Search Results

Christians are being murdered, attacked, raped, and brutally persecuted in Africa by gangs and terrorist groups. Co-founder and visionary of Africa New Day, Pastor Camille Ntoto weighs in.   Ntoto’s home country, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is especially affected. Several groups, prominently one called M23, are the main actors behind the persecution, and unfortunately, the persecution is not a new development.   “The M23 is one of the most prominent terrorist rebel group in eastern Congo that has taken major cities, like Goma and Bukavu, and the same kind of atrocities that we’ve deplored in the past 30 thirty years, killing people and raping women, forcing young people into the army in their rebel groups, and putting in place a climate and an atmosphere of terror, where people don’t know what’s going to happen the next day. You could be doing your business on a daily basis and next thing you know, somebody’s being abducted,” said Ntoto.  The natural minerals in the region make the area valuable and are fueling much of the chaos, violence, and efforts by groups to gain control.    “All these mineral resources are found in eastern Congo and many of those groups are actively trying to take over those mines, and unfortunately, in this dirty business, they are getting rid of people, killing and committing all kinds of human atrocities,” explained Ntoto.  The United States is in a position to give assistance to Congo and the people there to help establish stability and end militant occupation in their cities. Ntoto urges the U.S. to step in and for Americans to pray for the innocent Congolese who are caught in the middle and losing their lives.   Watch the full conversation on CPAC.org .

After Trump assumed office for the second time in January, America has seen a renewed enthusiasm for the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement. At CPAC in DC 2025, attendees saw the MAGA movement going global, with leaders from countries such as South Korea, Hungary, Argentina, Poland, and others discussing the ways that the movement was alive and well in their nations. Britain, according to former Prime Minister Liz Truss, is one of the nations that could benefit from a MAGA movement.  “We want a Trump revolution in Britain,” she said on the CPAC stage on Thursday, February 20. “We want Elon and his nerd army of Muskrats examining the British deep state.”  Britain, according to Truss, “is becoming a failed state.” “Britain is in the dark ages,” she said, specifically citing the influx of illegal migrants, Muslim grooming gangs targeting young girls, and government tyranny. “Everything that made Britain great is being destroyed by an establishment that hates Britain and hates the west.” Truss specifically called out former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who served from 1997 to 2007. She said that he created a “tyranny of technocrats” and a corrupt Supreme Court. The solution? “We need to restore free speech,” Truss said. “I want the police to be policing real crimes, not thoughtcrimes.” Watch the full discussion on Rumble @CPAC.

The Trafficking Survivors Relief Act has now been introduced to both chambers of Congress.   Two weeks ago, CPAC, along with the Tim Tebow Foundation, Ascend Consulting, National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE), and Rights4Girls, presented on the act at the annual Anti-Trafficking in Persons Congressional Roundtable to members of Congress. The CPAC team and its partners advocated for the act which would provide criminal record relief to trafficking victims.  The bill has broad bipartisan support. It has 10 co-sponsors in the House, including Rep. Russell Fry (95% CPAC Rating), and 4 co-sponsors in the Senate, including Senator Marsha Blackburn (95% CPAC Rating) and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (78% CPAC Rating). CPAC worked this week with Blackburn and Hyde-Smith's offices to further the bill in the legislative process.   The CPAC Center for Combating Human Trafficking has also been working with legislators in Arkansas, Texas , Oklahoma, Georgia, Connecticut, and Louisiana to pass similar bills at the state level.    The CPAC team recently published blogs delving into the details of the Trafficking Survivors Relief Act  and Arkansas’ Child Trafficking Victims Protection and Restoration Act . These kinds of bills have the potential to make a major and positive impact on lifting trafficking victims out of a cycle of crime and ending modern-day slavery in America. CPAC urges legislators to take action on these bills and will continue to work to get them across the finish line.

The announcement of CPAC for Iranians in Exile marks the latest CPAC initiative which advances the cause of freedom around the world. Replacing the current regime in Iran with a more moderate government will be an enormous win for the people of Iran, but also will have a vast ripple effect around the world. The Iranian regime - frequently referred to as the “head of the snake” of a vast Islamic terror network - serves as the largest state sponsor of terror, and their chants of “Death to America, Death to Israel” are really a declaration of ongoing war against all things western and democratic. Iran’s proxy wars against the West have claimed the lives of thousands, and replacing the current regime will make the world a safer place. CPAC has decided to put a special focus on fighting for religious liberty and against the persecution of Jews and Christians around the world by these radical Iranian terrorist proxy groups. We will also continue to highlight Iran’s role as the world's most dangerous state sponsor of Antisemitism, and serve to put the regime on notice that the forces of democracy and liberty will be uniting with the Iranian people to make the world a safer place. Just 7 months ago, Iran launched the largest ballistic missile attack in history aimed at Israel. Israel, with allies led by the United States, was able to foil this murderous attack and has been leading the way in systematically dismantling Iran’s terror machine. This is a great start to bringing peace and stability to Iran and the entire Middle East region, but the U.S. must ensure that the current, barbaric regime in Iran is replaced by a more moderate government and not another terrorist group that will continue to unleash terror on both Christians and Jews in the Middle East. Together, CPAC’s new center to combat religious persecution and planned CPAC for Iranians in Exile conference will make significant progress to establish lasting peace in the long-troubled Middle East and uphold human dignity worldwide.

The CPAC Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Freedom (CRF) consistently engages in the regulatory rulemaking process and has submitted countless comments, petitions, and letters advocating for broad deregulation and agency compliance with the Trump Administration’s directives. Among these submissions, CRF has effected change at the federal level, simply by engaging in the notice-and-comment process provided by the APA. Social Security Administration’s Removal of “Gender-Inclusive Language” Problem: During the transition period between President Trump’s electoral victory and his inauguration, SSA issued a public notice of their intent to modify Social Security records to incorporate “gender-inclusive language.” Action: CRF submitted comments opposing this notice, arguing that the incorporation of “gender-inclusive language” directly contradicted the provisions of Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Response: On February 20, SSA issued a correction to their previous notice, removing gender references from Social Security records to comply with Executive Order 14168. Federal Communications Commission Seeks Additional Comment from CPAC Problem: In November of 2024, FCC issued a proposed rulemaking that would require covered text providers to provide the Lifeline Administrator with georouting data from covered text messages sent to the 988 Lifeline. Action: CRF submitted comments addressing the privacy concerns associated with mandatory georouting, specifically privacy concerns of those with mental health issues expecting confidentiality when contacting the 988 Lifeline. CRF also provided an alternative to georouting, an informed consent model, that would strengthen the efficacy of the 988 Lifeline while protecting users’ privacy. Response: FCC issued a “Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” on March 4, seeking targeted comment on potential privacy issues related to the proposed rule. FCC directly addressed CPAC in its notice, stating that they “seek comment on the CPAC Foundation’s recommendation to establish an informed consent process for 988 Lifeline users,” indicating that FCC is receptive to CRF’s alternative solution. CPAC's record of success demonstrates the importance of the notice-and-comment policy, especially with the Trump administration's increased utilization of the policy. The notice-and-comment policy is a key check on the administrative state that promotes transparency, limited government, and regulatory freedom, and gets the American people involved in their government. CPAC will continue to utilize the notice-and-comment policy as it was intended, to promote reduced regulatory burden on Americans.

Today, GAO’s released a report, “ Regulatory Flexibility Act: Improved Policies for Analysis and Training Could Enhance Compliance”  (GAO-25-106950) which reveals a troubling reality: federal agencies are routinely neglecting their statutory obligations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). While the Government Accountability Office deserves commendation for its rigorous oversight and analysis, this report also underscores a broader regulatory failure—one that has only worsened under the Biden Administration. From 2021 to 2025, the cost of federal regulation ballooned from $2.25 trillion to nearly $4 trillion, as documented by Dan Goldbeck at the American Action Forum. That $1.8 trillion surge has imposed unprecedented burdens on America’s job creators, especially small businesses—the very entities the RFA and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) were designed to protect. This post not only summarizes the critical insights of GAO’s investigation but also examines how the Biden Administration’s disregard for statutory mandates has undermined regulatory accountability. It outlines urgent reforms, including our recommendation to dramatically increase resources and authority for the SBA’s Office of the National Ombudsman, which is uniquely positioned to restore compliance and transparency across federal agencies. Part I: GAO's Wake-Up Call on Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance The GAO’s April 2025 report is both thorough and damning. It evaluated 195 significant final rules issued between FY2022 and FY2023. Alarmingly, 73% of these rules were certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities—bypassing the need for in-depth analysis entirely. This procedural shortcut circumvents Congress’s intent in passing the RFA in 1980 and amending it through SBREFA in 1996. GAO’s review of agencies such as HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Small Business Administration (SBA) revealed a pattern of neglect: Missing Analytic Standards : Agencies often failed to articulate why rules were certified, omitted key metrics such as thresholds of “significant economic impact,” and disregarded indirect or cumulative effects. Training Deficiencies : 87 of 181 federal rulemaking agencies have not received RFA compliance training since 2003. Among 41 agencies identified with deficiencies between 2019 and 2023, 26 received no training at all. GAO’s six recommendations include developing more rigorous certification procedures, updating analytic guidelines, and expanding RFA compliance training. These are critical, but they are just the beginning. Part II: Regulatory Costs Under Biden—A Historic Expansion Beyond procedural failings, the Biden Administration’s approach to regulation has actively undermined the goals of the RFA. By prioritizing ideological objectives—such as DEI mandates, climate policy, and expansive healthcare reinterpretations—over rigorous cost-benefit analysis, the administration has unleashed an avalanche of new mandates with little regard for their economic toll. Dan Goldbeck of the American Action Forum  quantified this surge: regulatory costs rose from $2.25 trillion to nearly $4 trillion over four years. That’s more than a 75% increase—an unprecedented expansion in peacetime. The Biden-era rulemaking agenda has included: Aggressive reinterpretations of civil rights law under Title IX and the Affordable Care Act; Arbitrary climate-related financial regulations with no meaningful metrics; Expanded OSHA oversight and a $655 million budget hike without a performance audit; Disregard for cost-benefit protocols in major EPA and SEC rulemakings. This is not simply regulatory activism—it is regulatory dereliction. And it threatens to calcify an economy already weighed down by inflation, capital scarcity, and global instability. Part III: The Cost to Small Businesses and the American Consumer The small business sector has suffered disproportionately. According to SBA data, small businesses account for 99.9% of all U.S. businesses and employ nearly half of the nation’s private workforce. Yet under the Biden Administration, they have faced rising compliance costs, increased paperwork, and arbitrary enforcement. Key drivers of this trend include: The administration's inflation of the definition of a “major rule” from $100 million to $200 million annually—effectively masking regulatory impacts from public review; The undermining of cost transparency by eliminating consistent terminology for "economically significant" rules; The absence of regular SBA “Impact of Regulation on the U.S. Economy” assessments, which previously served as an essential accountability tool. The RFA was designed to serve as a safeguard for small businesses—to ensure they are not blindsided by mandates crafted without proper economic analysis. That safeguard is now broken. Part IV: GAO’s Recommendations Are a Floor, Not a Ceiling GAO’s report concludes with six clear and sensible recommendations to improve RFA compliance. We support each of them: Policy Reforms at SBA, HHS, DOE, and EPA  to enhance analytical rigor; Updated training programs and implementation goals  within the SBA’s Office of Advocacy. However, the deeper issue is institutional culture. For too many agencies, RFA compliance is a check-the-box exercise—an afterthought. To truly change that, we must shift the accountability structure itself. Part V: The Case for Elevating the Office of the National Ombudsman The CPAC Foundation’s Center for Regulatory Freedom has long argued that small business advocacy cannot be confined to rulemaking oversight alone. It must extend to post-regulation enforcement , where regulatory burdens are most acutely felt. That is why we have recommended a robust expansion and realignment of the Office of the National Ombudsman (ONO)  within the SBA. As detailed in our accompanying strategic document, we urge the following reforms: Empower ONO to grade federal agencies annually  on their compliance with RFA and SBREFA; Fund a dedicated training and technical assistance arm  within ONO to support small entities navigating complex compliance obligations; Direct ONO to conduct investigations into regulatory enforcement abuses , akin to an Inspector General model. By elevating ONO’s profile and authority, we can create a true “regulatory ombudsman” for small businesses—one that does not merely mediate complaints, but enforces accountability. Part VI: A Path Forward—Restoring Balance and Transparency The path forward is clear, if politically difficult. The following actions must form the cornerstone of any serious effort to rein in the administrative state and realign it with constitutional governance and economic freedom: Continue the unprecedented deregulatory inquiries , mandating ten deregulatory actions for each new regulation; Restore Circular A-4’s pre-2023 cost-benefit protocols , emphasizing Comparative Risk Assessment; Reinstate annual OMB reports on regulatory cost , with publicly accessible data on opportunity costs and paperwork burdens; Standardize definitions for “major” and “economically significant” rules , and reduce the threshold back to $100 million/year; Create a centralized public tracker on Regulations.gov  that quantifies the cost of each proposed rule; Mandate peer-reviewed, five-year SBA studies  on the economic impact of regulation. Failure to act will embed these Biden-era cost increases into the regulatory baseline for years to come—creating a new normal of bureaucratic sprawl, economic drag, and declining small business formation. The Time for Action is Now The GAO’s report should be a call to arms—not just for regulatory reformers, but for anyone who believes in accountable government and a thriving, opportunity-rich economy. The RFA was meant to protect the little guy. Under the Biden Administration, that mission has been hollowed out. But there is a path back. The tools exist. The data is clear. What is needed now is the political will to restore integrity to the regulatory process. We commend the GAO for shining a light on these failings. Now it falls to Congress, the White House, and the American people to ensure that light is not ignored.

The mandatory notice-and-comment policy established by the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) is largely overlooked by the American public despite its importance to the federal rulemaking process, especially as it relates to the current administration. The notice-and-comment policy has been influential in judicial review in cases such as Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1983), Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter & Paul Home v. Pennsylvania (2020), and Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency (2024) to decide the constitutionality of a regulation. Comments have also proven influential in the past in determining the future of a proposed regulation. CPAC's successful notice-and-comment record demonstrates that. The Trump administration has embraced the notice-and-comment process, a shift towards transparency and dialogue with the American people that contrasts the attitude of the previous administration. President Trump has reoriented the nation’s focus toward the executive branch and directed agencies to rigorously engage with notice-and-comment procedures, as multiple agencies have put forth requests for comment specifically regarding existing regulations antithetical to the view and goals of the Trump Administration. On March 27, the EPA posted a notice to the Federal Register announcing a “solicitation of stakeholder feedback” on key topics relating to the implementation of the definition of “waters of the United States,” pursuant to the determination of the Court in Sackett v. EPA. The EPA stated this notice intended to provide for “broad, transparent engagement” with a wide variety of stakeholders and the general public. On March 27, DOJ launched an Anticompetitive Regulations Task Force to eliminate state and federal laws and regulations that injure free market competition, consumers, workers, and businesses. In their press release, DOJ explicitly requested information from the public about existing laws and regulations that hinder competition in a variety of industries. On April 3, DOT issued a request for information to assist in their compliance with Executive Orders 14219 and 14192. DOT is utilizing notice-and-comment to allow the public to identify existing regulations and requirements that undermine the current administration’s goals or impose an undue regulatory burden on the public. On April 4, ED posted a “intent to negotiate” to the Federal Register, inviting public feedback concerning a variety of federal student financial assistance programs. ED specifically requested comment on Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Pay As You Earn, and Income-Contingent Repayment. On April 4, the IRS issued a notice inviting the public to submit recommendations for what should be included in the 2025-2026 Priority Guidance Plan. The IRS and Treasury Department’s Oce of Tax Policy use the Priority Guidance Plan each year to outline which tax issues should be prioritized and addressed through regulations, revenue rulings, notices, and other administrative proceedings. On April 8, President Trump issued a proclamation exempting certain stationary sources from requirements imposed by an emissions rule for coal- and oil-fired electric utility steam generating units. Prior to its finalization, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) provided comments in opposition to the rule, stating that the proposed standards were “technically unachievable.” In President Trump’s proclamation, he determined that implementation of the rule was not technically feasible, mirroring the arguments made in NRECA’s comments. The ongoing requests for comment on a plethora of regulatory matters reflect the Trump Administration’s commitment to improving the regulatory process. By invoking procedures under the APA that involve direct engagement between federal agencies and the general public, citizens have now been prompted to make agencies aware of harmful existing regulations currently in effect that have yet to be formally rescinded. The notice-and-comment process is integral to circumscribing the rulemaking authority of federal agencies, as it not only provides an opportunity for the public to raise concerns over a particular rule, but legally mandates that agencies address those concerns when issuing a final rule.

Recently, CRF Director Andrew Langer had the fortune of sitting down with Fred de Fossard, Director of Strategy at the UK’s Prosperity Institute, for a wide ranging interview. Their conversation spanned a wide range of issues, but one theme came through loud and clear: the regulatory state doesn’t just stifle innovation and competition—it drives entire nations to reclaim their sovereignty. For the United Kingdom, that moment came in 2016 with Brexit. And nearly a decade later, they’re still working through the challenges and opportunities that come with untangling from the sprawling web of European Union regulations. But what’s most interesting—and relevant for Americans—is what the Brexit experience can teach us about the costs of overly granular, prescriptive regulation and the power of a people who finally say “enough.” Regulation: The Real Root of Brexit Yes, immigration played a major role in the Brexit debate. But Fred made something else crystal clear: beneath the headlines, one of the core drivers was regulatory overreach. The EU had become a machine of harmonization—imposing one-size-fits-all rules from Brussels that ignored local knowledge, market realities, and national traditions. Britain, with its common law tradition and preference for outcomes-based governance, was increasingly chafing under Europe’s process-based, box-ticking mandates. Take the infamous olive oil rule. EU law once dictated that restaurants could only serve olive oil in its original container—no decanting allowed. Why? To prevent adulteration. But as Fred, a former chef, and I both know, any half-decent cook can smell or taste when olive oil’s been cut. This was the EU’s brand of lawmaking: blanket rules for a continent, written without regard for context, trust, or tradition. That might seem trivial—until you realize it was emblematic of a much deeper problem. When regulations become so detailed that they override local judgment and stifle innovation, they stop protecting consumers and start protecting bureaucracies. A Tale of Two Traditions: Anglo-American vs. Napoleonic Legal Systems De Fossard, drawing on his background in constitutional history, highlighted a fundamental difference in legal philosophy. Britain’s common law system—shared in spirit with the U.S.—is built on precedent, limited government, and bottom-up accountability. The French-style Napoleonic code, which heavily influences the EU, is rooted in top-down control. Rules must be followed to the letter. Innovation is boxed in. Risk is something to be avoided—not managed. The contrast matters. In the U.S., we’re increasingly seeing that same Napoleonic creep—especially in how federal agencies regulate everything from energy to data privacy. And unless we course-correct, we could find ourselves dealing with a homegrown version of the regulatory sclerosis that drove the UK to walk away from the EU in the first place. Britain’s Regulatory “Glidepath”—and Ours What makes this story more relevant than ever is the concept of the regulatory glidepath —a term we use often to describe the economic impact of stabilizing or slowing the growth of new regulations. Under the EU, Britain’s regulatory costs were soaring. Since Brexit, they’ve been able to sidestep new EU mandates—like the Digital Services Act, AI Act, and new packaging rules—that are already adding billions in compliance costs across the continent. While the UK hasn’t fully taken advantage of its regulatory freedom yet, just not  adding those new layers has spared it immense expense. That’s the glidepath in action. Here in the U.S., the difference between a 0.33% regulatory growth rate (as we had under the Trump administration) and the nearly 16% annual growth rate seen under Biden is massive. If Biden’s trajectory had held through 2030, we’d be staring at $7 trillion in annual regulatory costs. Instead, the decision to slow things down—even without sweeping deregulation—has created hundreds of billions in avoided burdens. In other words, the savings alone from not making things worse  offset many of the economic concerns people have about policies like tariffs. The Challenge of Reform De Fossard was candid about the challenges Britain faces in completing its regulatory overhaul. Many of the worst regulations remain on the books. Progress has been made in niche areas—like genetic engineering and limited GDPR divergence—but a deeper shift is still needed. This mirrors our own battle here. We’ve seen minor victories—like the Supreme Court’s recent Loper Bright decision on Chevron deference—but the administrative state remains a colossus. And much like in Britain, meaningful reform here won’t come from one executive order or one election. It will take sustained legislative action, cultural change, and public pressure. Lessons for America So what should the U.S. take away from Britain’s experience? Granular, prescriptive regulation doesn’t just burden businesses—it erodes democratic accountability.  When rules are made by remote agencies or foreign bodies, citizens lose faith in government. That’s not anti-government sentiment—it’s a call for legitimacy. Slowing regulatory growth creates tangible economic benefits.  Even if you don’t roll back a single rule, keeping new ones from piling up can save billions. That’s money that can be reinvested in growth, innovation, and jobs. A nation’s legal tradition matters.  The Anglo-American model of limited government and common law isn't just an academic curiosity—it’s a foundation for prosperity. Departing from that model, as the EU has done, carries real costs. Reform takes more than good intentions—it requires institutions and accountability.  Britain has parliamentary sovereignty. In America, we rely on separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. Both systems have tools for reform—but they must be used. Philosophy drives policy.  When regulators justify new rules by saying, “it’s a good thing,” without evidence, that’s ideology masquerading as governance. We need to return to first principles—show us the need, show us the benefit, and show us the cost. Brexit wasn’t just about borders or Brussels. It was a shot across the bow of an elite-driven, technocratic system that had stopped listening to its people. And in many ways, it’s a cautionary tale for the United States. If we want to avoid our own version of a regulatory rebellion, we’d do well to start asking the same questions the British people did: Who makes the rules? Who benefits? And what’s the cost? Because when regulation becomes an end in itself—divorced from impact, insulated from accountability—that’s when the people push back. And they should.

After Hamas terrorists attacked Israel on the Shabbat morning of October 7, 2023, many in America and around the world mourned with Israel. On February 20, 2025, two days after a Hamas spokesperson confirmed that Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas, a mother and two children who had been taken captive by Hamas during the attack, had been killed, JD Vance had a message for the families of the hostages who have not yet come back home: “President Trump loves you. He hasn’t forgotten your loved ones.” After Vance’s speech, CPAC attendees had the opportunity to hear from some of the hostages’ families themselves.  “The people who were kidnapped from this festival had nothing to do with this conflict, nothing to do with this war,” said Gal Gilboa-Dalal, who was at the Nova Music Festival in Israel when Hamas terrorists kidnapped his brother. After the attacks began, Gilboa-Dalal’s brother went back from their place of shelter and has not been seen since. “Everyone knew that my brother was taken but nobody told me so that I could focus on saving my own life,” Gilboa-Dalal said. Adi Alexander’s son, Edan, is another one of the hostages, and in fact is the only remaining American-Israeli hostage. Alexander took to the CPAC stage to discuss his son’s ordeal and the hope that he still has. “We have to push forward until everybody’s out,” Alexander said. “Then we will be done.” Moshe Lavi’s brother-in-law, Omri Miran, was kidnapped and tortured by Hamas. “[Miran and the other hostages] were abused for hours,” Lavi recalled. “It was livestreamed on Facebook.”  After Miran’s kidnapping, Lavi wanted to join the Israel Defense Force (IDF) to fight for Miran, but his sister, Miran’s wife Lishay, instead told him to fight for him another way: by speaking up. “Since then, I’ve been her voice. I’ve been Omri’s voice. I’ve been every single hostage’s voice because they can’t speak from the dungeons of Hamas,” he said.  Watch the full discussion on Rumble @CPAC.

President Trump announced a fresh round of reciprocal tariffs on Wednesday, dubbed Liberation Day, prompting hysteria from the Left.   Since President Trump announced the first round of tariffs on China, Mexico, and Canada, the Left-wing media has thrown accusations of not caring about the American people at the president and his administration while stoking fears of a recession. Now, after the debut of a new round of across-the-board tariffs, the Left has delved further into a meltdown.   The reality is the Trump tariffs are simply working to level the playing field. The Left has made them out to be extreme measures, but many of the tariffs aren’t even equal to the tariffs other countries levy on American goods.   For example, the 20% tax on European Union imports is only half the rate the European Union levies on American goods, and the 34% tax on China pales in comparison to the 67% tax China levies on American goods.   The new tariffs are estimated to cost the United States $50 million a day, but as Director of the CPAC Center for Regulatory Freedom, Andrew Langer, pointed out, the Biden administration cost the country an extra $1.8 trillion a year, or $5 billion a day, in additional regulatory costs, costs the Trump administration is bringing down with its slashing of the regulatory state.  “If you're not growing the regulatory state by 5 billion dollars a day, I think the American economy can handle, you know, 50 million dollars in increased cost. I mean, I think there's a game there,” reasoned Langer.   Despite the mainstream media’s coverage of the retaliation threats from the European Union, Canada, and Australia, the tariffs are having the desired effect of prompting some countries to come to the negotiating table. The UK, Argentina, Vietnam, and Israel are all either planning to reduce tariffs on the United States or are approaching an FTA with the U.S.  The tariffs may cause pain in the short-term but as American manufacturing revives, the long-term gain will be substantial and will include more jobs, cheaper goods, perhaps even higher-quality goods, and economic and supply chain independence.   Trump’s tariffs are reasonable demands made in the long-term interests of the American people. The mainstream media is only upset because the tariffs upturn the status quo of the United States getting the short end of the stick. In November of 2024, the American people voted for America First, and that’s what they’re getting.   It’s time the U.S. played on a level field.

Under the Biden-Harris administration’s open-border policies, immigrant priests, nuns, and missionaries were forced to leave the country to make way for unvetted, criminal immigrants, and many of these faith leaders are still coping with the fallout today.     In 2023, the Biden-Harris Department of Homeland Security revealed it had been miscalculating the percentage of immigrants from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala receiving green cards. In response, the administration passed the EB-4 Retrogression which opened up the special EB-4 visa for religious workers to unaccompanied minors and refugees.     This flooded the pool applicants for green cards, which are given out in a limited amount each year. As a result, the window for religious workers to apply for their green card retrogressed four years, in some cases, forcing priests, nuns, and missionaries who were here legally on R1 visas to leave the country, and in many cases making it extremely difficult for law-abiding, long-term residents of the U.S. to receive their green cards even while following procedures.     In short, the Biden-Harris administration deprived deserving religious workers of green cards to give them instead to South and Central American migrants and further the administration’s loose immigration policies to support invading our country with criminals. Those detrimentally impacted by the change are not just the religious workers themselves but also the people they serve.     The change is hitting Catholic circles in the United States especially hard where 90% of dioceses are supported by international clergy. Many of the religious workers affected by the policy also serve the poor in America’s inner cities with no government funding and no strain on public resources. Despite rhetoric about caring about these communities, the Biden administration prioritized shipping out faith-based support for these neighborhoods in order to import more bad actors.   Maybe the most notable example are the sisters of the Fraternity of Notre Dame, who serve the poor in Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities across the United States through private donations. The French sisters, who have resided in the States legally on R1 visas for several years are now close to being forced out of the country due to the large number of migrant applicants for EB-4 visas.   The time is ripe for the Trump administration to step in and make this right. The Biden DOJ prosecuted nuns. The Biden FBI targeted traditional Catholics, and the Biden DHS forced religious workers out of the country.  This is a prime opportunity for President Trump to reverse the Biden administration’s anti-Christian and open borders legacy and return the EB-4 visa to its special status for religious workers.

In a world of beta males and toxic masculinity, men are losing their identity to their own detriment and the detriment of their spouses and children. “ Embrace Masculinity: Lifting Men Up in a World That Pushes Them Down ” aims to offer guidance for men to live into their masculinity in a healthy and Christian way. Author Braeden Sorbo joins Mercedes Schlapp to discuss.  Through social media, television, and music, Gen Z is constantly bombarded with sexualized content that is fostering an unhealthy perception of love, relationships, and other people.   “We as Generation Z have the hardest battle that any generation has ever had, and that is with lust. The Bible is very clear that every sin can be fought head on with the Lord’s help except for lust. Lust is the only sin that we are actively called to flee from, and with society making it more prevalent every single day, it becomes harder and harder to run from. It’s in music. It is in the media industry. It is in the social media world,” said Sorbo.   Sorbo’s book seeks to correct this. In fact, the final chapter of his book breaks down the qualities men should strive for in themselves and the qualities that women should look for in a partner.   “For the men, this is a guide. For the women, this is a checklist. This is what you should be looking for in an ideal spouse, a husband, a boyfriend, in someone you would want to surround yourself with,” said Sorbo.   Watch Sorbo’s full conversation with Mercedes Schlapp on social media @CPAC.