Podcasts about Federal Communications Commission

On Tuesday, NPR and three Colorado public radio stations sued the Trump administration for violating the First Amendment. On this week's On the Media, the soon-to-be lone Democratic commissioner at the FCC speaks out against what she calls the weaponization of her agency. Plus, the final episode of The Divided Dial introduces the unlikely group trying to take over shortwave radio.[01:37] Host Micah Loewinger speaks with Anna Gomez, soon to be the lone Democratic commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, about her makeshift media tour–where Gomez is speaking out about what she sees as the weaponization of her agency. [12:47] Episode 4 of The Divided Dial, Season 2: Wall St. Wants Your Airwaves. In recent years, creative, often music-focused pirate broadcasting has been thriving on shortwave. Reporter Katie Thornton reveals how these surreptitious broadcasters are up against a surprising enemy: not the FCC, but a deep-pocketed group of finance bros that is trying to wrestle the airwaves away from the public, and use them for a money-making scheme completely antithetical to broadcasting. What do we lose when we give up our public airwaves?Further reading:Remarks of FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez at the 2025 Media Institute Communications Forum, May 15, 2025 On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

Anthropic has launched its latest AI models, Claude Opus 4 and Claude Sonnet 4, which are designed to enhance coding capabilities and problem-solving skills. Claude Opus 4 is touted as the most powerful model to date, capable of autonomously handling long tasks for several hours and outperforming competitors like Google's Gemini and OpenAI's models in coding tasks. The new models also feature improved accuracy, with a 65% reduction in the likelihood of taking shortcuts compared to their predecessor, and include thinking summaries to clarify reasoning processes.OpenAI has made headlines with its acquisition of IO, a hardware company founded by former Apple design chief Johnny Ive, in a deal valued at $6.5 billion. This acquisition aims to bolster OpenAI's hardware capabilities by bringing in approximately 55 engineers and developers. The first products from this collaboration are expected to launch in 2026, representing a new type of technology rather than a replacement for existing devices. Additionally, OpenAI has introduced significant updates to its Responses API, enhancing its functionality for developers and businesses.Atera has unveiled its IT Autopilot, which claims to automate up to 40% of IT workloads, particularly in resolving Tier 1 IT tickets without human oversight. This innovation aims to alleviate technician burnout and improve work-life balance, with average resolution times of just 15 minutes. Meanwhile, Kaseya has partnered with Pulseway to enhance their offerings for IT professionals, integrating their solutions to provide advanced tools for managing IT environments.The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has approved Verizon's $20 billion merger with Frontier Communications, a significant move in the telecommunications industry. This merger comes with a controversial requirement for Verizon to discontinue all diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, reflecting a shift in regulatory practices. The episode concludes with discussions on the implications of AI in personalization and privacy, emphasizing the need for responsible data management and the potential risks associated with AI-driven decision-making. Four things to know today 00:00 One Giant Week in AI: Claude Gets Smarter, OpenAI Goes Hardware, and Signal Says “Not So Fast” to Recall06:32 Automation and Ecosystems: Atera Targets Tier 1 Ticket Fatigue, Kaseya Expands via Pulseway Integration08:51 Consolidation With Consequences: Proofpoint Grows Quietly, Verizon Merger Tied to DEI Rollback11:22 From Gemini to Aurora, Generative AI Enters a New Era of Context, Capability, and Controversy  This is the Business of Tech.     Supported by: https://www.huntress.com/mspradio/https://cometbackup.com/?utm_source=mspradio&utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=sponsorship All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

Charter Communications has announced its acquisition of Cox Communications for $34.5 billion, a significant move that will merge two of the largest internet service providers in the United States. This merger is expected to require approval from the Federal Communications Commission due to Cox's critical operational licenses. The combined entity plans to adopt the Cox Communications name, with Spectrum serving as the consumer-facing brand in areas previously served by Cox. This merger could potentially impact service quality for small and medium-sized businesses (SMBs) that rely on Cox as their provider, especially during the integration phase.In another major development, Proofpoint has revealed its plans to acquire Hornet Security for $1 billion, aiming to enhance its cybersecurity offerings and expand its presence in the cloud security market. Hornet Security specializes in Microsoft 365 solutions and has shown impressive growth, reporting over $160 million in annual recurring revenue. This acquisition may alienate Hornet Security's managed service provider (MSP) partners if there are changes in pricing, support models, or access to services, creating an opportunity for competitors to attract disaffected partners.Arm is rebranding its system-on-a-chip product designs to focus on power savings for artificial intelligence workloads, targeting sectors like automotive and cloud computing. The company reported a significant revenue increase, driven by licensing and royalty revenue. Meanwhile, Box is enhancing its collaboration with Microsoft by introducing an AI agent that integrates with Microsoft 365 Copilot, allowing users to analyze documents and automate tasks more efficiently. These moves reflect the industry's shift towards AI integration and the importance of aligning with existing platforms to deliver value.Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) has introduced updates to its Morpheus software and VM Essentials offerings, promising substantial cost savings for businesses in the virtualization market. HPE's new pricing model, based on server sockets rather than cores, aims to provide significant financial advantages, especially as VMware faces scrutiny over its pricing strategies. Additionally, the podcast discusses the challenges posed by shadow AI and the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence, emphasizing the need for governance and transparency as organizations increasingly adopt AI tools without formal approval. The episode concludes with a reflection on the implications of AI in education, highlighting the growing use of AI tools by professors and the concerns raised by students regarding the authenticity of their learning experience.  Four things to know today  00:00 Charter-Cox Merger and Proofpoint's $1B Hornet Deal Signal New Era of Scale and Specialization in Tech Services 03:38 From Chips to Content: Arm and Box Shift Strategies to Embed AI Across Cloud, Automotive, and Microsoft 365  05:39 HPE Launches Morpheus and VM Essentials Updates With Up to 90% Savings Over VMware Licensing  07:45 Shadow AI, Specialized Models, and Student Backlash: The Growing Pains of Enterprise AI Adoption   Supported by:  https://mspradio.com/engage/ All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC's delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Public media funding makes up less than 0.0001% of the federal budget, and calls to defund it have existed essentially since the creation of the CBP in 1967. However, the history of public media is much longer, and more complicated, than the creation of Sesame Street or NPR. We revisit our episode from last year about how the government funds public media, through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and how that money is spent. We also talk about free press, and the firewall that prevents politicians and the government from controlling the flow of public information and educational programming. Since the episode first came out in July, 2024, President Trump has re-entered office, and has taken a number of steps to discredit and disassemble the free press, including public media. Trump has called for the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission, to investigate NPR and other public media organizations for their use of corporate support. He also recently announced that he had fired three members of the CPB's five-member board, something the CPB has said he does not have the authority to do, in a lawsuit they filed against his administration. And finally, alongside calling for Congress to defund the CPB, he issued an executive order telling the CPB to halt all funding to public media, which, as you'll learn more about in the episode, is the kind of political directive that the CPB was created to prevent in the first place.    CLICK HERE TO DONATE TO THE SHOW AND CHECK OUT OUR NEW TOTE BAG!CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!

The Federal Communications Commission is gearing up for a crucial vote on May 22 that could reshape how electronics enter the U.S. market. At the center of the decision is a proposal to ban specific Chinese testing labs from certifying devices like smartphones, game consoles, and cameras—products that must meet safety and technical standards before … Continue reading FCC Targets Chinese Testing Labs Over Security Concerns in US Electronics #1818 → The post FCC Targets Chinese Testing Labs Over Security Concerns in US Electronics #1818 appeared first on Geek News Central.

The Federal Communications Commission is gearing up for a crucial vote on May 22 that could reshape how electronics enter the U.S. market. At the center of the decision is a proposal to ban specific Chinese testing labs from certifying devices like smartphones, game consoles, and cameras—products that must meet safety and technical standards before … Continue reading FCC Targets Chinese Testing Labs Over Security Concerns in US Electronics #1818 → The post FCC Targets Chinese Testing Labs Over Security Concerns in US Electronics #1818 appeared first on Geek News Central.

A hobby - but also disaster response It wasn't marked by parades, fireworks or an interview on 60 Minutes, but World Amateur Radio Day was April 18. For many, amateur, or "ham" radio, is viewed as a hobby from the past. But it's very much alive and more than a pastime, locally and internationally. The century-old International Amateur Radio Union estimates there are 3 million operators in 160 countries, including 700,000 in the U.S., 540 in the immediate area, 50 in Philipstown and 43 in Beacon. For many, interest in ham radio began early in life. As a 10-year-old, Joe Barbaro of Cold Spring loved listening to English-language, shortwave broadcasts from Germany, Russia and other faraway countries. "Radio Moscow was a favorite," he said. "Even at a young age I knew they were full of it, but it was fun to listen to." He graduated to ham radio at age 14. "England was about the best I could do" for conversations, he said. "I didn't have powerful enough equipment for beyond that," he said. "I was kind of a minor-leaguer." Another Cold Spring resident, Damian McDonald, got started at age 6. "My uncle was a Franciscan priest based in Bolivia, and the only way we communicated was ham radio," he said. "It was kind of magical, even with the static." It motivated him to build his own ham radio from a Heathkit; today he has a mobile ham station in his car. Before he retired from a career in cybersecurity, he enjoyed conversations with other operators during his daily commute to New Jersey. "I could hold a conversation with the same person all the way down," he recalled. McDonald noted that "emergency preparedness is still a core tenant of amateur radio," and Anesta Vannoy of Beacon would agree. She got into ham radio in 2018 as a disaster response chaplain. She wanted to assist at emergencies but, as a senior citizen, thought it could be difficult getting to the scenes of incidents. She belongs to four networks: Westchester Emergency Communications Association, Mount Beacon Amateur Radio Club, Orange County Amateur Radio Club and the Harlem Emergency Network. "I like that I'm preparing myself to help others," she said. She hones her skills at events such as the New York Airshow at Orange County Airport and the St. Patrick's Day parade in Wappingers Falls. She also attends trainings led by "elmers" from her networks - lingo for more experienced operators. Part of her weekly routine is checking her five radios to ensure each is charged and operational. Her son, Raheem, will soon take the entry-level test for licensing by the Federal Communications Commission. Operators must pass tests at progressive levels: Technician, General and Amateur Extra. Raheem is relearning Morse Code, a skill he acquired as a Boy Scout. Although Morse Code is no longer required, "it can still be useful in certain emergency situations," he said. First responders see ham radio as an asset. Ralph Falloon, a Philipstown resident who is deputy commissioner of the Putnam Bureau of Emergency Services, said operators are considered part of the county's emergency preparedness network and provide vital backup in situations such as interruptions to the power grid. "The Putnam Emergency and Amateur Repeater League, or PEARL, has an office in our building," in Carmel, he said. "They have radio equipment here and mobile towers they can set up for mini-networks." Robert Cuomo, Putnam's director of emergency medical services, offered an example: If the grid goes down and a hospital generator fails, ham operators could set up on site and communicate with ambulances. That's what happened in 2005 in New Orleans when the region's infrastructure was devastated by Hurricane Katrina. "In many cases, the only communication in and out was ham radio," he said. PEARL hosts field days for operators. It includes contests to see who can speak to the most people around the world[ but also covers disaster training, Cuomo said. "They can't use commercial power - just a battery or generator....

The Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating CBS for “intentional news distortion” for its editing of an interview with Kamala Harris. On this week's On the Media, what the new chairman of the FCC has been up to, and what led a top CBS producer to quit. Plus, what a growing effort to rewrite the history of Watergate tells us about the American right.[01:00] The Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating CBS for “intentional news distortion” for its editing of an interview with Kamala Harris. Host Brooke Gladstone talks with Max Tani, Semafor's Media Editor and co-host of the podcast Mixed Signals, about Brendan Carr's busy first three months as Chairman of the FCC and the impacts that these kinds of investigations could have on press freedoms.[15:37] Host Micah Loewinger speaks with Michael Koncewicz, political historian at New York University, about the fight over who gets to tell the story of Watergate and the years-long conservative movement to rehabilitate Richard Nixon's image.[29:26] Brooke sits down with Bryan Stevenson, public interest lawyer and founder of the Equal Justice Initiative, a human rights organization based in Montgomery, Alabama, to talk about the Trump Administration's war on museums, especially those that deal with our nation's history of racism.  Further reading:How Nexstar dodged a Trump lawsuit, by Max TaniShari Redstone kept tabs on ‘60 Minutes' segments on Trump, by Max TaniThe Alarming Effort To Rewrite the History of Watergate, by Michael KoncewiczThe Worst Thing We've Ever Done, On the Media (2018) On the Media is supported by listeners like you. Support OTM by donating today (https://pledge.wnyc.org/support/otm). Follow our show on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @onthemedia, and share your thoughts with us by emailing onthemedia@wnyc.org.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is authorized by Congress to regulate interstate and international communications and, as part of that, to maintain a universal service fund that requires telecommunications carriers to contribute quarterly based on their revenues. In order to calculate these contribution amounts, the FCC contracts the help of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC).The constitutionality of these delegations of power—to the FCC by Congress and to USAC by the FCC—are now being challenged in court by Consumers’ Research. Join this FedSoc Forum to discuss this case’s oral argument, delivered on March 26, 2025.Featuring:Prof. Chad Squitieri, Assistant Professor of Law, Catholic University of AmericaModerator: Adam Griffin, Separation of Powers Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

President Trump has moved to exert more executive control over so-called independent agencies. Among them, the Federal Communications Commission. Congress created the FCC in the 1930s. Its five commissioners come from both parties, three to two in favor of whomever is president. For analysis of what Trump's plan may mean, we turn to a lawyer specializing in communication law and privacy, John Seiver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

President Trump has moved to exert more executive control over so-called independent agencies. Among them, the Federal Communications Commission. Congress created the FCC in the 1930s. Its five commissioners come from both parties, three to two in favor of whomever is president. For analysis of what Trump's plan may mean, we turn to a lawyer specializing in communication law and privacy, John Seiver. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This week on CounterSpin: When Robert Kennedy Jr. was just a famously named man about town, we heard about how he dumped a bear carcass in Central Park for fun, believes that children's gender is shaped by chemicals in the water, and asserts that Covid-19 was “targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people,” while leaving “Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese” immune. But once you become RFK Jr., secretary of health and human services in a White House whose anger must not be drawn, those previously unacceptable ideas become, as a recent New York Times piece has it, “unorthodox.” Kennedy's unorthodox ideas may get us all killed while media whistle. We hear from Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, about that. For many years, social justice advocates rather discounted the Federal Communications Commission. Unlike the Federal Trade Commission or the Food and Drug Administration, whose actions had visible impacts on your life, the FCC didn't seem like a player. That changed over recent years, as we've seen the role the federal government plays in regulating the power of media corporations to control the flow of information. As the late, great media scholar Bob McChesney explained, “When the government grants free monopoly rights to TV spectrum … it is not setting the terms of competition; it is picking the winner.” We'll talk about the FCC under Trump with Jessica González, co-CEO of the group McChesney co-founded, Free Press.     The post Paul Offit on RFK Jr. and Measles / Jessica González on Trump's FCC appeared first on KPFA.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive policy initiative crafted by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a set of recommendations – it's a blueprint for a radical transformation of the American government. This 900-page manifesto, designed to guide a potential conservative administration, outlines sweeping reforms that touch every facet of federal governance, from education and environmental policy to media regulation and disaster response.At its core, Project 2025 is about consolidating executive power and reshaping the federal government in a distinctly conservative image. One of the most striking aspects of this plan is its vision for education. The project advocates for the elimination of the Department of Education, transferring its responsibilities to the states and significantly reducing federal involvement in education policy. This includes ending federal funding for programs like Title I, which provides crucial support to schools in low-income areas, and dismantling the Head Start program that serves over a million children from low-income families[1][4][5].Roger Severino, a key figure associated with the project, has argued that Head Start does not provide value, though he has not provided evidence to support this claim. Instead, Project 2025 promotes school vouchers with no strings attached, even for private or religious schools, and cuts to funding for free school meals. This approach reflects a fundamental shift in how education is viewed – from a public good to a private one[1].The project's stance on education is just one part of a broader critique of what it terms "federal government overreach." In the realm of civil rights, Project 2025 proposes significant curtailments. It recommends ending federal investigations into schools for disparate impacts of disciplinary measures on the basis of race or ethnicity and transferring civil rights enforcement responsibilities from the Department of Education to the Department of Justice, where enforcement would be limited to litigation[1].This theme of reducing federal oversight extends to environmental policy as well. Project 2025 seeks to dismantle key components of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), including the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. It advocates for reversing the EPA's 2009 finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health, thereby preventing the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also supports increased consumption of natural gas, despite concerns from climatologists about methane leaks, and aims to block the expansion of the national electrical grid and the transition to renewable energy[1].The project's climate policy is particularly contentious, with even some Republican climate advocates disagreeing with its stance. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change and has called Project 2025's approach "wrongheaded"[1].In addition to these policy proposals, Project 2025 also outlines a vision for media and technology policies. It suggests increasing agency accountability at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) while reducing what it deems "wasteful spending." The project promotes national security and economic prosperity through measures like expanding 5G connectivity and requiring Big Tech companies to contribute to the Universal Service Fund. However, critics argue that these recommendations could endanger democratic institutions and concentrate presidential power[2].The project's impact on disaster response is another area of concern. It proposes reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This includes ending preparedness grants for states and localities, a move that aligns with Trump's recent suggestions to leave disaster response management to the states[3].Project 2025 also delves into the realm of public health and social welfare. It advocates for withdrawing from the World Health Organization, a move Trump has already made and then reversed during his previous administration. The project criticizes the WHO's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests that the U.S. should be prepared to take drastic measures against international organizations that act contrary to U.S. interests[3].The economic and social implications of these proposals are far-reaching. Project 2025 suggests cutting overtime protections for 4.3 million workers, limiting access to food assistance for over 40 million people, and restricting safety nets for farmers. It also proposes eliminating funding for key public transportation projects and consolidating or eliminating programs like the Economic Development Administration (EDA), which has invested billions in transformative infrastructure projects[5].Critics, including Democrats and some independent experts, have been vocal about the dangers of Project 2025. They argue that its recommendations could dismantle civil liberties, concentrate presidential power, and endanger democratic institutions. James Singer, a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, has likened the project to an attempt to make Trump a "tyrannical king" at the expense of American democracy[4].Despite Trump's public distancing from the project, there is significant overlap between his policies and those outlined in Project 2025. The Heritage Foundation emphasizes that while the project does not speak for any candidate, it is ultimately up to the president to decide which recommendations to implement. This ambiguity has led to a heated political debate, with Democrats using Project 2025 as a rallying cry against Trump's potential second term[4].As the 2025 presidential term approaches, Project 2025 stands as a pivotal document that could shape the future of American governance. Its proposals are not just policy recommendations but a vision for a fundamentally different role of the federal government in American life. Whether these changes will come to fruition remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: Project 2025 represents a seismic shift in the political landscape, one that will be closely watched and fiercely debated in the months to come.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive and contentious presidential transition initiative, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy guide – it's a blueprint for a radical transformation of American governance.Project 2025, spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, is a multi-faceted plan designed to equip the next conservative president with a detailed policy agenda, a database of potential personnel, training programs, and a playbook for the first 180 days in office. The project is led by former Trump administration officials, including Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien, which has led critics to tie it closely to Trump's policies and campaign promises, despite his public denials of involvement[2][3].At its core, Project 2025 aims to centralize power in the executive branch, a move that critics argue could significantly erode the system of checks and balances. One of the most alarming proposals involves reissuing Trump's Schedule F executive order, which would allow the president to dismiss federal employees deemed 'non-performing' or insufficiently loyal. This measure targets the vast federal workforce of approximately 3.5 million employees, potentially disrupting government operations and exacerbating hardships for communities reliant on federal support[1].The project also proposes sweeping reforms to federal agencies, including a drastic overhaul of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Project 2025 suggests transferring the custody of immigrant children from Health and Human Services (HHS) to DHS, prioritizing enforcement over welfare. This change could expand detention centers and worsen the safety and psychological well-being of vulnerable immigrant children. Additionally, the repeal of parts of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) would facilitate large-scale detention center use across the country[1].In the realm of reproductive rights, Project 2025's policies are equally concerning. The initiative aligns with recent legal challenges, such as the case involving the FDA's approval of mifepristone, which set a precedent for limiting access to abortion medication. These legal strategies serve as a blueprint for future restrictions on reproductive rights, signaling a potential future where Project 2025's goals are realized through similar tactics[1].The project's stance on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices is another contentious area. Project 2025 calls for the deletion of terms like DEI, abortion, and gender equality from federal rules, agency regulations, and legislation. This aligns with Trump's recent executive order ending all DEI programs within the federal government, which he claimed could violate federal civil rights laws and exclude Americans from opportunities based on their race or sex[3].Project 2025 also outlines significant changes to disaster response and emergency funding. The plan proposes reforming FEMA emergency spending to shift the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities, rather than the federal government. This recommendation is based on the argument that FEMA is "overtasked" and "overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response." The project suggests ending preparedness grants for states and localities, arguing that DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars[3].In the area of media and technology, Project 2025's proposals are equally far-reaching. The initiative calls for increasing agency accountability while decreasing wasteful spending at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). It also advocates for promoting national security and economic prosperity by reducing the digital divide and expanding connectivity through 5G and satellite technologies. Additionally, the project recommends that Big Tech companies contribute to the Universal Service Fund, currently funded through telephone bills[4].Paul Dans, the former director of Project 2025, has been candid about the project's ambitions. In a recent interview, he expressed his delight with how the Trump administration has implemented aspects of the project, saying, "It's actually way beyond my wildest dreams... The way that they've been able to move and upset the orthodoxy, and at the same time really capture the imagination of the people, I think portends a great four years."[5]Despite Trump's public denials, the alignment between his policies and Project 2025's proposals is striking. As Dans noted, "Directionally, they have a lot in common... Trump is seizing every minute of every hour." This close alignment has led Democrats to warn that Project 2025 represents a "radical" agenda that could mean a ban on abortion, elimination of LGBTQ+ rights, and a complete overhaul of the federal administrative state[5].As we look ahead, the implications of Project 2025 are daunting. Critics argue that its recommendations could endanger democratic institutions, dismantle civil liberties, and concentrate presidential power. The project's focus on centralizing authority and undermining checks and balances raises serious concerns about the future of American governance.In the coming months, as the Trump administration continues to implement policies outlined in Project 2025, we can expect significant legal and legislative battles. The Supreme Court's role in adjudicating these changes will be crucial, as will the response from state governments and civil society organizations. As Paul Dans ominously suggested, "The deep state is going to get its breath back," indicating a long and contentious road ahead.Project 2025 is not just a policy guide; it is a vision for a fundamentally different America. As the country navigates these profound changes, it remains to be seen whether this vision will be realized and what the long-term consequences will be for American democracy. One thing is certain: the next few years will be pivotal in shaping the future of governance in the United States.

As I delve into the intricacies of Project 2025, a comprehensive and contentious initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, it becomes clear that this is more than just a policy blueprint – it's a vision for a fundamentally transformed American governance.Project 2025 is the culmination of efforts by over 400 scholars and conservative groups, led by former Trump administration officials Paul Dans and Spencer Chretien. This 900-page manifesto outlines a sweeping overhaul of federal policies, aiming to reshape the government in line with conservative principles. The project is structured around four key pillars: a detailed policy guide, a database of potential personnel, a training program for these candidates, and a playbook for actions to be taken within the first 180 days of a new administration[2][4].One of the most striking aspects of Project 2025 is its approach to education. The initiative criticizes what it terms "woke propaganda" in public schools and advocates for a significant reduction in the federal government's role in education. This includes closing the Department of Education and transferring its responsibilities to the states. Programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) would be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Center for Education Statistics would become part of the Census Bureau. The federal government, according to Project 2025, should merely keep statistics, rather than enforcing civil rights in schools or investigating disparate impacts of disciplinary measures on racial or ethnic grounds[1].The project also proposes drastic changes in education funding. It suggests allowing Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to expire, which would remove $18 billion in federal funds for schools in low-income areas. Instead, public funds would be available as school vouchers, even for parents sending their children to private or religious schools. This shift is part of a broader philosophy that views education as a private rather than a public good[1].In the realm of environmental policy, Project 2025's vision is equally radical. It seeks to downsize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), close the EPA's Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, and reverse the 2009 EPA finding that carbon dioxide emissions are harmful to human health. This would prevent the federal government from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The project also advocates for blocking the expansion of the national electrical grid, stymying the transition to renewable energy, and relaxing regulations on the fossil fuel industry. For instance, it suggests removing restrictions on oil drilling imposed by the Bureau of Land Management and promoting Arctic drilling[1].The implications of these environmental policies are far-reaching. Nonpartisan experts warn that without expanding the electrical grid, renewable energy projects will have to slow down. Additionally, the project's stance on climate change mitigation is at odds with many Republicans who acknowledge the importance of addressing climate change. Benji Backer, founder of the American Conservation Coalition, has criticized Project 2025's climate policies as "wrongheaded" and noted a growing consensus among younger Republicans that human activity causes climate change[1].Project 2025 also targets other federal agencies and programs. It proposes reforming the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and localities. This move is justified by the argument that FEMA is "overtasked" and "overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response." The project further suggests ending preparedness grants for states and localities, arguing that these grants should be terminated to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from "handing out federal tax dollars"[3].In the area of technology and media, Project 2025's recommendations are equally sweeping. It calls for increasing agency accountability while decreasing wasteful spending at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The project also advocates for promoting national security and economic prosperity by supporting the expansion of 5G networks and satellite technologies like StarLink. Additionally, it suggests that Big Tech companies should contribute to the Universal Service Fund, which is currently funded through telephone bills[4].The project's approach to civil rights and social policies is another contentious area. It proposes rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs across federal agencies, arguing that these policies can violate federal civil rights laws. Project 2025 also aims to dismantle the DEI apparatus in various agencies and eliminate terms like "DEI," "abortion," and "gender equality" from federal rules and regulations. This stance aligns with Trump's executive order ending all DEI programs within the federal government, which he claimed could shut out Americans "who deserve a shot at the American dream" due to their race or sex[3].Critics of Project 2025, including Democrats and some Republicans, have been vocal about its potential impacts. Vice President Kamala Harris has described the project as a plan to "return America to a dark past," and President Biden has accused Trump of lying about his connections to the initiative, stating that it "should scare every single American"[2].Despite Trump's public disavowal of Project 2025, the initiative's connections to his administration are undeniable. Former high-ranking officials like Ben Carson, John Ratcliffe, and Peter Navarro are listed as authors or contributors to the policy agenda. This close association has led critics to argue that Project 2025 is essentially a blueprint for a second Trump term, one that could endanger democratic institutions and concentrate presidential power[2][4].As the 2024 elections approach, Project 2025 stands as a significant milestone in the debate over the future of American governance. Its proposals, if implemented, would mark a profound shift in federal policies, from education and environmental regulation to technology and civil rights. Whether these changes would be beneficial or detrimental remains a subject of intense debate.In the words of Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, the nation is "in the process of the second American Revolution," which he hopes will remain bloodless. However, the radical nature of Project 2025's proposals has raised concerns among many that this revolution could come at a steep cost to democratic values and social welfare[2].As we move forward, the fate of Project 2025 will likely be decided in the political arena. Will its vision for a more conservative, decentralized government prevail, or will it face significant resistance from those who see it as a threat to the fabric of American society? The answer will depend on the choices made by voters, policymakers, and the next administration. One thing is certain, however: Project 2025 has set the stage for a critical conversation about the future of America, one that will shape the country's trajectory for years to come.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Congress violated the Constitution in the way it gave power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and whether the FCC then violated the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions.

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Birth-Day O'ConnorOn this day in legal history, March 26, 1930, Sandra Day O'Connor was born in El Paso, Texas. Raised on a remote Arizona ranch, O'Connor would go on to become the first woman appointed to the United States Supreme Court. After graduating near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952, she struggled to find legal work due to widespread gender discrimination, eventually beginning her career in public service and Arizona state politics. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan nominated her to the Supreme Court, fulfilling a campaign promise to appoint a woman to the bench. Her unanimous confirmation by the Senate marked a historic shift in the Court's composition.O'Connor quickly established herself as a pragmatic and often pivotal swing vote, particularly in cases involving reproductive rights, federalism, and affirmative action. Her opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), co-authored with Justices Kennedy and Souter, preserved the core of Roe v. Wade while allowing for more state regulation—an outcome that satisfied neither side of the debate. Critics argued that her incremental, case-by-case approach often lacked a firm constitutional foundation, leading to legal uncertainty and doctrinal ambiguity.Supporters, however, praised her moderate jurisprudence as a stabilizing force in a deeply divided Court. O'Connor was also a staunch defender of judicial independence and civics education. She retired in 2006 to care for her husband, who had Alzheimer's disease, and remained active in public life for years afterward. While her legacy is marked by both trailblazing achievement and contentious rulings, O'Connor's presence on the Court undeniably reshaped the public's perception of who belongs in the nation's highest judicial institution.President Trump signed a new executive order on Tuesday targeting the prominent law firm Jenner & Block, escalating his pattern of actions against firms involved in litigation against his administration. The order restricts the firm's access to federal contracts, security clearances, and government facilities—mirroring similar actions taken against Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss. Trump justified the move by pointing to Jenner & Block's former employment of Andrew Weissmann, who worked on the Mueller investigation into Trump's 2016 campaign. The White House accused the firm of politicizing the legal system, while Jenner & Block denounced the order as unconstitutional and pledged to fight it.This is the fourth such order Trump has issued since returning to office in January. Jenner & Block has been active in challenging his administration in court, including blocking enforcement of a policy denying federal funds to providers of gender-affirming care for minors, and opposing efforts to restrict asylum rights. The firm also represents an environmental group suing the EPA over frozen grant funds. Many of Jenner's attorneys have ties to previous Democratic administrations and the January 6 congressional investigation.Trump's broader campaign includes a recent directive to the Justice Department to target law firms that have sued the government in recent years. Legal experts and bar associations have warned that these executive orders risk undermining the independence of the legal profession.Trump targets Jenner & Block in latest executive order aimed at law firms | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday on the constitutionality of how the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) funds its Universal Service Fund—a program that supports broadband and phone access for underserved communities. Critics argue the FCC's funding structure violates the Constitution by improperly delegating Congress's legislative authority, a concept known as the non-delegation doctrine. They also raise concerns under the private non-delegation doctrine, claiming the FCC unlawfully transferred power to a private entity—the Universal Service Administrative Company—to manage and determine contributions to the fund.The fund, created under the 1996 Telecommunications Act, collects about $9 billion annually from telecommunications providers, who often pass these costs on to consumers. A divided ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found this setup unconstitutional, citing Congress's broad delegation of authority to the FCC and the FCC's subsequent subdelegation to a private company. The court did not specifically rule on either non-delegation theory but found the overall structure breached the Constitution's assignment of legislative powers to Congress.The FCC, backed by telecom firms and public interest groups, argues that Congress provided sufficient guidance and oversight in the law and that the agency has acted within legal bounds. The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, has recently scaled back the reach of federal agencies in other contexts but has yet to rule directly on a major non-delegation case in decades. A decision is expected by June.US Supreme Court to scrutinize Federal Communications Commission fund's legality | ReutersA high-stakes race for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat is shaping up to be a major political flashpoint, testing the strength of Trump's support in a swing state and attracting record-breaking spending—much of it tied to Elon Musk. The April 1 election will determine the ideological balance of the state's top court, which is poised to rule on pivotal issues like abortion access, redistricting, labor rights, and election laws ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. Conservative candidate Brad Schimel, backed by Trump and major outside funding, is facing off against liberal candidate Susan Crawford.Over $81 million has been poured into the race, far surpassing the previous record of $55 million in 2023. Schimel and his supporters have spent about $46 million, including $17.5 million from Musk-affiliated super PACs. Musk also personally donated $2 million to the state GOP, which quickly funneled funds to Schimel's campaign. Musk has openly warned that a liberal court majority could redraw congressional districts and shift the balance of power nationally.Crawford accused Musk and Trump of trying to install a compliant judiciary, while Schimel insisted he's made no promises to any backers. Meanwhile, Democrats criticized Musk for a potential conflict of interest, citing a Tesla lawsuit in Wisconsin that may end up before the state court. Republicans countered by pointing to liberal billionaires supporting Crawford. With the court expected to rule on abortion rights, labor laws, and future election cases, this judicial race could have national implications.Wisconsin court race tests Trump's approval as Musk pours millions into campaign | ReutersA piece I wrote for Forbes this week explores why it's time to move beyond gas taxes and adopt a kilowatt-hour (kWh) tax to fund road infrastructure. As electric vehicle (EV) adoption increases, gas tax revenues are falling—undermining the traditional funding model for maintaining and expanding roads. Meanwhile, construction costs are rising, and the federal gas tax hasn't been adjusted since 1993, leaving states with a growing fiscal gap.I argue that instead of hiking gas taxes on a shrinking pool of internal combustion drivers or cutting infrastructure budgets, states should issue bonds to build out public EV charging networks. These investments could be repaid through a kWh tax on public charging—a fee that would be closely tied to actual road usage. This approach would be more proportional and transparent than flat EV registration fees or invasive mileage-tracking programs.Unlike a gas tax, which is loosely connected to how much someone drives, a kWh tax—especially if tiered by charging speed—would more accurately reflect miles traveled and wear on the roads. It also avoids privacy issues and technological complexity. Drivers charging at home could remain exempt, just as today's drivers can choose where to fuel up.Ultimately, I propose this as a modern, fair way to ensure EV drivers contribute to the roads they use, while giving states the tools to build the infrastructure needed for a successful transition.It's Time To Replace Gas Taxes With A Kilowatt Tax This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Louisiana v. Callais (March 24) - Election law, Civil Rights; Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.Riley v. Bondi (March 24) - Immigration; Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1)'s 30-day deadline is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims-processing rule that can be waived or forfeited; and (2) whether a person can obtain review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in a withholding-only proceeding by filing a petition within 30 days of that decision.Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency (March 25) - Jurisdiction, Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (March 26) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission (March 31) - First Amendment, Religion; Issue(s): Whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.Rivers v. Guerrero (March 31) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) applies only to habeas filings made after a prisoner has exhausted appellate review of his first petition, to all second-in-time habeas filings after final judgment, or to some second-in-time filings — depending on a prisoner’s success on appeal or ability to satisfy a seven-factor test.Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (April 1) - Due Process, Fifth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (April 2) - Medicare; Issue(s): Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider. Featuring:Allison Daniel, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationErielle Davidson, Associate, Holtzman VogelJennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceElizabeth A. Kiernan, Associate Attorney, Gibson, Dunn & CrutcherMorgan Ratner, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP(Moderator) Sarah Welch, Issues & Appeals Associate, Jones Day

As news hit that President Trump fired the two remaining Democratic FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, many questions abound. Would Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter contest the dismissals? (The answer there appears to be an emphatic yes – with both issuing statements last night to that effect.) Another question: what will this mean for day-to-day operations at the Commission, including the ability for the FTC to continue to bring actions with only two commissioners of the same party, an issue my colleagues cover in a separate post here. Perhaps the biggest question – with implications far beyond our day-to-day advertising and privacy worlds – is whether the Supreme Court will overturn its 1935 decision in Humphrey's Executor, a decision that forms the longstanding constitutional basis for independent agencies like the FTC, Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), amongst others. As a refresher, in Humphrey's Executor, the Supreme Court upheld the insulation of FTC Commissioners from removal by the President at will – finding that the Constitution permits Congress to create expert independent agencies led by a group of principal offers removable only for cause.

Donald Trump has not been shy about his disdain for the press. In his second term, the president is turning those fiery feelings into action.Since assuming office, Trump has stepped up his litigious rampage against the media, suing ABC News, The Des Moines Register, CBS News, and pollster J. Ann Selzer. And at the Federal Communications Commission, Trump-appointed chair Brendan Carr has promised to roll back regulations. In January, the FCC announced it would be investigating NPR and PBS over their underwriting practices.We discuss what these actions mean for press freedom, you, and the health of U.S. democracy.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Connect with us. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Does a cat stand on two legs or four?  The answer to that question may tell you all you need to know about the government involving itself in social media content moderation. On today's show, we cover the latest tech policy developments involving the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, AI regulation, and more.   Guests: - Ari Cohn, FIRE's lead counsel, tech policy. - Adam Thierer, a resident technology and innovation senior fellow at the R Street Institute   - Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy senior fellow at the CATO Institute   Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:30 Section 230 06:55 FCC and Section 230 14:32 Brendan Carr and “faith-based programming” 28:24 Media companies' settlements with the Trump 30:24 Brendan Carr at Semafor event 38:37 FTC and social media companies 48:09 AI regulations 01:03:43 Outro   Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.   Show notes: “Seeing reports that the FCC plans to take a vague and ineffective step on Section 230 to try to control speech online…” FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez via X (2025) “Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025) Section 230 text “Federal Communications Commission” Brendan Carr via Project 2025 (2022) “Bless Ron Wyden and his steady defense of Section 230. He is absolutely right: 230 is a pro-competition law.” Adam Kovacevich via X (2025) “If Google is looking to block faith-based programming on YouTube, they are doing a really really bad job at it…” Adam Thierer via X (2025) “I have received complaints that Google's @YouTubeTV is discriminating against faith-based programming…” Brendan Carr via X (2025) “FCC's Carr defends broadcast probes, slams social media ‘threat'” Semafor (2025) “Petition for rulemaking of the national telecommunications and information administration” National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2020) “FCC Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025) “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal…” FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson via X (2025) “Federal Trade Commission launches inquiry on tech censorship” FTC (2025) “Moody v. NetChoice” (2024) “The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online” FIRE (2025) “Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems” FIRE (2025) “AI regulatory activity is completely out of control in the U.S…” Adam Thierer via X (2025)   “Cyber rights: Defending free speech in the digital age” Mike Godwin (1995) “Greg Lukianoff testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, February 6, 2024” FIRE (2024) “Technologies of Freedom” Ithiel de Sola Pool (1984)

Sponsored by WatersEdge: Invest with purpose? With WatersEdge Kingdom Investments, you can! We offer great rates that multiply your resources and build churches. Learn more at: https://bit.ly/3CxWtFzTop headlines for Wednesday, March 12, 2025In this episode, we discuss the confirmation of the 25th member of President Donald Trump's cabinet amid debates surrounding her previous involvement with Planned Parenthood. Then, we shift focus to a pressing issue in media: the Federal Communications Commission's chairman raising concerns about YouTube TV's potential discrimination against faith-based programming. Plus, we explore a parent's fight for transparency in education, as a Pennsylvania mom challenges her children's school district over access to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) materials.Subscribe to this PodcastApple PodcastsSpotifyGoogle PodcastsOvercastFollow Us on Social Media@ChristianPost on TwitterChristian Post on Facebook@ChristianPostIntl on InstagramSubscribe on YouTubeGet the Edifi AppDownload for iPhoneDownload for AndroidSubscribe to Our NewsletterSubscribe to the Freedom Post, delivered every Monday and ThursdayClick here to get the top headlines delivered to your inbox every morning!Links to the NewsSenate confirms Trump cabinet pick Chavez-DeRemer | PoliticsFCC asks YouTube TV if it discriminates against Christians | EntertainmentUS Navy halts leave, travel reimbursements for abortion | PoliticsSupreme Court rejects fire chief fired over megachurch event | PoliticsCourt rules against school district in DEI parental rights case | EducationOkla. Supreme Court temporarily blocks Bibles in public schools | PoliticsCofE diocese says Christianity spread by racist Europeans | Church & Ministries

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a new Chair, Brendan Carr, and his priorities are quickly taking shape. The FCC is responsible for universal access to communications. Hear from former FCC Chair, Tom Wheeler, on the power of the chairmanship to shape the future priorities for American consumers and businesses, and what's in store for the independent agency under the Trump administration. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In being careful to avoid a monarchy or dictatorship, America’s founders adamantly insisted on each government agency being independent. The Federal Communications Commission act of 1934 was created to ensure that the public would have access to news without threat The post Is Freedom of the Press Doomed? appeared first on KDA Keeping Democracy Alive Podcast & Radio Show.

Reed Hundt helped shape the modern Internet as Chair of the Federal Communications Commission in the 1990s. He served as a board member at Intel for many years and founded the Coalition for Green Capital. Host David Sandalow talks with Reed Hundt about lessons from the dawn of the Internet era, the future of the US semiconductor industry, changes needed to decarbonize the global economy, and more. AI, Energy and Climate is a special series from the DSR Network sponsored by NEDO and hosted by David Sandalow, Inaugural Fellow at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. AI for Climate Change Mitigation Roadmap -- https://www.icef.go.jp/roadmap and transitiondigital.org/ai-climate-roadmap.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

L'origine de YouTube est liée à un événement surprenant : le "Nipplegate" du Super Bowl 2004, où le téton de Janet Jackson est brièvement apparu en direct à la télévision. Cet incident a indirectement conduit à la création de la plateforme de partage de vidéos la plus populaire au monde.Le "Nipplegate" : un scandale planétaireLe 1er février 2004, lors du spectacle de la mi-temps du Super Bowl, Janet Jackson et Justin Timberlake se produisent sur scène devant des millions de téléspectateurs. À la fin de la performance, Timberlake arrache une partie du costume de Janet Jackson, révélant brièvement son sein droit, recouvert d'un bijou.L'incident ne dure qu'une fraction de seconde, mais il provoque un véritable tollé aux États-Unis. CBS, qui diffusait l'événement, est lourdement sanctionnée par la Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Le scandale monopolise les médias pendant des semaines, alimentant des débats sur la censure, la nudité et la moralité à la télévision.L'impact sur l'idée de YouTubeTrois amis – Steve Chen, Chad Hurley et Jawed Karim – sont frustrés de ne pas trouver facilement de vidéos de l'incident en ligne. À l'époque, il n'existe pas de plateforme centralisée pour partager des vidéos de manière fluide. Karim, en particulier, réalise qu'il y a un manque d'outils simples pour publier et visionner du contenu vidéo sur Internet.Cette frustration les pousse à imaginer un site où tout le monde pourrait facilement télécharger, partager et visionner des vidéos en streaming. En février 2005, un an après le Super Bowl, ils lancent YouTube.Un héritage involontaire mais majeurBien que YouTube n'ait pas été créé uniquement à cause du "Nipplegate", cet événement a mis en évidence une lacune sur Internet : l'absence de plateforme adaptée à la diffusion rapide de vidéos. C'est cette prise de conscience qui a contribué à l'émergence de YouTube, qui sera racheté par Google en 2006 pour 1,65 milliard de dollars.Ainsi, un téton dévoilé en direct a, d'une certaine manière, précipité la création du géant du streaming vidéo, prouvant qu'un simple incident peut parfois mener à des innovations majeures. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Reed Hundt helped shape the modern Internet as Chair of the Federal Communications Commission in the 1990s. He served as a board member at Intel for many years and founded the Coalition for Green Capital. Host David Sandalow talks with Reed Hundt about lessons from the dawn of the Internet era, the future of the US semiconductor industry, changes needed to decarbonize the global economy, and more. AI, Energy and Climate is a special series from the DSR Network sponsored by NEDO and hosted by David Sandalow, Inaugural Fellow at Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy. AI for Climate Change Mitigation Roadmap -- https://www.icef.go.jp/roadmap and transitiondigital.org/ai-climate-roadmap.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The battle over media regulation, political influence and journalistic integrity has reached a new flashpoint as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) faces scrutiny over its selective enforcement of cases involving major networks. At the center of the debate is Fox's Philadelphia affiliate, WTXF, and whether its parent company should retain its broadcast license given the network's documented history of knowingly spreading falsehoods. To unpack this issue, former FCC Chairman Al Sikes and longtime media executive Preston Padden — both leaders of the Media and Democracy Project — discussed the implications of the FCC's actions and the broader stakes for press freedom and democracy. Their conversation highlights deep concerns about regulatory capture, the erosion of media accountability and the consequences of the FCC acting as a political weapon rather than an impartial guardian of the public interest. Access more at this episode's landing page, at: https://www.editorandpublisher.com/stories/media-accountability-the-fcc-and-the-fight-over-fox-a-conversation-with-al-sikes-and-preston,254569  

Trump is corruptly using his Federal Communications Commission not only to suppress Freedom of the Press and the First Amendment by opening dozens of investigations into corporate media like National Public Radio and PBS, but is using our taxpayer dollars and federal officers who swore an oath to the American People, to benefit Trump's personal lawsuits against these same entities for billions of dollars. Michael Popok ties it all together as we have entered a Free Speech Emergency. Laundry Sauce: Get 20% off your entire order @LaundrySauce with code: LEGALAF20 at https://laundrysauce.com/LEGALAF20 #laundrysaucepod Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Passing Judgment, we explore the Supreme Court's decision to abstain from ruling on a Trump emergency appeal about firing Hampton Dellinger, head of the Office of Special Counsel. Jessica Levinson and Katie Buehler, Law360's Supreme Court reporter, analyze the nuances of presidential power and the debate over the constitutionality of restricting executive authority. Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Supreme Court Decision on Trump Emergency Appeal: The episode discusses the Supreme Court's recent decision not to review an emergency appeal concerning the firing of Hampton Dellinger from his position as the head of the Office of Special Counsel. The court allowed the temporary restraining order, which pauses the firing, to run its course and expire. Legal Arguments and Statute Constitutionality: The legal argument centers on whether President Trump had to provide a reason for Dellinger's firing, as required by federal law. Trump's administration argues that the statute requiring a reason is unconstitutional and that the president should have the power to fire at will. This theme explores the larger question of presidential authority and statutory constraints.Significant Supreme Court Cases: Katie Buehler highlights other significant Supreme Court cases beyond the Trump-related decision, including a case involving the Federal Communications Commission's authority and executive power, as well as cases on religious rights such as opting-out of LGBTQ-related education and funding for religious charter schools. Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica@bykatiebuehler

The Federal Communications Commission, led by President Trump's appointee Brendan Carr, is investigating San Francisco radio station KCBS for its coverage of a recent immigration enforcement action in San Jose. Plus, Carr is calling for an investigation into NPR and PBS for allegedly airing commercials and suggested the public broadcasters could be stripped of their federal funding. Scott and Marisa are joined by Ben Mullin, media reporter for The New York Times, to talk about the chilling effect the FCC's legal actions could have in newsrooms.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On January 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a ruling which vacated the so-called ​“one-to-one” consent requirement for marketing calls and texts adopted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in its implementing rules for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). In its ruling, the court held that the rule adopted by the FCC exceeded the agency's statutory authority because it conflicted with the plain meaning of ​“prior express consent” in the TCPA. Below we summarize the court's ruling and explain what it means for businesses going forward. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/eleventh-circuit-vacates-tcpa-11-consent-rule Alysa Hutnik ahutnik@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8603 www.kelleydrye.com/people/alysa-z-hutnik Jenny Wainwright jwainwright@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8649 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/jennifer-rodden-wainwright Hosted by Simone Roach Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw

This week, while goods from Canada and Mexico received a month-long reprieve from a 25% tariff, Chinese goods have been slapped with an additional 10% import duty, or tax. Because the policy contains no carve-outs for the minerals or rare earths critical to space systems, space companies may need to brace for a serious bite on their budgets and business plans. Laura Winter speaks with Bryan Zetlen, Launch and Payloads Operations Manager, Virtus Solis Technologies, Lecturer, and Engineer with deep experience at NASA, the Federal Communications Commission, Boeing, and Rand; and Bailey Reichelt, Founding Partner, Aegis Law, and Member of the Board of Directors, Association Of Commercial Space Professionals.

The Supreme Court is set to hear argument this term in a case raising both the nondelegation and private nondelegation doctrines.On July 24, 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”), which funds broadband service for rural areas and hospitals, schools, libraries, and low-income individuals, is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative authority. In the Communications Act, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to collect contributions, or payments, from certain providers of telecommunications. The FCC employs the private Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) to administer certain aspects of USF, including calculating the contribution factor based on the needs of each program established by the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act.The Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as a panel of the Fifth Circuit, had previously upheld the constitutionality of the delegation of authority. And the FCC defended the Act against delegation challenges. It argued that the Communication Act provides an intelligible principle by which USF is to be administered and that USAC plays only a ministerial role.But the July en banc ruling by the Fifth Circuit held this regulatory revenue-raising program unconstitutional. It acknowledged “grave” concerns that the Act may have unconstitutionally delegated the taxing power to the FCC to impose a contribution amount, or tax, on America’s telecommunications carriers, and ultimately paid by consumers. Then it similarly concluded there were serious constitutional concerns about the FCC’s subdelegation to private parties, most notably USAC’s role in determining the contribution amount that will be charged to telecommunications carriers. The Court’s ultimate holding, however, was that the combination of these delegations violated the nondelegation doctrine.A petition for certiorari was granted on November 22, 2024. This roundtable will discuss this case and the broader legal issues it raises, including (1) is there a nondelegation doctrine?, (2) if there is, what should it look like?, and (3) how should the Supreme Court decide this case in light of the above discussion on the nondelegation doctrine.Featuring:Sean Lev, Partner, HWG LLPTrent McCotter, Partner, Boyden Grey PLLCProf. Nicholas Parrillo, William K. Townsend Professor of Law and Professor of History, Yale Law SchoolProf. Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law SchoolModerator: Adam Griffin, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation--To register, click the link above.

Peter Hyun, then-Acting Chief of the Enforcement Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission, discusses with Lawfare Contributing Editor Justin Sherman the FCC's data security and cybersecurity enforcement authorities and how those authorities fit into addressing national security threats to the communications supply chain. He covers some recent enforcement actions and issues in this area, ranging from the FCC's data breach notification rule to submarine cables to rip-and-replace efforts targeting Chinese telecom components, and he offers predictions for how technology supply chains, national security risks, and entanglement with China may evolve in the years to come.Note: Peter Hyun was in his position at the FCC at the time of recording and is now no longer with the Commission following the change in administration.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Federal Communications Commission has uncovered a sophisticated mortgage lending scheme implemented by scammers who seek payment through unconventional methods.Today's Stocks & Topics: NVDA - NVIDIA Corp., Market Wrap, LVMUY - LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton ADR, Mortgage Scam Alert: How Criminals Are Stealing Your Home Equity, IFP - Interfor Corp., Long-Term Treasuries, AIRR - First Trust RBA American Industrial Renaissance ETF, ITRN - Ituran Location & Control Ltd., Cryptocurrency, BRKB - Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Cl B, The Stock Market and Artificial Intelligent.Our Sponsors:* Check out Fabric: https://fabric.com/INVESTTALK* Check out Indochino: https://indochino.com/INVEST* Check out Kinsta: https://kinsta.com* Check out Trust & Will: https://trustandwill.com/INVESTAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

If you listen to OPB on the radio, you’ve heard hosts and announcers say a long list of letters and places at the end of every hour. We’re required to do this by the Federal Communications Commission - but it also gave OPB Weekend Edition host Lillian Karabaic, who’s read this roll call of Oregon cities where OPB can be heard hundreds of times, a creative idea. She and OPB video producer Prakruti Bhatt decided to go on a madcap road trip to visit every single one… all by public transit.This week, Lillian joins us to share what it was like making the 14-day journey on 38 buses to some of Oregon’s most remote places for OPB’s “Stop Requested” series. We’ll learn about the joys and challenges of rural public transit, and meet some of the friendly folks who ride it.   And if today’s episode leaves you wanting to learn more about rural transit in Oregon, great news: Lillian will be hosting a Stop Requested Live event at Portland State University in May. Registration opens soon. Find more details on OPB’s “Stop Requested” page or on OPB’s events page.   — For more Evergreen episodes and to share your voice with us, visit our showpage. Follow OPB on Instagram, and follow host Jenn Chávez too. You can sign up for OPB’s newsletters to get what you need in your inbox regularly. Find tickets for The Evergreen’s upcoming live podcast taping event at the Tomorrow Theater.   Don’t forget to check out our many podcasts, which can be found on any of your favorite podcast apps: Hush Timber Wars Season 2: Salmon Wars Politics Now Think Out Loud And many more! Check out our full show list here.

Today's guest is near and dear to my heart. It's my dad, Diego Ruiz. We recorded this in person, and we both had the same cold, which you may be able to hear. At some point, you may also hear my son in the background, which makes three generations of Ruizes on the podcast.Diego has helped win elections in the US and Central America, served as Executive Director of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), was a senior advisor in the House of Representatives, and was Deputy Chief for Strategy and Policy at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), managing a multidisciplinary “in-house think tank.”In this episode, we discuss:* How to win a congressional election in Miami* What “burrowing in” to the civil service means* How to win a presidential election in communist Nicaragua* How the Sandinistas used Michael Keaton and Mike Tyson to dampen voter turnout* Why the Base Realignment and Closure Commission may be a model for DOGEYou can find the full transcript at www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.TikTok, Inc. v. Garland (January 10) - First Amendment, National Security; Issue(s): Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment.Hewitt v. U.S. (January 13) - Criminal Law, First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment.Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida (January 13) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.Thompson v. U.S. (January 14) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services (January 14) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (January 15) - Free Speech; Issue(s): Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.Food and Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (January 21) - Federalism & Separation of Powers; Issue(s): Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation (January 21) - Telecommunications; Issue(s): Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.Barnes v. Felix (January 22) - Criminal Law, Fourth Amendment; Issue(s): Whether courts should apply the "moment of the threat" doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.Cunningham v. Cornell University (January 22) - Financial Services; Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.Featuring:Jennifer B. Dickey, Deputy Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of CommerceProf. Michael R. Dimino, Sr., Professor of Law, Widener University Commonwealth Law SchoolShannon M. Grammel, Counsel, Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLPGregory Y. Porter, Partner, Bailey Glasser LLPVikrant P. Reddy, Senior Fellow, Stand Together TrustBryan Weir, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC(Moderator) Brett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech

It's Hump Day! Sam and Emma speak with Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project, to discuss the recent overturning of net neutrality. Then they speak with Joshua Kaplan, reporter at ProPublica, to discuss his recent piece entitled "The Militia and the Mole." First, Sam and Emma run through updates on the DoJ's release of details related to Trump's Jan 6th- and Stolen Documents-related cases, mass evacuations amid wildfires in LA, Dem's retaining of the Virginia legislature, the North Carolina Supreme Court's anti-democratic move, the House's massive anti-immigration bill, DoJ action over the RealPage rent-fixing scheme and the prior weaponization of the department under Trump, Israel's ongoing slaughter of Gazans in supposed safe zones, and ACA expansion, before unpacking a recent report on the unsurprising misinformation around gender-affirming care for adolescents. Lee Hepner then joins, jumping right into an extensive history of Net Neutrality, stemming from the establishment of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under FDR's New Deal to preserve open networks and fair communication, with the 1996 Communications Act expanding its coverage to the internet and contributing to the arguments to expand to full Net Neutrality building under Bush before coming to fruition under Obama, only to be killed and restored by Trump and Biden respectively, all leading to the recent 6th Circuit decision to, once again, kill it. After tackling what Net Neutrality exactly is (the mandate for providers to serve websites equally) and expanding on the particular role the overturning of the Chevron Deference Doctrine played in this decision, Hepner wraps up with tactics to push back against this decision, and whether federalism will help keep these corporations in line. Joshua Kaplan then walks Sam and Emma through his extensive reporting on the far-right militia American Patriots 3% (AP3), tackling their role within the wider extremist militia ecosystem and how they used that to distance the organization from the January 6th insurrection attempt before having a wider discussion on the initial backlash (even internally) to these organizations in the wake of 1/6 before a steady rhetorical pivot from Trump and the GOP reversed the tides completely, and why that should concern us heading into a second Trump Administration with threats of mass pardoning for violent participators and organizers of 1/6. After expanding on AP3's odd “big tent” identity amid right-wing militias, Kaplan touches on his extensive conversations with a mole from AP3 and the role Facebook played in the militia's outreach, before wrapping up with the genuine threat posed by the extensive military training of these groups, both offered by the groups themselves and aided by their extensive connections to police, military, and veteran organizations. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma unpack the response from Mexico's President Scheinbaum to Trump's absurd statements on the US' territorial rights, the passage of the GOP's Lincoln Riley Bill with support from myriad Congressional Dems – including John “Manchin 2.0” Fetterman – to hand over immigration enforcement to the states (alongside the right to deport without criminal conviction). Chris Hayes reflects on the short history of Facebook's moderation team, John from Montreal on Trump's antagonization of US allies, and Kowalski from Nebraska parses through the future of farming amid threats to land ownership and more. Comrade Oz from the International Party of Antarctica provides some insight into Trump and Musk, plus, your calls and IMs! Follow Lee on Twitter here: https://x.com/leehepner Check out the American Economic Liberties Project here: https://www.economicliberties.us/ Follow Josh on Twitter here: https://x.com/js_kaplan Check out Josh's piece here: https://www.propublica.org/article/ap3-oath-keepers-militia-mole Check out Josh's previous piece "Armed And Underground" here: https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-secret-ap3-militia-american-patriots-three-percent Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Nutrafol: Start your hair growth journey with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners ten dollars off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to https://Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code TMR. Find out why over 4,500 healthcare professionals and stylists recommend Nutrafol for healthier hair. That's https://Nutrafol.com, promo code TMR. Trust & Will: Check one of your goals off early this year with Trust and Will. Protect what matters most in minutes at https://trustandwill.com/MAJORITY and get 10% off plus free shipping. That's 10% off and free shipping at https://trustandwill.com/MAJORITY. Remi Mouthguards: Remi is for anyone dealing with nighttime grinding, clenching, or jaw pain who wants an affordable solution to protect their smile and say good night to jaw pain and headaches. Head to https://shopremi.com/majority and use code MAJORITY to save up to 50%. That's 50% off at https://shopremi.com/majority with code MAJORITY. Give your teeth a break without breaking the bank with Remi. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

President-elect Donald Trump has lashed out at TV broadcasters and tech companies, accusing them of unfair news coverage or censoring conservative speech. And soon, his Federal Communications Commission may try to penalize them. Outgoing FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, fears the agency's independence could be in jeopardy. On POLITICO Tech, Rosenworcel joins host Steven Overly to discuss her tenure atop the agency and its future in the next administration. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has initiated a proceeding that proposes to require radio and TV broadcasters as well as cable and direct broadcast satellite (DBS) operators to include a disclaimer on all political advertisements that contain content generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The requirement would apply to both candidate and issue ads. The broadcasters […]

Jon got piled on last week for tweeting that activist groups have pushed the Democratic Party out of supermajority territory. Waleed Shahid, a progressive strategist who's worked for Bernie Sanders, AOC, and Justice Democrats, joins the show for an offline version of his and Jon's online debate. Waleed explains why he thinks the blame is misplaced, and Jon weighs in on who—or what—is behind Democratic leaders losing touch with their base. But first! Trump's new head of the Federal Communications Commission, Brendan Carr, is a Project 2025 author. What does this mean for social media, free speech, and Elon Musk's ventures? Plus, new exit polling shows late-deciding, swing voters had wildly inaccurate beliefs about Kamala Harris's policy positions. Is hyper-targeted misinformation a permanent part of our electoral process now? For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email transcripts@crooked.com and include the name of the podcast.

President Donald Trump has selected Brendan Carr to serve as chair of his Federal Communications Commission & leftists are nervous because he authored Project 2025's chapter on the FCC's main goals, the first trans representative has been elected to Congress, the View's Sunny Hostin melted down yesterday about uneducated white people after Mika Brzezinski and Morning Joe Scarborough sat down with President Trump, Generation Z have unveiled Solo Poly, a new sexual orientation on TikTok, Islamic culture enriches the Pacific Northwest as an Iraqi parent attempted honor killing his daughter, and much more!GUEST: Josh FirestineGo to www.1775coffee.com/crowder right now and pick up your first bag. Use code CROWDER to save 10%Connect your Mug Club account to Rumble and enjoy Rumble Premium: https://support.locals.com/en/article/how-do-i-connect-my-locals-account-to-my-rumble-account-on-rumble-vhd2st/SOURCES: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/sources-november-19-2024Connect your Mug Club account to Rumble and enjoy Rumble Premium: https://support.locals.com/en/article/how-do-i-connect-my-locals-account-to-my-rumble-account-on-rumble-vhd2st/Join Rumble Premium to watch this show every day! http://louderwithcrowder.com/PremiumNEW MERCH! https://crowdershop.com/Subscribe to my podcast: https://rss.com/podcasts/louder-with-crowder/FOLLOW ME: Website: https://louderwithcrowder.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/scrowder Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/louderwithcrowder Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficialMusic by @Pogo

A look at Brendan Carr, Trump's pick for chair of the Federal Communications Commission, and the way he has incorrectly been pitched as a “free speech advocate.” Then, Lucy Dean Stockton, an editor and reporter at The Lever, joins the program to discuss the very specific way Trump could erase many of President Joe Biden's recent regulatory wins. Plus! a conversation with Jared Holt, a senior research analyst at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, about the growing threats of hate, extremism and misinformation online. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Some critics of President-elect Donald Trump are preparing for the possibility of being prosecuted when he takes office. We'll discuss Trump's “retribution” agenda. Then, we'll get into his pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission. Plus, what a meeting between “Morning Joe” hosts and Trump represents about access to information during the next administration. And, we’ll smile at the woman behind the curtain who inspired the “Wicked” lore. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Morning Joe' Hosts Reveal Meeting With Trump at Mar-a-Lago” from The New York Times “Brendan Carr wrote the FCC chapter in ‘Project 2025.' Now he's Trump's pick for the agency” from CNN Business “DoJ and FBI officials consult lawyers amid threats of Trump legal retribution | Trump administration” from The Guardian “Go bags, passports, foreign assets: Preparing to be a target of Trump's revenge” from The Washington Post “The Feminist Who Inspired the Witches of Oz” from Smithsonian Magazine We love to hear from you. Email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Some critics of President-elect Donald Trump are preparing for the possibility of being prosecuted when he takes office. We'll discuss Trump's “retribution” agenda. Then, we'll get into his pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission. Plus, what a meeting between “Morning Joe” hosts and Trump represents about access to information during the next administration. And, we’ll smile at the woman behind the curtain who inspired the “Wicked” lore. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Morning Joe' Hosts Reveal Meeting With Trump at Mar-a-Lago” from The New York Times “Brendan Carr wrote the FCC chapter in ‘Project 2025.' Now he's Trump's pick for the agency” from CNN Business “DoJ and FBI officials consult lawyers amid threats of Trump legal retribution | Trump administration” from The Guardian “Go bags, passports, foreign assets: Preparing to be a target of Trump's revenge” from The Washington Post “The Feminist Who Inspired the Witches of Oz” from Smithsonian Magazine We love to hear from you. Email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Some critics of President-elect Donald Trump are preparing for the possibility of being prosecuted when he takes office. We'll discuss Trump's “retribution” agenda. Then, we'll get into his pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission. Plus, what a meeting between “Morning Joe” hosts and Trump represents about access to information during the next administration. And, we’ll smile at the woman behind the curtain who inspired the “Wicked” lore. Here’s everything we talked about today: “Morning Joe' Hosts Reveal Meeting With Trump at Mar-a-Lago” from The New York Times “Brendan Carr wrote the FCC chapter in ‘Project 2025.' Now he's Trump's pick for the agency” from CNN Business “DoJ and FBI officials consult lawyers amid threats of Trump legal retribution | Trump administration” from The Guardian “Go bags, passports, foreign assets: Preparing to be a target of Trump's revenge” from The Washington Post “The Feminist Who Inspired the Witches of Oz” from Smithsonian Magazine We love to hear from you. Email us at makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe US is going to break free from the green new scam. Trump has nominated Chris Wright to lead the energy dept in the US. Hochul tries to convince the people that she is saving them money. The World Bank panics about Trump's budget cuts. The Fed is trying to time the crash, boomerang. The [DS] has not given up, their next plan is chaos, could be a race war. Election fraud is being exposed to the people and people can now see how you rig and election. The fake news admits that there were a lot of people who voted for Trump but they kept it a secret, the Great Awakening worked.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1858005523255206161 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1857888139106250857  liabilities. The Pentagon's goal is now to pass an audit by 2028. https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1857613478921454007   https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1857797502314877341 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1857797506068811981 https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1857797511550812349 Political/Rights Trump Hater Sunny Hostin of ‘The View' is the Latest Leftist to Nuke Her Twitter/X Account in Anger Source: thegatewaypndit.com https://twitter.com/17ThankQ/status/1857598546570104951 Geopolitical/Police State Left-Wing Social Media Platform ‘Bluesky' Says It Cannot Keep Up With Users' Censorship Requests The left-wing alternative to Elon Musk's X platform is already running into difficulties with its promise to censor “harmful content.” Bluesky, which has received millions of sign-ups from angry leftists boycotting Elon Musk's X platform, has admitted that it cannot keep up with the number of moderation and censorship requests from its progressive user base. In a post from “Bluesky Safety,” the company announced that it was receiving over 3,000 censorship demands per hour, leading to a backlog in its response times. They explained: Bluesky has grown by over 3M people in the last week — welcome! With every wave of growth naturally comes an increase in moderation reports. Here's a status report on how the Trust & Safety team is handling it: In the past 24 hours, we have received more than 42,000 reports (an all-time high for one day). We're receiving about 3,000 reports/hour. To put that into context, in all of 2023, we received 360k reports. We're triaging this large queue so the most harmful content such as CSAM is removed quickly. With this significant influx of users, we've also seen increased spam, scam, and trolling activity — you may have seen some of this yourself. Our team is reviewing these accounts, and you can help us by reporting them by clicking the three-dot menu on each post/account. We appreciate your patience as we dial our moderation team up to max capacity and bring on new team members to support this load. Your safety is our highest priority, and we're glad to welcome you to Bluesky!   Bluesky was originally established in 2019 by former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. However, he has since stepped down from its board and encouraged users to stay active on X. Source: thegatewaypundit.com FCC Commissioner Sends Letter to Tech Giants on Their Improper Role in the Unprecedented Surge in Censorship Brendan Carr, the Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, penned a letter to the CEOs of Facebook, Google, Apple, Microsoft on the central roles their companies have played in the censorship cartel.