Over the weekend, the Trump administration successfully captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro. In the hours and days following the successful operation, Trump suggested that Venezuela is only the start of his efforts to retake control of the Western Hemisphere.

Talking to the press aboard Air Force One on Sunday night, President Trump set his sights on two more countries that he says need to be reined in.

'Sounds good to me.'

"Colombia is very sick too. Run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States. And he's not going to be doing it very long, let me tell you," Trump said to reporters aboard Air Force One.

RELATED: 'We're going to run it': Trump reveals Venezuela's fate following Maduro's capture

Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Trump suggested that the president of Colombia runs "cocaine mills and cocaine factories," but they will not be running for much longer.

When asked if there would be an operation in Colombia to cut off the alleged drug trafficking and corruption, Trump told reporters, "Sounds good to me."

Trump added that Cuban leadership has "only survived because of Venezuela" when asked if similar operations were planned in the country.

Similarly President Trump on Sunday added that "we need Greenland for national security."

"If you take a look at Greenland ... you have Russian and Chinese ships all over the place," Trump said.

On Monday morning, Trump reiterated the message that the United States needs Greenland for "national security." Trump lightly mocked Denmark's handling of the territory, saying, "You know what Denmark did recently to boost up security in Greenland? They added one more dog sled. It's true!"

The United Kingdom's Prime Minister Keir Starmer has signaled his disapproval of Trump's push for Greenland. Starmer told the BBC Monday that "only Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark" should "decide the future of Greenland."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

For decades, the United States focused its counterterrorism efforts on the Middle East and Asia. Meanwhile, a dangerous convergence of international terrorism and transnational crime took root much closer to home. Across Latin America — centered in Venezuela — hostile networks quietly expanded. The Trump administration has finally acted. How the United States manages Venezuela’s transition to legitimate leadership now carries direct national security consequences.

The media frames U.S. action against Venezuela as a narco-trafficking problem. The threat runs far deeper.

Allowing hostile powers to entrench themselves in the Western Hemisphere threatens not just economic interests but national survival.

Hezbollah, backed by Iran, began building a Latin American presence as early as the mid-1980s. What started as fundraising and money laundering in the tri-border area of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay grew into a sprawling criminal-terrorist network. That network carried out devastating attacks in Argentina during the 1990s. Over time, Hezbollah expanded into recruitment, training, and operational planning, embedding itself across the region.

The threat escalated sharply in 2012, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad forged a strategic alliance with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez. That partnership gave Iran a state sponsor in the Western Hemisphere and dramatically expanded its reach. Iran gained the ability to move money, oil, and personnel throughout the region and even established drone-production capabilities inside Venezuela.

U.S. law enforcement recognized the danger. The Drug Enforcement Administration launched Project Cassandra to investigate Hezbollah’s evolution into a global crime syndicate. The DEA tracked cocaine shipments from Latin America through West Africa into Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. Investigators uncovered a network believed to generate roughly $1 billion annually through drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, and money laundering.

The Obama administration later curtailed Project Cassandra in pursuit of a nuclear agreement with Iran. That decision left much of the criminal-terrorist infrastructure intact. Its consequences persist. Hezbollah-linked networks still operate across the region with minimal interference.

Under Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela functioned as both a failed state and a logistical lifeline for Iran. The regime facilitated the movement of operatives and equipment throughout Latin America and beyond. In return, Iran supplied Venezuela’s oil sector with blending materials and refining equipment, helping Maduro evade sanctions and cling to power.

Venezuela also issued hundreds of passports and national IDs to individuals from the Middle East, including figures linked to Hezbollah. Those documents allowed operatives to travel freely under new identities, posing a direct threat to U.S. and regional security. The ability to move undetected across borders remains one of the most valuable tools available to terrorist organizations, and Venezuela provided it willingly.

Recognizing the gravity of the threat, the Trump administration took unprecedented steps. After imposing an oil blockade and designating the Maduro regime a foreign terrorist organization, U.S. authorities captured Maduro to face justice in the United States.

For the first time in a century, the Western Hemisphere now anchors the U.S. National Security Strategy. The Trump administration’s corollary to the Monroe Doctrine commits the United States to denying non-hemispheric powers — including Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey — the ability to position forces or control strategic assets in the Americas.

RELATED: The pernicious myth that America doesn’t win wars

Photo by AFP via Getty Images

Evidence of coordination with America’s adversaries is not speculative. Russia’s Foreign Ministry openly acknowledged Venezuela as a strategic partner, citing what it called the “deliberate escalation of tensions” around a friendly nation. Russia arms Venezuela’s military, built a Kalashnikov rifle factory inside the country, and protects key installations with S-300 surface-to-air missile systems.

China played a parallel role. Beijing became Venezuela’s largest oil customer and financed more than $60 billion in projects. Roughly 7% of China’s oil imports came from Venezuela, propping up the Maduro regime while fueling China’s economy.

As left-wing governments across Latin America gave way to more pro-American leadership, Venezuela’s isolation only increased its value to hostile powers. It became a forward operating base against the United States.

Consider the implications. Iranian ballistic missiles — capable of inflicting serious damage even without nuclear warheads — stationed in Venezuela would sit on America’s doorstep. Add Russian or Chinese nuclear capabilities, and the risk escalates from strategic challenge to strategic catastrophe.

Allowing hostile powers to entrench themselves in the Western Hemisphere threatens not just economic interests but national survival. The fusion of terrorist and criminal networks inside Venezuela posed a clear and present danger that demanded decisive action.

The United States must remain firm in its commitment to a secure, sovereign hemisphere. Ignoring threats in our own back yard invites disaster. And the regime in Tehran understands that reality better than most — nervously, right now more than ever.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) announced in September that he would run for a third term, stating, "I'm staying in the fight — and I need you with me."

Evidently Walz had neither the requisite fight nor the support to stick it out.

The failed vice presidential candidate announced on Monday that he won't seek a third term after all.

"I have every confidence that, if I gave it my all, I would succeed in that effort," said Walz. "But as I reflected on this moment with my family and my team over the holidays, I came to the conclusion that I can’t give a political campaign my all."

'They want to poison our people against each other.'

"Every minute I spend defending my own political interests would be a minute I can't spend defending the people of Minnesota against the criminals who prey on our generosity and the cynics who prey on our differences," added Walz. "So I've decided to step out of the race and let others worry about the election while I focus on the work."

A recent KSTP-TV/SurveyUSA poll of 578 registered voters found that 69% believe Walz needs to do more to stop fraud in Minnesota. According to the poll, Walz's disapproval rating was 48%.

Incredible graft has taken place in the Gopher State under Walz's nose, including the the student aid fraud plaguing Minnesota's publicly funded schools as well as the historic fraud allegedly committed by members of the Somali community in relation to coronavirus relief funding and taxpayer-subsidized day-care facilities.

RELATED: Tim Walz's nightmare continues as HHS shuts off $185M to Minnesota amid allegedly 'fake' Somali day care centers

Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call Inc. via Getty Images

The Trump administration and Congress have launched investigations into the apparent widespread fraud that has taken place in Walz's back yard, and some officials have called for Walz to resign.

Walz claimed that he is "passing on the race with zero sadness and zero regret" and suggested both that he is confident a fellow traveler will run for governor and that he will "find ways to contribute to the state" after he leaves office in January 2027.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) reportedly met with Walz on Sunday evening. Two individuals briefed on their conversation told the New York Times that Klobuchar is considering jumping into the race to succeed Walz.

Blaze News has reached out to Klobuchar's office for comment.

Walz used up a great deal of room in his Monday statement criticizing President Donald Trump and his allies, suggesting they want to make Minnesota "a colder, meaner place. They want to poison our people against each other by attacking our neighbors. And, ultimately, they want to take away much of what makes Minnesota the best place in America to raise a family."

The governor cited as an example of this supposed cruelty the Trump administration's pause on child-care payments to Minnesota.

Department of Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Jim O'Neill announced on Dec. 30 that funds from the Administration for Children and Families — $185 million of which the Gopher State receives yearly — were being paused as the result of "shocking and credible allegations of extensive fraud in Minnesota's child-care programs."

"We believe the state of Minnesota has allowed scammers and fake day cares to siphon millions of taxpayer dollars over the past decade," added O'Neill.

While acknowledging that fraud in the state government was a legitimate concern and that the "buck stops with [him]," Walz suggested that Republicans were somehow making his "fight harder to win."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Antifa first rose to mainstream prominence during the summer riots of 2020. While how the group managed to recruit so many young people has remained a mystery to most Americans, domestic security expert Kyle Shideler knows its methods well.

“So as to the psychological perspective, you know, you talk about those mug shots. There’s almost, like, if you look at, over the course of 2020, there’s almost like a ‘faces of meth’ campaign,” domestic security expert Kyle Shideler tells BlazeTV hosts Christopher Rufo and Jonathan “Lomez” Keeperman on “Rufo & Lomez.”

“You see them at their first arrest, and they’re kind of fresh-faced and relatively normal-looking, and you see them in the next one and the next one and the next one, and by the end of it, you know, five years later, they’re unrecognizable. Clearly hard living, drugs, homelessness, and the like,” he continues.

“This is part of that affinity-group structure is to suck people in so that the group becomes their only social outlet. … So they get these masses of people out into the streets, and then the goal is to try to get them to engage in some criminal act, right, to get them to step over the line and then bring them further into the group,” he explains.

When they successfully get these college students to commit even just a small crime that could land them in jail, that’s when they organize their "jail support."

“You pay their bail. You tell them how much you care about them and how the movement’s going to take care of them. They get out of jail, and now they’re, you know, more tightly bound to the group. And that’s what we saw all through 2020,” Schideler says.

“And that’s what these things are really for,” he explains. “The large-scale mass-movement protests, from the point of view of Antifa, it's to slowly weed through and bring people further and further along into radicalization to be willing to do more and more radical things.”

Want more from Rufo & Lomez?

To enjoy more of the news through the anthropological lens of Christopher Rufo and Lomez, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Scott Adams, the creator of the "Dilbert" comic strip and a frequent defender of President Donald Trump, revealed in May 2025 that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, it had metastasized to his bones, and he was not long for this world.

"The disease is already intolerable," said Adams. "So if you're wondering, 'Hey Scott, do you have any good days?' Nope. Nope. Every day is a nightmare, and evening is very worse."

'What happens next is between me and Jesus.'

While Adams had run out of good days, good news was on the horizon.

The 68-year-old cartoonist revealed on the Sunday episode of his show, "Real Coffee with Scott Adams," that he is converting to Christianity.

In November, Adams requested Trump's help in securing the prostate cancer drug Pluvicto for which his health care provider had apparently approved his application but "dropped the ball in scheduling the brief IV to administer it."

Trump and members of his administration indicated they were "on it" and apparently intervened on the cartoonist's behalf. However, Adams' potentially life-changing treatment was postponed last month on account of his radiation treatment.

Last week, Adams noted on his show that "the odds of me recovering are essentially zero."

In addition to suffering paralysis below the waist, Adams indicated that he is struggling to breathe on account of ongoing heart failure.

Days after telling his audience that January will probably be "a month of transition one way or the other," Adams made clear on Sunday that the imminent changes in his life were not all of a medical nature.

RELATED: Christian, what do you believe when faith stops being theoretical?

Photo by Bob Riha, Jr./Getty Images

"Many of my Christian friends and Christian followers say to me, 'Scott, you still have time. You should convert to Christianity.' And I usually just let that sit because that's not an argument I want to have," said Adams. "I've not been a believer. But I also have respect for any Christian who goes out of their way to try to convert me because how would I believe you and believe your own religion if you're not trying to convert me?"

'You're never too late.'

Evidently the efforts of Adams' friends were not in vain.

"You're going to hear for the first time today that it is my plan to convert," said Adams. "So I still have time. But my understanding is you're never too late. And on top of that, any skepticism I have about reality would certainly be instantly answered if I wake up in heaven."

Adams — who has long wrestled with questions about God and has been critical both of religion and atheism in his writing — notified his Christian friends that he does not require any more apologetics and has embraced what appears to be Catholic philosopher Blaise Pascal's argument for believing in God.

"I am now convinced that the risk-reward is completely smart. If it turns out that there's nothing there, I've lost nothing but I've respected your wishes, and I like doing that," said Adams. "If it turns out there is something there and the Christian model is the closest to it, I win."

"Argument made, argument accepted," added Adams.

In the wake of his announcement, Adams wrote on X that while he appreciates the outpouring of support and questions, "What happens next is between me and Jesus."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

For conservatives, January 2025 felt like an auspicious moment to be alive. Donald Trump sat atop the world with a bully pulpit larger than any media outlet and the power to drive virtually any narrative he chose. Yet instead of using that power, we spent the year arguing over the power the GOP supposedly lacked.

Almost no legislation was passed. Many of the most transformational policies Trump enacted through executive action now sit mired in the courts.

Where is our Mamdani?

Fast-forward to January 2026. The economy looks grim. Democrats are crushing Republicans in special elections. It feels like a different universe.

Republicans tend to operate on a familiar two-year cycle. After a victory, the first year involves explaining why campaign promises cannot be fulfilled. The second year, ending in November elections, turns into defensive posturing: As disappointed as voters may be, they must remember that Democrats represent instant political death.

The implication stays constant. Voters must dutifully back the GOP, ignore the fact that Republicans currently hold power, and politely bypass the primary process out of fear of weakening resistance to Democrats.

As we enter the new year, we have reached the “rally around the GOP to stop the Democrats” phase of the cycle once again.

But reality intrudes. No matter how faithfully the base rallies, Republicans will likely lose in November because of the economy. Absent a dramatic national reset, Democrats will retake the House, probably with a substantial majority.

That makes the present moment decisive. With trifecta control still intact for now, Republicans must use what power they have to improve daily life, enact changes harder to undo, and reinforce red-state America so the coming blue wave does not obliterate the remaining red firewall.

Whether Republicans break free from their familiar cycle of election-failure theater comes down to the answers to these six questions.

1. Will the red firewall hold?

Republicans will likely lose the House and surrender residual power in battleground states such as Georgia and Arizona. Independents have abandoned the GOP, and that trend will accelerate as economic conditions worsen.

The question is whether Republicans will give their voters something worth turning out for. Base turnout alone will not flip purple territory, but it could stop the bleeding deep into red states and keep races such as the Iowa and Ohio governorships out of reach.

This past year made clear that Republicans are losing races they never should have had to defend. A deeper economic downturn would push that line even farther.

2. How toxic do AI data centers become — and will Republicans notice?

By the end of 2025, opposition to data centers surged across ideological lines. Communities worry about water use, power strain, housing values, and secondary effects.

Democrats have begun embracing that resistance as Trump elevates data centers and tech interests as pillars of his economic agenda. Will this issue fracture Republicans’ coalition or even force a break with Trump?

3. What will Republicans do with health care?

Democrats engineered a trap that forces Republicans to address health care, the single largest driver of deficits, inflation, and household pain.

Obamacare made unsubsidized insurance unaffordable for most Americans. Democrats then timed the expiration of expanded subsidies to land on Trump’s watch, ensuring that voters blame him rather than the law’s architects.

Anything Trump does — or refuses to do — will be pinned on him. That reality argues for pushing a genuinely free-market repeal-and-replace that lowers costs. History suggests that outcome remains unlikely. I’m not holding my breath, anyway.

4. Will Trump finally ignore a lawless court?

Could a powerless judge issue a ruling so egregious that it would prompt Trump to defy it at long last?

I am not holding my breath on that one, either.

RELATED: The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen

Photo by Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

5. Will Trump clear the decks on his promises dating back to 2015?

Democrats will likely control one or both chambers for the remainder of Trump’s term. Regardless of strategy, they probably win the midterms.

That means Trump has nothing to lose by executing fully on his original agenda now. Immigration moratoria, judicial reform, welfare devolution, bans on the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Antifa — these changes should be forced through every “must-pass” bill available.

An all-out approach carries policy upside and political clarity.

6. Will Trump stop making bad primary endorsements?

This year’s primaries matter far more than the general election. They will determine whether red states have leaders willing to defend their prerogatives when Democrats reclaim federal power.

If Trump continues endorsing lackluster governors and candidates such as Byron Donalds in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas, and Brad Little in Idaho, conservatives will have nowhere to retreat when figures like Zohran Mamdani dominate national politics.

RELATED: Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026

Photo by Amir Hamja-Pool/Getty Images

Mamdani’s takeover of New York and his appointment of Ramzi Kassem — a 9/11 al-Qaeda defense lawyer — as chief counsel drew outrage on the right. At his inauguration, Mamdani declared, “We’ll replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Rather than merely lamenting how Marxists consolidate power in deep-blue America, conservatives should let that example ignite action where they actually govern. If the left can floor the gas pedal in its strongholds, why can’t we?

Where is our Mamdani?

This moment demands urgency. GOP power has become a “use it or lose it” proposition. Trump must finally become the right-wing disruptor his supporters were promised.

If he cannot — or will not — then Republicans deserve to go the way of the Whigs.

Each January, I dust off the crystal ball and offer my top 10 predictions for the year ahead. If you want to see how last year’s fared, you can find them here.

Now, on to what I expect to see in 2026.

Trump rallies a demoralized base, but, barring a massive economic boom, history and opposition energy prevail.

1. China and the U.S. effectively swap Venezuela for Taiwan.

I predicted this weeks ago on Glenn Beck’s final Wednesday Night Special on Blaze TV, and the early contours are already visible following President Trump’s arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro.

One of last year’s quieter stories involved China’s mounting unrest and economic instability. As Beijing grows more desperate, its pressure to resolve Taiwan increases. One way to avoid a world war over Taiwan involves a tacit bargain: The United States consolidates influence in its own hemisphere while China moves on Taiwan.

Venezuela holds the world’s largest crude oil reserves and has been sending nearly 80% of its exports to China. What America would lose in technology via Taiwan, it could gain in energy via Venezuela. Each superpower gains leverage, ideally enough to trade rather than fight. Regional hegemony comes first for both.

2. At least one sitting elected official claims communication with non-human intelligence.

The UFO/UAP psychological operation escalates in 2026. Steven Spielberg’s return with “Disclosure Day” only adds cultural fuel. The stage is set for someone “respectable” to come forward and give the narrative new legitimacy.

3. The Buffalo Bills defeat the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl LX.

This season has defied prediction. With young and inexperienced teams dominating the standings, the door is open for a veteran squad to rev up. Josh Allen remains arguably the best football player on the planet. Why not Buffalo?

4. Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey” tops the box office.

An A-list director, an all-star cast, and a July release give Nolan’s adaptation a decisive edge over “Avengers: Doomsday,” which won’t arrive until Christmas. Add superhero fatigue and Marvel’s audience-alienating woke escapades, and the path clears.

5. Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito retires.

Ideally both do.

This prediction will anger people I love and respect, but the future of the republic outweighs hurt feelings. Conservatives cannot afford a Ruth Bader Ginsburg-style miscalculation with hostile midterms looming.

6. Pam Bondi does not survive the year as attorney general.

Frankly, she should not have survived last year.

7. Trump’s foreign policy marginalizes the dissident right.

In 2025, figures such as Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes capitalized on anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic tropes, conspiracism, and the grievances of young men in desperate need of a dad and a direction.

That window narrows fast as Trump reasserts American power abroad. An “America Only (except Islam)” MAGA faction collapses once Trump himself acts aggressively on the world stage. It turns out that building a brand on hating Israel gets harder when Trump is the one moving the chess pieces.

Try growing an audience by calling Trump a schmuck anywhere outside BlueSky. Good luck.

RELATED: Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026

Douglas Rissing via iStock/Getty Images

8. The Trump administration blocks the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger.

Trump will not allow Netflix — the most ideologically aggressive streamer in the industry — to consolidate Apple-scale control over pop-culture IP.

9. Trump engineers a split midterm decision.

Trump will nationalize the midterms around his presidency and agenda, not congressional Republicans. He rallies a demoralized base, but, barring a massive economic boom, history and opposition energy prevail.

Republicans narrowly hold the Senate. Democrats narrowly flip the House.

10. We make this happen.

Fraud investigations are closing in on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D), but the scandal reaches beyond any single official.

Minnesota’s election system itself now stands exposed, revealing vulnerabilities that undermine transparency and public confidence.

Election officials cannot plainly explain how the system blocks ineligible voting, and voters have every reason to doubt it.

Recent reporting has drawn renewed attention to just how permissive Minnesota’s election framework has become. The state allows voters to “vouch” for up to eight other individuals at the polls. That practice requires no voter identification and relies entirely on personal attestation. Even on its own, that policy raises serious concerns. Combined with broader governance failures and ongoing fraud investigations, it becomes a glaring liability.

Minnesota’s approach to immigration and identification compounds the problem. In 2023, Walz signed legislation allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses.

In most states, such a policy would trigger heightened election safeguards to prevent misuse. Minnesota has no voter ID requirement at all, leaving a dangerous gap between immigration policy and election administration.

Supporters frame these policies as efforts to expand access and remove barriers to voting. But access without accountability produces disorder. Confidence in elections depends on clear rules governing eligibility, verification, and identification. Remove those guardrails, and public trust erodes.

Those vulnerabilities came into sharp focus during an October hearing of the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committee. On a recent episode of my "Election Protection Project Podcast," I spoke with state Rep. Patti Anderson (R), the committee’s vice chairman, about her exchange with state Elections Director Paul Linnell.

Anderson repeatedly asked a basic question: Could illegal aliens use driver’s licenses issued under the Walz-signed law to vote?

Linnell refused to give a clear answer.

That exchange exposed Minnesota’s core problem. Election officials cannot plainly explain how the system blocks ineligible voting, and voters have every reason to doubt it. A system without basic safeguards can’t be trusted.

RELATED: Tim Walz’s nightmare continues as HHS shuts off $185M to Minnesota amid allegedly ‘fake’ Somali day care centers

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Moments like this expose the weakness of claims that voter ID is “unnecessary.” In 2023, Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows (D) opposed a bill requiring photo identification at the polls, arguing that identity is already verified during registration and that ID requirements could suppress turnout. Minnesota’s experience shows why that argument fails. Loose rules invite confusion, abuse, and doubt. Safeguards such as voter ID protect confidence rather than diminish it.

Americans understand this instinctively. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 81% of U.S. adults support requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification, reflecting broad bipartisan support for common-sense safeguards. These measures help ensure that election outcomes remain credible.

Minnesota’s lack of safeguards is especially troubling as the state heads into a critical election year. Voters deserve assurance that their elections will be administered competently and that only eligible citizens can cast ballots.

Election integrity should never be treated as a partisan issue. It forms the foundation of self-government. Without clear rules, accountability, and transparency, the democratic process itself suffers. Minnesota still has the opportunity to restore trust by implementing voter ID and reinforcing citizenship requirements before voters return to the polls.

Dan Bongino served his final day as deputy director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Saturday, returning to civilian life on Sunday after less than a year of public service.

Bongino first announced mid-December that he would be departing from the bureau in the New Year. On Saturday, Bongino made his departure official, signing off in a post on X.

'I gave up everything for this.'

"It was a busy last day on the job," Bongino said. "This will be my last post on this account. Tomorrow I return to civilian life."

"It's been an incredible year thanks to the leadership and decisiveness of President Trump," Bongino added. "It was the honor of a lifetime to work with Director Patel, and to serve you, the American people. See you on the other side."

RELATED: Trump suggests Dan Bongino will leave the FBI: 'He wants to go back to his show'

Photo by Roy Rochlin/Getty Images

President Donald Trump praised Bongino, who first assumed office in March.

"Dan did a great job," Trump said. "I think he wants to go back to his show."

Ahead of his departure, Bongino spoke about the toll his job had taken on his personal life and his family, pointing to the demanding nature of the position.

RELATED: Bongino and Bondi clash over botched handling of Epstein files

"I gave up everything for this," Bongino told "Fox & Friends" in a May appearance.

"I stare at these four walls all day in D.C., by myself, divorced from my wife — not divorced, but I mean separated — and it's hard," Bongino added. "I mean, we love each other, and it's hard to be apart."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

For decades, Americans heard the same justification for high drug prices. Pharmaceutical executives insisted those prices were unavoidable. Research costs required them. Innovation depended on them. The United States, as the world’s most open market, had to pay more than everyone else.

Then Eli Lilly cut the monthly price of one of its flagship weight-loss drugs, Zepbound.

If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change.

Nothing about the drug changed. No new scientific breakthrough appeared. The only thing that changed was competition. Once real pressure entered the market, Lilly found room in its pricing model that executives had long claimed did not exist.

The market responded quickly. Novo Nordisk, Lilly’s primary rival, lowered its prices soon after. This did not reflect a sudden gain in efficiency. It reflected fear of losing ground to a competitor.

That is how functioning markets work. When one major player moves, others adjust. The correction happens faster than any federal agency could hope to manage.

The irony is hard to miss. For years, the industry claimed margins were fixed and untouchable. Executives warned that any shift would damage shareholders and undermine global health. Yet the moment one company blinked, others followed. Consumers saw relief not because regulators intervened, but because competition exposed the old narrative as hollow.

Another force reinforced that shift. On Nov. 6, the White House announced a pricing agreement with major drug manufacturers scheduled to take effect in 2026. The agreement aims to narrow the gap between U.S. prices and those in other advanced economies and establishes a purchasing framework that makes reductions easier to implement.

That move marked a break from Washington’s habit of passively accepting industry talking points. The administration did not override the market. It amplified momentum competition had already created. Companies that once refused to consider cuts began to bend once the political cost of rigidity became clear. The announcement accelerated the trend, but competition started it.

A larger reality deserves attention. Major pharmaceutical companies have posted enormous profits for years. They have spent billions on stock buybacks and shareholder payouts while executive compensation soared. Market valuations across the sector reached historic highs. Lilly even became the first pharmaceutical company to surpass a trillion-dollar valuation.

Profit itself is not the problem. But competition forcing these firms to behave more like the quasi-utilities they resemble marks a welcome change from a system long treated as untouchable.

RELATED: The party that made life more expensive wants credit for noticing

byemo via iStock/Getty Images

That system rests on a global arrangement in which Americans shoulder a disproportionate share of drug development costs. Wealthy nations negotiate prices or impose caps. The United States does not. The gap between what Americans pay and what others pay funds buybacks, dividends, and executive packages. Shareholders collect the upside.

The disparity speaks for itself. Drugs that cost hundreds of dollars overseas cost thousands here. The industry defended that gap by warning that research would collapse if prices fell. The current price cuts prove otherwise. Pipelines remain intact. Investment continues. Profitability holds. The model did not break when prices moved downward. It adjusted.

These developments expose a simple truth. Prices never reflected necessity. Incentives shaped them, reinforced by limited competition and political deference. Competition cracked open an inflexible model. The White House helped widen the opening.

Policymakers should learn from that sequence. If lower prices matter, then incentives matter more than bureaucracy. Competition and consumer access drive real change. The bloated regulatory machinery Washington favors often delays it. The market moved before Congress could even respond.

For Americans struggling to afford essential medication, that lesson matters most. Competition remains the strongest and most reliable force for bringing prices down.

It worked here. It can work again — if policymakers allow markets to function and pharmaceutical companies choose access over insulation.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote from a prison cell, “It is only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith.” He wrote those words after the world had closed in, when faith could no longer remain theoretical.

I live with someone who understands exactly what he meant.

In those moments, belief stops being a feeling and becomes a claim. Not something you summon, but something you test.

My wife, Gracie, has lived with disabilities for virtually her entire life. Hospital rooms and operating schedules do not interrupt our life — they form its familiar terrain. Over time, suffering has stopped being a concept and become a place we recognize.

I also have a friend who understands what Bonhoeffer was describing.

Her name is Joni Eareckson Tada. A diving accident in her teens left her a quadriplegic. Her life has unfolded under paralysis, chronic pain, and illness. She does not approach suffering from a distance.

Last year, during one of Gracie’s long hospital stays, Joni called.

Most people asked about Gracie. Joni did too. But then she asked about me.

That question deserved more than a stock reply.

I paused.

Moments like that strip away emotional self-examination and force you to examine your claims instead.

As I spoke with Joni, I shared something that has steadied me for decades.

In our church, there came a moment when the pastor would stop, look out over the congregation, and ask a single question: “Christian, what do you believe?”

We did not improvise. We did not search for language that felt expressive or current. We stood and recited the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed. No personal spin. No tailoring belief to the moment. Just a clear declaration of what had been received.

That question stayed with me.

It returned again and again over the years, especially in places where explanations had lost their usefulness. I learned the limits of “why.” Even good answers rarely hold steady there.

In those moments, belief stops being a feeling and becomes a claim. Not something you summon, but something you test.

If Christ is who I say He is, then what does that require of me here?

I was not trying to manufacture courage or resolve. I was asking whether the faith I professed in calm settings could bear weight when standing itself cost something.

“Christian, what do you believe?”

Over time, many of the questions I once carried narrowed to that one. Not because the pain diminished or the losses stopped coming, but because belief, when real, clarifies responsibility.

The apostle Peter tells believers to be ready to give an answer for the hope within them. That readiness has nothing to do with eloquence. It comes from knowing where you stand.

As a new year begins, many caregivers feel little sense of reset, except for the deductible and the co-pay.

Some stand outside an ICU, looking through glass at someone they love. Others stand in different hallways, facing different kinds of loss. Different rooms. The same ache.

RELATED: Do not pass the plow: The danger of declaring a golden age without repentance

John J. Kim/Chicago Tribune/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Bonhoeffer did not write from a place of safety or control. He wrote from confinement, where faith could no longer remain theoretical. Many recognize that narrowing, the sense that life has closed in and the ground beneath you has given way.

Faith is learned there, not discussed.

Exhaustion thins memory. Words scatter. Not everyone can recall creeds when sleep runs short and decisions carry real weight. But belief does not measure itself by recall. It reveals itself by posture.

When the floor gives way, you still need to know where to stand.

If He is Lord at all, then He is Lord of all.

Not only of sanctuaries, but of hospital corridors.

Not only of strength, but of weakness.

Not only of moments we would choose, but of moments we would never script.

That confession does not remove pain. It does not explain every loss. But it does tell us where to stand when the world presses in.

And when glass separates you from the one you love, whatever room that glass happens to be in, the question does not stay abstract.

It turns personal.

Christian, what do you believe?

President Donald Trump announced that the United States will be running Venezuela following the capture of President Nicolas Maduro.

American military forces conducted a "large scale strike" in Venezuela where Maduro and his wife were captured and transported on the USS Iwo Jima. Following the operation, Trump announced that the United States is "going to run" Venezuela until a "proper transition can take place" in the government.

'It was dark, and it was deadly.'

"We can't take a chance that somebody else takes over Venezuela that doesn't have the good of the Venezuelan people in mind," Trump said, flanked by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials. "We've had decades of that. We're not going to let that happen."

Trump also said American oil companies are going to "go in" and "fix the badly broken infrastructure."

RELATED: Maduro captured following 'large scale strike' in Venezuela, Trump says

Nicolas Maduro on board the USS Iwo Jima. pic.twitter.com/omF2UpDJhA
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 3, 2026

Maduro and his wife were indicted for their "campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States and its citizens." Both are en route to the Southern District of New York, where they will be tried.

Trump also noted that no American servicemen were killed in the operation and all military equipment was recovered.

RELATED: Trump says US struck drug-linked site in Venezuela: ‘We hit them very hard’

Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP via Getty Images

"All Venezuelan military capacities were rendered powerless as the men and women of our military, working with U.S. law enforcement, successfully captured Maduro in the dead of night," Trump said.

"It was dark, and it was deadly."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Ten months ahead of November’s midterms, political and economic crosscurrents are colliding. Which of these conflicting trends prevail will greatly shape the next two years. And possibly even longer.

Midterm elections are always important. Besides gauging the country’s political mood, they have proven integral to maintaining America’s political equilibrium.

For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?

They are the “ebb” to the “flow” of America’s political tide. Historically, every four years a large tide of voters go to the polls and elect a president. Then every two years, the large voter flow ebbs back, and the president’s party suffers accordingly.

This midterm is particularly important to Trump because he has proven susceptible to being baited by his opponents. After 2018, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) returned to the House speakership and unrelentingly harassed Trump over the last two years of his first term. These distractions and obstructions­ — especially during COVID — were undoubtedly a factor in Trump’s narrow 2020 Electoral College defeat.

Today’s political crosscurrents are pronounced. We know the president’s party historically loses seats. The last two two-term presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, suffered congressional losses averaging 22 House seats and 7.5 Senate seats.

Such losses would hand Democrats control of Congress, giving them a House majority larger than Republicans’ narrow edge and a Senate majority bigger than the GOP’s current six-seat margin. Such outcomes would end Trump’s legislative agenda, and Democrats could set their own. To understand the potential impact, play back the recent funding impasse when Democrats shut the government down for the longest period ever — despite lacking control of either chamber.

While Trump would be able to veto Democratic legislation and Republican numbers would be ample to uphold his vetoes, Democrats would have a formal hand in shaping the political agenda. This could greatly help their 2028 presidential prospects.

RELATED: Republicans are letting Democrats lie about affordability

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Current politics are blunting the historical midterm flow, however. Trump is divisive, with just a 43.4% favorable rating; however, his job approval rating of 43.1% is higher than Obama’s (42.4%) at the same point in his second term. Further, Democrats are in abysmal shape with just a 32.5% favorability rating.

The current 2026 political map is also favorable to Republicans. While they have more seats (22 to 13) to protect in the Senate, the toss-up seats are evenly split: Republicans with Maine and North Carolina; Democrats with Georgia and Michigan. Mid-decade House redistricting efforts are also likely to favor Republicans somewhat; if the Supreme Court should allow race to be disregarded in drawing House districts when it rules on the Louisiana case currently before it, then even more redistricting could occur and amount to an even greater Republican advantage.

Today’s economic crosscurrents are equally pronounced. For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?

At the micro level, the growing issue is “affordability.” Nationally, this is an overhang of inflation that surged during Biden’s administration and peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 — a 40-year high.

Locally, affordability played well in New York City (which has been plagued by Democratic policies of rent control and excessive taxation, regulation, and litigation) in 2025’s mayoral race. It also played well in Virginia, where it linked powerfully into the record-long government shutdown. Democrats are therefore seizing on the issue with some success — particularly in the establishment media — and are trying to nationalize it.

At the macro level, the economy is a different story. Despite “expert” predictions that Trump’s tariffs, green agenda rollback, attack on illegal immigration, and reduction in government would combine to wreck the economy, the reverse has occurred. In Trump’s first two full quarters in office, GDP is averaging over 4% growth: up 3.8% in the second quarter and 4.3% in the third. Inflation has also been moderate — 2.7% in November — certainly not the spike experts predicted and a far cry from the previous four years.

RELATED: Conservatives face a choice in ’26: realignment or extinction

MediaProduction via iStock/Getty Images

So politically, depending on your perspective, Republicans look to outperform historically. Their Senate majority looks safe for now, with the chance that Republicans could even gain a seat or two. By contrast, Republicans’ House majority looks vulnerable; this could be offset slightly by current mid-decade redistricting efforts. Yet even just half the average loss of the last two administrations in their second midterms would mean an 11-seat swing and a 226-209 Democratic majority.

Economically, the question is whether the micro or the macro prevails. Can the micro become a national mood outside Democratic areas, or will the macro of strong GDP growth and moderate inflation have time to prevail? Expect political midterm fortunes to respond accordingly.

What is certain is that the midterms will shape the last two years of Trump’s second term. And possibly determine who will run and who will win the presidency in 2028.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

A North Carolina man who allegedly planned to use knives and hammers for a New Year's Eve attack at a grocery store and a fast food restaurant in support of ISIS was arrested and charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, federal officials said Friday.

The Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina said a criminal complaint was filed Wednesday and unsealed Friday after Christian Sturdivant appeared in federal court in Charlotte. Sturdivant turned 18 just two weeks ago, according to jail records.

'May Allah curse the cross worshipers.'

"This successful collaboration between federal and local law enforcement saved American lives from a horrific terrorist attack on New Year's Eve," Attorney General Pamela Bondi said. "The Department of Justice remains vigilant in our pursuit of evil ISIS sympathizers — anyone plotting to commit such depraved attacks will face the full force of the law."

FBI Director Kash Patel added that "the accused allegedly wanted to be a soldier for ISIS and made plans to commit a violent attack on New Year's Eve in support of that terrorist group, but the FBI and our partners put a stop to that."

The FBI in Charlotte on Dec. 18 received information that an individual later identified as Sturdivant was making multiple social media posts in support of ISIS, a designated foreign terrorist organization, according to allegations in the arrest affidavit.

Sturdivant in early December posted an image depicting two miniature figurines of Jesus with on-screen text that read, "May Allah curse the cross worshipers," officials said. The post allegedly is consistent with ISIS rhetoric calling for the extermination of all non-believers, including Christians, Jews, and Muslims who do not agree with ISIS' extreme ideology.

RELATED: 'Terrorist scum': Trump announces Christmas Day strikes in Nigeria in response to persecution of Christians

Image source: Department of Justice

The criminal complaint alleges that Sturdivant on or about Dec. 12 began communicating with an online covert employee, or "OC," whom Sturdivant believed was an ISIS member, officials said.

Sturdivant told the OC, "I will do jihad soon" and proclaimed he was "a soldier of the state," meaning ISIS, officials said, adding that on Dec. 14, Sturdivant allegedly sent an online message to the OC with an image of two hammers and a knife. This is significant because an article in the 2016 issue of ISIS' propaganda magazine promoted the use of knives to conduct terror attacks in Western countries, officials said, adding that the article inspired actual attacks in other countries. Later, Sturdivant told the OC that he planned to attack a specific grocery store in North Carolina, officials said. Sturdivant also told the OC about his plans to purchase a firearm to use along with the knives during the attack, according to the arrest affidavit.

What's more, officials said Sturdivant on Dec. 19 allegedly sent the OC a voice recording of Sturdivant pledging "Bayat," which is a loyalty oath to ISIS.

On Dec. 29, 2025, law enforcement conducted a search warrant at Sturdivant's residence, where they discovered handwritten documents, one of which was titled "New Years Attack 2026," officials said.

RELATED: FBI stops radical pro-Palestinian New Year’s Eve terror plot: Report

Image source: Department of Justice

The document listed items such as a vest, mask, tactical gloves, and two knives allegedly to be used in the attack, officials said, adding that it also described a goal of stabbing as many civilians as possible, with the total number of victims to be as high as 20 to 21.

The note also included a section labeled as "martyrdom op," which described a plan to attack police responding to the site of the attack so Sturdivant would die a martyr, officials said.

RELATED: Trans-identifying radicals among those arrested in alleged planned New Year’s Eve terror plot

The complaint alleges that Sturdivant lived with a relative who secured knives and hammers so Sturdivant could not use them for harm, officials said. Yet, law enforcement seized from Sturdivant's bedroom a blue hammer, a wooden handled hammer, and two butcher knives which appeared hidden underneath the defendant's bed, officials said. These items appear to be the ones depicted in the online message Sturdivant previously sent to the OC, officials said.

Law enforcement also seized from Sturdivant's bedroom a list of targets, as well as tactical gloves and a vest, acquired as part of the defendant's planned attack, officials said.

Sturdivant remains in federal custody, officials said, adding that he faces a statutory maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison if convicted. He was behind bars Friday night at the Gaston County Jail with no bond.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Nicolás Maduro was "captured and flown out" of Venezuela after the United States carried out another strike, President Donald Trump announced.

After months of anticipation and several strikes against alleged drug cartel boats, Trump greenlit the most aggressive military action of his second term in office.

'Maduro was arrested by American officials and will stand trial in the United States.'

"The United States of America has successfully carried out a large scale strike against Venezuela and its leader, President Nicolas Maduro, who has been, along with his wife, captured and flown out of the Country," Trump announced Saturday.

"This operation was done in conjunction with U.S. Law Enforcement. Details to follow."

Trump is expected to speak at a Mar-A-Lago press conference at 11 a.m. on Saturday.

RELATED: Trump says US struck drug-linked site in Venezuela: ‘We hit them very hard’

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with several Republican senators about the capture, noting that Maduro was arrested by American officials and will stand trial in the United States.

"[Rubio] informed me that Nicolás Maduro has been arrested by U.S. personnel to stand trial on criminal charges in the United States, and that the kinetic action we saw tonight was deployed to protect and defend those executing the arrest warrant," Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah said in a post on X. "This action likely falls within the president's inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution to protect U.S. personnel from an actual or imminent attack."

"The interim government in Venezuela must now decide whether to continue the drug trafficking and colluding with adversaries like Iran and Cuba or whether to act like a normal nation and return to the civilized world," Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas said in a post on X. "I urge them to choose wisely."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The fight over free expression in American higher education reached a troubling milestone in 2025. According to data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, efforts to censor speech on college campuses hit record highs across multiple fronts — and most succeeded.

Let’s start with the raw numbers. In 2025, FIRE’s Scholars Under Fire, Students Under Fire, and Campus Deplatforming databases collectively tracked:

• 525 attempts to sanction scholars for their speech, more than one a day, with 460 of them resulting in punishment.
• 273 attempts to punish students for expression, more than five a week, with 176 of these attempts succeeding.
• 160 attempts to deplatform speakers, about three each week, with 99 of them succeeding.

That’s 958 censorship attempts in total, nearly three per day on campuses across the country. For comparison, FIRE’s next-highest total was 477 two years ago.

The 525 scholar sanction attempts are the highest ever recorded in FIRE’s database, which spans 2000 to the present. Even when a large-scale incident at the U.S. Naval Academy is treated as just a single entry, the 2025 total still breaks records.

The common denominator across these censorship campaigns is not ideology — it’s intolerance.

Twenty-nine scholars were fired, including 18 who were terminated since September for social media comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Student sanction attempts also hit a new high, and deplatforming efforts — our records date back to 1998 — rank third all-time, behind 2023 and 2024.

The problem is actually worse because FIRE’s data undercounts the true scale of campus censorship. Why? The data relies on publicly available information, and an unknown number of incidents, especially those that may involve quiet administrative pressure, never make the public record.

Then there’s the chilling effect.

Scholars are self-censoring. Students are staying silent. Speakers are being disinvited or shouted down. And administrators, eager to appease the loudest voices, are launching investigations and handing out suspensions and dismissals with questionable regard for academic freedom, due process, or free speech.

RELATED: Liberals’ twisted views on Charlie Kirk assassination, censorship captured by a damning poll

Deagreez via iStock/Getty Images

Some critics argue that the total number of incidents is small compared to the roughly 4,000 colleges in the country. But this argument collapses under scrutiny.

While there are technically thousands of institutions labeled as “colleges” or “universities,” roughly 600 of them educate about 80% of undergraduates enrolled at not-for-profit four-year schools. Many of the rest of these “colleges” and “universities” are highly specialized or vocational programs. This includes a number of beauty academies, truck-driving schools, and similar institutions — in other words, campuses that aren’t at the heart of the free-speech debate.

These censorship campaigns aren’t coming from only one side of the political spectrum. FIRE’s data shows, for instance, that liberal students are punished for pro-Palestinian activism, conservative faculty are targeted for controversial opinions on gender or race, and speaking events featuring all points of view are targeted for cancellation.

The two most targeted student groups on campus? Students for Justice in Palestine and Turning Point USA. If that doesn’t make this point clear, nothing will.

The common denominator across these censorship campaigns is not ideology — it’s intolerance.

RELATED: Teenager sues high school after tribute to Charlie Kirk was called vandalism

rudall30 via iStock/Getty Images

So where do we go from here?

We need courage: from faculty, from students, and especially from administrators. It’s easy to defend speech when it’s popular. It’s harder when the ideas are offensive or inconvenient. But that’s when it matters most.

Even more urgently, higher education needs a cultural reset. Universities must recommit to the idea that exposure to ideas and speech that one dislikes or finds offensive is not “violence.” That principle is essential for democracy, not just for universities.

This year’s record number of campus censorship attempts should be a wake-up call for campus administrators. For decades, many allowed a culture of censorship to fester, dismissing concerns as overblown, isolated, or a politically motivated myth. Now, with governors, state legislatures, members of Congress, and even the White House moving aggressively to police campus expression, some administrators are finally pushing back. But this pushback from administrators doesn’t seem principled. Instead, it seems more like an attempt to shield their institutions from outside political interference.

That’s not leadership. It’s damage control. And it’s what got higher education into this mess in the first place.

If university leaders want to reclaim their role as stewards of free inquiry, they cannot act just when governmental pressure threatens their autonomy. They also need to be steadfast when internal intolerance threatens their mission. A true commitment to academic freedom means defending expression even when it is unpopular or offensive. That is the price of intellectual integrity in a free society.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

It's impossible to imagine that anyone reading this on their computer, tablet, or smartphone has made it to 2025 without hearing about the dangers of blue light.

What's more, for every warning about those blue-light hazards comes the equally ubiquitous solution: blue-light glasses.

Blue-light glasses are built with lenses that shield the eye from shorter, higher energy wavelengths of light.

Since screens are ubiquitous now and there's unfortunately very little chance that they will be going anywhere, the next best solution is to learn to live with them to the best of our ability. But that leaves an important question to be answered when it comes to dealing with blue light: Do those blue-light glasses actually work, or are they a gimmick?

RELATED: Hello, darkness, my old friend: How to get your body's circadian rhythms back on the beat

Photographer: Anindito Mukherjee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

LED blues

Most people have seen the studies: Blue light, which is emitted by screens and indoor LED lightbulbs, may cause quite a few health problems, including the disruption of your circadian rhythm, leading to poorer quality sleep. Some believe that this is because blue light signals to the body that it is time to be alert and awake, which is obviously problematic when phones are used at night.

Blue light may also increase stress and lower cognitive output, but one might be surprised to learn that other studies have found the opposite to be true.

It's also important to note that blue light is natural and is emitted from the sun at a higher frequency than from screens or LED bulbs. However, many have turned to blue-light glasses as a solution to eye fatigue and other issues as well.

People whose job involves staring at a screen for long periods of time have often reported eyestrain, which is sometimes called computer vision syndrome.

Blue-light glasses are built with lenses that shield the eye from shorter, higher energy wavelengths of light, notably blue light.

Science ambivalent

However, the science is still quite ambivalent on the question of blue-light glasses and their effectiveness, with most sources leaning toward saying you do not need them.

In a 2023 study that examined 17 different blue-light-filtering lens trials, it was discovered that the blue-light glasses had little to no effect on any of the relevant symptoms, including sleep quality and eye strain.

So while you may not need to go get any blue-light glasses according to these studies, the question stands: Can anything be done to reduce the negative effects of blue light?

20-20-20 vision

The answer is yes, but it's not nearly as fancy as a pair of new spectacles. Eye doctors recommend avoiding screens at night or turning on the "night" filter on your phone to reduce the blue-light display, effectively negating any need for lenses in the first place.

“There is reason to think blue-light exposure may signal our brains that we should stay awake, so reducing blue light in the evening may be beneficial and glasses may help,” Dr. Craig See, an ophthalmologist and cornea specialist, told US News. “However, devices can automatically reduce blue light in the screens.

Others recommend following the 20-20-20 rule: Every 20 minutes, look at something 20 feet away for 20 seconds or more. This will hopefully reduce any eye discomfort without adding any unnecessary accessories.

Brian J. Cole Jr. denied placing pipe bombs on Capitol Hill in January 2021 for more than two hours under FBI questioning after his arrest in Virginia on Dec. 4. Cole said he did not recognize the person in a gray hoodie shown on video walking with a backpack on Jan. 5.

After two hours of questioning, Cole, 30, told FBI agents that “everything is just blank” and the interview was “a little too much to process,” according to a U.S. Department of Justice memorandum filed in the criminal case.

‘This could result in the collection of misleading information and false confessions during criminal justice interviews.’

Agents then leaned on him, stating he could face more criminal charges if he lied to them. Then they left him alone in the interrogation room for 20 minutes.

When they returned, agents asked Cole again if he is the suspect shown on surveillance video. “This time, the defendant paused for approximately fifteen seconds, placed his head face-down on the table and answered, ‘Yes,’” the DOJ stated.

The FBI’s tactics in interrogating a man the defense asserts has autism spectrum disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder will likely become a major bone of contention for defense attorneys. Cole, whose grandmother has said he operates at the level of a 16-year-old, had no lawyer present during four hours of questioning. According to the FBI, Cole signed a waiver of his Miranda rights.

‘Overwhelming evidence’?

In the first real courtroom clash in the pipe-bombs case on Dec. 30, defense attorneys fought back against a DOJ memo claiming there is “overwhelming evidence” that Cole planted “viable” pipe bombs near the Democratic National Committee building and the Capitol Hill Club during a 22-minute span on the night of Jan. 5, 2021.

Defense attorney J. Alex Little argued for Cole’s release from jail pending trial in a 16-page memo. During a hearing before U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh, Little said Cole is not a danger to anyone. Pretrial detention is an extraordinary measure reserved for the few defendants who are a provable risk to society no matter what restrictions are imposed by the federal court.

Judge Sharbaugh said he received a two-count indictment on Dec. 29 from a District of Columbia Superior Court grand jury charging Cole with the same two counts that are in the federal criminal complaint.

The DOJ posted the indictment on the court docket, dated Jan. 2. It was signed by Jocelyn Ballantine, deputy chief of the National Security Section at the DOJ. Ballantine was previously a top official in the Capitol Siege Section under then-Attorney General Merrick Garland. Her appointment to the pipe-bomb case was greeted with outrage by former Jan. 6 defendants, who questioned why President Donald Trump had not removed her from the DOJ.

The suspect was across the street from a Capitol Police squad car while walking to the Jan. 5 bomb drop, video shows. Image from Capitol Police CCTV

Judge Sharbaugh did not immediately accept the indictment because there is a legal question whether D.C.’s federal district court can accept a grand jury indictment from the local Superior Court. In D.C., the Superior Court is akin to state, county, and local courts in the 50 states.

A ruling by U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that Superior Court indictments can be accepted in federal district court is on appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Judge Sharbaugh asked both sides in the Cole case to submit briefs on the matter by close of business Dec. 31. He promised a ruling “in short order”on whether to accept the indictment and whether to release Cole into the custody of his grandmother.

Cole’s attorneys submitted a 20-page memo as directed by Judge Sharbaugh, but the DOJ filing didn’t appear on the official docket until Jan. 2.

Sharbaugh initially sidestepped the indictment issue and the 14-day requirement for a preliminary hearing and on Friday issued a ruling that Cole must remain jailed until trial. The judge said the DOJ convinced him “by clear and convincing evidence that there are no conditions of release that can reasonably assure the safety of the community.”

Judge Sharbaugh said he can make an “independent probable cause determination” even without an indictment or holding a preliminary hearing. He labeled the defense arguments “wrong,” stating that “longstanding caselaw in this district is consistent with that understanding.”

A short time later, Judge Sharbaugh issued an order stating he would accept the Superior Court indictment of Cole because the DOJ “represents that it will promptly seek a superseding indictment from a federal grand jury panel as soon as those panels reconvene.”

The DOJ’s briefing on the legality of the judge accepting the Superior Court indictment didn’t appear on the case docket until Friday, after the judge issued his decision. A portion of the document was redacted that described “extenuating circumstances” faced by the DOJ because federal grand juries were not available from Dec. 22 through year’s end.

Blaze News reached out to Little and the DOJ for comment but did not receive a reply by publication time.

Little sought to have a preliminary hearing Tuesday, because Cole was well beyond the 14 days prosecutors had under the law to secure an indictment or submit to an adversarial preliminary hearing. Cole made an initial court appearance on Dec. 5.

Police walked right past the DNC pipe bomb to first look under a bush where the bomb suspect sat 17 hours earlier. Photos by U.S. Capitol Police

Little said prosecutors told him they never sought an indictment from a federal grand jury. They rushed to seek an indictment from the Superior Court grand jury on Dec. 29 only after the defense made it clear it would demand a probable-cause hearing. A preliminary hearing allows the defense to cross-examine witnesses, unlike a grand jury, which hears only from prosecutors.

“The government wants to avoid a preliminary hearing, where its evidence will be tested in public,” Little wrote on Dec. 31. “Rather than subject its proof to cross-examination, the government sprinted to a different court — supervised by different judges and subject to different rules of evidence, privilege, and juror competency — to secure a last-minute indictment.

“Only after defense counsel insisted on holding the preliminary hearing did the government pursue its current path — seeking a federal indictment from a D.C. Superior Court grand jury,” Little said. “… The government either must present evidence at a preliminary hearing sufficient to establish probable cause, or the Court must release Mr. Cole from custody without conditions.”

Prosecutors contend that Cole gave a full confession to agents on Dec. 4.

“The defendant explained that he made the black powder in the devices using charcoal, Lilly Miller sulfur dust and potassium nitrate that he purchased from Lowe’s,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Jones. “The defendant mixed these ingredients in a Pyrex bowel [sic] and used a spoon or measuring cup to pour the black powder into the devices.

“According to the defendant, he learned to make the black powder from a video game that listed the ingredients and he also viewed various science-related videos on YouTube to assist him in creating the devices.”

The document did not identify the video game or provide specifics on the YouTube videos that allegedly guided Cole on making the bombs.

Little has moved twice to have his client released from the Rappahannock Regional Jail — either under court supervision or without conditions.

Prosecutors insist that Cole is a danger to the public, based primarily on the seriousness of the charges against him. Little told Judge Sharbaugh that Cole has maintained employment in the family bail bonds business since Jan. 6 and has no criminal record or evidence of political activism or online postings advocating violence.

Reset cell phone 943 times

The revelation of Cole’s autism and OCD puts the evidence — from the confession to the claim that he factory-reset his phone 943 times and beyond — and charges in a new light and raises the possibility that the defense will seek to suppress evidence as the case moves toward trial.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association, those with Level 1 autism need support or will exhibit “noticeable impairments.” In contrast, the APA characterizes Level 2 autism as “requiring substantial support” and Level 3 as “requiring very substantial support.”

“Inflexibility of behavior causes significant interference with functioning in one or more contexts,” according to the Autism Speaks website. “Difficulty switching between activities. Problems of organization and planning hamper independence.”

Experts say interrogation of persons with autism requires special handling due to the deficits presented by the disorder, which can easily lead to false confessions.

“Such impairments could manifest themselves in proneness to a host of vulnerabilities that place the individual at a severe disadvantage during the interviewing process,” said Jerrod Brown, Ph.D., an assistant professor at Concordia University in St. Paul, Minn., writing in Police Chief magazine.

‘Gullibility should be carefully considered for its potential role in false confessions.’

“Further, individuals may respond promptly, without careful consideration, in a manner intended to please an interviewer,” wrote Brown, who specializes in forensic behavioral health. “This could result in the collection of misleading information and false confessions during criminal justice interviews.”

Detectives and agents need to be aware that autistic individuals can be gullible and at risk of being manipulated, Brown wrote.

Brian J. Cole Jr. at the scene of a minor traffic accident near his home in Virginia in April 2024.Prince William County images

“In some instances, gullibility should be carefully considered for its potential role in false confessions,” he said. “… This disorder may increase the risk of compliance in demanding and stressful situations. For example, individuals with autism could be vulnerable to doing things (e.g., confessing to a crime that they did not commit) to please others, particularly those in a position of power.”

Questions have been raised as to why the FBI didn’t pursue Cole as a person of interest in 2021, when the bureau developed a list of 186 phones based on tower dumps and a geofence warrant. Since FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino said Cole’s arrest involved no new evidence, Cole must have been on that list. It is not known if agents made contact with Cole or his family in 2021.

An FBI internal document obtained by the Committee on House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight said the FBI classified 51 of the 186 devices as “not needing further action” because the phones “belong[ed] to law enforcement officers or persons on the exclusion list.”

Thirty-six of the 186 phone numbers were assigned to FBI special agents for interviews, and 98 of the numbers “required additional investigative steps,” according to a January 2025 U.S. House report. It is not clear whether anything came of those investigative steps, the report said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In the modern world, a diagnosis is often worn as if it’s a badge of honor.

But not everyone sees it that way. And Leland Vittert, an American journalist and anchor for NewsNation, certainly doesn’t.

Vittert, who is diagnosed with autism, tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey that the adversity his diagnosis caused him did not hold him back, but rather helped him become the successful journalist and reporter he is today.

Vittert didn’t speak until he was “well past 3,” and he had “lots and lots of problems in typical school.”

“If a kid touched me or looked at me the wrong way or whatever, I’d turn around and slug them,” he tells Stuckey, explaining he was “pretty aggressive” and had “big sensory issues.”

“Dad’s idea was to hold my hand through the adversity. And I think what he realized was that I was going to face that adversity later in life, which I did. ... I had to learn how to adapt and how to interact with the world as the way the world interacted, not as the way I wanted to interact with it,” he explains.

And it was a struggle, he tells Stuckey, noting that he “couldn’t figure out how to relate to people emotionally the way they were emotionally.”

“I couldn’t figure out how to, you know, read a room, when to stop talking. All of these things I was going to have to learn,” he says. “And if you’re put in bubble wrap and told how wonderful you are all the time, you’re never going to learn that, right?”

That’s when Vittert’s father decided to prioritize self-esteem.

“So, when I was 5 or 6 years old, I was doing 200 push-ups a night. And after a couple months of doing that, you get some kind of reward. But my dad wanted to teach me that self-esteem is earned, not given, which is a very different philosophy, I think, than what we see now,” he tells Stuckey.

After self-esteem, Vittert’s father prioritized teaching him “how the world works socially.”

“So, my dad started spending hundreds of hours with me. Thousands of hours. Still is my best friend. ... We’re recording this a little before noon, and I’ve already talked to him, I think, three times today,” he tells Stuckey.

“So, he would then take me out to lunch, and we’d go out to lunch with any of his friends. And because I spent so much time with him, I could sort of talk about business and politics and news and those kinds of topics,” he recalls.

“But as soon as we’d sit down at some diner for cheeseburgers and milkshakes, as soon as his friend sat down, I would either start blasting him with questions or blasting him with stories about my push-ups. And my dad would tap his watch. And that was my dad’s way of saying, ‘OK, be quiet,’” he explains.

“And the idea was, later on, as we were driving home, it was like, ‘OK, when Mr. so-and-so was talking about his weekend and you interrupted it to talk about your push-ups, why did you think he would be interested in that?’” he continues, telling Stuckey that he and his father would then role-play how Vittert could have asked the friend more questions about himself.

“It was this very minute-by-minute teaching of the emotional and human dynamic,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Bryce Crawford is an evangelist whose supernatural encounter with Jesus not only stopped him from taking his own life, but has catapulted him into a position where he’s helping transform a generation.

“I became a Christian when I was 17. I had depression and anxiety for years. Grew up in a Christian environment, went to a Christian school, but I had a supernatural encounter with Jesus when I was 17. Stopped me from taking my life,” Crawford tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey at AmFest.

This happened in 2020, when Crawford had gone to Waffle House for his “death row meal” on Christmas Day.

“I went to Waffle House, and I was at this table. No one preached to me. No one shared the gospel with me. The total opposite happened actually. This grown man dumped his life issues on me, and he said, ‘I’m losing my wife. She’s divorcing me and taking my kids,’” he explains.

“And then he said, ‘There’s no growth in a relationship if the love isn’t mutual.’ And when he said that, time stopped. And I had learned about Jesus all my life. ... And for the first time, I thought to myself, maybe I don’t know God loves me because I haven’t given myself a chance to love him back,” he says.

“And so I prayed a crazy prayer. I said, ‘Jesus, if you’re real, take away my anxiety and depression because this is the reason why I want to take my life,’ and I haven’t had that crippling anxiety or depression since that day. It’s been almost five years,” he continues.

This was what led Crawford to Christianity and ultimately where he is now — preaching the gospel.

“The Bible says we plant seeds and water seeds. It’s not my job to save anyone. It’s not your job to save anyone. And so I found listening and being intentional with people is the greatest tool of evangelism,” he says. “It’s not love-bombing. It’s just caring about people.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.