Navigating the NIH Freeze: Why Life Sciences Tools Companies Offer Hidden Growth

 The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has become a flashpoint for uncertainty in 2025, with its temporary pause on grant cancellations and evolving administrative directives creating both challenges and opportunities for life sciences tools companies. While the NIH's freeze on funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and climate research has disrupted academic labs, it has also forced the sector to innovate—and investors to look beyond the headlines. Here's how to parse the chaos and find value.

The NIH Freeze: Context and Contradictions

The NIH's actions in 2025 stem from a collision of judicial mandates and executive orders. Federal courts have ruled that the freeze on grants—initially imposed in January 2025—likely violates constitutional principles, yet administrative delays persist. Over $9.5 billion in NIH grants have been terminated or suspended, with states like Massachusetts ($1.1 billion) and North Carolina ($712.7 million) bearing the brunt. While universities face lab closures and talent flight, the NIH's policy adjustments, such as extending grants for Early-Stage Investigators (ESIs) and accelerating public access to research, hint at a path forward.

The Silver Lining: Opportunities in the Chaos

The NIH freeze has created three critical opportunities for life sciences tools companies:

1. Private Funding Partnerships:
   With federal dollars drying up, institutions are turning to venture capital, industry partnerships, and global health agencies. Tools companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO) and BD (Becton, Dickinson) are well-positioned to serve this shift. Their instruments—genomic sequencers, lab automation systems, and diagnostic tools—are essential for private-sector R&D.

2. AI-Driven Efficiency:

3. The NIH's push for faster public access to research and its focus on national security-aligned projects (e.g., restricting foreign subawards) favor companies leveraging AI for data management and predictive analytics. Illumina (ILMN), despite recent stock declines due to NIH uncertainty, is a key player in genomic tools. Its partnerships with AI platforms like AllSci (funded by NIH-aligned grants) could redefine its value proposition.

4. Resilience Through Diversification:

5. Companies with exposure to GLP-1 therapies (e.g., 10x Genomics (TXG)) or single-cell genomics are capitalizing on trends outside NIH's DEI freeze. GLP-1 drugs, now a $200 billion market, are reshaping obesity and diabetes treatment—and reducing demand for traditional medtech devices. Meanwhile, tools enabling precision medicine, such as 10x Genomics' Visium Spatial Genomics platform, are critical for private-sector drug discovery.

Risk Factors and Mitigation Strategies

The NIH's actions are not without risks:
- Indirect Cost Caps: The NIH's 15% cap on indirect costs has strained university labs, potentially reducing demand for low-margin consumables.
- Regulatory Volatility: The incoming Trump administration's stance on drug pricing and semiconductor funding (via the CHIPS Act) could disrupt supply chains.

Investors should prioritize companies with:
- Global Supply Chains: Danaher (DHR) and PerkinElmer (PKI) have diversified manufacturing bases to avoid overreliance on U.S. federal funding.
- Data-Driven Models: LabCorp (LH) and Quidel (DX) are expanding AI tools for real-world evidence (RWE) and diagnostics, which are less NIH-dependent.

Investment Thesis: Focus on Agility and Innovation

The NIH freeze has crystallized a truth: life sciences tools companies thrive when they align with emerging technologies and non-traditional funding streams. Here's how to act:

1. Buy the Dip in Genomics Leaders:
   Illumina's stock has corrected 20% since January 2025, but its role in the $156 billion genomic tools market (projected to grow at 9.6% CAGR) is irreplaceable. Pair this with Twist Bioscience (TWST), which designs synthetic DNA for private-sector drug discovery.

2. Embrace AI-Driven Synergies:
   Allergan (AGN) and Exact Sciences (EXAS) are integrating AI into diagnostics, reducing reliance on NIH grants. Their stock valuations are undervalued relative to their growth trajectories.

3. Avoid Overexposure to Academic Labs:
   Firms like Bio-Rad (BIO), heavily tied to university budgets, face near-term headwinds. Focus instead on companies like Agilent (A), which serves both academia and pharma.

Conclusion: The Freeze Isn't Forever—But Adaptation Is

The NIH's temporary pause is a catalyst, not an endpoint. Companies that pivot to private partnerships, invest in AI, and diversify revenue streams will outperform. For investors, 2025 is the year to bet on resilience—and the tools that make it possible.

https://www.ainvest.com/news/navigating-nih-freeze-life-sciences-tools-companies-offer-hidden-growth-2025-2506/

The Persistent Presence Of Absence

 by Larry Sand via AmericanGreatness.com,

The fact that many children are ditching America’s public schools is undeniable. Most recently, Nat Malkus, Deputy Director of Education Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, reported that while chronic absenteeism spiked during the COVID pandemic, it remains a serious problem.

In 2024, rates were 57% higher than they were before the pandemic. (Students who miss at least 10% of the school year, or roughly 18 days, are considered chronically absent.)

Malkus goes on to explain that in 2018 and 2019, about 15% of K–12 public school students in the U.S. were chronically absent—a number so high that numerous observers and the U.S. Department of Education are labeling it a “crisis.”

In total, nearly one in twelve public schools in the United States has experienced a “substantial” enrollment decline over the last five years.

The problem is especially egregious in our big cities. In Los Angeles, more than 32% of students were chronically absent in the 2023-2024 school year.

In Chicago, dwindling enrollment has left about 150 schools half-empty, while 47 operate at less than one-third capacity.

Additionally, schools identified by their states as chronically low-performing were more than twice as likely to experience sizable enrollment declines as other public schools.

In February 2025, FutureEd disclosed that data from 22 states and the District of Columbia for the 2023-24 school year show significant differences across grade levels, with absenteeism particularly severe in high school.

“In most states, 12th graders have the highest rates of chronic absenteeism, often far exceeding state averages. In Mississippi, for example, the overall absenteeism rate was 24%, but among seniors, it soared to 41%. Several other states have senior absenteeism rates above 40%, with rates in the District of Columbia and Oregon exceeding 50%.”

FutureEd also reports that kindergartners have disproportionately high rates of chronic absenteeism.

Yet another analysis of data from three states—North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia—shows that, before the COVID pandemic, 17% of students were chronically absent; however, by 2023, long after schools had to cope with new variants and hybrid schedules, that figure had risen to 37%.

The question then becomes, why is this happening?

Many kids have no interest in attending school. A 2024 report from Gallup and the Walton Family Foundation, which surveyed over 1,000 Gen Z students aged 12 to 18, found that only 48% of those enrolled in middle or high school felt motivated to attend school. Only half said they do something interesting in school every day. Similarly, a 2024 EdChoice survey indicates that 64% of teens said school is boring, and 30% perceive it as a waste of time.

It’s not just teens who are unhappy with their school. According to a Gallup poll published this past February, 73% of 1,005 adult respondents were dissatisfied with the quality of public education in the U.S., the highest dissatisfaction rate since the survey began and a 5-point increase from last year’s rate of 68%. In 2001, dissatisfaction was at 57%.

Another reason for the decline in students is that people, particularly in urban areas, are having fewer children than in the past. In fact, 80% of metropolitan areas are experiencing a downward trend in the number of children aged 14 and younger.

One of the ironies of the situation is that while enrollment declines, fewer schools are closing. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics found that in 2014-15, the closure rate—the share of schools nationwide that were open one year and closed the next—was 1.3%. In 2023-24, the rate was just .8%.

What steps can we take to rectify this distressing situation?

Due to the declining school population, schools must be consolidated. Schools, such as those in Chicago, that are only half or a third full need to be closed. Some students may have to take a bus to school, but that’s not an onerous task.

There is also a problem with teacher quality. With declining student numbers in schools, teachers will likely face layoffs. Ideally, the lowest-performing teachers should be the first to be eliminated. However, restrictive union contracts stipulate that layoffs must be based on seniority.

Ultimately, parents must take responsibility for their children’s education. They can choose to homeschool or enroll them in a local microschool. A study shows that parent-led tutoring efforts in Oakland “produced similar gains in reading for young students as instruction from classroom teachers—a nod that could inspire similar efforts in other districts.”

Also, there are currently 76 private school choice programs in 35 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Overall, 45% of the nation’s 49.6 million students are eligible to participate in a private school choice program. However, just 1.2 million students partake in one.

Too many Americans have become overly dependent on government-run schools, many of which are underperforming. Therefore, for the sake of their children, parents must take responsibility for their education, just as they do for their food, clothing, and shelter. By doing so, they can change the course of their children’s lives.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/persistent-presence-absence

Google Searches For "Communist Control Act 1954" Soar After Mamdani's NYC Primary Victory

Zohran Mamdani, a self-identified far-left democratic socialist, has secured the Democratic nomination for New York City mayor after defeating former Governor Andrew Cuomo. His sweeping far-left progressive platform—centered on government-run grocery stores, free public buses, universal childcare, defunding the police, protecting criminal illegal aliens, and rejecting President Trump's 'America First' agenda—has triggered renewed concerns over ideological extremism in the dangerous sanctuary city. More broadly, it has reignited fears of communism spreading across the nation.

The current mayor, Democrat Eric Adams, is expected to appear on the November ballot as an independent candidate. His challenger on the Republican ticket is Curtis Sliwa—a radio personality and founder of the Guardian Angels anti-crime patrol—who previously lost to Adams in the 2021 mayoral race.

Tuesday's news of foreign-born Zohran Mamdani defeating Cuomo in the Democratic primary sent shockwaves through political circles on X, sparking widespread concern over the rise of anti-American far-left extremism.

Unsurprisingly, New Yorkers are not impressed with foreign-born Mamdani's endorsement of a communist leader.

There were even some discussions by X users that resurfaced the Communist Control Act of 1954, a federal law aimed at outlawing the Communist Party and restricting Communist activity in the US at the height of the Cold War and McCarthy era.

Google search trends for "Communist Control Act of 1954" exploded.... 

"More than that, the Naturalization Act stipulates that if anyone expresses revolutionary communist sympathies within 5 years of becoming a citizen, that is prima facie evidence he lied during the naturalization process. His citizenship should be stripped immediately," X user tantum noted. 

And this...

Libertarian Karlyn Borysenko emphasized that Republicans aren't taking the radical left seriously. She said, "Maybe we need a little bit of accelerationism—maybe we need a socialist mayor to show people the potential reality we're dealing with," adding, "Well, might that be very painful for New York City, well yeah..." 

Meanwhile, on the opposite coast in Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass is a literal Marxist—and look at how that sanctuary city turned out.

According to Polymarket, NYC has fallen... 

And guess what could make a comeback?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/google-searches-communist-control-act-1954-soar-after-zohran-mamdanis-nyc-primary-victory

Fed Moves To Relax Key Capital Rule For Big Banks To Support Treasury Markets

 by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Federal Reserve has adopted a draft proposal to ease a key capital requirement for the nation’s largest banks, aiming to reduce regulatory pressure that discourages them from holding low-risk assets such as U.S. Treasurys and to make it easier for these institutions to act as intermediaries in the Treasury market during times of stress, when liquidity is most needed.

At a public board meeting in Washington on June 25, Fed governors voted 5-2 to advance a long-awaited plan to modify the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio (eSLR)—a post–2008 financial crisis safeguard that requires global systemically important banks (GSIBs) to hold capital against all assets, regardless of risk. The proposal will now be published in the Federal Register and will be open for public comment for 60 days.

Fed chair Jerome Powell, speaking before the vote, endorsed the proposal and pointed to the banking sector’s overall strength. But he warned that the current leverage rule may be over-calibrated, potentially discouraging banks from holding safe assets and contributing to market strain.

“In the case of the leverage ratio, over-calibration may lead to diminished liquidity in the Treasury markets and other unintended consequences,” Powell said. “A leverage requirement functions best when it is generally a backstop to risk-based capital requirements,” Powell continued, adding that when leverage requirements are binding, they can discourage banks from participating in lower-risk lower-return activities that support the U.S. financial system and economy, such as Treasury market intermediation.

The proposed rule would replace the current flat leverage buffer of 2 percent at the parent bank level and 6 percent at the subsidiary level with a variable buffer based on each bank’s systemic risk score.

That change would reduce total capital requirements for America’s biggest banks by about 1.4 percent, according to Fed staff estimates. While capital requirements for bank subsidiaries would fall by a much larger 27 percent, most of that capital would remain locked within the banking group due to holding company rules and would not be available for shareholder payouts.

The reductions apply to Tier 1 capital—the core capital that includes common stock and retained earnings—used as a primary buffer to absorb losses during times of financial stress.

Supporters of the proposal say that the current version of the leverage rule has become too rigid—penalizing banks for holding safe assets and discouraging them from helping stabilize financial markets during periods of stress. Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, who spearheaded the effort, called the recalibration a “sensible and timely” fix that restores the eSLR’s original purpose.

“The proposal will help to build resilience in U.S. Treasury markets, reducing the likelihood of market dysfunction and the need for the Federal Reserve to intervene in a future stress event,” Bowman said in prepared remarks. “We should be proactive in addressing the unintended consequences of bank regulation, including the bindingness of the eSLR, while ensuring the framework continues to promote safety, soundness, and financial stability.”

Fed governor Christopher Waller likewise endorsed the plan, saying that the current rule fails to distinguish between risky and safe assets.

“The leverage ratio treats a Treasury bond the same as a junk bond, but we know they’re not the same,” Waller said in prepared remarks, adding that the currently calibrated eSLR serves not as a backstop but as a binding requirement for some banks, imposing “unintended consequences for bank health,” with the added potential to impede market functioning.

“Re-working that incentive structure to address these unintended consequences of the current calibration makes sense,” said Waller, who also voted for the proposal.

Oppositions

Two Fed governors voted against the measure, warning that easing the rule could weaken safeguards that protect the banking system in a crisis.

Governor Michael Barr, the Fed’s former top regulatory official, criticized the proposal for significantly reducing bank-level capital and potentially encouraging firms to take on more risk or return capital to shareholders rather than expanding Treasury market activity.

Barr, who previously served as the Fed’s top regulatory official, said in prepared remarks that the proposal would significantly reduce capital across the banking system: by $210 billion at the holding company level, $280 billion at bank subsidiaries, $73 billion in total loss-absorbing capacity, and $132 billion in long-term debt requirements.

“Taken together, these changes would significantly increase the risk that a GSIB bank would fail, orderly resolution would not be possible, and the Deposit Insurance Fund would incur higher losses,” he said, referring to the fund at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which is used to protect depositors and cover losses when insured banks collapse. Barr warned that with less capital on hand, large banks would be vulnerable in a crisis, potentially leaving the financial system—and taxpayers—more exposed.

Governor Adriana Kugler also opposed the measure, saying she might have supported a narrower recalibration at the holding company level but could not back the deeper capital cuts proposed for bank subsidiaries.

“Broker-dealers, not banks, are the subsidiaries of the G-SIB organizations that play the most critical role in intermediating Treasury markets through market making and securities financing activities,” Kugler said in prepared remarks. “Banks do not play the same role, and I am not convinced that the benefits to Treasury market intermediation from the change at the bank-level justify the significant proposed reductions in tier 1 capital requirements, especially in light of the potential for elevated financial stability risk.”

The proposal also invites public comment on potential alternatives, including whether to exclude certain Treasury assets entirely from the leverage ratio calculation, to further address concerns around U.S. Treasury market intermediation.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-moves-relax-key-capital-rule-big-banks-support-treasury-markets

The RFK Effect

 by Clayton Baker, MD, via The Brownstone Institute,

Over the last couple of weeks, a remarkable sequence of events involving two US Senators has unfolded that demonstrates the profound and positive influence that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is exerting on Washington, DC, which extends far beyond the halls of the CDC, FDA, and NIH. 

On June 12, 2025, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) announced a dramatic course correction.

Four months after aggressively attacking Kennedy at his Senate confirmation hearings (and subsequently voting against him), Sanders has co-sponsored a bill named the “End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act” with Senator Angus King (I-ME), to outlaw direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in the United States. 

On his website, Sanders states that “the bill would also answer Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s repeated calls to end prescription drug advertising, a position he promoted while campaigning for President Trump in 2024.”

As an increasing number of Americans have learned – and as Sanders notes – Pharma advertising is currently permitted in only two countries on Earth: the United States and New Zealand. This allows the pharmaceutical industry to effectively buy off the entire US mainstream media, silencing media criticism of its practices and products while bombarding the public with a constant stream of pro-Pharma propaganda and advertisements.

Sanders’ website does not hold back in its valid criticism of Pharma’s stranglehold on the media, stating:

Last year, the 10 largest drug companies made more than $100 billion in profits while the pharmaceutical industry spent over $5 billion on television ads. Prescription drug commercials now account for more than 30% of commercial time on major networks’ evening news programs. In the first three months of this year, Big Pharma spent more than $725 million advertising just 10 drugs.

Now, let us rewind to late January, back to the days of now-HHS Secretary Kennedy’s confirmation hearings. During the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) hearings, ranking committee member Sanders launched into a harsh attack on now-Secretary Kennedy that veered into the comical. At one point, Sanders posted photos of some baby onesies that Children’s Health Defense, Kennedy’s former nonprofit organization, had been selling online.

Barking furiously in his trademark Brooklyn accent (and growing increasingly unhinged as he went along), Sanders repeatedly demanded of Kennedy, 

“Are you supportive of these onesies?”

Later, Kennedy called out Sanders for the Senator’s Big Pharma campaign receipts, stating, “Bernie, you were the single largest acceptor of pharmaceutical dollars.”

And yet, a mere four months pass, and voila, Bernie Sanders sponsors the End Prescription Drugs Now Act, and name-checks Kennedy and Trump in his supporting arguments for the bill.

Has Senator Sanders had a 180-degree change of heart? Is Bernie suddenly supportive of those onesies?

Well, not so fast.

One day after the bill was announced, on June 13, Sanders wrote a letter to HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-LA). In the letter, he states:

As you know, last week, in a dangerous and unprecedented decision that will have a profoundly negative impact on the lives of the American people, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)…

I am requesting that we immediately initiate a bi-partisan investigation into these firings and conduct serious oversight into the actions Secretary Kennedy has taken to mislead the American people about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and erode public health.

Of course, Sanders makes no mention whatsoever of the extensively documented conflicts of interest that numerous prior members of the ACIP committee possess. Many received significant funding from relevant pharmaceutical companies. Others held patents on the products voted upon by the committee. Videos of past proceedings of ACIP meetings have been posted online, and they reveal the ACIP committee to be an embarrassing rubber stamp/kangaroo court composed of feckless functionaries.

Sanders’ pen pal from across the aisle, Bill Cassidy, has also been a staunch opponent of Kennedy’s efforts at reform. This may be explained by the fact that once Cassidy assumed the role of chairman of the HELP committee in 2023, he rapidly received a windfall of Pharma contributions, as evidenced by the April 2023 STAT news article entitled, “Pharma executives shower Bill Cassidy with Campaign Cash.” According to Open Secrets, Cassidy received over $290,000 from pharmaceutical Political Action Committees in 2023-4.

While Cassidy was harshly critical of Kennedy during the Senate confirmation, and while he insisted on Kennedy having monthly meetings with him once confirmed, Cassidy ultimately voted in favor of Kennedy to lead HHS. However, in other vital respects, Cassidy has continued to obstruct Kennedy’s work. 

Cassidy teamed with another Republican Senator on the HELP committee, Susan Collins of Maine, to effectively block Trump and Kennedy’s nominee for CDC Director, former Congressman David Weldon, from even coming before the committee. (Weldon has deep knowledge of the problems surrounding the vaccine approval process.) Ultimately, Weldon’s nomination was withdrawn on March 13.

Thanks to Cassidy, Trump’s replacement nominee to lead CDC, Susan Monarez, still awaits confirmation hearings, which according to the HELP website, are scheduled for June 25, 2025, more than 3 months after Cassidy forced the Weldon nomination to be pulled, and ironically on the same day as the upcoming and much-anticipated ACIP meetings. Multiple other key HHS positions remain unfilled to date due to similar Senate delays in the confirmation process.

Suddenly – literally as this essay is going to press – on June 23, 2025, STAT News has reported that Cassidy has called for a delay of the ACIP meeting, claiming that “advisers picked by RFK lack experience, and may be biased against some shots.” 

You literally cannot make this nonsense up. Bernie and Bill, these Keystone Cop Senators, their hair flagrantly afire, are riding off furiously in all directions, at the bidding of their Big Pharma owners, to do whatever they can to impede the will of the electorate.

The correct and absolutely necessary response, of course, is for Secretary Kennedy and his eminently qualified and morally unhindered (and yes, they are both) panel to proceed as scheduled, and render an honest and reasonable appraisal for the first time in the modern history of ACIP.

Cassidy, meanwhile, had better watch himself. He faces a reelection minefield in 2026, including a wide open primary from two experienced challengers, and reform of the state primary system that may work to his disadvantage. Cassidy’s decision to vote in favor of President Trump’s impeachment in February 2021 has already soured him with MAGA voters. Cassidy’s obstructionism toward Kennedy has alienated even more Louisianans.

As Cassidy’s reelection problems suggest, a Venn diagram of President Trump and Secretary Kennedy’s supporters would likely show far more overlap than most would have guessed a year ago.

Kennedy has only been HHS Secretary since February 13, 2025 – a little over 4 months. He has received more scrutiny in that brief period than perhaps all other HHS Secretaries combined since the office was created in 1980.

Based on Bernie Sanders and Bill Cassidy’s recent behaviors, Secretary Kennedy is having effects that reverberate well beyond the halls of the CDC, FDA, and NIH. His opponents don’t quite know what to do with themselves. It’s no longer possible to just do Big Pharma’s bidding in secret. Everyone’s watching now. And they’re not just watching Kennedy, but also the people trying to undermine and destroy him. And they consider attacks on Kennedy to be attacks on the President as well.

Could it be the progress that Trump and Kennedy’s NIH Director, Jay Bhattacharya, have made against deadly Gain-of-Function research, which we all now know to have been the source of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, that is driving this consensus? After all, what sane person wants our Deep State continuing to create superbugs at taxpayer expense?

Could it be the measured, step-by-step progress Kennedy has led toward reform of the US’s utterly corrupt vaccine approval and recommendation process – despite the opposition of Sanders, Cassidy, and the like? What sane person thinks the increase from 7 recommended childhood vaccines in the 1980s to 23 today promotes health, especially when American children today are dramatically less healthy? (In fact, much of the criticism Kennedy has faced from ordinary Americans is that this process of vaccine reform is happening too slowly.)

These trends in public opinion should surprise nobody. Only the most wicked and diabolical of people would impose an endless stream of toxic injections, medications, fake foods, ubiquitous pesticides, geoengineered weather, and the patenting, corporatization, and denaturing of life itself onto their fellow humans and the entire planet, while propagandistically denouncing a healthy, natural lifestyle for children and future generations. 

Ordinary citizens – be they MAGA, MAHA, reformed “Bernie Bros,” or common sense Cajuns – learned during the Covid years that these threats to their families and futures are not imaginary boogie men. They are the modus operandi of the real and destructive people and organizations that Secretary Kennedy – and by extension, President Trump – have taken on, on behalf of we the people.

While not nearly complete and very much a work in progress, the efforts and successes of the Kennedy-Trump alliance are real and significant. The recent confusion, mixed messages, and bloviations of Bernie and Bill are evidence that we are moving in the right direction. I’m not holding my breath, but may they and everyone see the light and join on board.

In the meantime, may Secretary Kennedy, President Trump, and their team at HHS stay the course.

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/rfk-effect

At Least 5 Reasons Why Trump Should Reject A Nobel Peace Prize

 For a brief window this week, President Donald Trump was out of the running for a Nobel Peace Prize, after a Ukrainian lawmaker withdrew his nomination on Monday for not ending the war there, and before Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., nominated him on Tuesday for the ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

You can imagine the guffaws and hair-pulling from the Trump-is-Hitler crowd at the thought that anyone would see him as a suitable candidate for this prize. But as much as we’d love to watch their heads explode as he walked up to accept the award, we think Trump should take himself out of the running.

Sure, he probably did more for world peace when he bombed Iran’s nuclear sites than any president since Ronald Reagan did when he left Michael Gorbachev high and dry at Reykjavík and sparked the end of the Soviet Union.

But why in the world would Trump want to join the ranks of other Nobel Peace Prize winners?

This is an award that was given to Yasser Arafat, a man once described as the “Father of Modern Terrorism” and who, two years after taking home the prize money, declared that: “We plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion … We Palestinians will take over everything.”

It was given to Jimmy Carter, now the second-worst president in U.S. history after Joe Biden, whose weakness led to the Iranian revolution, a year-long hostage crisis, and Soviet Union advances around the world.

And does Trump really want to share an honor bestowed on Al Gore, whose only real claim to fame is getting fabulously rich by spreading lies and misinformation about “global warming”?

He’d also be joining the likes of Rigoberta Menchú, whose autobiography was later attacked as fraudulent and who the Center for the Study of Popular Culture described as a “Marxist terrorist now exposed as an intellectual hoax.”

But more embarrassing than all of these (as well as other dubious winners such as Le Duc Tho, Henry Kissinger, the European Union, Mikhail Gorbachev – not Reagan – etc.) is that Trump would be accepting a prize that was given to Barack Obama nine months into his presidency on the basis of …. absolutely nothing.

Like Carter before him and Biden after him, Obama showed the dangers to peace from weakness. On his watch, Russia invaded Crimea, ISIS ran wild, and Iran used his sweetheart deal to advance its nuclear ambitions. And it was this “champion of peace” who would go on to authorize more than 560 missile attacks in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen, one of which killed a U.S. citizen, for which he apologized. Others hit a wedding party and a funeral.

Human Rights Watch concluded that two Obama-authorized attacks “were in clear violation of international humanitarian law – the laws of war – because they struck only civilians or used indiscriminate weapons.” Four others “may have violated the laws of war because the individual attacked was not a lawful military target or the attack caused disproportionate civilian harm.”

Nobel-Peace-Prize-winning Obama would later be accused by Cornell West and others of being a war criminal.

Why would anyone want to be associated with this crowd?

If Trump were to turn down the award and call the Nobel Prize committee out for its wretched history of lionizing leftist terrorists, liars, and imbeciles, he’d do even more to advance world peace than any of its recipients.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/06/25/at-least-5-reasons-why-trump-should-reject-a-nobel-peace-prize/

Trump Says What He Thinks

 by John Hinderaker

By now, probably everyone has gotten over expecting President Trump to act like a normal politician. Some people love his style, some people hate it. I feel like I am part of a small minority who don’t react viscerally to Trump, one way or the other.

This reflection is prompted by Trump’s Truth Social post this morning, attacking some of his enemies–Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Jasmine Crockett, Ilhan Omar, and, in passing, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer and “THE AUTOPEN.” As to the Democrats’ threat to impeach him because he defended our country against potential nuclear attack by Iran, he says: “MAKE MY DAY!” He’s right about that.

I love this riff on the Democrats’ low IQ Squad:

When we examine [AOC’s] Test Scores, we will find out that she is NOT qualified for office but, nevertheless, far more qualified than Crockett, who is a seriously Low IQ individual, or Ilhan Omar, who does nothing but complain about our Country, yet the Failed Country that she comes from doesn’t have a Government, is drenched in Crime and Poverty, and is rated one of the WORST in the World, if it’s even rated at all.
***
AOC should be forced to take the Cognitive Test that I just completed at Walter Reed Medical Center, as part of my Physical. As the Doctor in charge said, “President Trump ACED it,” meaning, I got every answer right.

Do I approve of this kind of thing? Of course not. On the other hand, there isn’t anything in Trump’s Truth post that I disagree with. We can’t, in any event, change Trump, so we might as well enjoy him. It is particularly fun to contemplate the reaction to posts like this one in faculty lounges across America.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/06/trump-says-what-he-thinks.php