Time to Sell Public Broadcasting’s Airwaves

 In old 1980s horror movies, a knife-wielding, flannel-wearing serial killer is routinely killed—until he or she isn’t, and the franchise inexorably moves on to “Slasher the Sequel: This Time It’s Worse than Personal.”

I recall such mythic movie murderers not as a (literally) dead-end jaunt down memory lane but as a cautionary tale for Republicans and, indeed, all who hope to see the recent significant reductions in federal spending and, concomitantly, cuts in the administrative state’s bureaucracy to be made permanent. (The image of Elon Musk—the DOGE—clad in black and waving “the chainsaw for bureaucracy” is an irony worthy of the auteurs of the old French Nouvelle Vague.) Bluntly, these eliminations and reductions must be a solid first step—not an ephemeral swan song—in the effort to restore the primacy of citizens over their servant government.

Unless supporters of citizen-driven, responsive government pursue a vigilant, assiduous salting of the fields of the debilitated Deep State, the left—like Jason Voorhees and his homicidal celluloid ilk—will not only resurrect its administrative state Leviathan, but it will also expand its scope and control over the American people.

As it stands, our national debt is nearly $40 trillion. There are additional steps that President Trump and his administration can and must take to generate non-taxpayer revenue that can help address our crushing national debt.

Consider the case of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), and the next necessary step in ensuring the left cannot resurrect this outdated dinosaur from history’s dumpster.

President Trump needs to call for the development and, ultimately, sign an executive order directing the FCC to begin the process of working with Congress to sell at auction the radio and television spectrum currently being used by public broadcasting stations across the country. Logically, if the federal government no longer funds CPB or PBS—and neither entity is willing to adjust its programming to meet its public service requirements—they no longer require or deserve this radio and TV spectrum.

Public broadcasters receive licenses to use the spectrum from the FCC in exchange for fulfilling certain public-interest obligations, which include informing, educating, and enriching the public. This deal for locally owned public radio and TV stations may have been helpful to the American public sixty years ago, prior to the advent of cable TV and wired and wireless broadband.

Today’s media landscape, however, is far more competitive, with Americans having more educational and news options than anyone could have imagined even twenty years ago. Indeed, the rationale that for-profit broadcasters would not air educational or “cultural” events due to low ratings and lack of advertisers has long been remedied by the internet. Today, if one wants to watch a clip of Vladimir Horowitz playing Chopin, one needs only go—at no cost—to YouTube.

In the wake of the modern communications revolution, the greatest public service that federal spectrum can provide is the tens of billions in revenue to help cut the federal debt. Over the past decade, auctions of TV and radio spectrum have generated more than $100 billion in revenue. And because the spectrum used by public broadcasters is owned by the federal government, no revenue would have to be shared with any private entity. The math is elementary: the public owns the spectrum, and so the spectrum should be used to pay off the massive national debt incurred in the people’s name.

As a practical matter, the spectrum most likely would be purchased at auction by mobile communications or other innovative companies seeking to meet demand by consumers for wireless technologies. Some may argue that the public broadcasters currently using this spectrum serve Americans in rural areas without wired broadband or with poor wireless connectivity. However, the past few auctions sold off prime spectrum that enabled 5G mobile broadband innovations, ones that greatly expanded access for video streaming and high-speed broadband on mobile devices. Thus, the federally owned public broadcasting spectrum will help consumers—be they rural or urban—to access the very services and content some claim they cannot today.

The CPB and PBS are currently seeking private funds and nonprofit donations to maintain operations. This is doubtless an attempt to stave off elimination until the left can return to power and ride to their rescue. And, even without federal funding for their programs, they will continue producing the same leftist propaganda pretending to be “news” and “commentary” or recycling British TV shows that most Americans can watch on multiple streaming platforms or on the Internet. Either way, these erstwhile federally funded entities should not be allowed to use the spectrum owned by the American taxpayer for profit or to share misinformation and leftist propaganda that mislead the American public and create division in our society.

Spectrum is a limited and valuable resource. It should not be wasted on institutions that have little interest in supporting the interests of all Americans. The left’s caterwauling against such a proposed auctioning of the spectrum only evidences their selfish pursuit of power. In truth, auctioning off the spectrum is the one way for all Americans to benefit from this situation.

Therefore, for the good of Americans’ financial security and intellectual liberty, it is time for the Trump Administration and the FCC to begin the process of working with Congress to sell off publicly owned spectrum to reduce our national debt. It is not hyperbole to assert this process must start now: it takes time for the FCC to work with other agencies to do all the technical work required to prepare the spectrum auction—sometimes five or more years.

And that is more than enough time for the left to try to breathe life back into the once-thought-defunct denizens of their administrative state. It’s best to make sure there can be no sequel to their bureaucratic horror show.

An American Greatness contributor, the Hon. Thaddeus G. McCotter (M.C., Ret.) served Michigan’s 11th Congressional district from 2003–2012. He served as Chair of the Republican House Policy Committee and as a member of the Financial Services, Joint Economic, Budget, Small Business, and International Relations Committees. Not a lobbyist, he is also a contributor to Chronicles, a frequent public speaker and moderator for public policy seminars, and a co-host of “John Batchelor: Eye on the World” on CBS radio, among sundry media appearances.

https://amgreatness.com/2025/09/06/it-is-time-to-sell-public-broadcastings-airwaves/

Democrat Lawfare Came For Me, And It Can Come For You Too

 The following is an adapted excerpt from I Went to Prison So You Won’t Have To: A Love and Lawfare Story in Trump Land.

I Went To Prison So You Won’t Have To is both a line from my speech that brought the house down at the Republican National Convention on the day I walked out of prison, and a cautionary tale about the new age of Democrat lawfare and weaponized justice that the Age of Trump has ushered in.

If they can come for me, Steve, and President Trump — along with Jeff Clark, John Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Dan Scavino, Mark Meadows, Jenna Ellis, Peter Clark, Boris Epshteyn, and other Trump associates — they can come for you. 

As a matter of simple math, virtually everyone involved in putting me behind bars was a Democrat: A Democrat House Majority, a Democrat-run Department of Justice, Democrat judges, and a Democrat jury.  

Consider the Kafkaesque world of lawfare I would be hit with by these partisans: More than a million dollars in legal fees and deprived of four months of my freedom — all because I honored the president’s invocation of executive privilege and oath of office. 

It started with an illegal subpoena I received from the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. This J6 Committee was an illegally formed and unduly authorized committee, cobbled together by Speaker Nancy Pelosi after she vetoed two of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s appointees. McCarthy then stupidly withdrew the rest, leaving Pelosi free to stack the committee with hand-picked Trump-haters. 

As a senior White House advisor, I knew it was my constitutional duty not to appear before that J6 witch hunt. President Trump had invoked executive privilege, and more than 50 years of Department of Justice precedent supported absolute testimonial immunity for senior presidential advisors. Don McGahn, Rick Dearborn, Kellyanne Conway, and Rob Porter had all refused to testify before hostile committees without ever facing contempt charges. 

Nonetheless, the J6 Committee — driven by raw partisanship — pushed ahead. It voted to hold me and Dan Scavino in contempt, forwarding charges that carry up to two years in prison and steep fines. 

That’s when Merrick Garland’s DOJ, through Biden’s hand-picked U.S. Attorney for D.C., Matthew Graves, crossed the lawfare Rubicon. Ignoring 50 years of precedent, they convened a grand jury and engineered my indictment. 

What followed was an outrageous circus arrest: Five armed FBI agents ambushed me at Reagan National Airport, surrounding me and my fiancée in the Jetway. They leaked the arrest to the press beforehand, denied me the chance to call a lawyer, and confiscated my phone. 

Later, thanks to Sen. Chuck Grassley’s oversight efforts, we learned that FBI agents involved in my arrest — including the now disgraced Walter Giardina — were gleeful at the chance to “take me down.” 

My fiancée — who had nothing to do with any of this — was publicly perp walked in the process. 

Here’s the kicker: I lived directly across the street from FBI headquarters. They could have quietly called me in. In 99.9 percent of non-violent white-collar cases like mine, DOJ simply asks the defendant to self-surrender. 

Not me. The message was clear: Flip on Trump or rot. There was nothing I could “flip,” but intimidation was the point. 

From there, lawfare turned financial. My legal battle consumed over a million dollars — exactly what the left wanted. One aim of lawfare short of prison is to bleed the target dry. 

Fundraising was its own ordeal, and hiring counsel was even harder. Big-law firms in D.C. threatened to fire any partner who dared defend a Trump associate.  Making matters worse, prosecutors exploited conflicts rules to further shrink the available legal talent pool.

Inside the courtroom, Judge Amit Mehta — an Obama appointee — refused to allow discovery on selective prosecution and other issues. He shielded the DOJ from having to explain why Meadows and Scavino weren’t charged, despite circumstances nearly identical to mine. 

Mehta also scurrilously stripped me of every substantive defense, including separation of powers and executive privilege, hiding behind an arcane district ruling. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine I wouldn’t even be able to offer a defense. 

When my trial began, the outcome was preordained. Prosecutors Elizabeth Aloi and John Crabb recycled boilerplate speeches meant for violent J6 rioters, as if my case were about insurrection rather than executive privilege. 

The jury pool? Ninety-plus percent Biden voters. The judge let openly anti-Trump jurors serve, while prosecutors struck anyone who might lean my way. 

At one point, the judge even let the jury take a “break walk” past protestors outside clamoring for my head. Ten minutes after their stroll, the “guilty” verdict was in. Motion for mistrial: denied. 

At sentencing, despite strong arguments for probation, Judge Mehta sentenced me to four months in prison. He also refused to let me remain free pending appeal, even though my case raises landmark constitutional issues of first impression. 

Then came the appeal — a farce in the D.C. Circuit. A three-judge panel, all Democratic appointees, brushed aside my case as “insignificant.” One or both of those judges, Cornelia Pillard and Patricia Millett, have shown up on panels hearing my case and Steve Bannon’s. 

Random judge selection? Hardly. The D.C. Circuit has become a lawfare factory. To call it a “kangaroo court” insults kangaroos. 

I keep fighting my appeal, even though there’s nothing left in it for me personally. I’ve done my time. 

Why do I fight on? Because if I lose, every senior White House advisor — Republican or Democrat — will face the same Hobson’s Choice I did: honor the Constitution and risk prison, or bend the knee to partisan inquisitors and betray the republic. 

Peter Navarro is the first senior White House official ever to be charged with and put in prison for contempt of Congress. He currently serves as the White House Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing. "I Went To Prison So You Won’t Have To" is available now on Amazon.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/09/08/democrat-lawfare-came-for-me-and-it-can-come-for-you-too/

Travere Therapeutics at Cantor Conference: Strategic Insights on FILSPARI

 On Thursday, 04 September 2025, Travere Therapeutics (NASDAQ:TVTX) presented at the Cantor Global Healthcare Conference 2025, outlining strategic priorities and developments. The company highlighted the successful launch of FILSPARI for IgA nephropathy and potential FDA approval for FSGS. While facing competition, Travere is optimistic about growth opportunities and financial stability.

Key Takeaways

• Travere is focused on expanding FILSPARI’s reach, with recent modifications to its REMS program to improve patient access.
• The company is preparing for potential FDA approval of FILSPARI in FSGS, which could significantly enhance market opportunities.
• Travere has a cash runway extending into 2028, supporting its strategic initiatives and ongoing programs.
• The competitive landscape is evolving, with new product launches from Novartis and Otsuka, yet Travere remains confident in its market position.

Financial Results

Travere reported a strong quarter for FILSPARI in IgA nephropathy, with new patient start forms growing by 40% post-approval. The company maintains high compliance rates and anticipates blockbuster sales potential. Travere’s financial stability is underpinned by a cash runway into 2028, supporting its IgA nephropathy launch and FSGS preparations.

Operational Updates

FSGS:

• Advisory committee meeting expected in November/December for FSGS indication
• Commercial preparations and field force expansion underway
• Over 80% overlap between IgA and FSGS prescribers
• Estimated 30,000 addressable FSGS patients at launch

IgA Nephropathy:

• REMS program modifications expected to broaden patient population
• Exploring complete REMS removal for further competitiveness

Pegtibatinase:

• Phase 3 trial on track for 2025
• Promising Phase 1/2 results showing long duration of effect
• 
  
• Future Outlook

FSGS:

• Anticipates FILSPARI approval, creating a halo effect on IgA sales

IgA Nephropathy:

• Expects KDIGO guidelines to increase diagnosis rates
• Predicts more aggressive treatment targets and increased use of combination therapies

Q&A Highlights

https://www.investing.com/news/transcripts/travere-therapeutics-at-cantor-conference-strategic-insights-on-filspari-93CH-4225696

'US clothing retailers test full-price strategy as rich shoppers keep spending'

 A handful of apparel retailers including Levi Strauss are teasing more full-priced products, testing how much wealthier shoppers are willing to pay despite the sobering effect of tariffs.

They have not been disappointed so far.

Levi's raised prices on some products in July but saw no slowdown in demand, the denim maker's chief financial officer, Harmit Singh, said at the Goldman Sachs Global Retailing Conference in New York on Wednesday.

"We are making a full-court press in selling higher full-price sales than we have done in the past," he said. "The Levi's consumer largely earns $100,000 and over. And that consumer we are seeing is generally resilient."

Ralph Lauren RL.N, Under Armour UAA.N and Abercrombie & Fitch ANF.N are also leaning into a more full-price strategy, they said, in recent earnings disclosures.

While lower-income households are hunting for bargains as U.S. President Donald Trump's trade war has forced companies to raise prices, wealthier consumers are buying steadily, largely unaffected by the cooling labor market.

Stock market gains and low credit card debt have bolstered the finances of the affluent. According to Moody's Analytics, the richest 10% of Americans - those earning at least $250,000 a year - now account for half of all consumer spending.

"We've been shifting our business towards a more elevated full-price consumer base, and this has served us well as our core consumer around the world remains resilient," Ralph Lauren CEO Patrice Louvet said in early August.

Under Armour's CEO Kevin Plank said in August the company was considering bumping up prices for the "embedded consumer who we do have pricing power with," referring to loyal customers. "We're seeing success testing new key items at full price, including our $45 Self-form hat and our heat gear collection are both strong examples."

And if that strategy doesn't work, better consumer-tracking technology now allows retailers to pivot quickly and offer targeted promotions, helping them generate higher profit margins, said Kate McShane, managing director at Goldman Sachs.

"In the old school way of doing things, you would get a circular saying everything is 25% off ... Now if they're selling North Face fleece jackets and it's 60 degrees, say, in New York, they can offer it on sale only for a couple of days in New York" while keeping prices the same elsewhere, she said.

Many companies have absorbed a lot of the tariff costs already, analysts said, and will try to discount as little as possible through the holiday shopping season, compared to years past when they discounted any extra items held in inventory.

"If you look at Summerween and back-to-school this year, the strategy there was to put the seasonal items on the shelves at full price to start," said Alison Furman, a PwC retail consultant, referring to Halloween-in-summer shopping.

"You're kind of testing the waters around what a consumer will pay full price for. And then when it doesn't move, you very quickly go into your promotion strategy."

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-clothing-retailers-test-full-231446494.html

Publishers fear AI summaries are hitting online traffic

When actress Sorcha Cusack left the BBC drama Father Brown in January, it made headlines, including for the newspapers owned by Reach, among them The Mirror, and the Daily Express.


But the story did not generate the traction the Reach newspapers would have expected a year ago, or even at the start of the year.

Reach put this down to AI Overviews (AIO) – the AI summary at the top of the Google results page.

Instead of clicking through to the story on a Reach newspaper site, readers were happy with the AI overview.

The feature is a concern for newspapers and other media publishers, who have already seen much of their advertising revenue siphoned off by social media.

In a tough market, readers coming via Google search is a valuable source of traffic.

"A major worry, backed by some individual datapoints, has been that AI overviews would lead to fewer people clicking through to the content behind them, with negative knock-on effects for publishers," says Dr Felix Simon, research fellow in AI and news at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.

He points out that it's hard to know the scale of the problem, as Google does not publish data on click-through rates.

DMG Media, owner of MailOnline, Metro and other outlets, said AIO resulted in a fall in click-through-rates by as much as 89%, in a statement to the Competition and Markets Authority made in July.


It means publishers are not being fairly rewarded for their work, says David Higgerson, chief digital publisher at Reach.

"Publishers provide the accurate, timely, trustworthy content that basically fuels Google, and in return we get a click… that hopefully we can monetise to our subscription service.

"Now with Google Overviews it's reducing the need for somebody to click through to us in the first place, but for no financial benefit for the publisher."

"It's another example of the distributor of information not being the creator of information but taking all the financial reward for it."

There is also concern over Google's new tool called AI Mode, which shows search results in a conversational style with far fewer links than traditional search.

"If Google flips onto full AI Mode, and there is a big uptake in that…that [will be] completely quite devastating for the industry," says Mr Higgerson.

"We are definitely moving into the era of lower clicks and lower referral traffic for publishers," says Stuart Forrest, global director of SEO digital publishing at Bauer Media.


"For most of the last decade Google has introduced more and more features into the SERP [Search Engine Results Page], which reduces the need for consumers to visit a website. That is the challenge that we as a sector face."

Mr Forrest says he hasn't noticed a drop in traffic across Bauer's sites, which include brands Grazia and Empire, as a result of the overview feature. But that could change.

"I absolutely think that as time goes on, as consumers get used to these panels, it's without doubt going to be a challenge. We are absolutely behaving as if we have to respond to that threat."


In its defence, a Google spokesperson said: "More than any other company, Google prioritises sending traffic to the web, and we continue to send billions of clicks to websites every day.

In an August blog post, Google's head of search Liz Reid said the volume of clicks from Google search to websites had been "relatively stable" year-over-year.

She also said the number of quality of clicks had improved slightly compared to a year ago - quality clicks are when a user does not immediately click back from the link.

"With AI Overviews, people are searching more and asking new questions that are often longer and more complex. In addition, with AI Overviews people are seeing more links on the page than before. More queries and more links mean more opportunities for websites to surface and get clicked," she said in the blog.

Some in the publishing industry are turning to the courts for redress.


In July, a group of organisations including the Independent Publishers Alliance, tech justice non-profit Foxglove, and the campaign group Movement for an Open Web filed a legal complaint to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority alleging that Google AI Overviews is using publishers' content at a cost to the newspapers.

It is asking the CMA to introduce interim measures to prevent Google from "misusing" publisher content in AI-generated responses.

In the meantime publishers are trying to understand how to feature in AIO and hopeful win some click-throughs.


"Google doesn't give us a manual on how to do it. We have to run tests and optimise copy in a way that doesn't damage the primary purpose of the content, which is to satisfy a reader's desire for information," explains Mr Higgerson.

"We need to make sure that it's us being cited and not our rivals," says Mr Forrest. "Things like writing good quality content… it's amazing the number of publishers that just give up on that."

Like other publishers, Reach is looking at other ways to build traffic to its news platforms.

"We need to go and find where audiences are elsewhere and build relationships with them there. We've got millions of people who receive our alerts on WhatsApp," Mr Higgerson says.

"We've built newsletters. It's all about giving people what they want when they're on our website and our brand, so the next time they're looking, hopefully they aren't going to a third party to get to us."

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0mlvryx0exo