A top House Republican is moving to make it harder for China to procure advanced U.S. technology amid longstanding concerns about intellectual property theft by Beijing.

‘My proposed legislation will establish safeguards to prevent future shocks like China’s development of DeepSeek using American technology. In addition to the chips China reportedly stockpiled, it appears China used chips under the current export control threshold to achieve this AI breakthrough,’ House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital.

‘This scenario should be a wakeup call — if you give the CCP an inch, it will take a mile. The CCP’s craftiness is coupled with a total disregard for legal and security considerations. We already know that the CCP uses technology to oppress its own citizens and to commit acts of espionage and sabotage against the United States, including major cyberattacks.’

DeepSeek is an artificial intelligence (AI) software company based in Hangzhou, China. Its AI chatbot is known to be similar to ChatGPT, which was made by California-based OpenAI.

DeepSeek’s release of the new high-profile AI model that costs less to run than existing models like those of Meta and OpenAI sent a chill through U.S. markets.

Its popularity in U.S. app stores has also renewed concerns about Chinese companies collecting American data, as well as the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) censorship practices.

The surprise DeepSeek release also displayed how China’s economic competitiveness has far outpaced the ability of U.S. business leaders and lawmakers to agree on what to do about it. 

The U.S. Commerce Department is now looking into whether DeepSeek used chips that were banned from entering China via sanctions, Reuters reported. 

Green’s bill would put export controls on certain national interest technology and intellectual property to China.

It would also call for sanctions against foreign actors who sell or purchase such items to and from China, as well as Chinese entities who knowingly use items covered by the export controls.

Dem. Sen. Chris Murphy was ripped on social media on Thursday morning over a post where he explained how he stayed up most of the night drinking Red Bull because democracy is ‘on the line’ if Democrats do not stop Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) efforts.

‘After taking the 2-5am shift on the Senate floor last night for our overnight protest, got 2 hours of crappy sleep on my office couch and right back at it today,’ Murphy posted on X. ‘We don’t rest. Keep going. Democracy on the line.’

Murphy, whose post was accompanied by a photo of a Red Bull energy drink and video explaining his cause, was on the Senate floor late Wednesday night attempting to block the confirmation of Office of Management and Budget nominee Russ Vought until the ‘crisis’ of Musk’s DOGE crackdown ‘passes.’

Murphy’s post on social media was widely mocked by conservatives who questioned Murphy’s motives on the Senate floor. 

‘So brave,’ Fox News contributor Lisa Boothe sarcastically posted on X.

‘Area man has to work overnight one time,’ New York Post reporter Jon Levine posted on X.

‘Stunning and brave,’ the Trump White House rapid response account posted on X.

‘Imagine bragging about doing something that basically every college student has done at some point,’ conservative journalist John Hasson posted on X.

‘Men used to go to war and now they cry about working overnight and post their little sugar free red bulls like they’re battle scars,’ conservative commentator Ashley St. Clair posted on X. 

‘These clowns are BEYOND pathetic,’ video journalist Nick Sortor posted on X. ‘This is so embarrassing.’

‘The purest form of love can be found in the relationship between Chris Murphy and a camera,’ former Trump campaign senior adviser Tim Murtaugh posted on X.

‘Overwhelmed at your level of Heroism for ‘democracy’ while your constituents in CT have $1300 electric bills,’ radio host Tony Bruno posted on X. ‘You’re a worthless clown!’

Despite efforts from Murphy and his fellow Democrats, Vought was confirmed as the new White House budget chief late Thursday night. 

In an Instagram live post, Murphy explained to his followers that he was not playing the hero.

‘I’m not trying to plead hardship here, right?’ Murphy said. ‘All I did was stay up late.’

Murphy added, ‘So yeah, the USAID workers, the domestic violence workers, the teachers, those are my heroes. But you guys are my heroes too. Because I get paid to do this job, I asked. I raised my hand. I said, ‘make me a United States Senator, I want to defend democracy.’ So I volunteered for this job. I get a paycheck. But the people that are showing up at these protests, the people that are going to show up at these protests, you got other stuff going on in your life. You don’t have to stand up and fight for democracy, but you are because you think the moment is important, and you are despite the fact that they are doing things to try to make you stay home, try to make you afraid of speaking up.’

Murphy’s Senate speech amid the Trump administration’s targeting of USAID after Musk’s DOGE efforts have resulted in the agency being effectively shut down over what the administration argues is wasteful spending. 

‘For decades, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has been unaccountable to taxpayers as it funnels massive sums of money to the ridiculous — and, in many cases, malicious — pet projects of entrenched bureaucrats, with next-to-no oversight,’ the White House said Monday.

In 1967, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting burst into being under the Lyndon Johnson administration with a mission of ensuring ‘universal access to non-commercial, high-quality content and telecommunications services.’

By 1970, both PBS and NPR sprang forth from the CBP, and Americans were treated to the ‘News Hour,’ ‘Sesame Street,’ British comedies and science programming at a time when there were only three networks, cable TV was strictly for the boondocks, and VCRs were science fiction.

A big part of the reason that programming was limited was that production costs for broadcasting were incredibly high. In David Grzybowski’s book, ‘The Big Story,’ he cites Philadelphia news anchor Larry Kane talking about how hard it was during the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear scare to just get a live TV shot from Harrisburg to Philly:

‘I know we had a live microwave, but the microwaves didn’t go that far. I think we sought some satellite time. I’m not quite sure. The satellite times in those days were $5,000 a minute.’

Five grand a minute! Today, I have done broadcast-quality, live interviews from Harrisburg to New York with my phone. I could do them from Tokyo or Tora Bora, too.

In other words, the core mission of CBP, to ensure universal access to high-quality programming, has been rendered all but irrelevant by technology. The agency is getting $535 million in taxpayer funds in the current budget, yet anyone with a laptop and a Wi-Fi connection can access billions of hours of programming, and even broadcast content themselves.

Much of this online programming is non-commercial. Colleges and universities offer free classes, museums and libraries offer a universe of free archives.

What has clearly happened over the past two decades is that, absent its original mission, public broadcasting found a new one, and this new mission is purely ideological, ludicrously leftist, and has nothing to do with access.

Take this telling statement from NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher, ‘Our reverence for the truth might be a distraction getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done.’

Getting what done, exactly? It’s a radio station, it’s not a political body. In fact, the original 1967 CBP legislation requires ‘strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature.’

Not even the staunchest defender of public broadcasting could suggest with a straight face that objectivity and balance are among its scant qualities these days.

Put simply, public broadcasting is a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist anymore. In 1967, it might have made sense to fund alternatives to the expensive private programming funded by corporate advertising. Today, it makes no sense at all.

There is no reason or excuse for taxpayer dollars to go towards obviously biased news coverage in an age when information is quite literally at everyone’s fingertips.

Make no mistake, I am grateful that when I was 10, I got to see ‘Monty Python,’ ‘Dr. Who,’ Bob Ross, and the ‘McLaughlin Group’ on PBS. But for my son, and millions of Americans today, it doesn’t serve that purpose at all.

One of the hallmarks of President Donald Trump’s frenetic first few weeks in office has been to look at every program, every dollar, and ask if it is being spent wisely in furtherance of America’s goals. Another way of framing that is to ask, is this department or agency fulfilling its mission?

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has not been fulfilling its mission for decades now. In fact, it is often in rank violation of it, especially with its one-sided coverage of social and political issues.

As former NPR editor Uri Berliner, now with the Free Press, has outlined, the bias was unmistakable. In the Hunter Biden laptop story he wrote:

 ‘The laptop was newsworthy. But the timeless journalistic instinct of following a hot story lead was being squelched. During a meeting with colleagues, I listened as one of NPR’s best and most fair-minded journalists said it was good we weren’t following the laptop story because it could help Trump.’

That is really all you need to know. There is no reason or excuse for taxpayer dollars to go towards obviously biased news coverage in an age when information is quite literally at everyone’s fingertips.

There have been calls to reform PBS and NPR. Not even cheeky suggestions like a show for Steve Bannon to balance things out.

But as hilarious as the facial expressions would be on the Vermont couple in the Subaru with the ‘Coexist’ bumper sticker when Bannon’s voice came out of the speakers, there is no reform that can fix a government project that simply has no reason to exist anymore.

Thanks for the memories, public broadcasting, but it’s best that we all just move on.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will resume important meetings and travel associated with the critical grant-review process amid an agency-wide communications freeze at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

While the agency is working its way back to normalcy, its operations are still not completely back to what they were before President Donald Trump took office. The advisory council and scientific review meetings associated with the NIH’s grant-making process, in which outside scientists provide a final grant review and strategic advice before the finalization of a new program, have continued but will not yet meet in open session.  

When Trump took office, he initiated a freeze on external communications at HHS and all of its sub-agencies. Earlier this week, HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said that ‘several types of external communications’ are no longer subject to the pause, and ‘all HHS divisions have been given clear guidance on how to seek approval for any other type of mass communication.’

NIH is currently taking things day-by-day to ensure they are meeting their obligations under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which governs the operation of federal advisory committees and emphasizes public involvement through open meetings and reporting.

Last week, NIH director Matthew Memoli sent a letter to staff seeking to clarify the ongoing communications pause. According to Memoli, the freeze had been issued to ‘allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization,’ but noted that due to ‘confusion on the scope of the pause’ he wanted to provide additional guidance.

In addition to halting announcements, press releases, website and social media posts, new guidance, and new regulations, the freeze also halted public appearances and travel by agency officials, and prohibited new purchases or service requests related to agency work. The move caused anger and confusion among both HHS officials and those in the broader medical community, particularly due to the potential pause of critical health research.

In his memo to staff, Memoli clarified that any research or clinical trials initiated before Jan. 20 can keep going ‘so that this work can continue, and we do not lose our investment in these studies.’ Officials working on these studies may also purchase any ‘necessary supplies’ and conduct meetings related to such work. Although new research projects are still prohibited, NIH staff were told they could continue submitting papers to medical journals and can communicate with those journals about submitted work.

Travel and hiring for such work can continue as well, Memoli indicated, but his office must grant specific exemptions for new hires as Trump also initiated a freeze on the hiring of new federal civilian employees across all agencies during his first week in office. Routine travel planned for after Feb. 1 ‘does not need to be canceled at this time,’ Memoli added. Patients receiving treatment at NIH facilities can also continue to do so. 

NIH can also submit documents to the Federal Register and send correspondence to public officials.

While the pause at HHS has caused a firestorm of concern and criticism, Dr. Ali Khan, a former Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientist who is now the dean of the University of Nebraska’s school of public health, told the Associated Press that such pauses are not unusual. Khan said concern is only warranted if the pause was aimed at ‘silencing the agencies around a political narrative.’