TheHarvard Business Reviewfound thattwo-thirdsof good strategies fail due to poor execution. The same is true in politics. The Trump administration has bold immigration policies, but they are beingsmotheredunder an avalanche of lawsuits. Denouncing activist judges only gets you so far. Ultimately, you just have to be smarter.The administration should use what it can control as leverage over what it cannot. The president is at the apex of his power in deciding which foreigners to admit. This is true from both a legal and practical standpoint. He should issue a proclamation under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) declaring that no new immigrants will get in until everyone who should be deported is gone.It is a drastic solution. It is also the only thing that will work because liberal activists, rogue bureaucrats and complicit courts, refuse to honor Congresss sensible policy bargains.DEM CONGRESS MEMBERS STORM NEW JERSEY ICE PRISON TO CONDUCT 'OVERSIGHT VISIT': 'PEOPLE DESERVE DIGNITY'For example, it is obviously irrational to import welfare cases. That is why, since1882, the Immigration Act has prohibited anyone who is "likelyat any timeto become a public charge" from getting a green card. Yet,54% of immigrant-headed households are on at least one form of public assistance. Today, over11%of welfare benefits are claimed by immigrants who were admitted on the explicit premise that they would never claim welfare.How is this possible? Bureaucrats subverted Congresss intent by interpreting the law narrowly. They insist it applies only if the alien is "primarilydependent" on the benefit and it is paid in cash, meaning taking Medicaid, public housing or food stamps does not count.Merely enforcing the public charge ban would save at least$109 billionper year. But even modest attempts by the first Trump administration to restore the original meaning of the law were tied up in court foryearsand then abandoned by the Biden administration.There is no legislative fix either, because activists will subvert the new law just as they did the old law. This is not speculation, it was tried.In1996, Congress passed an immigration reform package whichrequiresfamily-based immigrants,68%of the total, to obtain affidavits of support from a sponsor. The sponsor agrees to maintain the applicant at 125% of the poverty line and to reimburse the government if the immigrant winds up on welfare. Applicants without an affidavit are automatically disqualified.This seemed like an excellent way to deter welfare cases from immigrating and to reimburse the government if any slip in. Again though, activists subverted the will of Congress with narrow interpretations and inaction. The implementing regulations do not require welfare agencies to sue, and using an expensive benefit like Medicaid does not require reimbursement. So, in practice, there are "fewdocumented cases" of the governmenteversuing sponsors to recover taxpayer funds and deter reckless sponsorships.Another way the bureaucracy frustrates enforcement is by hiding data. A DHSstudyfound that 70% of asylum applications were either fraud or suspected fraud. The Obama administration did not release it, until a whistleblowertestifiedto Congress. Asylum is one of the major ways that illegal aliens fend off deportation. Over1 millionclaims were filed in 2023. Voters pity asylum seekers, unaware its mostly ascam.Clearer laws? Useless. Activists will always invent some sophistry to defy even the tightest drafting.Consider the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program. Congress struck a clear deal: TPS could shield foreigners from deportation during crises, but in exchange, courts were barred from reviewing decisions to end it. The law explicitly states "no judicial review" for terminations. Yet, a judgeblockedTrump from canceling TPS for 350,000 Venezuelans granted relief by Biden.The only solution is to shut the border until the people we want out are gone. This will force activists to choose between helping criminals stay in the country and reopening the gates.Its also easier legally. Itswell-settled that foreigners living abroad cannot challenge a visa denial because admission is a privilege, not a right. Even when denying their entry would burden the rights of a U.S citizen, the government need only articulate a "faciallylegitimate" justification to prevail. A mere statutory citationsuffices, and Trump holds an ace.CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINIONEight U.S.C. 1182(f)authorizes the president to "suspend the entry of all aliens," or class of aliens, if he finds their entry would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."It is detrimental to Americas interest to admit more immigrants when our mechanisms for filtering out welfare cases and asylum fraud are so broken. It might not be so bad if we could quickly fix mistakes, but it now takes forever to deport anyone.The 1182(f) authority is crystal clear.Everypresident since Ronald Reagan has invoked it at least once. The Supreme Court rejected a challenge to it in 2019, noting that it "exudesdeference to the President." Recently, a district court opined the law "would certainly seem to authorize the President toclose the borderto arriving aliens" if it became apparent that the influx would overwhelm government facilities.Activists will still sue, but the government can demand a prohibitive injunction bond by pointing to the welfare costs and the mandatory language ofRule 65(c).Also, it is well worth litigating because once a blanket pause is upheld, President Trump has a policy nuke.In the meantime, all final decisions about whether to grant immigration benefits should be made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem herself. Currently, the secretarydelegatesthat authority to immigration officers, but Congress gave the power to her. Simply rescinding those delegations will slow immigration to a trickle while following the law to the letter.Strong medicine, yes. But after decades of activist sabotage, its the only cure.CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DAN HUFF

Weight-loss medications and bariatric surgery have both been found effective at helping people shed excess pounds and now a new study explores their link to obesity-related cancer (ORC) risk.Obesity is a known risk factor for certain types of cancers, and has also been shown to impact cancer survival.Obesity-related cancers include multiple myeloma, meningioma, adenocarcinoma of esophagus; stomach, colorectal, liver or bile duct, gallbladder, pancreas, uterus, ovary, renal-cell kidney, thyroid, and postmenopausal breast cancer, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).SEMAGLUTIDE FOUND TO HAVE SHOCKING BENEFIT FOR LIVER DISEASE PATIENTS IN NEW STUDYResearchers at Clalit Health Services in Tel Aviv, Israel, conducted an observational study of the medical records of 6,356 participants aged 24 and older who had obesity and diabetes, with no history of obesity-related cancer.Between 2010 and 2018, half of the participants took GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) injectable medications for obesity and type 2 diabetes with at leastsix drug purchases within 12 months. The other half underwent bariatric metabolic surgery (BMS).After adjusting for other factors, the researchers determined that ORC occurred in 5.62 cases per 1,000 person-years in those who had the surgery, and in 5.89 cases per 1,000 person-years among those who took GLP-1s.Overall, the study determined that "the direct effect of GLP1-RAs compared to BMS on the risk for ORC beyond their effects on weight-loss is estimated as 41% relative risk reduction."HERE'S WHY BELLY FAT IS MORE COMMON AS WE AGE, AND 3 WAYS TO PREVENT ITThe findings were published in the journal eClinicalMedicine."The results point at the existence of additional pathways beyond weight loss in which GLP-1RAs contribute to the decreased risk for obesity-related cancer," lead study author Yael Wolff Sagy, PhD, head of research at Clalit Health Services, told Fox News Digital.Niketa Patel, professor of molecular medicine with the USF Health Morsani College of Medicine in Tampa, Florida, noted that obesity is associated with chronic inflammation."GLP1-RAs are shown to reduce inflammation and thus decrease the risk of developing ORC," she told Fox News Digital. (Patel was not involved in the study.)"Bottom line: Obesity can cause certain cancers, and treatment of obesity with GLP1-RA reduces the risk of only obesity-related cancers."Dr. Britta Reierson, MD, medical director of knownwell, a provider of metabolic health services, said there are several ways in which GLP-1 RAs could have cancer mitigation properties."First, the anti-inflammatory properties of these medications address a known risk factor for various cancers," the Minnesota-based doctor, who also was not part of the research, told Fox News Digital."Second, the metabolic regulation and improvement in metabolic health from these medications, including lowering blood glucose levels and decreasing insulin resistance, can reduce cancer risk."Emerging evidence also suggests that GLP-1 RAs may have direct anti-tumor effects, Reierson noted "potentially through modulation of immune responses and epigenetic changes (changes that occur to gene expression and are passed down to future generations)."FIRST GLP-1 PILL FOR WEIGHT LOSS, DIABETES SHOWS SUCCESS IN LATE-PHASE TRIALResearch suggests that GLP-1 medications help reduce inflammation not just through weight loss, but also in other organs of the body, such as the heart, according to Dr. Susan Savery, MD, a board-certified obesity medicine and primary care physician with PlushCare, a virtual health platform offering primary care, therapy and weight management services."Over time, chronic inflammation can be a risk factor for cancer development, as it may damage cell DNA," San Francisco-based Savery, who was not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital."Our fat cells (adipose tissue) naturally produce inflammatory cells, and GLP-1 medications, similar to bariatric surgery, help reduce this inflammation by decreasing the amount of adipose tissue through weight loss."The study did have some limitations, the researchers acknowledged."First, it is an observational study. It means that our comparison groups (persons who had surgery versus those who received GLP1-RAs) may still have some residual differences, despite our methodological efforts," Sagy told Fox News Digital."However, only this type of real-life observational study can provide the long follow-up period that is necessary to evaluate the risk of developing cancer, which often has very long latency periods."Another limitation is that the primary drug included in the study was liraglutide (Saxenda, Victoza), with smaller numbers of people taking exenatide (Byetta) and dulaglutide (Trulicity)."It will be important to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the newer GLP1-RA drugs, which are expected to have a larger effect," Sagy said."Although the direction of the results is promising, we should wait and see if and how clinical guidelines will consider it."CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTERReierson agreed that much more research is needed before GLP-1 RAs could ever be considered as cancer prevention options."Larger, randomized, controlled trials are necessary to confirm the observed effects and better understand the underlying mechanisms," she said."It will also be important to investigate the impact of GLP-1 RAs on different types of cancer and assess the long-term safety and potential side effects of using GLP-1 RAs as a cancer therapy."Savery agrees that its likely too early to predict FDA approval for cancer therapy, but noted that "weight reduction plays an important role in cancer prevention, and GLP-1s seem to offer an additional benefit through inflammation reduction."For more Health articles, visitwww.foxnews.com/healthWhile GLP-1 RAs are "wonderful tools" that can support people on weight-loss journeys, Savery pointed out that maintaining a healthy lifestyle through nutritious eating and regular physical activity is "the foundation for cancer prevention and better overall health."

Attorney Alex Swoyer on the Menendez brothers' resentencing and what Sean 'Diddy' Combs' ex-girlfriend returning to the stand means for his case.

Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., on burning the midnight oil to work through President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and a new provision to remove tax-exempt status from terrorist-supporting organizations.

Paige Jansen and Jeff Hancher, who have both lost loved ones in the line of duty, join 'Fox & Friends First' to share their stories and what it means to have the Trump administration's support.

WWE's SummerSlam will be a two-night event for the first time ever. Zelina Vega talks to Fox News Digital about the premium live event.

Former State Department deputy special envoy Ellie Cohanim joins 'Fox & Friends First ' to discuss the latest on President Donald Trump's trip to the Middle East and peace talks between Russia and Ukraine in Turkey.

President Trump spoke to leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council as part of his four-day visit to the region.

Attorney Alex Swoyer on the Menendez brothers' resentencing and what Sean 'Diddy' Combs' ex-girlfriend returning to the stand means for his case.

Rep. Mike Haridopolos, R-Fla., on burning the midnight oil to work through President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' and a new provision to remove tax-exempt status from terrorist-supporting organizations.