settles, both supporters and opponents of the decision are likely to examine its implications closely. For proponents, it offers stability for public schools, ensuring consistent long-term funding that aids in educational planning and development. For opponents, it signals a need to reassess the constitutional guidelines governing veto powers.
The legal intricacies of the decision might lead to further legislative attempts to redefine or limit the governor's partial veto power. As both parties interpret the ruling's impact, further dialogue and potential legal reforms could emerge to address concerns raised by the dissenting justices.
President Donald Trump is finalizing an executive order that would significantly impact scientific research in the United States.
According to The Daily Caller, Trump is poised to sign a sweeping executive order by May 6 that would ban gain-of-function research, which involves making viruses more dangerous in laboratory settings.
The order would prohibit experiments that increase the infectivity or pathogenicity of any virulent and replicable pathogen. Gerald Parker, who heads the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy within the National Security Council, is leading the initiative.
The federal agencies that have historically supported gain-of-function research, particularly the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, have been excluded from the drafting process.
The anticipated executive order represents a significant shift from previous policies. Parker, who formerly led the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, has advocated for moving oversight of such research away from the National Institutes of Health. Former CDC Director Robert Redfield has supported this position, emphasizing the need for independent commission review.
Several key issues remain unresolved in the draft order. Officials are still determining whether violators should face criminal charges as bioweaponeers. The order's final language must also clearly define what constitutes gain-of-function research to ensure legal enforceability.
Questions persist about potential exemptions for lower-risk research, such as studies using non-replicative pseudoviruses that allow scientists to study viral evolution without creating pandemic risks.
Rutgers University microbiologist Richard Ebright, a longtime critic of high-risk virology research, shared his perspective on the implications:
Gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens caused the COVID-19 pandemic, killing 20 million and costing $25 trillion. If not stopped, gain-of-function research on potential pandemic pathogens likely will cause future lab-generated pandemics.
The push for stricter regulations follows concerning revelations about previous research. Documents obtained through FOIA requests in 2023 showed that EcoHealth Alliance, while seeking Pentagon funding in 2018, downplayed plans to conduct gain-of-function experiments on SARS-like viruses in Wuhan, China. In January 2025, both EcoHealth Alliance and its president Peter Daszak were barred from receiving federal funding, though they avoided criminal charges.
The timing of the executive order coincides with previously planned policy changes. The Biden administration's 2024 guidance on gain-of-function research was set to take effect May 6, but scientific organizations report receiving no implementation directions from NIH, suggesting the new executive order will take precedence.
Some experts argue that current oversight mechanisms create conflicts of interest. The 2024 guidance allowed researchers, universities, and funding agencies like NIH to implement their own reviews, which critics argue discourages proper reporting of potentially dangerous research.
A biosecurity expert, speaking anonymously due to employment concerns, suggested alternative accountability measures: "I don't know that criminal penalties are necessary. But we do need more sticks in biosafety as well as carrots. For instance, biosafety should be a part of tenure review and whether you get funding for future work."
The imminent executive order represents Trump's most significant intervention in scientific research policy. The White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, integrated into the National Security Council, is steering this dramatic shift in how the United States approaches potentially dangerous viral research. The administration aims to implement these changes by early May, establishing new guidelines that would fundamentally alter how scientists conduct pathogen research while addressing longstanding concerns about laboratory safety and pandemic prevention.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent announcement marks a significant shift in the government's approach to handling misinformation and content moderation.
According to Daily Wire, the State Department has officially shut down its propaganda office that funded efforts to label media outlets as sources of misinformation and pressured social media platforms to censor content, marking a decisive victory for conservative critics who have long criticized the agency's role in content suppression.
The Global Engagement Center (GEC), which operated with an annual budget exceeding $50 million, faced mounting criticism for its involvement in domestic content moderation despite its original mandate focusing on countering foreign terrorist propaganda. The agency's closure comes after Congress refused to renew its funding in 2024, following various controversies surrounding its operations.
The agency's transformation from its 2011 inception as the Center for Strategic Counter Terrorism Communications raised significant concerns about government overreach. Initially created to combat terrorist propaganda from groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda, the organization shifted its focus after the 2016 election when Democrats began treating misinformation as a national security threat.
The center established a presence in Silicon Valley to influence content moderation policies on social media platforms. Despite restrictions preventing State Department programs from targeting Americans, the GEC found ways to extend its reach domestically through third-party partnerships.
Through various initiatives, the agency funded organizations like the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard, which developed systems to rate and potentially restrict access to certain media outlets. These partnerships raised serious questions about government involvement in media censorship.
Secretary Rubio expressed strong criticism of the agency's activities, stating:
Under the previous administration, this office, which cost taxpayers more than $50 million per year, spent millions of dollars to actively silence and censor the voices of Americans they were supposed to be serving. This is antithetical to the very principals we should be upholding and inconceivable it was taking place in America. That ends today.
The Daily Wire and The Federalist filed a lawsuit against GEC in December 2023, challenging its practices. The legal action alleged that the agency had developed and promoted over 365 tools and technologies targeting American speech and press, including fact-checking technologies and media intelligence platforms.
The State Department's attempts to maintain secrecy about its operations drew scrutiny from Congress. When questioned about its activities, the department refused to provide information, leading the House Small Business Committee to issue a subpoena.
Before losing control, the Biden administration tried to preserve the agency's functions by rebranding it as the Counter-Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference hub (R/FIMI). However, this attempt to maintain the operation under a different name proved unsuccessful.
The State Department had planned to reassign the center's staff and funding to other departments. However, Rubio's intervention resulted in all 30 full-time staff members being placed on leave, with their positions permanently eliminated.
The closure of the Global Engagement Center represents a significant shift in the government's approach to managing information and media content. Secretary Rubio's decision to completely dismantle the agency and its successor program demonstrates the current administration's commitment to protecting First Amendment rights.
The State Department's propaganda office, which began as a counter-terrorism initiative in 2011, evolved into a controversial agency that attracted criticism for its role in domestic content moderation and media censorship. The complete dismantling of both the GEC and its attempted successor program, R/FIMI, marks a definitive end to a government initiative that raised serious concerns about First Amendment rights and government overreach in media regulation.