"The Best Mix Of Hard-Hitting REAL News & Cutting-Edge Alternative News On The Web"
October 1, 2025
Democrats Force Federal Government Shut Down, Using AI To Solve Pediatric Cancer, Most-Favored Nation Drug Pricing From Pfizer, US Constitution Part 3, And More
On September 30, 2025, President Trump signed the EO Unlocking Cures for Pediatric Cancer with Artificial Intelligence using AI to innovate prevention and treatments for childhood cancer (and they mean people from 1 to 19 years of age, calling 18 and 19 year old ADULTS "children" why?).
Section 2 calls for the MAHA Commission, Secretary of HHS, Assistant to the President for Science & Technology (APST), and the Special Advisor for AI & Crypto to work together to develop innovative ways to use AI to improve diagnosis, treatment, cures, and prevention strategies for childhood cancer. This would include using AI to consolidate data from multiple sources as well as to select participants for clinical trials; enhance data analysis; and improve clinical trial design, access, and outcomes by improving accessibility, recruitment, administration, conduct, and interpretation of trial results.
Section 3 increases funding for initiatives that address childhood cancer and encourages the private sector to innovate using AI as well.
Section 4 improves data sharing and empowering patients with a focus on maximizing electronic health record and claims data as well as academic research and clinical trial design while still following HIPAA. A great focus will be on protecting the patient's health information to keep the children safe while allowing for privacy-compliant exchanges of data.
The accompanying Fact Sheet President Donald J. Trump Prioritizes Harnessing American AI Innovation to Unlock Cures for Pediatric Cancer explains the absolute goal is to make American children healthy again. President Trump and Secretary Kennedy believe one way to make children healthy again is to harness AI to analyze scientific research. They believe that by using AI capabilities to review and analyze research can build world-class scientific datasets to empower clinicians and researchers with the research they need to make child-health-centered decisions using the 'latest and greatest' research available, not only in government research, but, to encourage the private sector to utilize AI as well.
On September 30, 2025, the White House published the Fact Sheet President Donald J. Trump Announces First Deal to Bring Most-Favored-Nation Pricing to American Patients (I am sure the Presidential Action will be posted in time for tomorrow's article) in which President Trump announced the first "bring drug prices down commensurate with prices for other similarly developed countries" agreement. The "lucky" pharmaceutical company? Well, Pfizer, of course. The Fact Sheet claims this agreement will bring pharmaceutical prices down especially for Eucrisa (dermatitis), Xeljanz (arthritis & colitis), and Zavzpret (migraines) if sold directly to patients. The Fact Sheet reminds us that President Trump signed EO 14297 Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients (discussed in my May 13, 2025 ANP Article) as a foundation for this recent action.
On September 30, 2025, the White House published the article President Trump Deploys Federal Resources to Crush Violent Radical Left Terrorism in Portland and Oregon files a lawsuit over it (see lawfare below). The Insurrection Act of 1807 (10 USC §§ 251-255) allows the President to deploy the National Guard OR active-duty military to suppress insurrections, domestic violence, unlawful combinations, or conspiracies that obstruct federal law enforcement (such as CBP or ICE) or deprive citizens of constitutional rights. The President can federalize the National guard under this Act if local authorities are unable or unwilling to control a situation where federal law is being obstructed or public order is significantly disrupted. Of course, the Oregon governor says there is no insurrection or threat to national security in her state.
We learned back in 2016 that Portland is the home base of Antifa, and they're still there and they're still being violent. However, now they have turned their sights against both State & Federal law enforcement instead of neighborhoods, small businesses, looting, arson, assault, battery, and general mayhem.
On September 30, 2025, the White House published the article POLL: Most Americans Say NO As Radical Left Drives Democrat Shutdown citing a poll from The New York Times showing 65% of the people polled say we SHOULD NOT shut down the government. With 92% of republicans, 59% of independents, and 43% of democrats saying we should NOT shut down.
However, it appears only the loony left agree that in order to NOT shut down the government we would give in to their $1,500,000,000,000 demand to give benefits to criminal illegal aliens, cut rural hospital funding that was just granted in the OBBB, and subsidize woke media (like NPR and PBS) while simultaneously cutting funding for veterans, seniors, law enforcement, women & children in need, and many other programs.
A new lawsuit, State of Oregon v. Trump docket # 3:25-cv-01756 was filed September 28, 2025 in District court D, Oregon about the National Guard Deployment to Portland, a suit was filed. The lawsuit seeks the following relief: 1) Declare that any order federalizing and deploying members of the Oregon National Guard is ultra vires and contrary to law; 2) Hold unlawful and enjoin Defendants’ federalization and deployment of members of the Oregon National Guard; 3) Preliminarily and permanently enjoin, and stay and set-aside, Secretary Hegseth and the Department of Defense [WAR] from calling Oregon National Guard members into federal service, deploying them in Oregon, or taking any other similar action in Oregon; 4) Award Plaintiffs’ costs of suit and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses under any applicable law; and 5) Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
We can anticipate an immediate injunction by the liberal courts in Oregon followed by an immediate appeal of the judgement. Question is how long will it take?
A new lawsuit, Illinois v. Noem docket # 1:25-cv-00495 was filed on September 29, 2025 in District Court D. Rhode Island about Federal Grant Conditioning (the Trump Administration putting conditions of following the Administration's priorities and compliance with Presidential Actions). The lawsuit seeks the following relief: 1) Declare that the Reallocation Decision is unconstitutional and/or unlawful because it: (a) violates the APA; (b) is ultra vires; and (c) is contrary to the Constitution of the United States; 2) Set aside the Reallocation Decision; 3) Direct Defendants to obligate fiscal year 2025 HSGP funds consistent with the statutory criteria or, in the alternative, the target allocations set forth in the fiscal year 2025 notice of funding opportunity; 4) Require defendants to rescind the fiscal year 2025 award notifications and de-obligate the associated funds(or, at minimum, the funds reallocated from Plaintiff States to other jurisdictions); 5) Enjoin DHS and FEMA from disbursing, processing, returning to the U.S. Treasury, or otherwise making unavailable by any means all fiscal year 2025 Homeland Security Grant Program funds; 6) Suspend the September 30, 2025, statutory lapse of HSGP funds to the full extent necessary to permit obligation of revised Homeland Security Grant Program awards to Plaintiff States at the levels of the target allocations specified in the fiscal year 2025 Homeland Security Grant Program notice of funding opportunity, including by recording as an obligation of the United States the full appropriation for the Homeland Security Grant Program for fiscal year 2025 pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 1501(a)(6); 7) Set aside the Performance Period Decision and direct defendants to re-issue award notifications that reflect a three-year performance period, or are otherwise compliant with federal law; 8) Retain jurisdiction to monitor defendants’ compliance with this Court’s judgment; 9) Award the States their reasonable fees, costs, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and 10) Award such additional relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
1) Enter a judgment declaring that the following challenged provisions violate the Supremacy Clause and are therefore invalid:
Article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, to the extent that it prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from voluntarily detaining aliens pursuant to immigration detainers or prohibits state law enforcement officers from performing immigration enforcement functions pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) agreements; • Minnesota Statute § 171.12, Subdivision 7b(e);
Minnesota Statute § 171.12, Subdivision 11(c) and (d);
Minnesota Statute § 168.327, Subdivision 6;
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 2, Chapter 19.30(a)(1) and (a)(3);
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 2, Chapter 19.60(d);
St. Paul Code of Ordinances, Part III, Title III, Chapter 44.02(a)(2);
St. Paul Code of Ordinances, Part III, Title III, Chapter 44.03(a)(1) and (a)(3);
St. Paul Code of Ordinances, Part III, Title III, Chapter 44.06(d); and
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Administrative Directive 21-02.
2) Issue a permanent injunction that prohibits Defendants and their successors, agents, and employees, from enforcing the following provisions:
Article I, section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution, to the extent that it prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from voluntarily detaining aliens pursuant to immigration detainers or prohibits state law enforcement officers from performing immigration enforcement functions pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) agreements;
Minnesota Statute § 171.12, Subdivision 7b(e);
Minnesota Statute § 171.12, Subdivision 11(c) and (d);
Minnesota Statute § 168.327, Subdivision 6;
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 2, Chapter 19.30(a)(1) and (a)(3);
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances, Title 2, Chapter 19.60(d);
St. Paul Code of Ordinances, Part III, Title III, Chapter 44.02(a)(2);
St. Paul Code of Ordinances, Part III, Title III, Chapter 44.03(a)(1) and (a)(3);
St. Paul Code of Ordinances, Part III, Title III, Chapter 44.06(d); and
Hennepin County Sheriff’s Administrative Directive 21-02.
3) Award the United States its litigation costs and fees; and
4) Award any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
In the lawsuit Widakuswara v. Lake docket # 1:25-cv-01015 filed March 21, 2025 filed in District Court, District of Columbia about Voice of America dismantling, on September 29, 2025, the RIFs were suspended. The original lawsuit sought the following relief:
1) Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction to:
i. Order Defendants to take all necessary steps to return USAGM and its employees, contractors, and grantees to their status prior to the March 14, 2025 Executive Order entitled “Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy” and the March 15 email issued to all VOA staff, including by reinstating and permitting employees or contractors that were placed on leave, furloughed, terminated, experienced a reduction-in-force, or had their contracts changed, canceled or modified on or after March 14, 2025 to return to work, and to take no further action to reduce USAGM’s workforce (whether employees, contractors, or grantees); and ii. Order Defendants to comply with Congressional statutes that require VOA to “serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news,” 22 U.S.C.A. § 6202(c), and require international USAGM outlets to “provide news which is consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective, and comprehensive,” 22 U.S.C. § 6202(a), (b) (and, similarly, 22 U.S.C. § 1465aa), including by: (i) enjoining Defendants, and those acting in concert with them, from taking take any steps that would cause USAGM or its outlets to be unable to effectively disseminate news and opinion to a significant audience, including by taking any USAGM outlet off the air; (ii) directing that Defendants restore all programming on USAGM and USAGM-grantee media outlets ; (iii) directing that Defendants shall continue to make and supervise grants and allocate funds for international broadcasting to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Afghanistan and the Open Technology Fund; and (iv) directing that Defendants refrain from reducing USAGM’s workforce (whether employees, PSCs, or grantees) whether by leave, furloughs, termination, reduction-in-force, cancelation of grants or contracts, or otherwise.
2) Declare that Defendants violated the First Amendment and statutory firewall, separation of powers, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the appointments clause;
3) Order Defendants to cease their violations of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights;
4) Award Plaintiffs nominal damages;
5) Award Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and
6) Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
On September 29, 2025, Judge Royce C Lamberth ordered: 1) The Court defers a final ruling on the Motion pending the proceedings described below; 2) The defendants shall file a sur-reply to the pending motion no later than October 14, 2025. The defendants’ submission shall set forth a plan for compliance with prong (3) of the preliminary injunction for the Court to evaluate as an exhibit to the sur-reply. Plaintiffs shall file any further reply thereto no later than October 21, 2025; and 3) The Reduction in Force announced by Defendant Lake on or about August 29, 2025, is SUSPENDED and may NOT be implemented, effectuated, or completed in any way until this Court has ruled on the plaintiffs’ Motion following the briefing submitted under Paragraph B of this Order. What is surprising is that the Judge wrote the following: The Court must offer an observation on the concerning disrespect the defendants have shown toward the Court’s orders since the entry of the preliminary injunction. It is the Court’s view that the defendants’ disregard for its earlier orders to produce information would more than support a trial on civil contempt. For the moment, the Court focuses on the example most germane to the current proceedings. . . . The defendants' obfuscation of this Court's requests for information regarding whether their RIF plans comported with the preliminary injunction has wasted precious judicial time and resources and readily support contempt proceedings. That said, the plaintiffs have not requested such proceedings, and the Court declines to pursue contempt sua sponte.
Sounds like the judge is a bit miffed that the Trump Administration is not taking a knee and following his judicial decrees in the exact manner he wants. I am sure an appeal of this judgement will be filed as well.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. [Changed by 17th Amendment]
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
