March 13, 2026 Insider Report

Trump Goes to Massie’s District: Ground Zero in the MAGA Civil War

Last November President Donald Trump claimed that “polls have [Thomas Massie] at less than an 8% chance of winning the Election.” The seven-term Republican congressman from Kentucky surely has more support than that. And Trump presumably knows this. Otherwise, why would the president of the United States take the time to go to Massie’s congressional district Wednesday to rail against a member of his own political party during an election year in which, according to many pundits, the Republican Party is in danger of losing its thin majority in the U.S. House of Representatives?

But on Wednesday, Trump went to Hebron, Kentucky, where he attacked Massie on his home turf and endorsed his opponent, Ed Gallrein, whom he had earlier handpicked to run against Massie in the May 19 Republican primary.

In his speech, Trump said that “Massie is a complete and total disaster as a congressman and frankly as a human being.” He added, “We’ve got to get rid of this loser. This guy is bad. He’s disloyal to the Republican Party. He’s disloyal to the people of Kentucky. And most importantly he is disloyal to the United States of America.” On the other hand, Trump described Gallrein as such a great candidate that he came right out of “central casting.” Trump then introduced Gallrein, who said, “You deserve an authentic true Republican conservative that stands shoulder to shoulder with our president and the Republican Party and against the Democrats that are trying to destroy our nation.”

Thus, the battle lines were clearly drawn for the people of the 4th Congressional District of Kentucky: Do you want a representative (Gallrein) who’d stand by the president and the Republican Party? Or, do you want one (Massie) who is “disloyal” — not just to the president or the GOP, but (according to Trump) to the United States of America?

But is the president right to impugn Massie’s patriotism for sometimes taking positions contrary to Trump’s? A former U.S. president, Theodore Roosevelt, famously had something to say about this:

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him in so far as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth — whether about the President or about anyone else — save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.

Of course, if the Congress is supposed to vote for whatever the president wants, then what is the point of having a Congress? In our system of government, the Congress is not the president’s rubber stamp; and every member of Congress takes an oath to abide by the Constitution, not the president — who also takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. So the question that really should be asked regarding Massie’s loyalty as a public official is: How loyal is he to the Constitution? The New American publishes the Freedom Index, which rates how every member of Congress votes based on the U.S. Constitution. In our index, the average Republican score is 68 percent, while Massie’s score is an outstanding 99 percent.

But how about the president’s loyalty to the Constitution? Trump recently took the United States into a war against Iran without getting congressional approval, in contravention of the constitutional provision that delegates solely to Congress the power to declare war. Massie introduced a resolution against this unconstitutional executive action on the part of the president. The resolution was rejected on March 5 by a vote of 212 to 219, and Massie was one of only two Republican representatives who voted “yea.” In this instance, Massie was loyal to the Constitution, not the president. Of course, this example is by no means intended to suggest that Trump is always disloyal to the Constitution — nor that Massie is always disloyal to Trump. But in cases where one is abiding by the Constitution and the other is not, it is the one who shows fidelity to the Constitution who is loyal to the country.

There is a civil war within MAGA between whether to stand by the president in all circumstances, or to break with the president when the president clearly breaks with the Constitution. The May 19 primary in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District is now ground zero in that war. That’s why Trump went there. By getting Massie defeated, he wants to send a message to all Republican lawmakers that they had better be loyal to him — or else. On the other hand, if the voters re-elect Massie, they will be sending a very different message, and that message could embolden more Republicans to vote against Trump in those cases where they believe Trump is wrong. — Gary Benoit

Steve Toth Upsets Incumbent Dan Crenshaw in Texas GOP Primary, Signaling MAGA Shift

In a major political upset on March 4, Texas state Representative Steve Toth defeated four-term U.S. Rep. Dan Crenshaw in the Republican primary for Texas’ 2nd Congressional District. With more than 95 percent of votes counted, Toth captured 55.8 percent to Crenshaw’s 40.7 percent, a double-digit margin that stunned observers and marked the first time a sitting House Republican incumbent lost renomination in the 2026 midterm cycle.

Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who lost an eye in Afghanistan and rose quickly as a prominent conservative voice in Congress, represented the safely Republican Houston-area district since 2018. Toth, an ordained pastor, pool-cleaning business owner, and one of the most conservative members of the Texas House, framed the race as a test of loyalty to President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. Crenshaw was the only Texas GOP House member seeking reelection without Trump’s endorsement — a rare omission that Toth and his allies repeatedly highlighted. Toth attacked Crenshaw’s foreign-policy positions and immigration record as insufficiently aligned with hard-right priorities, while securing a late endorsement from U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

The district, redrawn after the 2020 census to include more conservative territory in Montgomery and Harris counties, proved fertile ground for the challenge. Early returns showed Toth building a commanding lead, prompting him to declare victory hours before major outlets called the race. Analysts describe the outcome as an early warning sign for Republican incumbents. It underscores the growing influence of Trump-aligned challengers in deep-red districts and the pressure on lawmakers perceived as insufficiently committed to America-First principles. Toth, who will face only token Democratic opposition in November, is expected to cruise to victory in the heavily Republican district. His win joins other high-profile Texas primaries on the same day, including contests involving Senator John Cornyn and Attorney General Ken Paxton, further illustrating the party’s ideological realignment.

Crenshaw’s ouster has drawn reactions ranging from celebration among MAGA activists to concern from neocons who saw him as a valuable ally. As the 2026 midterms unfold, the race is already being viewed as a template for future primary challenges against incumbents who adhere to the open-borders internationalism of the last 40 years.

Several prominent neoconservative or establishment-leaning Republicans, often criticized by the MAGA wing for City-of-London-style globalism, war-mongering, or willingness to compromise with Democrats, have been ousted in recent primaries, signaling the GOP’s ongoing pivot toward America First. In 2022, Wyoming’s Liz Cheney — a vocal defender of the Iraq War legacy and critic of Trump’s 2020 election claims — lost her House seat to Harriet Hageman by a landslide 66- to 29-percent margin, effectively ending her congressional career. In the same cycle, Michigan’s Peter Meijer, who voted to impeach Trump and supported Ukraine aid, was defeated by John Gibbs; Washington’s Jaime Herrera Beutler, another impeachment voter with moderate tendencies, fell to Joe Kent; and South Carolina’s Tom Rice met a similar fate against Russell Fry. In 2024, while fewer direct oustings occurred, Wisconsin’s Mike Gallagher — a foreign-policy hawk who chaired the House Select Committee on China — opted for early retirement amid internal party pressure, avoiding a likely primary challenge. Most recently, in the March 3 Texas primaries, Dan Crenshaw himself became the first major incumbent casualty of the cycle, but Texas’ Tony Gonzales — a moderate who backed bipartisan gun laws and faced far-right attacks for being a “RINO” — was forced into a May runoff against online pro-gun influencer Brandon Herrera after failing to secure 50 percent of the vote, putting his seat at risk. Additionally, Senate Minority Leader John Cornyn, often labeled a neocon for his pro-Ukraine and establishment positions, advanced to a runoff against Texas AG Ken Paxton, highlighting continued vulnerability for such figures even if not yet fully ousted. — Rebecca Terrell

Replacing Newsom: California’s “Jungle Primary”

Billionaire Democratic enviro-activist Tom Steyer is far and away the biggest spender in the fevered race to replace failed California Governor Gavin Newsom. With an $80 million self-funded campaign (that reportedly has already spent $26 million on ads), Steyer ludicrously claims he will “take California back for working Californians.” Take it back from whom? From the far-left Democrats he has funded with millions of dollars? The same far-left Democrats who have made the Golden State unaffordable and increasingly unlivable? He has funded far-left Democrats such as Gavin Newsom, Jerry Brown, Betty Yee, Karen Bass, Barbara Lee, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Berman, Dianne Feinstein, Rahm Emanuel, and Katie Porter, to name a few. He, of course, is one of the major Soros clones who has funded California’s extremist “climate change” agenda that has given the state the highest U.S. gasoline and energy prices and the worst power grid.

But Steyer’s millions and his name recognition may not provide the magic he needs to win the statehouse. Recall that he spent $350 million of his own funds for his 2020 presidential run without winning a single state primary or a single pledged delegate. (Sidenote: Steyer’s failed bid is second only to that of Michael Bloomberg’s nearly $1 billion self-funded 2020 bid. Steyer and Bloomberg are “green” buddies and teamed up with fellow Goldman Sachs billionaire Henry Paulson in 2014 to issue the Risky Business report that claimed we were facing an imminent climate Armageddon if we did not adopt their eco-socialist agenda.) His gubernatorial expenditures notwithstanding, Steyer is currently running third in a crowded Democratic field with former Representative Katie Porter (Freedom Index score eight percent) and Representative Eric Swalwell (Freedom Index score 13 percent) leading and former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Betty Yee, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, and San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan rounding out the pack.

On the Republican side, former Fox News commentator Steve Hilton and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco have been running neck and neck in various polls. There is a possibility that the June primary could result in both Hilton and Bianco being the two candidate choices in the November general election, locking out all the Democrats. How could this happen? Well, the California primary is an open, non-partisan primary. The top two vote getters, regardless of their party affiliation, advance to the general. With the Democratic vote split several ways, analysts believe Hilton and Bianco both could make it onto the November Ballot. (See for instance the Los Angeles Times and Politico.)

The Democratic Party leadership is panicking over the prospect, the California Globe reported on March 3. The Globe noted that California Democratic Party Chair Rusty Hicks had issued an open letter to gubernatorial candidates to be prepared to bow out of the race if they do not have “a viable path to make it to the General Election.” — William F. Jasper

Has Newsom Teamed Up With Xi & CCP to Destroy California?

It’s Energy Crunch Reality Check time for California, and Democrats are running scared. “Pressure is mounting on California regulators to reconsider proposed rules affecting oil refineries as industry leaders and some Democratic legislators warn the changes could threaten fuel supply and raise energy costs,” ABC News Sacramento reported on March 10. The state’s draconian “cap-and-invest” regulations have driven up gasoline and energy costs and driven refineries out of the state. Phillips 66 closed its Los Angeles refinery late last year, and Valero will be shuttering its Benicia refinery in April. The two closures will reduce California’s already-squeezed fuel supplies by nearly 20 percent.

According to AAA, the national average for gasoline across the country was $3.53 a gallon on March 10. In California, the statewide average was $5.29 a gallon, the highest in the country. Those prices will soon be shooting up even more as the refinery capacity reduction kicks in.

But that’s not all; more refineries may soon exit the state. Marathon, Chevron, and PBF Energy have warned Governor Newsom that they also may be forced to flee the state. As Katy Grimes of the California Globe notes, “Gov. Newsom is presiding over perhaps the largest collapse of the oil industry, refinery operations and gasoline production in U.S. history.” Fuel shortages, grid collapse, economic collapse anyone?

The current crisis can be traced to decades of enviro-extremist legislation, but the final death blows can be attributed to Newsom and his comrades in the state legislature. In a September 16, 2022 press release, Newsom boasted of signing more than 40 bills that enacted his climate hysteria agenda into law. “Governor Newsom Signs Sweeping Climate Measures, Ushering in New Era of World-Leading Climate Action,” the release stated. “New California laws will create 4 million jobs, reduce the state’s oil use by 91%, cut air pollution by 60%, protect communities from oil drilling, and accelerate the state’s transition to clean energy,” it boasted. “Legislative package complements record $54 billion climate budget that focuses on equity and economic opportunity,” it continued.

Promises, promises. Sounds pretty rosy, eh? Reality: Prices of everything are skyrocketing, and businesses, jobs, and taxpayers are leaving in droves. Is Newsom working for Xi Jinping’s Beijing regime? As the California Globe points out, some of his environmental bills have relied on Chinese “science” to justify the extreme regulatory measures that are crucifying all California producers: refiners, manufacturers, farmers, ranchers, grocers, miners, retailers, transporters, you name it.

A central hub of Newsom’s Sacramento-Beijing axis is the California-China Climate Institute (CCI) a partnership between Tsinghua University and the University of California, Berkeley. Those nice folks at the CCP are helping Californians deal with their energy and pollution problems. A report last year by the National Association of Scholars, “How China Took Over University Climate Science to Weaken America,” points out that Tsinghua University is “a key instrument of the Chinese Communist Party’s foreign influence efforts and has played a key role in advancing China’s influence at American colleges and universities.” China, the world’s largest polluter, is being allowed to present “environmental science” that is being used by American politicians to debilitate the U.S. economy to the advantage of Communist China’s economy.

The California Globe reports: “The US economy has been deliberately held back as China builds two new coal power plants per week, equaling eight new coal plants a month, and nearly 100 new coal power plants a year, according to a report by energy data organizations Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air.” The Globe notes further that it “has identified many Chinese university studies sourced by California’s corrupt Air Resources Board to justify their own papers and policy” that harm California while helping China.

Among the many “accomplishments” of Governor Newsom’s 2023 pilgrimage to China were his five MOUs (memorandums of understanding), which included his agreement to blend California’s climate program with China’s Communist Five-Year Planning Process. Oh yes, another proud moment of that trip was Newsom’s meeting with Xi Jinping, the mass-murderer’s “first meeting with an American Governor since 2017.” — William F. Jasper

EU “Science Advisors” Call for Eating Less Meat, Taxing Farm Emissions

EU “scientific advisors” have issued a report calling for people to eat less meat and taxing emissions from farms. Politico reports:

In a 350-page report published Wednesday, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change also calls on the EU to scrap farm subsidies for climate-damaging practices, arguing sweeping measures are necessary to reduce agriculture’s contribution to global warming….

Sticking with business as usual isn’t an option, said the board’s chair Ottmar Edenhofer.

“In order to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 within the EU, the sector has to contribute to emissions reduction,” he said.

The board’s report is not an isolated incident. Others are calling for the same policies, and the EU and other governments are already implementing them:

Plenty of scientists and even the World Bank have in recent years urged governments to ensure their citizens eat less meat and to cut environmentally harmful subsidies in order to rein in greenhouse gas emissions from food, which account for about a third of all planet-warming pollution.

And Denmark is on track to become the first country to tax agricultural pollution after Copenhagen and farmers’ associations agreed in 2024 to impose a carbon price on livestock emissions from 2030.

Yet the board’s reports carry weight. The independent consortium of scientists is tasked by EU law with providing guidance on climate policy; past recommendations have proven influential, with the board’s 2023 advice on setting a 2040 emissions-slashing target of at least 90 percent playing a major role in leading the EU to enshrine this goal in law last week.

These policies are part of the broader war on farmers, which originates in the United Nations’ Agenda 21/2030. Be sure to contact your state and federal representatives, and urge them to protect private-property rights and resist extreme “climate change” policies. — Peter Rykowski

Milei Scores Major Victory as Argentina Breaks with Peronist Labor Legacy

The Milei train continues to surge ahead in Argentina. On March 6, Argentina’s Senate passed legislation designed to completely reform labor laws and to blunt the power of Argentina’s labor unions. Since the Peronist era, labor unions have dominated Argentina’s workforce, supporting socialist controls and obstructing capital formation. Labor unions, of course, are a major part of the Marxist program, being in effect the “industrial armies” recommended by the eighth plank of the Communist Manifesto. And on this occasion, sensing the threat to their power base, labor unions staged a violent demonstration outside Argentina’s Congress before and during the vote, fighting with police even as the Senate voted 42-28 in favor of the new legislation. Afterwards, a triumphant President Milei exulted, “Historic! We have a labor modernization.”

The vote now gives Milei and his La Libertad Avanza party a major legislative victory and should further hasten Argentina along the road to genuine economic and political reform. It’s a major part of Milei’s effort to bring back foreign investment to a country where 50-year-old labor laws effectively have prohibited employers from firing or laying off workers, whereas some 40 percent of all registered workers belong to one of the all-powerful labor unions. Until the passage of this bill, Argentina’s labor laws were mired in the leftist pro-labor sensibilities of a century ago, which the United States and many other Western nations have long since abandoned.

Argentina’s noisy radical Left will continue to be an obstacle to such reforms, but Milei’s momentum is considerable, especially now that much of the rest of Latin America is following Argentina’s lead. — Steve Bonta

“Red” and “Blue” States Adopt Diverging Tax Policies

Republican- and Democrat-controlled states are adopting increasingly divergent taxation policies.

On January 1, individual income tax cuts went into effect in nine states, all of which have Republican-controlled legislatures. Additionally, as The New American previously reported, conservative-leaning states such as Georgia, North Dakota, and Texas are considering cutting property taxes.

On the other hand, states with Democrat-controlled legislatures are increasing taxes. According to an Associated Press report, states including California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey have raised income taxes on individuals earning more than $1 million, and Washington — which currently doesn’t impose any income taxes — could soon impose a similar tax.

These developments demonstrate the importance of constitutional state government, as well as the impact that state-level policies have on our everyday lives. — Peter Rykowski

Parents Sound Alarm Over School Photo Giant’s Links to Epstein Associate

A wave of concern has swept across social media in recent days as parents discover the corporate ownership of Lifetouch, the nation’s largest school photography company. Critics have highlighted the company’s place in a chain of ownership that ultimately connects to billionaire Leon Black, a former executive at Apollo Global Management who appears in recently released Epstein-related documents.

Lifetouch photographs millions of American children each year for school pictures and yearbooks. The company was acquired by Shutterfly in 2018 and became part of Shutterfly’s portfolio when funds managed by Apollo Global Management subsidiaries purchased Shutterfly in 2019 for approximately $2.7 billion. Leon Black co-founded Apollo and served as its CEO and chairman until his resignation in 2021.

Court documents and investigative reporting have established that Black paid Jeffrey Epstein more than $158 million between 2012 and 2017 for tax and estate-planning advice. Black has faced civil allegations of sexual misconduct, including one claim that he raped a minor at Epstein’s New York townhouse; he has denied all wrongdoing and no criminal charges were filed against him. Black stepped down from Apollo amid the scrutiny.

Lifetouch is not named anywhere in the Epstein files, nor is there any documented evidence that student photographs were shared with Epstein, Black, or any third party for illicit purposes. In a public statement issued this week, Lifetouch went into damage-control mode and emphasized that Lifetouch does not — and has never provided — images to any third party. The company added that no Apollo executive or investor has ever had access to student images or data, and that Lifetouch has never sold or licensed photos for AI training or facial-recognition purposes.

Despite these assurances, parents across the country want an independent third party to corroborate the conciliatory claims of the public-relations department, and not settle for the company’s own self-reporting. Critics have described yearbooks as potential “catalogs” and questioned how student data — names, ages, addresses, and images — are stored and protected. Some school districts have begun reviewing contracts and data-privacy agreements with Lifetouch, while others have fielded inquiries from concerned families. A Change.org-style petition has called for suspending Lifetouch contracts pending further investigation.

This episode corresponds to heightened sensitivity about child safety in institutional settings. A widely shared video from February 2026 shows preschool teachers allegedly distributing “sleepy stickers” — adhesive melatonin patches — to young children without parental consent in an effort to keep them quiet during nap time. The 2024 incident at a Texas elementary school led to an internal investigation, teacher suspensions, and a 2026 lawsuit by affected parents. The case serves as a stark reminder of how easily children can be placed at risk when oversight lapses or when adults prioritize convenience over consent.

Parents are now asking basic questions: Who ultimately controls the vast databases of children’s photographs and personal information collected in schools? What safeguards exist against future corporate consolidation or data misuse? While no wrongdoing has been proven in the Lifetouch matter, the episode has prompted many families to consider opting out of school photo days or supporting local independent photographers.

School picture day has long been a routine ritual. For millions of parents this year, it has become a moment to scrutinize the institutions and corporations entrusted with their children’s images and safety. — Rebecca Terrell

Trump Admin Opposes Wyoming Bill to Nullify Gun Control

The Trump administration has formally opposed a Wyoming bill to nullify federal gun control.

Senate File 101 (S.F. 101), which was considered during the 2026 budget session, would have amended Wyoming’s existing Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA), largely clarifying the bill to make it more enforceable. According to Gun Owners of America (GOA), it would have created “a clear path to take state and local agencies or departments to civil court for damages,” amounting to “a huge deterrent to local cooperation with federal gun control because of the potential impact on budgets.” Wyoming Senate President Bo Biteman (R-Ranchester) noted that the originally passed SAPA “had a few gaps in it,” which S.F. 101 would have filled.

Although the Legislature passed S.F. 101, Governor Mark Gordon vetoed the bill, arguing that it “will have a stifling impact on state and local partnerships with federal law enforcement agencies.” Gordon also vetoed a similar bill last year.

GOA described the veto as “a disappointing surrender to federal interests,” arguing that Gordon “has chosen to prioritize the demands of federal agencies over the clear will of the Legislature and the protections of the Second Amendment.”

Notably, the Trump administration publicly opposed the bill. In a letter to Gordon, Todd Lyons, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, wrote:

Many of the most serious gun crimes today — international firearms trafficking, cross-border smuggling, terrorist cartel-linked straw purchasing, airport security violations, and financial crimes tied to arms trafficking — are primarily federal offenses. In many of these cases, Wyoming law has no parallel statute at all. Without federal cooperation, these serious crimes may never be prosecuted….

At a time when criminals operate across state lines and international borders, the answer cannot be to divide law enforcement. Public safety depends on cooperation between federal, state, and local officers working together to stop crime and protect our communities. [Emphasis in original.]

Lyons’ letter portrays S.F. 101 as a dangerous and irresponsible bill. However, it ignores the fact that federal law enforcement — not being an enumerated power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution — is inherently unconstitutional, and threatens the independence of state and local law enforcement. States have a sovereign duty to nullify all unconstitutional federal acts, something that S.F. 101 would help accomplish.

Lyons’ letter also inadvertently acknowledges that state nullification is effective. By refusing to assist the federal government in enforcing unconstitutional laws, states can make a significant impact in protecting their citizens.

GOA responded by arguing that “the Governor and federal agencies are engaging in fearmongering rather than an honest reading of the law,” and that S.F. 101 would not prevent the federal government from combating “international smuggling and cartel networks.”

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time the Trump administration has undermined the Second Amendment. In a November 20, 2025 federal-court filing, for example, the U.S. Department of Justice defended the National Firearms Act of 1934, taking expansive positions on both gun control and federal power. President Donald Trump himself has previously made comments contrary to the text of the Second Amendment.

Instead of acting as junior partners to the federal government, states must reassert their sovereignty, including by nullifying unconstitutional federal acts and rejecting federal funding. — Peter Rykowski

Euthanasia Claims More Humans Than Dogs in Canada

In a chilling echo of the 1970s science fiction movie Logan’s Run, Canada now euthanizes more humans through its Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) program than it does dogs in animal shelters each year. Recent figures indicate approximately 16,425 Canadians were euthanized in 2024, compared to around 7,644 dogs euthanized annually in shelters — a ratio exceeding 2:1. This underscores a broader trend: Since MAID’s legalization in 2016, the program has grown exponentially, raising questions about the perverse incentives of a society that values GDP over human life, the proper purpose of healthcare, and government involvement in death.

MAID was introduced following the Supreme Court’s 2015 Carter v. Canada ruling, which struck down bans on assisted suicide for those with grievous and irremediable conditions. Initially limited to terminally ill adults, eligibility expanded in 2021 to include non-terminal chronic illnesses. By 2024, MAID accounted for 5.1 percent of all deaths in Canada, with 16,499 provisions — a 6.9-percent increase from 2023, though growth rates have slowed since peaking at 31.1 percent in 2022. The cumulative total reached 76,475 by year’s end, on track to surpass 100,000 by mid-2026, nearing the program’s 10th anniversary. This figure eclipses Canada’s World War II battle deaths (42,042) and highlights MAID as the fifth leading cause of death nationwide.

The program’s efficiency has drawn scrutiny. In Ontario alone, 219 people received MAID within a day of requesting it in 2023, with 30 percent dying the same day. A disturbing case involved an elderly woman, “Mrs. B,” who initially requested MAID but withdrew consent for religious reasons. Despite this, and amid concerns of coercion due to her husband’s “caregiver burnout,” she was reassessed and euthanized hours later by a third practitioner. In short, her life was terminated against her own wishes — and to satisfy her husband’s convenience — which amounts to what used to be called “homicide.” Critics argue this reflects a clear erosion of biomedical ethics.

Expansion nevertheless continues: Starting March 2027, MAID will include those with mental illness as the sole condition, despite warnings about long wait times for psychiatric care and rising mental-health crises affecting more than five million Canadians. Cases such as 26-year-old Kiano Vafaeian, approved for MAID due to diabetes, seasonal depression, and vision issues, illustrate the broadening scope. Proponents cite autonomy and compassion, but opponents decry it as state-sanctioned murder, noting 96 percent of recipients are white and that the program suggests a larger agenda to ethnically terraform Canada.

This strategy is artfully being hidden, with Health Canada explicitly stating that MAID is not classified as a cause of death by the World Health Organization. As euthanasia racks up more victims, the statisticians can hide the direct precipitating factor in these murders.

Meanwhile, palliative care access remains inconsistent; while 74.1 percent of 2024 MAID recipients received it, this is down from 82 percent in 2019, fueling debates over whether MAID substitutes for underfunded support services. As Canada approaches 110,000 MAID deaths by late 2026, the program tests the boundaries of dignity versus devaluation of life. — Rebecca Terrell

Chinese Imports to U.S. Plummet

Chinese imports to the United States have fallen significantly since President Donald Trump took office last year, continuing a drop that began around 2018. Politico reports:

Thanks in large part to U.S. tariffs that at one point reached triple digits, the Asian manufacturing powerhouse’s share of the overall U.S. import market fell to 9 percent in 2025, compared to 13.4 percent in 2024, according to the Commerce Department’s trade report for December released Thursday.

That is China’s lowest market share since the early 2000s. Less than a decade ago, China accounted for one-fifth of annual U.S. imports.

U.S. imports from China fell to $308 billion in 2025, their lowest level since 2009 and a drop of more than 42 percent from the record high of $539 billion in 2018.

The report also noted that this decline affected virtually all sectors, and that imports from other Asian countries have risen in response.

The United States should continue to reduce its reliance on Communist China and other countries — protecting its sovereignty and national security in the process. — Peter Rykowski

Ben Affleck’s Secret AI Media Venture

In a move that has sent shockwaves through Hollywood, Netflix has acquired InterPositive, a clandestine AI company founded by actor-director Ben Affleck. Launched under the shell company Fin Bone LLC, InterPositive uses film dailies to train custom AI models for post-production tasks such as relighting scenes, reframing shots, and adding visual effects — work traditionally done by thousands of VFX (visual effects) artists and crew. The deal, announced March 5, comes amid labor union (Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, or SAG-AFTRA) negotiations where AI is a flashpoint, potentially accelerating job losses in an industry already reeling from automation. Affleck, who recently criticized AI on Joe Rogan’s podcast while praising its efficiency for “burdensome” tasks, purportedly built the tech in secret over four years before selling it to the streamer he once derided for “dumbing down” filmmaking.

The infiltration of AI into content creation has drawn sharp criticism from figures such as actress Justine Bateman (formerly of the TV show Family Ties, who subsequent to her Hollywood career obtained a computer science degree), a vocal opponent of machine learning models in filmmaking. Bateman, who advises SAG-AFTRA on AI issues, has warned that the technology threatens human creativity, stating, “I think AI has no place in Hollywood at all. To me, tech should solve problems that humans have.” She argues AI will potentially collapse industry structures.

Beyond the creativity impact on cinema and television production, some critics of Affleck’s actions are viewing it through a more cynical lens. Tom Braden, an OSS officer (who later served with the CIA) and who headed Operation Mockingbird — the agency’s media infiltration program — served as best man at Affleck’s grandmother’s wedding.

Aside from his grandparents’ chumminess with such figures, Affleck has documented CIA collaborations, including visits to Langley for films such as The Sum of All Fears (2002) and Argo (2012), a pro-CIA narrative where he played a spy extracting Americans from Iran, which some see as agency propaganda. Longtime critics of such connections worry about possible deep ties to covert government organizations. Jeff Bezos’ grandfather, for instance, was an early member of ARPA (the Advanced Research Projects Agency, today known as DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), funneling generational wealth into Amazon’s cloud empire. Elon Musk’s grandfather led Canada’s Technocracy Inc., a fascist-leaning movement advocating scientific dictatorship. These intergenerational power brokers blend espionage with business.

Netflix itself (to whom Affleck just sold his company) is an example of this phenomenon. The streaming service has intriguing ties to Edward Bernays, the “father of public relations” and author of the book Propaganda. Co-founder Marc Randolph is Bernays’ great-nephew, linking the platform to a lineage that weaponized psychology for mass influence — Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, famously engineered public consent through campaigns such as promoting women’s smoking as “torches of freedom.” Netflix’s algorithms, which personalize content to hook viewers, echo Bernays’ subconscious manipulation techniques, shaping cultures on a global scale. — Rebecca Terrell

The Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery Merger

The proposed $110 billion acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance, announced in late February, represents the latest chapter in a 40-year trend of relentless media consolidation that has steadily eroded independent ownership in the United States. If completed, the deal — valued at an enterprise level of $110 billion, with Paramount paying $31 per share in cash — would combine Warner Bros. film studios, HBO, Max streaming, CNN, and Discovery networks with Paramount Pictures, CBS, Paramount+, and related cable assets. The transaction, unanimously approved by both boards and expected to close in the third quarter of 2026 pending shareholder approval (vote anticipated in early spring) and regulatory review, underscores how fewer hands now control what Americans watch, read, and hear.

This pattern traces directly to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which deregulated broadcasting and telecommunications, triggering a wave of mergers. In 1983, approximately 50 corporations dominated U.S. media. By the early 2000s, that number had plummeted to six major conglomerates controlling about 90 percent of outlets, including newspapers, TV stations, film studios, and cable networks. Key milestones include Disney’s 1995 acquisition of ABC, the 2000 AOL-Time Warner merger (later unwound), Viacom’s reunion with CBS (rebranded Paramount Global), AT&T’s 2018 purchase of Time Warner (spun off into Warner Bros. Discovery in 2022), and Disney’s 2019 acquisition of 21st Century Fox. Streaming pressures in the 2020s accelerated further deals, such as Skydance’s 2025 takeover of Paramount. Today, just five or six entities — Disney, Comcast/NBCUniversal, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, and a handful of others — dominate theatrical releases, premium television, cable, and subscription streaming. Independent local newspapers and diverse voices have largely vanished, replaced by homogenized content shaped by corporate priorities.

The Paramount Skydance bid, which prevailed over Netflix’s competing interest, would create one of the world’s largest integrated content libraries while saddling the combined company with tens of billions in debt. Supporters cite necessary scale to combat subscriber churn and rising production costs against tech giants such as Netflix and Amazon. Critics, however, warn of reduced competition in film distribution, television advertising, and news markets already dominated by a shrinking cartel.

Regulatory scrutiny under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act focuses on horizontal concentration, yet the deal has also sparked political attention over potential conflicts of interest. Paramount Skydance is led by David Ellison, son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison, whose company recently secured a major federal contract with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to modernize systems for more than 150 million Americans. According to investigative journalist Audrey Henson, government contracts furnish Oracle with money. Those billions bolster Oracle’s stock. That stock is used as collateral regarding the proposed merger. She writes, “So the government pays Oracle, which supports the stock, which Ellison pledges to finance his son’s media empire, which runs on Oracle. In the merger filings, Oracle is listed as a neutral third-party vendor. It is the infrastructure, the collateral, and the beneficiary of the same deal.”

Oracle’s government ties and Larry Ellison’s documented alliance with President Trump have raised questions about whether federal procurement advantages could indirectly influence the antitrust review by the Department of Justice.

Roger Alford, a Trump-appointed DOJ antitrust deputy, expressed concern about the larger approval system, fearing that the DOJ was largely reduced to a rubber stamp, saying, “Today cases are being resolved based on political connections, not the legal merits.”

This transaction, if approved, would mark another milestone in the shift from diverse, independent media to concentrated corporate power, further limiting viewpoint diversity and amplifying the influence of a handful of billionaires and conglomerates over public discourse. — Rebecca Terrell

Switzerland Enshrines Cash in Federal Constitution, but Critics Say It Doesn’t Go Far Enough

In a nationwide referendum on Sunday, Swiss voters enshrined cash in the country’s federal constitution — but critics, who supported a more extensive proposal, argue that the constitutional amendment does not go far enough in preventing a central bank digital currency.

Voters last Sunday decided on multiple national referendums, as well as elections and referendums at the cantonal and local levels. Among these were two competing proposals to enshrine cash in the Swiss Federal Constitution. The original proposal, a popular initiative spearheaded by the Swiss Freedom Movement (FBS) titled “Yes to an independent, free Swiss currency with coins or banknotes (cash is freedom),” would have amended the Constitution to declare:

The Federal Government shall ensure that coins or banknotes are always available in sufficient quantities.

The replacement of the Swiss franc with another currency must be submitted to a vote by the people and the cantons.

In response to this initiative, the Swiss federal government issued a counterproposal that declared:

The Swiss currency is the franc.

The Swiss National Bank guarantees the supply of cash.

Swiss voters narrowly rejected the original proposal, with 54.5 percent opposing it, while the government’s counterproposal passed with 73.4 percent of voters and all cantons (the Swiss equivalent to states in the United States) supporting it.

The Swiss federal government opposed the original initiative. In a June 2024 statement, the Swiss Federal Council (executive branch) argued that the initiative used vague wording, and that the counterproposal “addresses the concerns of the popular initiative through precise legal regulations.”

Conservatives disagreed. The FBS argued that “clever legal experts … could one day argue that a state digital currency … sharing some characteristics of cash but without a physical form could legally be considered a form of cash.” Nonetheless, FBS leader Richard Kollar applauded the results, stating, “For us, it’s a victory. The people have said: We want cash enshrined in the constitution.”

The referendum results come amid increasing attacks on cash worldwide. As The New American has been reporting as early as 2014, the globalist Establishment has been pushing a “cashless society” that would allow governments to monitor every transaction. This push accelerated during the Covid-19 pandemic, and multiple national central banks are considering or developing a central bank digital currency.

In Switzerland itself, the use of cash has declined significantly over the last 10 years. According to the Swiss Na t ional Bank, the percentage of Swiss who used cash in everyday transactions has declined from 72 percent in 2017 to only 30 percent in 2024.

Until 1999, when voters ratified a new constitution, the Swiss franc was constitutionally mandated to be backed by gold. A 2014 referendum to partially restore the franc’s gold backing failed with 77.3 percent of voters opposing.

Passage of the government counterproposal is a small, if weak, step toward protecting cash — one that must be followed up with stronger actions. By relearning and recommitting to the principles that made their countries great in the first place — Christianity, limited government, self-governance, and national sovereignty — and boldly defending and informing others about those principles, both Americans and Swiss can restore their respective countries to ever brighter luster.

The above is part of an article by Peter Rykowski. To see the entire article at TheNewAmerican.com, click here.