RealClearWire—In 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency tried to make it harder for hospitals to obtain essential sterilized medical equipment by threatening to regulate the American industry out of business. Two years later, the EPA is finally safeguarding the medical equipment supply chain by rescinding a damaging and badly conceived rule.

The rule centers on a substance known as Ethylene Oxide. Although it causes cancer when inhaled at unsafe levels, EtO is a critical chemical used to sterilize half of all medical equipment such as bandages, pacemakers, and surgical kits that cannot withstand other sterilization methods. In a 2024 Final Rule, the EPA tried to force medical sterilization centers to build near-perfect infrastructure to reduce their EtO emissions to 0.1%. Under the previous standard, the

EPA allowed only 1% into the atmosphere. To meet the new, more stringent standard, the 2024 Final Rule mandated Permanent Total Enclosure requirements that the EPA is now acknowledging were too expensive and risked shutting down small sterilization facilities. Most PTE systems are custom-designed, and the EPA estimates the annualized costs to implement would be $9.4 million per year, spread across 28 facilities. For larger businesses, adding over $335,000 in annual compliance costs is manageable, but slapping on such a large expense on a small business risks driving them out of business.

PTE requirements have also never been tried on such a large scale. The 2024 Final Rule incorrectly assumed that PTE rules in small-scale food and candy packaging warehouses (which are often as small as an average living room) could be applied to facilities that are 25 to 50 times larger.

Forcing manufacturing buildings that span tens of thousands of square feet to redesign their sterilization facilities to comply with the new PTE rules would require months of facility shutdowns. This would put a major strain on medical supply chains by shuttering smaller sites that can’t handle that kind of delay. It would also prevent hospitals from procuring the sterilized tools and medical devices they need.

The 2024 rule was never implemented and was actually delayed due to industry concerns over its feasibility and the national security imperative to maintain the U.S. medical supply chain. Essentially, the EPA concluded that additional controls beyond existing standards would produce minimal risk reduction at substantial cost.

When Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, it recognized EtO as a hazardous chemical, while giving the EPA discretion on how to limit EtO emissions. When implementing the EtO regulations decades ago, the EPA originally ruled that the medical sterilization industry was not a significant source of these emissions, as part of its comprehensive plan to reduce EtO emissions nationwide.

Currently, there are only 88 commercial sterilization facilities in the entire U.S. Together, these 88 facilities account for less than 3% of total nationwide EtO emissions. When an industry that emits less than 3% of EtO is responsible for sterilizing 50% of the nation’s life-saving medical gear, as a matter of public health it is necessary to balance the needs of the medical supply chain against the minimal EtO emissions caused.

Finally, and most critically, there is no other immediate replacement chemical that can deeply sterilize sealed, bulk-packaged medical devices and supplies without destroying delicate plastics or electronics inside. Excessive regulation of an essential chemical may cause firms to relocate their operations abroad.

Regulating away the domestic use of the only currently known effective sterilization chemical in many contexts, for questionable environmental and health reasons, exposes U.S medical supply chains to unnecessary risks and artificially reduces economic competitiveness. One only needs to recall the supply shortages of personal protective equipment at the height of the recent COVID-19 pandemic, to appreciate the short-sightedness of regulating such an important medical industry overseas.

The EPA is right to reevaluate and rescind the 2024 Final Rule. Overly burdensome regulations would suffocate this vital industry and risk forcing a transition to foreign supply chains for medical sterilization when a domestic industry is already in place and flourishing. Removing this regulation will restore a balanced, scientific evidence-based approach to rulemaking that will boost economic growth, maintain existing environmental protections for surrounding communities, and safeguard our country’s medical supply chains.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

U.S. — With several areas across the globe battling record high temperatures, Americans have graciously offered to help by turning their air conditioning down to 65 degrees and opening the windows.

The media and Canadian government discussions around the U.S-Canada trade and economic relationship, specifically as they pertain to the USMCA (CUSMA) continue to be fascinating. As we noted over a year ago, the expressed perception from the Canadian side was remarkably disconnected from the most likely scenario. The level of entrenched disbelief that the U.S. […]

The post A Shift Begins? Canadian Media Start Discussing Six-Month USMCA Termination Possible appeared first on The Last Refuge.

An Arizona election policy could make it more difficult for law enforcement, service members, or other uniform-wearing individuals to vote, according to a federal lawsuit.

Democrats are frequently eager to use the phrase “voter suppression” when talking about voter ID or other election procedures to verify voter eligibility. But Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, issued an Election Procedures Manual for the state that the Pima County Republican Party argues would make it more difficult for people wearing uniforms to vote.

According to the party’s complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, the language in question regards what the secretary of state’s office says is meant to deter voter intimidation. The portion of the manual at issue concerns prohibited behavior at the polls such as “impersonating” law enforcement, but then it adds, “or otherwise wearing … uniforms.” 

The plaintiffs agree with rules against impersonating law enforcement, but contend the vague language, such as “or otherwise,” is broad enough to give election workers latitude to determine whether even those authorized to wear a uniform could intimidate other voters.

The problem is not theoretical, said Marshall Yates, strategic counsel for the Oversight Project, a watchdog group that is representing the Pima County GOP. He notes a Tucson, Arizona, police officer testified in the case that election workers gave him a tough time voting in the 2024 election because he was in uniform and had a gun holstered, though the officer was eventually able to vote.

“This EPM is designed to discourage more people from voting in person so the state can shift to mail voting,” Yates told the Daily Signal. “There is a clear ideologically based anti-police, anti-military bias. A police officer voting in uniform should be the least intimidating thing. The aim is for law enforcement to have no choice but to vote by mail because they won’t be welcome at polls.”

Yates said the Election Procedures Manual gives so much discretion to election officials that they could prohibit uniformed firefighters, EMTs, or security guards from voting, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

“It’s all up to the election official to decide what constitutes intimidation. It’s far too much discretion,” Yates said.

The state’s Election Procedures Manual has a section about clear cases of voter intimidation.

Specifically on the contested point, the manual says, “In addition to the potentially intimidating conduct outlined above, the following may also be considered intimidating conduct inside or outside the polling place,” before listing conduct such as aggressive behavior, threatening other voters, or blocking an entrance.

It then lists as potential intimidating conduct, “Impersonating a law enforcement officer or otherwise wearing clothing, uniforms or official-looking apparel intended to deter, intimidate, or harass voters.”

This could affect local police, as well as federal law enforcement, such as Border Patrol agents or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents working in Arizona who might opt for in-person voting during a lunch break or on their way home from work.

“Any rule that could potentially prevent our brave law enforcement officers, or any American citizen, from exercising his or her right to vote is wrong,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told the Daily Signal. The agency is not a party to the litigation.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi, an appointee of President Donald Trump, presided over the case. Pima County includes the Tucson area.

A spokesperson for the Arizona secretary of state’s office declined to comment for the record on the case to the Daily Signal since it is pending litigation. But in May, Calli Jones, a spokeswoman for the office, told the Arizona Daily Star the Election Procedures Manual does not automatically bar someone in uniform from voting; she said that uniformed police officers do not have to change before voting and can carry a firearm if uniformed and wearing a badge.

“The guidance we provided is to assure that there is no intimidating environment that voters have to participate in,” Jones told the Daily Star.

Kathleen Winn, chairwoman of the Pima County Republican Party, also declined to comment for the record because the case is pending litigation.

Plaintiffs are also challenging the manual’s new limits on electioneering outside a polling place, which extend beyond the statute. State law stipulates no electioneering for or against a candidate within 75 feet of a polling place. But the manual says, “Additionally, no electioneering may take place outside the 75-foot limit if it is audible from a location inside the door to the voting location.”

The Pima County Republican Party contends a lack of objective definition of what is audible, or a defined decibel level, is a violation of the First Amendment and could again leave too much discretion to election officials at a polling place.

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION— In a late-night speech capping the semiquincentennial anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, President Donald Trump invoked familiar themes of patriotism, bravery, and sacrifice to declare that the story of the United States of America is worth cherishing while being far from over.

Though the threat of severe weather delayed the planned conclusion to Independence Day festivities in the nation’s capital, large crowds of determined Americans and visitors were observed surging towards the National Mall to view what the president teased as a record-breaking fireworks display, if not also his speech. The president, originally expected to give remarks around 10 p.m. EDT, took the stage at 11:15 p.m.

“That show tonight, you heard it was over. And what happened? You came back,” Trump observed. “And this American flag still waves, proud and free and beautiful. We have thrived and flourished because our founders were great. Our cause was just. Our people are brave. Our culture is exceptional. And our destiny is written by God.”

“And as we can see here tonight, after 250 years, the spirit of 1776 still lives within us all,” he continued. “It still roars in the hearts of our nation’s capital. It still burns in the heart of every patriot, thunders through every city and town. And it still lights the entire world with the glow of American liberty. And there is nothing like that.”

Punctuating the president’s remarks were numerous living and material manifestations of that enduring spirit.

The commander in chief, in a characteristic flair, displayed “flags that have seen a lot,” including one of the nation’s earliest, dating back to 1777. Bearing 13 stars and 13 stripes to represent the number of American colonies who declared their independence from Great Britain 250 years earlier, Trump highlighted a “real deal” flag which flew victorious at the Battle of Saratoga in New York. The battle, considered a turning point in the Revolutionary War, was a key American victory which secured a French alliance.

“One out of every 100 Americans gave their lives in the fight for independence,” he reflected while noting the flags “remind us of who these heroes were and what they gave us.”

The president then recalled the heroism of William Carney, who escaped slavery to become a Union soldier in the 54th Massachusetts Infantry during the Civil War. Carney was participating in the 1863 assault on Fort Wagner, South Carolina when his regiment’s color bearer was shot. Despite suffering multiple severe wounds, he kept the flag raised. When he returned to Union lines, Carney famously stated, “The old flag never touched the ground!” Carney became the first African American to be awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Likewise, the flag which draped over the casket of Abraham Lincoln in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall was displayed before Saturday’s crowd. Trump then noted the bravery and selflessness of Vietnam veteran and Medal of Honor recipient Colonel Parris Davis as he saluted the colors. Davis, then a captain with the 5th Special Forces Group, led U.S. advisers and an inexperienced South Vietnamese company in a June 18, 1965 assault against a Viet Cong regional headquarters. Facing heavy fire after the strike, Davis refused multiple medical evacuations after being wounded to stay with his troops and directed a counterattack while preventing the loss of any American soldiers. He famously said, “Sir, I’m just not gonna leave. I still got an American out there.”

Trump noted 11 Gold Star families were present at the night’s event and that he would present medals to them recognizing the sacrifice of their loved ones.

“In this special 4th of July, we give you our undying gratitude and promise to redeem the sacrifice of your heroes by preserving the America that they love,” he said. “They loved our country. They sacrificed, they sacrificed it all, and these people have sacrificed at all. They’ve been through hell. We love you. Thank you very much. Thank you.”

Other flags on display for the night’s celebration included one of the first flags to be carried as the fledgling U.S. sought to expand its borders towards the west: one from the famous Lewis and Clark expedition from 1803. In addition to the first flag to fly over the Brooklyn Bridge in New York was the banner which flew atop the U.S. Navy’s flagship after sinking the Spanish fleet to the bottom of Manila Bay in the Phillipines during a May 1, 1898 battle of the Spanish-American War.

Drawing especially enthusiastic support was Ken Schubring, a 103-year-old World War II veteran who saluted the flag recovered from the U.S.S. Arizona — “a symbol of American defiance” — which was sunk during the Japanese attack on Pear Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Schubring, then 19 years old, was serving as an airplane mechanic at Wheeler Field, Oahu, Hawaii and resolved to strike back. He made good on his ambitions to fly B-29 bombers in the Pacific theater, serving from the war’s first day to its last.

Saluting one of the most iconic flags in American history, the one famously raised on Feb. 23, 1945, during the Battle of Iwo Jima, was 101-year-old Marine Corporal Don Graves, one of the last survivors of that brutal Feb. 19 – March 26 amphibious assault.

Likewise, the American flag which flew atop the first landing craft of the Allies’ D-Day invasion of Normandy was saluted by 107-year-old Navy Lieutenant Arthur Rose, “who commanded 36 landing craft as part of the largest naval armada in history.”

Trump then recalled a story of a mother and daughter in Nazi-occuppied Belgium stitching together a homemade American flag as a plea for liberation in 1944. On the day they were freed, they gifted the flag to an American soldier who’s grandfather was the famous Francis Scott Key, who authored “The Star-Spangled Banner,” the U.S. National anthem. Present decades later to salute the flag was the next generation of the Key family, including Major Kyle Key, an Army veteran of 23 years.

Trump then turned to another battle against a threat to America’s founding principles of freedom and self-determination: communism.

“Ever since, the entire world has been on notice that Americans will never let anyone take our freedom away — won’t happen,” he declared. “America will never be a communist country — won’t happen. Communism is a loser, and it always will be. The communist system is the opposite of the American system, and the communist system has never worked.”

“Our warriors did not fight communism on battlefields across the world, only to have that menace rear its ugly head right back here in America,” Trump continued. “We’re not going to let it happen. We like to stop a threat like that immediately and before it begins. It’s like a cancer: you got to cut it out … fast.”

The president also championed flags from America’s technological advancement, from the first flight to ambitions to set foot upon Mars. Joining the crew of NASA’s Artemis II mission, which carried four astronauts farther away from the Earth than any other attempt, was Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt. Schmitt, who had just reached 91 of age on July 3, was the twelfth and final person to walk on the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972.

These pioneers saluted the flag flown on the Wright brothers’ airplane which marked the beginning of air travel, piloted by Orville Wright on Dec. 17, 1903. Trump then revealed the flag which would be brought upon the planned Artemis IV mission to return Americans to the lunar surface was also on display, having been flown atop the U.S. Capitol earlier that day.

“Americans must never forget that we are a historic and heroic people, with a heroic spirit and a heroic purpose on this beautiful earth of ours,” Trump declared. “We are made the courage and the fire and the flesh and the blood of the best and the bravest people this world has ever produced. We are the bravest and the best. Tonight we pledge allegiance to the flag they gave us. And we say, ‘God bless the immortal patriots of 1776,’ and ‘Long live the cause of independence!’ May it reign forever and ever and ever.”

“At 250 years old, we may be the oldest constitutional republic on earth, but our country is just getting started because the best is yet to come, he added. “This is only the dawn of the golden Age of America.”

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

For many families, summer often means scoping out childcare options while parents continue to work. Some families in low-income neighborhoods turn to Head Start, a program whose very name suggests children should expect to finish their time at one of these centers better prepared for school. But today, after more than 60 years and over $240 billion in spending, the program has fallen well short of that goal.   

A new Heritage Foundation report reveals a harsh reality: Head Start centers are overregulated, unsafe, expensive, and fail to deliver lasting results for children.  

Head Start sits under a thick, strict set of rules. A recent analysis compared federal Head Start rules with state childcare rules. It found that nearly all Head Start settings are stricter than state settings. 

Moreover, the program is also burdened with bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to help children and families. The second Trump administration is trying to help. In May 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services released a notice of proposed rulemaking to scrap burdensome wage and benefit rules from the Biden administration.  

The Biden administration rule imposed sweeping wage and benefit mandates, adding an estimated $2.3 billion in costs. The Trump administration has since proposed rolling back those requirements, noting that the “requirements are beyond statutory authority, in addition to being overly prescriptive and costly.”  

On top of that, taxpayers spend more per child for Head Start than for many other childcare options. A recent report from HHS found that the median spending per child is $20,294 in Early Head Start and $14,532 in Head Start preschool, which serves children ages 3 to 5. These sums match or exceed the cost of many private centers.  

In some states, Head Start spending even tops K-12 public school spending per pupil. In Idaho, federal taxpayers spend $20,400 on the average Head Start slot, compared with approximately $13,300 in average public K-12 spending per child. In Utah, the average Head Start figure is more than $18,600, which is $4,500 more than the state’s average K-12 per-pupil. 

Given these costs, taxpayers and families should expect strong outcomes. But the most rigorous research shows otherwise.  

Congress mandated a large-scale evaluation of Head Start in 1998 using randomized controlled trials, the gold standard in social science. The results, released in 2010 and 2012, found that the program produced little to no lasting academic or behavioral benefits for participating children. More recent studies that have found positive outcomes used less rigorous research designs than the longitudinal study that began in 1998. 

Beyond effectiveness, Head Start has also faced serious concerns about oversight and child safety. In 2011, the HHS Office of Inspector General reviewed 24 grantees covering more than 175 centers in nine states. None fully met federal or state rules for protecting children from unsafe materials or equipment. Almost 90% failed to fully follow rules for criminal background checks or child abuse registry checks.  

Heritage research from 2020 highlighted media reports of abuse at Head Start centers in seven states, five of which were not included in the 2011 report. A 2022 OIG report found that roughly one in four grantees had instances in which children were abused, left alone, or sent home with the wrong adult.  

Policymakers should sunset Head Start and prioritize policy changes that give parents more choices and improve transparency. The Trump administration should continue to reduce regulations, including fewer degree and credit-hour requirements for teachers and changes to staff-to-child ratios and group-size limits. HHS officials should also consider regulatory reforms to lower program costs and improve accountability. The reforms in the White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget request and in the administration’s most recent notice of proposed rulemaking are a good start.  
 

Congress should end the program, but federal officials can improve options for children and families through deregulation in the meantime. 

Sunday on ABC's "This Week," New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman said President Donald Trump had been "remarkably unconcerned about the midterms."

The post NYT’s Haberman Claims Trump ‘Remarkably Unconcerned About the Midterms’ appeared first on Breitbart.

Wikipedia’s article about the tribute song “We Are Charlie Kirk” was included in the front page’s “Did you know” section in mid-May after receiving “Good article” status, one of the site’s highest quality rankings. Its front page entry noted an outlet calling it the “worst song” of 2025. The Wikipedia article about the song memorializing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk following his assassination last year denigrates conservatives who appreciated the song’s tribute to Kirk with particular focus on its suspected AI origins.

The post Wikipedia Featured Article Mocking Charlie Kirk Tribute Song on Front Page as ‘Good Article’ appeared first on Breitbart.