Big Tech companies have enveloped every aspect of our lives. There is no escaping them. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, these platforms are “the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.”

Unfortunately, platforms can use their respective monopoly power to remove you based on your skin color, sexual orientation, or political views. Why? Because there exists no true competition to their services. As Justice Clarence Thomas lamented in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute, we can’t get our news anywhere else as Big Tech’s “network effects entrench these companies” to be our only providers to our news and information. Worse, we give them legal immunity via Section 230 of the Communications Act when doing so.

This concentration needs to be broken up.

One of the most effective tools to address this type of corporate gatekeeping is to treat these firms as common carriers. That designation prevents monopolies from arbitrarily or wantonly denying us access to vital public services, such as public squares.

For the unfamiliar, a common carrier is a person or entity that transports people or property and one that publicly advertises that it does so impartially.

The concept may seem foreign, but you have already benefited from common carriage regulations, especially if you have ever ridden in an airplane or sent a package. For example, an airline (one type of common carrier) cannot refuse you service based on your race, gender, or even political affiliation. Nor can FedEx (another example of a common carrier) deny you service or discriminate against you based on your political beliefs.

Applying those same obligations to Big Tech platforms that have a strong track record of denying services or censoring based solely on their political leanings is long overdue.

The good news is that states are waking up.

Indeed, Ohio’s Attorney General Dave Yost sought a declaratory judgment to treat Google as a common carrier to ensure Buckeyes get fair and honest results when using its Search. AG Yost’s case asks a foundational question: why should it be the case that Google, a bona fide monopolist, be allowed to force-feed you biased feeds or deny you access to information that you want to see?

AG Yost isn’t tilting at windmills here. Google’s total dominion over the search market is tantamount to it having total dominion over our access to vital information. Worse, Google exercises its self-serving censorship abilities with reckless abandon. Given that Google has positioned itself as the arbiter of what information we receive, we need guardrails, like common carrier obligations, to quell the concern.

Yet, Ohio Judge James Schuck doesn’t think Google is a common carrier and has halted AG Yost’s case. He listed two rationales as to why. He first contended that Google “doesn’t transport property.”

But that’s an absurd proposition as Google transports tons of property. Your data being chief among them. Yes, your data is your property and the law recognizes it as such. For example, we enact privacy laws and protect intellectual property to entitle us to dictate how companies can use our data. Our data is the currency of the internet. Even Google recognizes it as property, because if they didn’t, then they would have no need for you to sign a privacy policy or terms of service to hand your data over to them.

Judge Schuck’s second justification was that Google doesn’t hold itself out to be indifferent.

Again, this is another odd claim as it directly contradicts Google’s representations in other court proceedings. Especially in those proceedings where Google invokes legal immunities reserved for passive communications systems, specifically Section 230 (located in the “Common Carrier” title of the Communications Act mind you). As Former Representative Chris Cox (R-CA) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)—generally credited as the authors of Section 230—explain: “Section 230 is not the source of legal protection for platforms that wish to express a point of view.” Thus, Google’s immunity sought under Section 230 requires its indifference.

Even better for Yost’s case, Google goes further by fervently arguing that it does not materially contribute to the speech on their platforms—even when they engage in promoting, blocking, elevating, highlighting, monetizing, de-monetizing, or otherwise pushing that content. Google argued that precisely in Gonzalez v. Google where it asserted that it was not engaging in speech when using its editorial discretion to push ISIS videos nor was it engaging in speech activities when the platform failed to delete those videos.

The Judge in this case flagrantly ignored all of this when issuing his opinion.

As Americans, we fight against concentrated authority, not embrace it. Just look at the structure of our Constitution, which is premised on the need for a separation of powers to ensure that not one branch of government can run roughshod on our democratic process. The same is true for private monopolies—or, as James Madison described them, the “greatest nuisances in Government.” The framers felt that, if left unchecked, monopolies could amass more power than the government itself. It is why we have legal tools and principles, such as common carriage obligations, to thwart the threat they pose to our way of life, especially the ones presented by Google’s monopolization.

For these reasons, the judge is wrong here. Google is a common carrier by every conceivable metric.

Nigel Farage deserves to become Prime Minister in 2029, and the British people deserve him in return. But before he reaches the door of 10 Downing Street, he’ll have to make some headway in public perception on Britain’s National Health Service (NHS).

Right now, polling shows that while Britons back Farage and his Reform party on immigration, law and order, and Brexit, they have some way to go on healthcare, education, and the economy in general.

But instead of the usual political tributes to what has long been a national religion in the United Kingdom, the NHS, Farage and his team should start talking about what’s killing Britons: a government that refuses to spend responsibly on life-saving drugs.

The public already knows the NHS is broken. Still, the mindrotting propaganda regarding workable solutions has progressed so much that even four in 10 Reform Party voters recently said they would be “less likely to support Nigel Farage’s party if it proposed to change the NHS to an insurance-based model.”

That indicates a remarkably intransigent voting public, attached more to the founding concept of the 77-year-old institution than its outcomes or current state. In many cases, people don’t know much better. They hear tell of skyrocketing American healthcare costs and are told, usually by those with a vested interest in the socialized system, that this is their only other choice. That is nonsense, of course. But the specter of privatization looms too perilous to conceive of alternatives. Better to grin and bear it. Stiff upper lip. The old blitz spirit.

But Britain isn’t being bombarded by the Luftwaffe. And yet, there’s rationing, eight million people on waiting lists, 14,000 deaths in Accident and Emergency queues last year alone, drug shortages, and no accountability for decades.

Reform for Britain’s health system is still the third rail for many politicians. But if the Reform Party is going to be true to its purpose, it must seek to reform all of broken Britain, not just what is politically easy.

NOT SO NICE.

For decades, NHS drug policy has been governed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), which uses a crude cost-effectiveness formula to decide whether a medicine is “worth” funding. If a new treatment doesn’t deliver one year of “perfect health” for less than £30,000 ($40,000), it is rejected.

That threshold was set in 1999 and hasn’t been adjusted for inflation in 25 years. Today, it would be over £53,000 — a change that could’ve saved countless lives.

Instead, NICE blocked an Alzheimer’s drug that slows progression. It denied a breast cancer drug that doubled survival rates. It stood between British patients and the treatments transforming outcomes in the United States and beyond.

People are forced to ration cystic fibrosis pills because they’re afraid of running out. ADHD patients are self-medicating. Pancreatic cancer survivors trade black-market Creon on Instagram because NHS supply chains are so brittle that they collapse at the first strain.

TRUMP’S TRADE DEAL.

Earlier this year, President Donald J. Trump penned a trade deal with Prime Minister Keir Starmer, including a bold provision: the NHS would review its drug procurement rules to allow greater access for American-made, cutting-edge drugs.

Derided by the usual suspects — Guardian columnists, bureaucrats, even some Tories — as a backdoor for “American pharma greed,” the deal simply removes artificial barriers that prevent Brits from accessing treatments already available to Americans, Israelis, and Australians, to name a few.

Starmer agreed to “endeavour to improve the overall environment, ” which, for him, is actually a pretty good start. But it will take real political courage to go further — to reform NICE, diversify procurement, raise the cost thresholds, let pharmacists prescribe alternatives during shortages, and stop pretending you can run a modern healthcare system like it’s the early 1950s.

MAHA INTERNATIONAL.

Of course, it’s not just about drugs. But an overall healthier Britain should be high up the Reform Party’s agenda. A ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement for the UK. Ditch the seed oils. Ban harmful chemicals. Encourage exercise. Let Britons be masters of their own bodies again.

Healthcare reform — genuine, honest, radical reform — is the last great unclaimed battlefield in British politics. Labour won’t touch it. The Tories did little in 14 years of government besides raising general budgets and hoping the bureaucrats would solve the problems.

This allows Nigel Farage to walk right through the gap and speak to a national truth no one else will: “I’m not here to privatize the NHS. I’m here to make sure it can save your life.”

That’s how you win the “bills and blue lights” voters, who are currently telling pollsters they are most concerned about two major policy areas: the economy and emergency services.

That’s how you fix a country on the brink. And that’s how Farage can take his already successful movement into government.

Picture credit: @IncMonocle, Stuart Mitchell, used with permission.

The National Pulse surveyed its readers this week, asking how the long-standing MAGA base feels about the second Trump administration, six months into its job.

Our goal was simple: assess the base—not the polling average or the Beltway influencers—the base—the people who show up, remember, and expect.

Of those surveyed, 70 percent said the Trump administration is doing “great,” with 13 percent calling it “perfect,” per their expectations. A further 14 percent went with “good/decent.” Only one percent each said “below average” or “poor.”

However, support was rarely unqualified. Many of the most engaged responses came from people who supported the administration and demanded more.

One respondent said: “Not enough deportations.”

Another wrote: “Waiting for arrests of many government officials who committed fraud or treason.”

A third: “The courts need to be reigned in. Roberts needs to do a better job or put someone in as Chief who will.”

And a fourth: “NO ONE in DC has ANY sense of urgency in this deep state matter. It has been 6 months and Trump still doesn’t have his entire administration in place, how many appointments is the Senate sitting on? Why? No sense of urgency.”

The National Pulse has thousands of members all across America and the Western world. Join here for exclusive e-mail insights to your inbox, invitations and offers, a members-only comment section, a Discord chat channel, and more…

PRIORITIES.

Immigration and deep state prosecutions appeared frequently, with one respondent stating: “Deport more illegals and arrest more anti-American enemies of the state.”

Another: “No Amnesty, but I think he said that. [Fewer] H1B visas. Not sure why we’re still supporting Ukraine.”

Another added: “FULL EPSTEIN DISCLOSURE!!! Let the [chips] fall where they may. Redacting names of the innocent is okay, but clearing them by name is better. My preference is to seek Deep State indictments immediately (outside D.C. where possible): otherwise, to appoint a high-level Special Counsel approved by Trump AND Tom Fitton for a time-limited one-year action-oriented investigation.”

Despite the forcefulness of that comment, many also expressed sympathy towards the admin on the subject.

EPSTEIN.

“Epstein needs better explanation for the memo. If documents have been destroyed, say so,” one of you wrote, with another adding:  “Trying to bury the Epstein files is a disaster for Trump and the MAGA movement.

“Such an avoidable self own in regards to Epstein, a sad letdown from an admin that campaigns itself on ridding us of the deep state. Epstein and his ilk ARE the deep state. The handling of Epstein has shaken my confidence in holding the Obama admin accountable.”

Another wrote: “I’m conflicted re Epstein, mad that the mishandling by Bondi has given the Dems so much narrative. X is full of lefties calling Trump a pedo and MAGA pedo lovers.”

Others amongst you take a different view: “I think the latest on the Obama cover-up is far more important than Epstein. I also believe that the Obama cover-up will reveal more into Epstein. And we need to remember, children are being rescued by our, now awesome, FBI, under Patel and Bongino. I am a ‘trust the plan’ person. I have watched Trump over the last 10 years and he’s been right about everything. I have not wavered in my support. The greatest crime in history is what Obama and company did to this country. Epstein, while sick and demented, is just a small piece. I think the goal has always been to reveal Obama and company as the true traitors to this country.”

One respondent wrote: “Far too much emphasis by the MAGA ‘influencers’ on the Epstein files—not a hill to die on—have to pick their battles—much more important issues like potential DOJ prosecution of Clapper et al.”

FOREIGN POLICY.

Foreign policy—particularly Iran, Ukraine, and Israel—came up frequently.

It’s important to remember that this survey was fairly open-ended. Respondents were able to write paragraphs outlining their views rather than being confined to a narrow set of multiple-choice answers like in a political poll. This allows for greater nuance and sentiment analysis.

One member wrote: “Bombing Iran has been a hard sell to the 25 yr old set. And the continued enthusiastic support of Israel. It’s hard to explain to [people] who just expect a magic wand and make it all better right away. (I look at my oldest son to gauge things—I’m more pragmatic…I think he’s great, we need more deportations and [fewer] missteps with Iran, Ukraine, and Israel. Same with Epstein. It’s a symbol of the corruption, and it overshadows all the good happening.)”

Others were more succinct: “Ukraine!!! The Boss getting sucked in. WTF???”

Suggestions from a “below average” respondent: “Epstein, holding people accountable in previous administrations, holding people accountable for censorship, accountability for January 6 lies, stopping covid lies, pushing religious freedom.”

WHAT STANDS OUT.

Respondents were also asked about things that stood out to them, and who they either distrust and want removed, and who deserves more praise.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Vice President J.D. Vance were all on the receiving end of repeated praise across the data set.

Conversely, The National Pulse’s members appear least happy with Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins.

“Fire Susie Wiles. Cut off all funding for all wars.  We are witnessing a purge of the non-interventionist antiwar faction from MAGA.Elon Musk will pick these folks up,” warned one long-standing MAGA supporter.

Praise was also forthcoming for border chief Tom Homan, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, ‘MAHA’ czar RFK Jr., and Senators Josh Hawley and Eric Schmitt.

WATCHING. WAITING.

All in all, readers of The National Pulse seem pleased with the start, but don’t believe the administration has gone far enough yet, which is fair given the amount of time and roadblocks experienced. For those unfamiliar with the inner workings of the first Trump term, believe us, it was a lot slower out of the starting blocks which in turn led to Democrats and the deep state being easily able to block Trump at almost every juncture. This time, it’s different.

“I’m waiting for the U.S. Marshals to raid Obama’s, Hillary’s, Comey’s, etc, houses in the middle of the night and make Big Mike stand out in the road in her nightgown in front of CNN & God! Republicans are failing miserably,” said one. But not everyone is so skeptical.

“I am trying to trust Trump knows what he’s doing and how to do it,” said another, with a separate message stating: “I want to see people arrested, put on trial and if convicted appropriate consequences.”

In amongst the critiques, there are plenty of messages of support, not just for Trump, but for people like Steve Bannon, and indeed for The National Pulse.

THANK YOU.

Only by supporting The National Pulse can you keep this website up and keep this information unbiased.

“Keep up the great reporting.  I am very satisfied with the investment I have made in your efforts albeit a modest one within my means.  May you continue to succeed and prosper,” one of you kindly said.

“I enjoy your publication, as it doesn’t have constant ads popping up. Additionally, you are quite objective,” adds another.

“You are doing a great job Raheem and I always enjoy your email updates, thanks for letting us peek inside the machine,” another wrote, with some of you writing things that we can’t publish, to spare our blushes!

As for the person who asked, “What is Raheem’s favorite beverage of choice?” The answer at this point in life is Guinness. And for the person who wrote, “What about the identity of the J6 pipe bomber?” we agree entirely. What happened to that?

If you’re not already a member, join The National Pulse here, and remember to tell a friend if you are. Additionally, you can support us with one-off donations or recurring gifts here. 

New data from the Democracy Institute shows that the Jeffrey Epstein affair and your response to it may indicate your voter ‘class’.

That’s not to be confused with how much class you have, mind. One might argue quite the contrary.

Having surveyed 1500 likely voters with a margin of error of -/+ three percent, the group found that 63 percent of Americans disagree with the decision not to release a suspected Epstein ‘client list.’

Of those surveyed, 67 percent of Trump 2024 voters disagree with the decision. The number swells to 72 percent amongst new 2024 voters, indicating a significant number of those who joined the Trump coalition for the first time now find themselves at odds with the President on this topic. In terms of mid-term impact, that is gigantic.

Interestingly, the only group that agrees and disagrees in equal measure (48-48%) is the “Upper Class.” This group typically consists of those with substantial wealth, higher incomes, elite educational backgrounds, or inherited status.

This number shifts slightly when considering the middle-class voter: 52 percent disagree with the Trump administration, and 44 percent agree.

But again, the number swells to 72 percent for the working-class voter, with just 26 percent supportive of keeping Epstein’s list under wraps.

Now, look at the data concerning whether people think the issue is that the “list” doesn’t exist versus those who believe it is being “covered up.”

Three out of every four Trump 2024 voters think there’s a cover-up at hand. I declare my open agreement with them.

One in three Harris 2024 voters agrees, and one in four new Trump voters agrees. But once again, the number tightens significantly for the Upper class, which is split 53-43, with the middle class on 57-39.

Once again, America’s working class flexes its skepticism, with almost eight in 10 likely voters insistent on a cover-up.

Again, this bodes poorly for Republicans both morally and politically.

Perhaps it’ll bore you, but I try always to post the methodology of the polls I cite so you can decide on their reliability for yourself: the poll of 1,500 likely U.S. voters was conducted between July 11 and July 13, 2025. It used a party identification model favoring Republicans by two points (R+2) and was administered via landline and cell phones using interactive voice response (IVR) technology. The results were weighted to reflect national distributions for gender, age, education, income, region, voting history, and party affiliation. The overall margin of error for the survey is ±3 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval.

The Democracy Institute has been consistently one of the most accurate and fair regarding Brexit, Trump, migration, and other topics dear to the populist right.

Tom Grady, a former Florida financial regulator and longtime ally of U.S. Senator Rick Scott, has become a central figure in a legal battle between two competing tech firms: Rippling and Deel. Grady is named throughout Deel’s recent countersuit against Rippling, which accuses Rippling of engaging in a multi-year campaign to damage its business.

Who Is Tom Grady?

Grady served as Commissioner of the Florida Office of Financial Regulation from 2011 to 2012 and was later appointed to the Florida State Board of Education, which he chaired from 2021 to 2023. He also served on the Florida State Board of Administration’s Investment Advisory Council and was a member of the state Constitution Revision Commission. His political ties to Rick Scott include donations to Scott’s campaigns and mutual appointments across several state positions.

Grady and Rippling.

In 2017, the Naples Daily News reported that Grady was an investor in Rippling, a human resources technology firm. That same year, he incorporated the company’s insurance subsidiary in Florida. Grady disclosed Rippling (under its legal name People Center, Inc.) as a client in financial filings covering 2018, 2020, and 2021.

According to Deel’s lawsuit, Grady continued working with or on behalf of Rippling in later years. Then, in 2023 and 2024, he submitted formal complaints about Deel’s licensing status to the Florida Office of Financial Regulation. He sent these directly to Greg Oaks, the agency’s Director of Consumer Finance, who held that position during Grady’s time as commissioner.

The 2023 complaint alleged that Deel operated as an unlicensed money services business in Florida. The office closed the investigation without action. In June 2024, Grady submitted additional allegations, including claims related to a Deel subsidiary and purported connections to sanctioned Russian entities. The agency also dismissed these allegations as not actionable.

Outreach to Former Employees and Legal Recruitment.

In February 2024, Grady’s law firm apparently began contacting former Deel employees. The outreach claimed there was a congressional investigation into Deel’s employee classification practices. According to public records, no such investigation was ongoing. A March 2023 letter from Trump impeachment leader Rep. Adam Schiff and other House Democrats had called for a Department of Labor inquiry, but even Schiff later withdrew that request.

The Grady firm solicited plaintiffs for potential litigation and collected information through a dedicated email address: DeelTruth@gradylaw.com.

Friends With Zenefits.

In 2016, Grady filed a public records request for documents related to a Florida insurance investigation into Zenefits, the company formerly led by Rippling CEO Parker Conrad. The investigation had not yet been made public. Zenefits filed a lawsuit to prevent the release of the documents, citing trade secrets. Grady later withdrew the request without explanation.

In 2017 and 2018, Grady reported receiving consulting income from Zenefits, according to financial filings.

NY & CA Liberal Takes Sudden Interest in Funding Republican Rick Scott.

In October 2024, Parker Conrad, now Rippling’s CEO, made several political donations to Florida political entities connected to Senator Rick Scott. These included:

• $5,000 to Team Rick Scott (October 18, 2024)

• $3,300 to Rick Scott for Florida (October 23, 2024)

• $1,700 to Let’s Get to Work PAC, a Rick Scott-aligned PAC (October 23, 2024)

Conrad also contributed to Kamala Harris’s campaign and had previously maxed out to Joe Biden. Until then, his federal political donations had been directed exclusively toward Democratic candidates. The contributions to Rick Scott-aligned groups represent a notable departure from that pattern, made as Deel and Ripplings were preparing for court.

Conrad was born in New York, studied in Boston, and lives in San Francisco. He has no public affiliation with Florida beyond the regulatory interactions related to the Deel case.

Grady’s Education Nonprofits.

Grady is president of a group of affiliated nonprofits and for-profit education companies in Florida, operating under the Freedom Institute and Quest Educational Foundation names. These groups provide standardized test preparation and college counseling to students in Naples.

Their funding includes state dollars from Florida’s Personalized Education Program (PEP). According to IRS filings, the organization spent $32,748 on curriculum and activities in its most recent year while allocating over $800,000 to salaries and compensation. It also reported $1.5 million in assets managed by Naples Global Advisors, a firm Grady is reported to have invested in and shares an address with his law office.

As of its most recent filing period (July 2021–June 2024), the organization owed more than $160,000 to The Village School of Naples, categorized as “federal income taxes.”

Ongoing Litigation.

The legal dispute between Rippling and Deel is ongoing. Deel’s countersuit accuses Rippling of coordinating a campaign to harm its business interests using legal, political, and regulatory channels. Grady’s role as an intermediary is a key element of Deel’s case. The allegations remain subject to court review and discovery, and as it proceeds, don’t be surprised if the likes of Senator Rick Scott are asked what they knew about all this as it unfolded.