Former President Joe Biden bragged about shutting down the U.S. oil industry during a visit with legendary comedian and, ironically, car enthusiast Jay Leno.

The post I Did That! Joe Biden Brags About Killing the U.S. Oil Industry in Video with Jay Leno appeared first on Breitbart.

Like they all had read President Donald Trump’s seminal tome “Art of the Deal,” Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger, state Sen. Louise Lucas, and Speaker of the House Don Scott had us all believing that the Virginia Democrats were in disarray. Then, as Lee Corso used to say on ESPN “College GameDay,” “Not so fast, my friend!”

First, Spanberger agrees to put the marijuana retail market she vetoed in the budget. This was something she was decrying just a week ago!

Then, somehow, the owner of that big THC store in Portsmouth—aka Lucas—drops her insistence that data centers in Virginia “pay their fair share” by reneging on $1.6 billion worth of sales tax relief on computers and peripherals purchased for their operations in the commonwealth.

Did they think just because Lucas didn’t announce it that we would miss Tuesday’s “new” Senate budget proposal with mitigatable “impact fees” and not a word about the “Data Center Diva” or “Amazon Don,” who had just announced that stores like Lucas’ could start selling “whacky tobacky” next year?

Everyone gets what they want.

What? Didn’t Lucas start a crusade against the evil data center scourge? No, like Saul Alinsky’s Rule 9, “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Just two years earlier, there was a member of the General Assembly battling with Lucas over the data center sales tax relief, but it was Del. Tom Garrett, and he was the one trying to end it, while she had filed for its reauthorization.

Tom Clancy couldn’t write this into a “Jack Ryan” novel.

What did happen, again, was the Republicans missed an opportunity to present their own option of a spending plan while the street theater was still being played out—to make a statement on principles regarding priorities and good governance.

“Go on the record and get some press coverage. Then next year we would have had something to run on,” Garrett told me.

I guess next time, right?

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Knicks guard and recently crowned NBA champion Jose Alvarado left open the possibility that a White House visit could be a part of his team's future plans.

The post WATCH: Knicks’ Jose Alvarado Speaks on Possibility of White House Visit After NBA Finals Win appeared first on Breitbart.

As scrutiny surrounds the abortion pill, the Center for Christian Virtue is calling on U.S. attorneys in Ohio to use federal law to take action against mail-order distribution.

Aaron Baer, president of the organization, cited the Comstock Act in his letters to Dominick Gerace, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Ohio, and David Toepfer, U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio.

The 1873 federal law bans the mailing or shipping of “obscene” materials, including abortion-related items. “The statute is unambiguous; it does not contain an exception for FDA-approved drugs, for physician supervision, or for states that have chosen to permit abortion. It says what it says,” Baer’s letters read.

Enforcing the law is “the performance of your sworn duty,” Baer wrote.

The letters also took issue with the lack of enforcement, with Baer noting prosecutorial discretion to not enforce provisions is “a policy choice,” rather than the statute being unenforceable or unconstitutional. “Courts have not struck down the Comstock provisions,” Baer wrote.

The letters ask the U.S. attorneys to open investigative inquiries into mail-order abortion providers in or from their district, coordinate with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and other federal agencies, pursue prosecution, and “make clear to providers that the era of consequence-free Comstock violations has ended.”

Peter Range, Center for Christian Virtue senior fellow for strategic initiatives, told the Daily Signal that “none of that is being done right now.”

“This is about law and order,” Range said, speaking about the group’s dedication to the issue.”

“But that principle of law and order should apply to the criminal enterprise of shipping these dangerous abortion drugs across state lines in our own country,” Range added. These words echo concerns from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a Louisiana abortion case.

Range confirmed that enforcing the Comstock Act “would not conflict with” the pro-abortion ballot initiative that Ohio passed in 2023, as his group’s demand involves “enforcing federal law.”

The use of the abortion pill now accounts for 63% of abortions performed, as a growing share is shipped across state lines.

Abortion pill mail orders have impacted Ohio directly. Dr. Hassan-James Abbas, a Toledo physician, will be sentenced next week for forcing his then-pregnant girlfriend to ingest abortion pills he purchased online using his ex-wife’s information.

Range also brought up a case involving Columbus, where 911 was called after a father allegedly held his daughter down and tried to get her to take abortion pills. Range cited these examples to show how “these are not just hypotheticals.” He also used them to illustrate how “dangerous” it is that these pills are “so easily accessible.”

The lack of doctor involvement creates further safety concerns. It is “incredibly important” for a woman to see a doctor beforehand, Range stressed.

Women need an in-person appointment to confirm their pregnancy, indicate how far along they are, and make sure they are not facing an ectopic pregnancy, which this method will not treat. There might also be other risk factors at play, Range said, including blood-clotting disorders or allergies to medication, as well as the need to remove an IUD.

The method also carries with it high complication rates. Range referenced numbers from the Ohio Department of Health, which showed 41 women experienced abortion complications in 2023, with those numbers increasing each year.

“This is not a safe procedure,” Range stressed. “This is a procedure that’s sending women … into the hospital, particularly, because again, there’s no doctor involved. It’s just anybody can order these online and take them.”

The procedure involves a woman taking a dose of mifepristone, followed by another dose 24-48 hours later. After the baby is starved of nutrients, the woman will experience cramping and contractions to expel her dead child at home without medical supervision.

“Women are experiencing what really amounts to crime scenes … in their bathrooms,” Range said.

Although the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion pill method in 2000 for up to seven weeks, that method was expanded to 10 weeks in 2016.

Most women experience abdominal pain and may also experience nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and a headache. Women may need surgery if the method is incomplete. 

In an April 2025 study of insurance claims from 800,000 women prescribed mifepristone for their abortions from 2017-2023, there was a 10.9% chance of women experiencing infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days. These adverse events are 22 times higher than what the Food and Drug Administration reported.

Not long after former FDA Director Marty Makary was ousted from his position last month, the FDA announced it would move forward with a study on abortion pill safety.

The Federal Trade Commission and four attorneys general filed a groundbreaking lawsuit Wednesday, aiming to hold the World Professional Association for Transgender Health accountable for allegedly deceptive trade practices, an action that may dismantle the child gender mutilation pipeline.

WPATH may not be a household acronym, but this activist group masquerading as a health authority has hoodwinked the medical establishment into enabling one of the worst medical scandals of our time.

As the lawsuit explains, WPATH claims that experimental transgender medical interventions such as “puberty blockers,” cross-sex hormones, and surgeries—which all attempt to make boys appear to be girls or vice versa—are “medically necessary” to prevent suicide.

WPATH allegedly hides the fact that there is no evidence to back up the claim that girls or boys who express discomfort with their sex characteristics will commit suicide without such interventions. (A Department of Health and Human Services peer-reviewed study concluded that there was “extremely weak evidence” for any benefit from these interventions.)

WPATH also allegedly falsely claims that its “standards of care” represent scientifically based expert consensus. Finally, it allegedly hides the fact that these interventions cause serious side effects.

These deceptive practices promote the sex-rejecting procedures euphemistically described as “gender-affirming care,” causing great harm, according to the lawsuit. WPATH presents itself as the expert, and medical authorities, insurance companies, and parents have cited it as such.

WPATH’s influence has created a booming medical industry. The lawsuit notes that the first U.S. pediatric medical transition clinic opened in 2007, and by 2015, the number of such clinics grew to 41. Between 2017 and 2021, the number of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent identifying with the gender opposite one’s biological sex) nearly tripled, from 15,000 to 42,000.

Notably, WPATH’s latest “Standards of Care” edition, published in 2022, removed age limitations for controversial procedures, including breast amputation and penis removal. The lawsuit quotes one WPATH leader who admitted to “struggl[ing] to find any sound evidence-based argument(s) underpinning” the change.

The lawsuit cites numerous side effects from the transgender interventions WPATH supports. The side effects of “puberty blockers”—drugs that law enforcement uses to chemically castrate sex offenders—include hot flashes, lethargy, and cognitive problems. The side effects of cross-sex hormones include mood disturbances, vocal pain, pelvic pain, clitoral discomfort, vaginal pain, and erectile pain. The side effects of breast amputations, often euphemistically described as “top surgery,” include the inability to breastfeed, nerve damage, and necrosis of the nipples.

“Children, but especially their parents, must have complete and truthful information when making decisions to purchase medical services,” FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson said in a statement on the lawsuit. “For decades, the FTC has taken action against entities that make deceptive and unsubstantiated health-related claims. The complaint filed today reflects that same long-standing mandate: when an entity makes a claim about a medical treatment, the claim must be truthful, evidence-based and not misleading.”

In the lawsuit, the FTC—joined by Attorneys General Cori Mills (Alaska), Brenna Bird (Iowa), Michael Hilgers (Nebraska), and Ken Paxton (Texas)—alleges three major violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. Plaintiffs claim WPATH violated the act by engaging in deceptive claims regarding the efficacy of pediatric medical transition, by misrepresenting the nature of the “Standards of Care,” and by failing to disclose side effects. The lawsuit also claims these deceptive practices violated consumer protection laws in each of the four states.

For its part, WPATH claimed that the Trump administration “abused” its authority by aiming to “interfere with Americans’ rights to seek and obtain the healthcare that should be decided between a patient and their physician.” WPATH noted the Federal Trade Commission’s previous request for information, which a federal judge struck down.

The pro-transgender group panned the lawsuit as an “end-around,” describing it as “baseless.” WPATH further claimed that the Federal Trade Commission is not a medical provider and “has no place interfering” with medical decision-making.

James Boasberg, chief judge for the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia, blocked the Federal Trade Commission from requiring WPATH to hand over documents, ruling that the commission’s order involved retaliation for WPATH’s speech, protected by the First Amendment. This order does not apply to the new lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas.

Contrary to WPATH’s claims, the lawsuit does not aim to interfere with patients’ right to health care, but with WPATH’s own alleged misrepresentations in advocating for sex-rejecting procedures on minors.

If WPATH does not want to face accusations about systemically deceiving Americans about transgender “medicine,” perhaps it should reconsider systematically deceiving Americans about transgender “medicine.”