Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, head of the National Institutes of Health, will reportedly be the next interim head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The former acting head of the agency, Jim O’Neill, was dismissed from the post last week as part of a larger restructuring of the Department of Health and Human Services under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. O’Neill will instead be tapped to head the National Science Foundation, according to Politico. Bhattacharya’s ascension to the top of the CDC would mean the agency would fall under control of one of its longtime critics. Bhattacharya, a professor emeritus of health policy at Stanford, became widely recognized for his criticisms of the CDC during the COVID-19 pandemic. After the start of the pandemic, Bhattacharya and several associates openly broke with the approach of the top government health officials, including those at the CDC and former White House medical adviser Anthony Fauci. In October 2020, Bhattacharya joined with former Oxford University epidemiologist Dr. Sunetra Gupta and then-Harvard University professor Dr. Martin Kulldorff to write “The Great Barrington Declaration.” The declaration broke openly with the much more conservative approach to the pandemic government medical experts espoused. The outside experts warned of “damaging physical and mental health impacts” brought on by following lockdown policies, instead urging an approach based on targeted protection for the vulnerable while healthy populations mingle and develop herd immunity. Bhattacharya’s 2020 warnings have proved prescient in the intervening years. The lockdown policies of the pandemic have been thought to have caused numerous add-on effects, such as spikes in social isolation and alcohol consumption.  Lockdown policies in schools retarded the growth and education of millions of students. Students in huge chunks of the country fell many months behind typical instruction and the efforts to catch them back up proved lacking, according to a 2023 report from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. The loss in learning continued despite a surge in spending on education. CDC leadership has undergone a tumultuous time under the second Trump administration. The agency had a Senate-confirmed head last year, but Susan Monarez was removed from the role after less than a month on the job. O’Neill replaced Monarez, and he generated some controversy among health experts last month with the CDC rolled back its recommendations for a slate of vaccines.

The following is an edited transcript excerpt from The Michael Knowles Show. * * * The Democrats have admitted what their strategy is for the midterm elections and Republicans need to pay attention because it’s a pretty scary one. Abigail Spanberger, Virginia’s new governor, is the personification of the Democrats’ strategy for the 2026 midterm elections and for the 2028 presidential election. Spanberger ran as a “moderate” for governor of Virginia. Now, five seconds later, she’s coming out decrying President Trump’s immigration policy as “horrifying,” saying: In what we’ve seen recently, the really, I think, horrifying thing is that now, under the new administration or the Trump administration, where every cross into the United States is considered a criminal act.   View this post on Instagram   A post shared by Michael Markuson (@mmmarkuson) Credit: @mmmarkuson/X.com That is an amazing statement from a governor — of any party. That’s not a specific policy of the Trump administration. That is a matter of federal law passed by Congress. It has been federal law for many decades now. It’s there in the meaning of the word illegal. When an illegal alien does the thing that distinguishes him as an illegal alien, that is, in fact, illegal — not just because President Trump says so, but because federal law says so. So, when she says she is horrified by President Trump actually applying the law, she’s admitting she’s horrified by the law. How did Spanberger get elected? She ran as a moderate. So, are the Democrats going to moderate their policies, or are they just going to lie to get through the elections? Here’s what Andy Beshear, governor of Kentucky, has to say: Media’s current ‘moderate’ darling Andy Beshear points to Spanberger’s campaign as evidence that Democrats can win running to the center. What Andy fails to mention is that since she was elected, Spanberger has been full throttle on every far-left agenda item imaginable. https://t.co/J3k6xKC0pB pic.twitter.com/tBg7LRdqtm — Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) February 15, 2026 Credit: @WesternLensman/X.com Jake Tapper: How do you respond to a Democratic voter who might say, “I like you. I like your track record in a red state or red commonwealth, but you’re too soft-spoken?” Gov. Beshear: “Well, first, yes, that message is working. Look at Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, who ran great campaigns in races that should have been structurally difficult, and they both won by double digits. They are the DGA, and our candidates are winning everywhere. For me, I believe that the American people want stability, that Donald Trump is exhausting. Many Americans feel like the pendulum swung too far during the Biden administration and has swung way too far during the Trump administration, and what they want is an America where they can wake up every morning and not be worried about its future.” America wants stability. In other words, moderation.  The pendulum swung not only too far under the Trump administration, but he says probably the pendulum swung a little too far under the Biden administration.  The Left went a little too far Left. In other words, we need moderation. Moderation, moderation, moderation. WATCH: The Michael Knowles Show on DailyWire+ Who do we look to? We look at Abigail Spanberger in Virginia. And what did Spanberger do? She ran as a moderate and then, we don’t need to speculate on what she will do — we now know what she did the minute she got into office — she pulled ICE cooperation from her state. The minute she gets into office, she says Virginia will no longer cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The minute she gets into office, she says we’re going to reduce the mandatory minimums for certain heinous, violent crimes. The minute she gets into office, she backs a constitutional right to late-term abortion — not first-trimester abortion, which is evil in itself, but third-trimester abortion. She then doubles down on the radical LGBT agenda and supports voting rights for felons. Abigail Spanberger, in office, is as Left as any left-wing politician in the country. The only thing that distinguishes her, the only reason Andy Beshear pointed to her, is because she lied and ran as a moderate. And that’s what they’re going to do in the midterms. So it’s up to us — Conservatives, normal people, centrists, Republicans — to expose that lie and really push them. For example, when they say, “Actually, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton deported more people than Donald Trump,” we say, “Oh, so you’re saying deportations are good? You want to deport more people?” They will quickly backtrack and say, “Well, I … I … I never meant …” The contrivance that the Democrats are trying to put forward is that we’re all just kind of moderate. The goal is to sound like Andy Beshear and Abigail Spanberger on the campaign trail. The chief strategy for Democrats heading into ’26 and then into ’28 is to hide all of it by running as moderates.

Mark Zuckerberg made his courtroom debut in a landmark social media addiction trial, positioning Meta’s defense around value, not vice.  “You should try and create something useful … and if you do, people will naturally want to use it.” He added, “To me, the north star is ensuring we’re delivering value and people are having a positive experience. If that happens, people will spend more time with social media.”  Zuckerberg appeared before the Los Angeles Superior Court to face claims that his platforms are engineered to foster addiction. He compared time spent on social media to other forms of entertainment, like watching TV. “TV hasn’t got better over time but social media has quite a bit.” The plaintiff argued that it was not because social media had “got better over time,” but that its addictiveness is what drives users to the platform. When challenged by the plaintiff’s attorney on whether a reasonable company would take advantage of those who use its services, Zuckerberg responded that he thought a reasonable company should try to help its people use its services. He elaborated on that point, saying the company has “evolved over time to add a lot more controls” which led to account removals when the company found users who were under thirteen.  Zuckerberg bolstered his argument by noting that less than 1% of Instagram’s revenue comes from teenagers, emphasizing the demographic has limited purchasing power and is therefore less attractive to advertisers.  He argued that, from a business perspective, attracting teenagers is not “meaningful in the short term.” Zuckerberg’s Meta is just one of the defendants in the case. Google and Meta are just the remaining defendants after TikTok and Snapchat settled prior to the trial. Snapchat told the Daily Wire that it was “pleased” to have settled the case in “an amicable manner.” Youtube, owned by Google, argues that its platform operates differently from Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat so should not be included in the same litigation. YouTube told the Daily Wire that the allegations it faces are “simply not true.”  The case before the California Supreme Court originated when a 19-year-old woman, referred to as K.G.M. in the trial, argued that social media platforms have knowingly designed their platforms to get younger users addicted. The defense argues that Meta makes its platforms addictive to “maximize young users’ time on their platforms to drive revenue.”  A report released by Common Sense Media found that teenagers spent an average of nine hours on entertainment media per day, while children aged 8-12 spend an average of six hours a day, not including time spent using media for school.  In the coming weeks, Meta’s defense could have an influence on future social-media platform regulation depending on the outcome of the trial.  The courtroom did not allow cameras, and even outlined a ban on glasses that could capture scenes from instead the courtroom. When returning from recess, the Judge Carolyn Kuhl said if anyone has used AI glasses with facial recognition to record jurors “you must delete it or you will be held in contempt of court.”

After a thrilling quarterfinal round, the U.S. men’s hockey team is now only two games away from clinching Olympic gold, something they have only done twice — and not since 1980. The team secured the win over Sweden in an overtime nail-biter, eventually defeating them by a slim 2-1 when two-time all-star Quinn Hughes came through with the winning shot. Despite a point-less first period, it seemed like the Americans were set for victory when Dylan Larkin scored in the second period with the help of Hughes and his brother Jack — coupled with unstoppable goaltending by Connor Hellebuyck. But confidence was crushed when Sweden’s Mika Zibanejad came through with a golden shot past Hellebuyck, tying the game 1-1 with just 91 seconds left on the clock. Next up came the 3-on-3 “sudden death” round, where only ten minutes are given to score before moving to a shoot-out. Three and a half minutes into overtime, Hughes took a pass from his teammate Matt Boldy, delivered the game-winner, and became Team USA’s hero. It was his second point of the game, and sixth in the tournament. Quinn Hughes sends the USA Men’s Olympic Hockey Team to the semi-finals against Slovakia with this OT winner!!! #USAHockey pic.twitter.com/KkvvAYFejQ — Grand Canyon State Sports (@GCStateSports) February 18, 2026 The U.S.-Sweden match was just one of three that went into overtime competition today: Canada, who barely overtook the Czech Republic, and Finland, who also almost lost to Switzerland. The team will compete against Slovakia, coming off a 6-2 win over Germany, in the semifinals on Friday afternoon. Canada will play the reigning Olympic gold champions, Finland. If the United States and Canada can both deliver in the semifinals, what a competitive rival match it will be on Sunday. The U.S. women’s hockey team, who last won gold in the 2018 Winter Games, has had sweeping wins over its competition throughout the entire Olympic tournament and is set to take on Canada for another gold on Thursday.

The big media controversy of the day comes courtesy of Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico and late-night television host Stephen Colbert. Talarico insisted that CBS spiked his interview with Stephen Colbert, claiming, “This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see. His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas.” This is the interview Donald Trump didn’t want you to see. His FCC refused to air my interview with Stephen Colbert. Trump is worried we’re about to flip Texas. pic.twitter.com/BCev5jZbKc — James Talarico (@jamestalarico) February 17, 2026 Credit: @jamestalarico/X.com Talarico is the probable Senate nominee for the Democrats in Texas and has been highly touted by a wide variety of people across the political spectrum, including Joe Rogan, on whose show he appeared. But the reason CBS spiked the interview is because they’re afraid of the so-called Equal Time Rule. The FCC says that in a Senate primary, if you provide time to one candidate, you also have to provide equal time to the other candidates. CBS then said they didn’t want to provide equal time to Talarico’s rivals, including Democrat Rep. Jasmine Crockett or some other fringe candidate. Colbert then went on the air and ripped into CBS. At this point, Colbert is hoping that he is fired so he can be treated as a victim — a victim of the Trump administration and their evil acolytes like Larry and David Ellison. Since that is his goal, he is actively attempting to militate for his own dismissal. That is what he is doing right now. So, after the interview, he went on the air and said: You might have heard of this thing called the Equal Time rule. Okay. It’s an old FCC rule that applies only to radio on broadcast television, not cable or streaming, that says if a show has a candidate on during an election, they have to have all that candidate’s opponents on as well. It’s the FCC’s most time honored rule right after no nipples at the Super Bowl. There’s long been an exception for this rule, an exception for news interviews and talk show interviews with politicians. Now that’s crucial. How else were voters supposed to know back in 92 that Bill Clinton sucked at saxophone? But on January 21 of this year, a letter was released by FCC chairman and smug bowling pin Brendan Carr. In this letter, Carr said he was thinking about dropping the exception for talk shows because he said some of them were motivated by partisan purposes. Well, sir, you’re chairman of the FCC, so FCC you.  Brendan Carr is correct. Colbert is obviously motivated by partisan purposes. When was the last time he had a major Republican guest? Can you name one? When has he invited a major Republican guest on his show and treated that person with the same sort of kid gloves with which he treats Democrats? Every episode of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is basically an ad for one Democrat or another. It is MS NOW with some bad jokes. CBS responded: THE LATE SHOW was not prohibited by CBS from broadcasting the interview with Rep. James Talarico. The show was provided legal guidance that the broadcast could trigger the FCC equal-time rule for two other candidates, including Rep. Jasmine Crockett, and presented options for how the equal time for other candidates could be fulfilled. THE LATE SHOW decided to present the interview through its YouTube channel with on-air promotion on the broadcast rather than potentially providing the equal-time options. First, Colbert and his team tried to retell the lie that the FCC had overtly banned CBS from airing the interview with Talarico. That was not true.  Then, he tried to retell the lie that CBS banned the interview because they were afraid of Talarico. And if Colbert hosted Talarico, then presumably he would also have to host a Republican candidate in the Texas Senate race, like Sen. John Cornyn or Attorney General Ken Paxton. That is not what the equal time rule says. In the middle of the primary season, Colbert would have had to host another Democrat, Representative Jasmine Crockett. And the producers of “The Late Show” decided not to promote the interview on the air because then they would have to do the same for other Democrats. For what it’s worth, Talarico is basically a straight Pete Buttigieg. That is his entire schtick, down to the Pastor Pete routine. If you can remember back that far, one of the most irritating facets of the “Pete Buttigieg for President” campaign — and what irritated me most — is when he would suddenly turn into the world’s worst Sunday School teacher and cite the Bible to say completely non-Biblical things. He would try to explain that the Bible has nothing to say about issues ranging from same-sex marriage to abortion, and that it’s just a social justice document drafted by the Democratic National Committee. Now, Talarico is doing the same exact thing. He’s claiming that you’re a bad Christian if you believe that same-sex marriage is non-Biblical. For the record, same-sex marriage is non-Biblical. There are many books of the Bible that reference this, not least of which is Leviticus. Trying to do the Pastor Pete routine, Talarico declared: Jesus gave us two commandments: Love God and love neighbor. And there was no exception to that second commandment. Love thy neighbor, regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation or immigration status or religious affiliation. And it’s why I have fought so hard for the separation of church and state in the state capital in Texas. When Democrats try to reframe their own religiosity on the basis of “Jesus was a post- religious figure who was in favor of secular humanism” — I may not be a New Testament expert, but it seems to me that Jesus was, in his human form, a Jew growing up under Biblical law, and that Jesus as the creator of Christianity, proceeded to suggest that people ought to follow the precepts of Christianity rather exclusively. I think that’s a non-controversial take on the Bible. It’s amazing how far Democrats have moved in my lifetime. Democrats used to do this routine where they would say, Sure, the Bible says that abortion is bad, Christianity says abortion is bad. There is a long-standing, several thousand years old doctrine that abortion is not approved, that same-sex marriage is not approved, and that homosexual activity is a sin. These are long-standing religious traditions, but we have separation of church and state. In terms of public policy, I don’t believe in making public policy on the basis of Biblical law, because this is not a theocracy. That used to be the Democratic stance, which I think is weak when it comes to trying to make peace with Christians, but at least it is arguable. The new Democratic standards are that the Bible is somehow a document that greenlights same-sex marriage and encourages abortion, and if you truly were a Christian, you would be in favor of all these things. Talarico says, “Love thy neighbor means love thy neighbor, regardless of immigration status or sexual orientation.” The Bible says you are supposed to love thy neighbor as thyself, but you are not supposed to love his sin. You’re not supposed to place a stumbling block in front of the blind. There’s the Biblical injunction, which is commonly presumed to mean that you are not supposed to allow your neighbor to go without redress. If he’s sinning, you’re supposed to warn him. So, back to CBS: What’s happening at CBS right now is an attempt to scuttle the ownership change at CBS and also target Bari Weiss at CBS News. It’s all about virtue signaling for the Democrats. It has nothing to do with reality. Democratic lawmakers, for their part, are suggesting they’re now going to investigate CBS. Representative Darren Soto of Florida wrote, “FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s reign on unlawful censorship continues. This time he’s blocking Democratic candidates. @EnergyCommerce Dems will be investigating this outrage. A reckoning is coming.” FCC Chair Brendan Carr’s reign on unlawful censorship continues. This time he’s blocking Democratic candidates.@EnergyCommerce Dems will be investigating this outrage. A reckoning is coming… https://t.co/56MmbYdfIR — Rep. Darren Soto (@RepDarrenSoto) February 17, 2026 Credit: @RepDarrenSoto/X.com All of this shows you what Democrats are going to do with Congress if they happen to win in 2026, which is to shut everything down.