Kill television drug ads

 On Monday, The New York Times brought the issue of direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising back into the public square with an article, “Should Drug Companies Be Advertising to Consumers?”

According to an Open Secrets article, so-called “Big Pharma” spends “more than $10 billion a year on direct-to-consumer advertising, with the U.S. and New Zealand being the only countries that permit it.”  Normally, I could give two hoots what the rest of the world does, but this?  I’m thinking there’s wisdom in crowds with this one. We as a society have decided it’s in our self-interest and cultural interest to have our elected government look after our young by restricting television advertising aimed at them, so it seems to me we should look after the elderly and infirm too.

The Times reminds us that we’ve been subject to the infernal things only since 1997, so not quite thirty years, when the FDA “loosened restrictions and allowed prescription drug ads on television as long as they included a rapid-fire summary of major risks and provided a source for further information.”

The “summaries” or disclaimers would be funny if they weren’t so grim:  “side effects may include increased heart rate, bad breath, polka-dot skin, or DEATH.”  I’m being sarcastic, but when “death” is listed as a side effect, it stops being funny, doesn’t it?

Then with the introduction of Medicare Part D twenty years ago, the advertising to seniors took off like a rocket ship.  We’ve all seen the ads: happy smiling people with all manner of ailments, skipping and dancing now that they have their magic drug.  And lately the diseases they’re meant to cure or alleviate have been getting more obscure.  Have you noticed?  There are drugs for diseases I’ve actually Googled because it wasn’t at all clear from the advertising what in the world they were for, but evidently there are enough people out there with these things to make the expenditure worth it.  If nothing else, the ads make me grateful for my health!

The Times also points out how misleading the ads can be as they “encourage the use and overuse of expensive new medications, even when existing, cheaper drugs work as effectively. (Drug companies don’t bother advertising once patents expire and generic drugs become available.)”

Which is despicable.  And reason enough to ban these ads.  For being grossly misleading.  Especially when the target audience is the elderly, who have all they can do to deal with every scam imaginable.  It’s beyond the pale to try to sell vulnerable people on a fixed income a drug they can scarcely afford when a generic is out there for a fraction of the price.

And yes, their doctors can point them to the generic, but we’ve all heard doctors tell tales of patients insisting they must have the latest, newest thing, as they come to the office with visions of smiling happy people in their minds.  All the ads are doing is making a doctor’s already very hard job harder.  And what if the doctor doesn’t bother arguing for the generic?  Because it takes too much precious time or is too much of a hassle?  The ads are making the vulnerable more vulnerable, and to someone they should trust. And if there’s anything we’ve learned in the age of COVID, doctors aren’t all who we thought they were.  No, advertising is powerful propaganda, otherwise, Big Pharma wouldn’t spend $10 Billion a year doing it.  And it’s not doing doctors or patients any good.

Which is why Trump signed a memorandum last September to get the ball rolling on pulling these ads.  Basically what he did was make it more onerous for the drug companies to include the side-effects.  Perhaps you’ve noticed the side-effects listings on these ads have gotten longer, sometimes taking up at least half of a 30 second spot.  There’s a reason for that.  Trump’s memorandum.

“Meanwhile, Democratic and independent senators who rarely align with the Trump administration also have introduced legislation to ban or limit direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ads,” says the Times.  Senator Angus King (I-ME) and Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) have each introduced bills to prohibit the ads either partially or completely.  So we’ve got a bipartisan issue here.  But, says the Times, that “might prove difficult… given the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling protecting corporate speech.”

But why should it?  Look, normally, I am a free speech absolutist, but there’s no prohibition on speech here.  It’s just the manner of time and place, and we have regulated the appropriate time and place of speech for ages.  We don’t allow nudity on television.  We don’t allow cursing (generally speaking) on television.  We don’t allow certain kinds of programming during the morning hours or the early evening hours.  And, says the Times:

Moreover, direct-to-consumer ads represent only part of the industry’s promotional efforts. Pharmaceutical firms actually spend more money advertising to doctors than to consumers.

So let them advertise to the people who can understand what they’re being sold, not vulnerable people being promised smiling and dancing.  Or at the absolute minimum, regulate Pharma ads the way we regulate cigarette ads: print only.

There’s a side benefit to getting these ads off television.  A big one.  It would cripple the garbage news/talk products currently being put out on both cable and broadcast t.v..  They would lose a major revenue stream — some estimates are as much as 25% of their advertising revenue comes from Big Pharma. It would no doubt result in two things:  mass firings and then, with luck, mass hirings of new and better (actual) reporters, who could bring in ratings, which would return them to profitability.  Imagine that:  news stations actually competing for ratings instead of competing for ideological purity.  What a world.  And talk about health — the body politic would be immeasurably healthier.

Now that’s what I call good medicine.

M. Walter blogs at www.mwalterwriter.com.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/02/kill_television_drug_ads.html

Center for Immigration Studies: Biden granted ‘quiet amnesty’ to an additional million illegals

 by Olivia Murray

According to a new report from Andrew R. Arthur at the Center for Immigration Studies, Joe Biden granted “quiet amnesty” to an additional million illegal aliens eligible for removal, a figure that was not previously known, through terminations, dismissals, and what is known as “administrative closure.” Until now, that figure was believed to only be around 700,000.

What is administrative closure? Developed to help ease the burden of a backlogged court system, it is a temporary pause on removal proceedings, marking the “low priority” illegal alien safe from deportation; as Arthur writes, “administrative closure allows immigration judges and the BIA to shelve cases that it does not want to, or cannot, deal with, at least at the time of closure.” In 2024, the DOJ under Merrick Garland published a new final rule in the Federal Register “that amended the regulations governing the immigration courts and the BIA [Board of Immigration Appeals]” which made it easier for illegals to request administrative closure, and harder for the government to deny such requests.

Anyway, when Biden was all said and done,

more than 240,000 pending removal cases were terminated, 613,000-plus more were dismissed, and an additional 129,328 were administratively closed under Biden — nearly a million cases in total over four years….

Add this to the more than ten million he allowed to pour into our nation. Then, think of the babies these illegals have already had, making them eligible to stay because we’re living in a post-Hart-Celler world—legislation which should promptly be repealed.

I’ve been wondering what presidential “achievements” and “legacy” Biden’s presidential library would tout in its corridors upon construction. Would it be the record high inflation we suffered? A desecration of duty, honor, and leadership with his idiotic withdrawal in Afghanistan? Will the architects focus on the queer perversion which defined so much of the Biden years, featuring the topless trannies on the White House lawn and monkey pox czars who dress in BDSM fetish gear? Maybe the military officials who wear their “pup play” sex masks to work? The male freakazoid who stole women’s luggage and then wore the stolen dresses?

Or, will it be the utter destruction of the fabric of the nation, evidenced by the millions of foreigners who were encouraged to take a dump on our nation and our people, who will be here, probably, for the rest of their lives, altering the American demographic into something completely unrecognizable?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2026/02/center_for_immigration_studies_biden_granted_quiet_amnesty_to_an_additional_million_illegals.html

Waymo’s Autonomy Questioned After Remote Human Role Revealed

 Waymo has long promoted its robotaxis as fully autonomous vehicles capable of operating safely on public roads. Recent federal testimony, however, revealed that the system sometimes relies on remote human workers. During a February hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, company officials confirmed that vehicles request human guidance when software encounters complex or unusual situations. These workers, known as fleet response agents, provide suggestions rather than direct control. Waymo said the autonomous system retains authority over steering, braking, and acceleration at all times.

Lawmakers expressed concern after learning that some of these remote workers operate outside the United States. Company officials acknowledged that a portion of agents are based overseas, including in the Philippines. Waymo did not disclose how many workers are located abroad. Senators questioned whether these operators possess sufficient knowledge of U.S. traffic laws, signage, and emergency response protocols. They also raised concerns about whether overseas workers receive training aligned with American driving standards.

Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said the arrangement presents safety and security risks. He argues that foreign workers who influence American vehicles may lack local expertise. Markey also questioned whether all operators hold licenses that meet U.S. requirements. Waymo said all fleet response agents must hold a valid passenger car or van license and undergo background checks, driving record reviews, and drug screenings. Company officials also confirm agents receive training on local traffic laws and emergency scenarios. Waymo did not specify whether overseas licenses must meet U.S. licensing standards or disclose how many operators are based outside the United States.

Regulators also focused on potential delays. Remote guidance depends on stable data connections and real-time communication. Transportation experts say even brief interruptions could compromise safety in heavy traffic or during emergencies. Waymo said it designed the system to minimize latency and stressed that human assistance occurs only in limited situations. The company declined to provide data on the frequency of interventions. Regulators say that the lack of transparency makes it difficult to evaluate system reliability.

Security concerns surfaced as well. Lawmakers questioned how Waymo protects sensitive vehicle data transmitted across borders. Cybersecurity specialists warn that remote access systems can introduce vulnerabilities. Foreign-based operations may increase exposure to cyber threats if not carefully monitored. Waymo said it uses strict security protocols but has declined to release technical details, citing safety and proprietary concerns.

The disclosure gained urgency following recent safety incidents involving autonomous vehicles. Federal investigators continue to review several crashes involving Waymo robotaxis, including a collision in California involving a child. These cases prompted inquiries from the National Transportation Safety Board and other agencies. Lawmakers linked the incidents to broader questions about how vehicles handle unpredictable environments and whether remote assistance affects response times.

Waymo currently operates robotaxi services in cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Chicago, and Austin. According to company and public records, the firm managed more than 2,500 vehicles nationwide in 2025 and reported hundreds of thousands of paid rides each week. As operations expand, regulators say oversight must increase. Several lawmakers have called for certification standards for remote operators and regular audits of overseas facilities.

Waymo defended its approach as safety-focused and responsible. Executives said remote agents improve reliability and help vehicles resolve rare edge cases. The company plans to continue expanding into additional markets. That expansion now faces heightened scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers.

Public trust remains a central challenge for autonomous transportation. Investigations and hearings continue as federal agencies consider new regulatory frameworks. The debate highlights a central question for the industry: how autonomous are self-driving vehicles when humans still intervene from thousands of miles away?

https://lamag.com/news-and-politics/waymos-autonomy-questioned-after-remote-human-role-revealed/

Twist Bioscience: Invenra Licensing Deal Strengthens AI-Driven Bispecific Antibody Platform

 William Blair analyst Matt Larew has maintained their bullish stance on TWST stock, giving a Buy rating.

Larew has given his Buy rating due to a combination of factors, primarily the strategic fit of Twist Bioscience’s licensing deal with Invenra, which broadens Twist’s capabilities into the rapidly expanding bispecific antibody market. He views the agreement as financially attractive, with manageable upfront consideration, expected accretion to revenue and adjusted EBITDA from fiscal 2027, and no disruption to Twist’s path toward breakeven profitability.

Larew also emphasizes that integrating Invenra’s B-Body platform into Twist’s high-throughput, AI-enabled discovery engine should enhance its competitive positioning and address growing customer demand for bispecific solutions with favorable manufacturability and developability. In his view, this extension of Twist’s platform meaningfully strengthens its leadership in AI-driven drug discovery, and while the stock already trades at a premium to life science tools peers on 2026 sales, he believes the company’s differentiated technology and expanding addressable market justify an Outperform rating.

https://www.tipranks.com/news/ratings/twist-bioscience-invenra-licensing-deal-strengthens-ai-driven-bispecific-antibody-platform-and-supports-outperform-rating-ratings-news

Gilead's latest synthetic lethal therapy comes via $1.5B deal with China's Genhouse

 Gilead Sciences has secured another synthetic lethal therapy, handing over $80 million upfront for the global rights to a clinic-ready cancer drug from China’s Genhouse Bio.

The Suzhou-based biotech has been developing the MAT2A-targetting synthetic lethal therapy, dubbed GH31, for various tumor types. Genhouse has already secured the nod from regulators in both China and the U.S. to take GH31 into clinical trials.

As well as the upfront payment, Genhouse will be in line for up to $1.45 billion in milestone payments as well as royalties based on tiered double-digit percentages on net sales. Genhouse first announced the deal in a post on Chinese social media platform WeChat on Friday, and Gilead later shared the details with Fierce.

Jackson Egen, Ph.D., senior vice president of oncology research at Gilead, said acquiring GH31 reflected the pharma’s “disciplined approach to expanding Gilead’s oncology pipeline through innovative science and strong partnerships.”

Genhouse CEO Kuifeng Wang, Ph.D., said Gilead was “ideally suited” to maximize GH31’s “global potential for patients.”

“This transaction represents a significant value-realization milestone for Genhouse and highlights the global attractiveness of our synthetic lethality innovation,” the CEO added. “With IND clearance in hand, GH31 is well positioned for rapid clinical advancement.”

As well as MAT2A, Genhouse’s pipeline of clinical and preclinical tumor drugs includes therapies targeting the likes of PRMT5i, DHX9i and HDAC6i.

Gilead acquired another synthetic lethal therapy at the end of December, paying $25 million upfront for the rights to Repare Therapeutics' polymerase theta ATPase inhibitor.

The acquisition of more oncology assets comes as Gilead CEO Daniel O’Day told journalists at the J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference last month that the company is approaching dealmaking from a “position of strength” in 2026.

“We hold the bar very high scientifically,” the CEO explained at a media event on the sidelines of the conference. “We have the financial ability to bring in important medicines in the organization, but they’ve got to fit our strategy, and they have to really have a significant patient impact.”

When it comes to oncology—one of Gilead’s three priority areas—the company’s chief medical officer Dietmar Berger, M.D., Ph.D., said at the same event that he wanted to “drive that a little more into direct tumor cell targeting,” while taking advantage of Gilead’s antibody-drug conjugate platform and relationship with cell therapy subsidiary Kite Pharma. 

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/gileads-latest-synthetic-lethal-therapy-comes-15b-deal-chinas-genhouse

Tim Walz’s K–12 Racial Ideology Regime

 by Katherine Kersten

President Trump has flooded my home state of Minnesota with investigators and law enforcement agents to address massive social services and immigration fraud. But so far, his administration has done nothing about a far more egregious and consequential scandal—Gov. Tim Walz’s entrenchment of the toxic racial identity ideology that facilitated that fraud throughout our state’s K–12 public education system. 

During Walz’s tenure, differential treatment by race and ethnicity has become the bedrock organizing principle in public schools. A comprehensive regime of ideologically driven academic and teaching standards and statutes is embedding this belief system in every grade and required subject, transforming our schools’ mission from providing students with academic knowledge and skills to creating race-focused political activists. 

President Trump moved to remedy such unlawful discrimination in January 2025 with an executive order entitled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K–12 Schooling.” Title VI prohibits schools that receive federal funds from operating discriminatory programs or policies that engage in explicit race-consciousness or create a racially hostile environment. 

Walz-era mandates compel Minnesota schools to violate the law in both these respects, making our public education system the most egregiously discriminatory in the nation. 

According to the executive order, schools engage in impermissible race qua race conduct when they treat students not as unique individuals, but as fungible members of racial groups that share predictable viewpoints or traits that reflect crude racial stereotypes.

In Walz’s new K–12 regime, the relentless race qua race drumbeat begins in kindergarten. The vehicle is an extremist pedagogy called “liberated ethnic studies,” which teaches that race determines identity and conditions students to think of themselves as members of unjust racial hierarchies. 

A new K–12 ethnic studies “anchor standard” entitled “Identity” declares this discriminatory principle forthrightly. It requires elementary students to “analyze the ways power and language construct the social identities of race” and “ethnicity,” and to “apply” them “to one’s own social identities” and “other groups.” High school students must examine “racialized hierarchies” and explain how “the social construction of race” has been “used to oppress people of color.” 

As implementation of the new educational regime proceeds, students will be coached to view all social life and history through this one-dimensional, zero-sum racialist lens. 

The Walz administration has adopted professional teaching standards that reinforce its racially discriminatory instructional mandates. They require educators to “affirm” their students’ purported race-and-ethnicity-based identities in the classroom—to treat them not as individuals but as what the Trump administration terms “flattened group identities.” 

The inevitable result is creation of a discriminatory hostile environment for students of disfavored racial groups. The hallmarks of such an environment are devaluing those students on the basis of race, stigmatizing or shaming them, or ascribing them less value in class discussions—thereby denying them the ability to participate fully in the life of a school, according to the Trump administration.

Both the Walz administration’s academic and teaching standards—designed to advance a race-and-power agenda—compel schools to violate the law in all these ways. 

Instead of encouraging students to examine evidence and think for themselves in the classroom, the standards are designed to lead easily manipulated young people to preordained race-centered conclusions. The ethnic studies “identity” standard, for example, requires teachers to “center”—promote and endorse—the “stories” and perspectives of allegedly oppressed racial and ethnic groups.

This kind of skewed, ideologically freighted approach to learning shames and humiliates students of disfavored races, impermissibly teaching that they bear unique moral burdens and assigning them intrinsic guilt, according to the executive order. It stigmatizes the classroom contributions of students of “dominant” racial groups—disparaging them as inevitably distorted by power considerations and self-interest, while framing marginalized groups’ perspectives as accurate and valid. 

The Walz administration’s “Standards of Effective Practice” pressure teachers to conform to this state-mandated racialized groupthink. They require new educators to understand how “white supremacy undermine[s] pedagogical equity” and to assess “how their biases” may “perpetuate oppressive systems.”

Both students and teachers who object to unlawful differential treatment risk being branded racists or “white supremacists.” 

Tim Walz’s K–12 racial ideology regime will train the next generation of Minnesota citizens to embrace a racialist view of life that should be “odious to a free people,” in the words of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a precedent-setting 2023 Supreme Court decision. Adding to this threat, a new K–12 ethnic studies standard entitled “Resistance” requires students to understand how “individuals and communities have fought” against “systemic and coordinated exercises of power,” and to “organize with others to engage in” similar activities. We are already seeing this mindset’s results on the streets of Minneapolis.  

Center of the American Experiment, a Minneapolis-based public policy institute where I serve as a senior policy fellow, filed a request for investigation of the racialization of Minnesota’s public schools with the U.S.  Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights in July 2025. We have not been advised of any action taken to date. 

The racial capture of our state’s K–12 education system will continue unabated unless the federal government steps in to expose and put an end to it.

https://firstthings.com/tim-walzs-k-12-racial-ideology-regime/

Teachers Are Fomenting Anti-ICE Hysteria

 Employees of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement have been busy lately, working to fulfill their mandate to remove undocumented immigrants. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of ICE’s activities is its alleged presence in public schools across the nation.

But is ICE actually going into schools?

Absolutely not. While there are a few reports of parents being detained at bus stops near schools and images of ICE agents tackling people on school grounds, they are not actually entering the schools.

Tricia McLaughlin, the Homeland Security Department’s assistant secretary for public affairs, explains that agents’ actions in and around schools are intended to protect children.

“ICE is not going to schools to arrest children—we are protecting children. Criminals are no longer able to hide in America’s schools to avoid arrest. The Trump administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement and instead trusts them to use common sense.”

McLaughlin adds, “An arrest might be made at school if a dangerous illegal alien felon were to flee into a school or a child sex offender is working as an employee. But this has not happened.”

Nonetheless, teachers are organizing their students to battle ICE.

As reported by Erika Sanzi, director of communications at Defending Education, teachers in Minnesota have been coordinating student protests on social media.

“There is nothing organic about these events, and despite claims to the contrary, they are almost never spontaneous expressions of student speech. They are basically field trips without the parent permission slip,” Sanzi said.

In Oregon, a video shows kindergarten students participating in a protest, and numerous schools nationwide have preemptively canceled classes so students could protest.

The teachers’ unions have also seized on ICE’s alleged misdeeds to indoctrinate students.

According to materials obtained by Defending Education, the United Teachers Los Angeles gave a presentation last year titled “Preparing for ICE at Your School” that urged its members to engage in political activism and suggested using school resources to thwart ICE operations.

The UTLA documents guide educators on how to resist the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration and urge parents and teachers to collaborate on resistance efforts. It is part of the union’s broader efforts to “build a comprehensive response to immigration enforcement.”

One slide shared with educators reads, “The fight is far from over. We need to keep fighting together!” Another slide titled “What can you do?” instructs educators on how to respond to ICE operations.

Ron Gochez, a teacher at Dr. Maya Angelou Community High School in Los Angeles, a winner of the California Teachers Association “Human Rights Award,” and a spokesman for Unión del Barrio, a Chicano Marxist revolutionary political organization, is at the forefront of the anti-ICE movement in L.A.

During a recent ICE protest in Los Angeles, Gochez told his compadres, “Don’t forget where you’re standing. This is South Central Los Angeles. They (ICE) are not the only ones with guns in this city. Don’t forget that. And I don’t say that because I’m calling for violence; I’m saying that because the people have every right to defend themselves against masked, unidentified gunmen. The people have every right to defend themselves.”

Revolutionary activities are hardly new to Gochez. In August 2024, a UTLA meeting focused on “How to be a teacher & an organizer… and NOT get fired,” during which Gochez outlined stealth methods for indoctrinating his students. He described transporting busloads of students to an anti-Israel rally during the school day without arousing suspicion.

“A lot of us that have been to those (protest) actions have brought our students. Now, I don’t take the students in my personal car,” Gochez said. Then, referring to the Los Angeles Unified School District, he explained, “I have members of our organization who are not LAUSD employees. They take those students, and I just happen to be at the same place and the same time with them.”

Not surprisingly, the National Education Association aligns with various revolutionary groups, including the Sunrise Movement, which is funded by several left-wing billionaires, including George Soros. The group began with a focus on environmental issues but is now dedicated to virtually every radical proposition imaginable, with a particular emphasis on brainwashing students and organizing within schools.

In January, the NEA, under the guise of protecting children, blasted out an anti-ICE message across various social media platforms, saying, “As thousands of ICE agents carry out aggressive enforcement in Minnesota, hundreds of teachers, counselors, parents, school staff, activists, and union leaders are organizing and showing up in powerful ways—from delivering groceries and schoolwork to organizing solidarity actions and mass protests calling for ICE to leave schools and neighborhoods.”

Pushback against the blatant propaganda is mounting, however.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared that protests should be considered unlawful. The state education agency has warned that it could impose sanctions and investigate schools that facilitate “inappropriate political activism.”

“Schools and staff who allow this behavior should be treated as co-conspirators and should not be immune for criminal behavior,” Abbott told reporters.

In Florida, the state’s Education Commissioner, Anastasios Kamoutsas, said schools have a responsibility to ensure that protests do not disrupt school operations and suggested that discipline would be warranted for staff who facilitate or encourage protests during classroom hours.

“We will not tolerate educators encouraging school protests and pushing their political views onto students, especially ones that disparage law enforcement,” Kamoutsas said on social media.

Some Indiana school leaders are also calling for discipline after hundreds of students walked out of class to protest, a move that Republican Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith criticized as unacceptable.

Many parents are unhappy with the protests. One outraged Washington mother, seen in a video, has informed school officials that she is withdrawing her daughter from the district after teachers encouraged students to walk out to protest ICE activities.

When children go off to school each day, teachers act in loco parentis. Unfortunately, these days, “loco” has a whole different meaning.

*   *   *

Larry Sand is a retired 28-year classroom teacher who served as president of the nonprofit California Teachers Empowerment Network from 2006 to 2025. He now focuses on raising awareness of our failing education system.

https://amgreatness.com/2026/02/17/teachers-are-fomenting-anti-ice-hysteria/

Trump Has the Tools He Needs to Control Illegal Immigration

 By Andrew R. Arthur

For much of his presidency, Joseph R. Biden insisted and was ridiculed for claiming that he “need[e]d Congress to act” to secure the border. President Trump has proved that wasn’t true; we just needed a commander in chief willing to use the powers Congress gave the Department of Homeland Security.

As violent opposition to immigration enforcement surges, Mr. Trump should assess the authorities Congress has given him to deport the millions of unauthorized aliens in the interior. Then he should use them.

We often think of immigration enforcement in terms of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers going to state or local jails to take criminal aliens into custody, or arresting aliens on the streets and in communities. Such arrests are crucial to any enforcement scheme, regardless of the agency, but they aren’t the only way Congress envisioned the immigration laws being enforced.

When Congress offered amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in 1986, it also made it a crime for employers to knowingly hire aliens who were either here illegally or lacked work authorization. To enforce that mandate, Congress required employers to review the identification documents of new hires to ensure they could work here legally. It also gave immigration officers sweeping new powers to review businesses’ paperwork to ensure they weren’t skirting the law. When Congress offered amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens in 1986, it also made it a crime for employers to knowingly hire aliens who were either here illegally or lacked work authorization. To enforce that mandate, Congress required employers to review the identification documents of new hires to ensure they could work here legally. It also gave immigration officers sweeping new powers to review businesses’ paperwork to ensure they weren’t skirting the law.

https://cis.org/Arthur/Oped-Trump-Has-Tools-He-Needs-Control-Illegal-Immigration

“You Had Me at Hello”: Newsom and AOC Go to Europe to Pitch High Tax, High Regulation Policies

 Below is my column in The Hill on the recent appearance of California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) in Munich. They found the perfect audience for pledging to reverse many current policies and re-embrace a high-taxation, high-regulation platform. The Europeans were giddy with excitement as they doubled down on policies that have stagnated many of their economies.

Here is the column:

This week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) joined the many Californians now seeking their fortune elsewhere. The difference is that Newsom is planning to come back to California, even as billionaires, investors, and companies flee his state for greener pastures.

Newsom and Democrats such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) were selling a brave new world that looked a lot like the broken old world. It was an ironic moment. They were addressing countries at the Munich Security Conference that had previously destroyed their economies through socialist and far-left policies.

The rush of liberal Democratic officeholders to Europe was telling. A new poll shows that a record 58 percent of voters believe their party is “too liberal.” But Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez found a welcoming audience in Europe.

The global elite gushed over Ocasio-Cortez and sat enraptured as she rattled off socialist platitudes. That included New York Times correspondent Katrin Bennhold, who thrilled the audience by treating it as a given that Ocasio-Cortez will run for president.

Both Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez spoke of returning the U.S. to the good graces of the global elite. Newsom assured the Europeans that Trump’s reign is temporary, and that the U.S. will soon enough dismantle the “wrecking ball” that the administration has taken to the EU.

Newsom offered his leadership and his state as the model, proclaiming that “California is a stable and reliable partner” for Europe. The model includes high taxes, massive spending programs and greater bureaucratic regulations — precisely the policies that have driven the European economy into its current stagnation. In other words, Democrats were in Europe to offer precisely what Newsom outwardly condemned: “doubling down on stupid.”

When not fumbling with security questions about issues such as Taiwan, Ocasio-Cortez was demanding that wealth taxes be implemented in the U.S. “expeditiously.” Such a tax on billionaires’ wealth, including unrealized gains, is currently being pushed in California. The predictable result is that billionaires and other wealthy citizens are rushing to leave the state and taking their investments and companies with them.

Ocasio-Cortez had the audience at hello.

Rather than having Vice President J.D. Vance shaming them for their attacks on free speech, the Europeans positively gushed over Democratic leaders pushing far-left agendas. It did not matter that such policies devastated European economies in the 20th century.

In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss the rise of support for socialism in both the U.S. and Europe. Many of those supporting it are young voters with no memory of the collapse of socialist economies in the 20th Century. In 1977, Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan pursued many of the same socialist policies, leading to what was called the “winter of discontent” as inflation hit 25 percent. With the collapse of the British pound, the United Kingdom had to take the demoralizing step of securing a loan from the International Monetary Fund, as if it were a developing country.

In France, François Mitterrand was also elected to pursue his “rupture with capitalism.” The French economy collapsed; Mitterrand quickly had to reverse himself and restore capitalist policies.

That history is rarely discussed or taught today. The “warmth of collectivism,” as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani put it, is back in vogue. It does not matter that, in Argentina, President Javier Milei is achieving one of the most impressive economic turnarounds in history — dramatically curtailing runaway inflation, government deficits and poverty — by reinstating free-market policies and reducing government spending.

What is chilling about Europe is that the EU has strangled growth with its increasingly centralized controls and massive bureaucracy. My book describes the instability of the EU and its global governance model. Europe is facing populist movements and, like many Democrats, the response has been calls for further consolidation of power. This included the creation of a new, uniform European corporate law, known as the “28th Regime.”

With an economy crushed by a massive EU bureaucracy and regulations, the solution of many is all too familiar: borrow more money. French President Emmanuel Macron and others want to issue “Euro bonds” to spend their way into an economic recovery — another policy ideal shared with many on the American left.

This week was only the latest effort of the American left to strengthen an alliance with the EU. Previously, American leaders such as Hillary Clinton pushed the EU to censor Americans online after free speech protections were restored by companies like Twitter. Likewise, the American left is enamored with the EU’s global bureaucracy and regulations.

Newsom and Ocasio-Cortez certainly found their element in Munich, and the EU certainly found the “reliable partners” it has longed for in creating “a new World Order with European Values.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” 

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/02/16/you-had-me-a-hello-newsom-and-aoc-go-to-europe-to-pitch-high-tax-high-regulation-policies/#more-241016