When President Trump emerged from a recent meeting with automotive executives and said he found it strange that some industry leaders oppose Americans repairing their own vehicles, most coverage focused on the politics.

I was more interested in what happened afterward.

If manufacturers truly support independent repairs, why remove provisions governing the very data modern repairs increasingly depend upon?

Because the deeper you dig into the latest right-to-repair fight, the more one question keeps surfacing: Why are automakers fighting so hard to control information generated by vehicles consumers already own?

Follow the money

Follow the money, and the picture becomes much clearer.

The U.S. automotive service market generates roughly $200 billion annually. Service departments are among the industry’s most reliable profit centers. As vehicles become more software-driven and connected, automakers have discovered that selling the car no longer has to end the customer relationship. Software subscriptions, connected services, maintenance plans, warranty work, and dealership repairs all create recurring revenue long after the vehicle leaves the showroom.

There’s nothing wrong with companies pursuing new revenue streams. The problem begins when protecting those revenue streams limits consumer choice.

That’s why the latest legislative fight deserves attention.

Stripped for parts

The debate centers on H.R. 7389, the Motor Vehicle Modernization Act of 2026. Supporters describe it as a way to modernize regulations while preserving independent repair access. On the surface, that sounds like good news for consumers.

Then something interesting happened. One of the most important parts of the broader right-to-repair debate disappeared.

Language covering telematics — the wireless vehicle data increasingly needed for diagnostics, calibrations, software updates, and repairs — was stripped from the bill before it advanced through committee. For many independent repair advocates, that wasn’t a technical detail. It was the entire fight.

That raises an obvious question. If manufacturers truly support independent repairs, why remove provisions governing the very data modern repairs increasingly depend upon?

The answer may have less to do with repairs than with control. For decades, owning a vehicle meant deciding who repaired it. Consumers chose their mechanic. Independent shops competed with dealerships. Competition kept prices down and choices open.

Modern vehicles work differently.

Data-driven

Today’s cars constantly generate data. They monitor component performance, transmit diagnostics, receive software updates, and communicate through manufacturer-controlled networks.

Control the data, and you gain influence over the repair process. That’s why automakers, dealers, independent repair shops, aftermarket suppliers, consumer advocates, and lawmakers are all fighting over the same issue.

Manufacturers argue that unrestricted access creates cybersecurity risks. Those concerns shouldn’t be dismissed. Modern vehicles are vastly more complex than the cars many of us grew up driving.

But independent repair shops aren’t asking for access to nuclear launch codes. They’re asking for the information needed to diagnose, repair, calibrate, and maintain vehicles consumers legally purchased. This is key in an era when more and more repairs require access to software rather than simply a wrench.

Viewed alongside other industry trends, the picture becomes even clearer. Vehicle telematics continue expanding. Subscription-based features are becoming common. Driving data has become valuable to insurers and analytics companies. Manufacturers can now change vehicle functionality through over-the-air software updates.

Each development can be defended on its own. Taken together, they suggest an industry steadily increasing its influence over vehicles long after they are sold.

RELATED: Cheap Chinese cars: Trojan horse built to undermine US security?

Jade Gao/Bettmann/Getty Images

Taking ownership

That’s why the right-to-repair debate increasingly looks less like a repair issue and more like an ownership issue.

Farmers confronted the same problem years ago as manufacturers restricted repairs on modern agricultural equipment. Purchasing expensive machinery no longer guaranteed the ability to fix it without manufacturer involvement.

The auto industry now appears headed toward a similar crossroads.

Technology has unquestionably made vehicles better. They’re safer, more efficient, and more capable than ever before. But technology also changes incentives. Every connected system creates opportunities for convenience, recurring revenue, data collection, and greater manufacturer control.

What makes H.R. 7389 so important isn’t what remains in the bill — it’s what was removed. The fight over telematics reveals where this debate is headed next.

The future isn’t really about brake pads or oil changes. It’s about who controls vehicle data, who profits from it, and ultimately who decides what owners are allowed to do with products they have already purchased.

The fix is in

For more than a century, vehicle ownership had a simple meaning. You bought the car. You decided who repaired it, how long you kept it, and what modifications you made.

Today, that definition is becoming less clear. The question isn’t whether modern vehicles should be secure. Of course they should. The question isn’t whether repairs have become more complicated. They have.

The real question is whether ownership still means what consumers think it means. Because if automakers are willing to fight this hard over repair data today, consumers should pay close attention to what comes next.

The right-to-repair battle may ultimately be remembered as the moment Americans discovered that ownership in the connected-car era no longer carries the assumptions previous generations took for granted.

​Right to repair, Telematics, President trump, Lifestyle, Drivers, Auto industry, Repair, Oem, Automotive 

The ladies of “The View” have once again proven that objective truth is not on their list of priorities.

On a recent episode, the panel discussed the case of Karmelo Anthony, who was recently sentenced to 35 years in jail for fatally stabbing 17-year-old Austin Metcalf at a high school track meet in April 2025 after the two had a verbal confrontation.

Whoopi Goldberg noted that all qualified black prospective jurors were struck from the jury pool — a move Anthony’s defense team challenged under a Batson ruling. The judge overruled the objection, however, after prosecutors provided a race-neutral explanation: The three jurors were educators whose profession made them too closely connected to a school-related incident involving high school students.

“The case has a lot of people divided. Some people believe that race was a factor in the trial because there were no black jurors. … Some folks think, ‘No, no, he got a fair trial.’ But is this a jury of his peers?” asked Goldberg.

Co-host Sunny Hostin then replied, “I don’t think so. And you know this has been an issue for such a long time in the judicial system where prosecutors use what are called, you know, Batson challenges.”

Pat Gray is disgusted by Hostin’s sneaky half-truth.

“Prosecutors and defense attorneys use [Batson challenges],” he corrects.

The other factor Hostin conveniently left out, says Pat, is the fact that “there were more than three black people in the jury pool.”

Some of those black candidates were struck, he argues, because they made statements of obvious bias.

They were “saying things like, ‘Yeah, I’d have a real hard time with putting a brother in jail.’ OK, well, then get out. Obviously, that’s not going to work,” Pat scoffs.

Sadly, Hostin wasn’t done lying.

She went on to claim that Batson challenges are loopholes for racism.

“It’s a challenge that is used to strike a juror, generally a juror of color,” she declared.

“No, it’s not generally a juror of color. It could be white … it could be anybody!” exclaims Pat, accusing Hostin of playing the race card.

To make matters even worse, Hostin, producer Kris Kruz points out, has a law degree from Notre Dame Law School and even served as a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice.

But despite her prestigious education and high-profile government experience, Hostin still doesn’t seem to understand what a jury of one’s peers really means.

“You’re supposed to have a jury of your peers, and you’re not supposed to just strike someone because they’re black,” she said, arguing that striking jurors for being educators was not “an appropriate reason.”

“A jury of your peers does not mean that they’re all your same color or same age. That’s not what a jury of your peers means,” says Pat.

But perhaps Hostin’s worst take came next.

Citing the recently released footage where Anthony told cops, “He put his hands on me. I told him not to,” Hostin said, “[Metcalf] was 200 pounds. [Anthony] was 130 pounds.”

Anthony’s weight has been a point of contention throughout the trial. While he was frequently described as weighing roughly 130 pounds in the trial, his high school football bio listed him at roughly 160 pounds.

Pat couldn’t care less what Anthony weighs, though. “Just because Austin was bigger than him doesn’t mean it’s OK to kill him!”

To hear more, watch the episode above.

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat’s biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Pat gray unleashed, Pat gray, The view, Sunny hostin, Whoopi goldberg, Karmelo anthony, Austin metcalf 

Oratory is out of fashion. The word itself sounds archaic to our ears, denoting something people used to practice in antiquity and at long length in 19th-century America. Even the more down-to-earth sounding “rhetoric” is heard to mean “mere” rhetoric — words false or deceptive by definition. Politicians talk about “messaging,” and the more significant politicians have layers of staff for “communications.”

This does not bode well for the forthcoming 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Every politician in America will feel obliged to say something for the occasion. Whoever can — with perhaps some rare exceptions — will deploy a staff member or staff members to draft his remarks.

The American people declared to the world and under God principles constituting not just the foundation and purpose of their political existence, but the only foundation for legitimate government.

The staff members themselves, products of American universities where American history is frowned upon or given the 1619 treatment, will have to do original research to prepare for the task. A significant percentage of them will rely on artificial intelligence. Patriots have reason to wonder whether there is a politician (or comms team) in America today who understands and can articulate for his fellow citizens and the world the meaning of July 4, 1776.

John Quincy Adams took July 4, 1776, with the utmost seriousness. The Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution became the north star of his politics over a 60-year career of devotion to his country and its cause.

He understood that man is a political animal because he is endowed by nature with logos (speech, reason) and that in American politics, the statesman’s first task is to understand the logos — the word fitly spoken, the apple of gold — of the Declaration of Independence.

He articulated his understanding of the Declaration and its principles beautifully, often, and at length in formal orations and other speeches and writings from the early to the late years of his remarkable political career. He served for a few years in his late 30s and early 40s, when he was also a United States senator, as the first Boylston Professor of Rhetoric and Oratory at Harvard. Later, in what his biographer Samuel Flagg Bemis called his “second career” of nine outspoken terms in the House of Representatives, he became known as “Old Man Eloquent,” in great part for his faithful championing of the principles of the Declaration. He was an avid, lifelong student of Cicero.

Adams was born into the American Revolution to a mother and father who were revolutionaries. When he was 7 years old, the Battle of Bunker Hill took place (Saturday, June 17, 1775) within earshot of the farm in Braintree, Massachusetts, where he lived with his mother, Abigail, and three siblings.

On the morning of the battle, his mother took him with her and climbed to the top of nearby Penn’s Hill. From there, the two could see fire and smell the smoke from houses burning in Charlestown. John Quincy remembered the moment vividly to the end of his life. His father, John, was 400 miles away in Philadelphia as part of the Massachusetts delegation to the Second Continental Congress. Braintree was in a war zone.

RELATED: America turns 250 with a broken heart

Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Weeks before, as militia streamed into the area in the wake of the battles of Lexington and Concord, Abigail Adams had collected the family’s pewter dishes and melted them down to make bullets in a large kettle held over the kitchen fire. From time to time, she heard alarms, warning that the Royal Navy was about to land forces along the coast. She had good reason to fear that the British would try to seize rebel leaders and their families.

The best John Adams could do at the time was to write to his wife from Connecticut: “In Case of real Danger … fly to the Woods with our Children.” July 4, 1776, was still more than a year away, undefined in the uncertain future. But young John Quincy Adams was already learning its lessons.

On July 4, 1785, less than two years after the peace settlement ending the American war for independence, 17-year-old John Quincy, who had served as his father’s private secretary during the peace negotiations, was sailing back to America after six life-forming years in Europe. He wrote in his journal, slightly misquoting James Thompson’s “Rule Britannia,” that July 4 was:

The greatest day in the year, for every true American. The anniversary of our Independence. May heaven preserve it: and may the world still see:
A State where liberty shall still survive
In these late times, this evening of mankind
When Athens, Rome, and Carthage are no more
The world almost in slavish sloth dissolv’d.

The mature John Quincy would come to believe that on that date the American people declared to the world and under God principles constituting not just the foundation and purpose of their political existence, but the only foundation for legitimate government. He held that these principles of reason emerged in the providence of the Christian God through centuries of oppression and superstition and were destined in the providence of God to spread across the earth.

In God’s good time, the feudal monarchies of Europe would be overthrown and replaced by regimes based on the true principles of the American Revolution. The same providential fate awaited all the world’s barbarous, savage, or tyrannical regimes.

These facts, in his mind, were perfectly compatible with the maxim he would make famous, that America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy — and equally compatible with the reality he faced throughout his political career, that America itself, in its freedom, might abandon its principles and descend into barbarous tyranny.

In Fourth of July orations over four decades, Adams would explain to his fellow citizens why and how, in fidelity to the laws of nature and nature’s God, America should, in all weathers, steer its course by the north star of the principles of the Declaration.

These orations and other speeches and writings are conveniently collected in “John Quincy Adams: Speeches and Writings,” recently edited by David Waldstreicher, the distinguished professor of history at the City University of New York Graduate Center, for the Library of America. They are full of history, reasoning, learning, and even oratory that should come in handy for those hoping to say something that rises to the occasion of the coming semiquincentennial.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

​America 250, Declaration of independence, Fourth of july, John quincy adams, Semiquincentennial, Rhetoric, Politicians, American revolution, Consent of the governed, Europe, Opinion & analysis 

Summer is here, and if you’re looking to shed some pounds before you slip into your swimsuit, we have something that can help. These apps are all designed to count calories, track your weight, and reclaim a healthier, fitter you. The best part? They actually work.

The great American epidemic

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a staggering 72.4% of American adults over age 20 are either overweight or obese. Even worse, cases of “severe obesity” have tripled since the 1960s, signaling an extreme weight crisis for the country.

Growing obesity and degrading American health are the pinnacle of Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA movement, which aims to end childhood chronic diseases by reforming America’s “food, health, and scientific systems.” As part of the initiative, the USDA and HHS reconfigured the food pyramid to prioritize protein, fruits, and healthy fats while minimizing carbs — a complete reversal of the original national food pyramid adopted in 1992. Kennedy has also pressured food processors to eliminate artificial dyes and use cleaner ingredients.

These apps are available for free, and they support paid subscriptions.

These are all good steps toward giving Americans access to better food, but when it comes to actually shedding the pounds, this can only be tackled on the personal level. Some people have tapped into sheer willpower to lose weight. Others turned to controversial miracle drugs, like GLP-1s, to drop the pounds. Then there are the tech nerds like me, who look to smartphones for relief.

The science behind weight-loss apps

I am not a specimen of perfect health. Far from it. Like nearly three-fourths of the nation, I fall into the CDC’s obese category, and like most people in this crowded bracket, my weight has yo-yoed up and down over the years. Throughout this journey, only one thing ever actually made that dreaded number on the scale go down — weight-loss apps.

The reason these apps work is simple: They take your raw data — like your age, height, current weight, and target weight — and use it to determine the ideal calorie limit for your goals. Then they combine this with calorie-counting and activity-tracking algorithms to compare the amount of calories you ingest against calories you burn for the day. If you take in more energy than you expel, you will gain weight, and if you lose more, you will lose weight (barring a medical condition that is physiologically keeping you overweight).

Simple math, right?

There are a couple of caveats to keep in mind.

First, in order for these apps to work, you have to log everything you eat. Even a single missed snack will throw off your numbers for the day, leading to weight-loss stagnation or even unintended gains.Second, you will need to either pair the app with a supported fitness tracker or use the pedometer feature on your phone (if you do this, make sure you carry your phone at all times to capture your steps). Taking steps throughout the day adds to your calorie bank, so the more active you are, the more you’re allowed to eat. When you run out of calories for the day, you’re done.

My favorite weight-loss apps

There are plenty of weight-loss apps on the app stores, and only you can decide which ones work for you. If you’re not sure where to start, these are my top three favorites. Note that these apps are available for free, and they support paid subscriptions to unlock additional features.

MyFitnessPal

As the app that has helped me lose more weight than the others, MyFitnessPal includes a robust food library that makes it easy to find the exact foods you eat and log them into your diary under “breakfast,” “lunch,” “dinner,” and “snacks.” After all, it is impossible to log your calories correctly if you can’t find the exact thing you just ate. The paid version makes this even easier with an included barcode scanner for processed foods and a meal scanner that logs foods simply by taking a picture, but it’s not a necessity.

RELATED: This new app for new moms is a game-changer

This new app for new moms is a game-changer ArtistGNDphotography/Getty Images

If you want to nerd out on your food data, MyFitnessPal lets you take a closer look at your calories for the day, providing insights into which meals were the most calorically dense, as well as nutrients and macro information that tells you all about the proteins, carbs, fats, fiber, and sugars on your plate. This is especially helpful for people on specific limited diets or for those who simply want to better understand their food choices.

Finally, MyFitnessPal offers free meal plans with complete recipes that show you how to make healthier food with no guesswork.

Download: Apple App Store, Google Play Store

Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/MyFitnessPal

Lose It

Where MyFitnessPal excels at raw data, Lose It wins points with its attractive design. Food metrics are all laid out in a neat interface that clearly highlights calorie intake, macronutrients, daily logging streaks, weight progress over time, and calorie bonuses from daily exercise. Lose It also offers a broad food library that makes it easy to find the foods you eat and log them properly.

Unfortunately, Lose It locks some of its more interesting features behind a paywall, including personalized nutrient information, granular nutrient goals, and health insights that tell you how you’re progressing. Luckily, it makes up for this in its free Discover feed that provides health articles, a friends list to lose weight with friends and family, and community groups where users can chat with like-minded individuals on their weight-loss journeys.

Download: Apple App Store, Google Play Store

Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/Lose It

Google Health

This one ranked third. I haven’t had a lot of time to test it yet, but the brand-new Google Health app has impressed me so far. When I first looked at Google Health, I was mostly focused on the exercise metrics that went along with the new Fitbit Air. However, its food tracking features were a surprising benefit. Unlike MyFitnessPal, Google Health lets you scan the barcode of processed foods for free, though in my testing, the food library isn’t as robust, so this feature may or may not be helpful for some. Of course, if you can’t find your food item by barcode, you can always type it in the search bar manually.

On the daily view, Google Health clearly lists your calories, all divided by breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks. You also get a quick view of your macros and nutrient information. Also unlike the other food tracking apps, Google Health offers a window of ideal calories to hit instead of a rigid cutoff, giving you some wiggle room from day to day. The way it is laid out, Google says that reaching the first number in the window consistently will help you lose up to two pounds per week, while hitting the higher number will only result in one pound per week.

Finally, if you spring for the premium subscription with AI Coach powered by Gemini, you can take photos of your food or tell the Coach to log them manually, and AI will mark them down. I found this feature to be especially useful for foods that weren’t available in the barcode scanner. Even though the food library didn’t have them, Coach can use a photo of the label to create a new item in your log with little hassle.

Download: Apple App Store, Google Play Store

Screenshots by Zach Laidlaw/Google Health

A path to sustained weight loss

The important thing to keep in mind is that weight-loss apps are all about the long game. Unlike GLP-1s that help you drop weight fast and put it back on when you’re done with the injections, weight-loss apps provide education on the foods you eat and modify your eating habits.

They’re designed to keep your body in a caloric deficit that is both reasonable and sustainable. If followed consistently, you’ll lose an average of 1-2 pounds per week without any major energy crashes or side effects. At the same time, you’re retraining yourself on how to choose better foods that support a healthier lifestyle and a thinner waist for years to come.

​Tech 

My husband has bipolar disorder. I know firsthand that the medications he takes do not merely improve his quality of life — they make our family life possible.

I am thankful for the drug companies whose products and innovations help keep my family together. But that does not mean I trust Big Pharma.

The pharmaceutical industry’s incentives are often at odds with the people it treats.

The pharmaceutical industry has helped create a culture in which Americans are taking more prescription drugs than at any point in history. Last year, more than two-thirds of Americans reported taking a prescription drug daily, and 26% said they take four or more.

No wonder the average price of prescription medications in the United States has risen by about 37% in the last decade. Many of the most popular brand-name medications have doubled in price over the past 15 years.

One study found that prescription drug prices in the United States are nearly three times higher than prices for the same medications in 32 comparable countries. Family health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored plans jumped 26% from 2020 to 2025, outpacing wage growth and inflation.

A quarter of Americans recently reported having difficulty paying for their medications. About 19% said they had skipped or rationed doses because of the cost. Research indicates that medical expenses are now the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in this country, surpassing job loss.

I understand that high prices help fund the astronomical cost of clinical trials that test and bring new drugs to market. But Americans have also seen pharmaceutical companies acquire the rights to off-patent drugs and raise prices overnight. They have watched insulin prices climb for years even though insulin is relatively cheap to produce.

Let’s face it: The pharmaceutical industry’s incentives are often at odds with the people it treats.

The same industry that helps my husband is increasingly keeping medications out of reach for many families.

Drug prices would not be so high if Big Pharma did not spend between $13 billion and $14 billion a year on direct-to-consumer advertising. They would not be so high if the pharmaceutical and health sectors did not consistently spend more on federal lobbying than any other industry.

Those efforts shape the laws and policies that allow current drug prices. The industry clearly views them as worthwhile investments.

Americans spent 12.7% more on pharmaceutical drugs last year than they did in 2024. A significant share of that increase came from popular GLP-1 weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic and Wegovy. Roughly 12% of American adults are currently taking one of these drugs, and that number is expected to rise significantly in the coming years.

I am not saying people should not take these medications. That is not for me to say. But I am deeply concerned that, culturally, we increasingly treat medication as the first line of defense for nearly every challenge before seriously exploring other options.

RELATED: Want to live to 100? Don’t expect Big Pharma to help.

lucigerma/iStock/Getty Images

That concern comes from firsthand experience.

As someone who has battled addiction, I am acutely aware of the power substances can hold over a person’s life. That experience has left me worried about others who may develop dependencies on drugs.

I remember how the opioid crisis destroyed entire communities and caused a staggering number of deaths after companies such as Purdue Pharma aggressively pushed OxyContin while downplaying its risks. That epidemic continues today with synthetic opioids such as fentanyl.

Is it any wonder some of us remain skeptical of pharmaceutical companies’ motives?

As a parent, I do everything in my power to ensure that my children do not become unnecessarily dependent on medications. I want them to understand that any drug they take should be used carefully and for its intended purpose.

I acknowledge the value of medicine. I deeply respect what the health care industry can do. My own family depends on it.

But respect should not require blindness.

The pharmaceutical industry should remember the families paying the bills, rationing the doses, and wondering whether the medications they need will remain within reach.

Innovation deserves reward. Exploitation does not.

​Bankruptcy, Big pharma, Health insurance, Opinion & analysis, Opioid crisis, Prescription drugs, Health care, Insulin, Glp-1, Advertising, Lobbying 

In a culture constantly telling young people that the future is bleak and their problems are unprecedented, Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck is offering a different message: Don’t buy the despair.

“I think for a lot of you, there is this quiet voice that has been whispering to you for a while now. And it says the world’s broken and somebody’s handing it to me, and I don’t know what to do,” he says.

“Let me start with the hard truth here. Life is hard. It is. It’s just not as hard as people profiting from your panic need you to believe. Okay? It’s not. The hardness is real. The hopelessness is a product. Don’t buy in to that. There’s an entire industry whose only job is to convince you that just being alive right now is the heaviest thing a human has ever carried,” he continues.

“The weight is real, but the despair is a sales pitch,” he adds.

And one major source of stress for young people is AI. Glenn points out that while it may be able to pass the same exams, it will never be human.

“The machine that we have right now, in your pocket, that can read every book ever written, but it has never once been afraid of the dark. It can know everything and understand nothing. It will know more about you by Tuesday. Yet it will never really know what it’s like to be you,” he says.

“And that’s not your weakness. That’s the entire point of you. It has all of the answers, but not a single reason to get out of bed. You have all of the reasons. You may not have the answers, but you have the reasons. Don’t trade those away,” he continues.

Glenn goes on to explain that you should not mistake all the knowledge AI has for wisdom.

“Don’t confuse the two, and don’t worship either one of them,” he says, before pointing out that human beings were created by God — and AI was not.

“A universe of cold math does not produce a soul that weeps at music by accident. You were made. And you were made on purpose. You, not just man — you,” he continues. “And somewhere underneath all that noise, purpose is still waiting for you to get quiet enough to hear it. I’m telling you: You will find it.”

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Ai, Americans, Blaze media, Glenn beck, Knowledge, Machine, The glenn beck program