Covid Response at Five Years: Introduction
Brownstone Institute | February 27, 2025
This is the way the world ends,” T.S. Eliot wrote in 1925. “Not with a bang but a whimper.” Ninety-five years later, the pre-Covid world ended with a nationwide sigh of submission. Democrats remained silent as government mandates transferred trillions of dollars from the working class to tech oligarchs. Republicans dithered as states criminalized church attendance. Libertarians stood by as the nation shuttered the doors of small businesses. College students obediently forfeited their freedoms and moved into their parents’ basements, liberals accepted widespread surveillance campaigns, and conservatives greenlit the printing of 300 years’ worth of money in sixty days.
With rare exception, March 2020 was a bipartisan, intergenerational capitulation to fear and hysteria. Those who dared to object to the freshly-mandated orthodoxy were subject to widespread contempt, derision, and censorship as the US Security State and a subservient media corps muzzled their protests. The most dominant forces in society used the opportunity to their advantage, pillaging the nation’s treasury and overthrowing law and tradition. Their campaign was devoid of the triumph of Yorktown, the bloodshed of Antietam, or the sacrifices of Omaha Beach. Without a single bullet, they overtook the republic, overturning the Bill of Rights in a quiet coup d’état.
Perhaps no episode better exemplified this phenomenon than the House of Representatives on March 27, 2020. That day, the House planned to pass the largest spending bill in American history, the CARES Act, without a recorded vote. The $2 trillion price tag was more money than Congress spent on the entire Iraq War, twice as much as the cost of the Vietnam War, and thirteen times more than Congress’s annual allocation for Medicaid – all adjusted for inflation. No House Democrats objected, nor did 195 out of 196 House Republicans. For 434 members of the House, there were no concerns of fiscal responsibility or electoral accountability. There wouldn’t be a whimper, let alone a bang; there wouldn’t even be a recorded vote.
But there was one voice of dissent. When Representative Thomas Massie learned of his colleagues’ plan, he drove overnight from Garrison, Kentucky to the Capitol. “I came here to make sure our republic doesn’t die by unanimous consent and empty chamber,” he announced on the floor.
Democrats, the self-professed guardians of democracy, did not heed his call to fulfill their obligation to represent their constituents. Republicans, supposed defenders of originalism and the rule of law, ignored Massie’s invocation of the constitutional requirement for a quorum to be present to conduct business in the House. The supreme law of the land gave way to the hysteria of coronavirus, and the Kentucky Congressman became the target of a bipartisan character assassination.
President Trump called Massie a “third rate Grandstander” and urged Republicans to expel him from the party. John Kerry wrote that Massie had “tested positive for being an asshole” and should be “quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.” President Trump responded, “Never knew John Kerry had such a good sense of humor! Very impressed!”
Republican Senator Dan Sullivan quipped to Democratic Rep. Sean Patrick Mahoney, “What a dumbass.” Mahoney was so proud of the conversation that he took to Twitter. “I can confirm that @RepThomasMassie is indeed a dumbass,” he posted.
Two days later, President Trump signed the CARES Act. He bragged that it was the “single-biggest economic relief package in American history.” He continued, “It’s $2.2 billion, but it actually goes up to 6.2 — potentially — billion dollars — trillion dollars. So you’re talking about 6.2 trillion-dollar bill. Nothing like that.”
The bipartisan Covid regime stood behind the President smiling. Senator McConnell called it a “proud moment for our country.” Rep. Kevin McCarthy and Vice President Pence offered similar praise. Trump thanked Dr. Anthony Fauci, who remarked, “I feel really, really good about what’s happening today.” Deborah Birx added her support for the bill, as did Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin. The President then handed Dr. Fauci and others the pens that he used to sign the law. Before leaving, he took time to chastise Rep. Massie again, calling him “totally out of line.”
By the end of March 2020, the pre-Covid world was over. Corona was the supreme law of the land.
The Press Conference That Changed the World
On March 16, 2020, Donald Trump, Deborah Birx, and Anthony Fauci held a White House press conference on the coronavirus. After nearly an hour of unremarkable questions and answers, a reporter asked whether the government was suggesting that “bars and restaurants should shut down over the next fifteen days.”
President Trump ceded the microphone to Birx. As she stumbled through her answer, Fauci flashed a hand signal to indicate that he wished to step in. He walked to the podium and opened a small document. There was no indication that President Trump knew what was coming next or that he had read the paper.
Is the government calling for a shutdown for 15 days? Fauci took the microphone. “The small print here. It’s really small print,” he began. President Trump was distracted. He pointed at someone in the audience and appeared unconcerned with Fauci’s answer. “America’s doctor” continued at the microphone as his boss engaged in a side conversation with someone in the audience.
“In states with evidence of community transmission, bars, restaurants, food courts, gyms and other indoor and outdoor venues where groups of people congregate should be closed.” Birx grinned in the background as she listened to the plan to shut down the country. Fauci walked away from the podium, nodded at Birx, and smiled as the press prepared a new question.
The plan that gave them unbridled joy was unprecedented in “public health.” Despite firsthand knowledge of smallpox and Yellow Fever, the Framers had not written epidemic contingencies into the Bill of Rights. The nation had not suspended the Constitution for pandemics in 1957 (Hong Kong flu), 1921 (Diphtheria), 1918 (Spanish flu), or 1849 (Cholera). This time, however, it would be different.
The press conference that day was never meant to be a temporary means to flatten the curve; it was the beginning, “a first step,” toward their vision to “rebuild the infrastructures of human existence,” they later admitted. “We worked simultaneously to develop the flattening-the-curve guidance,” Birx reflected in her memoir. “Getting buy-in on the simple mitigation measures every American could take was just the first step leading to longer and more aggressive interventions.” After demanding that buy-in on March 16, the pre-Covid world was over. Longer and more aggressive interventions became reality.
The following day, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security called the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a guide on who was permitted to work and who was subjected to lockdowns. The order divided Americans into two classes: essential and nonessential. Media, Big Tech, and commercial facilities like Costco and Walmart were exempt from the lockdown orders while small businesses, churches, gyms, restaurants, and public schools were shut down. With just one administrative order, America suddenly became an explicitly class-based society in which liberty depended on political favoritism.
On March 21, an image of the Statue of Liberty locked in her apartment appeared on the front page of the New York Post. “CITY UNDER LOCKDOWN,” the paper announced. States chained playgrounds and criminalized recreation. The schools closed, businesses failed, and hysteria ran rampant.
War Fever
When Massie arrived at the Capitol, a war-like fervor had taken over the country. Publications including Politico, ABC, and The Hill compared the respiratory virus to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. On March 23, the New York Times published “What 9/11 Taught Us About Leadership in a Crisis,” offering “lessons for today’s leaders” in response to a “similar challenge.”
The column did not warn against the dangers of impulsive responses leading to unintended consequences, unaccountable government agencies, unscrupulous ideologues, and untold federal expenditures. There were no analyses of how temporary national fear could lead to trillions of dollars wasted on disastrous initiatives. Instead, the “similar challenge” led to familiar smear campaigns.
Thomas Massie and Barbara Lee have very little in common; Massie, an MIT alumnus, styles himself a “high-tech redneck.” His Christmas card featured his family of seven holding guns with the caption “Santa, please bring ammo.” Lee, a California Democrat, volunteered for Oakland’s Black Panther Party and marched alongside Nancy Pelosi at the “Women’s March.” Both, however, stood as lone voices of dissent in the two most defining crises of this century. They served as Cassandras, issuing prophetic warnings that drew the ire of disastrous bipartisan consensus.
In September 2001, Lee was the only member of Congress to oppose the authorization to use military force. With the rubble still smoldering at the World Trade Center, she warned Americans that the AUMF provided “a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit.” A jingoistic press attacked Lee as “un-American,” and she received bipartisan condemnation from her peers in Congress.
When Massie took the House floor nineteen years later, American troops were still in Afghanistan, and the “blank check” had been used to support bombings in at least ten other countries. Like Lee, Massie’s dissent was prescient. He warned that the Covid payments benefited “banks and corporations” over “working class Americans,” that the spending programs were riddled with waste, that the bill transferred dangerous power to an unaccountable Federal Reserve, and that the increased debt would be costly for the American people.
In retrospect, Massie’s points were obvious. The Covid response became the most disruptive and destructive public policy in Western history. The lockdowns destroyed the middle class while the pandemic minted a new billionaire every day. Childhood suicides skyrocketed, and school closures created an educational crisis. People lost jobs, friends, and basic rights for challenging Covid orthodoxy. The Federal Reserve printed three hundred years’ worth of spending in two months. The PPP Program cost nearly $300,000 per job “saved,” and fraudsters stole $200 billion from Covid relief programs. The federal deficit more than tripled, adding over $3 trillion to the national debt. Studies found the pandemic response will cost Americans $16 trillion over the next decade.
What We Knew Then
Time vindicated Massie, but the pro-lockdown advocates have not demonstrated remorse. To evade responsibility for their catastrophic policies, many cower behind the excuse that we didn’t know then what we know now. “I think we would’ve done everything differently,” Gavin Newsom reflected in September 2023. “We didn’t know what we didn’t know.” “Let’s declare a pandemic amnesty,” The Atlantic published in October 2022. The precautions may have been “totally misguided,” wrote Brown Professor Emily Oster, an advocate for school closures, lockdowns, universal masking, and vaccine mandates. “But the thing is: We didn’t know.”
But the evidence from March 2020 refutes the Rumsfeldian invocation of unknown unknowns.
On February 3, 2020, the Diamond Princess cruise ship was set to return to harbor in Japan. When reports emerged that there had been an outbreak of the novel coronavirus aboard the ship, authorities kept it in the water to quarantine. Suddenly, the ship’s 3,700 passengers and crew members became the first contained study of Covid. The New York Times described it as a “floating, mini-version of Wuhan.” The Guardian called it a “coronavirus breeding ground.” It remained in quarantine for almost a month, and passengers lived under strict lockdown orders as their community went through the largest outbreak of Covid outside China.
The ship administered over 3,000 PCR tests. By the time the last passengers left the boat on March 1, at least two things were clear: the virus spread rapidly in close quarters, and it posed no significant threat to non-senior citizens.
There were 2,469 passengers on the ship under the age of 70. Zero of them died despite being held on a cruise ship without access to proper medical care. There were over 1,000 people on the ship between 70 and 79. Six died after testing positive for Covid. Out of the 216 people on the ship between 80 and 89, just one died with Covid.
Those points became even more clear in the ensuing weeks.
On March 2, over 800 public health scientists warned against lockdowns, quarantines, and restrictions in an open letter. ABC reported that Covid likely only posed a threat to the elderly. So did Slate, Haaretz, and the Wall Street Journal. On March 8, Dr. Peter C Gøtzsche wrote that we were “the victims of mass panic,” noting that “the average age of those who died after coronavirus infection was 81… [and] they also often had comorbidity.”
On March 11, Stanford Professor John Ioannidis published a peer-reviewed paper that warned of “an epidemic of false claims and potentially harmful actions.” He predicted the hysteria surrounding the coronavirus would lead to drastically exaggerated case fatality ratios and society-wide collateral damage from unscientific mitigation efforts like lockdowns. “We’re falling into a trap of sensationalism,” Dr. Ioannidis told interviewers two weeks later. “We have gone into a complete panic state.”
On March 13, Michael Burry, the hedge fund manager famously portrayed by Christian Bale in The Big Short, tweeted: “With COVID-19, the hysteria appears to me worse than the reality, but after the stampede, it won’t matter whether what started it justified it.” Ten days later, he wrote: “If COVID-19 testing were universal, the fatality rate would be less than 0.2%,” adding that there was no justification “for sweeping government policies, lacking any and all nuance, that destroy the lives, jobs, and businesses of the other 99.8%.”
By March 15, there were widespread studies on the mental health ramifications of lockdowns, the health impact of shuttering the economy, and the harms of overreacting to the virus.
Even the Covid regime’s wildly inaccurate models, which overestimated the fatality rate of Covid by multitudes, could not justify the response. One of the main bases for lockdown policies was Neil Ferguson’s Imperial College London report from March 16. Ferguson’s model overestimated the impact of Covid on various age groups by degrees of hundreds but conceded that the young faced no substantial risk from the virus. It predicted a 0.002% fatality rate for ages 0-9 and a 0.006% fatality rate for ages 10-19. For comparison, the fatality rate for the flu “is estimated to be around 0.1%,” according to NPR.
On March 20, Yale Professor David Katz wrote in the New York Times: “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?” He explained:
“I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.”
He cited data from the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and South Korea which suggested that 99% of active cases in the general population were “mild” and did not require medical treatment. He referenced the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which housed “a contained, older population,” as further proof that the virus appeared harmless to non-senior citizens.
Later that month, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya called for “immediate steps to evaluate the empirical basis of the current lockdowns” in the Wall Street Journal. The same week, Ann Coulter published “How do we Flatten the Curve on Panic?” She wrote: “If, as the evidence suggests, the Chinese virus is enormously dangerous to people with certain medical conditions and those over 70 years old, but a much smaller danger to those under 70, then shutting down the entire country indefinitely is probably a bad idea.”
Harvard Medical School Professor Dr. Martin Kulldorff wrote in April, “COVID-19 Counter Measures Should be Age Specific.” He explained:
“Among COVID-19 exposed individuals, people in their 70s have roughly twice the mortality of those in their 60s, 10 times the mortality of those in their 50s, 40 times that of those in their 40s, 100 times that of those in their 30s, 300 times that of those in their 20s, and a mortality that is more than 3000 times higher than for children. Since COVID-19 operates in a highly age specific manner, mandated counter measures must also be age specific. If not, lives will be unnecessarily lost.”
On April 7, Burry called on states to lift their lockdown orders, which he decried as “ruining innumerable lives in a criminally unjust manner.” On April 9, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, who later became the Surgeon General of Florida, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “Lockdowns Won’t Stop the Spread.” Ten days later, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp reopened his state. “Our next measured step is driven by data and guided by state public health officials,” Kemp explained. Shortly thereafter, Governor Ron DeSantis lifted Covid restrictions in Florida.
Brian Kemp, Thomas Massie, and Ron DeSantis didn’t flip a coin on the Covid issue. They knew they’d be accused of endangering fellow citizens, killing grandmas, and overrunning the healthcare system. If they nodded along to the consensus like their peers, then they could have increased their power and perhaps won an Emmy like Andrew Cuomo. Joining the herd was socially and politically fashionable, but their rationality stood athwart the prevailing madness.
Wisdom was in short supply in American government and media. Anthony Fauci and President Trump attacked Kemp for reopening Georgia. The New York Times stoked racial animus to criticize opponents of the Covid regime, telling its readers that “black residents” would have to “bear the brunt” of Kemp’s decision to “reopen many businesses over objections from President Trump and others.” The New York Daily News referred to “Florida Morons” daring to go to the beach that summer, and the Washington Post, Newsweek, and MSNBC chastised “DeathSantis.” While the slanders and hysteria were temporary, a radical and insidious movement sought to permanently transform the country.
The Quiet Coup
Amid the name-calling and memorable headlines of school closures, arrests for paddle boarding, and urban anarchy, the nation underwent a coup d’état in 2020. The First Amendment and freedom of speech were replaced by a censorship operation designed to silence citizens. The Fourth Amendment was supplanted by a system of mass surveillance. Jury trials and the Seventh Amendment disappeared in favor of government-provided legal immunity for the nation’s most powerful political force. Americans found they suddenly lived under a police state without the freedom to travel. Due process disappeared as the government issued edicts to determine who could and could not work. Equal application of the law was a relic of the past as a self-appointed caste of Brahmins exempted themselves and their political allies from the authoritarian orders that applied to the masses.
The groups that implemented this system also benefited from it. State and federal government agencies gained tremendous power. Unshackled from the restraints of the Bill of Rights, they used the pretext of “public health” to reshape society and abolish personal liberties. Social media giants assisted these efforts, using their power to silence critics of the new Leviathan. Big Pharma enjoyed record profits and government-provided legal immunity. In just one year, the Covid response transferred over $3.7 trillion from the working class to billionaires. To replace our liberties, Big Government, Big Tech, and Big Pharma offer a new ruling order of suppression of dissent, surveillance of the masses, and indemnity of the powerful.
The hegemonic triumvirate framed their agenda with favorable marketing strategies. Eviscerating the First Amendment became monitoring misinformation. Warrantless surveillance fell under the public health umbrella of contact tracing. The fusion of corporate and state power advertised itself as public-private partnerships. House arrest received a social media rebranding of #stayathomesavelives. Within months, business owners replaced their “We stand with first responders” signs with “Going out of business” announcements.
Once the rule of law had been overturned, the culture was soon to follow.
Ten weeks after the press conference that changed the world, a Minnesota police officer put his knee on the neck of a Covid-infected, fentanyl-laced career criminal. This led to cardiopulmonary arrest, the death of the man, and a cultural revolution. The BLM and Antifa violent protests in reaction to the death of George Floyd sparked 120 days of rioting and looting in the summer of 2020. Over 35 people died, 1,500 police officers were injured, and rioters caused $2 billion in property damage. CNN covered the resulting arson in Wisconsin with the chyron “FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS.”
With the notable exception of Senator Tom Cotton, politicians were largely complicit in the mass looting and violence. President Trump was absent; while the cities burned on the weekend of May 30, the Commander-in-Chief was uncharacteristically silent. His only communication was that the Secret Service had kept him and his family safe.
Others seemed to encourage the destruction. Kamala Harris raised money to pay bail for looters and rioters arrested in Minneapolis. Tim Walz’s wife, then Minnesota’s First Lady, told the press that she “kept the windows open as long as [she] could” in order to smell “the burning tires” from the riots. Nikki Haley tweeted, “the death of George Floyd was personal and painful for many. In order to heal, it needs to be personal and painful for everyone.”
And painful it was. Just hours before Haley’s demand for communal suffering, rioters set fire to Minneapolis’s Third Precinct police building. Thousands celebrated around the building as it burned. They looted the evidence rooms as the police inside fled under the mayor’s orders. Two days later, the mobs in St. Louis killed 77-year-old former policeman David Dorn. His death was broadcast on Facebook Live.
Every major institution cowered to the demands of the rising Jacobins. Once proud institutions released statements of self-flagellation, statues of American heroes came toppling down, and crime skyrocketed. In Minnesota alone, aggravated assault increased 25%, robberies increased 26%, arson increased 54%, and murder increased 58%. Vandals toppled Minneapolis’s statue of George Washington and covered it in paint. Minnesota State University removed its statue of Abraham Lincoln from its campus display after 100 years after students complained that it perpetuated systemic racism.
None of this concerned the truth behind Floyd’s death. Typically, deaths in individuals with fentanyl concentrations over 3 ng/ml are considered overdoses. Floyd’s toxicology report revealed 11 ng/ml of fentanyl, 5.6 ng/ml of norfentanyl, and 19 ng/ml of methamphetamine. Floyd’s autopsy concluded that there were “no life-threatening injuries identified,” and the county medical examiner told the local prosecutor that there “were no medical indications of asphyxia or strangulation.” He asked, “What happens when the actual evidence doesn’t match up with the public narrative that everyone’s already decided on?”
Evidently, the answer was a nationwide cultural upheaval. The wreckage spread through the country and beyond June 2020. The racial reckoning left no American institution untouched. “New homicide records were set in 2021 in Philadelphia, Columbus, Indianapolis, Rochester, Louisville, Toledo, Baton Rouge, St. Paul, Portland, and elsewhere,” Heather MacDonald writes in When Race Trumps Merit. “The violence continued into 2022. January 2022 was Baltimore’s deadliest month in nearly 50 years.” New York City removed statues of Thomas Jefferson and Teddy Roosevelt; California vagrants toppled tributes to Ulysses S. Grant, Francis Scott Key, and Francis Drake; San Francisco vandals dragged statues and prepared to toss them into a fountain until they learned the fountain was a memorial to AIDS victims. Oregon criminals desecrated statues of T.R., Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington.
At Rockefeller University, they removed the portraits of scientists who won the Nobel Prize because they were white men. The University of Pennsylvania took down a portrait of William Shakespeare because it failed to “affirm their commitment to a more inclusive mission for the English Department.” The soon-to-be 46th President and his allies announced that there would be racial prerequisites for the selection of its highest-ranking officials – including the Vice President, a Supreme Court Justice, and the Senator from California. The private sector was even worse: in the year after the George Floyd riots, just 6% of new S&P jobs went to white applicants, a result that required mass discrimination.
By Independence Day 2020, the coup d’état had succeeded. The rule of law had been overturned. Former bedrock principles of the Republic – freedom of speech, freedom to travel, freedom from surveillance – were sacrificed upon the altar of public health. A culture that had once championed meritocracy became obsessed with berating the identity of the majority of its population. Hypocrisy in the ruling class grew to the point that there was no longer equal application of the law. The most powerful groups augmented their wealth while the working class suffered under despotism.
This series is meant to outline the freedoms that we sacrificed, and, just as importantly, the people and institutions that benefited from the erosion of our liberties. There are no allegations of the pandemic’s causes. Those speculations, intriguing as they may be, are unnecessary to demonstrate the coordinated upheaval that took place. The bedrocks of liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights disappeared while the nation panicked. The most powerful people profited while the weakest suffered. Under the pretense of “public health,” the Republic was overturned.
FDA Calls Off Meeting to Select Flu Strains for Next Season’s Flu Vaccine
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 27, 2025
The committee that advises the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on which flu strains to target for the upcoming flu season will not meet as scheduled next month, The New York Times reported on Wednesday.
In a statement provided to CNN, the FDA said:
“A planned March 13 meeting of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee [VRBPAC] on the influenza vaccine strains for the 2025-2026 influenza season in the northern hemisphere has been cancelled. …
“The FDA will make public its recommendations to manufacturers in time for updated vaccines to be available for the 2025-2026 influenza season.”
The FDA sent VRBPAC members an email on Monday informing them of the cancellation, the Times reported. No reason was given for its cancellation.
According to CNBC, the VRBPAC meets each March to select the strains for the upcoming season’s flu shots.
Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and member of the committee, told CNBC he wasn’t sure why the meeting was cancelled.
“Who canceled this meeting? Why did they cancel the meeting? Will manufacturers now turn to the World Health Organization to determine strains for this year’s influenza vaccines?” Offit asked.
According to the FDA, VRBPAC “reviews and evaluates data concerning the safety, effectiveness, and appropriate use of vaccines and related biological products which are intended for use in the prevention, treatment, or diagnosis of human diseases.” The committee is composed of 15 voting members.
The Times tied the meeting’s cancellation to the recent confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., former chairman of Children’s Health Defense, as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS oversees federal health agencies, including the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
“The cancellation plays into fears among scientists who worry that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will use his position as health secretary to sow doubts about vaccines,” the Times reported.
Offit, in an interview with Inside Medicine, also connected the meeting’s cancellation to Kennedy’s recent confirmation.
“Is it part of RFK Jr.’s cleansing project of removing anyone whom he presumes to have a conflict of interest related to vaccines? I don’t know. But I feel like the world is upside down. We aren’t doing the things we need to do to protect ourselves,” Offit said.
On Monday, Offit told MedPage Today that VRBPAC members were asked to fill out conflict-of-interest forms in advance — a routine process before every meeting — “and we weren’t told the meeting was canceled.” He said members were told to set time aside for the meeting.
But late Wednesday, Offit phoned Medpage and said, “If we are not going to have the meeting, I guess it means we will be looking to the WHO [World Health Organization] for a flu shot formulation.”
Last week, a meeting of another key public health committee — the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — was postponed. The meeting was supposed to take place Feb. 26-28.
Valerie Borek, associate director and policy analyst for Stand for Health Freedom, said, “it’s not unreasonable” for an incoming HHS secretary to place advisory meetings on hold.
“We have a new HHS Secretary who has promised to expose and eliminate conflicts of interest that tend to lurk in groups like these,” Borek said. FDA and CDC advisory committees do not have final decision-making power; however, the agencies typically rubber-stamp their recommendations.
‘Time to stop pretending the flu vaccine is effective’
Offit said cancellation of the meeting could delay production of next season’s flu vaccines.
“It’s a six-month production cycle,” Offit told the Times. “So one can only assume that we’re not picking flu strains this year.”
Another VRBPAC member, Dr. Stanley Perlman, a professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, told Reuters that “we don’t have much time” to produce the next season’s flu vaccines.
Perlman said a separate meeting of a VRBPAC subcommittee scheduled for March was also canceled.
Door to Freedom founder Dr. Meryl Nass, who follows FDA and CDC vaccine advisory meetings and often blogs about them, welcomed the meeting’s cancellation and expressed skepticism about flu vaccines.
“The purpose for the U.S. flu vaccine program is shrouded in mystery,” Nass said. “The CDC creates models of influenza mortality and then tells us how many deaths occur from flu each year by citing its own models.”
Nass described the VRBPAC’s annual meetings to select strains for the following season’s flu vaccines as “a crapshoot.”
“The VRBPAC are there to give cover to U.S. government officials who do not want to pick the wrong strains,” Nass said.
Nass referred to a 2005 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine that could “not correlate increasing [flu] vaccination coverage after 1980 with declining mortality rates in any age group” and that “observational studies substantially overestimate vaccination benefit.”
A CDC report issued today found the flu shot less effective for some children this year. According to CBS News, “Effectiveness was 32% for children and adolescents, from the CDC’s U.S. Flu VE network of health care systems. That’s down from 67% in last year’s estimates.”
Biologist Christina Parks, Ph.D., said it is “time to stop pretending the flu vaccine is effective.” She added:
“The extremely low efficacy of flu vaccines call into question whether they should keep being offered at all. Studies have shown that receipt of flu vaccines over multiple years actually increases your risk of contracting a severe case of the flu and ending up in [an intensive care unit].
“The cancellation of the VRBPAC meeting suggests to me that the new Secretary for Health and Human Services understands that flu vaccines exist to line the pockets of vaccine manufacturers, not to actually protect people from getting the flu.”
According to CNBC, the cancellation comes during a “particularly brutal flu season in the U.S.” that, according to CDC data, has resulted in up to 910,000 hospitalizations since October 2024.
But Nass said those claims are overstated. She said that contrary to CDC claims of up to 52,000 flu deaths annually in the U.S., data from death certificates indicate “only about 2,000 Americans per year die from influenza.”
“I worked for many years as a hospitalist and yet it is hard for me to think of anyone who died of influenza in the hospital. They may have died of a secondary bacterial infection,” Nass said.
Discussion of flu vaccine-related deaths missing from mainstream narrative
Albert Benavides, founder of VAERSAware.com and an expert on the U.S. government-run Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), said a discussion of deaths caused by the flu vaccines has been missing from the mainstream narrative.
“There are currently 2,652 deaths associated with flu vaccines in VAERS back to 1990,” Benavides said. He noted that 697 of these deaths have been received and published in the VAERS database since January 2021, calling this development “concerning.”
Benavides said the data showed that “many elderly flu deaths are comingled with COVID-19, Pneumovax, Shingrix, Zostavax and now even some RSV and Monkeypox vaccines and in every combination,” suggesting that interactions between the vaccines may be deadly for some people.
A study published in October 2024 in the journal Scientific Reports found that 17 vaccines, including flu vaccines, were associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare condition that attacks the peripheral nervous system.
Nass questioned the U.S. spending of “billions of dollars” yearly. “Other countries don’t do this,” she said.
VRBPAC members ‘often team up with industry’
According to the Times, Kennedy has “repeatedly warned of ‘regulatory capture’ — the idea that federal regulators are captive to industry.”
In an interview with Fox News earlier this month, Kennedy said several public health agency panels that develop policies such as vaccine guidelines are composed of “outside experts,” almost all of whom “have severe … conflicts of interest.”
The Times acknowledged that the members of committees like VRBPAC “often team up with industry,” citing the example of Offit, “an inventor of a rotavirus vaccine that was later developed by the pharmaceutical giant Merck.”
Parks said she thinks it’s “good that VRBPAC meetings have been put on ice until the members of these advisory committees are actually properly vetted and determined not to have conflicts of interest. Currently, it appears that many members are there to rubber-stamp the agenda of vaccine manufacturers.”
The cancellation of the VRBPAC meeting came just days after HHS announced the end of the CDC’s “Wild to Mild” advertising campaign promoting flu vaccines. HHS called on the CDC to instead develop “advertisements that promote the idea of ‘informed consent’ in vaccine decision-making.”
“I am hopeful that better data on the flu and flu vaccines will help Americans make truly informed choices about whether to get flu vaccines,” Nass said.
Related articles in The Defender
- HHS Tells CDC to Yank ‘Wild to Mild’ Flu Vaccine Ad Campaign, Shift Focus to ‘Informed Consent’
- Is Kennedy’s HHS Preparing to Shake Up CDC’s Vaccine Advisory Committee?
- RFK Jr. Pushes Back on Chronic Disease, Autism and Agency Corruption
- Guillain-Barré Syndrome Associated With 17 Vaccines, Including COVID and Flu Shots
- Breaking: RFK Jr. Sworn in as HHS Secretary
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Media Panic Over Measles Distracts From Real Threats to Kids’ Health and Safety
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 27, 2025
Measles outbreaks in Texas and New Mexico, with one new case reported in Kentucky and two in New Jersey, are fueling media stories that the U.S. is poised for an epidemic.
On Wednesday, Texas health authorities announced the death of a child who tested positive for measles, setting off a spate of media reports blaming the measles outbreaks on declining vaccination rates.
However, some doctors warn the situation isn’t as dire as the headlines suggest.
Dr. Lawrence Palevsky, a pediatrician, said it is a tragedy anytime a child dies. But he also said there isn’t “enough information to know whether the child had an underlying medical condition, whether the child had measles and what diagnostic criteria were being used to make the diagnosis of measles.”
Palevsky said it remains unknown “what treatment the child received in the hospital that may or may not have had anything to do with the deterioration of this child’s health. More information is needed.”
Outlets like Vox, The Washington Post, and The New York Times warned that the outbreaks herald a coming “public health crisis” that will be made worse by the fact that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has raised questions about the safety and efficacy of vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule, is now secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Some accused Kennedy of downplaying the news after he said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is watching what is happening and that measles outbreaks happen every year.
Should we panic over measles outbreaks?
Leana Wen, writing in the Post, said people aren’t alarmed enough about measles because they don’t see the illness often enough. She warned it is a dangerous disease with high hospitalization rates and serious long-term health consequences that may include immune system destruction and death.
However, according to a 2018 publication by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) measles is a respiratory disease characterized by a fever, a head cold, pink eye and a rash of small red and sometimes itchy bumps that can cover the body.
Complications from measles such as an ear infection, diarrhea, croup, or bronchopneumonia, can occur — and bronchopneumonia can be quite serious — but they are rare in developed countries like the U.S, the AAP said.
It is “self-limiting,” meaning that it goes away on its own. By 1962 — prior to the introduction of the first measles vaccine a year later — the CDC described measles as a disease with low mortality.
By that time, the death rate had declined 98% since the beginning of the century due to improvements in public health. It carried a hospitalization rate of 11.5 per 1,000 cases and a mortality rate of 0.2 per 1,000 cases. Parents and medical practitioners considered measles an inevitable stage of a child’s development.
“We have a forgotten history of measles,” Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Senior Scientist Karl Jablonowski told The Defender. “The 1950s Vital Statistics report states, ‘measles are poorly reported because a large proportion of the cases are never seen by a physician.’ This, at a time when 600,000 annual reports of measles was normal.”
Despite Wednesday’s tragic reported death of a child in Texas, deaths from measles in the U.S. are extremely rare. Typically, people who die from measles have some other serious underlying condition.
Dr. Liz Mumper, a pediatrician, said it is “very uncommon” for a child to die from a measles infection in developed countries such as the U.S. that have access to clean water and good sanitation systems.
Although the CDC reports that the U.S. death rate from measles is 1 to 3 deaths out of every 1,000 reported cases, prior to the reported death on Wednesday in Texas, the last U.S. measles death was in a young immunocompromised woman in 2016. The last time a child died of measles in the U.S. was in 2003.
Hospitalization rates for measles are high, but that’s partly because people are often hospitalized to keep them isolated to stop transmission of the contagious illness, according to the CDC.
Treatment in hospitals typically involves keeping people hydrated and lowering their fevers.
“Effective treatments include vitamin A in high doses and attention to hydration status,” Mumper said. “Many natural methods to help the body fight viruses, like extra vitamin D and vitamin C, are effective but not widely recommended by mainstream medicine.”
Is the measles vaccine effective?
Most media reports blame the recent outbreak on unvaccinated people — mostly children — and claim the only way to resolve the crisis is to get the vaccination rate up to the professed target of 95% through mass vaccination campaigns.
This approach implies that without the measles vaccine, measles complications and deaths would be rampant.
CBS News suggested that if people can’t find their vaccination records or are worried about exposure, they should get a booster — because they are “safe and effective,” implying there’s no risk.
However, Mumper said it can’t generally be assumed that outbreaks are caused by unvaccinated people — cyclical outbreaks still occur even in populations, such as college students, with nearly 100% vaccination. The vaccine’s protection is not complete and wanes over time.
Measles vaccines come with a long list of serious side effects
The measles vaccine, like all vaccines, can cause serious side effects in some people, according to the author of “The Measles Book.”
Today, there are two measles vaccines available in the U.S. — Merck’s MMRII and GSK’s Priorix. Neither were safety-tested against a true placebo, according to pediatrician Dr. Paul Thomas, co-author of “Vax Facts: What to Consider Before Vaccinating at All Ages & Stages of Life.”
MMRII was tested against the vaccine components without the virus — which included the adjuvant — and Priorix was tested against the MMRII.
Merck’s label for MMRII, the most commonly given measles vaccine, reports that clinical trials and post-marketing studies identified a wide range of adverse reactions affecting almost every system in the body.
Examples include atypical measles and measles-type rashes, pancreatitis, thrombocytopenia, myalgia, respiratory illnesses like pneumonia, skin disorders, encephalitis, Guillain-Barré syndrome, convulsions or seizures, syncope and many other possible reactions.
The possible side effects for Priorix are similar. During the drug’s trials, there were high rates of serious adverse events and emergency room visits. New onset of chronic diseases occurred in both groups.
“To any sane mind, that means both the MMRII used as placebo and the new Priorix are dangerous,” according to Thomas.
A series of studies by the National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) conducted in the 1990s to 2000s found similar adverse effects associated with the MMR vaccines.
Since the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was established in 1990, there have been 115,849 adverse events associated with the measles vaccine reported, including 572 deaths.
All reports in VAERS are not necessarily verified and vary in completeness. However, underreporting is a known and serious disadvantage of the VAERS system. Researchers have found that the number of injuries reported to VAERS is less than 1%.
In addition to VAERS reports, many thousands of parents who saw their children regress into autism after taking the MMR vaccine have filed claims in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
Even though research shows a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, the VICP denied those claims en masse — and that denial is used to justify the now-common claim that there is no link between vaccines and autism.
An ongoing lawsuit alleges that the U.S. Department of Justice committed fraud to cover up the potential link between vaccines and autism. The case is pending in federal court.
The vaccine ‘propaganda playbook’
Measles outbreaks in the U.S. happen every year, but only some of them make headlines.
Stories circulate periodically about measles outbreaks, blaming them on low vaccination rates. Often, these outbreaks and the news reports sensationalizing them are followed by changes in vaccine laws to eliminate vaccine exemptions.
“The Measles Book” calls this fearmongering used to drive policy changes a “highly effective ‘propaganda playbook.’”
“We’ve seen this playbook in California in 2015 and in New York in 2019,” CHD CEO Mary Holland said. “We know that Hawaii’s legislature currently has bills to repeal its religious exemption.”
Holland added:
“The measles repeal playbook is well-worn and has been effective in the past, not because of a real threat to children’s health, but rather in large part due to media hype from corporate funding and government fearmongering.”
In 2015, allegedly prompted by a measles outbreak at Disneyland — blamed on unvaccinated children and low vaccination rates — California passed a controversial bill, Senate Bill No. 277 (SB 277), which eliminated the “personal belief exemption” for mandatory vaccination.
The passage of SB 277 in 2015 made California the first state in nearly 35 years to eliminate nonmedical vaccine exemptions.
In 2019, following a measles outbreak in 2018-19 in Brooklyn and Rockland Counties in New York, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed legislation ending nonmedical exemptions from school vaccination requirements for children.
What’s really killing children today? It’s not measles.
Measles is not — and has never been — a leading cause of death, according to Jablonowski.
The most common cause of death in non-infant children in 2023 was assault by firearm (2.2 per 100,000), motor-vehicle accident (1.3 per 100,000), self-harm by hanging, strangulation and suffocation (0.9 per 100,000), suicide by firearm (0.7 per 100,000), accidental overdose (0.7 per 100,000), drowning (0.5 per 100,000).
Over the past decade, children have also faced increasing rates of anxiety and depression, stress, asthma, autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or ADHD, obesity, and other chronic diseases, many of which can be linked to toxic exposures from pesticides, plastics, vaccines and other pharmaceutical products, water fluoridation, and electromagnetic radiation.
“Any childhood disease is scary, and measles can lead to complications like pneumonia,” Jablonowski said. “However, diseases like anxiety and depression, which are a serious threat to children’s health, do not have a Mayo clinic ‘self care’ section that begins with ‘take it easy,’” Jablonowski said.
“Any death of a child is tragic,” Holland said. “We grieve for this child and the child’s family. “That said, measles is not a grave threat to America’s children.”
Holland added:
“There are well-established protocols to treat it and healthy children can resolve a measles infection easily. This was the norm until 1963 when a single measles vaccine came into use. The notion that somehow measles is a scourge among well-nourished children with sanitation is diverging on the absurd.
“The real threats to America’s children are chronic health conditions: allergies, asthma, autism, ADHD, bipolar, and on, and on and on. The media would do well to start focusing its attention on the real risks to America’s children.”
Related stories in The Defender
- Texas Reports Death of Child Who Tested Positive for Measles, But Releases Few Details
- MMR Vaccine Debate Heats Up as Media Claim ‘Vaccine Hesitancy’ to Blame for Recent Outbreaks
- A New York County Pays $750,000 to Families Whose Unvaccinated Kids Were Barred From School During Measles Outbreak
This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs: The EU in Panic as Peace May Break Out
Prof. Jeffrey Sachs with Prof. Glenn Diesen
Glenn Diesen | February 26, 2025
I spoke with Professor Jeffrey Sachs after his speech at the European Parliament. How did we end up in a position where the EU has become the leading actor to oppose diplomacy and negotiations, and instead aims to prolong a war that devastates Europe and cannot be won? How did the Europeans reach a consensus on absurd notions such as Russia should not have a say in where NATO expands, and that the Europeans cannot sit down and talk to Russia without Ukraine? Professor Sachs attended the Istanbul negotiations in early 2022, but why are these negotiations now largely absent in the EU’s war narrative?
Putin invaded Ukraine ‘to stop NATO’, alliance chief tells EU
Jeffrey Sachs’ Full Address
Microsoft employees removed from town hall for protesting AI contracts with Israeli military
MEMO | February 27, 2025
US official vows to imprison pro-Palestine protesters for years

Press TV – February 27, 2025
An official with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) says student protesters who took part in pro-Palestine protests could face years in prison.
Leo Terrell, head of the DOJ task force on anti-Semitism, announced his plans for lengthy prison punishments for those who protested against Israel during its genocide in Gaza.
“We are going to put these people in jail—not for 24 hours, but for years,” Terrell told Israeli broadcaster Channel 12.
Terrell also vowed to “financially attack” the universities where such demonstrations took place.
The announcement came as students at Columbia University began fresh pro-Palestinian protests after two students were expelled for their anti-genocide activism.
The decision to imprison anti-Israel students comes despite the fact that US President Donald Trump declared his intention to “stop all government censorship” and “bring back free speech to America” during his inauguration speech.
One X user responded to the announcement by calling it the “death of the 1st amendment for a foreign nation of Israel.”
“The 1st Amendment in this country ends where Israel begins” stated another.
In the past years, numerous laws have been passed in America that punish criticism of Israel and Zionism.
These include numerous state laws that punish public workers for refusing to buy Israeli products, or the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act which has faced criticism for chilling free speech.
During the previous academic year, US universities and colleges emerged as a focal point for student-led pro-Palestinian protests, igniting a significant wave of demonstrations at universities throughout the world, where hundreds of students called on their universities to divest from companies that have ties to the Israeli regime.
In the spring, after pro-Palestinian students set up tents at Columbia University and school officials brought in city police to clear the demonstration, similar encampments began to emerge at colleges nationwide.
Protests erupted at prominent universities such as Harvard, Yale, MIT, and the University of California, frequently intensifying into clashes between opposing groups’ factions and increasing tensions within the campus environment.
The US police arrested more than 3000 students, professors, and faculty members after accusing the involved activists of “anti-Semitism” and “terrorism” and school administrators threatened some protest leaders with suspension and academic probation.
New US sanctions on Russia take effect
RT | February 27, 2025
A US ban on providing petroleum services to Russia officially took effect on Thursday, in the latest round of sanctions against Moscow over the Ukraine conflict.
The restrictions on the operations of American companies in Russia are part of sanctions targeting the country’s oil production and exports, which was approved by the US Treasury Department in conjunction with the UK on January 10.
The measure bars US services for extracting and producing crude oil and other petroleum products in Russia. The export or re-export of oil production services, including their indirect sale, has also been prohibited. Additionally, 30 Russian companies have been placed on a special sanctions list.
Businesses were given a grace period to wind down their operations with Russian partners, which ended on February 27. Three major projects – the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), Tengizchevroil, and Sakhalin-2 – were granted exemptions and will be allowed to receive US services under a special license until June 28.
The sanctions were introduced less than two weeks before the end of Joe Biden’s term as US president.
It targeted two major Russian oil producers, Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegaz, along with their subsidiaries and entities providing insurance and transportation services. More than 180 vessels allegedly used to transport Russian oil in defiance of Western restrictions – described by the US as a ‘shadow fleet’ – were also sanctioned.
At the time, Biden acknowledged that the latest package of sanctions could have economic repercussions for ordinary Americans, admitting that they could lead to a slight increase in gas prices. However, he claimed the move was necessary in order to reduce Russian energy revenues.
Moscow has dismissed the restrictions as “illegal.” President Vladimir Putin has said Russia has overcome the challenges caused by the sanctions, crediting them with boosting domestic industries.
Commenting on the restrictions, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Biden’s legacy will be defined by the “mess” he left behind.
The new US administration has recently suggested that Western nations may have to consider lifting the sanctions on Russia in order to find an “enduring, sustainable” solution to the Ukraine conflict.
President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday that Washington could lift the sanctions “at some point” during the Ukraine peace negotiations.
According to Moscow, the Western sanctions have failed to destabilize or isolate Russia, while backfiring on the countries that imposed them.
Trump declines to comment on protecting Taiwan island, expresses welcome for Chinese investment in Cabinet meeting
Global Times | February 27, 2025
During his first official Cabinet meeting of his second term on Wednesday, US President Donald Trump refused to comment when asked by a reporter’s question about whether “the US would allow China to take control of Taiwan by force,” Instead, he responded by expressing his desire for Chinese investment in the US, Reuters reported.
“I never comment on that,” Trump said at the White House. “I don’t want to ever put myself in that position,” according to the Reuters report.
Trump claimed he had a great relationship with the Chinese leader. “We want them to come in and invest. I see so many things saying that we don’t want China in this country. That’s not right. We want them to invest in the US. That’s good. There’s a lot of money coming in, and we’ll invest in China. We’ll do things with China. The relationship we’ll have with China will be a very good one,” Trump said.
Some local media outlets in Taiwan noted on Thursday that this was not the first time Trump had declined to make a commitment to the island.
In an article published by CNA on Thursday, it was noted in its headline that Trump refused to make a commitment to the island again.
The CNA report cited an interview of Trump with NBC’s Meet the Press in December 2024, when the host asked, “If China invades Taiwan on your watch, are you committed to defending Taiwan?” Trump responded, “I never say.”
Local media FTV News also published an article on Thursday, saying Trump refused again to make commitment to Taiwan.
Citing articles from The New York Times, Taiwan’s UDN News published an article on Thursday titled “Trump abandons Ukraine, doubts about US support deepened in Taiwan.”
The New York Times noted on Tuesday that In Taiwan, Trump’s stinging comments about Ukraine could feed a current of public opinion arguing that the island has been repeatedly abandoned by Washington and cannot trust its promises.
In response to media reports about the Trump administration release of $5.3 billion in previously frozen foreign aid, including $870 million designated for military assistance to Taiwan, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian said on Wednesday’s press briefing that China has all along opposed US military assistance to China’s Taiwan region, which has severely violated the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiqués, undermined China’s sovereignty and security interests, and sent a gravely wrong signal to “Taiwan independence” separatist forces.
“We urge the US to stop arming Taiwan and undermining the peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. China will closely follow the situation and firmly defend national sovereignty, security and territorial integrity,” Lin said.
“‘Protection fees’ won’t protect ‘Taiwan independence’ forces, and the ‘chess pieces’ will inevitably turn into ‘abandoned pieces,'” said Zhu Fenglian, spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, during a press conference on Wednesday.
Her remarks came in response to reports that the secessionist Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities on Taiwan island are contemplating arms purchases from the US, ranging from $7 billion to $10 billion, in an effort to gain favor with the Trump administration.
‘Incompetent cowards’ in Brussels could have prevented Trump tariffs, claims Hungarian FM
By Thomas Brooke | Remix News | February 27, 2025
Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó has launched a scathing attack on the European Union’s leadership following U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement of an impending 25 percent tariff on European imports.
In a statement on his social media channels, Szijjártó accused the EU leadership, specifically the European Commission under Ursula von der Leyen, of incompetence and cowardice in trade negotiations with Washington, accusing Brussels of failing to act despite knowing Trump’s stance on trade fairness and the likelihood of new tariffs.
“The whole world, including Brussels, knew very well that Donald Trump wants balanced trade conditions,” Szijjártó stated. “They knew, but they did nothing. Because they are incompetent, and especially cowards.”
“They bullied Donald Trump for eight years and now they don’t dare to face him,” Szijjártó added, lamenting von der Leyen’s leadership of the bloc which he says has now “isolated the European economy, after China, from the American economy as well.”
The Hungarian minister emphasized that the EU could have averted the tariffs with minor policy adjustments proposed by Budapest, such as lowering the duty on American cars imported into Europe from 10 percent to 2.5 percent, matching U.S. tariffs on European cars. However, according to him, bureaucratic inefficiency prevented such action.
“Brussels bureaucracy is killing the European economy: sanctions on Russia, customs on the Chinese electric car industry, and the complete inability to negotiate with the United States,” Szijjártó added.
President Trump, speaking to reporters on Wednesday, justified the new tariffs, saying, “The European Union was formed to screw the United States – that’s the purpose of it and they’ve done a good job of it. But now I’m president.” The 25 percent tariff, he noted, would apply broadly to European goods, with a particular impact on the auto industry — a move likely to give the new German government a sizeable headache.
The European Union responded with a strong rebuttal, warning that it would react “firmly and immediately against unjustified tariffs.”
“It has been a boon for the United States. We’re ready to partner if you play by the rules. But we will also protect our consumers and businesses at every turn. They expect no less from us,” a spokesperson for the European Commission stated.
Hungary now appears to be intent on using the goodwill it has secured with the Trump administration over recent years to seek an independent path to safeguard its economic interests. Szijjártó announced that Budapest would engage in direct negotiations with Washington to ensure strong Hungarian-American trade relations. “What Brussels damaged, we must fix here in Budapest,” he declared, vowing to pursue the “most productive Hungarian-American economic cooperation of all time.”
You Might Also Like
Jim Jordan Subpoenas FBI: Unraveling Biden Admin’s Big Tech Collusion
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 26, 2025
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan subpoenaed the FBI on Monday for seven categories of information, including on the Biden Administration’s collusion with Big Tech.
In a letter to the new FBI director, Kash Patel, Jordan states that during the mandate of his predecessor Christopher Wray and the former administration, the agency “departed from its core public safety mission” and was able to do this while avoiding “any real transparency or accountability for its actions.”
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
According to Jordan, this resulted in deep distrust in the FBI, which can be remedied by shedding light on the agency’s involvement in these activities.
Regarding the government-Big Tech collusion, Jordan recalled that during the previous Congress as well, the Committee that he heads undertook to investigate how this was happening, and to what extent.
The results of this oversight so far, as well as discovery in the Missouri v. Biden case (that continues to be litigated in a federal court), have revealed the FBI’s involvement.
In order to determine what the agency’s exact role was and make sure it doesn’t deviate from its mission in a similar way going forward, the Committee is now requesting the documents that Christopher Wray, for the most part, had not produced.
Jordan notes that a subpoena issued in August 2023 sought access to all of the FBI’s internal documents, communications, and notes about any meetings between its representatives and those of Big Tech, and also records related to the censorship of reports about the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.
What the investigations have revealed to date is that the FBI was falsely presenting the story as “Russian disinformation” while in effect pressuring social media companies to censor it.
Yet another, earlier subpoena, from February 2023, sent to Meta and Google, “revealed that the FBI, on behalf of a compromised Ukrainian intelligence entity, requested – and, in some cases, directed – the world’s largest social media platforms to censor Americans engaging in constitutionally protected speech online,” Jordan writes.
To understand the full extent of the FBI’s role in any unconstitutional activities that also involve “coordination” with social media companies, the Committee wants Kash Patel to now provide all the relevant communications.
The ultimate goal of the investigation is to establish if legislative changes are necessary to prevent the agency from acting in a similar way in the future.
Tulsi Gabbard labels CNN ‘propaganda arm’ of spies
The Director of National Intelligence says the network’s anonymous CIA sources are exactly the people “we need to root out”
RT | February 27, 2025
Newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard has accused CNN of acting as a “propaganda arm” for disloyal intelligence agents, calling the network’s report on potential retaliation by dismissed spies an “indirect threat” to President Donald Trump’s administration.
As part of Trump’s broader effort to downsize and restructure the federal government, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has recently offered so-called buyouts to its agents. In a report published Monday, CNN, citing unnamed sources, claimed that some senior CIA officers were “quietly discussing” how the dismissals “risk creating a group of disgruntled former employees who might be motivated to take what they know to a foreign intelligence service.”
“I am curious about how they think this is a good tactic to keep their job,” Gabbard told Fox News on Tuesday.
“They are exposing themselves, essentially, by making this indirect threat – using their propaganda arm, CNN, that they’ve used over and over again – to reveal their hand,” she continued. “Their loyalty is not to America, not to the American people or the Constitution; it is to themselves.”
The director of national intelligence stressed that such disgruntled employees are “exactly the kinds of people we need to root out, get rid of, so that the patriots who do work in this area, who are committed to our core mission, can actually focus on that.”
Gabbard also claimed that many within the intelligence community had reached out to her personally, expressing support for Trump’s efforts to “clean house” and refocus on the core mission of serving the American people.
A former US congresswoman from Hawaii, Gabbard rose to national prominence in 2016 when she resigned as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to endorse Bernie Sanders for president. She later ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, advocating against US military interventions abroad, which she argued were harmful to service members like herself and detrimental to national interests. As tensions with the Democratic Party escalated, Gabbard left the party in 2022. After two years as an independent, she joined the Republican Party and endorsed Donald Trump during the 2024 presidential campaign.
Trump’s nomination of Gabbard for the top intelligence role in November sparked criticism from establishment figures, who labeled her a security risk. Despite the backlash, she was confirmed earlier this month by a 52-48 Senate vote, with only one Republican, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, opposing her appointment.
In January, the Senate also confirmed another Trump nominee, John Ratcliffe, as director of the CIA in a 74-25 vote. Ratcliffe, a former Texas congressman and ex-director of national intelligence during Trump’s first term, is known for his skepticism of intelligence agencies and his criticism of investigations into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Florida Judge Rules Brazilian Censorship Orders Unenforceable Against Rumble and Trump Media
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | February 25, 2025
A federal judge in Florida has denied a request from Trump Media and video platform Rumble to block enforcement of orders issued by Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, ruling that the case is not yet ripe for judicial review.
We obtained a copy of the order for you here.
However – that’s not because Rumble and Trump Media have no grounds – it’s because both companies “were not served upon Plaintiffs in compliance with the Hague Convention, to which the United States and Brazil are both signatories nor were they served pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between the United States and Brazil.”
The two platforms have been at the forefront in the fight against censorship. In a win for free speech, the court ruled that the direct demands of Rumble and Truth are not through “established protocols” and so Plaintiffs [Rumble and Truth] are not obligated to comply with the directives and pronouncements, and no one is authorized or obligated to assist in their enforcement against Plaintiffs or their interests here in the United States.”
The immediate dispute revolves around a conservative Brazilian commentator living in the US, referred to in the lawsuit as Political Dissident A. This commentator, a vocal critic of the Brazilian Supreme Court, has been accused of “anti-democratic” speech—a charge that US courts would almost certainly dismiss as constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.
US District Judge Mary S. Scriven effectively stated that the two platforms do not need a temporary restraining order against Moraes because Morae’s orders to Rumble have no grounds.
In a statement, a Rumble spokesperson stated: “The court explicitly ruled that Moraes’s directives were never properly served under US or international law…” and that “The court further made clear that if anyone attempts to enforce these illegal orders on US soil, it stands ready to intervene to protect American companies and free speech. The ruling sends a strong message to foreign governments that they cannot bypass US law to impose censorship on American platforms.”
“This is a major victory for free speech and free expression online,” said Trump Media CEO Devin Nunes. “The ruling confirms that would-be dictators in any country can’t force Trump Media or Rumble to censor their opponents. We congratulate our partner Rumble on its principled stand for freedom.”
