On Sept. 14, 2026, at the G20 Energy Abundance Ministerial in Houston, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the final repeal of nearly all of the Biden-Harris administration’s 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards for coal- and gas-fired power plants.

The EPA estimates this move will save $310 billion through 2047 by ending compliance rules that are legally flawed and technically unworkable.

Officials also frame the repeal as a way to avoid wasted spending on controls that have not proven commercially viable. The follow-on proposal’s goal is to make it much harder for the next administration to put federal power-plant climate rules back in place.

Both Republicans and people with hands-on experience in oil, gas, and coal have made the same case for years. Biden’s climate rules made it harder to keep old coal plants running, build new natural gas plants, and sell U.S. energy overseas, even as America produced record amounts of oil and gas. They call the 2024 rules the newest part of a 15-year “war on coal.” In their view, those rules shut down plants without putting something just as reliable in their place.

Zeldin called it the “largest power-sector deregulatory action in U.S. history” and a step toward affordable, reliable electricity. Officials say the 2024 rules exceeded EPA authority under the Clean Air Act by treating carbon capture as the “best system of emission reduction.”

The Supreme Court struck down the Obama-era Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA (2022). The plan did more than require plants to cut pollution; it tried to shift the electricity system away from coal toward gas and renewables.

The Court said that kind of “generation shifting” was a major policy choice Congress had not clearly given EPA. Under Section 111, the agency can require plants to run cleaner. It cannot use the statute to redesign the national power mix.

EPA also proposed wiping out the rest of the power-sector greenhouse gas standards. That is the lock if it is finalized and survives court. If it holds, the next EPA cannot just flip the 2024 rule back on. It would have to convince a court that Section 111 still covers climate rules for this sector.

According to EPA, U.S. power plants are only a small, shrinking slice of the greenhouse gases in the air worldwide.

China’s power sector alone emits about four times as much CO2 as America’s. In 2024 it accounted for roughly 39% of global power-plant emissions; the United States was about 12%.

So officials argue the 2024 rules would have done little for the climate while costing Americans billions.

Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi said the Trump EPA has a simple rule. “If Congress hasn’t authorized it, then we’re not doing it. We’re not requiring it.” He has also said the Obama and Biden power plant rules “would have increased the cost of operating power plants by over $1 billion a year, which would have led directly to higher energy bills for consumers and a less stable grid.” The administration says the rollback will keep electricity affordable and reliable as demand grows from data centers, manufacturing, and electrification.

Officials project coal production for power-sector use could rise more than tenfold. They say winter demand is why reliability cannot wait.

Environmental groups have already sued. On Sept. 17, NRDC, EDF, the American Lung Association, and other health groups asked the D.C. Circuit to vacate the repeal. They say more power-plant pollution will mean more deaths and worse climate damage.

How long the rollback lasts will turn on whether Section 111 can be used for climate rules in this sector. The final repeal takes effect Nov. 16 unless a court blocks it. Comments on the leftover-standards proposal are due Nov. 2. The Trump EPA remains committed to common sense cost savings, unleashing American energy, and keeping electricity affordable and reliable.

The American people deserve honest reporting. Especially about the President of the United States.

Much has been reported about the potential legality of President Donald Trump’s decision to ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House press pool for their repeated abuse of their position to lie about the President, and ultimately the country.

It’s no secret that President Donald Trump has faced unprecedented and unmatched media scrutiny since he first announced his candidacy for President back in 2015. The media has attempted, since they day he has entered politics, to viciously malign the President with false scandals, big lies, and fake news.

Instead of simply allowing outlets such as CNN, MSNOW, and Politico to spew their lies unchallenged, President Donald Trump has taken action. Trump issued an announcement from his Truth Social feed last week that the three outlets mentioned previously would no longer have access to the White House press pool, citing their negative and distorted coverage.

The backlash from the Democrat-Media complex has been swift and unanimous, as it was announced today that even Fox News has removed their team from the White House press pool in solidarity with CNN, Politico, and MSNOW in protest of the President’s decision.

ABC, CBS, and NBC have also announced that they will no longer be participating in the White House press pool in protest.

CNN falsely characterized the ban as an attack on free speech. Emily Kuhn, CNN spokeswoman said on September 18^th in a statement, “We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government. Should the ban which President Trump threatened go ahead, it would be an illegal assault on that fundamental and constitutionally-protected right.”

Politico issued a similar statement, writing, “We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them.”

MSNOW echoed the sentiment of the previous two, writing, “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalism in our democracy.”

These outlets didn’t just save their words for statements, either. The three organizations, this morning, filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s Administration over the ban, citing free speech concerns.

A joint statement recognizing the lawsuit issued this morning reads, “This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes. Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Ted Boutrous, the attorney representing the three outlets, who also happens to be the same lawyer who represented CNN in the 2018 Jim Acosta case, said today about the lawsuit, ““The President’s ban of CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House is a direct assault on the First Amendment and a blatant violation of due process. The President has been explicit that this ban is intended to punish reporting he doesn’t like and to intimidate journalists and news organizations covering him and his administration.”

The outlets are making it clear. They believe that President Donald Trump’s actions against them are a direct violation of their free speech rights. Luckily, we have had 250 years of judicial precedent on issues such as these throughout American history, and many such cases specifically involving the direct access media organizations are legally obligated to have to politicians have been settled.

A close examination of these cases reveals that President Donald Trump has every right, as adjudicated by the Supreme Court of the United States of America, to remove communist, fake news outlets such as CNN from the White House press pool. Here are the decisions and how they impact the lawsuit filed by CNN, MSNOW, and Politico against the White House.

Zemel v. Rusk (1965)

In the early 1960s, Louis Zemel was an American citizen that wanted his passport validated so he could travel to Cuba “to satisfy [his] curiosity” and become a better-informed citizen after the U.S. broke relations with Castro. The State Department refused.

Zemel argued the ban violated his First Amendment right to gather information. The Supreme Court (6-3) upheld the restriction.

Chief Justice Warren wrote the key line in the case, writing, “The right to speak and publish does not carry with it an unrestrained right to gather information.”

The Court added that “the prohibition of unauthorized entry into the White House diminishes the citizen’s opportunities to gather information… but that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right.”

The White House is government property. The Court itself used the White House as the example of a place the public, and therefore the press, has no constitutional right to enter.

Denying CNN, Politico, or MS NOW physical access does not, under this holding, automatically violate the First Amendment simply because those outlets want to report from inside the building.

Pell v. Procunier (1974) and companion case Saxbe v. Washington Post

In the early 1970s, California prison rules banned face-to-face interviews with specific inmates chosen by journalists.

Reporters and prisoners sued, claiming a First Amendment right of access.The Court rejected the claim.

Justice Stewart wrote that “the First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally.”

Journalists could still visit prisons, talk to inmates they encountered, and interview people at random, the same access the public had, plus a little extra.

They just could not demand interviews with particular prisoners. A companion case, Saxbe v. Washington Post, applied the same rule to federal prisons.

White House press credentials and briefing-room access have never been available to the general public.

They are a limited privilege the Executive Branch has historically controlled. Pell is the case most often cited for the proposition that the press has no constitutional right to locations or interviews that ordinary citizens cannot get.

This case yet again illustrates, through the precedent that the First Amendment does not provide journalists special access, that the President is well within his legal right to ban these outlets from the White House.

Houchins v. KQED (1978)

In the mid-70s, a local TV station wanted to inspect and film a specific part of a county jail after a suicide, including interviews and cameras. The sheriff offered only the same public tours given to everyone else. The station sued for special media access.The Court (plurality) held there is no First Amendment right of access to government information or facilities under government control.

Chief Justice Burger’s opinion contains the other line your friend quoted: the First Amendment “is neither a Freedom of Information Act nor an Official Secrets Act.”

The press’s protection is the right to communicate information it has obtained, not a right to collect it from the government on demand.

If the public is excluded, the press can be excluded too. Any extra access is a policy choice for the political branches, not a constitutional mandate.

This is the strongest of the three precedents for the administration’s position. The White House grounds, Oval Office, and briefing room are government-controlled spaces.

The Court said the Constitution does not require the government to open those spaces to journalists beyond whatever access it already gives the public, which, in practice, is almost none.

Under no circumstance is the President violating the First Amendment right of any of these organizations, or any Americans by revoking access to the White House for nefarious “news outlets” that simply exist to peddle the narratives desired by the ruling class.

President Donald Trump was elected to end the bureaucratic control of America that saw our jobs leave our shores, our factories shuttered, and our way of life decimated. The news agencies banned by the President have not only tolerated that agenda of degradation instituted by our ruling class, but assisted in furthering it.

The American people deserve honest reporting. Especially about the President of the United States. His move is a brilliant step in the direction of truth, based in absolute law and fact.

There has been a historic update in the investigation into Thomas Matthew Crooks, the man responsible for firing eight rounds from a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle at President Donald Trump during his July 2024 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

President Donald Trump made a statement on the status of the investigation into Crook’s Butler assassination attempt last week that changes the entire outlook of the shooting.

The President wrote on his Truth Social feed that the Department of Justice, under former President Joe Biden and former FBI Director Christopher Wray, had largely deleted any information pertaining to Crooks or the assassination attempt before he took office in January of 2025.

The President wrote on his feed: “Everybody knows the Crooked Joe Biden FBI didn’t do what they should have with respect to the Lunatic who shot me in Butler, PA. By the time I got into Office, on January 20th, most of the information was missing, altered, corrupted, or gone. New info was just found! Why wasn’t it seen long ago? This was all a Democrat Plot, to get me out of the Election, that failed. Dirty Cop Christopher Wray should pay a price for the way he handled this assassination attempt, and certainly for the things he said. GOD BLESS AMERICA, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! President DONALD J. TRUMP.”

President Donald Trump’s statement reveals yet another one of the greatest political scandals of our time.

Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, working with elements of the Deep State and former FBI Director Christopher Wray moved to cover up an assassination attempt against their chief political rival. This revelation further raises questions as to the authenticity of Crooks, and who he may have been communicating with prior to the rally.

The President’s comments came just hours after documents from the Senate Judiciary Committee revealed that Thomas Matthew Crooks had his cremation paid for by an ‘anonymous donor’ after his parents refused to pay for his cremation for financial reasons.

That same report also revealed that Crooks had ordered his firearm through the mail, with pieces delivered to a ‘Bob Dole’ at his home address.

The Many Anomalies Of The Near-Assassination of President Donald Trump on July 13^th, 2024

I have been reporting on the anomalies surrounding the Crooks Assassination attempt since that fateful day in Butler, of which there are many.

Local officers (Beaver County Emergency Services Unit countersnipers) saw Crooks using a rangefinder and looking toward the stage before the rally in Butler began that day.

They photographed him and radioed/texted the concern. One contemporaneous message around 5:38 p.m. said he was “looking towards stage” with the device.

FBI Director Christopher Wray testified that Crooks flew a DJI drone over the area around 3:50–4:00 p.m. (roughly two hours before the shooting) for about 11 minutes, approximately 200 yards from the stage. He watched a live feed on the controller. The drone and controller were later recovered from his car.

Crowds pointed and shouted about a man on the roof for roughly two minutes before shots.

The AGR complex (the building Crooks used) was left outside the Secret Service secure perimeter despite known line-of-sight to the stage. No one from any agency was assigned to the roof. Local snipers inside the building thought the outer area and roofs were someone else’s job.

Video posted after shooting shows what appears to be Crooks shuffling on the roof prior to the shots being fired at President Donald Trump.

Approximately 22 seconds before Crooks fired, A Senate report found, a local officer sent a radio alert that there was an armed individual on the building.

But that information was not relayed to key Secret Service personnel who were interviewed by Senate investigators.

The Senate panel also interviewed a Secret Service counter-sniper who said that they saw officers with their guns drawn running toward the building where the shooter was perched, but the person said they did not think to notify anyone to get Trump off the stage.

Another troubling finding from the bipartisan Senate investigation was how technical issues downed Secret Service drones during the July 13 rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The agent responsible for overseeing the Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) called a toll free 888 tech support hotline ‘to start troubleshooting with the company.’ There were no backups.

It took several hours to get the drones back up and running – and the agent responsible for the drone operations only had three months of experience with the equipment.

USSS denied specific on-the-ground requests for additional C-UAS drone capabilities and a Counter Assault Team liaison in Butler that day.

Investigators found that there was no clear chain of command among the Secret Service and other security agencies and no plan for coverage of the building where the shooter climbed up to fire the shots.

Officials were operating on multiple, separate radio channels, leading to missed communications, and an inexperienced drone operator was stuck on a help line after his equipment wasn’t working correctly.

Communications among security officials were a ‘multi-step game of telephone,’ Peters said.

Who Was Thomas Matthew Crooks? Investigation Reveals More Facts About The Shooter

Thomas Mattew Crooks was born to his parents, Matthew and Mary Crooks, on September 20^th, 2003 in Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh suburb.

He grew up in a modest family home in Bethel Park with his parents, Matthew and Mary Crooks, both licensed professional counselors. He had an older sister, Katherine.

He was often characterized as quiet, intelligent, and socially withdrawn. Reports mention limited disciplinary issues growing up.

Crooks attended local public schools, including Bethel Park High School. He graduated high school in 2022 with high honors.

He received a $500 “star award” from the National Math and Science Initiative and belonged to the National Technical Honor Society. He scored 1530 on the SAT, which is considered to be an incredibly high score.

Crooks earned an associate degree in engineering science from the Community College of Allegheny County, graduating with high honors in May 2024.

He had planned to continue at Robert Morris University for mechanical engineering. The college reported no disciplinary issues in his records.

He worked as a dietary aide (kitchen/food-prep role) at Bethel Park Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, a job he held for several years. Employers said he passed a background check and raised no concerns.

The trove of files includes FBI interviews with Thomas’ father, Matthew, who revealed he “never really had a father/son bond” with the gunman, and that his stoic son rarely expressed strong emotions, hardly laughed and was very difficult to read.

Thomas started getting into shooting and guns as a teenager, though he had little interest in the outdoorsman life, Matthew said he briefly took interest in hunting but said he couldn’t envision him actually killing an animal. He also “hated” fishing.

Matthew said his conversations with Thomas during this period were usually brief and gun-related, such as the then-teen wondering if “he would have to do a background check” to buy his dad’s Glock, a question he told investigators he considered “odd.”

He also asked if he could have his grandfather’s guns. Video has since surfaced of Crooks dry-firing a handgun in his bedroom.

CHILLING VIDEO OF THOMAS CROOKS SHOWS TRUMP SHOOTER PRACTICING WITH HANDGUN IN BEDROOM! pic.twitter.com/EOZpQUypWM

— Scott Adams (@scottadamsshow) November 14, 2025

Thomas started going to the gun club around the time of the pandemic and was a “terrible” shot — “he could not hit the paper [target],” Matthew told investigators, estimating it took 4-5 years of practice before he could even do that.

Eventually, with practice, Thomas became a better marksman, coming home with range targets showing off to his dad how well he did with a target placed over 100 yards away.

After he questioned his son about why he was “going out so far,” Thomas explained, “he wanted to see how far he could shoot with rudimentary sights.”

He found he was able to shoot even further distances after he bought a prism sight, eventually becoming “very knowledgeable” about how to measure and zero-in on a target, and knew exactly how many clicks it would take to change the specific angle on the sight.

As Thomas’ interest in guns grew, he started buying large numbers of Amazon packages, including “parts, tools and items to increase the capacity of his rifle.”

He took to using the pseudonym “Bob Dole” for his delivery address, a bit of misguided paranoia he picked up after his father’s Citizens Bank checking account was hacked and several fraudulent BetMGM charges were made on his account.

Matthew said Thomas believed if one were to purchase items under a pseudonym, such as the ex-GOP presidential candidate’s moniker, the buyer could never be hacked. The father explained that wasn’t how it worked, and that even under an assumed name for deliveries, the charge is still being made to a bank account under his name.

He also coached Matthew how to use identity-obscuring software like CyberGhost VPN and the Bravenet Browser — which Thomas would argue made them “less likely to be compromised by outside actors.”

Matthew further recalled Thomas using multiple different, privacy-focused encrypted email providers, including GMX and Mailfence.

It was around this time Thomas obtained a 3D printer, and once brought home a large container of an unknown substance he claimed was needed to clean it.

Matthew said he once tried to fashion his own handgun, which nearly ended in disaster.

“Using carbon fiber plastic, a dryer and a toaster oven, Thomas did once create a Glock 19,” Matthew told investigators.

But he said after he discharged a single round from it, he feared the frame would explode, and would not allow Thomas to use it.

From all angles, Crooks appears to be a lonely individual who was coaxed into committing political violence by somebody, yet no accomplice has yet to be revealed. Despite the fact that authorities flagged Crooks as a ‘suspicious person’ who was communicating on his phone and ‘not paying attention to the rally’ on the day of the shooting.

Reports claim that Crooks purchased the ammunition he would use during the attack that very morning, just before coming to the site of the rally to do his drone surveillance.

The documents revealed through the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal the similarities between Crooks and Lee Harvey Oswald, along with other political assassins throughout modern history. A lone gunman, acting without collaboroation.

As you can see through my New York Times Best-Selling book The Man Who Killed Kennedy, the evidence shows that Oswald collaborated with many different groups prior to the assassination of JFK, and that Lyndon Baines Johnson had the most to gain from Kennedy’s assassination. I lay out the facts in that work, which you can find at Barnes and Noble, online, or really any bookstore.

That leads us to the obvious question about Butler, given the time it happened, the effect Donald Trump’s potential assassination would have had on the 2024 election, and the impact it would have had on the psyche of the American people, who had the most to gain from a potential assassination that day?

Given the failures of our own government agencies, who at the time were under the direction of President Joe Biden, who also covered up the evidence surrounding Crooks prior to his leaving office, we are left wondering If the Democrat Party was complicit in this assassination attempt, or perhaps the very “Deep State” President Donald Trump has spent his entire political career fighting against.

There needs to be a full investigation into the DOJ officials who handled this case prior to President Donald Trump taking office.

We must get to the bottom of who exactly worked to cover-up facts surrounding this assassination attempt, and bring them to justice. The time to act is now.

The Eerie Similarities Between Lee Harvey Oswald and Thomas Matthew Crooks

When examining the scenarios which led to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump by Thomas Matthew Crooks in 2024, the similarities are impossible to ignore.

Crooks ordered over 25 gun accessories and parts to his home address using an alias, fearing that his identity would be exposed. Lee Harvey Oswald ordered his rife through the mail, using the alias “A. Hidell” / “Alek Hidell.”

Both Oswald and Crooks were young men in their early 20s from relatively ordinary backgrounds who were described by many who knew them as quiet, socially isolated, or hard to read.

Each killed at least one bystander in addition to wounding the intended target. Neither left a clear manifesto. Investigators in both cases struggled to pin down a single, coherent motive.

Both showed mixed or contradictory political signals.

Both men took action to kill the most important political figure of their time, one successfully, and another unsuccessfully.

The government has also worked to obscure evidence surrounding both alleged shooters, classifying documents to ensure secrecy.

Over two years after the near-assassination of President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, and we know no more about Thomas Crooks today than we did they day that he fired the shot.

Who was Crooks communicating with in Butler that day? Why was he able to fly a drone around the site of the rally with Secret Service present, unable to fly their own drones for surveillance?

Why was the AGR building, from which Crooks took his shots, left unattended by Secret Service despite the fact that it was well-within the range which requires rooftop surveillance?

Why did law enforcement act so slowly, even as people screamed and warned of a shooter minutes before Crooks ever fired a single bullet?

We don’t have an honest set of facts when it comes to Butler shooting. That much is clear.

What did Joe Biden, Christopher Wray, and others in government fear being revealed in the Crooks investigation?

Why did they move to delete this crucial, relevant, and historical evidence before President Donald Trump took office?

There must be a complete investigation into the deletion of this information. The American people deserve the truth.

Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist from Vermont, and Rep. Mark Takano are back with the same idea they have shopped for years. Their proposed legislation, the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, would rewrite federal overtime law so 32 hours counts as a full week, with no cut in pay. Takano introduced the House bill, H.R. 10323, on Sept. 8. It does not ban a 40-hour week. It makes hours 33 through 40 overtime, then keeps going.

This is not their first time at the rodeo with this topic. Takano first dropped a 32-hour bill in 2021 and again in 2023. Sanders ran a Senate version in 2024 and used a Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing to sell it. The New York Post covered that last run on March 14, 2024, as a push for a 32-hour week with no loss in pay, the same overtime rewrite now being refiled.

The press release leaves out the phase-in. Signing the bill would not cut the workweek that day. The first change could not begin until at least 180 days later. Overtime would then apply after 38 hours in the first year of that window, 36 in the second, and 34 in the third. Only after that third year would the threshold fall to 32 hours. A covered employee still working 40 hours a week would then be owed eight hours of time-and-a-half.

The bill also writes daily overtime into the Fair Labor Standards Act: time and a half after eight hours in a day, double time after 12. California and a few other states already do that. Most of the country does not. Employers can still ask for the extra hours. They just pay more for them. They also cannot cut weekly pay or benefits because the legal week got shorter. Newsweek laid out the mechanics.

If a shop still needs 40 hours of coverage, the worker keeps the old weekly check and collects overtime on hours 33 through 40. Same hours. Higher payroll. Or the employer hires more people, or it shortens the schedule and lives with less coverage.

The bill only reaches workers the FLSA already treats as nonexempt: mostly people who punch a clock, plus some salaried staff who fail the exemption tests. Executive, administrative, and professional employees who meet those tests stay outside the rule. So do independent contractors. A restaurant, a plant, a hospital, or a warehouse that runs on hourly labor takes the cost. A salaried office does not, unless those workers are already owed overtime.

Sanders calls a 32-hour week “not a radical idea.” He says AI and robots will throw off huge gains and those gains should not stop with “a handful of billionaires.” He also repeats the line about nearly $80 trillion moving from the bottom 90% to the top 1 percent, a talking point he has used for years, not a score of this statute. The bill text itself does not mention AI.

Takano says work has changed and the labor statute has not. Unions backing it include the AFL-CIO, SEIU, UAW, National Nurses United, the flight attendants, and UFCW. House cosponsors at introduction were Pramila Jayapal, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Lou Correa, and Delia Ramirez.

The last time Congress shortened the federal week, it phased the overtime line down from 44 hours to 40 by 1940. USA Today noted what everyone in the building already knows. Republicans control the House and Senate, so the bill is going to the Education and Workforce Committee to sit.

Sen. Bill Cassidy made that case at the 2024 hearing. “It would kill jobs and increase inflation,” he said, as reported by the New York Post.

A four-day week a company chooses is one thing. Federal law already allows that. A four-day overtime trigger forced on every covered employer is another. Until a Republican Congress decides American shops should pay time and a half starting Thursday afternoon, 40 hours is still the week.

CNN, MSNBC and POLITICO, all of whom claim to be objective journalistic organizations, spent almost 2 years accusing me falsely of treason and being a Russian intelligence asset.

Now they are apoplectic about the fact that they will no longer be able to spew their lies from inside the White House, as President Donald Trump has announced that he is banning their organizations’ White House access due to their relentless falsified reporting about his Administration.

On September 18^th, 2026, the President posted to his Truth Social account making the declaration. The President said, “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them “alive.” Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant “reporting” FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP”

The news received backlash immediately from the Democrat political establishment, as well as their cohorts in the mainstream media. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said about the move, ““Donald Trump just did what dictators throughout history have done. This is a democracy. You will not be able to manipulate the news or hide the truth.”

Even former President Barack Obama has chimed in, saying about the ban, “My imagination could not foresee some of the stuff that’s going on right now. I’m trying to think what would have happened if I had said, ‘You know what, Fox News, you’re out of here!’ It’s unimaginable.”

Here is why I have a little sympathy for the networks that tried to destroy my life over a fabricated narrative, and why the nakedly partisan statements from Schumer and Obama do nothing to reflect reality.

Late in the night on election day 2020, just hours before the legal deadline imposed, the U.S. Department of Justice complied with a federal court decision ordering it to release the last remaining redacted sections of the so-called ‘Mueller Report’ that had been hidden since the report’s publication nearly 18 months earlier.

At midnight on election day, November 3rd, 2020 – timed to get as little press coverage as possible on the busiest news day of the year, the United States Department of Justice released the remaining unredacted sections of the Mueller Report regarding me specifically, in which they had admitted that despite two years of intense investigation, spending millions to pour through every aspect of my life, dragging 36 witnesses to the grand jury and after obtaining all my electronic communications for four years (literally millions of e-mails and pages of documents, tax returns, banking, and financial records) – they found no factual evidence of any collaboration or coordination between me and WikiLeaks regarding the release of emails regarding John Podesta, the Democratic National Committee or Hillary Clinton or that I had any advance knowledge of the timing, content or source of their disclosures.

EvenBuzzFeed, who won the release of the data in a lawsuit actually said I was “vindicated.” The rest of the media? They reported nothing at all.

The report is a voluminous effort by the ‘Special’ Counsel’s unethical, if not criminally-corrupt, lawyers, as their prolonged, baseless, partisan-motivated legal fishing expedition finally came to an end, to blunt the logical conclusion by the public that the entire corrupt multi-year multi-million dollar boondoggle was, in reality, a malicious fraud against President Donald Trump and anyone who supported him and a runaway purveyor of kangaroo “justice” against its unfortunate political targets.

For its hundreds of pages tediously propping up a convoluted defamatory narrative now known to be nothing more than a brazen fabrication by the Democrat Party and Hillary Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, the report is rife with highly-parsed wording, deceitful innuendo, and presumptuous, conclusory leaps of illogic, often delving into irrelevant minutiae, engaging in misleading factual cherry-picking and employing officious-sounding spin as dishonest substitutes for evidence that never existed. Despite this sugar-coating, what the unredacted documents do show is shocking.

Specifically, the newly unveiled documents say:

On Page 178,

“The Office’s determination that it could not charge WikiLeaks or Stone as part of the Section 1030 conspiracy was also informed by the constitutional issues that such a prosecution would present. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001), the First Amendment protects a party’s publication of illegally intercepted communications on a matter of public concern, even when the publishing parties knew or had reason to know of the intercepts’ unlawful origin.”

Also Page 178,

“The Office determined that it could not pursue a Section 1030 conspiracy charge against Stone for some of the same legal reasons. The most fundamental hurdles, though, are factual ones.1279 As explained in Volume I, Section III.D.1, supra, Corsi’s accounts of his interactions with Stone on October 7, 2016 are not fully consistent or corroborated. Even if they were, neither Corsi’s testimony nor other evidence currently available to the Office is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stone knew or believed that the computer intrusions were ongoing at the time he ostensibly encouraged or coordinated the publication of the Podesta emails. Stone’s actions would thus be consistent with (among other things) a belief that he was aiding in the dissemination of the fruits of an already completed hacking operation perpetrated by a third party, which would be a level of knowledge insufficient to establish conspiracy liability. See State v. Phillips, 82 S.E.2d 762, 766 (N.C. 1954) (“In the very nature of things, persons cannot retroactively conspire to commit a previously consummated crime.”) (quoted in Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 5.03, at 442 (1985).

“Regardless, success would also depend upon evidence of WikiLeaks’s and Stone’s knowledge of ongoing or contemplated future computer intrusions-the proof that is currently lacking.”

Judge Amy Berman withheld this from my lawyers at trial. The Mueller’s dirty cops concluded in their report that even if they had found evidence that I had received documents from Assange of WikiLeaks and passed them to anyone, which I did not and for which they found no evidence whatsoever, it would not have been illegal. The whole thing was a hoax.

For three years the fake News media has insisted that Julian Assange ( a journalist who has never had the accuracy of anything he has published questioned) is actually an asset for the Russians and that his website Wikileaks got the documents and e-mails via a hack via the Russians.

Worse they insisted that I had served as the link between Assange and WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign. I was called a traitor and a Russian spy. The left insisted that my colorful Twitter feed and some of my speeches and interviews proved that I had advance knowledge of the source and content of the WikiLeaks disclosures that so roiled the 2016 campaign. I was falsely accused of having advance knowledge of the publication of John Podesta’s e-mails.

The only three news outlets who reported on this shocking election day admission that there was no evidence found that would support this narrative were BuzzFeed, who successfully brought the lawsuit for the release of this material, the Washington Examiner and ZeroHedge. Where were the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Huffington Post, The Atlantic, The Hill, Politico, Salon, Vox, Vice, CNN, MSNBC, NBC and the Business Insider – all of who were quick to smear me as a “go-between for WikiLeaks and the Trump Campaign” but none of whom reported on the stunning conclusions of Mueller’s thugs.

It is important to note that the only communication I had with Wikileaks was via Twitter direct message and was fully disclosed and supplied to the House Intelligence Committee at the time of my testimony in 2017. Even this exchange proves nothing- yet Mueller’s thugs tried to pretend it was some kind of bombshell.

The media lynch mob that smeared me is a typical example of the bias and the fraudulence of the corporately-owned fake news media. The headlines below reflect just a small sample of the inaccurate and malicious reporting by the fake news media. Every one of these stories is disproven by the November 3rd disclosure by the US Department of Justice. Every one of these stories includes fundamental falsehoods, inaccurate leaks from the Special Counsel’s office, the omission of important facts, and the relentless pushing of an entirely false narrative.

NY TIMES – Indicting Roger Stone, Mueller Shows Link Between Trump Campaign and Wikileaks

NY TIMES – Roger Stone Sold Himself to Trump’s Campaign as a WikiLeaks Pipeline. Was He?

NY TIMES – Roger Stone Was in Contact With Julian Assange in 2017, documents show

NY TIMES – Stone Trial Links Trump More Closely to 2016 Effort to Obtain Stolen Emails

CNN – Mueller indicts Roger Stone, says he was coordinating with Trump officials about WikiLeaks’ stolen emails

Share

CNN – Special counsel prosecutors say they have communications of Stone with WikiLeaks

Reuters – Mueller says searches yielded evidence of Stone-WikiLeaks communications

The Hill – FBI releases documents showing Roger Stone, Julian Assange communications

The Atlantic – Roger Stone’s Secret Messages with WikiLeaks

The Guardian – I saw Roger Stone as ‘access point’ to WikiLeaks in 2016, Bannon tells court

POLITICO – Steve Bannon: Roger Stone was our unused WikiLeaks ‘access point’

Huffington Post – FBI Documents Reveal Communication Between Roger Stone, Julian Assange

Huffington Post – How WikiLeaks, Paul Manafort And Roger Stone Fit Into The Mueller Investigation

Huffington Post – Roger Stone Pressed For Damaging Emails About Hillary Clinton From WikiLeaks: Report

Business Insider & AP – FBI documents reveal that Roger Stone was in direct communication with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

Business Insider – Mueller is looking into a stunning claim former Trump associate Roger Stone made about a meeting with Julian Assange

Business Insider – Roger Stone communicated with WikiLeaks about hacked Democratic emails, says Mueller investigation

New York Intelligencer – Mueller Investigating Whether Roger Stone Had Dinner With Assange

New York Intelligencer – Trump Floats Pardon of Russia-Scandal Accomplice Roger Stone

New York Intelligencer – Roger Stone Sought Clinton Emails From Assange in September 2016

New York Intelligencer – Roger Stone Knew in Advance About About the Stolen Emails. Did He Tell Trump?

Washington Post – The Roger Stone indictment fills in new details about WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign

VICE – Why Roger Stone could be Mueller’s next target in the Russia probe

VICE – Roger Stone says he doesn’t “think” he discussed WikiLeaks with Paul Manafort

VICE – Trump surrogate Roger Stone claims ‘devastating’ WikiLeaks bombshells to come

MSNBC – Roger Stone Tried to Walk Back Claims About Julian Assange

MSNBC – Stone trial testimony sheds new light on Trump, WikiLeaks connections

MSNBC – Roger Stone faces new questions about alleged WikiLeaks connections

MSNBC – Roger Stone link to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange Uncovered

NBC – Text messages show Roger Stone and friend discussing WikiLeaks plans

Salon-Roger Stone admits to 2016 phone conversation with Julian Assange: Report

Sharon LaFrontiere of the New York Times, Roz Helderman of the Washington Post, Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal, the odious Natasha Bertrand, then of Atlantic Magazine, now at Politico, the vile Jonathan Chiat of New York Magazine, Daniel Friedman at Mother Jones, Andrew Prokop of Vox, Sara Murray of CNN, congenital liar Ari Melber of MSNBC, NBC propagandist and long -time CIA plant Ken Dilanian, ( who was actually fired by the Chicago Tribune for clearing his stories with the Agency)-are just a handful of the “reporters” who defamed me repeatedly with a torrent of lies and distortions, none of whom had the courtesy or professionalism to report the Nov 3 disclosures which prove that virtually all of their reporting on my case and the Mueller witch hunt efforts to destroy me, were flawed, distorted and based on the fundamental principles of honest journalism should now be retracted or corrected. I won’t hold my breath.

It wasn’t just the nut jobs like Mother Jones, the Daily Beast, Salon and nutty bloggers like Marcy Wheeler but allegedly responsible media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and CNN and MSNBC became obsessed with the idea that I was working with WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks was working with the Russians.

I often joke with some of my associates as to what newspaper in the United States is the worst when it comes to trafficking in the mainstream media narrative in which they told us that the Trump campaign had colluded with Russian intelligence in the 2020 elections and repeatedly asserted the questionable claim by US Intelligence that Julian Assange was a Russian asset and that the Democratic National Committee’s servers were hacked by the Russians.

Not surprisingly, none of these reporters or outlets reported on the declassified documents ultimately liberated from the national security bureaucrats by then-acting DNI Director Rick Grenell which prove that now not even Crowdstrike stands behind the claim that there is forensic proof that the Russians hacked the DNC. The intelligence services and the FBI knew from the beginning that the Steele dossier had been compiled with the assistance of Russian intelligence and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Actually, there is no question whatsoever that the Washington Post is the most dishonest and blatant purveyor of falsehoods. This timeline, for example, compiled by Phillip Bump is a perfect example of a completely false narrative now disproved in the actual words of the Mueller report. Bump’s reporting at the Washington Post stands out as the most dishonest, inaccurate, contrived, defamatory coverage of the ordeal I went through. This timeline, for example at the Washington Post – “A timeline of the Roger Stone-WikiLeaks question” should be nominated for a fiction writing prize.

Bump is, of course, the ‘journalist” who insisted in the pages of the worst newspaper in America that there was never any evidence that Bill Clinton ever sexually assaulted any woman.

I was also vilified for an innocuous Twitter direct message exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 who our Intelligence Chiefs insist is a Russian operative and responsible for the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton campaign emails on behalf of the Russians. In fact, the identity of Guccifer 2.0 and the claim that he is a Russian assets is based on a series of cyber fingerprints that no real Russian Spy who wanted to have his intrusions undetected would leave and the CIA’s extensive report on how to hack a server and make it look like it came from elsewhere in the Vault 7 disclosures of CIA dirty laundry published by Wikileaks.

“Roger Stone admits contact with Russian Intelligence” the headlines falsely screamed. Even if he was Vladimir Putin himself the fact that the entire exchange took place long after the Clinton documents had been obtained and published by Wikileaks -meaning my involvement in the alleged hack of those would be impossible and the exchange itself proves no collaboration or collusion- because I released SCREEN SHOTS of the entire exchange in 2017.

The left never lets facts get in the way of a good smear.

So in other words the claim that my innocent and innocuous exchange with the persona of Guccifer 2.0 on Twitter DM which I myself released publicly, was proof of collusion between the GRU and the Trump campaign is disproved by the context, timing, and content of the exchange which took place after the release of DNC documents by Wikileaks Mueller himself revived this chestnut in the Washington Post Op-Ed written for him by little Andy Weissmann.

For two years leaked stories predicting that although I had no formal role in the President’s campaign I would be charged with “Conspiracy Against the United States” “Foreign Contribution Ban” “Fraud and Related Activities in Connection with Computers” “Wire Fraud” “Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy” “Unauthorized Access of a Protected Computer” “Accessory After the Fact to the commission of a felony. Indeed, Aaron Zelinsky the prosecutor on the Mueller team who previously worked as Deputy Counsel for Hillary Clinton at the State Department would represent to multiple Federal Judges and magistrates that he had probable cause to investigate me on these ridiculous charges to obtain search warrants to access (and trash) my computers, my cell phone, my text messages, my paper files, my business records, my Florida home, my Florida studio and my New York City Apartment.

This is why they had to find something else, anything else, to charge me with. The ‘Lying to Congress’ charges are a tortured stretch. The witness tampering charge is a bogus concoction. The witness I allegedly tampered with- Randy Credico- threatened to put a bullet in the head of one of my associates who was subpoenaed to the grand jury, if he contradicted Credico’s ( false) testimony.

No misstatement I made to the House Intelligence Committee hid any underlying crime, meaning I had no motive to lie. The argument made by prosecutors at my trial, that I lied to hide the Trump campaign’s interest in the Wikileaks disclosures because it would ” look bad” for Donald Trump is ludicrous in view of the fact that candidate Trump himself discussed the WikiLeaks disclosures 142 times in September and October of 2016 according to MSNBC. If I had been given a fair trial, with an honest Judge who did not bar every powerful defense and had an honest unbiased jury, I might have been acquitted.

The report’s previously blacked-out pages reveal what is, in effect, a confession by Special Counsel operatives that they had absolutely nothing to substantiate any prosecutable offenses against myself, Wikileaks, or the Trump campaign, despite their efforts to torture the law to its limits to obtain their desired outcomes.

Most astonishingly, after explaining they had no evidence to support criminal charges for what they knew full well were perfectly-legal efforts to raise awareness and promote public scrutiny of Democrat corruption, as chronicled in an authentic record of the Democrats’ own communications, the report further confesses that their investigative targets like me had substantial 1st Amendment-based defenses, likely to overcome any attempted criminal prosecution. In other words, the Mueller gang now admits that my efforts to promote public awareness of the Wikileaks disclosures was perfectly legal. Shove that up your ass, Natasha Bertand.

My constitutional rights to freedom of speech and press, as exercised in totally-legal political and election campaign activities attempting to inform the public about Clinton Democrat corruption ahead of a presidential election, were maliciously violated by cynical, criminally power-abusive Special Counsel thugs.

The same goes for the rights of the President and those in the Trump Campaign who likewise sought to legally bring public light to information highly-relevant to the 2016 presidential election.

It is clear from the recently declassified materials released by ODNI Tulsi Gabbard that the Special Counsel, by its own admission, was fully aware it had no probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, that either WikiLeaks, the Trump Campaign or I had done anything illegal concerning the Clinton-DNC email corruption expose. Moreover, they admit that our efforts were in fact constitutionally-protected political and journalistic activities.

The short of this is that the malicious prosecution visited on me as a parting shot by the failed Special Counsel, just as it finally ended its nearly two-year witch hunt, was nothing more than a sensationalist ass-covering distraction and a cynical ploy intended to superficially justify the Special Counsel’s pointless, prolonged existence, after spending almost two years to come up with literally nothing whatsoever of any substance or credibility to support the BIG LIE on which it was dishonestly founded and perpetuated.

When this ulterior-motivated, malicious prosecution against me entered the federal court system it was before a hostile partisan judge whom the Special Counsel had purposefully “shopped” into the case through one of the prosecution team’s many false, misleading representations made to the U.S. District Court throughout the case. They knew quite well what they were doing when they fraudulently secured Amy Berman-Jackson as the trial judge in my case.

Prosecutors insisted that my case must be tried before Judge Jackson because it was ‘related” to the case of the 17 alleged Russian Intelligence officers who they claim hacked the DNC and gave the purloined data to Wikileaks, a contention of the Government which they relied totally on an analysis by Crowdstrike, a Clinton-friendly IT Security firm. Except Crowdstrike now denies that conclusion. In fact, prosecutors promised Judge Jackson they would introduce evidence obtained by search warrant in that case at my trial. They didn’t produce any such thing but they got the Trump-hating Judge they wanted- and lied to do it.

My attorneys were successful in getting the government to admit that the only “evidence” they had that Russian intelligence agents had computer hacked the Democratic National Committee was this redacted draft report from the Democratic-aligned IT Firm Crowdstrike and that the FBI had never actually examined the DNC servers.

When this news hit the media like a bombshell, out-of-control left-wing Judge Amy Berman Jackson tightened the unconstitutional gag order on me to prevent me from discussing the shocking revelation and the prosecutor in my case Jonathan Kravis, a former Deputy White House Counsel to President Barack Obama after clerking for left-wing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer and failed Supreme Court nominee and far-left D.C. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland, filed a sur reply with the court falsely claiming that the US Government and the Mueller investigation had additional evidence to bolster their claim that the Russians hacked the DNC.

We now know based on the documents declassified to date that no such proof exists and that Kravis defrauded the court.

The secrecy of this entire process is obsessive. The 76 pages of e-mails turned over to BuzzFeed News by the Executive Office of US Attorneys were heavily redacted. The agency withheld 152 pages in releasing the emails Nov. 3rd and indicated some of those records are sealed and others were referred to the FBI for review. These many redactions need to be explained or removed. This isn’t some national security case. There are no sensitive intelligence, diplomatic or military implications. All parties involved are U.S. citizens. There is no continuing investigation nor other pending cases involving its subject matter.

This is a domestic criminal prosecution of a sole defendant by jury trial in a federal district court for offenses implicating only legislative oversight of domestic political activities. A prosecutor in the case made a public protest of withdrawing from the case over the government’s alleged handling of the sentencing. He then volunteered public testimony to a legislative oversight committee alleging that the handling of the sentencing by his prosecution team was subject to undue influence by DOJ officials for ulterior political motives. Yet according to the Washington Post three top senior non-political Officers at DOJ have denied the under-oath testimony of Rogue prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky in which he claimed all three had told him of political pressure to ‘go easy” on Roger Stone. When will Zelinsky be indicted for lying to Congress? Why is Zelinsky still working in the Trump Justice Department?

Loose cannon Aaron Zelinsky isn’t the only one who lied under oath. When Steve Bannon’s House Intelligence Committee testimony was declassified we learned that his testimony at my trial in which he was Mueller’s star witness was directly contradicted by his sworn testimony before the House Committee. In fact, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley who reviewed both transcripts told the New York Post “There does appear a glaring and irreconcilable conflict in what Bannon stated in testimony before Congress and the court. What is striking is that this was not a peripheral point but one of the main areas of inquiry.” Turley said. “He (Bannon) has two diametrically opposite sworn statements in a high-profile controversy with dozens of attorneys in attendance,” Turley noted.

Additionally, federal prosecutors had an obligation under the law to inform us that Steve Bannon was actively under investigation and knew this to be the case at the time that he offered false testimony against me. The prosecutors in my case who were well aware of the discrepancies between Bannon’s house testimony and his testimony understand my trial knowingly suborned perjury.

Specifically, in the summer before trial, my defense team asked Berman-Jackson to order the DOJ to disgorge the Mueller report’s many redacted sections about me for our evaluation and possible use as exculpatory evidence, if not as evidence of prosecutorial deceit and manipulation in violation of my constitutional rights as a criminal defendant.

Berman-Jackson’s response to this motion was to withhold her ruling and order the DOJ to turn over the unredacted report to her for her ‘in camera’ (or behind closed doors) evaluation of the contents before deciding whether to grant or deny our motion. After receiving the unredacted report from the DOJ, per her order, and reviewing its contents out of view of the defense (the prosecution already knew what was in it), Berman-Jackson summarily denied our motion, gave us numerous unredacted sections of the hidden material that was innocuous or meaningless without context but withheld the material that even Buzzfeed said ” vindicated “me.

Berman-Jackson fully understood that evidence from the Special Counsel’s own report which unequivocally negated the entire premise of its pending prosecution against me — namely, a nefarious conspiracy to steal Democrat emails and collude with the Russians — would likely be devastating to the case against me for false statements to a partisan committee supposedly investigating what they and Special Counsel knew to be legal, constitutionally-protected political and press activities.

Berman-Jackson knew what a death blow it would likely be to the Special Counsel’s inflated charges against me for purported false statements and witness tampering, if it came to light that this prosecution was entirely based on an effort to violate, suppress and punish my 1st Amendment-protected political activities, and that the Special Counsel knew all along that this was what they were doing.

I thank God almighty and President Donald Trump for recognizing that I did nothing wrong and granting me an unconditional Pardon at Christmas of 2020.

When it comes to the conjunctive apoplexy being thrown around cable news right now, as CNN and MSNBC scramble to claim that Trump’s ban on their networks from direct White House coverage is an ‘infringement on free speech,’ I have little to no sympathy.

Free speech doesn’t guarantee you direct White House access, in fact, legitimate conservative news organizations with audiences that dwarf CNN and MSNBC combined have been blocked from White House access for years because of their defense of the truth. MSNBC and CNN have, for years, benefitted because of their commitment to serving the interests of the ruling class. For once, we have a President who stands against the ruling class. For that, he is attacked, maligned, and slandered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, across channels such as CNN and MSNBC.

When Barack Obama, or Chuck Schumer stand up to defend CNN and MSNBC, they aren’t doing it because they believe those organizations report honest information that helps to build a sensible public discourse. They’re doing it because CNN and MSNBC carry their water, and defend them at every turn, always reflecting negatively on Republicans, particularly President Donald Trump.

For these same networks to lose their direct White House access for the various blatant lies they’ve spewed isn’t a violation of free speech, but an execution of justice to a nefarious group of anti-American hacks who have worked with those in power, for decades, to rob America of its identity.

They also tried to destroy me, but as you can tell, they failed.

The national argument over artificial intelligence is splitting in two directions at once, and the tension is the story: Washington refuses a federal slowdown while local maps keep adding friction. In Washington, President Trump has spent the week calling existential-risk warnings a “hoax,” arguing that the only guardrail the industry needs is a “strong and smart” president and that a slowdown would hand the lead to China.

In a Wall Street Journal column, Matthew Continetti wrote that Trump is following the data on data centers and is right about their economic and national-security importance.

Several frontier-lab executives have asked for tighter limits on the most capable systems. Trump’s reply is that industry leaders almost never ask for rules that would shrink their own companies. He likened the doomer warnings to climate alarm and told an All-In Summit crowd, after putting Nvidia’s Jensen Huang on speakerphone, that robots are not about to take over.

Many in Washington agree with the president: overreaching regulations or a pause would be a gift to China, which is closing the model gap and already running a different, more centralized playbook.

A great example of this business model sits just outside Washington, in Loudoun County, Virginia, known as “Data Center Alley.” Loudoun now has more than 250 facilities and a share of global internet traffic that local boosters still treat as a point of pride. Northern Virginia already packs in more servers than any other place on Earth.

FOX News reported the fiscal result this week. Tax Foundation economist Jared Walczak says data centers supply about 45% of Loudoun’s local tax revenue and that the average homeowner would pay about $5,800 more a year without that base. County budget figures are slightly tighter: about $1.2 billion and 39% of the budget in FY26, with $1.3 billion and about 40% projected for FY27. The campuses take up only about 3% of the county’s land.

That $5,800 is a counterfactual tax bill, not a check. Without the data-center base, the residential rate would have to jump from $0.805 toward about $1.537 per $100 of assessed value.

• The county cut the homeowner rate from $1.145 per $100 of assessed value in 2016 to $0.805 in 2026.
• It also cut the vehicle tax from $4.15 toward $3.09. Data-center equipment still pays $4.15.

Schools, fire service, and roads are what the rest of the county gets from the same money.

The backlash is no longer theoretical. Loudoun ended “by-right” siting on March 18, 2025, so new projects face a harder local vote. Grandfathering of earlier applications is still a live fight this month. Statewide, Virginia’s HB 1515 would freeze final approvals until grid interconnection catches up, or until July 1, 2028; the bill was carried into next year’s session rather than enacted. Across the country, hundreds of cities and counties have adopted temporary moratoriums. Georgia’s local map is especially crowded.

As of mid-September, no state has a permanent ban on AI data centers. New York paused new hyperscale permits for a limited time. Texas paused new ERCOT hookups pending an audit, not construction. About 16 legislatures have introduced statewide stops; most have not become law. On Polymarket, as of Sept. 19, traders priced a 68% chance that at least one state enacts a statewide moratorium by the end of 2026.

Put the two stories together and the “AI panic” is not one national mood. It is a set of local bills. White House officials say the race is with China and will not order a federal pause. Loudoun’s budget already treats the data-center base as a success. That base now covers about 40% of the county budget. The savings show up in schools, fire service, roads, and a lower tax bill, not as a check in the mail.