Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill on the move by the Trump Administration against five leading figures in the European censorship movement, including Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner responsible for digital policy. The United States is finally responding to what is an existential threat to American values. It is worth noting, as I discuss in my new book, Rage and the Republic, that the EU is not only exporting its censorship rules but threatening American companies that do not meet its environment, social and governance (ESG) policies. It is time for Congress to follow suit and get into this fight.

“We are the free world now.”

Those words from Raphael Glucksmann, a French socialist member of the European Parliament, captured the pearl-clutching outrage of Europeans after the Trump administration did what no prior administration has ever done — stand up to Europe to defend the freedom of speech.

This week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio barred five figures closely associated with European censorship efforts from traveling to the U.S. This includes Thierry Breton, the former European Union commissioner responsible for digital policy.

In a post on X, Rubio declared that the U.S. “will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship” and will target “leading figures of the global censorship-industrial complex from entering the United States.”

Breton achieved infamy as one of the architects of the massive EU censorship system, which is now being globalized. Armed with the notorious Digital Services Act, Breton and others threatened American companies and officials that they would have to yield to European standards of free speech. After Breton learned that Musk was planning to interview Trump before the last presidential election, he even warned the X owner that he would be “monitored” and potentially subject to EU fines.

Socialist Glucksmann is now irate at “this scandalous sanction against Thierry Breton.”

“We are Europeans,” he declared.

“We must defend our laws, our principles, our interests.” In other words, this is a war over whether Europe or the U.S. Constitution will dictate the scope of free speech for American companies and citizens.

Breton and his colleagues are finally being treated as what they are: a clear and present danger to the “indispensable right” that defines all Americans.

The EU has been enlisted by anti-free speech figures in the U.S. to force companies like X and Facebook to restore censorship of Americans. After Musk bought Twitter with a pledge to restore free-speech protections, Hillary Clinton called upon European officials to force him to censor under Europe’s Digital Services Act.

Nina Jankowicz, the former head of Biden’s infamous Disinformation Governance Board, appeared before the European Parliament. She called upon the 27 EU countries to fight against the U.S., which she described as a global threat.

The E.U. enthusiastically took up the challenge. This year, I spoke in Berlin at the World Forum, which boosted the slogan, “A New World Order with European Values.” Bill and Hillary Clinton and other Americans cheered on the European efforts.

The Digital Services Act bars speech that is viewed as “disinformation” or “incitement.” When it was passed over the condemnations of many of us in the free speech community, European Commission Executive Vice President Margrethe Vestager celebrated by declaring that it is “not a slogan anymore — that what is illegal offline should also be seen and dealt with as illegal online. Now it is a real thing. Democracy’s back.”

It is indeed a “real thing.”

In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the challenges facing our republic in the 21st century, including the EU and its transnational governance model. Many on the left are supporting the erosion of national laws and values in favor of standards set by global experts and elites.

This cadre of American enablers has been increasingly vocal in Europe. Notably, late-night ABC host Jimmy Kimmel delivered a Christmas Eve address in Great Britain denouncing the U.S. as a global threat. He declared that “from a fascism perspective, this has been a really great year. Tyranny is booming over here.”

It was crushingly ironic.

Many of us have been writing for years about how free speech has been eviscerated in the United Kingdom, where people are being prosecuted for “toxic ideologies” and an ever-lengthening list of unacceptable political viewpoints.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a warning this week about the collapse of free speech in the United Kingdom.

Yet that is where a comedian, who is paid millions and attacks Trump and conservatives nightly, went to complain about the threat to free speech in the U.S.

Both Vice President JD Vance and Secretary Rubio have delivered major speeches warning the EU about its effort to export censorship systems, particularly targeting American citizens and companies. After years of encouragement and enabling from the Obama and Biden administrations, the U.S. government is finally in this fight.

That is why Europe is up in arms, denouncing the move to bar these officials as an attack on its own sovereignty. 

In other words, an effort to defend our own free speech values is a threat to the proclaimed “New World Order with European Values.”

In reality, I do not like travel bans. I prefer that these figures come to this country and face free-speech advocates. Yet despite our calls for Congress to get into this fight, it has done nothing due to opposition from Democratic members. We cannot wait as the EU weaponizes and globalizes censorship.

Glucksmann is right about one thing. This is a fight over who today can be rightfully called the “free world.” In the U.S., we continue to cling to the quaint notion that the free world should be based on … well, freedom.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution” on the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution.

Latvia has finally finished building a long anticipated nearly 175-mile fence along its border with Russia, according to regional media on Tuesday, which cited the state-linked company responsible for managing the project.

The fence cost an equivalent of nearly $20 million, and so at that price points to it being defensively minimal and low-tech, however some additional work is still underway on supporting infrastructure – which is expected to include support items such as footbridges over marshy terrain, observation towers, and engineering installations. 

Illustrative: fence on the Latvia-Belarus border

The country’s Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis said Latvia is now deploying advanced surveillance and monitoring systems along the frontier for an eventual “modern border security system” on the European Union’s eastern edge.

This will also complement the previously erected 90-mile fence along Latvia’s border with Belarus, which has been a partner of Moscow in the Ukraine war. 

A little over a year ago, Latvia had reached 80% completion of the border wall with Russia. It represents the general attitude of the Baltic neighborhood – that Russia can’t be trusted and is an ‘aggressor’ state bent on expansion.

There’s also been a rise in Baltic armies hosting war games, and exercises which are integrated with NATO, which is fast becoming a ‘new normal’.

Other countries in both eastern and northern Europe are racing to construct their own walls. For example Finland has committed $143 million to a greatly expanded fence along its southeastern boundary.

Helsinki has further announced plans for additional defensive structures, including bunkers and shelters designed to withstand direct artillery or missile attacks.

Poland too has erected electronic surveillance barrier along its border with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave, and recent reports have said it is reintroducing land mines after long being part of an international ban on the controversial weapons.

via BBC

Polish authorities have also wanted to reduce the risk of migration pressure, pointing to the launch of flights to Kaliningrad as well as Belarus from the Middle East and Africa.

Via Remix News,

Ukraine’s anti-corruption authorities have announced charges against members of an organized crime group that operated in the Verkhovna Rada.

Among the suspects are five members of parliament from Volodymyr Zelensky’s party, reports Do Rzezcy.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and the Special Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office (SAP) announced that the charges were filed regarding bribes paid for votes in parliament.

According to investigators’ findings, MPs were paid to influence decisions made in the legislative chamber in a persistent and well-organized manner.

In an official statement posted on Telegram, NABU announced that, in cooperation with SAP, an undercover investigation had identified an organized criminal group that included serving members of Ukraine’s parliament.

The investigation’s findings indicate that members of this group accepted illegal benefits in exchange for votes in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.

The bureau also emphasized that these activities are part of a broader strategy to combat corruption at the highest levels of government.

On Saturday, the website Ukrainska Pravda revealed that the suspects are members of parliament from President Volodymyr Zelensky’s party, Servant of the People: Yevhen Pyvarov, Ihor Nehulevsky, Olha Savchenko, and Yuri Kisel. The website also reported the name of Yuri Koryachenkov.

According to the investigation’s findings, the group had a hierarchical structure and a clear division of roles. It included current Ukrainian deputies and officials from the Chancellery of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine.”

“The group’s activities were coordinated by one of the deputies,” the report reads.

The Interfax-Ukraine news agency reported that “when organizing the votes, group members sent instructions with the numbers of bills in a specially created WhatsApp group.”

“Following the votes, payments were systematically transferred to individual deputies,” the report added.

The news comes after the “golden toilet” corruption scandal rocked Ukraine just months ago, and which led to the arrest of top ministers in Zelensky’s government and the arrest of Zelensky’s top aide.

In addition, a long-time business associate of Zelensky fled to Israel after receiving a tip-off just hours before a NABU raid on his residence.

Read more here…

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

It will be no secret to readers that more and more people are coming to the realization that the economic, political, and social problems in the world are becoming quite pronounced – worse than at any other point in their lifetimes. Increasingly, such people are turning to publications such as this one to find answers as to: (a) where it will all end; and (b) how they can personally avoid (or at least minimize) the damage to themselves, personally.

Publications such as this one do their best to inform people as to how they may positively affect their future; however, in order for people to make informed choices, they must first understand the nature of their situation.

One of the misperceptions that seems to be almost universal is that, although things are bad, there is no particular reason why, if the right people were in charge, the situation could not simply reverse itself and all would be well again.

This is not at all the case.

At the root of the misunderstanding is the common perception that a country’s progress (economically and politically) is rather like a sine wave, endlessly oscillating. Booms and busts come and go with regularity. If it were as simple as this, the goal for all concerned right now would be to remain as liquid as possible and to ride out the current situation until we reach the next upward wave, which surely could take place if the right people are at the helm.

At such times, the heat that revolves around elections becomes considerable, as people take up sides over whether the liberal or conservative candidate “has the answer.”

However, if we step well back from the situation and examine which government philosophy has been the most successful, we would have to admit that, regardless of the outcome of elections, the decline has continued unabated. In fact, nearly all the countries of the First World are now in a more dire condition that at any time in living memory. Whatever is taking place, it is not a repetitive sine wave; and we should not rest our hopes on the possibility that “our guy” will be elected and carry us through to the next upswing.

If we step back further, we note that historically this is not a new condition. The present situation has played itself out over the millennia. Countries come to prominence, flourish for a time, then decay for sometimes long periods before rising again, if ever. Countries, particularly democracies, tend to have a lifespan.

Typically, they follow this pattern:

From Bondage to Moral Certitude

From Moral Certitude to Great Courage

From Great Courage to Liberty

From Liberty to Abundance

From Abundance to Selfishness

From Selfishness to Complacency

From Complacency to Apathy

From Apathy to Dependency <–You are here…

From Dependency to Bondage

The empires of old, such as the Roman Empire and the Athenian Republic, followed this pattern. Rome took roughly 500 years to complete the entire transition (or longer, depending upon interpretations). Later, others, such as Spain, Holland, and the UK took their turns, each taking a bit less time to complete the pattern. The US is the present holder of the title of “Greatest Empire.” It has taken about 250 years to travel from its point of Moral Certitude to its present state of Apathy/Dependency.

The reader can perform his own appraisals of when the US passed through each of the above stages.

He may even wish to add one or two of his own mini-stages, or retitle some stages to his liking. Still, it is likely that he will agree that this pattern has been followed.

What is striking about the pattern is that it is based upon human nature. For the majority of people in any country, there is a brief time (Great Courage to Liberty) when human frustration gives way to dramatic change. This is followed by natural and even predictable periods that often take a generation or two to fully play out, until they morph into the next stage. But they are logical, as they follow a path of human nature.

What is significant is that the pattern remains the same; and it represents the lifetime of a country. Some may take longer than others to travel from one stage to the other, but the pattern remains over the entire transition.

But all the above is academic. To have worth, the recognition of the premise that a country has a lifetime must be related to the present situation.

If we recognize that the present Empire has indeed passed through the various stages and is now in the Apathy/Dependency stage, we would have to consider that the final stage of Bondage is now on the horizon. If we are prepared to take a major step back from our present standpoint to assess both the past and future, we will conclude that no election – in the US or any other country – will reverse the inexorable progress of governments to dominate the electorate. Nor will it reverse the electorate’s slow but steady compliance over generations. This process is as perennial as the grass. Those who seek to dominate will always keep up the pressure for ever-greater control, and the average citizen will always hope for an easier life if he gives in “just one more time” to the powers that be.

Judge Andrew Napolitano is fond of referring of the American government as a “giant predatory bird, with a right wing and a left wing.” This is an excellent analogy that does not only apply to the US. It can be applied to most every “democracy” in the world. Elections serve as useful illusions to provide hope for the populace that they, in some way, contribute to their own destiny. They therefore follow the election process to such a degree that, in those countries where the election scam is most prominent, the candidates actually begin campaigning a year or more before their terms are complete, rather than focus on the running of the country.

No matter which candidate wins, the pattern continues to play itself out.

And so, the question bears asking again. Why, if countries do pass through a natural progression of stages, would anyone hold on to the thin sliver of hope that any election in any country would somehow reverse the entire process, as has never occurred in the past?

The answer, it would seem, is that once this vain hope is given up, all that is left is the acceptance that the final stage of development is on the way. And to accept such a dark inevitability is a prospect that not even a Russian novelist could bear.

There will certainly be those who say, “I choose to be hopeful,” and by doing so will in essence seal their fate. On the other hand, those who do take the difficult decision to stare down the dark road that lies ahead must make a choice – and it is in that choice that the real hope lies.

In the nineteenth century, Europe was in tatters. Old, bloated kingdoms were either falling into decay or being toppled by revolution. Often the leaders of those revolutions were just as sociopathic as many of our modern-day leaders (although less subtle in their methods of control). Back then, the majority of citizens in every country put their heads down and hoped that “maybe it will get better.” However, a few people actually took the courageous step to pull up stakes and sail across the water to a new, more promising country. The stories of success that found their way back to Europe, in time, resulted in a flood of people who made the move. The very ambition that they created within themselves proved to be the foundation of the American transition “from Liberty to Abundance.”

Today, the trickle of people has begun again. As before, many people are quietly exiting Europe, but this time, the US is not the destination. In fact, a flow has also begun from that country.

But there is a difference this time. So far, the waves of “refugees” have not yet filled the ships, although that may yet happen. For now, what is occurring is the quiet exit of those people who still retain some level of wealth and are seeking to both retain that wealth and to gain greater freedom for the future. This, in a sense, is the “golden time,” when the welcome mat is still out in many desirable destinations; when the first to arrive will have the greatest opportunity. Later, if the predictable flood of expatriation occurs, the welcome mats may be withdrawn.

Those who take advantage of the golden time are likely to be those who benefit most.

*  *  *

History suggests that those who preserve their freedom and wealth are rarely the ones who wait for clarity—they are the ones who act while options still exist. As the pressures described in this article continue to build, advance preparation becomes the difference between choice and compulsion. To help readers think through what may lie ahead, we’ve prepared a special report, Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse, which examines the practical steps that can be taken before capital controls, asset seizures, and movement restrictions inevitably emerge. You can download the free PDF report here.

California’s Department of Motor Vehicles is facing a class-action lawsuit over plans to cancel nearly 20,000 immigrant truckers’ commercial driver’s licenses, a move plaintiffs say would cause widespread disruption, according to Fox News.

The case was filed Tuesday by the Asian Law Caucus, the Sikh Coalition, and the firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, seeking to block the DMV from revoking the licenses. According to the complaint, the cancellations would “result in mass work stoppages” beginning Jan. 5, 2026.

In a joint statement, the two advocacy groups said: “This class-action lawsuit is brought on behalf of the Jakara Movement and five commercial drivers who have been deprived of their rights and livelihoods.”

They added that although officials said licenses would start being reissued on Dec. 17, “the state has neither reissued any of the contested licenses nor created a process to remedy the date issue with no indication that it plans to do so before January 5.”

Fox News writes that the lawsuit says the DMV notified 17,299 drivers on Nov. 6 that their non-domiciled CDLs would be canceled on Jan. 5 due to errors with license expiration dates. Another 2,700 drivers received similar letters in December, with cancellations scheduled for mid-February.

State law requires CDL expiration dates to align with a driver’s work authorization or legal status. Instead, the suit claims the DMV issued cancellation notices rather than correcting the dates.

“For all 19,999 immigrants, the DMV intends to cancel their commercial licenses without affording any opportunity to obtain a corrected license or to contest the cancellation,” the lawsuit states.

It also alleges that “despite its own regulation, the DMV did not consistently ensure that a CDL’s expiration date matched the end of a person’s period of work authorization or lawful presence.”

Plaintiffs say the consequences extend beyond the drivers, noting they “play an indispensable role in our local and national economies” and warning that “the sudden loss of their ability to work threatens not only their livelihoods but also the stability of our supply chains and services on which the public depends.”

The filing includes examples of alleged errors, including a driver whose CDL already matches his work authorization and a Jakara Movement member who was “pressured into surrendering his CDL, out of fear that his non-commercial driver’s license would already be cancelled.” The suit also says the “DMV has not explained how it identified 19,999 licenses as out of compliance with state law and how it can ensure that its determinations are accurate.”

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order the DMV to provide corrected licenses “without interruption to their driving privileges.”

Authored by Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

The United States and the United Nations have finalized an agreement that includes $2 billion in humanitarian funding and what the State Department described as radical reform to save Americans’ tax dollars while avoiding ideological projects.

The finalized agreement supports the U.N.’s 2026 plan to reach nearly 90 million people and target 17 crisis-affected countries.

It was signed in Geneva, Switzerland, on Dec. 29 amid the administration’s criticism of what it said were wasteful foreign aid programs and its dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

“The agreement requires the U.N. to consolidate humanitarian functions to reduce bureaucratic overhead, unnecessary duplication, and ideological creep,” the State Department said in a press release.

“Individual U.N. agencies will need to adapt, shrink, or die.”

According to the department, annual contributions by the United States have increased in recent years, reaching $8 billion to $10 billion annually in voluntary contributions for humanitarian assistance.

The new agreement channels U.S. funding into consolidated and flexible fund vehicles administered by the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, according to the department.

“Flexible funding vehicles will allow the Department of State to administer humanitarian funding more efficiently, materially reducing administrative burdens on the Department, and allowing diplomats to spend less time on bureaucratic grant management and more of their time on policy oversight, accountability, and impact analysis,” it said.

In a press release, the United Nations described the agreement as part of a “Humanitarian Reset” announced by U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Tom Fletcher earlier this year.

During a speech in February, Fletcher warned that a “massive funding, morale, and legitimacy crisis” was confronting the humanitarian community.

Citing funding cuts, he later called for a series of reforms while emphasizing the need for “much lighter, more nimble cooperation.”

Most of the countries impacted by the recent agreement are located in Africa.

Among them was Nigeria, where the U.S. military recently struck the ISIS terrorist group over concerns about the widespread persecution of Christians in the country.

Before that attack, the Trump administration also aimed at ISIS in Syria, which was one of the other 17 crisis-affected countries impacted by the agreement.

Other countries included Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Haiti, and Bangladesh.

Ukraine was also named as its government lobbied the Trump administration for a long-lasting plan to quell hostilities with Russia.

According to the U.N., the Dec. 29 agreement affects the U.N. Central Emergency Response Fund, which focuses on providing quick humanitarian assistance to people in crises.

The United Nations said on Dec. 29 that Fletcher “emphasized that donors expect results, saying accountability mechanisms would ensure that ‘every dollar we spend’ is tracked to confirm that it is saving lives.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the funding as “lifesaving” in a statement while pledging a new model that would require the United Nations to cut waste.

“Today, the [State Department] and United Nations signed an agreement that radically reforms the way the U.S. programs, funds, and oversees U.N.-administered humanitarian work, ensuring that more lives will be saved for fewer U.S. taxpayer dollars,” he said.

“This new model will better share the burden of U.N. humanitarian work with other developed countries and will require the U.N. to cut bloat, remove duplication, and commit to powerful new impact, accountability, and oversight mechanisms.”

In November, the entertainment media was energized by the news of potential studio mergers and a potential jump in content spending by Disney and Paramount.  The possibility of more cash flowing into productions was seen as a light at the end of a long dark tunnel for a film industry crushed by endless box office and TV streaming failures.  Maybe this new funding would revitalize a Hollywood gasping for oxygen?

However, as The Hollywood Reporter noted, the surge in funding was not necessarily going into the pockets of the current crop of filmmakers and TV series showrunners.  Instead, Disney, Paramount and other entertainment conglomerates are shifting cash into sports and foreign content.  

The reasons why media giants are quietly abandoning Hollywood should be obvious.  In early 2025, these same companies took one last gamble on DEI and stood in solidarity with activist producers, directors and writers.  And, the result this year was the same as the last several years:  They lost billions in revenues per project.

The raw box office numbers are ugly, but they don’t tell the whole story.  Overall productions costs have skyrocketed by 25% since early 2020 and inflation in ticket prices has hidden the crippling plunge in total ticket sales compared to the same time period.  In other words, Hollywood’s profit margins are shrinking while their audience is dwindling.

Their strategy in early 2025 revolved around the idea of attacking the audience (their customer base) as a “toxic fandom” that needs to be shamed and marginalized.  The problem is, in most cases when companies go to war with their customers they inevitably lose.  

More recent examples include Superman director James Gunn’s social media rants attacking fans for criticizing the pro-illegal immigration propaganda planted in the comic book film which was intended to relaunch the Warner Bros. DC universe.  The media applauded Gunn’s handling of the fandom and claimed that he set a precedent for future films that draw audience backlash.  In reality, Gunn’s movie was a box office flop, falling $100 million short of the $700 million in global ticket sales needed for the film to break even.

Gunn’s big mouth and far-left propaganda sunk the movie’s chances.  Keep in mind, the Superman franchise is about as all-American as you can get; to not draw in a massive US audience requires stunning incompetence. 

Then there was the epic failure of Disney’s Star Wars series, “The Acolyte”.  The streaming series sought to deconstruct the Star Wars mythos by making the Jedi the villains and portrayed the Sith as misunderstood good guys.  The show was saturated with LGBT casting and gay propaganda including the infamous lesbian space witches.  The Acolyte was created by Leslye Headland, former assistant of Harvey Weinstein, and was essentially the last attempt by Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy to force fans to embrace a woke version of the franchise.

To this day, Headland has been raging against “toxic” audiences for rejecting the series and making it one of the most embarrassing projects ever to be released by Disney’s streaming service (and there’s a long list of disastrous releases from Disney+).  She asserts that her show’s dismal reception had nothing to do with bad writing and woke storytelling; rather, it was the fault of “racist and fascist” fans. 

Disney immediately cancelled the show due to rock bottom viewership and it’s unlikely Headland will ever touch another Star Wars project again.   

Even “Stranger Things”, a Netflix mainstay considered a sure winner, faced audience decline during its final season after planting abrupt and unnecessary LGBT messaging in the series.  The establishment media came to the show’s defense, arguing that audiences have become “entitled” and that studios need to stop trying to give customers what they want. 

The truth is, Hollywood has been ignoring audience feedback for years and their concerns have focused more on force-feeding fans a steady diet of woke indoctrination.  This might have been possible for them a few years ago when cash reserves were still strong, but the studios are finally realizing that they can’t propagandize the public if no one pays to watch their garbage.

In other words, the leftists in entertainment didn’t take into account the possibility that audiences would simply walk away.  They can control every facet of media from TV to advertising to film, but they can’t force people to consume their content (at least not in the US).

And this seems to be the new business model for Hollywood going into next year.  2025 was the last hurrah for woke programming in America.  Now, studios are scrambling to cancel a number of politically charged shows and movies in the hopes of finally bringing profits back to their pre-pandemic glory.  Their pending 2026 release lineup, though, is anorexic.  

In the meantime, companies like Netflix are adapting with targeted woke messaging in countries where people can actually be forced to watch.  In Britain, for example, the government is excitedly promoting the Netflix series “Adolescence”. The show is set to be featured in UK classrooms as part of an anti-masculinity program to brainwash young men into avoiding conservative content and fearing their own biology. 

It is likely that the industry will try to adapt their productions to markets where audiences have less freedom of choice in the hopes of offsetting their losses in the US, but the fact remains that unless they abandon woke politics completely there is little chance that they will be able to weather another year of failure similar to the ugliness of 2025.