Connect with us

Brownstone Institute

Assange, Elon, and the News Not Fit to Print

Published

8 minute read

From the Brownstone Institute

“We are talking here about something more sinister than bias, and more than the incompetence of this venue or that. It looks highly coordinated.”

With the death of the daily paper, few notice that the New York Times still maintains its censorious stamp of “All the News That’s Fit to Print” at the top left corner of the front page. One can’t help but notice the stories deemed unworthy of the Times’ blessing of “news that’s fit to print.”

In two weeks, Julian Assange will have what may be his last chance to oppose his extradition to the United States, where he faces over 100 years in prison for publishing verified evidence of American war crimes. The most effective journalist in the English-speaking world faces life imprisonment for uncovering government corruption, but the New York Times, CNN, and Fox News have not run a story on his case in the last month.

Assange is a political prisoner who the global security apparatus has worked to kill through ten years of confinement. During his seven-year detention in London’s Ecuadorian embassy, the CIA plotted his assassination, intelligence agencies spied on his conversations with his attorneys, and Western governments denied him due process. He has spent nearly five years at HMP Belmarsh, “the Guantanamo Bay of Britain,” but our media establishments evidently do not consider his impending fate worthy of reporting.

The conspicuous lack of curiosity extends to any stories that challenge pre-ordained narratives. Exactly one year ago, Seymour Hersh reported that President Biden and the United States are responsible for destroying Nord Stream 1 and 2, Russian natural gas pipelines, in what amounted to the greatest eco-terrorism attack in world history. If true, it would mean American forces deliberately sabotaged the primary source for our European allies’ energy dependence.

But there’s been very little follow-up in the West. The New York Times offered an editorial shrug, with its latest report coming from 10 months ago noting the “sabotage remains unsolved.” “Green” advocacy groups have not thrown food at Davos leaders or poured soup on NATO officers for their alleged role in polluting the Baltic Sea.

Government agencies appear similarly incurious regarding an overt act of war. Hersh writes:

There is no evidence that President Biden, in the sixteen months since the pipelines were destroyed, has ‘tasked’—a word of art in the American intelligence community—its experts to conduct an all-source investigation into the explosions. And no senior German leader, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who is known to be close to President Biden, has made any significant push to determine who did what.

Recently, we learned that media blackouts extend to our most pressing domestic issues.

National outlets including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, NBC, and PBS responded with silence last week as the greatest constitutional crisis since the Civil War unfolded at the Southern border. No major outlet covered how the Governor of Texas dismissed the President of the United States, defied the Supreme Court, and accused political opponents of facilitating a national invasion.

Jailing journalists. International sabotage. Domestic standoffs. These topics are not just important; they are riveting. A media outlet determined to expand its market share would be sure to cover these events and capture the chasmic void left by their competitors’ dereliction.

But, as Jeffrey Tucker wrote in response to the blackout on the border crisis: “We are talking here about something more sinister than bias, and more than the incompetence of this venue or that. It looks highly coordinated.” Stifling unapproved stories is a central feature, not an error, of the system. “The manufacturing of consent is not spontaneous but rather has a manufacturer, a real engineer working behind the scenes (such as the Trusted News Initiative).”

The establishment does not hide these topics from you for the tranquility of your mind; rather, it is an ongoing pattern of deception, distracting you from the usurpation of your most cherished rights through mind-numbing blather.

But there is hope. We are learning in real time why the establishment holds such hatred for Elon Musk. Right now, he is the sole force resisting the cultural orthodoxy spearheaded by the US Security State, the same hegemon responsible for the silence surrounding Assange and the Nord Stream attack.

Despite the deliberate misrepresentations surrounding the “border security bill” coming from the Wall Street Journalthe New York Times, and cable news, the free flow of information on X (formerly known as Twitter) has stopped a bill that would codify the entry of over 1.5 million illegal immigrants per year.

Two years into the war in Ukraine, Americans will finally hear an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, again on X, from Tucker Carlson.

Just one source of dissent – a minuscule force compared to the hegemony of cable news, legacy media, Meta, the US Security State, NGOs, academia, and their international allies – was powerful enough to stop our leaders from codifying the invasion at the Southern border into law.

Musk’s enemies have responded with scorn. Just as they weaponized the legal system to silence and jail Assange, international forces seek to abolish X’s stand against informational tyranny. The EU hopes to sanction Tucker Carlson for interviewing Putin and impose speech codes on X through the Digital Services Act. The Biden Administration has leveraged the power of the Department of Justice to attack Musk and his corporate interests for his disobedience to the regime.

It will be up to individuals and decentralized groups like Brownstone to fight the struggle against the attempted tyranny over the minds of men. It will be our obligation to shine light on the news that the establishment deems not fit to print.

This is the path toward change. The driving force of history is not impersonal but rather comes down to the actions of people informed by the beliefs they hold. This is why governments throughout history have placed such a high priority on controlling the public mind.

Right now, we have a real chance – perhaps a brief window of opportunity – to make a real difference that can secure a future of freedom. We must seize the moment.

Author

  • Brownstone Institute

    Brownstone Institute is a nonprofit organization conceived of in May 2021 in support of a society that minimizes the role of violence in public life.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Brownstone Institute

Bizarre Decisions about Nicotine Pouches Lead to the Wrong Products on Shelves

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

  Roger Bate  

A walk through a dozen convenience stores in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, says a lot about how US nicotine policy actually works. Only about one in eight nicotine-pouch products for sale is legal. The rest are unauthorized—but they’re not all the same. Some are brightly branded, with uncertain ingredients, not approved by any Western regulator, and clearly aimed at impulse buyers. Others—like Sweden’s NOAT—are the opposite: muted, well-made, adult-oriented, and already approved for sale in Europe.

Yet in the United States, NOAT has been told to stop selling. In September 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the company a warning letter for offering nicotine pouches without marketing authorization. That might make sense if the products were dangerous, but they appear to be among the safest on the market: mild flavors, low nicotine levels, and recyclable paper packaging. In Europe, regulators consider them acceptable. In America, they’re banned. The decision looks, at best, strange—and possibly arbitrary.

What the Market Shows

My October 2025 audit was straightforward. I visited twelve stores and recorded every distinct pouch product visible for sale at the counter. If the item matched one of the twenty ZYN products that the FDA authorized in January, it was counted as legal. Everything else was counted as illegal.

Two of the stores told me they had recently received FDA letters and had already removed most illegal stock. The other ten stores were still dominated by unauthorized products—more than 93 percent of what was on display. Across all twelve locations, about 12 percent of products were legal ZYN, and about 88 percent were not.

The illegal share wasn’t uniform. Many of the unauthorized products were clearly high-nicotine imports with flashy names like Loop, Velo, and Zimo. These products may be fine, but some are probably high in contaminants, and a few often with very high nicotine levels. Others were subdued, plainly meant for adult users. NOAT was a good example of that second group: simple packaging, oat-based filler, restrained flavoring, and branding that makes no effort to look “cool.” It’s the kind of product any regulator serious about harm reduction would welcome.

Enforcement Works

To the FDA’s credit, enforcement does make a difference. The two stores that received official letters quickly pulled their illegal stock. That mirrors the agency’s broader efforts this year: new import alerts to detain unauthorized tobacco products at the border (see also Import Alert 98-06), and hundreds of warning letters to retailers, importers, and distributors.

But effective enforcement can’t solve a supply problem. The list of legal nicotine-pouch products is still extremely short—only a narrow range of ZYN items. Adults who want more variety, or stores that want to meet that demand, inevitably turn to gray-market suppliers. The more limited the legal catalog, the more the illegal market thrives.

Why the NOAT Decision Appears Bizarre

The FDA’s own actions make the situation hard to explain. In January 2025, it authorized twenty ZYN products after finding that they contained far fewer harmful chemicals than cigarettes and could help adult smokers switch. That was progress. But nine months later, the FDA has approved nothing else—while sending a warning letter to NOAT, arguably the least youth-oriented pouch line in the world.

The outcome is bad for legal sellers and public health. ZYN is legal; a handful of clearly risky, high-nicotine imports continue to circulate; and a mild, adult-market brand that meets European safety and labeling rules is banned. Officially, NOAT’s problem is procedural—it lacks a marketing order. But in practical terms, the FDA is punishing the very design choices it claims to value: simplicity, low appeal to minors, and clean ingredients.

This approach also ignores the differences in actual risk. Studies consistently show that nicotine pouches have far fewer toxins than cigarettes and far less variability than many vapes. The biggest pouch concerns are uneven nicotine levels and occasional traces of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, depending on manufacturing quality. The serious contamination issues—heavy metals and inconsistent dosage—belong mostly to disposable vapes, particularly the flood of unregulated imports from China. Treating all “unauthorized” products as equally bad blurs those distinctions and undermines proportional enforcement.

My small Montgomery County survey suggests a simple formula for improvement.

First, keep enforcement targeted and focused on suppliers, not just clerks. Warning letters clearly change behavior at the store level, but the biggest impact will come from auditing distributors and importers, and stopping bad shipments before they reach retail shelves.

Second, make compliance easy. A single-page list of authorized nicotine-pouch products—currently the twenty approved ZYN items—should be posted in every store and attached to distributor invoices. Point-of-sale systems can block barcodes for anything not on the list, and retailers could affirm, once a year, that they stock only approved items.

Third, widen the legal lane. The FDA launched a pilot program in September 2025 to speed review of new pouch applications. That program should spell out exactly what evidence is needed—chemical data, toxicology, nicotine release rates, and behavioral studies—and make timely decisions. If products like NOAT meet those standards, they should be authorized quickly. Legal competition among adult-oriented brands will crowd out the sketchy imports far faster than enforcement alone.

The Bottom Line

Enforcement matters, and the data show it works—where it happens. But the legal market is too narrow to protect consumers or encourage innovation. The current regime leaves a few ZYN products as lonely legal islands in a sea of gray-market pouches that range from sensible to reckless.

The FDA’s treatment of NOAT stands out as a case study in inconsistency: a quiet, adult-focused brand approved in Europe yet effectively banned in the US, while flashier and riskier options continue to slip through. That’s not a public-health victory; it’s a missed opportunity.

If the goal is to help adult smokers move to lower-risk products while keeping youth use low, the path forward is clear: enforce smartly, make compliance easy, and give good products a fair shot. Right now, we’re doing the first part well—but failing at the second and third. It’s time to fix that.

Author

Roger Bate

Roger Bate is a Brownstone Fellow, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics (Jan 2023-present), Board member of Africa Fighting Malaria (September 2000-present), and Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (January 2000-present).

Continue Reading

Addictions

The War on Commonsense Nicotine Regulation

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

Roger Bate  Roger Bate 

Cigarettes kill nearly half a million Americans each year. Everyone knows it, including the Food and Drug Administration. Yet while the most lethal nicotine product remains on sale in every gas station, the FDA continues to block or delay far safer alternatives.

Nicotine pouches—small, smokeless packets tucked under the lip—deliver nicotine without burning tobacco. They eliminate the tar, carbon monoxide, and carcinogens that make cigarettes so deadly. The logic of harm reduction couldn’t be clearer: if smokers can get nicotine without smoke, millions of lives could be saved.

Sweden has already proven the point. Through widespread use of snus and nicotine pouches, the country has cut daily smoking to about 5 percent, the lowest rate in Europe. Lung-cancer deaths are less than half the continental average. This “Swedish Experience” shows that when adults are given safer options, they switch voluntarily—no prohibition required.

In the United States, however, the FDA’s tobacco division has turned this logic on its head. Since Congress gave it sweeping authority in 2009, the agency has demanded that every new product undergo a Premarket Tobacco Product Application, or PMTA, proving it is “appropriate for the protection of public health.” That sounds reasonable until you see how the process works.

Manufacturers must spend millions on speculative modeling about how their products might affect every segment of society—smokers, nonsmokers, youth, and future generations—before they can even reach the market. Unsurprisingly, almost all PMTAs have been denied or shelved. Reduced-risk products sit in limbo while Marlboros and Newports remain untouched.

Only this January did the agency relent slightly, authorizing 20 ZYN nicotine-pouch products made by Swedish Match, now owned by Philip Morris. The FDA admitted the obvious: “The data show that these specific products are appropriate for the protection of public health.” The toxic-chemical levels were far lower than in cigarettes, and adult smokers were more likely to switch than teens were to start.

The decision should have been a turning point. Instead, it exposed the double standard. Other pouch makers—especially smaller firms from Sweden and the US, such as NOAT—remain locked out of the legal market even when their products meet the same technical standards.

The FDA’s inaction has created a black market dominated by unregulated imports, many from China. According to my own research, roughly 85 percent of pouches now sold in convenience stores are technically illegal.

The agency claims that this heavy-handed approach protects kids. But youth pouch use in the US remains very low—about 1.5 percent of high-school students according to the latest National Youth Tobacco Survey—while nearly 30 million American adults still smoke. Denying safer products to millions of addicted adults because a tiny fraction of teens might experiment is the opposite of public-health logic.

There’s a better path. The FDA should base its decisions on science, not fear. If a product dramatically reduces exposure to harmful chemicals, meets strict packaging and marketing standards, and enforces Tobacco 21 age verification, it should be allowed on the market. Population-level effects can be monitored afterward through real-world data on switching and youth use. That’s how drug and vaccine regulation already works.

Sweden’s evidence shows the results of a pragmatic approach: a near-smoke-free society achieved through consumer choice, not coercion. The FDA’s own approval of ZYN proves that such products can meet its legal standard for protecting public health. The next step is consistency—apply the same rules to everyone.

Combustion, not nicotine, is the killer. Until the FDA acts on that simple truth, it will keep protecting the cigarette industry it was supposed to regulate.

Author

Roger Bate

Roger Bate is a Brownstone Fellow, Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law and Economics (Jan 2023-present), Board member of Africa Fighting Malaria (September 2000-present), and Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs (January 2000-present).

Continue Reading

Trending

X