Tag: news

Authored by John Mills via The Epoch Times,

The Wall Street Journal recently revealed an unprecedented meeting that occurred in December 2024, which addressed the ongoing series of cyberattacks on U.S. critical infrastructure. In this meeting, described as a “summit,” about 12 U.S. national security officials engaged in candid discussions with their Chinese counterparts.

This meeting marked the first acknowledgment by China that the Volt Typhoon and the Salt Typhoon cyber intrusions originated from the Chinese regime.

“The Chinese official’s remarks at the December meeting were indirect and somewhat ambiguous, but most of the American delegation in the room interpreted it as a tacit admission and a warning to the U.S. about Taiwan, a former U.S. official familiar with the meeting said,” the Journal reported.

Chinese Cyber Assaults

Volt Typhoon was first publicly reported in early 2023, as Microsoft and the Department of Homeland Security revealed cyber intrusions into critical infrastructure in Guam. A Chinese state-sponsored group was the announced culprit, and one U.S. official said this was part of a broader Chinese intelligence-gathering system.

The department’s Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released an advisory with perhaps a new cybersecurity buzz phrase of “living off the land.” One article posited whether this event signaled preparation for a Chinese attack.

In 2024, congressional testimony by then-FBI Director Wray and then-CISA Director Jen Easterly was sobering. Easterly characterized the Chinese actions starkly, saying, “This is truly an ‘Everything Everywhere, All at Once’ scenario.”

The Journal article, published on April 10, provided further information on the motives of the Chinese regime. “The Chinese delegation linked years of intrusions into computer networks at U.S. ports, water utilities, airports and other targets, to increasing U.S. policy support for Taiwan … underscoring how hostilities between the two superpowers are continuing to escalate,” the report said.

Leadership Accountability for Cyber Failures

In his first term, President Donald Trump’s initial executive order on cybersecurity stressed one theme: leadership accountability.

The executive order states: 

“The President will hold heads of executive departments and agencies (agency heads) accountable for managing cybersecurity risk to their enterprises. In addition, because risk management decisions made by agency heads can affect the risk to the executive branch as a whole, and to national security, it is also the policy of the United States to manage cybersecurity risk as an executive branch enterprise.”

To clarify, the executive order said that cyber breaches would be considered a direct reflection of the senior leadership of the affected departments and agencies.

The revelation of the December 2024 Geneva meeting may provide further background on the recent leadership changes at Fort Meade, Maryland.

Beijing’s cyber campaign has been relentless since early 2023 and includes the full spectrum of U.S. critical infrastructure, including power, water, telecommunications, air traffic control, and maritime navigation-related systems.

A Cyber ‘Plucking’ to Ensure Best Leadership

Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, Trump’s initial national security adviser during his first term, told me “there are more flag officers [generals and admirals] that need to go,” pointing out that “this is a ‘Marshall Moment’ to effect these changes.”

This refers to the “plucking” used by Gen. George Marshall before and during the Second World War.

Herm Hasken, a retired military officer and senior adviser to several cyber and electronic warfare companies, told me that “the public is only getting a portion of the whole story regarding the size and scope of China’s intrusions across all 16 sectors of our critical infrastructure.”

Retired Secret Service Senior Executive Robert Rodriguez told me that industry practitioners are extremely concerned about the Chinese regime’s Salt Typhoon cyberattacks.

Rodriguez helped establish the early cyber capabilities of the Secret Service. He is still active in cybersecurity innovation efforts.

“The threat was so serious they formed a coalition of U.S. and Canadian [chief information security officers] to host a series of ongoing workshops” to address the broad and pervasive Chinese cyber intrusions, Rodriguez said.

He said China is “by far the No. 1 threat” to the United States and the world.

In December 2024, a Senate Hearing dove deeply into the Salt Typhoon cyberattacks. The bipartisan dissatisfaction in Congress regarding the U.S. government’s inability to shut down and remove Chinese cyber intruders was evident.

“I think the American people need to know the extent of the breach here, I think they will be shocked at the extent of it,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said at the time. 

“I think they need to know about their text messages, their voicemail, their phone calls. It’s very bad, it’s very, very bad, and it is ongoing.”

Then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Mark Warner (D-Va.), who has direct experience as an executive in the telecommunications market, was concerned about the unaddressed “gaping holes” in the U.S. cybersecurity posture.

“I think there is huge concern, far and away the worst telecom hack, and the fact is that they are still in the systems,” Warner told reporters at the time.

The unabated and continuous Chinese cyber assault, confirmed by The Wall Street Journal in relation to the high-level Geneva security summit between the outgoing U.S. national security team and China, may be a significant causal factor for changes in U.S. cybersecurity leadership.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Jim Bovard

“If it is known that authorities have power to coerce, few people will wait for actual coercion,” economist Friedrich Hayek wrote in the 1956 foreword to his 1944 classic, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek’s insight could be the Rosetta Stone for understanding the Trump administration’s censorship zealotry.

On March 25, six masked federal agents seized a Turkish graduate student on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts. Rumeysa Ozturk—who was wearing a hijab—was a Fulbright scholar working on a doctorate at Tufts University. Ozturk was snatched up because she co-authored a student newspaper op-ed a year earlier that criticized Israel, as I discussed here on March 31 (“First They Came for the Op-Ed Writers”).

Secretary of State Marco Rubio denounced Ozturk as a “lunatic” and implied she was guilty of participating “in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos.” Ozturk was shuffled between detention facilities before being taken to Louisiana. A federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to deport her without any judicial proceedings.

Ozturk’s student visa was secretly revoked several days before she was taken into custody. Did the Trump administration want a high-profile incident in order to deter any other students from writing op-eds or from protesting Middle East policies?

On Sunday night, the Washington Post detonated the Trump case against Ozturk by publishing extracts from a confidential State Department memo. Prior to Ozturk being seized outside of Boston, senior DHS official Andre Watson sent a memo to the State Department stating that, “OZTURK engaged in anti-Israel activism… Specifically, [Ozturk] co-authored an op-ed article” that “called for Tufts to ‘disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.’”

But the State Department found that no federal agency had turned up any evidence that Ozturk “engaged in antisemitic activity or made public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization.” Despite Rubio’s vilification of Ozturk, the feds didn’t have squat on her.

DHS wanted Ozturk expelled from the US under a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that entitles the Secretary of State to deport any foreigner if there are reasonable grounds to believe their presence has “adverse policy consequence for the United States.” But there was no such evidence for Ozturk, so the Trump administration instead used a legal authority under which the Secretary of State can deport anyone on his own decree—no evidence required.

Because of her op-ed criticizing Israel, Ozturk vanished into the federal detention system, moved from state to state so the Trump administration could avoid a habeas petition in federal court challenging her detention. She was forced to wear leg shackles and a chain around her waist. She has asthma and had several attacks so far in lockup. At the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, she sleeps with 23 other people in a cell meant for 14. “None of us are able to sleep through the night. They come into the cell often and walk around triggering the fluorescent lights. They shout in the cell to wake up those who work in the kitchen around 3:30 am each day,” she said. Ozturk stated that a federal officer told her: “We are not monsters. We do what the government tells us.” So, of course, federal officials are blameless for any rights that they violate.

Ozturk is one of the most high-profile seizures that Trump’s DHS has made of students who criticized Israeli policies in Gaza. Hundreds of student visas have been revoked and the Trump administration has floated proposals to prohibit all foreign students from attending American universities that fail to fully suppress criticism or protests against Israeli policies.

It would be the height of folly for Americans to presume they face no peril from entitling the feds to seize boundless power to punish students’ speech. Ozturk’s name was provided to the Trump administration by Betar—an organization that the Washington Post characterized as a “militant Zionist group.” US citizens are at risk as well. A spokesman for Betar declared: “We provided hundreds of names to the Trump administration of visa holders and naturalized Middle Easterners and foreigners” who have criticized Israeli policies. The Anti-Defamation League condemned Betar as an extremist organization in February.

Any precedent for blanket censorship will propagate like a covid virus. Many conservatives and libertarians may shrug off Ozturk’s degradation because they have no interest in criticizing the policies of foreign governments. But the Ozturk case hinges on collective guilt—on assuming that anyone who advocates a position is culpable for any crimes committed by any other advocate with the same view.

This was the tacit doctrine that the Biden administration used to legally scourge peaceful January 6 protestors who merely “paraded without a permit” through or near the US Capitol that day. Because a minority of January 6 protestors became violent, the FBI presumed that “trespassing plus thought crimes equal terrorism,” justifying harsh sentences for anyone at the scene (except for the undercover federal agents and informants).

What legal perils will pro-freedom protestors face in the coming years if the Ozturk rule is canonized, entitling federal officials to crush any disfavored opinion? Big-spending Democrats may consecrate Modern Monetary Theory and demonize anyone who criticizes the Federal Reserve. I took this “Kill the Central Bank” photo of Ron Paul supporters at a 2008 Capitol Hill event for his presidential campaign. If the same protestors had peacefully carried the same banner within a half mile of the Capitol on January 6, they likely would have been nailed on a bevy of federal charges. Many politicians have made stark their hatred of libertarians and freedom advocates. A federally-funded Fusion Center tagged Ron Paul supporters as potential terrorist suspects, and another federally-funded center sounded the alarm on anyone “reverent of individual liberty.”

As long as anyone is sitting in shackles in a federal detention center simply for writing an op-ed, freedom of speech is not safe for anyone in the United States. Will Ozturk’s persecution finally wake up people too confident that “it can never happen here”?

The Kremlin on Friday confirmed that the US-brokered ceasefire on energy sites has effectively ended. Last month Ukraine and Russia agreed to temporarily pause all attacks against each other’s energy infrastructure. 

Washington hailed this is as a potential key first-step toward a more comprehensive ceasefire, which has still not gotten off the ground. But both warring sides have accused the other of violating the energy site truce multiple times over, in the prior few weeks. Russia still sees the initiative as positive.

The 30-day moratorium has reached its deadline, with Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov having confirmed “the month [of moratorium] has indeed expired.

He added, “As of this moment, there have been no other instructions from the supreme commander-in-chief, President Putin.” The initial partial ceasefire was brokered in a phone call between Presidents Trump and Putin on March 18.

Russia is leaving open the potential for another interim deal, also amid ongoing efforts to get Moscow and Kiev to the negotiating table.

“We believe that certain progress can already be acknowledged. This progress is related to the moratorium on not striking energy infrastructure facilities,” Peskov continued. “The Russian Federation adhered to this moratorium, which cannot be said about the Ukrainian side.”

It’s unclear the degree to which Russian airstrikes may have hit Ukraine’s energy and power infrastructure over the past month, but what is clear is that huge aerial attacks have been ongoing, including the mass casualty strike on the city of Sumy days ago.

Moscow has meanwhile complained that any sweeping truce deal will be hard to monitor, in terms of ensuring conformity to the terms. Putin too has said that Ukraine’s military would have to be closely monitored, as any partial truce would allow it to simply rearm and regroup.

For this reason, Putin has made clear that he won’t agree to anything ‘partial’ or temporary in nature to halt the fighting. Russia wants a comprehensive truce, but this would require Ukraine giving up its four eastern territories, and Moscow also wants to see ‘de-Nazification’ and a change in government in Kiev. 

Bloomberg leaks latest US ceasefire plan.

“Proposal would freeze the war, with Ukrainian territories now occupied by Russia remaining under Moscow’s control. Kiev’s aspirations of joining NATO would also be off the table.”

No denazification, potential EU contingent in Ukraine,… pic.twitter.com/46LNWHf9or

— Margarita Simonyan (@M_Simonyan) April 18, 2025

All of these things remain a tall order, and Zelensky is still lashing out at the White House for engaging in talks with Moscow but without the Ukrainian government’s direct input.

For example, on Friday Zelensky said of US officials outlining a peace plan in Paris that Trump’s representatives have no “mandate to discuss Ukrainian territories, because these territories belong to our people.” He added: “We do not discuss territories until the ceasefire. We will never consider Ukrainian lands as Russian.”

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Congressional salaries and office space already cost taxpayers a bundle. Yet few realize that the speaker of the House gets to keep their office space, staff and budget for five years after retiring.

Dennis Hastert, the Republican speaker from 1999 to 2006, received a $4 million budget after he left office, and used $1.9 million of it, according to ABC News — $2.8 million in 2025 dollars.

Hastert’s office cost $441,000 in 2010 alone, according to the “Wastebook” reporting published by the late U.S. Senator Dr. Tom Coburn. For years, these reports shined a white-hot spotlight on federal frauds and taxpayer abuses. 

Coburn, the legendary U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, earned the nickname “Dr. No” by stopping thousands of pork-barrel projects using the Senate rules. Projects that he couldn’t stop, Coburn included in his oversight reports.   

Coburn’s Wastebook 2010 included 100 examples of outrageous spending worth more than $11.5 billion, including the cost of Hastert’s legacy office.

Key facts: News reports from 2010 found that Hastert rarely even visited his office. Still, his allowance was available for phone and TV bills, a car lease and postage for mail to voters. His three staffers each earned over $100,000.

A 1970 law created the allowance for offices for former House speakers, two weeks before Speaker John McCormack left Congress. The offices can’t be used for political purposes, but are there to “facilitate the administration, settlement, and conclusion of matters pertaining to or arising out of” their time in Congress.

John Boehner also took advantage of the law when he left Congress in 2015, spending an unknown amount of money. Weeks later, Reps. Thomas Massie and Walter Jones introduced an amendment to try and end the privilege.

Massie told ABC News before the failed vote, “I’m confident that when we get this legislation to the floor, every member of Congress will vote with us to eliminate this waste of taxpayer dollars.”

Search all federal, state and local government salaries and vendor spending with the AI search bot, Benjamin, at OpenTheBooks.com.

Summary: Many Americans likely wish Congress members would accomplish more with their jobs, but paying expenses for politicians who don’t even have a job is another story entirely.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former New York City Police Sgt. Michael McMahon was sentenced to 18 months in prison on April 16 after being found guilty of acting as an illegal agent of China.

McMahon was one of three men who were convicted in 2023 of stalking Xu Jin, a former Chinese official, and his family in New Jersey as part of the Chinese regime’s global “Operation Fox Hunt” campaign to force the repatriation of alleged criminals.

He is the last to receive his sentence.

His co-defendants, Zheng Congying, a lawful permanent U.S. resident, and Zhu Yong, a Chinese retiree, were already sentenced to 16 months and two years, respectively, in January. McMahon’s ruling was previously expected to come later this year. Zheng is scheduled to turn himself in on April 22 to serve his prison time.

The former police officer pleaded not guilty to all charges, stating that he had been led to think that he was just working for a company trying to recover embezzled funds. He said he would not have taken the job if he had known the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was behind it.

“I was unwittingly used,” he said in court.

He secured the support of two Republican congressmen, Reps. Michael Lawler (R-N.Y.) and Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who wrote a letter to District Judge Pamela Chen urging her to spare McMahon from prison time.

McMahon was hired as a private investigator to surveil Xu, who was accused of corruption by the CCP. The former police officer was found to have played a key role in finding Xu’s address.

He was convicted in 2023 of acting as an illegal foreign agent and of conspiracy to commit interstate stalking. On April 16, 2024, he was found guilty by a federal jury in the New York City borough of Brooklyn of interstate stalking and acting as an agent of communist China.

McMahon was found not guilty of conspiracy to act as a foreign agent.

“McMahon, a former law enforcement officer who swore an oath to protect the public, went rogue and dishonorably engaged in a scheme at the direction of the People’s Republic of China,” John Durham, the top federal prosecutor in Brooklyn, said in an April 16 statement on the sentencing.

The convictions of McMahon and his co-defendants were part of the federal government’s push to crack down on what officials called the CCP’s transnational repression.

“The conviction of these three defendants—including a retired [New York Police Department] sergeant—is yet another powerful reminder of the Chinese government’s ongoing, pervasive, and illegal behavior here in the United States,” then-Assistant Director Suzanne Turner of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division said in 2023.

Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI at the time, said in 2020 that CCP leader Xi Jinping was using Operation Fox Hunt to target individuals all over the world who are viewed as a threat to the Chinese regime.

Frank Fang, Alex Wu, and Reuters contributed to this report.

President Trump warned he could walk way from efforts to end the war in Ukraine if a deal can’t be found soon, as Russia said a one-month pause on targeting Ukrainian energy infrastructure had ended.

“If for some reason, one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say, you’re foolish,” Trump told reporters Friday in the Oval Office. “You’re fools, you’re horrible people, and we’re going to just take a pass. But hopefully we won’t have to do that.”

Trump on Russia Ukraine negotiations: If for some reason one of the two parties makes it very difficult we’re just going to say you are foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people and we’re going to just take a pass. pic.twitter.com/6wCj9Z72cg

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 18, 2025

While Trump did not say he has a “specific number of days” in mind by which he wanted to see an agreement before walking away, he needed to see quick progress.

“I know when people are playing us, and I know when they’re not,” Trump said. “And I have to see an enthusiasm to want to end it. And I think I see that enthusiasm. I think I see it from both sides.”

His comments followed a meeting of US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US special envoy Steve Witkoff, with representatives from France, Germany and the UK in Paris on Thursday, where the US indicated its aim was to secure a full ceasefire in Ukraine within weeks, according to people familiar.

Following the meeting, Rubio said the US needed to see in “a matter of days” whether a deal was “doable in the short term…. because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on,” Rubio told reporters at Le Bourget airport outside of Paris on Friday morning, according to a transcript provided by the State Department.

Rubio also said the European nations could help “move the ball” to get a resolution and that their ideas had been “very helpful and constructive.”

“We had a good meeting yesterday,” he added. “But this isn’t going to go on forever.” The war in Ukraine “has no military solution to it” as “neither side has some strategic capability to end this war quickly”, Rubio said.

Trump, who predicted on the campaign trail that he could quickly secure a ceasefire, hits the 100-day mark of his second stint in the White House on April 30. 

Trump “has dedicated a lot of time and energy to this, and there are a lot of things going on in the world right now that we need to be focused on,” Rubio told reporters. “There are a lot of other really important things going on that deserve just as much if not more attention.” 

Bloomberg reports that Thursday’s talks in Paris also included a meeting between Witkoff and French president Emmanuel Macron and were attended by Ukrainian officials. US officials indicated they expected to make significant progress soon, and the participants agreed to work toward that. National security advisers and negotiators from Germany, France, the US and the UK plan to gather again in London next week to follow up on their discussions.

More importantly, Bloomberg also reported that the US presented its allies with details of its peace plan to bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to an end. The proposal, outlined during a meeting in Paris on Thursday, includes easing sanctions on Russia, as well as terminating Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The roadmap would effectively freeze the conflict and leave former Ukrainian territories that are part of Russia under Moscow’s control.

An official told Bloomberg that the proposal still had to be discussed with Kiev, which will certainly balk, adding that the plan would not actually amount to a definitive conflict settlement as Kiev’s European backers would not recognize the territories as Russian.

The meetings came almost a week after Witkoff traveled to St. Petersburg, where he spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin for almost five hours. He described the conversation as “compelling,” saying they discussed steps that could end the war and perhaps lead to business opportunities for Russia as well, including dropping sanctions.

The US has presented its allies with details of its peace plan to bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to an end, Bloomberg reported on Friday, citing European officials familiar with the matter.

The proposal, outlined during a meeting in Paris on Thursday, reportedly includes easing sanctions on Russia, as well as terminating Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO. The roadmap would effectively freeze the conflict and leave former Ukrainian territories that are part of Russia under Moscow’s control, the sources suggested.

European officials have attempted to influence the outcome of peace efforts kicked off by the Trump administration, especially after being sidelined during recent bilateral talks between Russia and the US. 

So far they are failing: a follow up report from Bloomberg on Friday afternoon confirmed that the US is prepared to recognize Russian control of the Ukrainian region of Crimea as part of a broader peace agreement between Moscow and Kyiv. The concession is the latest signal that Trump is eager to rush through a ceasefire deal, and comes as he and Marco Rubio suggested on Friday that the administration is prepared to move on from its peace-brokering efforts unless progress is made quickly. 

Still, the proposal will promptly be rebuffed not only by Ukraine but also by Western European leaders. Crimea was taken by the Kremlin in 2014 following the CIA/western-orchestrated overthrow of then president Yanukovich in the Maidan coup, Russia subsequently held a referendum to validate its control but the international community has resisted recognizing the peninsula as Russian to avoid legitimizing the annexation.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has repeatedly said he will not cede territory to Moscow, and so have European leaders. Doing so risks undermining international laws and treaties prohibiting the taking of land through use of force.

The only winner from the Trump proposal would be Vladimir Putin, who has long sought international recognition of Russian sovereignty in Crimea. Putin so far has refused to agree to Trump’s proposal for a broad peace deal, and the latest concession by Trump signals he would be willing to tip the scales in Russia’s favor in order to achieve a peace.

Trump has repeatedly expressed frustration at the pace of negotiations with Russia, which has so far declined to accept his proposal for a truce in Ukraine as a starting-point for broader peace talks. Trump has also periodically blamed Zelenskiy for the war which was the ultimate outcome of the 2014 Maidan presidential coup.

“President Trump has been clear he wants this conflict brought to a swift, peaceful resolution,” White House National Security Council spokesman James Hewitt said in a statement.

Also on Friday the Kremlin said an order to pause strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure for 30 days had expired, with no updated instructions in place.

“The month has indeed expired,” Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, according to the Interfax news agency. “At the present time there have been no other instructions from the Supreme Commander-in-Chief.”

Putin agreed to limit attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure for 30 days during a March 18 phone call with Trump, an outcome that fell well short of the White House’s aim for a total halt to the fighting over that same timeframe. In the following days, Ukraine and Russia each accused the other of breaking the accord.

Separately, Trump told reporters on Thursday that a deal on critical minerals that he’s demanded with Ukraine is expected to be signed on April 24.

His comments suggests both sides have agreed to the contours of an accord governing postwar plans to exploit Ukraine’s mineral deposits and rebuild its infrastructure.

The deal would grant the US first claim on profits transferred into a special reconstruction investment fund to be controlled by Washington. In negotiations, Zelensky – who was kicked out of the White House in early March when the minerals deal blew up after a heated exchange in the Oval Office between Zelensky and JD Vance – has pressed for better terms and refused to recognize past US assistance as debt, demand all money sent to it from the Biden administration be treated as a forgivable grant.

Authored by Sheramy Tsai via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

At 6 p.m., caffeine is king.

Across the country, gym-goers scoop powder into shaker bottles, chasing a last burst of energy to fuel evening workouts. Pre-workout supplements, called “pre-workouts,” promise a better workout through energy-enhancing ingredients.

Once the domain of bodybuilders, pre-workouts have gone mainstream, driven by social media, flashy marketing, and late-night training trends. Nearly 80 percent of regular gym-goers now use them, according to industry data.

As casual lifters join elite athletes in using pre-workout supplements, a more complicated picture emerges. The gains may be real, but are they worth the trade-offs?

What Are Pre-Workouts?

Amid neon tubs boasting “Explosive Energy,” “Insane Focus,” and “Pump Booster,” it’s not always clear what pre-workouts actually are.

Pre-workouts are powdered supplements mixed with water and taken before exercise. They offer a jolt of energy, sharper focus, and more stamina—a caffeinated cocktail for the fitness crowd.

“It is often recommended to ingest the supplement 30–60 minutes before exercise with the goal of improving the quality of your workout—i.e., increased energy, focus, delayed sensations of fatigue, [and] improvements in muscular endurance or strength,” Andrew Jagim, a sports medicine researcher at Mayo Clinic Health System, told The Epoch Times.

With consistent use and structured training, he noted, pre-workouts may contribute to greater gains in strength and muscle mass compared to training alone.

*  *  *

Pick up some IQ Biologix Nitric Shock pre-workout here…

While pre-workouts may enhance energy and endurance, they aren’t a magic bullet.

“Pre-workout is not a shortcut to success,” Dr. Gabrielle Lyon, a physician specializing in muscle-centric medicine, told The Epoch Times. “It’s not a replacement for sleep. It’s not a stand-in for strategic nutrition or consistent training. If your baseline isn’t solid, no supplement will carry you through.”

What’s in the Scoop?

Most pre-workouts pack a mix of performance-boosting ingredients—often with 15 or more per tub. Caffeine leads, providing energy. Beta-alanine delays fatigue. Creatine boosts strength and power. Vasodilators like citrulline and nitrate improve blood flow and fuel the post-lift “pump.” Some formulas add vitamins like B-complex or C. Others include nootropics—compounds believed to enhance mental function—like tyrosine or alpha-GPC, aimed at sharpening focus and improving mood.

However, there’s no standard formula, leaving consumers guessing amid a sea of options. The most common ingredients include:

Caffeine—Well-studied and effective: Caffeine is the most studied and most reliable pre-workout ingredient. According to the International Society of Sports Nutrition, it can offer small to moderate boosts in everything from endurance and strength to sprinting and jumping.

Creatine—Proven but often underdosed: Backed by decades of research, creatine monohydrate improves strength, power, and muscle mass at daily doses of 3 to 5 grams. However, many pre-workouts include too little to be effective.

Beta-alanine, citrulline, and nootropics—Mixed evidence: Some ingredients show promise but require consistent use. Beta-alanine and citrulline may boost endurance and blood flow, but effects build gradually, not from one scoop. Nootropics like tyrosine and theanine may aid focus, though research on how they interact with stimulants is still young.

Food dyes and natural flavors—Many pre-workouts use artificial sweeteners, food dyes, and vaguely identified flavorings. Though these ingredients enhance taste and shelf appeal, their long-term health effects are unclear.

“While the data on artificial sweeteners like sucralose is mixed, long-term overexposure may affect gut health, insulin sensitivity, or cravings,” said Lyon. She added that frequent use of synthetic colors and flavors “could contribute to low-grade inflammation or microbiome disruption.” Her advice: Choose cleaner, whole-food-based formulations.

What’s Really in the Scoop? (And Why It’s Hard to Know)

What’s in your scoop depends on the brand, and sometimes, you don’t really know. Some products deliver clinically backed doses, while others offer little more than flavored caffeine.

“I recommend selecting products with an open, transparent label,” said Jagim. “A lot of products tend to either be under-dosed or include ingredients in a proprietary blend, making it challenging to know if there is enough of the key ingredients.”

A 2019 study in Nutrients found nearly half of top-selling pre-workouts relied on proprietary blends that hid ingredient amounts. Even when listed, many fell short of effective doses. Beta-alanine averaged just 2 grams—half the recommended amount. Creatine and citrulline were also frequently underdosed, reducing their benefits within the mix.

Pre-workout supplements fall into a regulatory gray zone. In the United States, they are classified as dietary supplements, not drugs, and are not subject to U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval before they hit store shelves. Manufacturers are responsible for safety and accurate labeling, but enforcement is largely reactive. The FDA typically steps in only after reports of harm. While companies must notify the FDA when introducing new ingredients, safety data is rarely made public.

Consumers face a crowded and confusing market. Many formulas blend stimulants, amino acids, and nootropics, but research primarily focuses on single ingredients like caffeine or creatine. The combined effects, especially when stacked with other supplements, are still poorly understood.

“The lack of long-term safety data is of concern,” said Jagim. Regular use, he noted, may pose cardiovascular or cognitive risks that remain understudied.

A 2021 review in Strength and Conditioning Journal analyzed 22 trials on multi-ingredient pre-workout supplements (MIPS). Some showed modest gains—such as for lower body strength (repetitions) and upper body power—most results were inconclusive. Nearly all studies were rated “low quality” due to small sample sizes, bias, and poor transparency.

Despite their popularity, the science behind pre-workout supplements remains unsettled. Few clinical trials are registered in advance—a key step in research transparency—and even fewer report side effects. The wide variation in formulas makes it difficult to determine which ingredients are truly effective or potentially harmful. The review noted: “Optimal forms and strategies on MIPS consumption and use has not yet been rigorously examined.”

Still, not every product keeps consumers in the dark. Some brands offer fully transparent labels, listing exact ingredient amounts and avoiding proprietary blends altogether. Often third-party tested, these formulas aim to give users more control and confidence in what they’re taking.

What Are the Potential Benefits?

For many, the appeal of pre-workouts is simple: more reps, more energy, sharper focus. And in some cases, the promise holds up.

“The clearest benefits are improvements in muscular endurance, meaning the ability to perform as many reps as possible before failure,” said Jagim. “Additionally, some of the more consistent benefits are cognitive, with people frequently reporting improvements in mood, focus, energy, and alertness.”

That mental boost can be crucial when motivation dips at the end of a long day. Caffeine and nootropics may sharpen focus and are one reason pre-workouts have become a late-night gym staple.

Physical gains depend on effort. Regular, high-level training brings the most benefit, said Jagim. “If someone doesn’t consistently push themselves to near maximal levels, the supplement and key ingredients may not exert as strong of effects.”

Read the rest here…

The Trump administration on Friday published an in-depth look at how Dr. Anthony Fauci and US intelligence agencies suppressed the lab-leak theory behind COVID-19 for political purposes.

“Public health officials often mislead the American people through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. Most egregiously, the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab leak theory, in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people’s health decisions,” reads a new White House webpage.

And while we’re still waiting on those pre-dawn raids – i.e. any semblance of accountability, today’s disclosure from the White House is a breath of fresh air over a ‘theory’ that sites like ZeroHedge and The Federalist were punished for suggesting. Millions in ad revenue evaporated after USAID-funded censorship organizations began public character assassination campaigns in conjunction with MSM outlets – all in an effort to cover up the truth.

To wit, within 48 hours of a Fauci underling flagging a ZeroHedge article for review, we were banned from Twitter following an BuzzFeed hit piece by a reporter who was subsequently fired for plagiarism. In the ensuing weeks we were banned by Amazon and Google’s ad platforms over content that had never been an issue until that point (and while we’ve made up with Google, Amazon continues to blacklist ZeroHedge – probably for continuing to make fun of Jeff Bezos’ dick-shaped rocket playing second fiddle to SpaceX).

Months later, Twitter restored our account – citing an “error” (as lab-leak evidence coincidentally began to pile up elsewhere).

To keep the lights on, ZeroHedge launched our premium service – and more recently, the ZH Store, where loyal readers routinely cause us to sell out of hats, shirts, knives, and the unsurprisingly popular ZeroHedge multitool. Needless to say, we appreciate your support.

Diving Right In

Today’s damning release from the White House goes into extensive detail about the COVID-19 coverup by key players.

1. The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.

2. Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.

3. Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research (gene altering and organism supercharging) at inadequate biosafety levels.

4. Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.

5. By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t.

“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication – which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory – was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature.

GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH:

A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely the origin of COVID-19. Current government mechanisms for overseeing this dangerous gain-of-function research are incomplete, severely convoluted, and lack global applicability.

ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC. (ECOHEALTH):

EcoHealth — under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak — used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. After the Select Subcommittee released evidence of EcoHealth violating the terms of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commenced official debarment proceedings and suspended all funding to EcoHealth.

New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into EcoHealth’s pandemic-era activities.

NIH FAILURES:

NIH’s procedures for funding and overseeing potentially dangerous research are deficient, unreliable, and pose a serious threat to both public health and national security. Further, NIH fostered an environment that promoted evading federal record keeping laws — as seen through the actions of Dr. David Morens and “FOIA Lady” Marge Moore.

HHS OBSTRUCTION:

The Biden Administration’s HHS engaged in a multi-year campaign of delay, confusion, and non-responsiveness in an attempt to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation and hide evidence that could incriminate or embarrass senior public health officials. It appears that HHS even intentionally under-resourced its component that responds to legislative oversight requests.

ECOHEALTH OBSTRUCTION:

EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation by providing publicly available information, instructing his staff to reduce the scope and pace of productions, and doctoring documents before releasing them to the public. Further, Dr. Daszak provided false statements to Congress.

DR. DAVID MORENS:

Dr. Fauci’s Senior Advisor, Dr. David Morens, deliberately obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation, likely lied to Congress on multiple occasions, unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records, and shared nonpublic information about NIH grant processes with EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak.

NEW YORK OBSTRUCTION:

New York’s Executive Chamber — led presently by Governor Kathy Hochul — redacted documents, offered numerous illegitimate privilege claims, and withheld thousands of documents without an apparent legal basis to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into former Governor Cuomo’s pandemic-era failures.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO):

The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — via a “Pandemic Treaty” — may harm the United States.

SOCIAL DISTANCING:

The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance “sort of just appeared.”

MASK MANDATES:

There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flipped-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.

LOCKDOWNS:

Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable harm to not only the American economy, but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative effect on younger citizens. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo crucial elements of a healthy and financially sound life.

NEW YORK PANDEMIC FAILURES:

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s March 25 Order — which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients — “was medical malpractice.” Evidence shows that Mr. Cuomo and his Administration worked to cover up the tragic aftermath of their policy decisions in an apparent effort to shield themselves from accountability.

COVID-19 MISINFORMATION:

Public health officials often mislead the American people  through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions, and a lack of transparency.  Most egregiously,  the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab leak theory, in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people’s health decisions.

When those efforts failed, the Biden Administration resorted to “outright censorship—coercing and colluding with the world’s largest social media companies to censor all COVID-19-related dissent.”

For those with the stamina, the complete 557 page report can be read here:

Vindication? Perhaps. Satisfaction? Far fucking from it!

The US is once again pushing a Ukraine peace proposal that would effectively freeze the war, importantly with Ukrainian territories now held by Russia remaining under Moscow’s control – something which the Zelensky government is likely going to reject. White House patience is wearing thin.

The Trump administration has presented allies with an outline of the potential peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, which according to Bloomberg offers to ease sanctions on Moscow if a lasting ceasefire is achieved.

But the Kremlin has to agree to stop fighting, and one US official cited in reports has underscored that this is not being presented as a definitive settlement, and European countries allies wouldn’t necessarily recognize the occupied territories as Russian. So this is not likely to fully satisfy either warring side.

US officials say they are seeking to secure a ceasefire in “weeks” – but have warned that the White House is ready to move on if it doesn’t having willingness from the Kremlin. Bloomberg describes in a Friday report:

The contours of the US plan was shared during meetings in Paris on Thursday, according to European officials familiar with the matter. The proposal would effectively freeze the war, with Ukrainian territories now occupied by Russia remaining under Moscow’s control, said the people.

Kyiv’s aspirations of joining NATO would also be off the table. The people declined to provide further specifics, citing the confidential nature of the discussions. The Paris talks included a meeting between French President Emmanuel Macron and US envoy Steve Witkoff, as well as discussions among Rubio and national security advisers and negotiators from France, Germany, the UK and Ukraine.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has once again put Kremlin officials on notice. He not only wants European allies to help “move the ball” toward ceasefire resolution, but has signaled Moscow that Trump’s initiative’s toward peace will not just linger on forever.

American patience is wearing thin, he described: “We’re not going to continue with this endeavor for weeks and months on end,” Rubio said. “We need to determine very quickly now, and I’m talking about a matter of days, whether or not this is doable in the next few weeks. If it is, we’re in. If it’s not, then we have other priorities.”

He further emphasized in France, “We need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term, because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on.” And one of the post provocative statements issued was (from the perspective of European allies): “The United States has been helping Ukraine over the last three years, and we want it to end, but it’s not our war.”

Thus the US top diplomat made clear that Trump is ready to ‘move on’. But it remains that Zelensky is also not being much of a partner in peace. The Ukrainian leader lashed out at US officials Friday for the suggestion that the war could be frozen with Russia still in control of the four eastern territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia.

He said this is tantamount to Washington “adopting Russian strategy,” and said that Trump’s envoys have no “mandate to discuss Ukrainian territories, because these territories belong to our people.”

He added: “We do not discuss territories until the ceasefire. We will never consider Ukrainian lands as Russian.”

NEW: Russian officials continue to reiterate Russian President Vladimir Putin’s non-negotiable demands for extensive territorial concessions from Ukraine while noting that ongoing peace negotiations are unlikely to achieve results quickly. ⬇️(1/2)

▪️ Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry… pic.twitter.com/yF3sV7or5z

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) April 18, 2025

This strongly suggests a very rocky road ahead, but Washington could be setting up to lay exclusive blame on Moscow if ceasefire talks fail to get off the ground. Yet on the battlefield at least, Russia has less reason to hasten to the negotiating table, as it continues to slowly but steadily advance its hold over territory.

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Medicaid, the state and federal program that provides health coverage for millions of low-income Americans, has taken center stage in Congress’s bid to pass President Donald Trump’s sweeping agenda.

In simplest terms, Republicans want to reduce the cost of the $816 billion program as part of a long-term plan to cut federal spending and implement Trump’s tax cuts and his border and energy measures.

Democrats adamantly oppose cuts to the program.

Though nearly one in four Americans is covered by Medicaid, many people seem to know little about the program or how it works.

Here are the basics of this complex system, which was created in 1965 and has been altered several times since.

What Is Medicaid?

Medicaid is a program that provides health coverage for lower-income Americans, underwritten by state and federal tax dollars. About 85 million people were enrolled in the program as of December 2024.

Medicaid is operated by the states but overseen by the federal government. No state is required to participate in Medicaid, though all states have chosen to do so.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversees the program on the federal level, but each state has its own Medicaid office. Some states refer to Medicaid by a different name. In California, it’s known as Medi-Cal. In Oklahoma, Medicaid is called SoonerCare.

Medicaid is not the same as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, usually called CHIP. However, the two are similar and are usually considered together.

CHIP was started in 1997 to cover medical costs for uninsured children and pregnant women whose income is too high to qualify for Medicaid but who still have trouble affording health insurance.

Who Can Get Medicaid?

Original Medicaid covers low-income people in certain categories including children, pregnant women, parents of dependent children, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) expanded Medicaid eligibility in 2014 to include most people who are under age 65 and who earn at or below 133 percent of the federal poverty line. That’s about $22,000 for an individual or about $42,000 for a family of four including two children.

Forty states and the District of Columbia have chosen to provide this expanded coverage.

The income threshold for CHIP eligibility varies by state and ranges from 170 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty line.

Medicaid enrollment grew to a high of 94.6 million in April 2023 when states were required to maintain the “continuous enrollment” of nearly all Medicaid beneficiaries during COVID-19 regardless of their eligibility status. Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act of 2020, Medicaid coverage could not be discontinued unless the enrollee requested it, moved out of state, or died.

That provision expired in March 2023, but due to the large backlog of eligibility recertifications to be processed, states have had some flexibility in winding down their continuous enrollment. The deadline for all states to comply with Medicaid and CHIP eligibility requirements is Dec. 31, 2026.

What Does Medicaid Cover?

Medicaid coverage varies from state to state and depends on the eligibility category of the person enrolled.

Traditional Medicaid programs are required to cover some basic services including hospital stays, doctor visits, and nursing home care. Beyond that, states can choose to cover a variety of services including personal care, prescription drugs, and physical therapy.

Read the rest here…