Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 17, 2026

Inside California’s Gay-Certification Program

 Americans are used to handouts for favored groups. Affirmative action in university admissions, corporate “diversity” initiatives, and minority-owned contracting requirements direct opportunities, resources, and contracts to supposedly “oppressed” groups, such as women, Native Americans, blacks, and Hispanics.

In California, state Democrats have embraced another kind of favoritism: contracts for state-certified gay-owned businesses.

The scheme operates through the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which regulates privately owned utility companies. California utilities spent more than $43 billion in 2024 on contractors—fuel suppliers, surveyors, engineers, and others—whose work helps deliver water, gas, electricity, and internet service to California’s 39 million residents.

In 1986, Governor George Deukmejian signed Assembly Bill 3678, which required certain CPUC-regulated utilities to submit annual “plans” for buying goods and services from woman- and minority-owned companies. Two years later, CPUC created its “Supplier Diversity Program,” which would enforce the law and set contracting “goals” for large utilities.

Under a series of Democratic governors, the program has expanded to include gay-owned businesses. In September 2014, then-Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring CPUC to recognize “LGBT-owned businesses” as eligible for supplier-diversity benefits. Five years later, Governor Gavin Newsom expanded the program further, “encouraging” other companies involved in the energy sector to award contracts to gay-owned firms.

In the years that followed, CPUC faced activist pressure as it implemented the gay expansion. BuildOUT California, a since-rebranded LGBT building-industry organization, sent a letter to the commission arguing that “homophobia” existed within “the ranks of the utility companies.” The state’s legislative LGBTQ caucus suggested in a 2021 letter that even considering lower gay-procurement targets was “an insult to the LGBTQ+ community.”

By 2022, CPUC had fully implemented the expansion. In practice, this meant establishing a “goal” for utility companies with annual revenues exceeding $25 million to buy things from state-certified LGBT businesses: 0.5 percent of procurement in 2022; 1 percent in 2023; and 1.5 percent in 2024 and beyond. If “large” CPUC-regulated utilities met these “goals” in 2024, they would have sent roughly $633 million to LGBT-owned firms.

This scheme raises an obvious question: How does a business qualify as officially gay? Paperwork. Supplier Clearinghouse, a group that certifies firms for the CPUC program, features a list of qualifications linked on its website. Applicants can secure certification by providing a letter from an “LGBT organization” attesting to their sexual preferences; proof that a newspaper identified them as “LGBT”; or three letters from “personal contacts” written “on company letterhead” attesting to their homosexual orientation. Corporate officials who “falsely represent” their business as gay face up to a year in county jail.

Supplier Clearinghouse also accepts gay-certification letters from the National LGBTQ+ & Allied Chamber of Commerce. The chamber has its own list of accepted documents, including human resources complaints or police records claiming LGBT discrimination. As NGLCC states on its website, “Certification is a journey, not a destination.”

Mary Ann Horton has experienced this “journey” firsthand. Horton, an early internet pioneer credited with helping develop the e-mail attachment, is a white male who “transitioned” and is now married to a woman. Horton’s company, Red Ace, is registered in California as a woman- and LGBT-owned business.

The application process, Horton told City Journal, required “a mess of documentation.” To prove that Red Ace was “lesbian-owned,” Horton sent Supplier Clearinghouse a domestic-partner affidavit. To establish that the business was woman-owned, Horton submitted a birth certificate, which had been reissued in Washington State post-“transition.” To prove transgender status, Horton filed a “therapist carry-letter,” a document from a medical professional certifying transgender identity.

These designations came with perks. After Red Ace secured these labels, Horton said, San Diego Gas & Electric brought the company on as a part-time cybersecurity contractor. During the hiring process, Horton told us, a company official said that being on the diversity list made the contract much easier to secure.

“If I was a straight, white male, I might be concerned I don’t have the same opportunity,” Horton said. “It worked out great for me.”

LGBT-owned companies in California play other roles. In 2022, SDG&E spent $8.6 million, or 0.36 percent of procurement, on LGBT businesses, apparently including one that produced a training video on supplier diversity. “Never fear when your Ambassador for Excellence is here,” an animated character says in the video. “I can show you exactly how to source diverse vendors.” Other certified LGBT businesses in California include a sign-language interpreter, a kombucha maker, and a “coaching” firm whose services include a “series” to help people “manage” their feelings about “[t]he latest election cycle.”

In California, preferential public contracting is technically illegal. In 1996, voters approved Proposition 209, which banned the state from granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, or ethnicity in public employment, education, and contracting. More than two decades later, in 2020, they rejected an effort to repeal the ban.

CPUC’s arm-twisting regulations violate the spirit of the law. The commission lists several specific “goals” for utilities’ contracting rates: 15 percent to minority-owned firms; 5 percent to women-owned firms; 1.5 percent to disabled-veteran-owned firms; and, most recently, 1.5 percent to LGBT-owned firms. It claims that these goals are not a “requirement” or “quota.” In practice, however, the agency cajoles utilities into compliance by requiring them to collect extensive demographic data, submit detailed annual reports, list their plans for increasing procurement from favored groups, and explain “any circumstances that may have resulted in not meeting” their procurement “goals.”

Despite the commission’s efforts, however, utilities and businesses don’t seem interested in LGBT certification. Large utilities’ procurement with LGBT-owned businesses decreased by 5 percent in 2024. Supplier Clearinghouse lists 3,750 Minority Business Enterprises, but only 451 LGBT-certified firms.

CPUC did not respond to our request for comment by deadline.

The state imposed these rules based on the view that government spending should not merely purchase goods and services, but should also engineer social outcomes. Under this framework, buying a hammer from a firm owned by a black transgender lesbian has more social value than buying the same hammer from a firm owned by a straight white man.

But Californians don’t need an energy system delivered by gay contractors; they need an energy system that works. Utility regulators should be in the business of regulating utilities, not verifying contractors’ sexual preferences. Companies should award contracts based on competence, quality, and cost—not the sexuality of the business owners.

Trump’s Iran Deal: Americans Wanted Something Done Short Of Ground Troops, And They Got It

 President Donald Trump’s deal with Iran has received a lot of flak from both sides of the spectrum for its supposed shortcomings. Is it a failure before it’s even finalized? No, but that won’t stop the angry backbiting over an agreement that looks like it could significantly weaken Iran’s ability to cause trouble in the Middle East.

Let’s be clear: If Trump’s deal leads to a non-nuclear Iran, a freer flow of oil to the global economy, and a more stable Mideast, that will be a net gain for everyone concerned.

For the record, no, we’re not entirely satisfied, either. We didn’t want Trump to give an inch to the mullahs.

“The only choice they should be offered is to give up everything or lose it all to the almighty forces of the U.S. and Israeli militaries,” we wrote in late May.

But that was before people on both the left and the right began complaining about committing ground troops. Our own I&I/TIPP Poll showed a 57% majority of Americans opposed sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.

Those of us who have been around since Vietnam remember quite well that even the most gung-ho supporters of military action often recant when troops get wounded or killed. It happened in Vietnam, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. It would have been no different in Iran.

Meanwhile, continuing the war and leaving Iran entirely bombed out and devastated would have perhaps set off a global recession of epic proportions as oil prices spiked. As it is, inflation-adjusted oil prices peaked recently at $109.70 a barrel. Prices are now at $77.02 a barrel.

So Trump didn’t “lose” a war. There was never a real war to begin with. A war almost always requires troops, direct battle, and a will to win.

The president didn’t have public or congressional backing for that. But he did show Iran’s rulers how easily the U.S. could make their lives hell. Sure, they’re talking tough right now because they survived, but they’ll tread more softly in the future. Especially with a U.S. president like Trump.

Trump’s moves also showed other countries in the region — Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon — that the best way to thrive is to stay on America’s good side.

It will also help support the Abraham Accords, which, through trade and revived diplomatic ties, will help normalize Israel as a permanent country in the Mideast, despite the unabated, implacable hatred from the most extreme Islamist groups. That hatred, sadly, will never end.

So Trump has enlarged America’s influence and strength in the vital Mideast.

We don’t know what would have happened had the U.S. doubled down on its air and naval attacks by sending in ground troops and compelling a definitive end to Iran’s regime. But even destroying much of its former leadership, along with most of Iran’s navy, air force, and nuclear facilities, didn’t have the hoped-for effect of eliminating Iran’s leadership.

Even the hawkish National Council of Resistance of Iran, “welcomed the emerging U.S.-Iran understanding aimed at ending hostilities while asserting that peace poses a greater threat to the survival of the Islamic Republic than military confrontation,” the group’s president-elect, Maryam Rajavi, said in a statement.

“War is this regime’s shield against popular uprisings, while peace and a ceasefire are, as Khomeini put it, like ‘poison’ for it,” Rajavi said. “The overthrow of the regime is the responsibility of the Iranian people and their organized Resistance.”

So the regime’s bitterest rivals see the end of hostilities as a positive. A weakened government, in this case, is better than anarchy. But it also may give space for new opposition to arise in Iran, which has been under the brutal thumb of fundamentalist religious zealots and their murderous domestic police for 47 years.

Removing the current mullah-led dictatorship would have cost billions of dollars and perhaps thousands of American and Iranian lives. Would it have been worth it? Maybe not. Especially given the growing U.S. opposition against deepening America’s involvement in Iran.

That said, Trump’s impulse to destroy Iran’s legacy regime, guilty of kidnapping American diplomats, engaging in global terrorism, and murdering tens of thousands of their own citizens, was the right one.

We would have vastly preferred getting rid of the current regime, but Americans didn’t support that. Instead, we have a 14-point agreement (with many details still to be worked out) that includes “a pledge never to produce or obtain a nuclear weapon and the willingness to have further discussions about other details.”

Trump’s moves — destroying Iran’s military, putting its foreign enablers on notice, decimating Iran’s leadership ranks, and not allowing Iran to build or buy a nuclear weapon — are big steps forward. Trump would have liked to dislodge the mullahs from power, but at what cost? Critics hate to answer such questions.

All in all, it’s less than we wanted, but more than we hoped for, given 47 years of U.S.-Iran stalemate punctuated by repeated acts of Iranian terrorism, proxy attacks against Western targets including the U.S., and ongoing threats to our main Mideast ally, Israel. Iran is now a pariah state on parole, without nuclear weapons and with a severely damaged military.

All in all, a pretty good outcome for three and a half months’ work.

https://issuesinsights.com/2026/06/17/trumps-iran-deal-americans-wanted-something-done-short-of-ground-troops-and-they-got-it/

When One Company Controls Kidney Care, Patients Pay the Price

 Most Americans never think about dialysis until they, or someone they love, needs it. But for the estimated 815,000 patients living with kidney failure in America today, dialysis is a non-negotiable treatment that keeps them alive. That reality makes the structure of America's dialysis industry troubling.

In most sectors of the economy, consumers can walk away from a company they don't like. They can shop around for a better price, service, or experience. Kidney patients don't have that luxury. When someone requires dialysis to survive, she enters a system where choice is often limited, competition is weak, and one company wields extraordinary influence.

DaVita has become one of the most powerful healthcare corporations in America. Since the company’s founding 34 years ago, years of consolidation, expansion, and acquisitions have enabled the company to control a substantial share of the dialysis market. MMCG Invest’s recent analysis estimates DaVita's current American market share at roughly 37.8% of total industry revenue. Through approximately 2,657 outpatient clinics, coupled with contracts with 740 hospitals for inpatient services, DaVita operates as one of the two members of America’s dialysis duopoly. As such, in many communities nationwide, patients have few practical alternatives. In some areas, there may be no meaningful alternative at all. That level of market power should concern anyone who believes healthcare exists to serve patients first.

Dialysis is not a discretionary service. Patients cannot delay treatment or wait for a better deal. Missing treatments can have devastating health consequences. And the kidney transplant wait list is notoriously long. Dialysis or transplant are literally patients’ only two options.

When a company provides a service that people cannot live without, the normal checks and balances of the marketplace begin to crack. In the case of DaVita, the result is a business model that places significant pricing power in the hands of a for-profit corporation.

Defenders of the current system often point out that DaVita provides an important service, and they are right. Dialysis clinics save lives every day. The physicians, nurses, and technicians who care for kidney patients perform essential work and deserve proper recognition. Acknowledging the importance of dialysis care, however, does not mean that we must ignore the incentives surrounding it.

At its core, DaVita is accountable to shareholders. Like any publicly traded company, it is expected to generate profits and increase returns. In 2025, the company’s revenue was $13.64 billion. That obligation creates an uncomfortable question: what happens when the financial interests of a dialysis giant collide with the interests of patients and taxpayers? Unfortunately, the incentives aren’t always aligned.

A healthcare system focused primarily on patient outcomes would invest aggressively in preventing kidney disease before it reaches the point of kidney failure. It would prioritize early screening, diabetes management, hypertension treatment, nutrition support, and access to primary care. Success would mean fewer people requiring dialysis in the first place. The uncomfortable reality here is that success for a for-profit dialysis company is more people needing dialysis.

This is not a criticism of the clinicians delivering care; it is a criticism of a system built to reward enormous profits from chronic illness while investing comparatively less attention in preventing that illness from occurring. The financial rewards in today's system often flow after patients become critically ill and dependent on long-term treatment.

Americans should be especially concerned when market concentration and healthcare intersect. Competition matters because it creates accountability. It encourages innovation. It gives consumers choices. When competition disappears, patients lose leverage and corporations gain it. At the end of the day, no company should have unchecked influence over a life-sustaining medical service.

Lawmakers and regulators should take a closer look at the dialysis industry and ask hard questions about competition, consolidation, and patient choice. They should examine whether current policies encourage prevention or simply reward treatment after patients become sick. They should also ensure that healthcare markets remain accountable to the public rather than dominated by a small number of corporate actors.

Kidney failure is already one of the most physically, emotionally, and financially challenging conditions a family or an individual can face. Patients should not have to concurrently navigate a system where corporate power is concentrated in the hands of a company whose primary responsibility is delivering profits for their shareholders.

When a corporation becomes powerful enough to shape an entire segment of medicine, it is reasonable to ask whether the system is still serving the public interest. In the case of the dialysis industry, that question is long overdue.

Christopher Sheeron is founder and president of Action for Health, a national nonprofit organization working to ensure fair outcomes for critical healthcare issues.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/articles/2026/06/17/when_one_company_controls_kidney_care_patients_pay_the_price_1189248.html

Magic Medicine?

 People are excited about peptides.

The internet is filled with claims: Peptides raise your energy, boost metabolism, clear your skin, slow down aging, build more muscle, repair injuries ...

I want some!

But there's a problem: The FDA bans most of them.

Why?

Dr. Anita Gupta, an anesthesiologist and pharmacist who was on the FDA committee that recommended the ban, explains, "There is a lot of hype. We all want to hack into our health, right? Get better really quickly. But we can't reboot our own bodies, can't undo an injection. There could be an immune response."

"Could" be.

But peptides are definitely useful. Insulin is a peptide. So are the new GLP-1 weight loss drugs.

"People can lose up to a third of their body weight," says neuroscientist Andrew Huberman.

Popular young influencers boast about other results.

"I built more muscle and became much stronger overall," claims YouTuber Manuel Enrique.

"My best secret weapon to heal!" writes Instagram influencer Nikki Martin.

"They're not medical professionals," responds Gupta.

She points out that no government agency checks the ingredients. "Are you actually getting what you think you're getting? ... That's the problem."

It's a problem made worse by the FDA. Because of its ban, most American peptides come from overseas labs, often from China. They skirt rules by claiming their peptides are "not for human use," but for "research purposes only."

Since black market Chinese products dominate the market, how does the FDA's ban actually "protect" us?

I confront Gupta in my new video: "Because the FDA makes peptides illegal, it's harder to check out the source. People sneak it in the country. If they just said, 'It's your choice,' there'd be American products. Why do you doctors get to be the gatekeepers? It's my body. Can't I make my own choice?"

"We have to respect patient's autonomy," she replies, "but at the same time we have to provide informed consent."

"I consent!" I say.

"Consent to what? Do you know all the risks?"

There are plenty of risks.

Some people experience allergic reactions. Some go into anaphylactic shock. Others develop high blood pressure.

But the FDA shutting down American suppliers doesn't prevent that.

I'm glad the FDA has protected Americans from bad drugs. But that protection also costs lives by denying people good drugs.

Beta blockers saved lives for years overseas before they were finally approved here. The FDA's delay may have cost 100,000 lives.

The FDA is a creaky bureaucracy. It can take 10 to 15 years to approve a new drug.

In the meantime, people die from black market drugs, and others miss out on products that might extend our lives.

"We're still in the early stages of trying to figure out if peptides are truly an innovation," says Gupta. "Sure, there is a possibility that there is a great breakthrough that we're about to see, but the long-term study has not been done."

Still, the FDA now at least says they may ease restrictions the Biden administration put on popular peptides. Maybe they'll do it because RFK Jr. is a "big fan" of peptides.

My question: In a "free country," why do bureaucrats have the right to tell us what we may and may not put in our own bodies?

Don't we own our bodies?

It should be our choice.

I got stronger after the internet told me to take daily creatine and protein powder. Protein breaks down into peptides. I'm old. Maybe I should take the new peptides?

I'm scared to try.

Still, it should be my choice.

There should be 1,000 experiments instead of our one-size-must-fit-all FDA.

Every Tuesday at JohnStossel.com, Stossel posts a new video about the battle between government and freedom. He is the author of "Government Gone Wild: Exposing the Truth Behind the Headlines."

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2026/06/17/magic-medicine-n2677861

Rick Scott asks Trump admin to strip CodePink’s tax-exempt status over China funding ties

  Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) is calling on the Trump administration to strip lefty activist group CodePink of its tax-exempt status over its alleged funding connections to the Chinese Communist Party and potentially other US adversaries like Cuba.

Scott wrote a letter to IRS Commissioner Frank Bisignano on Wednesday, saying that the 501(c)(3) educational group has “long been connected to shady characters, acted inappropriately, and
seemingly broken the rules and standards established for non-profit entities.”

“The American people have a right to expect that the substantial privileges associated with tax-exempt status are reserved for organizations that operate independently and in furtherance of legitimate charitable, educational, and public interest purposes,” Scott wrote in the missive.

CodePink activists frequently get booted from congressional hearings for causing disruptions.AFP via Getty Images

For years, the rowdy cabal of pink-clad feminist agitators have disrupted congressional hearings and badgered lawmakers all over Capitol Hill in protest of American support of Israel, among other issues.

The Florida Republican argued that CodePink has been running afoul of its nonprofit eligibility by lobbying members of Congress publicly and privately by pushing propaganda about the CCP — including through its denials about the widely reported use of forced labor in Xinjiang Province.

“While this connection to the CCP is concerning and warrants its own investigation, CodePink’s day-to-day activities raise questions about its eligibility as a 501(c)(3) organization,” the senator wrote.

Under IRS rules, 501(c)(3)s are restricted from engaging in “too much lobbying activity” to maintain their tax-exempt status.

“CodePink’s own website details how it was founded for the express purpose of lobbying Nancy Pelosi and other members of Congress to ‘break with the party leadership’ during the Iraq War,” Scott recalled.

CodePink’s activists have often been arrested for causing disturbances.Anadolu via Getty Images

“The organization has never ceased lobbying Congress, boasting that it has ‘become famous for confronting the warmongers, in the halls and hearing rooms of Congress, the national conventions of both the Republicans and Democrats, political fundraisers, and in the streets,'” he added, citing the group’s website.

Scott also raised concerns about the group’s alleged ties to China. It was co-founded by the wife of tech mogul Neville Roy Singham, a billionaire and Chinese Communist Party sympathizer, who has sponsored CodePink protests in the past.

This includes a Times Square demonstration opposing the US war with Iran. Singham, an American expat living in China, has faced accusations of working with Beijing’s propaganda machine.

Uncle Sam is currently investigating CodePink over a March trip to Communist Cuba.Getty Images

The House Ways and Means Committee has also been probing CCP links to the CodePink funder.

Recently, the pink disruptor group was hit with federal subpoenas related to a March trip to Cuba, amid concerns about possible sanctions evasion.

Specifically, the Treasury Department is probing CodePink. Several of its leaders — including Medea Benjamin — stayed at a five-star hotel in Havana in March, ostensibly to provide humanitarian aid, though it’s unclear the degree to which they coordinated with the Cuban government.

“We brought desperately needed medicines and medical supplies at a time when Cuba is suffering catastrophic shortages caused by the crippling U.S. blockade,” Benjamin said in an earlier statement. “We stayed in hotels explicitly permitted under U.S. regulations: Spanish-owned hotels approved for U.S. travelers.”

The Post contacted the IRS and CodePink for comment.

https://nypost.com/2026/06/17/us-news/sen-rick-scott-asks-trump-admin-to-strip-codepinks-tax-exempt-status-over-china-funding-ties/