Fiercely Independent

Episode 1: The Investigation — The Plan Trump Said He Knew Nothing About

During the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly denied knowing anything about Project 2025 or the people behind it. But documented connections to the Heritage Foundation, appointments of Project 2025 contributors to powerful government positions, and independent research into the plan's implementation raise serious questions about those denials.

In the opening episode of Fiercely Independent's Project 2025 investigation, Chris examines Trump's public statements, his connections to Heritage Foundation leadership, and the four interconnected pillars that make Project 2025 more than a 900-page policy document.

The investigation also examines the roles of Russell Vought, Brendan Carr, and Peter Navarro, along with independent research finding that 53% of tracked Project 2025 recommendations had been initiated or completed as of February 2026.

At the heart of this episode is a fundamental contradiction: Has Project 2025 helped establish the very kind of government apparatus Trump regularly attacks as the "deep state"?

Whether Trump personally read the document is beside the point. The people, policies, and results deserve scrutiny.

In the next episode, we'll examine who wrote Project 2025, what they intended to accomplish, and the proposals that could directly affect Americans.

Follow Fiercely Independent for the complete Project 2025 investigation.

Stay Fierce. Stay Independent.

Donald Trump said he knew nothing about Project 2025. Yet some of the people who helped write it now hold positions of power within his administration, and many of its policies have already been implemented.

Fiercely Independent is launching a nine-part investigative series examining the Heritage Foundation's 900-page Project 2025 blueprint.

Over the next two weeks, we'll examine the plan, the people behind it, what's already been implemented, what's underway, and what's still to come. From dismantling the Department of Education to expanding presidential control and restricting reproductive healthcare, we'll go directly to the source.

Our final episode will examine some of the most extreme proposals that haven't happened yet.

Nine episodes over two weeks. Follow Fiercely Independent so you don't miss a single installment.

Stay Fierce. Stay Independent.

When does immigration enforcement cross the line into political interference?

ICE Deputy Director Charles Wall earns This Week's Worst after using an October 7 Department of Homeland Security press release announcing an immigration arrest to attack Democratic congressional candidate Janelle Stelson, alleging a connection to her campaign without providing supporting evidence.

But the larger concern goes beyond one press release.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has publicly acknowledged that armed ICE agents could appear at polling stations in November, although DHS says it has no plans to patrol those locations.

Could the political use of federal law enforcement eventually threaten voter confidence, election integrity, or the democratic process?

In this episode of Fiercely Independent, Chris examines why the separation of law enforcement and partisan politics matters, what happens when officials cross that boundary, and why holding them accountable is essential to protecting democracy.

Stay Fierce. Stay Independent.

There’s a theory spreading about what could happen if Republicans lose badly in the midterms: Trump declares the election rigged, disputed ballots are challenged or seized, protests erupt, and the military is eventually sent into blue cities under the Insurrection Act. What makes this theory different is that some real-world developments appear to give it credibility—from the removal of senior military leaders to Trump’s history of challenging election results, concerns about federal law enforcement around polling locations, and Elon Musk’s sudden return to the political picture. But there’s a major problem with the theory: a national emergency does not give the president control over elections, and the Insurrection Act does not give him the power to cancel voting, stop ballot counting, or void state certification laws. So where do the facts end and the conspiracy theory begin? More importantly: vote. Regardless of who you support, what happens over the next two years depends on voter turnout. Stay Fierce. Stay Independent.

an a diesel tax break fix a bigger energy problem?

Chris examines the red-dyed diesel proposal, the pressure fuel costs put on everyday prices, and concerns about America’s Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Short-term savings may help truckers, but do they address the underlying problem?

Nobody gets a free pass. Stay fierce. Stay independent.

Donald Trump has used the phrase “fake news” more than 1,600 times on social media, but the real power of the phrase is not the insult. It is what happens before you even hear the argument.

In this episode of Spot the Spin, Chris breaks down the logical fallacy known as poisoning the well, how repetition can make a claim feel true, and why labeling an entire news organization as “fake” can condition people to dismiss information before evaluating the evidence. Magic-episode-01

And this tactic is not limited to one politician or one party. With the midterm elections approaching, expect both sides to use versions of it.

Don’t reject the argument because of the source. Examine the evidence first.

Stay fierce. Stay independent. Magic-episode-01

Three-quarters of Americans say elected officials should not be allowed to trade individual stocks.

Yet when the Senate considered legislation restricting congressional stock trading, the debate became tangled up with voter ID and other objections to the bill. The measure ultimately failed to advance. Republicans and Democrats offered very different explanations for why.

And voters?

They got nothing.

This is the problem with Washington turning separate issues into political leverage. If Congress wants to debate voter ID, debate voter ID. If Congress wants to restrict lawmakers from trading stocks, debate that.

But when unrelated policies get tied together, the final vote can become more about partisan positioning than the issue Americans thought Congress was voting on.

Stay fierce. Stay independent.

Nine of the ten states with the highest electricity bills are Democratic-led.

Sounds convincing. But does that actually prove Democratic leadership caused those higher prices?

This week on Spot the Spin, we break down the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, a common statistical trick where someone searches through data, finds a pattern that supports their argument, and then draws the target around it afterward.

The numbers themselves can be completely real. The spin comes from how those numbers were selected, grouped, and presented.

The next time a politician, commentator, or media outlet gives you an alarming statistic, ask:

Why this group?
Why these data points?
And what was the target before they looked at the data?

The bullet holes can be real. It’s the bullseye you need to question.

Stay fierce. Stay independent.

#SpotTheSpin #TexasSharpshooter #MediaLiteracy #Statistics #CriticalThinking #FiercelyIndependent

A Florida grand jury traced millions of dollars from a Medicaid settlement through the Hope Florida Foundation and nonprofit organizations, with $8.5 million ultimately transferred to a political committee.

The grand jury concluded that taxpayer money had been misappropriated as part of what it described as a “sophisticated scheme” to fund political activities. But investigators said they could not determine who made the original decision that set the money in motion.

So who gets This Week’s Worst?

Nobody.

Because when nobody takes responsibility, accountability becomes almost impossible.

Chris breaks down the money trail, what investigators found, and why no one was charged.

Fiercely Independent
Question everything. Think independently.

#FiercelyIndependent #ThisWeeksWorst #FloridaPolitics #HopeFlorida #PoliticalAccountability #GovernmentAccountability

You post a political opinion on Facebook. Your boss sees it the next morning. Can you actually be fired for it?

A lot of people assume the First Amendment protects anything they say online, but that is not how it works. The First Amendment generally protects you from government restrictions on speech. If you work for a private employer, the rules can be very different.

In this episode of Know This, Chris breaks down:

• Why the First Amendment usually does not protect private-sector employees from employer discipline
• How state laws can provide additional protections for political activity
• When discussions about pay, benefits, or working conditions may be protected under federal labor law
• Why public employees can have different First Amendment protections
• Why who you work for, where you work, and what you actually post all matter

The NLRB confirms that certain social-media discussions involving employees acting together over pay and working conditions can qualify as protected concerted activity. Public employees can also have First Amendment protections in certain circumstances when speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern.

Freedom of speech does not automatically mean freedom from workplace consequences.

Know this before you hit post.