Jerome R. Corsi's Blog, page 16

The next social epidemic is here: Legalized sports gambling

In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. A fractured court, led by a conservative majority, held that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992, signed into law in the final months of the George H.W. Bush presidency, was unconstitutional.

The practical effect of the Murphy decision was that sports gambling, the legal practice of which had been mostly confined to Nevada casinos, became ubiquitous in short order. A few weeks after the court’s decision, Delaware became the first state other than Nevada to legalize sports gambling. Today, sports gambling is legal in 39 states plus Washington, D.C. And it’s noticeable: It has become almost impossible to watch a football game or scroll through social media without being assaulted by the seductive advertisements of the sports gambling industry.

Much like our failed social experiment in marijuana, which commenced in earnest with Colorado’s decision to legalize recreational use in 2012, America’s experiment in legalized sports gambling has not gone well. On the contrary, it has been nothing short of disastrous for our nation’s moral fabric and the legions of financially vulnerable young men who fall prey to the industry’s temptations.

Many cheered the Murphy decision as a triumph of constitutional federalism and free-market principle. But ordered liberty rightly understood brooks no compromise with vice. Legalized sports gambling has not strengthened our civic order; it has corroded it. The consequences are both moral and financial, especially among young men. The online, mobile betting revolution means that the casino is no longer a distant building – it’s right in our pocket.

According to research tracking 7 million U.S. adults, states with legalized online sports betting have seen a 25%-30% increase in bankruptcy filings and an 8% rise in debt sent to collections compared to states without such easy access. Meanwhile, a survey of sports bettors found that one in four say they’ve missed a bill payment because of gambling, and 30% say they have debts they directly attribute to sports wagering. Another survey found more than half of sports bettors carry a credit card balance month to month.

On and on it goes.

The human toll is staggering. Countless young men – already increasingly despondent and disconnected from faith, family and community – are now glued to their phones, obsessing over point spreads. The events meant to bring us together, like the Super Bowl or March Madness, have been bastardized into vehicles for ruinous addiction. Betting lines crawl across sports broadcasts; ESPN anchors often sound more like casino hosts than sports analysts.

A beloved national pastime that once fostered civic unity and wholesome escape has thus become yet another arena for atomistic consumption and decay. Just as bad, the innocence and integrity of sport itself has been hopelessly corrupted, as recent high-profile legal cases involving both the NBA and MLB make abundantly clear.

The defenders of this new dispensation typically wave the flag of “personal choice.” But not all choices are created equal. Just as we regulate narcotics and pornography, we have every right – indeed, every duty – to restrict forms of so-called entertainment that prey upon the vulnerable. A culture that shrugs and is always content to simply “let people do what they want” is not one capable of sustaining republican self-governance from one generation to the next.

There is also the question of our broader economic health. Yet another study found that households in states with legal sports gambling invest nearly 14% less than comparable households in other states. That means money that could have gone into retirement savings, small business investment, home financing or other worthwhile pursuits is instead wagered and lost. For far too many in the already-economically disadvantaged millennial and Gen Z demographics, the American dream is being mortgaged for the thrill of a bet.

It ought to be axiomatic that markets exist to serve man – not the other way around. State legislatures should revisit their reckless embrace of legalized sports gambling from sea to shining sea. Religious and civic leaders must speak candidly about the costs of this new social contagion. Parents must warn their children that the digital casino is not a harmless app but a spiritual and financial trap.

Earl Warren, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court, famously once said about his newspaper reading habits: “I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people’s accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man’s failures.” He’s right – and it’s perhaps the only time I agree with Warren. In a healthy culture, sport elevates. It rewards human excellence and bolsters social solidarity. But in an ailing culture, sport becomes yet another instrument of vice.

We must have the courage to say enough is enough. The societal stakes are far higher than any given point spread. It’s time to call off the bets.

Obergefell stands: A jarring reminder of America’s cultural demise

On Nov. 10, the Supreme Court declined to reconsider the landmark, 2015 Obergefell decision, which radically redefined marriage. This is highly significant, since, even with the current 6-3 conservative majority, not enough justices were found who were willing to reopen the case – at least not now. And yet it was not that long ago in America that talk about same-sex “marriage” sounded as oxymoronic as talk about fast sloths.

That’s because marriage was universally understood to be the union of a male and female, and so, no matter how much two men or two women loved each other, and no matter how committed they were to each other, their union could not be considered marriage.

Put another way, just as 2+2=4 is math, not spelling, it was understood that man + man (or woman + woman) was something other than marriage. What could be more basic than that?

This is not to deny that there are same-sex couples who are deeply committed to each other, nor is it to deny that many of them are committed parents as well. For them, there was a massive sigh of relief when SCOTUS declined to revisit Obergefell this past Monday.

My point, instead, is to help us realize just how far we have declined on a national, moral and cultural level, lest we congratulate ourselves for pushing back against radical transgender activism without realizing just how much ground has been lost.

In other words, while the “T” in LGBTQ+ activism is under fire, the LGB part of the equation is still firmly entrenched. And so, our celebration over victories in the culture wars – and without a doubt, there have been significant victories – should be tempered when we realize how far we have drifted as a nation.

This is underscored when we realize that redefining marriage was not even on the map for the early gay activists, many (if not most) of whom viewed marriage with disdain, seeing it as a vestige of heterosexual patriarchy.

That’s why, in 1971, when John Singer and Paul Barwick, two Seattle gay men, filed an application to receive a marriage license, they did so as a “political ploy” to ridicule the system, not to endorse it. In their words, “Although we are seeking a marriage license from the state of Washington, this in no way implies that we accept or condone the institution of marriage. On the contrary, we would prefer the abolition of all laws governing sexual behavior and the abolition of the institution of marriage itself.” (See here for an important study with source quotes.)

As stated by the Australian-American gay activist Dennis Altman in his 1971 book, “Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation”: “[Gay] marriage … is simply aping the straight world and would reinforce all the worst aspects of that world—its possessiveness, its often hypocritical concern with sexual fidelity, its desire to create nuclear families isolated from the wider society.”

For Altman and many other early gay activists, the nuclear family itself was an enemy to be dismantled, as can easily be illustrated with many similar quotes, reflecting the ideology of those early gay activists.

Again, this underscores just how far we have fallen in terms of our national conscience and our recognition of the importance of marriage as intended by God, namely the lifelong union of a man and a woman.

And so to say, “Look at how well we’re doing!” would be similar to telling the victim of a near-fatal car crash that they’re “doing great” as they relearn how to walk. Let us not deceive ourselves.

But perhaps the best way to illustrate where we stand today is to revisit an infamous 1987 article by gay activist Steve Warren. It was called “Warning to the Homophobes” and was published in the flagship gay publication The Advocate, although it was considered radical by many back then and was intentionally overstated.

Warren declared, “1. Henceforth, homosexuality will be spoken of in your churches and synagogues as an ‘honorable estate.’

“2. You can either let us marry people of the same sex, or better yet abolish marriage altogether. …

“3. You will be expected to offer ceremonies that bless our sexual arrangements. … You will also instruct your people in homosexual as well as heterosexual behavior, and you will go out of your way to make certain that homosexual youths are allowed to date, attend religious functions together, openly display affection, and enjoy each other’s sexuality without embarrassment or guilt.

“4. If any of the older people in your midst object, you will deal with them sternly, making certain they renounce their ugly and ignorant homophobia or suffer public humiliation.

“5. You will also make certain that … laws are passed forbidding discrimination against homosexuals and heavy punishments are assessed. …

“6. Finally, we will in all likelihood want to expunge a number of passages from your Scriptures and rewrite others, eliminating preferential treatment of marriage and using words that will allow for homosexual interpretations of passages describing biblical lovers such as Ruth and Boaz or Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. Warning: If all these things do not come to pass quickly, we will subject Orthodox Jews and Christians to the most sustained hatred and vilification in recent memory. We have captured the liberal establishment and the press. We have already beaten you on a number of battlefields. … You have neither the faith nor the strength to fight us, so you might as well surrender now.”

And just as he wrote, in what seemed like highly exaggerated, overstated tones, it has come to pass. It is high time that we wake up.

This does not mean that we despise gay couples or families. But it does mean that, if we want to see a real, sweeping, national awakening, the revival will have to go deeper. Much deeper!

Poverty, obesity and SNAP in America

A disturbing statistic revealing the dismal state of health in America is that more than 40% of the population is obese (defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as having a body mass index of 30 or higher); nearly 10% are morbidly obese. It’s shocking how these numbers have increased over the years; in the 1960s, only 13% of the population was seriously overweight. And it isn’t just adults who are affected; one in three American children are overweight or obese today, compared to only around 5% as recently as the late 1970s.

Obesity is associated with some of the most serious health problems facing Americans, including Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure (hypertension), kidney failure, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes, sleep apnea and other breathing disorders, gallbladder and liver diseases and even certain types of cancers.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, obesity was the most frequent comorbidity in patients who died with the disease. In September 2020, Science magazine published data showing that obese individuals who contracted COVID-19 were “113% more likely than people of healthy weight to land in the hospital, 74% more likely to be admitted to an ICU, and 48% more likely to die.” Of the COVID-19 patients under 45 years old who died, 60% were obese.

The statistical correlation between race, obesity and death from COVID-19 was dramatic. As I wrote in an October 2020 column, citing CDC data:

“Non-Hispanic blacks represent 13% of the U.S. population but have the highest COVID-19 mortality rate of any group – two times that of whites and Asians. The next highest mortality group is among indigenous peoples (less than 1% of the population), followed by Latinos (only 16.7% of the population). Asian Americans have the lowest mortality rate from COVID-19. … (T)hese results are closely tracking obesity rates. Non-Hispanic blacks have the highest obesity rate in the U.S. (49.6%), followed by Native Americans (48.1%), Hispanics (44.8%) and non-Hispanic whites (42.2%). Non-Hispanic Asians have the lowest rate (17.4%).”

A huge factor here is poverty. Historically, poverty was associated with malnutrition and starvation, and in poor or undeveloped nations, it still is. But in highly developed nations like the United States, poverty is now a predictor of obesity. It should therefore not come as a surprise that the statistical correlations between race and obesity closely track those of race and poverty. According to the 2020 Census, 19.5% of Non-Hispanic blacks in America live in poverty, followed by 17% of Hispanics. whites and Asians have the lowest rates of poverty, at 8.2% and 8.1%, respectively.

Despite spending $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs since former President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” initiatives were launched in 1965, the poverty rate in America has remained stubbornly between 11% and 15%. Not only are our anti-poverty programs not reducing poverty, they have created serious public health problems in America’s poor. We have the same percentage of people in poverty today that we did in 1973, but four times as many who are obese.

During the 43-day government shutdown, Americans were told – daily – that 42 million people are on food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Politicians have tried to inspire sympathy for SNAP recipients facing denial of their benefits, but this is undermined by TikTok videos made by morbidly obese people showing the junk food they buy with their EBT cards and threatening to rob grocery stores if they don’t get their SNAP benefits.

What’s worse is that SNAP is contributing directly to the staggeringly high rates of obesity and illness in poor Americans.

I witnessed this when I served on the board of the local St. Vincent de Paul Society here in Indiana. SVdP operates a food pantry where those in need can come for free food (the Society purchases it from the local food bank or big box stores and receives some donations from local Catholic parishes).

During the COVID-19 lockdowns, however, our pantry was closed to the public, so we set up a drive-through. Volunteers put together boxes of bread, milk and other dairy products, lean meats, fresh produce, canned fruits and vegetables, and dry goods like oatmeal, rice and peanut butter. SVdP clients drove through our parking lot and collected the preassembled boxes.

Our executive director at the time commented to me that these were probably the most healthful bundles of food local families had ever gotten from us. When I expressed surprise, she explained that food pantries were ordinarily forced to operate under the rule of “client choice.” In other words, people must be allowed to come in and select whatever they want. Many would choose sugary cereals, pancakes and syrup, donuts and salty snacks, bypassing more nutritious items available. This rule, I was informed, was to preserve the poor’s “dignity.”

This, as it turns out, is the way SNAP operates as well. According to authors Angela Rachidi and Thomas O’Rourke at the American Enterprise Institute, the food stamp program has “no nutritional standards” whatsoever. Program participants can “purchase any food or beverage product intended for consumption, except alcohol,” and “data show that sizable portions of SNAP dollars purchase nonnutritious foods, such as sugary beverages and ultra-processed foods, which can lead to poor health.” Indeed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the No. 1 item purchased with food stamps is soda pop. In the top 20 are bag snacks, frozen snacks, candy, ice cream and cookies.

And anyone wonders why the poor in this country are obese?

The CDC estimates that health conditions associated with obesity already cost nearly $200 billion annually. Whether covered by private insurance or so-called universal health care paid for by the government, the costs associated with an increasingly obese and chronically ill population are going to break the bank.

The SNAP program needs to be completely revamped. It is riddled with fraud and abuse, and it hurts the very people it is intended to help. There is no “dignity” in obesity, malnourishment and chronic illness, especially when it is a function of poverty, ignorance and dependence upon government.

Governor Zero

‘Quick, I’m up next’: Democrat committee member texted Epstein for advice during hearing

Newly released records from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate expose exchanged text messages with Democratic Virgin Islands Del. Stacey Plaskett during a high-profile 2019 testimony — and that Epstein’s real-time comments may have shaped some of her questioning.

The messages, part of a November release of a large batch of emails and documents by the House Oversight Committee, show Epstein closely following former Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s February 2019 appearance before the congressional body. Although the lawmaker’s name is blacked out in the documents, timestamps, context, and alignment with live footage reviewed by The Washington Post indicate the recipient was Plaskett, a member of the panel questioning Cohen that day.

Newly released documents from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate show that he appeared to be texting a member of Congress during a congressional hearing investigating Donald Trump, and that those texts may have influenced the lawmaker’s questions. https://t.co/4yMKWBEi4X pic.twitter.com/o6LvpsUhDy

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) November 15, 2025

In one exchange, Epstein wrote to Plaskett, presumably referring to Cohen, “Hes [sic] opened the door to questions re who are the other henchmen at trump org.”

Plaskett replied, “Yup. Very aware and waiting my turn.”

In another exchange, after Cohen mentioned longtime Trump aide Rhona Graff, Epstein alerted her, highlighting “Cohen brought up RONA – keeper of the secrets.”

Plaskett responded, “RONA?? Quick I’m up next is that an acronym. [sic]”

Epstein clarified, “Thats [sic] his assistant.”

Plaskett then pressed Cohen about Trump Organization personnel. “Are there other people that we should be meeting with?” Plaskett asked. She then pushed him to “quickly give us as many names as you can,” and brought up Graff by name. The exchange closely corresponded with Epstein’s earlier prompt that Cohen had “opened the door to questions” about Trump’s associates.

Epstein earlier complimented Plaskett’s outfit and asked whether she was chewing during a televised shot. She replied she was “[c]hewing interior of my mouth. Bad habit from middle school.” Epstein also inquired how long she would remain at the hearing.

After Friday evening’s publication of the first reports, Plaskett’s office issued a statement saying she had received texts from “staff, constituents and the public at large,” including Epstein, during the hearing, according to The Washington Post. The statement also emphasized Plaskett’s past work on sexual assault and trafficking cases, noting, “As a former prosecutor she welcomes information that helps her get at the truth.”

Epstein, who owned two private islands in the U.S. Virgin Islands and maintained extensive ties there, donated to a variety of politicians, including Plaskett, according to a Business Insider investigation. After Epstein’s 2019 arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges, her office initially signaled she did not plan to return the contributions before later reversing course under public pressure, according to The Washington Post.

Plaskett was also among the officials named in a 2023 lawsuit filed by six Epstein accusers alleging Virgin Islands authorities benefited from or enabled his trafficking network, the outlet reported. The case against her was dismissed with prejudice earlier this year.

Plaskett’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Reliability: Pro-America energy legislation that would significantly lower our bills

(Image by tuproyecto from Pixabay)

This article was originally published by The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Imagine if the federal government enacted legislation that would lead to generations of prosperity for Americans without resorting to budget-busting federal handouts or subsidies.

Imagine if the law guaranteed the most affordable heating and cooling bills for households and businesses for decades to come.

Imagine if such legislation ensured U.S. energy independence and security, forever ending the threat of foreign countries cutting off our supply of oil or gas – and even making other countries dependent on American energy.

As the United States approaches its 250th birthday, could there be any better gift than such guarantees, securities and freedoms?

We don’t have to imagine such a tremendous birthday present. A bill has been introduced in Congress which would accomplish all those objectives and more.

U.S. Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), has introduced the Affordable, Reliable, Clean Energy Security Act (ARC-ES), designed to codify into law several commonsense directives that the nation’s leaders should have been following for decades.

As described by a press release announcing the bill’s introduction, the legislation “would require relevant federal agencies—such as the Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency—to review any actions relating to affordable, reliable, or clean energy within 90 days and submit a report to Congress. The bill guarantees that our most affordable and reliable energy sources, including nuclear and natural gas, remain part of the energy mix – a crucial requirement to guarantee affordable and reliable energy for American households and businesses.”

As Balderson put it, “We saw under the Biden Administration how unelected bureaucrats were able to derail American energy policy by effectively shutting down our baseload, reliable energy productions. This bill restores regulatory sanity. There could be no better gift to all Americans as we approach our 250th birthday than the promise of affordable, reliable and secure energy, for today and for generations to come.”

The ball started rolling in the last couple of years in states like Louisiana and Ohio, with others on the verge of following suit. State after state has begun to break away from the stranglehold of politically motivated energy initiatives based on the fallacy of “alternatives” – a dangerous movement that was putting Americans on the fast track to a bleak energy future featuring unreliable electric grids, reliance on foreign countries to rescue us from blackouts, and skyrocketing energy bills.

As states begin to realize that affordable and reliable energy is crucial to our prosperity and security, they began to act. But always hanging over their heads during the Biden administration (and even before that) was the threat of penalties and loss of subsidies for not setting target dates to phase out oil and gas in favor of a complete reliance on “renewables” like wind and solar.

While so-called “renewables” can be an important part of the energy landscape, they have so far proven to be unreliable, failing test after test when they are artificially employed as the dominant energy provider. The widespread blackouts earlier this year in Spain, Portugal and parts of France were testaments to the still untested properties of “alternatives,” and it’s no surprise that those countries had to turn to natural gas to restore power.

Someday in the future, when their efficacy is more perfected, “renewables” might be in a position to carry more of the energy load. But forcing our most reliable and affordable energy sources to the sidelines before emerging technology is complete is illogical, impractical and unaffordable. The consequences would be disastrous.

While President Trump and his administration are doing all they can to roll back the disastrous Biden energy policies, enduring changes must come from Congress. That’s why the ARC-ES bill introduced by Balderson is not just important – it’s historic.

For the first time, states will know with confidence that their efforts to codify safe, reliable and affordable energy for their citizens will be supported by federal legislation, policies and agencies. Definitions of what constitutes “clean energy” will be aligned locally and nationally. State-based energy projects seeking federal loans or grants will be consistent with federal guidelines.

Crucially, the Balderson bill, as detailed in the press release, “formally defines three key energy terms for energy regulators: affordable, reliable, and clean. Currently, these terms can be left open to interpretation by the executive branch and can shift from one administration to the next. While President Trump has worked to roll back the previous administration’s Green New Deal agenda, this legislation would make those reversals legally binding.”

Thanks to this legislation, science and evidence will replace leftwing political correctness and radical climate change ideology as the guiding principles of U.S. energy policy. When passed by Congress and signed by President Trump, the law will be regarded as among the most significant pieces of legislation ever enacted. It would represent the greatest gift to the U.S. from the president and Congress that Americans could hope for on the occasion of our nation’s 250th birthday.

Americans from coast to coast should contact their elected officials in Congress and urge them to support the ARC-ES act. It’s a fitting birthday present for our entire nation, and a lasting legacy for our children, grandchildren, and generations to come.

 

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for  The Empowerment Alliance , which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.

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

Never static: Is software for the military set code, or a living document?

“Software is never done and must be managed as an enduring capability that is treated differently than hardware,” observed the Defense Innovation Board (DIB) in its influential Software Acquisition report, urging the Pentagon to treat code as a ‘living system’, not a finished product. Yet, the Department of the Air Force’s (DAF) new Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) policy does the opposite. Aimed at standardizing enterprise IT and improving cybersecurity, the memo bans “custom code development” or “modification that extends a SaaS platform beyond its original design,” including APIs or integrations to meet evolving mission needs.

While the policy seeks to reduce vulnerabilities and enforce uniformity, it risks rapid and adaptive innovation – necessary for resilience and mission success. In trying to mitigate risk, the DAF undermines the core principles of software-defined warfare – speed, iteration, and continuous adaptation that are the foundations of lean development, DevSecOps, and the DIB’s doctrine that “software is never done.” These practices lock systems into static silos resulting in slower iteration, and a regression to the bureaucratic “security theater” that modern DevSecOps was meant to replace.

By locking platforms to their vendor’s original design, the department hopes to maintain a uniform, ‘locked down’ software environment that’s easier to monitor, certify and secure. There are three key problems with this approach –

Software is never done

One, the provision misunderstands the nature of software – it is never static, only constantly evolving. In contrast to hardware, which can be maintained in a linear fashion, software degrades not through physical wear, but through obsolescence. By prohibiting custom code development and API-based modification, the provision freezes every SaaS platform at the point of purchase.

When all modifications are banned, embedded development teams are structurally prevented from fixing bugs or improving usability, creating mandatory time-consuming waits for vendor or headquarters approval, even for small changes. For example, if a flight operations unit discovers that their alert dashboard needs an additional filter or visualization, the unit awaits authorization from the Chief Information Officer (SAF/CN) or the Cloud Authorizing Function (CAF), a process that can take weeks or even months. A developer could address this in a day via an API. This introduces waste, adds bureaucratic rigidity, and kills experimentation- key characteristics of agile and lean development.

In DevSecOps, waste is any effort that consumes resources without adding value to the customer (warfighters). Lean development seeks to eliminate that waste by accelerate learning and delivering capability at mission speed. By forcing teams to endure bureaucratic ‘wait states’ via centralized approvals, the policy erases competitive advantage and multiplies administrative overhead, by diverting feature development and increasing handoffs. Such waste has direct operational consequences: every delay in code flow means vulnerabilities linger longer, fixes arrive slower, and the system’s overall resilience declines. When flow stops, learning stops – killing experimentation necessary for innovative edge.

Most importantly, the Lean principle of “decide as late as possible” emphasizes rapid experimentation, deferring major commitments until facts are clear. The DAF policy forces the opposite. Teams must lock functionality early for enterprise approval, committing to architectures long before user needs are validated. By forcing teams to define scope and functionality years in advance, the policy almost guarantees that the final product will be outdated by the time it’s delivered, creating high-technical debt. This prohibition also undermines the Hacking for Defense (H4D) approach, which applies Lean startup methods to military innovation. If embedded teams cannot rapidly prototype capabilities, they lose the technical ability to ‘discover and validate customer needs’ and test their solutions in a low-cost, low-risk, high-speed manner. This breaks the iterative feedback loop required for meaningful agile success, effectively killing organic innovation at the tactical edge.

In software, Speed is security 

Two, While the department views restricting APIs and custom development as a security safeguard, in modern software the opposite is true. The DIB’s study has established slowing change in software developments cripples both innovation and security. The faster a system can be developed, deployed, and updated, the lower its cumulative risk. In short, in software, speed is security. By iteratively developing and deploying software, rapid iteration teams can focus on critical functionality and allow quicker identification and correction of any existing problems.

By locking platform functionality and tying updates to external vendor roadmaps, the department’s policy effectively surrenders control over its own response timeline. If an adversary exploited a vulnerability or launched a zero-day attack, internal teams would be barred from issuing immediate fixes, forced instead to await a vendor update. The result is extended exposure and degraded mission assurance, the exact vulnerabilities the policy aims to prevent.

Software is not hardware, and not all software is the same

Three, the DAF’s policy rests on a fundamental category error: treating software like hardware. Hardware can be frozen, certified, and fielded in stable configurations. Software, by contrast, is inherently dynamic, and depends on continuous updates.

The institutional failure underpinning this policy stems from an analytical inability to differentiate between software types. The memo classifies SaaS as a “commodity-based subscription service” managed primarily by consumption metrics. This model is appropriate for administrative applications (Type A/B software, such as email systems). However, applying the same rigid customization ban to SaaS systems that support mission capabilities (Type C/D software, such as logistics or command and control) fails to recognize that software is not monolithic. This misclassification violates the DIB’s crucial finding that “software is different than hardware, and not all software is the same.”

Modern, cloud-native software is built not as a standalone product but as a component within a larger system-of-systems. The policy misreads this reality, treating purchased SaaS tools as finished products rather than foundational layers on which mission-specific capabilities are built. This rigidity directly affects the Air Force’s current digital ecosystems like Kessel Run, Platform One, and Wavelength, which rely on rapid iteration and embedded teams to deliver updates at operational tempo. Without API-driven integration, they risk sliding back into the legacy “block upgrade” cycles the service worked to escape. At the enterprise level, the restriction endangers integration efforts including the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) and Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2), which depend on real-time interoperability. Limiting connectivity makes these networks brittle just when joint operations demand seamless coordination, while blocking the interfaces and data flows essential for government-owned competence and rapid algorithmic innovation.

The Way Forward: From Restriction to Assurance

To address this, the DAF must shift its approach from restriction to assurance. First, the DAF must redefine security as process, not prohibition. Continuous integration, automated testing, and real-time monitoring already provide visibility far beyond what static certification can achieve. These tools make agility and assurance mutually reinforcing rather than mutually exclusive.

Second, the DAF must differentiate governance by mission risk. Administrative systems can justifiably be locked down, but operational and warfighting platforms must remain adaptable. A tiered model that allows greater customization and API use for high-impact systems would restore speed without sacrificing accountability.

Third, the DAF must empower embedded software teams such as Kessel Run and Platform One to execute secure changes at the edge. These teams already operate within accredited toolchains and continuous monitoring environments. SAF/CN’s role should evolve from gatekeeper to standard-setter, providing technical baselines instead of waivered benchmarks.

Ultimately, the DAF must prioritise process over product and ensure modern software does not turn into a closed procurement catalogue. Only by embracing iterative adaptation and agile development as a measure of strength, the DAF can transform software into a true technological and strategic advantage.

Rohith Narayan Stambamkadi is an Associate at Starburst, an innovation consulting firm that fast-tracks innovation to deployment of early-stage ventures in defense and aerospace. He is a graduate student at the Security Studies Program (SSP), Georgetown University, where he focuses on Defense innovation and Software-defined warfare.

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

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION

‘Just a lie’: Dan Bongino torches media for claiming he was hired at FBI without a background check

Dan Bongino and Kash Patel of the FBI

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino on Saturday torched the fake news media for pushing another false story claiming he was hired without a background check.

Bongino is also a former Secret Service Agent.

ProPublica published the fake news story on Friday claiming Bongino was hired by Patel without passing a polygraph exam.

The Daily Mail also ran with the story.

ProPublica reported:

FBI Director Kash Patel granted waivers to Deputy Director Dan Bongino and two other newly hired senior FBI staff members, exempting them from passing polygraph exams normally required to gain access to America’s most sensitive classified information, according to a former senior FBI official and several other government officials.

Bongino’s role as the FBI’s second-highest-ranking official means he is responsible for day-to-day operations of the agency, including green-lighting surveillance missions, coordinating with intelligence agency partners and managing the bureau’s 56 field offices across the country. The deputy director receives some of the country’s most closely held secrets, including the President’s Daily Brief, which also contains intelligence from the CIA and the National Security Agency.

People familiar with the matter say his ascent to that position without passing a standard FBI background check was unprecedented. ProPublica spoke with four people familiar with the polygraph issues, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation and because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the details of FBI background checks.

The Senate Judiciary Democrats pushed the fake news and said it’s disqualifying.

ANOTHER KASH PATEL FAILURE.

His deputy Dan Bongino couldn’t pass a standard background check… so he had to give him a get-out-of-jail free card.

These people receive some of the country’s most sensitive secrets.

Disqualifying. pic.twitter.com/aw4H9emico

— Senate Judiciary Democrats (@JudiciaryDems) November 14, 2025

Bongino torched the fake news for floating another absurd story.

Full statement by Dan Bongino:

I’m sincerely sorry for wasting your time on a weekend with nonsensical media fairytales, and I do realize the act of addressing this puts even more eyes on it.

However, I work for you all, the American citizenry, on our nations’ top national security issues, and I can’t allow false headlines like this to stand.

Claiming I was hired “with no background check” is just a lie. It’s a complete fabrication. I held a security clearance, while protecting Democrat and Republican presidents, for over ten years. And all of the background check requirements for my current position as Deputy Director of the FBI have been met. Those are simple facts.

Again, my apologies for wasting your time on this but I work for you and you should know the facts. I’m honored to serve in the Trump administration alongside Director Patel as your Deputy Director, and I will continue to hit the gas pedal on crushing violent crime and securing the Homeland.

God bless America, and all those whose defend Her.

All,
I’m sincerely sorry for wasting your time on a weekend with nonsensical media fairytales, and I do realize the act of addressing this puts even more eyes on it.
However, I work for you all, the American citizenry, on our nations’ top national security issues, and I can’t… pic.twitter.com/4P0M6h8hn9

— Dan Bongino (@FBIDDBongino) November 15, 2025

[Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit.com.]

‘Carbon-free’: Republican says nuclear energy can bridge partisan chasm

Republican Idaho Rep. Mike Simpson said that newly emerging “bipartisan support on nuclear energy” and permitting reform are key to advancing American “energy independence” in an exclusive interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Simpson told the DCNF that the American permitting process is “a joke” and that reforming or simplifying regulations is necessary to allow the energy sector to thrive. American energy demand is climbing and although nuclear power is a reliable and non-carbon emitting source, U.S. support across party lines has been slow-moving, according to Simpson, industry insiders and some energy policy experts.

“The two most important things happening for the future of the country are becoming energy independent again, and permitting reform,” Simpson told the DCNF, arguing that as more environmental groups realize nuclear power serves as both a “baseload” and “carbon-free” source, America will “see a renaissance in nuclear energy that is sustainable this time.”

Simpson is the Chairman of the House Interior and Environment Subcommittee on Appropriations.

The Trump administration bolstered nuclear power through multiple executive orders President Donald Trump signed on May 23. Additionally, Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright said on Monday at the American Nuclear Society’s winter conference in Washington, D.C. that most of the Loan Program Office’s (LPO) funding would go to nuclear energy, according to multiple reports.

Though former President Joe Biden doled out hefty nuclear energy loans and signed off on the 2024 ADVANCE Act, the Biden administration favored green energy sources like solar and wind through billions in subsidies, loans and grants.

Simpson noted that though he is “not opposed to wind and solar,” they are intermittent and other “baseload” sources like nuclear, hydropower, gas and goal are needed to ensure a reliable grid and American energy independence. The DOE published a July report that projected blackouts could increase by a factor of 100 by 2030 if the U.S. continues to phase out power plants without replacing them.

“If you’re going to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, you’re going to have to have nuclear energy. It’s the only thing that will produce the power that’s necessary for the baseload that is carbon-free,” Simpson told the DCNF, adding that “Idaho is going to be kind of at the center of it… a lot of advanced reactor design is going to be done in Idaho.”

Simpson said that while his state hosts the Idaho National Lab, “the nation’s leading center for nuclear energy research and development,” the state has no commercial nuclear power plants, according to the Lab’s website and the Energy Information Administration.

Additionally, permitting reform has been a major ambition of the Trump administration and conservative lawmakers amid growing energy demand driven by energy-intensive artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and expanding onshore manufacturing.

The Idaho congressman argued that though the energy sector permitting process was formed “with the best of intentions … what we’ve created is a system that is ripe for lawsuits at every step of the way.” Despite America’s resource wealth, Simpson argued that “the problem is getting to them and getting permits.”

Simpson referenced an Idaho example that highlights the fractured permitting process, noting that it has cost “two or three times as much to relicense” some dams in the state than it was to initially build them.

Developers must relicense projects after relevant permits expire, according to the DOE and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

The DOE notes on its website that “hydropower developers must go through an extensive permitting and regulatory process to license or relicense new or ongoing projects. And while this process protects local water quality, wildlife species and habitats, cultural resources, and recreation, it can also increase the cost, risk, and timeline of licensing hydroelectric plants.”

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Protecting our homeland: Why robust defense spending is pro-woman

In an era of budget tightening, military and defense spending often appear to many, especially women, as an area ready to be pared back. The benefits can feel remote compared to the immediate demands of childcare, education, or healthcare. Yet history tells a different story. When security erodes, it is women who feel the fracture first. We are the ones who hold families together when communities are disrupted, who shoulder the emotional and social costs when husbands and sons are sent to war, and who rebuild when violence tears at the seams of daily life. To argue for robust defense is not to argue for war. It is to argue for the preservation of the world in which peace is even possible.

Frighteningly, there is a belief that appears to be taking hold that peace is the natural order of things—that if America simply withdraws from its defense and security commitments, peace will expand to fill the space we leave. But peace is not the mere absence of conflict, it is the product of deterrence: the understood capacity and willingness to resist those who would impose harm.

When a nation possesses the capability to defend what it values, others are forced to calculate the cost of aggression. When that capability erodes, the calculation changes. A society that lacks the means to protect what it loves is vulnerable. And vulnerability, in a world where predation and ambition remain facts of human behavior, is not a gentle state but an invitation. History is full of examples of what happens when well-intentioned societies convince themselves that restraint alone ensures safety.

Conflict begins now with hacked energy grids, disrupted supply chains, disinformation campaigns designed to fracture democracies from within, and long-range strikes launched from hundreds of miles away by unmanned systems. The field of battle may never touch the ground on which we stand, but the consequences can and do. Victory no longer goes to the side with just the most people and equipment, but to the side that sees first, decides fastest, and acts with precision.

Those capabilities do not appear on their own. They are built deliberately and over time through a defense industrial base that is both strong and innovative. This is not only about projecting strength abroad. It is also about protecting our homeland. Established defense firms and new mission-driven innovators are developing layered missile defense networks, early-warning radar systems, counter-drone technologies, and cyber-resilience tools that guard American cities, power grids, ports, and hospitals. Relatedly, surveillance tools, used with real oversight help us catch threats before they become tragedies. This is not to watch ordinary people; they’re about giving us the warning we need to keep our communities safe.

We need both the scale of major defense contractors and the agility of emerging companies pushing the boundaries of new technology. But we also need acquisition systems designed to move quickly, reward performance, and hold every contractor accountable to timelines, budgets, and measurable outcomes. These are arguments for smarter investment and better contracting, not for retreat.

Calls to slow, shrink, or abandon this effort are not morally neutral. They shift leverage to actors who do not share our values and do not hesitate to use violence to secure their aims. The question is not whether the United States will hold military power, but whether that power will be stewarded wisely and tied to a vision of order that protects not invades.

To pretend that disengagement produces peace is to forget the lessons women have carried in our bones for centuries: safety is the prerequisite for everything else.

The stability that allows a child to walk to school without fear, that allows families to gather, that allows communities to plan for futures longer than the next month is not born of hope alone. It is secured, enforced, and maintained. And that work, though often invisible, is fundamentally about care. To support a strong national defense is not to prioritize war. It is to prioritize home, the lives we are building, the children we raise, and the communities we love.

Women have always been the quiet stewards of peace. The only question now is whether we will recognize that safeguarding peace requires investing in strength.

Meaghan Mobbs, PhD, is Director of the Center for American Safety and Security at Independent Women and President of the R.T. Weatherman Foundation. She also serves as a presidential appointee to the United States Military Academy Board of Visitors.

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