Connect with us

International

US Supreme Court significantly reduces power of government bureaucracy

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

Lawmakers put federal agencies on notice after end to Chevron deference

A coalition of lawmakers are putting federal agencies on notice after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned “Chevron deference” and as a result, significantly limited their power.

House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., has helped lead the effort, but the relevant committee chairs with oversight of the federal government, have signed on to similar letters.

“This long-needed reversal should stem the vast tide of federal agencies’ overreach,” Comer said in his letters to the federal government. “Given the Biden administration’s track record, however, I am compelled to underscore the implications of Loper Bright and remind you of the limitations it has set on your authority.”

The push comes on the heels of the Supreme Court overturning part of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and thereby putting an end to “Chevron deference,” a previous legal policy that gave broad license to federal bureaucrats to interpret and enforce laws passed by Congress as they saw fit.

In that vein, House lawmakers held a hearing Wednesday for oversight of the Environmental Protection Agency, the first in what is likely a new era of EPA oversight after the major Supreme Court ruling.

President Joe Biden’s EPA has pushed out a few particularly aggressive regulations that have drawn pushback.

Among those are WOTUS, an Obama-era rule that classified even tiny bodies of water as under federal jurisdiction.

More recently, the EPA’s tailpipe emissions standards are under fire, mainly because they will likely force a nationwide transition from gas to hybrid or electric vehicles in just a few years.

“EPA’s largest regulations, such as the tailpipe emissions rules for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, have been estimated to cost nearly $900 billion to implement,” Comer said at the hearing Wednesday. “Those rules require automakers to completely redesign their operations to produce more electric vehicles – regardless of what consumers are demanding in the actual marketplace.”

Now, that era has likely come to an end.

“The Supreme Court decision has put policy making back into the hands of the Congress where it belongs, and unelected bureaucrats can no longer weaponize their authority to enact their own personal agenda,” Daniel Turner, executive director of the energy workers advocacy group, Power the Future, told The Center Square. “Industry for decades has been chocked by ever-changing regulations with penalties and fines and even criminal prosecution, all whims of the bureaucrat in charge. The American people are sick and tired of big government, and agencies like the EPA are back under the purview of the Congress and not some green billionaire whose think tank feeds the Administrator’s team with propaganda and lies.”

But the EPA is just one of many agencies facing a Congressional effort to undo years of federal rulemaking.

Comer noted that he has also joined lawmakers in sending letters to an array of agencies that face a similar review, including:

  • AmeriCorps
  • Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  • Council on Environmental Quality
  • Department of Agriculture
  • Department of Commerce
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Energy
  • Department of the Interior
  • Department of Health and Human Services
  • Department of Homeland Security
  • Department of Labor
  • Department of State
  • Department of Transportation
  • Department of the Treasury
  • Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
  • Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
  • National Credit Union Administration
  • National Labor Relations Board
  • Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
  • Office of the United States Trade Representative
  • Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Small Business Administration
  • Social Security Administration

D.C. Bureau Reporter

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

International

BBC uses ‘neutrality’ excuse to rebuke newscaster who objected to gender ideology

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script that says men can get pregnant isn’t ‘neutrality,’ by any stretch.

Imagine a society in which the state broadcaster demanded that the female hosts eliminate the word “women” in favor of “people” and rebuked them if their facial expressions betrayed any hit of protest on air.

Welcome to the United Kingdom in 2025. According to the BBC: “Martine Croxall broke rules over ‘pregnant people’ facial expression, BBC says.”

Martine Croxall, a BBC presenter, was introducing an interview about “research on groups most at risk during UK heatwaves,” and the teleprompter script she was reading live on BBC News Channel contained the phrase “pregnant people.”

Croxall visibly raised her eyebrows, and corrected in real-time: “Malcolm Mistry, who was involved in the research, says that the aged, pregnant people … women … and those with pre-existing health conditions need to take precautions.”

When Dr. Mistry, a professor, came on for the interview, she too referred to “pregnant women” rather than “pregnant people.”

Because a female presenter clearly objected to “women” being erased in favor of “people” for the ideological purpose of buttressing gender ideology, the BBC has now upheld “20 impartiality complaints” against Croxall. According to the BBC: “BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) said it considered her facial expression as she said this gave the ‘strong impression of expressing a personal view on a controversial matter.’”

READ: BBC rebukes newscaster for correcting ‘pregnant people’ with ‘women’ on air

In other words, as a woman, Croxall obviously objected to the implication that men can get pregnant. Croxall has a son and has thus been pregnant herself. But in our current clown world, the Executive Complaints Unit “said it considered Croxall’s facial expression laid it open to the interpretation that it ‘indicated a particular viewpoint in the controversies currently surrounding trans identity.’”

The totalitarian trans activists desperately trying to force society to play along with their delusions with force or coercion were behind the complaints, with the ECU reporting that Croxall’s facial expressions were “variously interpreted by complainants as showing disgust, ridicule, contempt, or exasperation.” In other words: Say your lines the way we gave them to you and look like you believe them, bigot.

The ECU was also concerned that those who, you know, disagree with the idea that men can get pregnant were also pleased by Croxall’s act of defiance, and that she received “congratulatory messages” on social media (including one from J.K. Rowling), which “together with the critical views expressed in the complaints to the BBC and elsewhere, tended to confirm the impression of her having expressed a personal view was widely shared across the spectrum of opinion on the issue.”

Clearly the BBC—which is desperately been trying to regain its reputation—is attempting to wave the fig leaf of “neutrality” in order to reestablish its previous bona fides. But rebuking a female presenter for correcting an ideological script and making a facial expression that appeared to indicate opposition to the idea that men can get pregnant isn’t “neutrality,” by any stretch.

Just a decade ago, no media outlet would have considered implementing gender ideology into their coverage as fact. Now presenters are expected to use fundamentally propagandistic language that frontloads the premises of activists while keeping a straight face as if both transgender ideology and observable biological reality are two perspectives deserving of equal respect and consideration.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National PostNational ReviewFirst Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton SpectatorReformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

Continue Reading

International

Large US naval presence in Caribbean reveals increased interest in western security

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

As the number of suspected narcotic transport boats destroyed by the U.S. military grows, so does the number of naval vessels in the Caribbean.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth announced on social media Thursday evening that U.S. forces carried out their 17th strike on alleged drug boats, killing three “male narco-terrorists” in the targeted operation.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that his administration’s intent to target narco-terrorists in the region to help curb the flow of drugs into the country.

Last month, it was announced that the newest and largest U.S. Navy Aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, and its strike group would be transiting to the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility in the Caribbean.

Ahead of the Ford’s arrival, several naval ships are already in the region, including the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, according to the U.S. Naval Institute—the Iwo Jima, a Wasp-class amphibious ship, among the larger classes of ships in the Navy.

The Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group deployed in August, carrying over 4,500 sailors and Marines, according to the Department of War. The group includes the Iwo Jima, USS Fort Lauderdale, USS San Antonio, and the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit.

As of early this week, the USNI reported that, in addition to the group, three Navy guided-missile destroyers are operating in the Caribbean, including the USS Jason Dunham, USS Gravely, and USS Stockdale. In addition, USNI reported the USS Lake Erie (CG-70) and the USS Wichita (LCS-13) are operating in the Caribbean.

The buildup of navy ships in the region points to the administration’s commitment to prioritizing targeting narco-terrorists. Still, it could also signal the U.S. focusing on potential adversarial threats in Latin America.

Hegseth told The Center Square last month at an event in the White House that the Department of War is keeping its eyes on adversaries in the region after TCS asked the secretary and the president if they had plans to expand U.S. Naval operations in Puerto Rico, specifically Roosevelt Roads, a Navy base closed in 2004.

“We’re familiar with the location that you’re referring to, and we will make sure that we’re properly placed in order to deal with the contingency we’re dealing with there, and also any ways in which other countries would attempt to be involved also, so we can walk and chew gum. We’re definitely keeping our eyes on near peer adversaries at the same time,” Hegseth told TCS.

The secretary’s response cemented the administration’s “America first” policy, which is beginning to shift focus to its “own backyard.”

“But we think sending a message on these cartels, these narco-terrorists, is an important, important inside our hemisphere, which for far too long other presidents, as the president pointed out, they’ve ignored our own backyard and allowed other countries to increase their influence here, which only threatens the American people. We’re changing that,” Hegseth concluded.

The naval buildup in the region could highlight concerns in recent years that Venezuela, under the dictatorship of socialist Nicolas Maduro, has aligned the country with American adversaries, such as Russia, China and Iran.

In 2022, Venezuela hosted military drills with countries including Russia, China and Iran.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies warns that Latin America is ripe for U.S. adversarial influences.

“While Western observers have focused their attention on joint connivances of Russia and Iran in Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and the Middle East, where Russo-Iranian military-security operations directly affect U.S. and European interests, the Western Hemisphere is not isolated from the two countries’ quests for global influence. In fact, in many ways it is an essential piece of the puzzle. First, both Iran and Russia perceive Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) as a fertile ground for exploiting popular resentment vis-à-vis the United States and the ‘collective West,’ which they – rather successfully – harness to advance their view of a multipolar world,” according to CSIS.

The group cites sanctions from the West, which are growing in large part due to Russia’s ongoing offensive in Ukraine.

“Second, LAC partners could prove instrumental in offsetting the impacts of Western sanctions against Moscow and Tehran by mitigating their diplomatic and economic isolation. Finally, certain LAC countries could also serve as less scrutinized partners for further developing Russo-Iranian warfare capabilities or cooperation, sheltering mercenaries or militias – such as Hezbollah – and acting as vectors for ‘horizontal escalation’ of conflicts in which Russia and Iran are currently involved,” the group added.

Continue Reading

Trending

X