Citing a procedural question, a federal appeals court has vacated a landmark decision that found fluoridated drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health. The court sent the case back to the district judge and ordered him to ignore any scientific evidence uncovered after 2020. Attorney Michael Connett told The Defender the court instructed the judge “to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record.”

A federal appeals court has vacated a landmark decision that found fluoridated drinking water poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not challenge the substance of the lower court’s findings — that fluoride is toxic to children and ought to be regulated. Instead, the court based its decision on procedural issues related to the lower court’s handling of the litigation.

The case will now go back to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where District Judge Edward Chen will be required to exclude all scientific evidence that became available after 2020.

Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Defender the court “instructed Judge Chen to travel back in time to 2020 and make this ruling based on a stale factual record.”

Connett said the directive to ignore years’ worth of evidence on fluoride’s dangers runs counter to the intent of the TSCA — which is to protect hundreds of millions of Americans from substances that are harmful to human health.

The federal appeals court ruling, handed down late Thursday, stemmed from a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought by consumer advocacy groups including Food & Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and Moms Against Fluoridation.

The groups sued after the EPA refused to consider their 2016 citizens’ petition asking the agency to regulate fluoride.

After two bench trials, Chen ruled that fluoride at the federally recommended concentration of 0.7 milligrams/liter (mg/L) posed an “unreasonable risk” to children’s health and ordered the EPA to regulate it accordingly.

However, the 9th Circuit panel said the lower court violated the “party presentation principle” — a legal doctrine requiring courts to act as neutral arbiters rather than taking control of a case’s factual development.

Connett said the decision was “a very expansive and unprecedented application of the party presentation principle.” He said that to date, “this principle has really only been applied to situations where judges raise new legal issues, not where judges use procedural mechanisms to resolve the issues presented.”

Under the TSCA, if the EPA denies a citizen petition, petitioners have the right to sue the agency. The law is unique because it specifies that the court then evaluates whether the chemical in question presents an unreasonable risk to health or the environment in a “de novo” proceeding, during which it evaluates evidence presented by both sides and gives no deference to the agency.

Rather than ruling after the first trial in 2020, Chen put the trial on hold, pending the release of a multiyear government study into fluoride’s neurotoxic effects, so he could base his decision on all available evidence.

Once that study was released — despite government officials’ attempts to suppress it, which were revealed through Freedom of Information Act requests — the second trial continued and Chen issued his ruling in an 80-page decision detailing the evidence supporting his decision.

The appellate court didn’t comment on plaintiffs’ arguments that TSCA allows this type of judicial procedural discretion, nor did it engage the substance of Chen’s findings.

Instead, in an eight-page decision, the 9th Circuit panel affirmed the EPA’s argument that Chen improperly paused the case for more than a year to await that study, which was not yet available during the first trial. The court concluded that the judge effectively reshaped the evidentiary record, exceeding the proper judicial role.

FAN board member Rick North told The Defender the judgment is a disappointment.

“But this ruling only addresses a legal procedural question — not the science,” he said. “The science remains solid as a rock. As the original court decision asserted, fluoridation ‘poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.’ The legal landscape has changed. The risk to pregnant women and their kids hasn’t.”

The judge extended the lawsuit so he could consider the latest, best science, North added. “The court of appeals saw this as judicial overreach. I think most people would see it as due diligence.”

The science that the ruling directs the lower court to ignore includes the National Toxicology Program’s monograph, also published in JAMA Pediatrics, linking fluoridated water and IQ loss in children, and findings from other gold-standard cohort studies.

After the trial concluded, the body of scientific evidence showing fluoride’s adverse impacts on children’s health at current levels in the U.S. has continued to grow.

In May 2024, a study in JAMA Open Network found children born to Los Angeles mothers exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water were more likely to have neurobehavioral problems.

The ruling is a procedural victory for the EPA. However, since the trial drew national attention to the extensive evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxic effects, communities and states across the country have stopped adding fluoride to their water.

Even the EPA itself — under a different law — has launched a new investigation into the safety of water fluoridation.

Related articles in The Defender 

• EPA Promises ‘Gold Standard’ Review of Fluoride, as Agency Appeals Decision in Landmark Lawsuit
• Trump’s DOJ Says EPA Will Appeal Landmark Fluoride Ruling
• ‘Perversion of Public Health’: EPA Appeals Landmark Ruling That Fluoride Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Kids’ Health
• Florida Becomes Second State to Ban Fluoride in Public Drinking Water
• EPA to Review Health Risks of Water Fluoridation as RFK Jr. Says He’ll Tell CDC to Stop Recommending It

The post Breaking: Federal Court Strikes Down Landmark Fluoride Ruling on Technicality — ‘Not the Science’ appeared first on Activist Post.

The government keeps telling people the economy is strong because the stock market keeps making new highs. That is the great deception behind every bubble throughout history. Wall Street is not Main Street. You can have record highs in financial assets while society underneath is quietly rotting in real time.

The New York Federal Reserve now reports that 14% of American households are struggling with food insecurity. For families with children, the number rises to 17.5%. That means millions of Americans are literally worried about whether they can afford enough food while politicians stand in Washington congratulating themselves over manipulated statistics.

This is the direct result of monetary policy and the destruction of purchasing power. They printed trillions after 2020 and inflated everything. Housing exploded. Rent exploded. Insurance exploded. Food exploded. The people who owned assets got richer while the working class got trapped trying to survive inflation.

Meanwhile, household debt has surged above $18 trillion. Credit card balances are above $1.2 trillion. Americans are borrowing money just to maintain basic living standards. That is never sustainable historically. Rome did the same thing by debasing the currency until the middle class collapsed under rising costs. Weimar Germany also saw financial assets rise while ordinary citizens watched purchasing power evaporate.

The younger generation has been absolutely destroyed financially. In many cities rent now consumes nearly half of take-home pay. Home ownership has become almost unattainable for millions. Food prices remain dramatically above pre-2020 levels. Families are paying 30%, 40%, even 50% more for necessities than just a few years ago while wages never remotely kept pace.

This is why I have warned that the real crisis would not simply be inflation itself but the collapse in living standards. Governments always manipulate statistics to hide reality. They change CPI formulas, adjust baskets, and claim inflation is “cooling,” but people know the truth every time they walk into a grocery store.

This is also why civil unrest rises during the later stages of debt crises historically. The average person eventually realizes the system no longer works for them, while the financial elite continue accumulating wealth through asset inflation. The K-shaped economy becomes politically dangerous because one side of society feels abandoned entirely.

The French Revolution was not caused because people suddenly hated the aristocracy overnight. It was bread prices, hunger. It was watching elites continue living comfortably while ordinary families could no longer survive rising costs. History always repeats because human nature never changes.

The frightening part is that this is happening before the real sovereign debt crisis even begins. Governments worldwide are drowning in debt and they cannot raise rates forever without detonating the system. So they are trapped. Either they continue inflating the currency slowly to manage the debt, or they trigger a deflationary collapse. Politicians will always choose inflation because it delays the pain politically.

That means the middle class continues getting squeezed while the divide between financial wealth and real economic survival grows wider.

People do not eat stock portfolios. They eat food. They pay rent. They pay utilities. They buy gasoline. That is where the real economy is collapsing.

The post NY Fed: 14% of US Households Experience Food Insecurity appeared first on Activist Post.

Water is essential to all life. The human body can go three weeks without food but only three days without water before completely shutting down. Yet most of us find it much easier to store a year’s worth of food than a month’s worth of water. I live in the suburbs and while I have my beans, bullets and band aids pretty squared away, water has always been an area of concern for me. There is no way to store enough water for a long term outage, and I haven’t found many good options. Recently I have spent more time thinking about this and testing possible options. This article is the result of that.

Water Needs

People need around 1 gallon per person per day just for drinking. For a family of 5, that is 5 gallons per day or 150 gallons per month. At 8 pounds per gallon, that is 1200 pounds of water for the bare minimum for just one month. A year’s supply would be nearly 2000 gallons and 7 tons of water. And that is just the minimum for drinking. Water is also important for sanitation, cooking, flushing toilets, watering gardens, fire fighting and many other things. In our modern world, with water available at the turn of a tap, the average American uses from 60-80 gallons per person per day. In a SHTF situation, we would need to be careful with our water use and try to limit the waste but the true need is likely many times the 1 gallon per day commonly quoted. Realistically, 5-10 gallons per person per day is probably closer to what you need. At 5 gallons per day for a family of 5, that is 9,125 gallons per year or 73,000 pounds. From a storage perspective, this is 1,220 cubic feet of water. That is a cube 12 ft by 12 ft and 8 ft high. That would completely fill a medium sized room from floor to ceiling. Obviously, this is more than the average suburban homeowner can store.

Modern water systems

In my suburb on the outskirts of Minneapolis, our water is pulled from a well over 400 feet deep. Pumps driven by electricity pull water from the ground up to surface level. From there it is chemically treated and filtered to remove pathogens and other contaminants. Then it it pumped into water towers placed around the community and from there, gravity takes it into our homes. In normal times, this means that every time I turn on the tap, step into the shower or flush the toilet, a large, modern system brings clean water right into my house. But if that system fails, we need another way to procure this life-giving resource.

Immediate Actions

If you are home when the balloon goes up and fully understand what is happening, there are several steps you can take to buy time. Start by filling all the bathtubs in your house. Most bathtub drains are not completely watertight so putting some Saran Wrap over the stopper or better yet, using a bathtub bladder in the tub will hold the water longer. The average bathtub holds 50-60 gallons of water. If you have 2 bathtubs, this can give you enough water to flush your toilet 40 times in each bathroom at roughly 1.5 gallons per flush. Next, fill every container you have available with water. I have about a dozen 5 gallon buckets that could be quickly filled with water. I also have a number of 15 gallon totes that I use to store my prepping gear. If a SHTF event happens, I can dump the contents on my basement floor and fill these totes with water. I have several dozen of these and could easily collect several hundred gallons IF I have some awareness of a SHTF event. Any water collected in this time helps extend the time before other solutions are needed.

Long Term

Until recently, other than a case or two of bottled water, this was the extent of my water preps. I assumed (hoped) I would have some awareness of the start of an event and could quickly fill every container available to collect several month’s worth of water for my family as mentioned above. But even if I was able to fill every container in my house, I would eventually run out of water and would need other means to provide for my family. I began to look around my neighborhood for other options to gather water.

Springs: Freshwater springs pour out of the ground. Artesian springs burst out of the ground. We have a large sping about two miles from our house that runs year round and is a local favorite for good clean water. The city actually monitors it and tests for parasites and other contaminants. Driving by, there is usually a line of people waiting to fill jugs at this spring. In a crisis, this may be an option for us to collect fresh water. It is about a two-mile hike and includes a good size hill. If we have a working vehicle, it would be manageable until the fuel ran out. We could also use bikes or a wagon to haul containers of water but it would be a lot of work. The spring would also be a good target for some group to take control of and use access to the water as a means of leverage so this is not something I can count on. You may have a spring near you that you are unaware of. This website can help you locate one: Find A Spring – Locate A Spring

Ponds, Lakes and rivers: I live in a well manicured suburb with numerous drainage and decorative ponds nearby. Unfortunately, none of these is directly adjacent to my property and most are completely bordered by private homes. Additionally, most would be contaminated with all sorts of chemicals from lawn treatments common in our area. Though a filter system could be developed to purify this, I decided it was not my best option and would only be used as a last resort. This water, if easy to obtain, could however be used to flush toilets which would take pressure off other sources of water.

Building interior water: We all know that our water heater holds roughly 40 gallons of water that could be usable in a grid down situation, but many other buildings have a large amount of water in their pipes that can be accessed. Many buildings have spigots on the outside but lack a handle to prevent people from just taking water. Sillcock keys (pictured at tight) are universal keys to these faucets and may give you access to the water held in the building’s pipes. I live in a suburban area and am far from any large buildings so this is not a good option for us.

Rainwater: Depending on your location and time of year, you may be able to harvest rainwater. According to local weather outlets, our area of Minnesota receives an average of 31 inches of precipitation per year. 25 of these inches fall from April through October when it will mostly be rain. The remaining 6 inches fall from November through March when it will more than likely be snow. An inch of rain is roughly equivalent to a foot of snow so that remaining 6 inches of precipitation will fall as 6 feet of snow over the winter months.

(Converting snow to water requires a significant amount of heat energy so winter collection needs to account for this as well). A little math on the amount of water that could be collected. Our house is roughly 40’ by 40’ so an inch of water falling on our house would be approximately 133 cubic feet of water. At about 7.5 gallons per cubic feet, that 1 inch of rain would yield nearly 1000 gallons. Even a small rainstorm could easily produce several hundred gallons of water and we get at least some rain most weeks of the summer. I decided that this would be the main pillar of my water plan. Collecting even 10% of the rainfall that hits my roof each year would be more than enough for my family’s annual need.

Our emergency rain catchment system

I set out to develop a large capacity rain catchment system, that would not be obvious to my neighbors but would supply me with enough water. I didn’t want large rain barrels that neighbors might remember when the SHTF. We have a gutter system on our roof and our downspouts have flip up ends to allow for mowing. These ends will conveniently allow me to place totes or 5 gallons buckets at the end of each downspout to collect the run off. I also have a large tarp (20×30 foot) that I can attach to our deck railing and spread out over the yard to capture rainfall there. With a little creativity, I can set this to funnel water directly into a container, significantly increasing the surface area for collection. An inch of rain, falling on this tarp would yield another 375 gallons (probably slightly less as I would need to angle it down and funnel the middle into a catchment, reducing the total surface area).

This system will allow me to capture a significant amount of water with every rainfall we get. But that water is not safe to drink. Rain water contains micro contaminants including bacteria, pollution particles, micro plastics and other things that are not safe to consume. Additionally, runoff from a shingle roof will pick up contaminants from the asphalt shingles and any other things on the roof (ie bird droppings). The water collected needs to be treated in order to use.

A note about water types: We are used to all our water being safe to drink (potable) and use it interchangeably for drinking, bathing, cooking, washing a car, firefighting etc but the reality is that we don’t need the same level of ‘clean’ for all these use, You can flush a toilet or put out a fire with the dirtiest pond water but you wouldn’t want to drink it. You might be ok to bathe or wash clothes in rainwater as long as you don’t ingest it. I have traveled in many countries around the world and have been in places where they warn you not to drink the tap water, though you can use it for bathing, washing your hands and even brushing your teeth as long as you spit the water out. The point is that we don’t need to treat all water to the same standard. It would be good to think of at least 3 levels of water:

Completely untreated and only safe for flushing, fire suppression and little else – this should still be filtered through cloth or screen to remove debris but is otherwise left as collected. This category includes water collected from dirty ponds, lakes and streams.

Somewhat treated – this is water that is made as clean as possible without chemical or mechanical filter. It should be screened for debris and then possibly allowed to settle, and the cleanest water taken from the top. This can be used for washing clothes, bathing and some cleanup work. This could also be used for any level 1 activities.

Potable water – this receives a full filtering process to make it safe for drinking, cooking and anything else. Of course this water could also be used for anything the level 1 or 2 water could, but it would be a waste of resources to treat all water to that level.

We have different storage containers for the different water levels. Rainwater is collected in 15 gallon black totes. These will be our level 2 water. It will also serve level 1 water needs unless we are in a prolonged drought and need to pull water from local ponds.

To create our level 3 (potable) water, some of the collected rainwater will be placed in 5 gallon buckets and allowed to settle for several days. A spigot has been attached about a third of the way from the bottom of the bucket to draw the water from the top, and leave the settlement in the bottom. Once any contaminants have settled, the water from the top will be drawn off into a new bucket. The remaining third of the bucket will be poured back into the level 2 totes and eventually reprocessed. This water should now be relatively free from any debris but could still have viruses, bacteria and other contaminants and will need to be further treated.

I have purchased and used several types of water filter for camping trips to remote areas where water needed to be filtered. My favorite is the Sawyer 2 L water treatment system. This is a gravity fed filter and the manufacturer says this can treat 1 million gallons of water. I don’t think this exact model is still available but there are many other similar gravity flow filters on the market by other makers such as Katadyn and Life Straw. The Sawyer system uses 2 large bladders with a filter in between. The gray bladder is for the raw water and is hung up high where a line feeds through the filter which then feeds into a blue bladder (for clean water). This allows you to set it up and then let it run on its own to filter the water – no pumping required, gravity does all the work. This can filter roughly 1 liter of water per minute. This would require refilling the gray water bladder every 2 minutes when trying to purify a large quantity of water which adds a lot of manual work.

I wanted a larger system so I avoided the bladders and have a two bucket system to work with this. One bucket has a spigot on the bottom to which I attached the tubing that leads to the filter and then the other (lower) end feeds into another bucket which has a lid with a hole cut just large enough to receive the tubing.

The buckets are labeled “Gray Water” and “Clean Water”. We have a second story deck which is perfect for this set up, though a kitchen counter or a table would also work. I put the Gray Water bucket on top of the deck, run the tubing from the spigot to the filter and then from the filter into the Clean Water bucket on the ground. This allows me to filter 5 gallons of water at a time. At the same 1 liter per minute, I would only need to change buckets every 20 minutes or so and would get 5 gallons of drinkable water. Cleaning several days worth of water could be done in a few hours, while also working on other things.

While this setup is my main plan for water treatment, I also have several other options available.  (“Two is one and one is none.”)

MSR HyperFlow Filter: This is a hand pumped filter that works by dropping tubing at one end into the dirty water and operating a hand pump that forces water through a ceramic filter and out the other end. This device can filter 2.5 liters per minute but I found it difficult to maintain this pace for very long. It takes considerable time and effort but produces water faster than the Sawyer gravity fed system so if you need a limited amount of water in a hurry, this is good to have.

Portable Filters:
We also have a few individual sized filters- more than one of each type for all members of the family.

Sawyer Mini: this is a small filter that screws into a small pouch. The pouch is filled with gray water and you use it like a water bottle and squeeze clean water directly into your mouth.

Life Straw: this is a portable filter that works like a straw. It is a one inch diameter tube with a filter inside. It works by putting one end in the dirty water and sucking the water through the filter like a straw.

These are great to have in a bugout bag or to use if you are traveling somewhere as you can use it to drink from anywhere but it doesn’t allow you to easily clean a large amount of water so it is better for a temporary solution for a single person. I have these in each of our bug out bags but wouldn’t want to depend on them as a main source of water.

Chemical treatment: There are several forms of chemical treatment available, such as “Aqua tabs” or “Portable Aqua”. These are small tabs you drop into a bottle of water and it will kill off harmful bacteria in less than an hour. These are another great item to carry when traveling to treat water found along the way. I have several containers of these as a back up to my backup system.

Boiling: Bringing water to a rolling boil will kill most harmful bacteria, viruses and protozoa. This can be an effective method for treating water that is otherwise free from chemicals. The main drawback of this type of method is the fuel required to do so. In a SHTF situation, having a fire to purify water will sue up scarce wood or propane that is better left for cooking and heating.

Distillation: This is likely the most effective way to purify water as it can also remove many harmful chemicals. This is a system where water is brought to a boil and the steam funneled into a coil where it is allowed to cool and drip into a second container. The resulting water will be free of nearly all contaminants. While this can produce the cleanest water, it is a complicated system to build and would require a lot more fuel than just boiling the water. I would only recommend this for either a situation where the water was heavily contaminated with chemicals or where fuel was incredibly abundant.

JWR Adds: Distilled water should not be used for drinking for more than just a few days. It lacks some trace elements that you body needs to stay healthy.

Closing thoughts

Until recently, water was a big gap in my preps. With this rain catchment and treatment system, I feel I at least have a fighting chance to provide enough water for my family in most foreseeable grid down scenarios. I hope you found it interesting.

Disclaimer: All of the products mentioned here are ones I purchased myself. I did not receive any financial or other incentive to mention any product.

Previous Post
Economics & Investing Media of the Week

Next Post
Preparedness Notes — Friday, May 29, 2026

The post Water in Disasters: A Rain Catchment and Treatment System, by Suburban Prepper appeared first on Activist Post.

Some of the recent legal challenges to the use of surveillance by the Department of Homeland Security upon Americans have resulted in the revelation of truly terrifying behavior by the government, in direct defiance of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. We now know that the federal government spies on innocent Americans without suspicion and without warrants.

The spying seems to fall into several categories. The National Security Agency, which is in the Department of Defense, employs about 60,000 domestic spies. These are the folks who want us to believe that they go through the trouble of making applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for warrants to spy on foreigners.

Actually, from time to time they do go to this court, but their travels there — where judges are frisked upon entering and leaving the courthouse by the NSA agents who appear before them — serve as fig leaves for their massive warrantless spying on Americans. The FISA Court is unconstitutional because it issues warrants based on probable cause of communicating with a foreign person, rather than on probable cause of crime as the Fourth Amendment requires.

The courts have ruled consistently since the 1960s that spying — surveillance, as the feds call it — is a search, and the capture of data from a surveillance is a seizure.

The Fourth Amendment protects all persons in America — not just Americans — from warrantless searches and seizures of their “persons, houses, papers, and effects.” There are some well-recognized exceptions to this constitutional baseline, such as evidence that will quickly vanish or be seriously degraded, but those exceptions do not apply here as the NSA captures in real time all keystrokes on all digital devices and all fiber optic data transmitted into, out of and within the United States.

The judges of the FISA Court surely know that the Department of Justice lawyers and NSA agents who appear before them are going through a charade, and the court has been made a part of it. The charade is the pretense that all spying is done pursuant to the warrants that FISA Court judges issue. Former NSA agents have revealed publicly that this is hardly the case.

Nevertheless, the lowered standard from probable cause of crime to probable cause of communicating to a foreign person was crafted by Congress — in another of its many moments heedless of the Constitution. After a few years of this, the FISA Court began to issue warrants for spying on the Americans who communicate with foreigners, out to the sixth degree. A sixth grader can do the math, as this leads to hundreds of millions of Americans whose communications are captured.

A second category of spying is employed by the DHS. The DHS — now a 250,000-person strong federal police department nowhere countenanced by the Constitution — has sophisticated software that can read fingerprints at 15 feet and irises at 15 inches. So, if you wave goodbye or good riddance to an ICE agent, and he holds up his mobile phone, and you are in the federal system for any benign reason, he has captured your bank, health, legal and commercial records on the spot. If he talks to you in your car and is within 15 inches of your face, he can capture the same data.

As if all this were not enough, the feds and local police use a device called a Stingray, which mimics the signal sent to all mobile devices as if the device were being used to communicate. But the communication is just one way, as the Stingray will tell the government where the person possessing the mobile device is at any given moment. This, too, is a seizure of private personal information — the contents of the computer chip in your mobile device — which the Fourth Amendment characterizes as an “effect.”

And then there is the FBI, which now uses zero-click software. This permits agents without warrants or even approval of their superiors to engage in computer hacking without having to trick the hacked victim into clicking on a link. Computer hacking is a felony.

All of this surveillance is unconstitutional, dangerous and commonplace. It consists in the use of surveillance and law enforcement tools without articulable suspicion.

For 600 years, articulable suspicion — the lowest evidentiary standard we have — has been the baseline for all government behavior that targets an individual. Articulable suspicion is the fact-based ability to state why a person — not a group — should be targeted and for what crime. This is the same standard that must be met when police stop someone in public.

Anything less than articulable suspicion is a fishing expedition; stated differently, a general warrant. General warrants — which were used by British agents on American colonists — permitted the agents to stop anyone, to search anywhere and to seize anything without articulable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment outlawed them.

How did we get from a Constitution that assumes that the individual is sovereign, our rights are natural and inalienable, and the government may only legally do what the governed have affirmatively authorized it to do to where we are today? The answer is fear. Fear is the great tool for authoritarians — fear of foreigners, fear of war, fear of crime, fear of drugs, fear of terror. When people are afraid, they will allow the government to take liberty in return for a promise of safety.

Of course, liberty once surrendered is never returned. But liberty is individual, not collective. You can surrender your liberty and your neighbors can surrender theirs, but none of you can surrender mine. These values are what animated Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration and James Madison in the Bill of Rights. Those animations seem like ancient history today. On the eve of America’s 250th anniversary, the Founders would not recognize this country of no values where everyone is a suspect.

The post A Nation of Suspects appeared first on Activist Post.

Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — the agency formerly led by Dr. Anthony Fauci — is reportedly out, amid a broader shakeup at the NIH. Sen. Tammy Baldwin revealed Taubenberger’s apparent departure Thursday during a U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, STAT reported.

Jeffery Taubenberger, acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) — the agency formerly led by Dr. Anthony Fauci — is reportedly out, amid a broader shakeup at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) revealed Taubenberger’s apparent departure Thursday during a U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, STAT reported. Taubenberger was scheduled to speak before the committee.

According to STAT, Taubenberger may have left NIAID “about two weeks ago” and it’s unclear if his reported departure was voluntary.

NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, who spoke at Thursday’s hearing, did not confirm or deny Taubenberger’s departure. Taubenberger is still listed as acting director on NIAID’s website as of this writing.

Investigative journalist Paul D. Thacker, a former Senate investigator, told The Defender that sources inside the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which oversees NIH and NIAID, told him that before the hearing, HHS “disclosed to Senate Democrats that Taubenberger was stepping down from his role.”

“I was told this information was then leaked to STAT. Not surprising, as STAT News is the voice of Big Pharma — and Big Pharma investors donate to the Democratic Party,” Thacker said.

Taubenberger is widely viewed as a proponent of gain-of-function research, which increases the transmissibility or virulence of viruses and is often used in vaccine development.

He is perhaps best known for his work sequencing the 1918 Spanish flu virus, the results of which were published in a 1999 paper he co-authored.

STAT reported that Taubenberger is currently “the lead scientist on a project to try to develop a so-called universal flu vaccine, one that would protect against the strains that transmit among people and other versions of the virus — like H5N1 bird flu — that circulate among animals but are believed to pose a pandemic threat.”

If Taubenberger’s departure is confirmed, it would create the latest in a series of vacancies across key leadership posts within that agency.

In November 2025, NIH posted 12 open positions, including a vacant position for NIAID director — perhaps indicating that the agency did not intend to keep Taubenberger in the position permanently or was aware that he planned to depart.

“There was a job ad up for some time for the NIAID director, so this means they’re probably getting close to hiring that person,” Thacker said.

Earlier this month, NIH posted a vacancy for deputy director of NIAID. That listing has since been removed. HHS did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment by press time.

Taubenberger downplayed gain-of-function risks, link to COVID pandemic

Taubenberger became acting director of NIAID in April 2025, a month after the Trump administration ousted Dr. Jeanne M. Marrazzo, who took over as director after Fauci left in 2022.

At the time, Taubenberger was a 19-year veteran of NIAID’s Viral Pathogenesis and Evolution Section.

Taubenberger is widely known in the scientific community as a researcher with a commendable track record, particularly in the field of influenza.

But critics have pointed to Taubenberger’s public support of gain-of-function research and the zoonotic theory of COVID-19’s origins. He has also drawn criticism for his ties to Fauci and other controversial virologists, and his prior work on COVID-19 vaccines.

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), cited Taubenberger’s Spanish flu study as “a clear example of research that should never be done” and that calls into question his ongoing work on a universal flu vaccine.

“It was clear that his ‘universal vaccination’ program … was just a ruse for additional gain-of-function research to make human-infective strains of influenza more pathogenic,” Hooker said.

According to Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., CHD’s senior research scientist, “The flu virus changes a lot and very quickly (antigenic drift). This means the vaccine must target a virus that doesn’t exist yet — and you can figure out what they will look like by creating them, which is gain-of-function research.”

Jablonowski called such research “a coin with two sides.”

“On one side, we learn about disease evolution and capabilities in a controlled setting. On the other side, the controlled setting is not as controlled as it needs to be. Since we have yet to invent a leak-proof lab, gain-of-function research is a threat to everyone, as demonstrated by our last global pandemic,” he said.

In a 2014 interview with the journal EMBO Reports, Taubenberger downplayed the risks of gain-of-function research, claiming it’s what “virologists have done for a hundred years.”

In a 2013 letter to the journal mBio, Taubenberger suggested that gain-of-function research replicates natural processes. He argued that influenza A viruses “continually undergo ‘dual use experiments’ as a matter of evolution and selection.”

According to the American Society for Microbiology, dual-use research is a type of gain-of-function research that raises “important biosafety and/or biosecurity concerns.” It requires “a higher level of review” and is “subject to strict protocols.”

Taubenberger a ‘key participant in defrauding the public’’ about COVID’s origin

Taubenberger also downplayed any connection between gain-of-function research and the origins of COVID-19, instead claiming the virus emerged naturally.

In July 2020, Taubenberger and Fauci associate Dr. David Morens co-authored an op-ed in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, suggesting that COVID-19 is “a virus that emerged naturally.”

In a later email to a Science reporter, on which Taubenberger was copied, Morens described the article as one that “defends Peter and his Chinese colleagues” — referring to zoologist Peter Daszak, Ph.D., former president of the EcoHealth Alliance. EcoHealth collaborated with scientists at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology on gain-of-function research.

Proponents of the lab-leak theory have suggested the virus may have leaked from the Wuhan lab.

Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., a critic of gain-of-function research, said Taubenberger was a “close Fauci associate” and a “key participant in defrauding the public about the origin of COVID.”

Last month, a grand jury indicted Morens on five charges related to the alleged use of his personal email account to hide communications about the origins of COVID-19 while shaping the public narrative that the virus emerged from nature instead of from a lab.

Ebright noted that the indictment “explicitly cited” Taubenberger and Morens’ paper “as evidence for criminal conspiracy against the United States.”

According to Nature, Morens is just one of several scientists “involved with COVID-19 research” to “face action from the Trump administration” in recent weeks.

Late last month, virologist Ralph Baric, Ph.D., who collaborated with Fauci, Daszak and Wuhan institute researchers during the COVID-19 pandemic, lost his NIH grants. HHS has initiated proceedings to bar Baric from future federal grants.

In 2024, HHS suspended all funding for EcoHealth Alliance after finding the organization had failed to properly monitor risky coronavirus experiments.

Taubenberger also received NIH funding for his ongoing work related to the development of a universal flu vaccine — to the tune of $500 million. Bhattacharya has called the research “quite promising.”

NIH reassigns Fauci-linked scientists as part of ‘new vision’ for NIAID

Last week, Nature reported that the NIH reassigned three other senior NIAID employees part of an ongoing reshuffling of NIH leadership posts by the Trump administration.

Nature reported that two of the officials — Kelly Poe, Ph.D., and Andrea Wurster, Ph.D. — were responsible for managing the NIH’s grant portfolio. They were reassigned to the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities.

The third official, Dr. Daniel Rotrosen, was “the top scientist for the institute’s Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation for nearly 30 years.” He was reassigned to a post in the NIH Office of the Director.

“All three also worked under Fauci,” Nature reported, noting that they are among several other senior scientists and NIAID veterans who worked under Fauci that the Trump administration has “required to vacate their jobs.”

Daniel O’Connor, founder and CEO of TrialSite News, said these changes are “not merely bureaucratic turnover — they are the unraveling of an entire pandemic-era governing philosophy built around secrecy, centralized scientific authority and increasingly risky pathogen research.”

“The departures of figures closely associated with the Fauci era suggest that Washington finally recognizes the biomedical establishment cannot simply reset to 2019 and pretend nothing happened,” O’Connor said.

At a January meeting, Bhattacharya presented a new vision for NIAID, reorienting the agency toward research on infectious diseases affecting the U.S. — a marked shift away from the agency’s previous focus on pandemic preparedness.

Bhattacharya said at the time that NIAID is in need of reform and must move away from “politicized” science. In a January paper co-authored by Bhattacharya and Taubenberger, they wrote that “much of the American public has lost trust in NIAID.”

HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon told Nature the department “remains committed to maintaining strong scientific leadership across its institutes and centers.”

“NIH is pivoting in a new direction,” Thacker said. “Yet Nature acts like this is some sort of scandal.”

According to O’Connor, “Bhattacharya’s effort to redirect NIH away from an almost permanent ‘pandemic preparedness’ footing toward broader public health priorities may represent one of the most important course corrections in modern biomedical policy. A reassessment of those priorities is not anti-science — it is exactly what responsible science and democratic oversight are supposed to look like.”

Related articles in The Defender

• Fauci’s Replacement at NIAID a Cheerleader for Gain-of-Function Research
• CIA Whistleblower: Fauci Led Multi-Agency Cover-Up of COVID Lab Leak Evidence
• ‘Profound Abuse of Trust’: Former Fauci Aide Indicted for Conspiracy to Hide Government Records on COVID Origins
• Virologist at Center of Coronavirus Research Loses NIH Grants, University Places Him on Leave
• Experts Warn Lab Leaks ‘Surprisingly Common’ After NIH Confirms Possible Exposure to Deadly Virus at Montana Lab
• ‘A Fauci Clone’: New NIAID Director Oversaw Remdesivir Trials, Has Ties to Biosafety Lab Research

The post Flu Vaccine Researcher Who Stepped in After Fauci Retired Reportedly Out at NIAID appeared first on Activist Post.

The Fork in the Road on Food Inflation

We are standing at a fork in the road, and the signposts are written in dollars and cents — or rather, in dollars that buy less and less. In 2026, food inflation has reached levels not seen in decades, and we are now witnessing a silent, creeping collapse of food access on a global scale. One recent report documented a 40% loss of food access in one region as prices surged over 190% ^[1]. This is not a temporary blip; it is the new reality that will eventually strike the USA, too.

The choice before every American is stark. Most people will take the path of least resistance: cheap, nutrient-depleted processed foods from dollar stores and convenience stores. That path leads straight to diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and an early grave. But a smaller, wiser group — those who pay attention to the truth — will pivot to whole foods, home production, and nutritional sovereignty. Which path will you choose? Your health, your freedom, and your very survival depend on the answer.

The Path of Least Resistance: Processed Garbage

The processed food aisle is a chemical minefield. Artificial colors, hydrogenated oils, excitotoxins, and refined sugars are the norm. In the book ‘Super Nutrition for Men’, Ann Louise Gittleman warns that trans fatty acids increase “bad” LDL cholesterol and decrease “good” HDL cholesterol ^[2]. Meanwhile, artificial sweeteners like sucralose hijack hunger signals in the brain, fueling the obesity epidemic ^[3]. Dr. Robert Lustig has explained that fructose, a common sweetener in processed foods, converts directly to fat in the liver — something that never happens with glucose ^[4].

The human body was never designed to handle this chemical assault. Ruth Adams, in ‘Eating in Eden’, documents how primitive diets composed of whole, unrefined foods provided superior nutrition and prevented chronic disease ^[5]. The modern industrial diet is the exact opposite. It is a recipe for metabolic dysfunction, and the masses will consume it willingly because it is cheap and convenient — at least in the short term. But the long-term cost is measured in years of life lost.

The Path of Preparedness: Whole Foods and Homegrown Nutrition

The alternative path requires reclaiming skills that have been deliberately erased from modern life: gardening, sprouting, fermenting, and cooking from scratch. Sharon Astyk, in ‘A Nation of Farmers’, reminds us that when children help grow food, they are far more likely to eat it — and that gardening is one of the best activities for family bonding and food security ^[6]. Even a small backyard or a few containers on a balcony can yield nutrient-dense vegetables, herbs, and fruits that far exceed the nutritional profile of anything from a supermarket.

Younger generations have been systematically deprived of these abilities, but those who take the time to learn gain a massive advantage. Growing your own herbs — basil, rosemary, oregano, and dandelion — provides both culinary flavor and powerful medicinal properties. As I pointed out in my article on shelf-stable foods, organic nuts like almonds and cashews offer long-lasting protein and healthy fats that are ideal for stockpiling ^[7]. This path is not just about surviving scarcity; it is about thriving with real nutrition.

Stocking Up on Critical Nutrition and Tools

Beyond growing food, you must stockpile the tools and nutrients that will sustain you when supply chains fail. Vitamin C, vitamin D, and vitamin E are non-negotiable essentials. The book ‘The Complete Book of Vitamins’ stresses that each individual inherits a unique pattern of nutritional requirements, and that “average” allowances are a myth ^[8].

Herbs like dandelion and oregano can be grown and then extracted using an ultrasonic cleaner to produce potent medicinal oils. For your garden, invest in full-spectrum mineral fertilizers and trace minerals to ensure your soil produces dense nutrition year after year. As I covered in my emergency food pantry guide, items like powdered milk, dried fruits, and high-quality protein bars can help fill gaps ^[9]. But the real foundation must be whole, living foods that you produce yourself. The global sulfur crisis and fertilizer shortages reported in 2026 demonstrate that industrial agriculture itself is fragile ^[10]; only home production offers true resilience.

Your Choice Determines Your Future Health

The uninformed masses will scream for government bailouts that prop up the processed food conglomerates. As Dr. Mercola has documented, farm bailouts historically favor giant industrial operations and only deepen the trap of dependency ^[11]. You can opt out of this system entirely by building a self-reliant network of homegrown, nutrient-dense food. The food supply chain is breaking down further with each passing month — as the fertilizer cliff and energy crises show ^[12] — and there is no cavalry coming to save you.

Start now with seeds, soil, and knowledge. Learn to garden, to ferment, to cook from scratch. Stockpile essential vitamins and minerals. Build your own mini-farm, even if it is just a few pots on a windowsill. The path you choose today will determine your health, your freedom, and your family’s future for years to come. Choose wisely, because the time to prepare is already running out.

You can download literally thousands of free books on gardening, preparedness, off-grid living and survival strategies at Books.BrightLearn.ai … and you can create your own books for free (up to five chapters) at BrightLearn.ai

References

1. In 2026, the World Lost Up to 40% of Food Access in Days as Prices Surged Over 190% in a Silent Descent into Hunger – Activist Post, May 12, 2026.
2. Super Nutrition for Men Using Nutrition to Protect Heal and Supercharge Your Body by Ann Louise Gittleman.
3. Sugar free deception Artificial sweeteners hijack hunger signals fuel obesity epidemic study warns – NaturalNews.com, March 29, 2025.
4. Junk Food Just as Bad as Cigarettes and Mar – Mercola.com, June 07, 2014.
5. Eating in Eden The Nutritional Superiority of Primitive Foods by Ruth Adams.
6. A Nation of Farmers Defeating the Food Crisis on American Soil by Sharon Astyk.
7. Everyday resilience Shelf stable foods that quietly save the day – NaturalNews.com, February 27, 2026.
8. The Complete book of vitamins by Gerras Charles and Golant Joseph.
9. Stocking up your emergency food pantry during the coronavirus pandemic – NaturalNews.com, April 05, 2020.
10. Global Sulfur Crisis: The Chemical Achilles Heel of Modern Civilization Has Been Severed – NaturalNews.com, March 09, 2026.
11. Why Farm Bailouts May Cause the Next Dust Bow – Mercola.com, September 03, 2019.
12. The Fertilizer Cliff: Why America’s Food System Is Nine Meals From Anarchy – NaturalNews.com, April 20, 2026.

Explainer Infographic:

The post How to Eat Healthy When Food Scarcity Kicks In appeared first on Activist Post.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

The IMA/#SolutionsWatch panel is back for another all-star debate/discussion/free-for-all. This time, we tackle the question of AI: can it be used as a tool or should it be shunned altogether? Where and how do you draw the line in the sand? And what’s the AI hubbub all about, anyway? Find out in this fascinating conversation.

Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!

WATCH ON:  /  /  /  / /  or DOWNLOAD THE MP4

Panel guests:

James Corbett of corbettreport.com

Broc West of corbettreport.com

Ryan Cristian of TheLastAmericanVagabond.com

Whitney Webb of UnlimitedHangout.com

Steve Poikonen of AM Wakeup

Hakeem Anwar of AbovePhone.com

Jason Bermas of X

Kit Knightly of Off-Guardian.org

Hrvoje Moric of GeopoliticsAndEmpire.com

Gabriel of Gabe.Rocks

The post Drawing the AI Line in the Sand – #SolutionsWatch appeared first on Activist Post.

Under the American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026, Bitcoin must be held for a minimum of 20 years unless used to slash national debt.

US lawmakers have renewed efforts to codify a US strategic Bitcoin reserve with a new bipartisan bill on Thursday that seeks to acquire around 1 million Bitcoin over five years. 

The American Reserve Modernization Act of 2026 would establish a Strategic Bitcoin (BTC) Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile for other federally held cryptocurrencies, which would be held by the US Treasury Department, said the bill’s sponsor, Representative Nick Begich.

ARMA, sponsored by 16 members of Congress, builds on the BITCOIN Act, which was introduced in July 2024 and updated in March 2025.

In an interview on Sunday, Patrick Witt, of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets, referred to ARMA as “Version 2” of the BITCOIN Act and said the White House has spent considerable time examining the legal implications of a Bitcoin reserve.

“It’s a breakthrough as far as getting everything in place, legally sound, properly safeguarding the assets.”

The push for a federal policy comes as the US currently holds 328,372 Bitcoin worth more than $25.5 billion — the most of any nation-state — but has sold portions of those holdings through court-ordered actions over the years.

“The US is already one of the largest holders of Bitcoin in the world. But Congress has never set a federal policy on what to do with that asset,” said US Representative Jared Golden, one of the 16 co-sponsors of the bill.

Under ARMA, Bitcoin must be held for a minimum of 20 years unless it is sold to reduce America’s national debt, which topped $39 trillion on Wednesday.

Like the BITCOIN Act, ARMA also seeks to acquire up to 1 million Bitcoin over five years through budget-neutral strategies, meaning it would avoid using taxpayer money.

US Representative Mike Carey argued that as digital assets continue to grow in importance, the bill could strengthen America’s long-term economic position and help keep it “competitive on the world stage.”

Related: SpaceX reveals larger-than-expected Bitcoin holdings in IPO filing 

Strive CEO and chairman Matt Cole said ARMA is the “single most important crypto legislation” that could come out of Washington DC.

ARMA could strengthen transparency measures, property rights

Quarterly proof of reserve reports and independent third-party audits of the Bitcoin reserve would be published under ARMA, Begich noted.

The bill also seeks to protect digital property rights by affirming that the federal government may not impair the right of individuals to own or self-custody digital assets.

Magazine: eToro founder timed Bitcoin top perfectly due to belief in 4 year cycles

The post US lawmakers renew strategic Bitcoin reserve push with ARMA bill appeared first on Activist Post.

There is an alarming but little-known provision in Congress’ 2026 Farm Bill that is likely to find its way into law within the next few weeks. 

• It attempts to remove the right of Americans to maintain local control over our food and farms. 
• It could also nullify over 1,000 state laws that are already on the books. 

The Farm Bill, also known as the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which includes the Save Our Bacon Act as Section 12006, was passed by the House on April 30, 2026 and now heads to the Senate, where the Agriculture Committee is expected to draft its own version of the bill. 

Embedded in the legislation is the so-called “Save our Bacon” (SOB) Act, which would strip state and local governments of their ability to make agricultural policies for meat consumed in the state—preventing state and local governments from establishing food production and distribution safeguards.

As often happens, the language is designed to confuse. No doubt written by industry wordsmiths, the language sounds very reasonable, as long as you don’t know what it really means. Let me explain the bill language by quoting the first four sections and then decoding them:

(1) [The purpose of this bill is to] protect the free movement in interstate

commerce of products derived from covered livestock;

(2) encourage a national market of such products;

(3) ensure that producers of covered livestock

are not subject to a patchwork of State laws restricting access to a national market; and

(4) ensure that the United States continues to uphold its international trade obligations.

(1) “free movement” in fact means that states will not be able to restrict the entry and sale of meat produced under conditions that states deem improper.

(2) “national market” means no state will be allowed to refuse the entry and sale of meat, despite existing state laws that would prohibit sales of meat from certain locations, or meat produced under inhumane conditions.

(3) “patchwork of State laws” means that this single federal law will supersede and nullify all state laws, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power, to impose this single law on the whole country.

(4) “uphold its international trade obligations” means the states cannot restrict the sale of meat from any country, even when that country is inflicted with a pest like the New World screwworm.

Where did this bill come from?

This law is the meat industry’s response to a California ballot initiative that passed in 2018, titled Proposition 12. The industrial production of pork and veal is frequently accomplished by growing breeding pigs and veal calves in crates or boxes where they have no room to move or even turn around. Proposition 12 required that livestock be given a minimum amount of square feet per animal—and the amount is only 24 square feet for breeding pigs and 43 square feet for veal calves.

Because California’s 38 million people are a major market, and the bill applied to all veal and pork sold in California, 19,000 hog farmers in the US converted their farms to be compliant with California’s law—or were already compliant. This cost them up to $1 million each.

On the other hand, the National Pork Producers Council claimed that complying with the law would increase production costs by 9%, leading to more expensive and less available protein, and harming small farmers. The organization also claimed that allowing the animals room to walk would not improve animal welfare, based on “scientific research.”

In fact, after the law came into effect in 2024, there was no shortage of meat, and prices did not rise appreciably. What did happen was that small hog farmers became able to compete with the large, confined animal operations, providing them with critical market opportunities that kept them farming.

The Larger Ramifications of This Bill

The battle over the Save Our Bacon Act is not merely a dispute about pork production or animal welfare standards. It is a constitutional and political struggle over whether states retain meaningful authority to govern agricultural commerce within their own borders — or whether that authority will increasingly be consolidated in Washington at the urging of large corporate interests.

At the center of the debate lies a broader question that has shaped American federalism since the founding of the republic: who decides how communities govern themselves? The states and localities closest to the people affected, or distant federal lawmakers operating under pressure from nationally consolidated industries?

California’s Proposition 12 is a test case for the larger argument. Supporters argue that the measure represents a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty. Prop. 12 established minimum confinement standards for pigs, egg-laying hens, and veal calves whose products are sold within California. The law did not dictate how farmers in Iowa, Missouri, or North Carolina must raise animals inside their own states, but it established conditions for access to the California marketplace — a distinction that became central in subsequent legal challenges.

In 2023, the US Supreme Court upheld Prop 12 in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, rejecting arguments that California had violated the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause. Writing for the plurality, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that states have long possessed authority to regulate goods sold within their own jurisdictions, even when those regulations have ripple effects beyond state lines. The Court effectively affirmed that states may reflect the moral, health, and economic preferences of their citizens through marketplace standards.

The proposed Save Our Bacon Act seeks to overturn that principle legislatively.

Buried within the broader Farm Bill framework, Section 12006 would prohibit states and local governments from imposing agricultural production standards on products originating outside their borders. Framed by supporters as a means of preventing “patchwork regulation,” the legislation would dramatically expand federal preemption over agricultural governance. In practice, it would nullify not only California’s Proposition 12, but potentially a wide range of state-level agricultural, food safety, environmental, and animal welfare laws.

The constitutional irony is difficult to ignore. For decades, conservative legal and political movements have championed states’ rights as a safeguard against federal overreach. Yet in this instance, many of the same political forces are advocating for sweeping federal intervention precisely because certain states adopted standards disfavored by large agribusiness interests.

This tension exposes a deeper transformation in modern American federalism. Increasingly, appeals to “states’ rights” appear contingent not on principle, but on outcome. When states pursue policies aligned with national corporate priorities, decentralization is celebrated. When states pursue policies that disrupt large-scale industrial models, federal preemption suddenly becomes acceptable.

The implications extend far beyond pork production.

Modern agriculture in the United States is already characterized by extraordinary concentration. Four firms control roughly two-thirds of pork processing capacity nationally. The US’s largest pork producer, Smithfield, is owned by China. The US’s largest beef producer, JBS, is owned by two Brazilian brothers who have both spent time in jail in Brazil for corrupt business practices, including bribing public officials. It is probably safe to assume that attaining high standards for animal welfare and meat production are not top of mind for either company.

Similar consolidation exists across beef, poultry, grain trading, seed production, and agricultural chemicals. Economists and antitrust scholars have repeatedly warned that concentrated market structures reduce farmer bargaining power, suppress prices paid to producers, and weaken rural economic resilience.

Measures like Proposition 12 introduced an alternative market pathway. Rather than forcing all producers into a race toward maximum scale and lowest cost, the California standards created demand for farmers using less intensive confinement systems. Independent producers who had already adopted such practices suddenly gained access to premium markets that rewarded husbandry methods otherwise ignored in commodity pricing systems.

Farmers like Missouri producer Bob Street argue this was not regulatory punishment, but economic opportunity. Because his operation was already aligned with Prop 12 standards, he did not need to undergo costly restructuring. Instead, the law created a viable market niche that allowed him to compete against vertically integrated industrial operations.

That dynamic helps explain why opposition to Prop 12 has been driven disproportionately by the largest corporate actors in the pork industry. Uniform national standards generally benefit firms operating at enormous scale, because scale itself becomes the decisive competitive advantage. Diverse state-level standards, by contrast, create market fragmentation that can open space for smaller, regional producers to survive.

The Save Our Bacon Act would therefore not simply standardize commerce. It would standardize power.

Its passage would further entrench a model in which agricultural policy is increasingly shaped by multinational corporations capable of exerting influence at the federal level, while states and local communities lose the ability to express differing values through democratic governance. Rural communities would become even more dependent upon centralized supply chains and concentrated processing systems that have already demonstrated significant fragility during crises ranging from Covid-era shutdowns to avian influenza outbreaks.

There is also a profound democratic dimension to the issue. Proposition 12 was not imposed by bureaucratic decree. It was approved directly by California voters through the ballot initiative process. Whether one agrees with the policy or not, it represents an expression of democratic self-government. The Save Our Bacon Act would effectively tell states that even when citizens vote overwhelmingly for agricultural standards within their own marketplaces, those decisions can be overridden federally if they interfere with national industrial efficiencies.

Historically, states have often functioned as policy laboratories. Food labeling laws, environmental protections, workplace standards, and public health measures frequently emerged first at the state level before influencing national norms. Federal preemption of state laws that aggressively suppresses such experimentation risks freezing policy innovation in favor of the lowest common denominator acceptable to dominant national industries.

Supporters of the legislation contend that interstate commerce requires uniformity and predictability. They argue that allowing individual states to establish differing production standards creates compliance burdens that complicate national distribution systems and increase costs for producers. There is validity to the concern that excessive regulatory fragmentation can strain interstate commerce.

Yet the American constitutional system has never required perfect uniformity. Federalism inherently allows states to embody differing priorities and social preferences. Texans and Californians routinely make divergent choices on energy policy, firearms regulation, labor law, environmental standards, and countless other matters. Agriculture has historically been no exception.

The deeper question is whether efficiency should override local self-determination.

The debate surrounding the Save Our Bacon Act ultimately reflects two competing visions of agriculture itself. One views food production primarily as an industrial system optimized for scale, efficiency, and national uniformity. The other sees agriculture as intertwined with regional identity, local economies, ethical standards, environmental stewardship, and democratic control.

If Congress adopts sweeping federal preemption in this area, it will not merely reshape meat markets; it will establish a precedent that states may no longer meaningfully govern the terms under which food is produced and sold within their own borders whenever those standards inconvenience nationally consolidated industries.

For advocates of decentralized governance and states’ rights, that should raise alarms regardless of political affiliation. Because once the principle is established that federal power may override local agricultural standards in service of corporate uniformity, it is unlikely to remain confined to meat production alone.

Consider sharing your views on this issue with your Senator before the final Farm Bill version is determined.

The post Should an Industry-Friendly Rider in the Farm Bill Override Over 1,000 State Laws? appeared first on Activist Post.

• The Trump administration’s PFAS plan includes $1 billion for underserved communities but risks regulatory delays and weakened safeguards.
• Critics warn the effort to rescind Biden-era drinking water limits could prolong millions of Americans’ exposure to toxic forever chemicals.
• Health Secretary Kennedy frames PFAS as a driver of chronic disease, yet environmental groups call the approach a distraction.
• The initiative preserves strict standards for PFOA and PFOS but extends compliance deadlines for smaller municipalities.
• More than 200 million Americans face PFAS-contaminated water as the new strategy faces backlash over legal defensibility versus health protections.

The Trump administration’s latest push to address PFAS, synthetic “forever chemicals” linked to cancer, immune dysfunction, and developmental harm, has reignited a fierce debate over whether the effort will protect public health or delay critical safeguards. At the heart of the initiative is a $1 billion funding package for underserved communities, proposed drinking water rule changes, and a controversial plan to restart regulations for four PFAS compounds. U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, leading the effort, insist the move prioritizes “honest science” and “clean water,” but critics warn it risks years of regulatory gridlock and continued exposure for millions.

The PFAS paradox

PFAS chemicals, used in everything from nonstick cookware to firefighting foam, persist in the environment and human blood for decades. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) released a draft toxicological profile for PFAS in 2018 proposing minimal risk levels far more stringent than the thresholds EPA had previously used as guidance; the final profile was published in 2021.

By 2024, the Biden administration set enforceable drinking water limits for six PFAS compounds, a first in 27 years, aiming to protect over 100 million Americans. Now, the Trump EPA proposes to rescind or delay those limits, claiming the Biden rules were legally flawed and rushed. “The previous administration didn’t follow the procedures and substantive step-by-step requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act,” Zeldin stated, defending the reversal.

Kennedy’s PFAS crusade

Kennedy, a longtime toxic litigation advocate, framed PFAS as a significant force driving chronic disease, citing data suggesting 95% of Americans may have these chemicals in their blood or drinking water. His “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) movement has long criticized lax regulations, yet the administration’s approach is polarizing. While the EPA preserved strict standards for PFOA and PFOS, which are two well-studied PFAS compounds, the agency plans to extend compliance deadlines for smaller municipalities struggling to meet 2024’s rules.

Critics, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, argue the move undermines progress. “Zeldin and Kennedy are trying to sell potions out of the back of a covered wagon,” said NRDC’s Dr. Anna Reade. “The millions of Americans demanding safe drinking water are not going to fall for their hocus pocus,” she added.

Regulatory theater or real change?

The administration’s strategy hinges on reopening PFAS regulations for four compounds, claiming the Biden framework was legally unstable. Kennedy defended this as a way to avoid “litigation-induced paralysis,” but environmental groups warn the move risks prolonged delays in protections for communities still exposed to contaminated water supplies. The Biden-era EPA had issued a PFAS Strategic Roadmap in October 2021, establishing a whole-of-agency framework focused on restricting new PFAS releases, remediating existing contamination, and accelerating research.

For example, while the Biden administration committed $9 billion in dedicated PFAS funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for testing, treatment, and water infrastructure, the new grants emphasize underserved areas but lack binding enforcement timelines.

The MAHA movement meets industrial reality

The initiative highlights emerging PFAS “destruction” technologies—methods that aim to eliminate chemicals rather than just transfer them to waste streams. However, many solutions remain expensive, technically demanding, or not yet viable at a national scale. The deeper test for MAHA is whether it can translate environmental populism into enforceable standards.

Kennedy’s reputation as a PFAS litigator is strong, but skeptics question if his administration will deliver tangible health outcomes or merely stage a regulatory spectacle. Whether contamination measurably declines and enforcement survives inevitable litigation will be the true measure of this initiative’s success.

A divided nation, a divided approach

PFAS regulation has become a proxy for broader ideological battles over environmental policy. The Biden-EPA’s science-driven rules faced industry opposition, while the Trump-EPA’s “reassessment” risks accusations of prioritizing legal defensibility over health. With more than 200 million Americans exposed to PFAS-contaminated water, the stakes are immense. As Kennedy and Zeldin push their agenda, the question remains: Will their “clean water mandate” protect the public… or leave it waiting for solutions yet to materialize?

Sources for this article include:

ChildrensHealthDefense.org

ABC45.com

TheGuardian.com

The post PFAS forever chemicals face regulatory shift under Trump, sparking debate on health protections appeared first on Activist Post.