When you get pregnant, doctors warn you to avoid everything from coffee to deli meat. When you build a home — as a spouse, parent, or homeowner — you make careful choices about what comes through the front door, onto your table, and into your yard.But what if those precautions don’t matter? What if the food you serve, the lawn your kids play on, or the weeds you spray carry a poison approved through fraud, sold without warnings, and protected from accountability by the Supreme Court?We ask parents to obsess over lunch meat. We can demand at least as much honesty about what gets sprayed on the yard.That isn’t paranoia. It’s the situation Americans may soon face.The Supreme Court last week agreed to hear Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, a case pushed aggressively by Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant that bought Monsanto in 2018. The justices will decide one narrow but decisive question this term: Does federal pesticide law block state failure-to-warn lawsuits when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required a cancer warning on the label?Bayer wants the answer to be yes. It wants federal pre-emption — a legal shield that turns an EPA-approved label into immunity. If Bayer wins, state juries could lose the ability to hold companies accountable even when families prove they used a product as directed, got sick, and never received a warning.That outcome would reward the very behavior the law should punish.Juries across the country have already heard evidence in Roundup cases and awarded billions to plaintiffs who developed cancer after using the herbicide. Yet Roundup still sells without a cancer warning. Now Bayer wants the Supreme Court to slam the courthouse door on future victims for good.Consider what that means in human terms.Pregnant mothers avoid raw fish and unpasteurized cheese to protect their children, yet millions of families unknowingly expose themselves to chemicals linked in research to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers. A major meta-analysis published in the journal Pediatrics found that children exposed to residential pesticides face significantly higher risks of leukemia and lymphoma. Another peer-reviewed 2019 meta-analysis linked glyphosate-based herbicides to an increased risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.We get lectures about sushi, but weed killer gets a pass.This fight should feel familiar. During COVID, Americans were told to trust emergency approvals as official guidance shifted rapidly. Those who raised concerns often got mocked or sidelined. Only later did many learn the story was more complicated than the public was allowed to hear.We can’t undo that confusion. We can refuse to repeat it.The evidence here does not revolve around a single labeling dispute. The deeper allegation is deception. Critics claim Monsanto relied on ghostwritten research and buried evidence to convince regulators glyphosate was safe — and that those approvals then became the foundation for selling Roundup without a cancer warning.RELATED: The fruit of the US pesticide industry is poison Firn via iStock/Getty ImagesIn late 2025, a key study used for years to defend glyphosate was retracted over serious ethical concerns and undisclosed corporate influence. That retraction matters because it goes to the heart of Bayer’s argument: that the government approved the label, so the company should be protected.Pre-emption should not become a reward for fraud.If the Supreme Court sides with Bayer, the fallout will spread far beyond Roundup. The ruling could shield tens of thousands of pesticides from meaningful liability so long as companies point to federal “compliance” — even when compliance was built on manipulated research, regulatory capture, or withheld evidence. Families could lose their best tool for accountability: state courts and state juries.That isn’t pro-business; it’s regulatory capture. In fact, it’s immunity for wrongdoing.The court should reject this power-grab. Federal minimum standards should not erase state-level accountability, especially when the federal process can be gamed. Americans deserve warnings when products pose real risks. Families deserve the ability to seek justice when corporations hide dangers and regulators fail to act.We ask parents to obsess over lunch meat. We can demand at least as much honesty about what gets sprayed on the yard.The Supreme Court has a choice: protect public health, or protect corporate cover-ups. The country should insist that it choose public health — for our families and for generations yet unborn.

A 51-year-old man is in custody after his 12-year-old child called Georgia police from a closet and they found four people shot to death.The harrowing incident unfolded at the Lawrenceville home on Brook Ivy Court early on Friday morning, according to police.'Four people dying at the same time, especially with children in the home ... it's shocking to anybody.' Police entered the home at about 2:30 in the morning to find the bodies of four people, as well as the 12-year-old still in the closet with two other children ages 10 and 7 years old.The victims were identified as 37-year-old Nidhi Chander and 38-year-old Harish Chander, who own the home, and their relatives 43-year-old Meemu Dogra and 33-year-old Gourav Cumar.Vijay Kumar was arrested after a police dog was able to track him trying to hide in the wood line.They said that Kumar and his wife, Dogra, had gotten into an argument in Atlanta and drove to the Chander home with their 12-year-old child."It is unknown at this time what the argument was about, why they came to the residence, or what led up to the incident," police said in a statement on social media.Police said they were able to arrive while the suspect's car was still at the scene because the child called so quickly after the incident. The children were unharmed.RELATED: Police shoot New Jersey man who charged them with machete — then find gruesome scene "It's definitely a tragic situation. Four people dying at the same time, especially with children in the home ... it's shocking to anybody," said Gwinnett Police Cpl. Angela Carter.Kumar was charged with malice murder, felony murder, cruelty to children in the first degree, and two counts of cruelty to children in the third degree.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In the wake of Minnesota’s massive fraud scheme busts, some states have started questioning what’s going on within their own borders. In Montana, Commissioner of Insurance and State Auditor James Brown’s curiosity spurred him to do some digging, and what he found made his jaw drop.On this episode of “The Glenn Beck Program,” Glenn sits down with Brown to expose the massive Obamacare fraud scheme he recently uncovered in Montana. “It’s bad,” Brown says of the scandal. “This is government at its worst. It's human nature at its worst.”Under Obamacare, members of federally recognized Native American tribes can sign up for Marketplace health insurance plans anytime (not just during open enrollment), often with little or no out-of-pocket costs.“This scheme involved targeting at-risk Native Americans who live on reservations in Montana, fraudulently enrolling them on Obamacare, then physically transporting them across state lines, which is, as you know, human trafficking, and then billing our insurance company for rehab treatments that did not take place or were unnecessary or performed at greatly inflated costs,” Brown explains.“And then what would happen is these Native Americans who were targeted then were just dumped out on the streets in Arizona and Southern California.”“Why were they taken across state lines?” Glenn asks.Brown explains that a lack of “proper oversight” in places like Los Angeles and Phoenix enabled fraudsters to exploit the Affordable Care Act’s strong protections for mental health and addiction treatment. Under those federal parity laws, insurers are required to cover rehab the same as regular medical care — even from out-of-state providers — allowing distant rehab facilities to rake in large sums of money from fake or inflated bills.Glenn follows up with the obvious: How much money are we talking here?“Fifty million with an M in fraud committed through this scheme,” says Brown, adding that the good news is this awareness has allowed his office to prevent another “23.3 million” from being stolen.But money is only half the horror.“There's 200 Native Americans that have probably been victimized by this,” says Brown.However because his jurisdiction is limited to the Montana border, and much of this fraud is taking place outside state lines, he is heavily reliant on the feds for prosecutions.“Are they actively pursuing this?” Glenn asks.“The Trump administration has been very helpful on the CMS side, which is the federal agency that administers Obamacare. They've been very active in working with us to make sure these fraudulent payments stop,” says Brown. “Not so much luck so far on the criminal prosecution side, but we are working on that.”To hear more details about the massive fraud schemes uncovered in Montana, watch the full interview above.Want more from Glenn Beck?To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

For decades, California has used its enormous market power to shape national vehicle policy, often pushing regulations far beyond its borders and into the daily lives of Americans who never voted for them. That long-running dynamic has now reached a critical moment.The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is moving to block California’s latest attempt to regulate heavy-duty trucks nationwide — a proposal first announced in 2025 but now entering a decisive phase of federal review. California’s early emissions standards helped accelerate cleaner engines and better fuel systems. But leadership can turn into compulsion.With final EPA action expected in 2026, the outcome will determine whether California can continue using its borders as a regulatory choke point for interstate trucking, or whether federal limits will finally be enforced.Freight frightAt issue is California’s Heavy-Duty Inspection and Maintenance requirement, part of the state’s air-quality plan. The rule would apply not only to trucks registered in California, but to any heavy-duty vehicle operating within the state — including those registered elsewhere in the U.S. or even abroad. In practical terms, a truck hauling goods from Texas, Ohio, or Mexico could be forced to comply with California’s rules simply by crossing its borders.The EPA has proposed disapproving that requirement, citing serious constitutional and statutory concerns.This matters far beyond California. Heavy-duty trucks are the backbone of the American economy, moving food, fuel, medicine, building materials, and consumer goods across state lines every day. Regulations that raise costs or restrict access for those vehicles ripple through supply chains and ultimately show up as higher prices at the checkout counter — including for online purchases. The EPA’s proposed action acknowledges that reality and draws a clear line between environmental policy and unlawful overreach.Out of lineAccording to the agency, California’s proposal appears to violate the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prevents individual states from interfering with interstate trade. The Clean Air Act also requires state implementation plans to comply with federal law, and the EPA argues California’s approach fails that test. By attempting to regulate out-of-state and foreign-registered vehicles, California stepped into territory reserved for the federal government.EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has been blunt in explaining the agency’s position. California, he has argued, was never elected to govern the entire country, yet its regulatory ambitions — often justified in the name of climate policy — have imposed higher costs on Americans nationwide. Allowing one state to dictate trucking standards for the rest of the country undermines both federal law and economic stability.Foreigners tooThere is also a foreign-commerce issue that rarely gets discussed. California’s rule would apply to vehicles registered outside the United States, even though authority over foreign trade and international relations rests exclusively with the federal government. That alone raised red flags and reinforced the EPA’s conclusion that the state exceeded its legal authority.This proposed disapproval is part of a broader federal effort to rein in California’s emissions authority. In 2025, the Department of Justice filed complaints against the California Air Resources Board, arguing that the state was effectively enforcing pre-empted federal standards through informal agreements with manufacturers. Together, these actions reflect growing concern in Washington that California has relied on market leverage rather than lawful authority to achieve national policy outcomes.Waiver goodbyeWaivers are central to this conflict. For years, California received special permission under the Clean Air Act to set its own vehicle emissions standards, with other states allowed to follow its lead. Under the previous administration, the EPA granted waivers for California’s Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, and Heavy-Duty Engine Omnibus NOx rules. Supporters framed them as environmental progress. Critics warned they would raise vehicle prices, limit consumer choice, strain the electric grid, and force changes the market was not ready to absorb — which is exactly what followed.In June 2025, Congress overturned those waivers using the Congressional Review Act. That move sent a clear message: Vehicle standards should be national in scope, not dictated by a single state, regardless of its size or political influence. The EPA’s current review of California’s truck inspection rule builds directly on that message.Supporters of California’s approach often point to the state’s historic role in improving air quality and advancing technology. That is true — up to a point. California’s early emissions standards helped accelerate cleaner engines and better fuel systems. But leadership can turn into compulsion, especially when it ignores regional differences, economic realities, and legal limits.RELATED: Will Trump’s unconventional plan to stop the UN climate elites work? Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesRecalibrationThe heavy-duty truck sector makes this clear. Unlike passenger cars, trucks operate on thin margins and long replacement cycles. Fleet decisions are driven by reliability, infrastructure availability, and total cost of ownership. Mandating technologies before they are ready or widely supported does not accelerate progress; it creates higher costs and unintended consequences — especially when those mandates originate in a single state but affect national commerce.The EPA’s move suggests that era may be nearing its end. By challenging California’s heavy-duty inspection requirement, the agency is asserting that environmental goals do not justify ignoring constitutional structure. Clean air matters — but so do the rule of law, economic practicality, and the free movement of goods across state lines.The proposed disapproval remains open for public comment, after which the EPA is expected to take final action later this year. Whatever the outcome, the signal is unmistakable: Federal regulators are no longer willing to automatically defer to California when state ambition collides with national authority.For truck drivers, fleet operators, manufacturers, and everyday consumers, this moment represents a recalibration. It reaffirms that vehicle regulation should be consistent nationwide — and that environmental policy works best when it respects both economic reality and the legal framework that holds the country together.