The president cut a very good deal with Ukraine the other day. The rare earth minerals deal between the United States and Ukraine is a deal Ukraine should have signed back in February. Well, they finally came around and signed it on Wednesday. According to the New York Post: The agreement, inked on Wednesday after months of negotiations, created a shared investment fund to which both nations will contribute — including through oil, gas and mineral rights licenses sold in Ukraine — with the profits split 50/50. So the United States is not taking money and just throwing it into this fund. We will basically earn credit toward our total contribution equal to the cost of military equipment, technology, or training that we send across the Atlantic. The additional military aid we provide to Ukraine is going to be counted against whatever we would have had to pay into this fund. In some ways, we’re trading military aid for the development of rare earth minerals in Ukraine. Again, we need rare earth minerals because we’re presumably not going to get them from China anymore. Ukraine, on the other hand, requires military aid to stand up against the Russian onslaught. It is a good thing, full stop. President Trump is now showing support for a free and independent Ukraine, and that is an important step. From the NY Post: The agreement does not preclude the US from dispatching remaining military aid approved by Congress under former President Joe Biden — which is expected to run out by next month — nor does it require the US to sell any military aid to Kyiv. It’s not clear how much money is supposed to go into the fund, but the bottom line is that instead of just providing pure military aid, we are now getting something significant in return. The Ukrainians see this as a way of ensuring continued American support. WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show One source familiar with the strategy originally thought maybe they could leverage the president into a better deal for Ukraine. That did not happen. However, the Ukrainian representative said this is a good deal for both sides. The Kremlin also recognizes the significance of the deal, albeit through sarcasm. The deal was mocked by Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev (everybody in the Russian government is a cut-out for Putin), who said the U.S. leader made a deal with a nation that will soon “disappear.” From the NY Post: Trump has finally pressured the Kyiv regime to pay for US aid with mineral resources,” he posted to Telegram. “Now, the country that is about to disappear will have to use its national wealth to pay for military supplies. That does not sound like a Russia that is ready to come to the table again. Though the White House itself, in its explanation of the minerals deal, suggested: This partnership represents the United States taking an economic stake in securing a free, peaceful, and sovereign future for Ukraine. This agreement will also strengthen the strategic partnership between the United States and Ukraine for long-term reconstruction and modernization, in response to the large-scale destruction caused by Russia’s full-scale invasion. The language of this agreement is some of the most pro-Ukrainian language to come from the Trump administration. This is a positive and necessary shift. If you want Russia to come to the table, the United States can’t threaten to walk away from Ukraine. According to the White House Fact Sheet: President Trump envisioned this partnership between the Americans and the Ukrainians to show both sides’ commitment to lasting peace and prosperity in Ukraine. And by the way: No state, company, or person who financed or supplied the Russian war machine will be allowed to benefit from the reconstruction of Ukraine, including participation in projects supported by fund resources. So, good for Ukraine, good for the United States, and good for President Trump.

The culture is slowly returning back to sane – it’s norming, if you will. But despite winning some major conservative victories in recent months, it will take decades, if not centuries, to rid the nation of the worst remnants of unchecked progressive power. Here’s one perfect example: abortion tourism. No, it’s not some deranged itinerary item from your local Satanic travel guide. “Abortion tourism” is the practice of pregnant women traveling to a state with fewer restrictions on abortion, and some major corporations are paying for their employees to cross state lines to procure abortions. It began when many red states began protecting unborn life following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022 and continues to this day.  These companies – including big names like Amazon, Apple, Starbucks, Meta, Walmart, Citigroup, and others – are perfectly content to fund the killing of the unborn children of their employees.  In the wake of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision in June of 2022, dozens of major corporations implemented or expanded employee benefit programs to cover travel expenses for out-of-state abortions.  Some companies offer up to $4,000 per instance. Others have added these benefits to HR portals and employee handbooks. Dick’s Sporting Goods said it will reimburse as much as $4,000 in abortion travel costs “to the nearest location that care is legally available” for workers, their spouses and dependents. These companies are willing to invest thousands to ensure employees can kill their unborn children, regardless of what state they live in. For example, cosmetics company Estee Lauder put out a message saying they are committed to providing employees with “comprehensive benefit programs” to make “health decisions,” including “the coverage of travel and lodging necessary to access reproductive healthcare options.” It may all be cloaked in lingo and jargon, but the overall messaging is crystal clear. They want to help employees kill their unborn children efficiently. Every time you purchase an item from one of these woke corporations, that money is showing a little bit of support for ghoulish endeavors like “abortion tourism.” Sure, Meta has backed off the overt censorship of free speech, and Walmart walked back DEI initiatives. Target turned its monthlong Pride celebration into a shell of its former self. But despite these outward concessions to normal Americans, these companies are still quietly doing the work of the radical Left behind closed doors.  In these confusing times, it’s more important than ever to support companies that share the same values. At Jeremy’s Razors, we’re always focused on offering a quality product that doesn’t compromise on values. No ESG nonsense, no DEI quotas, and certainly no secret funding for abortion. We don’t just say we support life. We live it, promote it, and protect it. And we believe businesses should be in the business of supporting employees and serving customers, not financially aiding the destruction of America’s unborn children. We’re here to ensure you get a great shave—and the peace of mind that your money isn’t underwriting a cause you fundamentally oppose. And right now you can save up to 25% on all Jeremy’s Women’s products.  Supporting life means recognizing the dignity of every human being, born and unborn. It means valuing the family, supporting real healthcare, and building a culture that lifts people up instead of treating life as disposable. If that sounds old-fashioned, good. We embrace it.  Stop spending your hard-earned dollars at companies that fund abortions. Spend your money with Jeremy’s instead. Your face — and your values — deserve better. Jeremy’s Razors shares common ownership with The Daily Wire. 

The second Trump administration has made a point of rolling back regulations that restrict the functionality of home appliances in the name of efficiency during its first 100 days. Energy Secretary Chris Wright laid out what the administration has accomplished on appliance efficiency standards that should result in a better quality of life for consumers during a trip to a Georgia factory that could have been shut down if not for deregulation. At the Rinnai America Corporation’s manufacturing facility in Griffin, Georgia, they make tankless water heaters, one of the appliances for which the Department of Energy has postponed new, more restrictive standards. Tankless water heaters, of course, are beloved appliances in households across the country where residents have decided they don’t like running out of hot water for showers. Wright’s agency postponed water heater rules on March 24. The rules would have punished companies such as Rinnai, according to the Department of Energy. “Rinnai is the only company manufacturing non-condensing tankless water heaters in the United States. A Biden-era rule would have effectively banned these products — putting more than 200 Georgia jobs at risk, undermining U.S. manufacturing, and stripping away a cost-effective, high-efficiency option from American households,” a department press release said. On the same day in March that Wright’s department took action on water heater rules, the Energy Department postponed and rescinded rules on a slate of other household appliances, as well. It lifted rules and deadlines on appliances such as walk-in coolers and freezers, central air conditioners and heat pumps, electric motors, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, and external power supplies. “Today, Americans are paying less at the pump and have more choices for home appliances thanks to President Trump cutting red tape and unleashing the production of affordable, reliable, secure American energy,” Wright said in a statement marking Trump’s 100th day in office. President Donald Trump joked about actions his administration took on showerheads during a rally on Tuesday. “We’ve opened up your faucets,” Trump said. “I don’t like taking a shower where the water goes drip, drip, drip onto my luxuriant hair. I need a lot of water. I need everything I can get. I don’t need to be under a shower trying to get water to come out of that damn thing.” Last month, Trump ordered the repeal of a 13,000-word regulation defining the term “showerhead.” The Energy Department also postponed Biden-era efficiency standards for manufactured housing and began the process to lift efficiency regulations on portable electric spas.

A student at Brown University is facing disciplinary charges for emailing thousands of non-faculty employees in a “Doge-like” email asking, “What do you do all day?” Alex Shieh created a database of 3,805 administrative employees to attempt to understand why the Ivy League has become so expensive after the latest tuition hike brought annual costs for students up to $93,000. Shieh’s email attempted to identify three particular jobs: “DEI jobs, redundant jobs, and bulls*** jobs,” but in the end, Shieh only received several dozen largely profane, belligerent responses from irate bureaucrats in addition to possible repercussions from Brown. “Brown is retaliating against me for exposing that the exorbitant tuition costs are going to a bloated bureaucracy, not educating students,” Shieh told Fox News. “Because Brown can’t outright punish me for calling out their hypocrisy, they are instead accusing me of committing obscure conduct violations that are not applicable to my situation, in order to scare other students from speaking out,” he added. Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) sent a letter to Brown University Friday morning urging the school to “reconsider any disciplinary action” against the Brown sophomore, first reported by Fox News. “Reports indicate that Mr. Shieh engaged in a journalistic act of contacting university administrative employees to inquire about their roles and responsibilities. This action, it appears, stemmed from his perspective as a student paying a substantial tuition fee and experiencing concerns regarding university facilities, leading him to question the allocation of administrative resources,” Nehls wrote. “Penalizing a student for what appears to be an attempt to understand the university’s administrative structure raises serious questions about the institution’s commitment to open inquiry and the tolerance of dissenting viewpoints.” The congressman demanded information on how Brown uses its $7.2 billion endowment, which boasts a 10% annual return, to reduce student costs. Annual expenses to attend Brown for 2025-2026 are estimated at nearly $96,000, including tuition, fees, food, and housing. Nehls previously introduced legislation that would significantly increase excise taxes on larger colleges’ endowment funds from 1.4% to 21%. Brown University spokesman Brian Clark denied free speech was the issue, writing in a statement to Fox News, “At the center of Brown’s review are questions focused on whether improper use of non-public Brown data systems and/or targeting of individual employees violated law or policy.” The controversy emerges as Ivy League schools face scrutiny from the Trump administration over both tuition rates and anti-Semitism concerns. Shieh’s concerns regarding inflated college bureaucracies are reflected in a larger trend amongst universities, as according to Forbes, “Between 1976 and 2018, full-time administrators and other professionals employed by those institutions increased by 164% and 452%, respectively,” and “the number of full-time faculty employed at colleges and universities in the U.S. increased by only 92%, marginally outpacing student enrollment which grew by 78%.” Shieh is planning to bring his campaign to other Ivy Leagues such as The University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University, and Cornell University “to expose wasteful expenditures there” and release “an online tool to demand that schools cease and desist DEI.”

Absolute doozy...

'I got very thin. I started to question my sanity'

In addition to his presidential duties, Donald Trump operates Six Flags Over Pennsylvania Avenue. This taxpayer-funded amusement park promises never a dull moment. Its rides are some of the world’s most thrilling—like nothing anyone has seen before. The senior-staff roller coaster plunged at dizzying speed on Thursday morning, as National Security Adviser Michael Waltz seemed to drop to his doom. How badly would he crash? Could he survive the impact at that velocity and from such commanding heights? But just when Waltz looked cooked, the roller coaster took a sharp turn. In a head-snapping surprise, it shifted north and climbed anew.  “I am pleased to announce that I will be nominating Mike Waltz to be the next United States Ambassador to the United Nations,” Trump declared via Truth Social at 2:16 p.m. ET “From his time in uniform on the battlefield, in Congress and, as my national security adviser, Mike Waltz has worked hard to put our nation’s interests first. I know he will do the same in his new role.” So, Waltz advances to New York City, where he will be America’s voice at the institution that embodies Winston Churchill’s words: “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.” Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio found himself on the Centripetal Force Multiplier. As it rapidly revolved, power moved toward Rubio, not away from him. He now will serve as both secretary of state and national security adviser.  The late, great Henry Kissinger, one of America’s most legendary diplomats, simultaneously held both posts between September 1973 and November 1975. But Henry the K never ran the National Archives. What a slacker! America’s acting archivist is none other than … Rubio! He also currently leads the Agency for International Development. The faster the Centripetal Force Multiplier turns, the more jobs Rubio will hold. If the hapless Jerome Powell quits the Fed, the talented Mr. Rubio could become Federal Reserve chairman. For his part, Powell wanders through a Six Flags section called Limbo Land: Trump does not love Powell enough to grant him a long-term pass. But Trump does not hate him enough to banish him. So, Powell stumbles around looking for signs of growth to stomp on in a deeply misguided effort to fight inflation by hobbling economic expansion. This question immediately occurs: How might Waltz perform as U.N. ambassador? His quietly secured achievements at the NSA offer clues: The National Security Council captured and extradited Mohammad Sharifullah, the accused mastermind of the August 2021 suicide bombing at Kabul International Airport, the nadir of then-President Joe Biden’s shambolic Afghanistan retreat. This ISIS-K onslaught killed 13 U.S. troops and wounded 18 other Americans in uniform. This attack killed at least 170 Afghans and injured 132 others. The NSC helped free 47 Americans held hostage or unfairly detained overseas. Waltz wallpapered his West Wing office with bad guys’ scalps. The NSC counted 78 terrorists killed via Trump 47’s counterterrorism efforts in Iraq, Somalia, and Syria.  The NSC helped liquidate 82 Houthi officers and 120 fighters via airstrikes on 800 targets in Yemen. Such U.S. firepower will Make the Red Sea Great Again. NSC pressure persuaded Mexico to dispatch 10,000 soldiers to its side of the frontier. This reform helped shrivel illegal-alien border crossings by 95% and known gotaways by 99% under Trump 47. Turning terrorists into burger typically exceeds a U.N. ambassador’s job description. However, these triumphs confirm that Waltz is a hard-liner who delivers. “Mike Waltz was, in my view, an excellent national security adviser,” says Robert O’Brien, Trump 45’s NSC chief from 2019-21, and the last Republican to lead that institution. “Mike explained the president’s policies in a reasonable and confident manner. He played an important but underestimated role coordinating the president’s bevy of high-profile special envoys, including Steve Witkoff, Richard Grenell, and Adam Boehler,” O’Brien continued, citing Trump’s ambassadors tapped, respectively, to pursue Middle East peace, perform special missions, and liberate American hostages and detainees. “Often forgotten, Mike is a former Army Special Forces colonel, with multiple combat tours in the sandbox. So, our adversaries will know that President Trump is represented by a warrior,” he said. “Mike Waltz is an American hero who has served our country with honor, from the battlefield to Congress and now as our next ambassador to the United Nations,” says Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., the man who replaced Waltz in the House. “I’m confident he will bring the same strength, clarity, and conviction to the world stage that he has always shown at home. I trust the judgment of President Trump and his team, and I look forward to working with our next national security adviser.” “One thing is certain: The fight against the war on Israel and the Jewish people is far from over,” Fine continued, addressing matters that Waltz surely will address. “America remains ready to confront Muslim terrorists and rescue innocent lives in Gaza from the barbarism we’ve seen unfold that all too many politicians choose to ignore.” Onetime U.N. Ambassador Daniel Patrick Moynihan called the world body “A Dangerous Place.” As the source of abundant global mischief, the U.N. deserves a hard-boiled American emissary to resist the thieves and thugs who befoul the General Assembly. Tough and effective, Waltz is poised to represent America admirably. And as crazy as things might get at the U.N.’s Manhattan headquarters, he likely will find it calm and soothing compared to Six Flags over Pennsylvania Avenue. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. ? The post Six Flags Over Pennsylvania Avenue’s Latest Surprise: UN Ambassador Michael Waltz appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Goldman Sachs in Trump II Era: Back in Black, or Back In the Black?

Despite repeatedly calling Fox News “state TV” during President Trump’s first term (when he still had his show, so-called Reliable Sources), CNN’s Brian Stelter decried Trump’s executive order defunding the actual state-media outlets of PBS and NPR. In his appearance on Friday’s Inside Politics, Stelter argued that Trump didn’t have the authority to strip funding but he ignored the literal tower of evidence to show public broadcasting was not following their mandate to be neutral. “Today, America's two biggest public broadcasters are facing a possible halt in federal funding after an overnight executive order by President Donald Trump,” fretted host Dana Bash near the end of the show. “But there is a sticking point: the corporation is a private entity that is supposed to be protected from government interference. That would include executive orders.” Waving around a stack of papers, Stelter touted his “prop.” “I went ahead and read the entire law for you. The 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. There is nothing in this law that gives any president the ability to strip away the funding for PBS and NPR,” he proclaimed. “Congress was really specific back 50 plus years ago. They wanted to create an entity that was free of government control. They wanted to make sure no president could ever pressure PBS or NPR,” he declared. “So, this is going to be a legal fight, like so many others that we've seen. And I suspect President Trump probably wants it that way.” Of course, Stelter ignored the evidence the White House provided that proved public broadcasting was not living up to the law’s mandate to be unbiased. The White House cited three NewsBusters studies (among other evidence) to prove that point: In 2023, a study found that congressional Republicans saw 85% negative coverage while congressional Democrats saw 54% positive coverage on PBS’s flagship news program. According to a 2024 study, PBS news staff used 162 variations of the term “far-right,” but only six variations of “far-left.” (…) A 2024 Media Research Center study found that PBS’s coverage of the Republican National Convention was 72% negative, while coverage of the Democratic National Convention was 88% positive.     Instead, Stelter touted the defiance from the tax-payer funded left-wing news outlets and threats of legal action: You know, look at the statement that we've received this morning from the head of PBS, Paula Kerger. She says this is a “blatantly unlawful” move overnight by President Trump. She says this is going to hurt people around the country because it “threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programing.” The line at the end is key: “We are currently exploring all options to allow PBS to continue.” NPR is saying the exact same thing. “But I don't think we should overlook the fact that there is no legal authority for the president on this particular case,” he continued to suggest as he whined about Trump still winning: He tried to fire three board members this week. There's no authority for that. He's done the same thing with congressional allocations of funds for U.S. funded international broadcasters. There's all these court fights going on, and the international broadcasters keep winning, but they've already been laid off. The staffers have already been laid off. Radio Free Europe today shutting down half of its stations. So even though Trump loses in court, he wins no matter what. Stelter had previously claimed Trump wanted to defund NPR and PBS for “simply covering the news,” and described the desire to defund them as part of Trump’s “autocratic playbook.” The Media Research Center has a literal tower of examples of NPR’s and PBS’s liberal bias dating back 15 years.   .@realDonaldTrump is right. Here is 15 years of @theMRC research proving extreme bias at NPR and PBS (in violation of the law). @DefundPBSNPR https://t.co/XU71Dd6UhS pic.twitter.com/GRiX4ZwMde — Dan Schneider (@Schneider_DC) May 2, 2025   The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Inside Politics May 2, 2025 12:50:51 p.m. Eastern DANA BASH: Today, America's two biggest public broadcasters are facing a possible halt in federal funding after an overnight executive order by President Donald Trump. It said that PBS and NPR will no longer receive direct funding to the, quote, “maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding” from the Corporation of Public Broadcasting. But there is a sticking point: the corporation is a private entity that is supposed to be protected from government interference. That would include executive orders. CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter joins me now. Brian, what do we make of this? BRIAN STELTER: I brought props with you today, Dana. BASH: I love a prop. STELTER: I went ahead and read the entire law for you. The 1967 Public Broadcasting Act. There is nothing in this law that gives any president the ability to strip away the funding for PBS and NPR. Congress was really specific back 50 plus years ago. They wanted to create an entity that was free of government control. They wanted to make sure no president could ever pressure PBS or NPR. So, this is going to be a legal fight, like so many others that we've seen. And I suspect President Trump probably wants it that way. BASH: He definitely does. STELTER: You know, look at the statement that we've received this morning from the head of PBS, Paula Kerger. She says this is a “blatantly unlawful” move overnight by President Trump. She says this is going to hurt people around the country because it “threatens our ability to serve the American public with educational programing.” The line at the end is key: “We are currently exploring all options to allow PBS to continue.” NPR is saying the exact same thing. Now, we know that President Trump was already planning on sending a rescission package to Congress, trying to claw back the next two years of funding for PBS and NPR. That's already in the works. It seems to me he wants to have a fight very publicly with these networks, and he may well get one. BASH: Yeah, no, that's a 100% what this is. STELTER: But I don't think we should overlook the fact that there is no legal authority for the president on this particular case. BASH: Yeah. STELTER: He tried to fire three board members this week. There's no authority for that. He's done the same thing with congressional allocations of funds for U.S. funded international broadcasters. There's all these court fights going on, and the international broadcasters keep winning, but they've already been laid off. The staffers have already been laid off. Radio Free Europe today shutting down half of its stations. So even though Trump loses in court, he wins no matter what. (…)

Meta is on the hot seat after Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) drew attention to a video that he wrote “describes in detail the ruthless and elaborate defamation campaign waged by Meta AI." Lee responded in a Thursday X post to political commentator and podcast host Robby Starbuck’s X post announcing “a major multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against @Meta, the owner of @Facebook & @Instagram.” Lee denounced Meta and wrote that he looks “forward to hearing Meta’s side of this—but from what I’m seeing, it doesn’t look good for Meta.” On Tuesday, Starbuck wrote that Meta’s AI chatbot had been “falsely claiming that I was charged with a crime from January 6th,” which he said was found out in August 2024. In response, Lee connected Meta AI’s claims about Starbuck to years of censorship of conservatives. The Utah Senator made clear that Meta’s history left little room for any benefit of the doubt and called for a “thorough investigation.”  [Story Continues on MRC Free Speech America]