The media is fighting for the ability to knowingly cover up, misdirect and censor information under cover of "first amendment rights" and "editorial judgement". According to Trump, in his recent national address, he disclosed that the CIA reported that China has been paying us media entities to write attack articles against the US. This is not a first amendment question, this could be called treason.

ABC files First Amendment lawsuit against FCC

Aug 18 2026

ABC on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, arguing the agency has violated its First Amendment rights by retaliating against the broadcaster for its editorial decisions.

Why it matters:It's a major escalation of ABC's fight with the FCC, which it argues is motivated by broader efforts to silence a free and independent press.

Zoom in:The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that in ordering an accelerated review of ABC's local station broadcast licenses, the administration "has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts."

It points to statements made by FCC chairman Brendan Carr that suggest the administration has not been shy about openly coercing ABC into changing its programming.

It cites an incident last month in which Carr said ABC's decision not to broadcast the president's Oval Office address was likely to be raised during its early review of ABC's broadcast licenses.

The network is seeking an injunction, asking the court for a temporary restraining order to stop the FCC from moving forward with its early license-renewal proceedings.

The other side:A spokesperson for the FCC said in a statement, "All broadcasters have a legal obligation to operate in the public interest—even Disney."

The FCC has been examining claims that Disney engaged in illegal DEI discrimination for over a year," they said. "Disney is obviously very concerned about the FCC's proceeding, as evidenced by their ongoing campaign of disinformation as well as their decision to ask a court to stop the FCC from further pursuing matters."

"The FCC will continue to follow the facts and law wherever they lead."

Between the lines:In recent months, ABC has fired back at the FCC, and has pointed to the thousands of public comments filed to the agency in defense of the broadcaster as evidence that Carr is committed to politics over the public's consensus on the broadcaster's First Amendment rights.

It's also slammed the agency for targeting late-night and daytime talk shows, like ABC's "The View," for news interviews with political candidates.

Zoom out:ABC's lawsuit and its parent company Disney's aggressive defense of its First Amendment rights mark a notable departure from its previous effort to acquiesce to political pressure from the president a few years ago.

The big picture:ABC is the latest in a string of broadcasters to file lawsuits against the administration for targeting media companies with regulatory efforts that they argue are designed to silence critical coverage.

The Associated Press last year sued three Trump administration officials for blocking its reporters' access to events like Oval Office meetings and Air Force One press pools, citing a violation of its First Amendment rights. That case is ongoing.

NPR and PBS both sued the Trump administration last year arguing its executive order to cut federal funding for public broadcasters violated their First Amendment rights.

The New York Times has also filed federal suits against his administration. A federal judge earlier this year ruled the Pentagon's restrictions on journalists were a First Amendment violation.

https://www.axios.com/2026/08/18/abc-fcc-first-amendment-lawsuit

Australia

Western Australia

Defence experts issue warning after undersea internet cables cut off WA coast as ‘suspicious’ vessel lurked

Defence experts warn the suspicious severing of two vital undersea cables off the WA coast over the weekend highlights the country’s high vulnerability to being cut off from global internet communication.

Aug 10 2026

Defence experts warn the suspicious severing of two vital undersea cables off the West Australian coast over the weekend highlights the country’s high vulnerability to being cut off from global internet communication.

The head of SUBCO, which owns several of Australia’s key optical fibre links, revealed the Indigo West and Indigo Central systems were damaged amid “some very suspicious activity from a vessel near the location”.

“Remarkably this also happened in the Submarine Cable Protection Zone off Perth Australia. Coincidently some suspicious/coincidental activity from a vessel near the location and timing of the shunts occurring,” SUBCO founder Bevan Slattery said.

“This is a concerning development. Partially because submarine cables are the digital lifeblood of our nation, but also because this could very well turn out to be the second such incidence in a Federally declared cable protection zone.”

Former Defence official Michael Shoebridge, now with Strategic Analysis Australia, says many people are unaware that fewer than 20 links carry around 99 percent of Australia’s internet traffic.

“Some people think that satellites move a lot of the internet information, but satellites move about 1 per cent of the internet,” he explained.

“The rest goes through these undersea cables, and Australia doesn’t have many of them connecting us to the rest of the world. Between 16 and 18 cables are what connect us and make the internet work for Australia.”

The Albanese government has so far not commented on the incident, but a new academic report has warned Australia and countries across the Indo-Pacific face a growing threat of attacks on submarine cables that could devastate their economies.

The defence funded report by the National Security College at the Australian National University, warns that submarine cables face “growing threats from state and non-state adversaries” and urges nations to take urgent steps such as improving their monitoring and repair capabilities.

“Major disruptions to submarine cables can have immediate and severe economic impacts, disrupting financial markets, halting international trade, and severing cloud-based services,” the report says.

“Australia lacks a comprehensive strategy to properly protect and govern its submarine cable networks,” the report says, urging the country to ensure that it can swiftly repair cables and have priority access to repair capabilities.

In an address to this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Defence Minister Richard Marles, warned that the seabed was “becoming a battlefield”.

“We have been slow, collectively slow, to recognise (submarine cables) as the strategic targets they have become,” he said at the annual defence and security forum in May.

https://thenightly.com.au/australia/western-australia/defence-experts-issue-warning-after-undersea-internet-cables-cut-off-wa-coast-as-suspicious-vessel-lurked-c-22703825

What is going on with Australia? Undersea cables cut last week and ongoing fuel shortage.

The Times (Australia)

The 2026 Fuel Crisis – How Australia Is Coping and Why

Aug 19 2026 (excerpt)

A Nation Running on Imports

The crisis has highlighted a stark reality: Australia imports around 90% of its fuel.

Over recent decades, domestic refining capacity has declined sharply. Today, only a small portion of Australia’s fuel is produced locally, leaving the country heavily reliant on international supply chains and shipping lanes.

Fuel reserves are also relatively thin. At the height of the crisis, Australia has held roughly:

~30–39 days of petrol

~29–32 days of diesel

~30 days of jet fuel

This buffer is enough for short-term stability—but insufficient for prolonged disruption.

https://www.thetimes.com.au/world/49207-the-2026-fuel-crisis-how-australia-is-coping-and-why

>>24951840

(1 of 2)

Here is a window into why the FDA refused to approve the new Moderna mRNA Flu "vaccine", then did unfortunately approve it.

FDA rejects Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine application ‑ for reasons with no basis in the law

What exactly did the FDA do, and why is it unusual?

In December 2025, Moderna submitted an application to the FDA to approve an mRNA flu vaccine for adults age 50 and older. The vaccine had been tested in clinical trials including more than 40,000 people. In response to the application, the agency sent Moderna a “refusal-to-file” letter, dated Feb. 3, 2026. This is a type of notice the regulator sends to companies when it deems a new drug or vaccine’s application to be incomplete.

Because companies developing new products meet with the FDA early in the process to agree on requirements for approval, it’s rare for the agency to take this action. What’s more, there have been very few occasions in which the FDA has diverged significantly from other major drug regulators around the world. But in this case, drug regulators in Canada, Europe and Australia accepted Moderna’s application for review.

Especially concerning is that several FDA scientists and other staff have confirmed that they expected to review Moderna’s application. The director of the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review, David Kaslow, wrote a memo recommending it be reviewed. But Vinay Prasad, who directs the center that oversees the vaccine research office, overruled the decision.

Directors rarely overrule agency scientists, especially regarding vaccines. But this is at least the fourth time Prasad has done so since being appointed to the FDA in 2025.

What reasons did the FDA give for its decision?

Moderna took the unusual step of announcing the FDA’s refusal and releasing the agency’s letter. The letter states that Moderna did not conduct an “adequate and well-controlled” study because it had not compared patients receiving its vaccine to patients receiving what the agency claimed to be “the best-available standard of care.”

In the U.S., standard-dose flu vaccines are approved for everyone over 6 months of age, but health authorities recommend that adults over 65 receive a more potent dose. Moderna’s announcement quoted the language the FDA used when approving the company’s clinical trial protocol in 2024. The agency had originally suggested that for people age 65 and older, the company compare the efficacy of its vaccine to the more potent dose. But after reviewing Moderna’s protocol, the FDA deemed the standard vaccine “acceptable.”

Besides the fact that the FDA agreed to the trials Moderna conducted, I believe the agency’s claim that the company didn’t use “the best-available standard of care” is problematic because it does not reflect the legal requirements for vaccine approval. Although this phrase sounds official, it is nowhere to be found in FDA law or guidance for companies developing vaccines.

Instead, FDA law requires a company to provide data from “adequate and well controlled studies” and using standard dose flu vaccines aligns with the requirement because they are widely used across age groups.

Shortly after Moderna announced the refusal, the health news outlet STAT quoted an unnamed FDA official stating that if Moderna were to “show some humility,” the agency might still review the application, but only for people under 65. Imposing this restriction after refusing to review the application has no basis in the law because FDA approves clinical trial parameters early on, in consultation with companies.

>>24952093

(2 of 2)

From a legal perspective, the FDA’s decision could potentially meet what’s called the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, because the agency seems to have altered its position without a valid reason for that change. If a court makes such a determination, it could invalidate the FDA’s decision. That process, however, would take time.

Does the FDA’s decision reflect a change in vaccine policy?

This is the first time that the FDA has tried to preclude the review of a vaccine for reasons that do not have to do with safety or efficacy. The move, which ties into a broader strategy by federal health officials under Kennedy, signals an escalation in the agency’s efforts to intervene in established procedures for testing vaccines.

In April 2025, Kennedy announced that new vaccines would require additional clinical trials. In November 2025, Prasad released an internal FDA memo claiming that mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines had killed children. Although he provided no evidence, he said that in response to the alleged deaths, large-scale changes to requirements for vaccine approval were coming.

The FDA’s refusal of Moderna’s application appears to be Prasad’s policy in action.

What might this mean for vaccines going forward?

On a practical level, the fact that the FDA is now articulating requirements that are nowhere to be found in the law creates major uncertainty for companies with pending or upcoming vaccine applications. That’s because manufacturers now have reason to worry that they might invest resources in the lengthy process of developing a vaccine, only to receive similarly unpredictable refusals.

More broadly, with so many areas in vaccine law and policy in turmoil, incentives for vaccine manufacturers to bring vaccines to market are shrinking. In January 2026, even before the flu vaccine refusal, Moderna’s chief executive officer said the company was scaling back on vaccine development .

Finally, the FDA’s move risks fueling further mistrust in vaccines, aligning with a wider push from federal health officials to question long-settled science.

https://theconversation.com/fda-rejects-modernas-mrna-flu-vaccine-application-for-reasons-with-no-basis-in-the-law-275771