God is up to something. Hundreds of thousands of Americans gathered together, not for a protest or a political rally, but to pray. They gathered to give thanks and to rededicate this nation to the God who blessed it when it was founded.

The media may not have seen it coming. The polls did not predict it. But people of faith showed up anyway.

The idea that spirituality is dead in America is a misnomer. I don’t believe America is in a spiritual decline, but rather, that we are right on the precipice of awakening. We are seeing Generation Z turning to Jesus in record-breaking numbers. Bible sales continue to increase, and church attendance is rising. 

But we shouldn’t be entirely surprised. 

Young people are exhausted from doomscrolling. Celebrity culture is dying. I’ve talked to many members at my church who confirm that the vain pursuit of wealth is unfulfilling. When people reach these epiphanies, they begin to search elsewhere, and for something more wholesome and eternal. 

This represents a spiritual hunger in this country that no government program can fill. Every day, more people are recognizing the simple truth that they have a soul to tend to, not just a body. While we are seeing hopelessness, despair, moral relativism, and spiritual apathy, underneath it all, a hunger for God is present. Hunger means life. You do not hunger for something that is already gone.

As Americans undergo these personal paradigm shifts and softening hearts, they begin to realize that America was not founded on agnosticism, atheism, or as some sort of secular utopia. It was founded on a Judeo-Christian value system that cannot and will not be denied. In fact, the principal reason our founders fled Europe centuries ago was that they were tired of being told they had to worship a certain way. They wanted to express their faith freely, without the government telling them how to do it.

And by God’s grace, that’s what they got.

God over man and man over government is not a political platform; it is at the core of our great nation. Through genuine repentance, revival, and reformation, America is now rediscovering its roots.

The number one battle in America today is not between the donkey and the elephant. The battle is between the serpent and the Lamb. Colossians 2:15 reminds us that the Lamb, Jesus Christ, already defeated the serpent. The most powerful spirit on this planet is not division. Not fear. Not darkness. The most powerful spirit in America is still the Holy Spirit. 

That is not a talking point or an empty analogy. That is a track record. Every time this nation has faced its darkest hour, faith did not retreat. It advanced. 

I have advised three presidents. I have led the Latino evangelical community for more than two decades. To have the reset this nation needs, we have to make the main thing the main thing. It begins with humility. Acknowledging that we have a sovereign God who created us. Then we must pursue righteousness and justice, truth and love. Seeking God’s Word changes everything. 

This is not a religious sentiment. This is the only reset that has ever worked in American history.

The founders would be optimistic if they could see America today. But they might also sound the alarm. They would be disappointed to see the discord, the chasm, the perpetual victimization that is consuming our culture today. They would loathe the dependency on a government that was never meant to be our savior. 

But, still, they would look at what happened on that Mall on Sunday with hope. Because the America they built was always meant to be a nation that knelt before God, not before its own ambitions.

Because there is still spiritual hunger in America. And where there is hunger, revival often follows. Every great awakening this nation has experienced did not begin with legislation, but in the hearts of ordinary people who decided that God was worth returning to. We are there again. 

We can’t let this past Sunday be a memory. It ought to be a mandate. Because God is not done with America, and America is not done with God.

This article was originally published by RealClearReligion and made available via RealClearWire.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

However, I try to talk to people who know a thing or two regarding issues like this, and so I reached out to Dr. Bonner Cohen.

Dr. Cohen is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), where he concentrates on energy, natural resources, and international relations. He also serves as a senior policy adviser with the Heartland Institute, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, and as adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He earned his B.A. from the University of Georgia and his Ph.D.—summa cum laude—from the University of Munich and is the author of two books, “The Green Wave: Environmentalism and Its Consequences” and “Marshall, Mao and Chiang: The American Mediations Effort in the Chinese Civil War,” and he takes my calls frequently.

Attached is an MP3 of the conversation we had, which is transcribed here. It has been lightly edited for clarity:

JOE THOMAS: Talk about the peril of a megalithic company. Their explanation is, oh, we have to merge because data centers. I’m getting a little weary of everything that happens in electricity these days being the fault of, or caused by, data centers. Am I wrong?

BONNER COHEN: Data centers certainly provide an excuse in some cases, a reasonable explanation for some of what is going on. But what we have here, of course, is, as you pointed out, a mega-merger.

Two very large utilities—Florida-based NextEra being even larger than Dominion—want to merge. If they’re allowed to do so, and, by the way, that’s not a done deal, this thing has to pass regulatory muster in Virginia, the Carolinas, and Florida.

You can count on lawsuits—primarily from environmental groups—also being launched against this because even though NextEra and Dominion have paid proper homage to so-called green energy, both also have very strong commitments to natural gas.

That is something that the environmental groups obviously oppose. They will take this to court. This thing isn’t going to happen overnight.

What is true in the data center angle of it is that Northern Virginia is, of course, ground zero for data centers, not just in the United States, but actually around the world. These data centers do demand a lot of electricity, and electricity ultimately is going to have to be created on-site. We can’t have a system whereby data centers draw electricity away from residential and commercial customers.

I think we are moving in that direction nationwide, irrespective of the proposed merger, simply because it’s going to be a necessity.

There is also, I think, a very considerable chance that ultimately data centers may end up orbiting the planet—something Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are going to put a lot of intellectual property into—but there are engineering problems of a serious nature that need to be solved. That’s several years away at best.

JOE THOMAS: The idea that it’s going to sap into the average Joe and his radio show’s electricity is really, if I understand it—and we’ve had this conversation a little bit on abstract, Bonner—because of these Green Agenda, Clean America of 2030 restrictive plans that have had Dominion.

And I don’t know about NextEra, but Dominion certainly has been shuttering power plants and now trying to open new ones, and they keep facing headwinds on that. If data centers are tapping into my electricity, it’s because these groups, the green groups, have restricted that output. Am I wrong?

BONNER COHEN: Oh, no, not at all, in fact. Data centers require electricity 24/7, 365. They cannot deal with any interruptions whatsoever. In the current climate, you get that kind of electricity from natural gas. You get it from coal-fired power plants, and where possible, you get it from nuclear. Currently, there’s no other source for that.

JOE THOMAS: Bonner Cohen is on with CFACT, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Bonner, and I appreciate your time going into this Memorial Day weekend.

Is there an upside to the fact that this megacompany will probably be based out of Florida? That’s where NextEra is right now—and that Florida is, let’s just say, “more evolved constitutionally” than Virginia is at this moment?

BONNER COHEN: Yes, there’s certainly a much friendlier business climate—by the way, tax climate—in Florida than there is in Virginia. We say that with great regret, but that’s simply reality.

If I were a Virginia-based employee of Dominion, I would have worries about future employment opportunities. I must leave the state with the company because it makes a lot more sense to have the employees in Florida than it does in Virginia, because things are simply cheaper there.

The various regulations that are being imposed statewide in Virginia that raise the cost of employment are simply going to make Florida look more attractive.

Yes, I think having the company based in Florida is simply better than having the company based in Virginia, which has emerged in the past couple of decades as certainly more blue than red, more hostile to entrepreneurship, and a less business-friendly climate than Florida.

JOE THOMAS: So, Bonner, you were saying there are no other sources that can be that reliable. What about the data centers that say, hey, we’ll build our own? They all seem to be OK with this. I’ve talked to some industry groups that say, “We don’t have a problem building our own electric grid,” if you will, to feed just our needs and not bother the local utility at all—and, in some cases, generate power that can go back into the grid and actually strengthen it.

Why aren’t we talking about that more?

BONNER COHEN: Actually, we should be, because the Trump administration is pushing for this.

They recognize that data centers—which are not the most architecturally beautiful things in the world; you don’t really want to live next door to one—are absolutely essential when it comes to American competitiveness in the latest iteration of the Industrial Revolution, which is AI development. We don’t have the choice of doing these things or not doing them. It’s a matter of how it is to be done.

We put ourselves in a very disadvantageous position by shutting down so many coal-fired power plants, and the Biden administration was very eager to shut down as many natural gas-fired power plants as it could get away with.

So developers now recognize that they’re going to have to produce this stuff on-site. The practice is called “behind the meter,” so that you’re not drawing electricity from other people.

This can and will be done. Currently, there are 4,000 data centers in the United States, with another 3,000 pretty well along in the development process, though many are being challenged in court and what have you.

But they are going to have to become self-sustaining with respect to energy. I think they have absolutely the financial wherewithal to make that possible. And so that’s going to make them less of a threat to energy security than is currently the case, simply because they’ll be producing their own power.

JOE THOMAS: Well, you talk about security as well. I would rather have these data centers on American soil than, say, Russian or Chinese soil—because of our Bill of Rights, because there is an abstract ability to protect people’s privacy and that kind of thing in a data center that’s in the United States more so than there is one that’s in Beijing, certainly, Bonner?

BONNER COHEN: Oh, certainly. We have something in the United States called the rule of law.

Now, as we all know, it’s imperfect. We get judicial decisions with which we agree and judicial decisions with which we do not. But nevertheless, there’s a rule of law here. There is none in China. There is none in Russia.

We also have a level of technological sophistication here that is superior to what you will find in Russia—and, by the way, also superior to what you’ll find in China.

We can do things that they cannot do, and we can also do them with participation from the public—something that is not possible in China.

Not all that participation here is desirable, because that also means endless lawsuits, but that’s the world in which we live.

JOE THOMAS: Bonner, what is the peril to a Virginian, a Floridian, or anyone in the Carolinas of this merger blowing up our rates and making it even more expensive to get our electricity?

BONNER COHEN: That isn’t necessarily going to be the case, provided that this new entity puts a focus on real energy—not wind, not solar, not batteries.

In its infinite wisdom, the Virginia General Assembly just amended the Virginia Clean Energy Act to provide more battery storage. No energy is produced by battery storage. That’s making a utility put resources into something that does not really produce energy.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The DNC will doubtless move on from this shameful embarrassment, but the autopsy revealed something rather important: Democrats are still unwilling to seriously reconsider their worst political liability.

The autopsy, written by Paul Rivera and not endorsed by the DNC, went on and on about bolstering political efforts on the local and state level, even in red states—advice Democrats would do well to consider. It suggested focusing on economic issues, another salient point. It also recommended reaching out to male voters.

Yet the document tiptoes around the key reason why Americans are rejecting the Democratic Party. Woke ideology is a 10-ton albatross around the party’s neck, and until Democrats get serious about reconsidering it, they’ll just keep sinking into the mud.

Woke Makes Democrats Radioactive

Why do men increasingly reject the party? Perhaps because it leaned so far into feminism that it’s alienating most of us with a Y chromosome.

Why are more black voters rejecting the party? Perhaps because it focuses so much on demonizing commonsense conservative policies like voter ID as racist, rather than actually providing solutions to improve their lives.

While the autopsy noted that President Donald Trump’s campaign ads hitting then-Vice President Kamala Harris over transgender ideology resonated with voters, it failed to consider why that might be the case.

Rivera’s autopsy also noted that Republicans successfully branded Harris the “border czar,” but it never even so much as mentioned that President Joe Biden effectively opened the border and created a massive crisis.

Ultimately, the Democrats lost big in 2024, not because they failed to campaign enough in swing states or because they swapped out one unpopular candidate for another, but because of the ideology at the core of their message.

It’s not enough for Rivera, at his most cogent, to urge Democrats to “focus less on abstract issues and identity politics, and connect with voters on the issues they say matter most, including the economy, disaster relief, and addressing housing affordability.”

Democrats are wedded to that identity politics. Theirs is the party of transgender ideology, even when that means allowing boys to compete in girls sports and enter girls’ restrooms. Theirs is the party of critical race theory, which led them to claim racism is so “systemic” in America that we need to abolish the police. Theirs is the party of climate alarmism, which allows them to set up green slush funds to enrich cronies in the name of saving the planet.

To make matters worse, Democrats and their allies demonize those who disagree with their increasingly radical stances. Any dissent is “disinformation,” “Jim Crow,” or “hate.”

They even have the gall to openly discuss changing the rules of the political game to ensure permanent power—all in the name of championing “democracy.” Harris recently held a “No Bad Idea Brainstorm,” suggesting Democrats should run on abolishing the Electoral College and packing the Supreme Court.

The Institutionalization of Woke

These ideologies aren’t incidental to the Democrats—they form the heart of their belief system, and their vast nonprofit apparatus institutionalizes them.

In “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” I traced how the nonprofits pushing these woke ideologies formed the policy infrastructure that explained Biden’s least popular policies, from climate boondoggles and aggressive promotion of transgender issues to the weaponization of government against conservatives.

I demonstrated how critical race theory, transgender ideology, climate alarmism, and a preference for technocratic government—the constellation of issues I define as “woke”—drove policy under Biden. The Left has yet to distance itself from this vast nonprofit infrastructure.

Take the Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. If there was ever an organization the Democrats should sacrifice in order to demonstrate their dedication to truly becoming moderate, it should be the SPLC.

The SPLC has a Mad Libs of scandals, from a massive racial discrimination and sexual harassment scandal in 2019, to accusations of union-busting in 2024, to longstanding concerns that it exaggerates “hate” by falsely branding mainstream conservatives and Christians, and now by funding members of the very hate groups it claims to exist to oppose. The SPLC has even branded a group of gays and lesbians—Gays Against Groomers—an “anti-LGBTQ+ hate group” because they oppose sexualized lessons for kids.

The SPLC is one of the most aggressive activist groups pushing the woke ideology that Americans find so nauseating.

Surely, a Democrat Party truly committed to winning moderates should be willing to drop the SPLC.

Yet, when the SPLC faced an indictment for wire fraud, Democrats came to its defense. They seemed not to care about the SPLC’s scandals or its role in worsening America’s polarization.

With all due respect to Paul Rivera and the DNC, a few more dollars to local Democrat operatives won’t paper over their party’s massive problem.

Democrats don’t need to tinker around the edges—they need to reconsider their commitments to woke ideology. That’s how they might win back the American people, but the SPLC is Exhibit A of why it won’t happen anytime soon.

The four black members of Congress include Reps. Burgess Owens, R-Utah; Wesley Hunt, R-Texas; Byron Donalds, R-Fla.; and John James, R-Mich.

“Unfortunately, for the Left, their priorities are power and profit” Owens told the Daily Signal.

Owens and Donalds pushed to rename the Capitol’s press gallery after civil rights icon Frederick Douglass, a Republican, but caucus members refused to co-sponsor the resolution.

“Democrats know Douglass was a Republican,” Owens said. “They don’t stand up for the things that really should make a difference. They stand up for everything the Democratic Party wants, which means the black community is not always in a good place.”

Owens, who sits on the House’s Education and Workforce Committee, said the Congressional Black Caucus will advocate against the things that could strengthen the black community, such as education.

“That means they are going to vote against school choice,” he said. “Our kids are going down so fast, so far because they’re not getting the right education. … The Black Caucus doesn’t want [school choice] to happen because the Democratic Party doesn’t want that to happen.”

Owens said he grew up in the 1960s deep South, where his community “was doing well” and people believed in faith, family, and the free market. However, he added, the Left doesn’t value those ideals today.

“Marxists and socialists hate faith, family, and free market education because that sense of independence takes away their power and ability to make profit,” he said. “When they make profit on people’s misery, that’s a big business.”

Owens added, “They allow people not to feel good about themselves, feel hopeless, feel desperate, then they depend on you. … And when people have that kind of mindset, and they have no concept of what it is to believe in God or have empathy, they’ll do everything selfishly.”

The Congressional Black Caucus is pushing legislation asking young black athletes to avoid playing college sports for universities in the South, as a method of retaliating against states that redrew congressional maps. Owens, who was the third black athlete to receive a football scholarship from the University of Miami, criticized the effort, saying it’s a move by “black elitists” who want to “take the dreams of young black people away so that they can keep theirs.”

The caucus has received criticism for other decisions, including denying membership to Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., a white congressman who nevertheless represents the largest black community in Tennessee.

Other black conservative members of Congress, such as Donalds and Hunt, claim they were shunned by the caucus because they don’t approve of race-based politics.

“Democrats always use race [as a] political crutch,” Donalds said in an interview with the Daily Signal. “Their ideas aren’t logical, so what they try to do is use the emotions tied to the history of our country and weaponize those emotions for political gain. It’s sick.”

“I think that’s why you’re seeing more and more people walk away from the Democratic Party,” he added.

The Congressional Black Caucus did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

A SoCal Strategies poll conducted after this week’s endorsement from the president found Paxton dominating Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn by 22 points. According to the poll, Paxton leads with 57% of the vote, compared to Cornyn’s 35%. The primary runoff is set for May 26.

As attorney general, Paxton has been fighting for MAHA causes such as pesticides, forever chemicals in clothing, food dyes, and vaccines.

Secret Pesticides

This week, Paxton announced a historic settlement with a Texas-wide grocery store chain following an investigation that found it was secretly spraying pesticides on organic-labeled produce. Paxton said customers were buying organic produce at a higher price, assuming it was free of pesticides.

“This is a huge win for Texans seeking to avoid synthetic pesticides when purchasing organic produce,” Paxton said in a press release. “I commend Albertsons for reversing its course of action and signing this historic agreement to help ensure transparency for Texans by requiring its stores to stop the misting of pesticides on organic produce.”

ProduceMaxx is an Environmental Protection Agency-registered antimicrobial pesticide that contains chlorine. Paxton’s investigation found that thousands of grocery stores across the United States use it and other chemical pesticides to control bacteria and extend shelf life.

Top-Shelf Forever Chemicals

In April, Paxton issued a civil investigative demand to activewear brand Lululemon to determine if its products contain forever chemicals, and whether the company is misleading its customers.

“I will not allow any corporation to sell harmful, toxic materials to consumers at a premium price under the guise of wellness and sustainability,” Paxton said. “If Lululemon has violated Texas law, it will be held accountable.”

The investigation will look for specific synthetic materials and chemicals associated with endocrine disruption, infertility, and cancer.

“Americans should not have to worry if they are being deceived when trying to make healthy choices for themselves and their families,” he continued.

Challenging Vaccines

In January, Paxton launched an investigation into possible kickback schemes tied to childhood vaccine recommendations. The investigation includes sending more than 20 civil investigative demands to some of the largest medical providers in the country, including UnitedHealthcare and Pfizer.

Paxton said the investigation will examine whether pediatric medical providers, insurance companies, or vaccine manufacturers broke the law by failing to disclose financial incentives—such as doctors’ wages, bonuses, and employment—tied to recommending and administering vaccines to children.

“I will ensure that Big Pharma and Big Insurance don’t bribe medical providers to pressure parents to jab their kids with vaccines they feel aren’t safe or necessary,” Paxton said. “Any provider or entity whose medical guidance is fueled by financial incentives from an insurance company, Big Pharma, or otherwise will be exposed.”

“Alongside President Trump and [Health and Human Service Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s] significant efforts to ensure safety when it comes to childhood vaccines, my office will fight to protect kids’ health and uphold transparency in the medical industry. Together, we will Make America Healthy Again,” he continued.

The U.S. blockade on Iranian ships on the Strait of Hormuz would “remain in full force and effect until an agreement is reached, certified, and signed”, Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Negotiations were progressing and the U.S. relationship with Iran had become more professional and productive, he said. But he added: “Both sides must take their time and get it right. There can be no mistakes!”

A day earlier, Trump said Washington and Iran had “largely negotiated” a memorandum of understanding on a peace deal that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which before the conflict carried one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas shipments.

Trump has repeatedly played up the prospect of an agreement to end the war that the U.S. and Israel started on February 28.

It was not clear whether the agreement he was referring to on Sunday was the interim memorandum of understanding that has been under discussion, or a much more challenging final peace settlement, likely to take much longer.

The two sides remain at odds on several difficult issues, such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its demands for the lifting of sanctions and the release of tens of billions of dollars of Iranian oil revenues frozen in foreign banks, and Israel’s war in Lebanon with the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia.

Various media in the U.S. and Iran had said the memorandum setting out a framework for ending months of fighting would, if concluded, initially lift a U.S. blockade on Iranian vessels and reopen the waterway, which Iran has shut with threats to attack shipping.

Hope for Relief in Global Energy Crisis

But Iran’s Tasnim news agency said differences remained over one or two clauses. Tasnim cited a source as saying there would be no final understanding if the U.S. continued to create obstacles.

In another potential stumbling block, a military adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei said Tehran had the legal right to manage the Strait of Hormuz, though it was not clear if that meant continuing to decide which ships can go through.

Any deal reinforcing the current fragile ceasefire would bring relief to markets but not immediately quell a global energy crisis, which has driven up costs of fuel, fertilizer and food.

Even if the war ends now, full ​flows through the strait will not return before the first or second quarter of ‌2027, the head of the Abu Dhabi National Oil Company said last week.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said 33 vessels had passed through the strait over the past 24 hours after getting permission from Tehran, still far short of the 140 on a typical day before the war.

Trump, while offering various war aims during the conflict, has repeatedly said the U.S. struck Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Iran “must understand … that they cannot develop or procure a Nuclear Weapon or Bomb”, he reiterated in his post on Sunday.

Iran has long denied it is pursuing such weapons and says it has a right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes, although the purity it has achieved far exceeds that needed for power generation.

Washington’s close ally Israel sees its arch-enemy Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat. It is also reluctant to have its hands tied in Lebanon, where it has occupied part of the south to fight Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia that has repeatedly attacked Israel in support of Tehran’s aims.

Trump had spoken on Saturday to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and on Sunday Netanyahu said the president had agreed with him that any final agreement with Iran must remove the nuclear threat, adding:

“That means dismantling Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites and removing its enriched nuclear material from its territory.”

He said Trump had “also reaffirmed Israel’s right to defend itself against threats on every front, including Lebanon”.

‘Issues Still Need to Be Discussed,’ Iran Says

Sources have told Reuters the proposed ‌framework, when it emerges, will unfold in three stages: formally ending the war, resolving the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, and launching a 30-day window for negotiations on a broader agreement, which can be extended.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said on Saturday that “the trend this week has been towards a reduction in disputes, but there are still issues that need to be discussed through mediators”.

Baghaei said the issue of the U.S. blockade on Iran’s shipping was important, but that its priority was ending the threat of new U.S. attacks and the parallel conflict in Lebanon.

Trump, whose approval ratings have been hit by the war’s impact on U.S. energy prices, said on Friday he would not attend his son’s wedding this weekend, citing Iran among the reasons for staying in Washington.

He also spoke on Saturday with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan, who encouraged Trump to agree to the emerging framework, the U.S. news outlet Axios reported.

(Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu, Ariba Shahid, Hatem Mater, Andrew Mills, Elwely Elwelly and Parisa Hafezi; Writing by Kim Coghill, Kevin Liffey and Andrew Heavens)

Roll Call released its list of the 10 most vulnerable House members, many in order of newsworthiness.

Emanuel Cleaver II, Democrat for Missouri’s 5th Congressional District

“Regarded as the most vulnerable House member, Emanuel Cleaver II is a casualty of redistricting, almost certainly bringing his 20 years of serving in the House to a close.

The congressman most recently won reelection by +23.8. Per the new maps, President Donald Trump won the district by +18.4, which is considered “Solid Republican.”

There’s even more intriguing races from there, though.

Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat for Ohio’s 9th Congressional District

Although Roll Call ranks Kaptur eighth, her race is perhaps the most newsworthy. She was first elected in 1983, making her the longest-serving woman in congressional history. Trump framed her as a “Career Politician” in a Truth Social post endorsing her Republican opponent, former state Rep. Derek Merrin.

Referring to Merrin as an “American First Patriot,” Trump railed against Kaptur for voting against tax cuts. He also referenced immigration, men in women’s sports, and voter ID. “She is Reckless, Radical, and Dangerous!” Trump declared.

Merrin lost to Kaptur by just 0.7 last cycle in a district the president won significantly. Ohio was required to redistrict for 2026, and the new map favors Republicans even more so, with Trump having won the new lines by +10.6. Merrin emerged victorious from a crowded primary earlier this month.

The race is regarded as “Tilt Republican,” and the redistricting is crucial, but it will be noteworthy to see if Kaptur still hangs on, as she’s done in the past, with Roll Call describing her as “a political survivor who’s weathered red waves before.”

Dan Goldman, Democrat for New York’s 10th Congressional District

Dan Goldman won this New York City district by +67.3 in 2024, but the congressman is in danger of losing to another Democrat in what Roll Call describes as a “stiff primary challenge” from former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, who ran for mayor last year.

Goldman and Lander’s opposing views on Israel have played a role, with the congressman tagging Lander in an X post asking if he’d “condemn … or continue to encourage this disgusting rhetoric from” Texas congressional candidate and fellow Democrat Maureen Galindo after she made headlines for calling for Zionists to be placed in a “prison.”

The congressman initially won his seat in a crowded 2022 Democrat primary following a nasty redistricting battle that ousted former Rep. Mondaire Jones.

Mariannette Miller Meeks, Republican for Iowa’s 1st Congressional District

Roll Call speaks to “guarded optimism” for Democrats with this seat. Not only did Mariannette Miller-Meeks win in 2020 by just six votes, but she won in 2024 by +0.2, while Trump won by +8.5 that cycle. Miller-Meeks could face her Democrat challenger from that cycle, Christina Bohannan, in November. Both Miller-Meeks and Bohannan have primary challengers.

This race is regarded as a “Toss-Up” and could especially be one to watch if there’s a margin of single digits again this time. There’s also a race for governor and U.S. Senate out of Iowa.

Gabe Evans, a Republican for Colorado’s 8th Congressional District

Gabe Evans is only the second representative to serve this district, which was created following the 2022 census. He flipped the seat in 2024, and it’s once more seen as a pickup seat, with Roll Call mentioning “cost of living concerns among the largely working class electorate.” There’s a “but,” though, via a crowded Democrat primary.

Evans won by +0.8 in 2024, while Trump’s margin was +1.8. The race is regarded as a “Toss-Up.”

Ryan Mackenzie, a Republican for Pennsylvania’s 7th District

A freshman, Ryan Mackenzie flipped the seat in 2024 by +1.0, which Trump won by +3.2, and Democrats are hoping they can flip it back with Bob Brooks as their nominee. Brooks is described by Roll Call as “a working-class candidate” who “has consolidated support from across the party spectrum.”

The race is regarded as a “Toss-Up” and Roll Call notes it will be “among the most closely watched races in a state that could determine the House majority this fall.”

Don Davis, a Democrat for North Carolina’s 1st District

Don Davis is once again running in a closely watched race, having won by +1.7 in 2024. His district was redrawn in 2022 and 2026. Roll Call mentions “a moderate voting record” for Davis, who “breaks with his party.”

Under the new lines, Trump won Davis’ district by +11.6 in 2024.

He’s facing a rematch against his Republican opponent from 2024, retired Army Col. Laurie Buckhout, in this “Tilt Republican” race.

Juan Ciscomani, Republican for Arizona’s 6th Congressional District

Juan Ciscomani outperformed Trump with his 2024 win in the district, winning by +2.5 to Trump’s +0.7.

Although Ciscomani, who was first elected in 2022, managed to beat former state Sen. Kirsten Engel twice, he has a new opponent this year, Marine veteran JoAnna Mendoza. Mendoza is described as “a prolific fundraiser with a working-class background” and one who “has emphasized cost-of-living concerns.”

The race is regarded as a “Toss-Up.”

Kevin Kiley, Republican-Turned-Independent for California’s 6th Congressional District

Kevin Kiley, who currently represents California’s 3rd Congressional District, announced he was switching his party affiliation in March. He, too, is affected by redistricting, with Proposition 50 having passed in California last fall.

California has a jungle primary, where the top two vote-getters head to the general election, regardless of party.

Although Kiley won by +11.0 in 2024 in the 3rd District, Trump’s margin under the new 6th was -8.4, making this a “Likely Democratic” race.

Darren Soto, Democrat for Florida’s 9th Congressional District

Darren Soto won by +12.5 in 2024, but Florida recently got involved in redistricting as well, with Trump having won the new lines by +17.8.

It appears that Soto is still in the fight, though, as Roll Call noted that Democrats added him to the Frontline list for vulnerable members.

Roll Call’s ranking of vulnerable members of Congress, starting from most vulnerable, is Cleaver, Kiley, Miller-Meeks, Evans, Davis, Mackenzie, Ciscomani, Kaptur, Goldman, and Soto.

The state this year has prosecuted three noncitizens who cast ballots, one an incumbent mayor who was also not legally allowed to run for office.

“There’s three cases filed already. One has already been resolved,” Kobach, a Republican, told the Daily Signal. “There are two that are still in process, and we’ve got more in the hopper, and it’s not going to be just six. It’s going to be a very significant number.”

Any charges are notable since Democrats and groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union contend noncitizen voting is not a problem.

States can cross-check voter registration lists with a list of noncitizens now that the Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security is sharing the SAVE program with states. SAVE, short for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, provides data on both legal noncitizens and people who are not in the country legally.

At least 25 states have used the SAVE system to cross-reference voter registration rolls, but few have brought prosecutions against ineligible voters. In January, the U.S. Justice Department charged four noncitizens with illegal voting.

Kansas Secretary of State Scott Schwab has used information from the SAVE program to identify individuals who voted in Kansas elections who are not U.S. citizens, and he then made referrals to the attorney general’s office.

“The way a case begins wasn’t possible under President [Joe] Biden,” Kobach said. “Now DHS is sharing data with us on known aliens residing in each state. … We can now compare that list of known aliens in Kansas to the list of Kansas voters.”

“We’re getting a very large set of names, and then we winnow down that set of names to ones we are certain that it is, indeed, a person illegally in the country, or legally for that matter,” Kobach said. “A person in the country legally, but who is not a U.S. citizen, and that person’s voting, it’s illegal and we will be prosecuting.”

Kobach is a former Kansas secretary of state, where he oversaw Kansas elections. In 2017, President Donald Trump appointed him to chair a bipartisan commission on election integrity.

Last week, Jose Ceballos-Armendariz, the former mayor of Coldwater, Kansas, turned himself in to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Wichita area, Fox 4 Kansas City reported. Ceballos-Armendariz is a Mexican national with a green card and resides legally in the United States. He was prosecuted by Kobach’s office and pleaded guilty last month to illegally voting in several elections.

He pleaded guilty to three counts of disorderly election conduct on April 20 and was sentenced to serve six months in jail, suspended to one year of probation, and a $2,000 fine, according to the Kansas attorney general’s office.

The state also charged Edwin Ramirez-Guerra with one count of voting without being qualified and one count of election perjury. The state charged Jose Luis Gomez Sr. with one count of voting without being qualified and two counts of election perjury. After the warrant was served, Gomez was deported following federal immigration proceedings.

“The number is going to be significant when all is said and done, and it hasn’t stopped. It still continues even though we have, in Kansas, a very pro-law enforcement attitude toward elections,” Kobach said.

Still, what happened that year is something for the history books, if not the Book of Life.

According to Pew Research data, Donald Trump almost certainly would have lost the razor-thin race to Hillary Clinton if not for the support of white evangelical Christians. That support almost certainly would not have turned out in winning numbers if not for Robison’s Herculean behind-the-scenes efforts.

I had a front row seat to this political thriller, as I was then working for James (as I knew him).

A Primary Full of Friends … and ‘That Man Trump’

The story begins with the GOP primary. Of the dozen-plus Republican candidates, James was friends with about 10. Close to about seven. A father figure to two or three. Trump was not one of those friends—far from it. In fact, for about a year, I swear James never referred to him as anything other than “That Man Trump.”

When some faith leaders started endorsing Trump, oh, boy. I remember the Rev. Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas, an early endorser of Trump, coming on “LIFE Today.” Between segments, James chewed his ears like they were beef jerky.

Mike Huckabee, who owed his first professional job (and his first-ever suits) to James called from the campaign trail. “James, you’re not going to believe this. But Trump listens.” That caught James’ attention, because another candidate he’d known since he was young man was not listening.

But still … “That Man Trump.”

Then James got word that Ben Carson, a spiritual son, was set to endorse Trump. James immediately called Carson backstage at the Trump rally to give him chapter and verse. Carson cooly replied, “I told Trump I’d endorse him if he spent an hour with you.”

James would rather have had teeth removed without Novocain than go to Trump Tower to meet “That Man Trump.” But the evangelist in him couldn’t resist. “I hit him with everything I had,” James recalled. “I told him, ‘You might know how to be a father to these boys, but you don’t know anything about being a father to this nation!’” To James’ amazement, Trump was incredibly gracious and receptive to what he was saying.

Still, James didn’t trust the billionaire reality star. Too many other candidates schmoozed him for support only to disappear after Election Day. But Trump had taken a liking to James and suggested another meeting. Then another with a group of evangelical influencers. Next thing you know, they’re buds, with James even doing a campaign event. He also began counseling other evangelical leaders that while Trump may not be “our” choice, get used to the idea he’s the people’s choice.

Fast-forward to the general election. Trump had worked hard to win over evangelical leaders. Although some remained vehement Never-Trumpers, many had started to support him, if only as an alternative to Clinton.

And then …

The ‘Access Hollywood’ Tape

On Oct. 7, one month before the election, the “Access Hollywood” story broke, shattering the fragile alliance Trump had been building among evangelical leaders—shattering even long-term relationships between leaders who held onto their Trump support and those who saw it as immoral to back such a crude, ungodly character.

One nationally-known leader of a Christian conservative political organization was so distraught over the Trump drama that he told James he was retiring. Another leading pastor-author was near tears, broken over the rancor within his congregation. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign was in crisis mode.

James got busy. The man who could convince a leopard to lose his spots spent 17 exhausting hours a day on the phone. One minute, talking leaders off the ledge. “With Trump you don’t know what you’re going to get. With Hillary you KNOW what you’re going to get.” The next minute, praying with leaders who were at odds, healing rifts before they became insurmountable. The minute after that, counseling the campaign, ministering to the Trump family.

Hour after hour, day after day, James kept at it, the voice that could thunder across stadiums reduced to a raspy, exhausted whisper, pulling by force of will and argument the fragile evangelical coalition back together. A coalition, not incidentally, that included people who, for doctrinal reasons, would “never have even been in the same room together,” who were now banding together. This “miracle,” as James called it, would become the basis for President Trump’s Faith Council.

By the third debate, 12 days later, the alliance had mostly reformed, if held together only by Scotch tape and prayer.

Then, partway through, Trump and Clinton had an exchange over abortion, particularly partial-birth abortion. Trump let loose:

“Well, I think it’s terrible. If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that’s OK and Hillary can say that that’s OK. But it’s not OK with me, because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going, and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day. And that’s not acceptable.” 

I could almost feel a jolt through the TV set. Never had a presidential candidate, Republican or otherwise, spoken so bluntly, forcefully, and even passionately against abortion. Strategic or from the heart? I don’t know. Something James had put on his mind? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

But in that moment—having been on some of those calls with James, having a strong sense of the heart of those evangelical leaders—I knew Trump had just struck a nerve and sealed the deal. What was that old “Access Hollywood” tape compared to the prospect of protecting new life?

It wasn’t about Trump. It was about rescuing the unborn, rescuing the nation from the curse of secularism—heck, rescuing the ability to say “Merry Christmas” without getting grief for it.

What was fragile would now be a force.

Trump would go on to ride the support of white Christian evangelicals to victory.

Mere hours after being declared the winner, the president-elect called James. After jokes about how remarkable their wives were for putting up with them, Trump closed with this:

“James, never let me forget what you did for me.”

I certainly won’t. Nor should the nation ever forget James Robison.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

As plaintiffs suing energy companies for global warming gear up for their upcoming Supreme Court hearing, the plans to extract billions under local tort laws suffered significant setbacks in recent weeks. 

Last week, the modeling scenarios used to predict the most dire consequences from global warming were deemed “implausible” by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which climate activists typically cite as the key source for global warming projections.  

And on May 12, the government of New Zealand outlawed climate lawsuits in that country, echoing energy companies’ defense that regulating global greenhouse gas emissions belonged under the purview of national regulators and lawmakers rather than local courts. 

“Even in a place that is far to the left of the United States on most policy issues, they can see the common sense that you don’t want your government policy and your national economy regulated by lawsuits,” O.H. Skinner, executive director of the Alliance for Consumers, told the Daily Signal. 

Calling the lawsuits “a backdoor way to set policy through the courts instead of through elected lawmakers,” Jason Isaac, CEO of the American Energy Institute, said that the “legal and evidentiary landscape has shifted substantially” against climate litigators. 

“Layer on the recent developments—the Federal Judicial Center pulling its climate science chapter from its judicial reference manual, the EPA reconsidering the 2009 Endangerment Finding, and the IPCC retiring [its most extreme modeling scenario]—and the entire scientific scaffolding underpinning these cases is being reassessed in real time,” Isaac told the Daily Signal.  

On the New Zealand government’s website, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith stated that climate lawsuits were increasing uncertainty and undermining energy investment.  

“The courts are not the right place to resolve claims of harm from climate change, and tort law is not well-suited to respond to a problem like climate change, which involves a range of complex environmental, economic and social factors,” Goldsmith stated.  

This action comes as climate lawsuits proliferate, not just in America, but around the world.  

According to a 2025 report by London School of Economics research fellows Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, there have been nearly 3,000 climate lawsuits filed in 60 countries since 1986. About 1,900 of them were filed in the U.S., 164 in Australia, 133 in the U.K., and 131 in Brazil.  

“Climate litigation has evolved into a powerful global tool for advancing climate action and accountability,” Inger Andersen, executive director of the U.N. Environmental Program, stated. 

This fall, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Suncor Energy v. Boulder County, a Colorado lawsuit that will likely set a national precedent. In these suits, plaintiffs claim that burning oil, gas, and coal harmed local residents by creating a “public nuisance” and that energy companies “failed to warn” consumers that using their products can cause bad weather. Plaintiffs are seeking billions of dollars in damages, with one lawsuit in Multnomah County, Oregon, alone demanding $50 billion. 

These claims are often based on climate models produced by organizations like the IPCC, but the IPCC’s recent statement that the most extreme modeling scenarios are unrealistic undermines many of the damage claims. The IPCC’s “Representative Concentration Pathways (RPC) 8.5” projection is based on assumptions, such as the dramatic expansion of coal burning, despite the recent rise of natural gas, nuclear, wind, and solar energy.  

“Every study that comes out that says the world is ending is based on these extreme scenarios,” Kenny Stein, policy vice president at the Institute for Energy Research, told the Daily Signal. “If you use the scenario estimates that are actually closer to what’s really happening and you run those through a climate model, you don’t get significant impacts.” 

Climate litigators have denied that they are attempting to regulate energy companies.  

Attorney Victor Sher argued before state supreme court justices last fall that his lawsuit on behalf of Baltimore, Annapolis, and Anne Arundel County “does not involve capping, regulating or limiting emissions by the defendants or anybody … It doesn’t involve changing pollution control measures or installing equipment or anything like that.” 

But attorney David Bookbinder, who represented Boulder in its suit, stated that the goal of the suits was indeed to impose “an indirect carbon tax.”  

“You sue an oil company, an oil company is liable, the oil company then passes that liability on to the people who are buying its products. In some sense, it is the most efficient way—the people who buy those products are now going to be paying for the cost imposed by those products,” Bookbinder stated at an Oct. 10 Federalist Society webinar. 

If the suits succeed, Isaac said, “they would raise prices sharply—through damages passed to consumers, higher liability insurance and capital costs, and reduced investment in domestic energy production.” 

And this presents another hurdle for climate litigation. The recent spike in gasoline prices due to the Gulf war has given consumers around the world a taste of what would happen if climate lawsuits succeeded. European consumers have already been paying significantly higher electricity rates since the EU-mandated shift to wind and solar energy. 

“In a democracy, that’s a political problem because people rightly ask their governments: why are our prices rising?” Stein said. “Climate change actions are absolutely on their back foot in general because of this problem of responsive democracy.” 

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal. 

After Jesus ascended into heaven, the Apostles all gathered together in a building’s upper room, worried and confused about how to move forward. Then the Holy Spirit came rushing forth upon them (Acts 2:2). They were immediately emboldened to rush out of the upper room and proclaim Jesus’ identity to anyone who would hear.

This is what the God’s Spirit does: It ignites us.

The Holy Spirit was felt and seen among the Apostles, and He reminded them of who Jesus called them to be. The Apostles were convicted; they knew that they were not alone. God’s presence in them showed them how to act and what to do.

The same is true for Christians today.

Pentecost confronts us with a question: are we stuck in our own “upper room”? Do we silo our faith from our lives, rather than allowing God’s Spirit to move through us in all of our interactions?

In my prayer during this Easter season, I have been reflecting on the general tone of my conversation with God. If I am completely honest, much of it is self-centered. I ask Him for help. I implore His love to be with my wife and kids. I pray for sick family members, and I am open with God about what is bothering me. My prayer is often too centered on myself, rather than being an expression of the fact that God is with me.

This had to be a factor in the Apostles’ gathering in the upper room. They were worried about what to do and how to move forward. In the midst of their turning inward, the Spirit came to convince them of their identity: They were made to be with God and to tell others about Him.

The role of the Christian in today’s world is the same.

In 2003, Pope Saint John Paul II put it well: “The Church of Christ is always, so to speak, in a situation of Pentecost: she is always gathered in the Upper Room in prayer, and at the same time, driven by the powerful wind of the Spirit, she is always on the streets preaching.”

This is the dual foundation of the Christian life: to be in communion with God and to be willing to share that union with others. Believers in Christ exist in order to know Him, love Him, and serve Him. Therefore, the celebration of Pentecost implores us to consider how we do so. We should ask ourselves two questions.

First, are we people of daily prayer? Do we make intentional and personal time for God each and every day?

If the answer is no, then we can implement practices and structures that can help bolster our prayer life. Set aside an extra 10 minutes when you wake up and before you go to bed. Start small, perhaps by making a promise to God, in prayer, that you will give Him this time. Tell a friend or family member about it so you are kept accountable and have someone to speak with about your prayer life.

Second, we must ask ourselves if we courageously speak about the faith openly to people. This does not mean that we become street preachers, nor does it mean that we heckle people with our faith. It simply means that we become more aware of how we can bring up the faith or our practice of prayer to people in casual and organic ways.

This can happen at work when someone asks about our weekend. We can explain our experiences with family and friends but also mention our attendance at church and how it helps guide us. This can also take place among our immediate family by calling for more opportunities to pray before meals or together as a family before bed.

These two little practices can go a long way to mold us into men and women like the Apostles, who ran out of the upper room on that first Pentecost.

It only takes some commitment and a daily encounter with Christ in prayer to light a fire in our souls to live with a Pentecost spirit. This spirit will help shape our families and communities for a brighter future and a holier world.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The Department of Justice and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced last week a seismic shift in medicine.

For the first time, a major hospital will open a clinic dedicated to providing health care for people victimized by harmful medical experiments to make them appear like members of the opposite sex.

The Struggles of Detransitioners

While activists claim that teens who suffer from gender dysphoria—the painful and persistent condition of identifying with the gender opposite one’s sex—need experimental medical interventions to prevent suicide, the Department of Health and Human Services concluded there is little evidence for positive impacts from such “treatments” for minors.

Although the full side effects of transgender “medicine” remain unclear, studies have demonstrated concrete harms. One study found that males who identify as transgender and take estrogen in order to appear female face higher risks of infertility, diabetes, testicular and breast cancer, and early death. A Food and Drug Administration study found that suicidal thoughts actually increase among kids who take so-called puberty blockers.

A jury awarded a detransitioner $2 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit in February, and psychiatrists reportedly agreed to pay $3.5 million to settle another detransitioner’s medical malpractice claim this week.

Yet the medical establishment has vigorously championed grotesque interventions, euphemistically branded “gender-affirming care.”

Transgender ideology has spread—particularly among teenage girls—as a social contagion, promoted by schools, YouTube algorithms, and TikTok influencers. Thousands of children and teens across the country have taken experimental hormone “treatments,” and by 2023, surgeons had operated on more than 5,000 minors.

Many of these unfortunate people have since realized the truth. No matter how many hormone shots they take, no matter how many surgeries they undergo, they cannot change their biological sex. The DNA in their cells will still be coded male or female, and their bodies will reflect this, in one way or another.

Women like Chloe Cole, who underwent chemical and surgical alterations to appear male, have rejected that false identity and returned to accepting their biological sex.

But these detransitioners struggle to find doctors who can fully address their struggles.

“After over 5 years of searching I’ve finally found a doctor who wants to help me,” Cole shared on X Wednesday.

She told me that this doctor is an internal medicine specialist who is “not working on autopilot like most docs are.” That makes it hard to find a doctor willing or able to address her struggles.

The health care system manages treatment through the International Classification of Diseases diagnosis codes, but detransitioners remain mostly invisible in this system. Doctors and public policy groups have advocated for detransition codes.

A New Hope for Detransitioners

That’s why it matters so much that Texas Children’s Hospital has agreed to open a special clinic dedicated to detransition care, as part of a settlement with the Justice Department. Under the terms of the agreement, the hospital will pay $10 million to resolve allegations that it submitted false billings to public and private payors to secure insurance coverage for pediatric sex-rejecting procedures, and it will terminate the doctors who arguably violated their Hippocratic Oath by subjecting patients to these harmful procedures.

As the Justice Department announced, the hospital “has committed to establishing the first-of-its-kind clinic dedicated to restorative care for detransitioners.” The clinic will provide free detransition care for its first five years.

Paxton opened an investigation into Texas Children’s in 2022, after determining that sex-rejecting medical procedures may constitute child abuse under Lone Star State law. In June 2023, Gov. Greg Abbott signed a bill banning these procedures statewide.

Texas Children’s framed its decision to settle the case as an attempt to avoid wasting money.

“We are settling to protect our resources from endless and costly litigation,” the hospital said in a statement reported by NBC News. “This settlement will allow us to redirect those precious resources to focus on the life-saving care.”

“The detransition clinic will formalize the supportive, multidisciplinary services we already deliver to all patients who need our care,” the hospital added.

Formalizing detransition services would represent a tremendous step forward for the medical industry.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the hospital’s agreement “protects vulnerable children, holds providers accountable, and ensures those harmed receive the care they need.”

The medical profession needs to understand the struggles of detransitioners and how to help them, and a new clinic dedicated to this noble mission will change the game.

The new clinic should bring together endocrinologists (hormone specialists), plastic surgeons, psychiatrists, and obstetricians and gynecologists. Providing care for people in detransition truly is a groundbreaking medical field, and it’s inspiring to see a hospital that once harmed children now pioneer a new way to reverse those harms.

The suspect, 21-year old male Nasire Best, was shot by Secret Service agents and died on the way to the hospital.

“Shortly after 6 p.m Saturday an individual in the area of 17th street and Pennsylvania Avenue pulled a weapon from his bag and began firing,” Anthony Guglielmi, chief of communications for the United States Secret Service, said in a statement to The Daily Signal.

“Secret Service Police returned fire striking the suspect who was transported to an area hospital where he was pronounced deceased,” he continued. “During the shooting one bystander was also struck by gunfire.”

No injuries were sustained by officers, Guglielmi said. He added that the president was in the White House during the incident, but no protectees or operations were impacted.

“This incident remains under investigation, and additional information will be released as it becomes available,” Guglielmi said.

In a Truth Social post late Saturday night, President Donald Trump thanked the Secret Service and local law enforcement for their “swift and professional action.”

“Thank you to our great Secret Service and Law Enforcement for the swift and professional action taken this evening against a gunman near the White House, who had a violent history and possible obsession with our Country’s most cherished structure,” Trump said, adding the incident underscores the need for security enhancements at the White House.

“This event is one month removed from the White House [Correspondents’] Dinner shooting, and goes to show how important it is, for all future Presidents, to get, what will be, the most safe and secure space of its kind ever built in Washington, D.C. The National Security of our Country demands it!”

Best allegedly had multiple prior encounters with law enforcement, as well as a history of mental health concerns.

FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed Saturday evening that the bureau is investigating after reporters heard shots fired near the White House.

“FBI is on the scene and supporting Secret Service responding to shots fired near White House grounds – we will update the public as we’re able,” Patel posted on X.

About 15 to 30 gunshots were fired, according to CBS. After an altercation between a Secret Service agent and the suspect, a bystander was also struck by gunfire, though that person’s condition is unclear.

“The U.S. Secret Service is gathering information and will have more on this incident shortly,” the Secret Service told The Daily Signal in a statement Saturday.

Police and security forces swarmed the area around the White House after reports of shots fired, AFP journalists reported. President Donald Trump was at the White House at the time.

Selina Wang, senior White House correspondent for ABC News, was on the scene.

Trump recently posted an update on the negotiations seeking peace with Iran.

“Final aspects and details of the Deal are currently being discussed, and will be announced shortly,” the president wrote on Truth Social. “In addition to many other elements of the Agreement, the Strait of Hormuz will be opened.”

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

Now, Democrats in the Senate are preparing a vote on whether or not the administration can use force against Cuba.

Since the Department of Justice unveiled charges against 94-year-old former Cuban president Raúl Castro, multiple Cabinet-level officials have been ramping up pressure on the island nation.

“This isn’t a show indictment,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Wednesday of Castro, who is facing murder charges for the fatal downing of two planes carrying American citizens in 1996. “There was a warrant issued for his arrest, so we expect that he will show up here [in America] by his own will or by another way.”

The prosecution of Castro is reminiscent of the prosecution of former Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on drug trafficking charges, which the administration used as justification for the arrest of the head of state in a military operation.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also indicated the administration is dead serious about Cuba.

Asked about the possibility of striking Cuba to induce regime change, Rubio told reporters Thursday the United States prefers a “negotiated diplomatic settlement” in Cuba, but that “the president always has the option to do whatever it takes to support and protect the national security of the United States.”

In the same conversation, Rubio argued Cuba is “a national security threat to the United States” due to Russian and Chinese weapons and “intelligence presence” in the country.

On Thursday, Democrat Sens. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Adam Schiff of California, and Ruben Gallego of Arizona introduced a resolution that would block hostilities against Cuba. 

War Powers Resolution Momentum

While the Cuba war powers legislation is unlikely to gather a veto-proof level of support, recent war powers resolutions have been gaining traction in Congress.

Expedited procedures in the House and Senate allow the minority to bypass leadership and force votes on war powers resolutions.

On Tuesday, the Senate advanced a resolution to deprive the president of his power to use force against Iran.

The resolution advanced by a 50-47 vote, with four Republican senators voting in favor: Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine.

In the House, where an Iran war powers resolution failed in a tie last month, leadership sent the chamber into recess a day early on Thursday, canceling a planned war powers vote.

If the House’s concurrent resolution disapproving of the Iran war had come to the floor and succeeded, it would likely not be binding on the president due to a Supreme Court precedent blocking unilateral legislative vetoes on presidential action.

However, it would be a public defeat for the Republican administration’s military agenda in Congress.

Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, argued leadership punted on the vote because it would have succeeded.

“We had the votes to pass it today. Every Democrat was on board, [and] we had the sufficient number of Republicans on board,” Meeks told reporters.

The administration is also facing some Capitol Hill pushback on its troop movements in Europe, as Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., have both publicly criticized troop withdrawals from Germany.

Rogers told Punchbowl News in a recent interview that he is seeking legislative “guardrails” to prevent European troop withdrawals going forward.

The 2026 National Defense Authorization Act—an annual defense policy bill—included provisions intended to block the executive branch from withdrawing forces from Europe without congressional approval.

“Dalilah’s Law would have revoked this illegal trucker’s license,” Duffy wrote on X, responding to reports that an illegal immigrant truck driver was arrested in connection with a hit-and-run that injured two people near Sacramento, California. “Congress must pass Dalilah’s Law NOW.”

Testifying earlier this week before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Duffy said he is committed to restoring “integrity and safety” to the trucking industry while improving job prospects for American drivers.

“It was the policy of the last administration to allow for unqualified foreign drivers to get behind the wheel of a truck,” he said, criticizing the administration of former President Joe Biden. “Those days are over.”

“We’ve also knocked more than 20,000 drivers out of service for failing to meet basic requirements like reading our road signs or being able to communicate with law enforcement,” Duffy added. “These changes aren’t just keeping you and your family safe on the road—they have the added benefits of boosting wages of hardworking American truckers.”

The bill, introduced by Rep. Erin Houchin, R-Ind., has been referred to the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and could soon advance to a committee vote before heading to the House floor.

Houchin’s legislation is named after Dalilah Coleman, who was 5 years old when she was severely injured in a crash involving an illegal immigrant truck driver who allegedly ran a stop sign.

President Donald Trump highlighted Coleman and her family during his January State of the Union address as he urged Congress to act on the proposal.

“Many, if not most, illegal aliens do not speak English and cannot read even the most basic road signs as to direction, speed, danger, or location,” Trump said. “That’s why tonight I’m calling on Congress to pass what we will call the Dalilah Law, barring any state from granting commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.”

In the Senate, the companion measure is being led by Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., a close ally of the president.

If enacted, the legislation would prohibit issuing CDLs to individuals who are not U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or holders of certain work visas. It would also require states to permanently disqualify individuals who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from operating commercial vehicles.

“If you can’t speak English or read a road sign, you have no business driving a truck in the United States of America. This is common sense, this is basic public safety, and this is why I’m leading The Dalilah Law,” Banks said in a statement to the Daily Signal.

Democrats have opposed the bill, arguing that it “demonizes” illegal immigrants.

Banks, speaking on the Daily Signal’s “Tony Kinnett Cast,” said differing state policies have contributed to safety concerns.

“When you have Gov. Gavin Newsom in California, or blue states like California or New York, [where] they hand out truck driving licenses to illegals like candy, of course you’re going to see them behind the wheel of a semi and tragically killing people,” Banks said.

Banks added that Coleman continues to recover but faces lasting effects from the crash.

“She will never be the same—she’s recovered physically, but she will never be the same,” he said.

When it comes to asset managers, BlackRock, State Street, and Vanguard are often referred to as the “Big Three,” and it has been reported that together “they are the largest shareholders in 88% of S&P 500 companies.”

A large part of this immense control of corporate America stems from shares held in “passive” funds that millions of Americans invest in. Passive funds are generally designed to track the results of a given index such as the S&P 500. Given that no active management is involved, such funds typically charge lower fees.

At least part of the theory behind passive funds is that they provide great diversification to unsophisticated investors while allowing them to piggyback on the capital allocation-growth magic of free markets.

Putting aside for a moment concerns about the viability of free-market capital allocation if everyone is invested in index funds, one puzzling feature of passive funds is that their proxy voting is often anything but passive. In fact, Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, has stated that using the voting power of BlackRock’s funds to force corporations to bend the knee to his woke vision of corporate utopia is a core feature of his role.

This is particularly disturbing when people think they’re signing up for passive investments, when in reality their money is being leveraged by woke stewardship teams to undermine investors’ values without their consent. And given the entire model’s efficiency rationale, one should likely assume those woke stewardship teams replace company-specific expertise with top-down ideology.

Now, some may argue that we are post-woke when it comes to corporate governance, pointing to articles with headlines like: “How BlackRock Abandoned Social And Environmental Engagement.” But there are very real reasons to be concerned that asset managers like Fink are just waiting for the political winds to change. So those concerned with keeping corporations focused on the bottom line and free from ideological capture by leftist neo-racists and neo-Marxists should continue to stay vigilant.

And we have certainly seen some positive movement on that front, including President Donald Trump’s recent executive order, “Protecting American Investors From Foreign-Owned and Politically Motivated Proxy Advisers,” which among other things addresses related concerns about proxy advisers by calling for “action to enhance transparency concerning the use of proxy advisers, particularly regarding ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ and ‘environmental, social, and governance’ investment practices.” 

But what about those asset managers and their very active proxy voting schemes? A couple of proposals for improvement involve increased mirror or pass-through voting.

In mirror voting, the asset manager may retain control of 10% of the passive fund’s votes, while the rest mirrors the votes of investors writ large such that if “other investors support a proposal or a director by 75%, then the votes over the cap [are] voted 75 to 25 as well.” Meanwhile, pass-through voting allows the true owners of the fund to select a voting benchmark to reflect their voting preferences.

Certainly, attempts could be made to force asset managers to vote all shares held in passive funds via mirror voting, pass-through voting, or some other similar mechanism. Even if that happens, myriad related issues remain unresolved.

First, to the extent pass-through voting is understood to mean offering clients voting choice options, the scope of options becomes critical.

Second, to the extent pass-through voting places direct responsibility for discrete proxy votes on clients, the reality of rational ignorance means many proxies will go unvoted.

Third, promoting alternative voting structures potentially lets asset managers off the hook in terms of whether they should be subject to fiduciary duties in connection with their voting decisions and the extent to which any such duties have been breached.

Fourth, focusing on voting may obscure the engagement elephant in the room. Even with some asset managers promoting “dual-track” engagement options, concerns remain about the extent to which the new options boil down to left and far left, though this may also raise issues of false advertising.

Finally, there is some uncertainty about which voting agendas fill any gap left open by asset managers reducing their active voting.

Having said all that, we should likely all be concerned about the consequences of failing to hold asset managers sufficiently accountable when it comes to proxy voting past, present, and future—and making sure related disclosures don’t mislead is one way to improve accountability. A recent settlement by Vanguard of a suit brought against it, BlackRock, and State Street by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton can certainly be viewed as a strong step in the right direction, but another route to accountability could be to make it a form of false advertising for asset managers to offer “passive” or “index” funds wherein the shares are actively voted by the asset manager without prominent and full disclosure of the asset managers use of the funds voting power.

Such an approach could allow investors to make more fully informed decisions while reducing the undue influence of woke asset managers without excessive regulation.

Once you create a moral framework in which violence is not merely understandable but righteous—once you argue that certain institutions are so corrupt, so “murderous,” that the people who participate in them deserve to be killed—you are no longer condemning violence. You are licensing it.

And when that cultural permission structure meets a criminal justice system increasingly designed to favor perpetrators over victims, the results are predictable: more criminals walking free, more public cynicism, and more people tempted to believe that vigilantism is the only remaining form of accountability.

Consider the case of Luigi Mangione, accused in the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. A New York judge ruled this week that while the murder weapon will be admissible at trial, several other pieces of evidence seized during Mangione’s arrest will be suppressed.

The admissible items include a gun, a 3D-printed silencer, and a red notebook reportedly filled with incriminating writing. But the judge excluded other evidence found in Mangione’s backpack: his phone, passport, gun magazine, wallet, and a computer chip.

The rationale is the kind of procedural hair-splitting that leaves normal Americans wondering whether the system has lost its mind. The defense argued that the backpack was searched unconstitutionally because it had been moved away from Mangione’s immediate reach before officers searched it. The judge agreed.

What makes it stranger is that the search occurred in Pennsylvania—inside a McDonald’s—yet the judge ruled that New York law governs suppression issues because Mangione is being tried in New York. In other words, a police officer in Pennsylvania is apparently expected to know the intricate procedural rules of New York criminal law while making an arrest in real time.

This is not a recipe for justice. If Mangione was caught in California, would cops there be expected to know New York law to properly do their job?

These kinds of rulings are the downstream consequence of decades of doctrine that has steadily shifted the criminal justice system away from protecting the public and toward protecting defendants. Mapp v. Ohio established the exclusionary rule, which bars evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches. The practical result is simple: When the police make a mistake, the public pays the price.

The deeper problem in the Mangione case, however, is cultural.

Mangione has loud supporters, and they are not operating in a vacuum. They are the product of a long-running ideological campaign—largely from the political Left—that frames American institutions not as flawed systems in need of reform but as evil systems maintained by evil people.

This worldview has been building for years. Occupy Wall Street in 2011 was a turning point. Instead of focusing anger on government policy, bailouts, and political corruption, activists targeted “Wall Street” itself—the private sector, the idea of profit, and the legitimacy of business power.

Today, this mentality is embedded in the rhetoric of politicians like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who recently argued that government should use its power to lower prices and make life more affordable. The underlying assumption is always the same: If people are suffering, the private sector must be guilty, and government must be the savior.

That ideological reflex produces what activists now call “social murder”—the claim that private-sector actors are morally responsible for deaths caused by imperfect systems. Under this logic, a CEO operating legally within a flawed health care structure is the moral equivalent of a killer.

Outside Mangione’s proceedings, self-described “Mangionistas” reportedly proclaimed that Thompson’s children were “better off without him” and compared Thompson to Osama bin Laden. One even praised the idea of “heroic violence.”

This is moral psychosis.

Bin Laden orchestrated mass murder. Thompson ran an insurance company. To equate the two is not just wrong—it is the kind of rhetoric that turns political disagreement into justification for assassination.

When a culture begins to rationalize murder as justice, it will get more murder.

If you want more political violence in the U.S., keep telling people that political opponents are not merely mistaken but murderous—and that killing them is “heroic.”

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Family road trips from our home in southern Michigan to New Hampshire, Alabama, northern Michigan, and Yellowstone National Park formed strong childhood memories and made me love my country. If we couldn’t swing a long trek to a National Park, we tried to see some part of America—even if it was just a state park on Lake Michigan.

Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy’s efforts to encourage similar “tourism and travel” by filming “The Great American Road Trip” with his wife Rachel Campos-Duffy and their nine children is a great promotion of American tourism and this classic summer pastime.

Road tripping captures part of our national character. The same independence and desire to see the limits of America that drove the pioneers to follow the Oregon Trail are what stir Americans today to take Route 66 from Chicago, Illinois to Santa Monica, California. 

Yet Democrat Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Patty Murray of Washington lambasted Duffy for this project in a recent hearing regarding the 2027 Department of Transportation Budget Request.

Both alleged the trip’s funding raised ethical concerns, with Gillibrand saying the road trip “doesn’t smell right” because the nonprofit that funded the trip received donations from companies such as Toyota and Boeing, implying that Duffy would favor those organizations for sponsoring his family’s “vacation.”

It’s unjust of the senators to assume there is some behind-the-scenes understanding between Duffy and these companies, as if Boeing will get unsafe aircraft designs approved by the DOT because they earned Duffy’s favor by contributing to a nonprofit that funded his America 250 project.

They’re questioning why Toyota and Shell would promote American road trips, as if there must be a deeper reason why a car and a gasoline company would encourage Americans to travel this summer.

It seems doubtful that Toyota tried to buy Duffy’s favor. They want Americans to buy their cars.

Specifically, they’ve donated to a nonprofit to advertise for them not only by encouraging car trips, but by showing a family traveling in a Toyota vehicle. Presenting traveling by car as part of our American identity is the oldest trick in the book for car advertisements. Chevrolet released their iconic “Baseball Hot Dogs Apple Pie” ad in 1974, promoting its vehicles as classic Americana culture. This summer, Toyota’s doing the same.

Duffy stated in an X post on May 9 that “career ethics and budget officials” reviewed and approved his participation in filming “The Great American Road Trip.” He’s been charged with promoting travel in America and celebrating the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, plus he and his wife met because they were both stars on reality TV shows.

Why wouldn’t he promote American tourism with a TV series on YouTube, the most popular online platform?

Murray also claimed that the trip is “incredibly out of touch” with the high gas prices that are a burden for many Americans, citing the national average cost for a gallon of gas at $4.50. Gas prices are high now, but when Duffy and The Great American Road Trip Inc. launched this campaign in September, gas prices were at a national average of $3.17, $1.33 cheaper than the average when the senators grilled Duffy.

It will cost more to take a road trip this summer than Duffy could have anticipated when he and his family filmed their trip. But for many families, sacrificing morning Starbucks runs and delaying the purchase of a new TV to bring their children to hike the Adirondacks or marvel at the stone faces carved into Mount Rushmore is worth it. 

Duffy’s project calls Americans to celebrate our nation’s culture in the summer of America’s semiquincentennial and revel in the land our forefathers fought for us to have.

“Excuse me,” I said, “can I ask you where you get your news?”

She said, “You mean like news about what’s going on in the world?”

“Yes.”

“Oh, TikTok.”

This reminded me of a dinner conversation I once had with economist Thomas Sowell. We discussed the overwhelming consensus among economists that the minimum wage does more damage than good. He called the minimum wage perhaps one of the most studied topics in the field.

Sowell talked about a 1987 New York Times editorial with the headline, “The Right Minimum Wage: $0.00.” It said:

“There’s a virtual consensus among economists that the minimum wage is an idea whose time has passed. Raising the minimum wage by a substantial amount would price working poor people out of the job market …

“An increase in the minimum wage to, say, $4.35 would restore the purchasing power of bottom-tier wages. It would also permit a minimum-wage breadwinner to earn almost enough to keep a family of three above the official poverty line. There are catches, however. It would increase employers’ incentives to evade the law, expanding the underground economy. More important, it would increase unemployment: Raise the legal minimum price of labor above the productivity of the least skilled workers and fewer will be hired.”

Now The New York Times has since reversed its position. But Economics 101 has not been repealed.

“Given this consensus,” I asked Sowell, “why does the minimum wage remain so popular even among some Republican politicians? Why haven’t you economists won this argument?”

He said, “Because many people, especially on the Left, have never heard the arguments against the minimum wage. They get their information from TV news, and they’re not interested in the downside of the minimum wage.”

This conversation about this “ignorance bubble” took place about 25 years ago. Today, most people no longer get their news from the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, and NBC.

News aggregators like Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo, TikTok, and YouTube now serve as primary news conveyors and deliver the news feeds that pop up on smartphones. As aggregators, they select stories from news outlets and serve them to consumers based on what the platforms think users want to see.

This means the aggregators increasingly prioritize stories that reinforce a user’s preexisting worldview. Their goal is to keep the user glued to the phone. The best way to do this is to tell people what they want to hear and give “news” that confirms what they already believe. And that’s the problem: People increasingly consume information that confirms their beliefs instead of challenging them.

All Sides is a company that measures media bias, whether from the left or the right. This is from a recent analysis:

“AllSides conducted news aggregator bias analyses in late 2025. Among the most biased remain Google News and Apple News—in 2025, Google News (Lean Left) curated 73% of articles from outlets with a bias on the left and just 1% of articles from outlets on the right. Apple News (Lean Left) curated 50% from the Left and just 2% from the Right.

“Most news aggregators curate primarily from media outlets with an AllSides Media Bias Rating of Lean Left or Left. Our 2025 analyses found that most curate less than 10% of articles from news outlets rated Lean Right or Right. Aggregators tend to source from legacy media outlets that Americans and expert bias reviewers on average rate Lean Left or Left, like CNN (Lean Left), AP (Left bias), and The New York Times (Lean Left).”

Take one narrative pushed by the likes of New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani: “The rich don’t pay their fair share in taxes.” In fact, the top 10% of earners pay nearly 75% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% pay over 40% while earning roughly 20% of the nation’s income. These numbers certainly undermine the narrative that “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Indeed, based on their share of the nation’s income versus their share of federal taxes paid, one could argue that the rich are overtaxed.

Large numbers of Americans do not know this. If the news aggregators have anything to say about it, many Americans never will.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Roger Pielke Jr.’s research on climate and disaster policy wins awards and is cited by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“My views are entirely mainstream,” says Pielke. “My work is cited by all three working groups of the IPCC. There’s nothing contrarian.”

Both Steyer and Pielke agree that “greenhouse gases warm the climate,” but Pielke’s sin was saying, “it’s not the apocalypse.”

Because of that, “the Center for American Progress decided to make me a target,” he says.

The center is a lefty group that pushes climate hysteria, running articles claiming, “Climate change is fueling more deadly and destructive floods,” “Extreme weather is only intensifying,” etc.

Anyone who disagrees is labeled a “climate denier.”

Steyer, now running for governor of California, gave the center enough money to run hit piece after hit piece that describes Pielke’s work as “fantastical falsehoods,” and calls him a “disinformer” who “ignores the data on climate science.”

Pielke didn’t know who funded the smears until WikiLeaks revealed an email to Steyer from ThinkProgress’s editor: “Thanks for your support of this work … it’s fair to say, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change.”

Think about that.

“Progressive” activists are proud to stop a researcher from writing about what he knows.

Pielke describes his persecution in my new video.

It began after Al Gore’s Oscar-winning movie in which Gore claimed that temperature increases create stronger storms.

Pielke had the nerve to disagree.

“Doesn’t warmer water create bigger storms?” I ask him.

“All else equal, yes, it does. But the atmosphere is a complicated place. You have things like windshear, which knocks over storms. … We haven’t observed changes in the frequency or intensity beyond natural variability.”

Pielke’s research acknowledged that there were “increasing impacts of extreme weather, mostly economic costs and loss of life,” but said the impacts were not caused by bigger storms but by “what we build, where we build, how much wealth we have in harm’s way.”

“When the climate advocacy movement shifted to extreme weather, I was on the ‘wrong’ side,” he adds. “I had a choice to make. Was I going to call things like I see them, or was I going to succumb to pressure to say things that maybe I didn’t believe?”

Pielke called it as he saw it and paid a price. 

“There was an enormous effort to try to silence people who had a voice,” says Pielke.

Testifying before Congress, Pielke said, “It is misleading … to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, or drought have increased.”

That information is also in the findings of the IPCC.

But the Obama White House put out a 3,000-word memo attacking him: “Dr. Pielke’s statements … are seriously misleading … not representative of mainstream views.”

“It was the sort of thing your crazy uncle might put on Facebook,” laughs Pielke. “I’m the only academic or researcher that any president, including Donald Trump, has ever singled out.”

The University of Colorado, where Pielke worked for 24 years, caved in to the pressure. They closed Pielke’s research center, canceled his classes, and moved his office into a closet.

“What I went through was not what a university is supposed to be for,” says Pielke.

The state-funded school, after dumping Pielke’s actual scientific research, now calls “climate change and sustainability … the central focus of our campus-wide initiatives” and hosts silly things like “climate summits” with panels on “youth climate advocacy.” 

It’s so dumb. And so wrong.

Fortunately, Pielke found another job. Now he researches climate at the American Enterprise Institute, one of many think tanks that does research universities once did.

As I write, betting sites have Steyer in second place in California’s governor’s race.

COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.