Both cases are part of the same pattern: A driver decided a stop sign, a red light, or a lawful command didn’t apply to him, and someone paid the price for that decision in blood.

I spent three years working in private security and executive protection before I ever touched a securities license, and I held a California EMT card I earned in 1993 riding in the back of ambulances. I’ve watched people make split-second calls with real consequences. Whatever else you think about a given encounter, the safest, simplest choice  is also the one nobody wants to talk about: Stop when you’re told to stop.

That’s worth remembering when the vehicle in question belongs to someone an officer shot rather than someone who hit an officer. Three fatal encounters this year have dominated the news: Ren ée Good, shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis in January; Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, shot by an ICE agent in Houston on July 7; and Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero, shot by an ICE agent in Biddeford, Maine, on July 13.

All three are now under federal investigation, and serious questions remain open in each one, including whether the agents’ accounts match the video recordings. I’m not going to pretend those investigations are finished.

But one fact isn’t in dispute, because federal officials confirmed it themselves: None of the three was the person federal agents were actually there to arrest that day. Every one of these deaths happened during an encounter with someone who was never supposed to be the point of the operation in the first place.

If the Department of Homeland Security’s account holds up in each case—meaning the agents reasonably believed a vehicle was being used to threaten them with death or serious injury—then the deadly-force standard was met and the shootings were lawful. That’s a real “if,” and the investigations exist precisely to test it.

But set the legal question aside for a moment and look at the sequence of events DHS itself describes: An agent approaches a vehicle, gives a command, and the vehicle moves toward or past him instead of stopping. Whatever else remains contested, that part of the timeline is not complicated. A driver who stops the car when told to stop does not get shot for driving away from federal agents. It’s the one variable that was entirely within each driver’s control, right up until it wasn’t.

Here’s the actual rule, not the cable-news version. The Department of Justice’s use-of-force policy and decades of case law under Graham v. Connor set a narrow standard: Deadly force against a vehicle is justified only when the officer reasonably believes the car itself is being used to threaten death or serious injury, and only when there’s no safer alternative.

Officers aren’t supposed to fire at a moving vehicle just to stop an escape. There’s no special “car exception” that lets agents open up on every fleeing sedan. It’s the same objective-reasonableness test that governs every other use of force, applied to a driver who has chosen, or is accused of choosing, a weapon that happens to also be a mode of transportation.

That standard already ties officers’ hands tighter than most people think. It’s also why DHS’s move this week to pause most ICE vehicle stops following the Maine and Houston shootings made sense on its face, and why the reversal happened so fast. President Trump overturned the pause less than 24 hours after it was announced, calling traffic stops “one of ICE’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools” and directing agents to get back to work.

Whichever way that policy fight ultimately lands—and reasonable people land on both sides of it—it doesn’t touch the point that actually matters here. Camera deployment, stop policy, training curricula—none of that changes the one thing every driver in these encounters could have controlled from the start.

The FBI’s Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted data for 2025 shows agencies reported over 90,000 officer assaults last year, a rate of 13.8 per 100 officers, the highest in a decade. Vehicles remain the leading cause of accidental line-of-duty deaths. Those numbers are so high because, in far too many cases, somebody decided the rules didn’t apply to them that day.

Legislatures write the deadly-force statutes and the use-of-force policies. Agents don’t invent the Graham v. Connor standard, and they don’t get to rewrite it on the fly during a stop. They inherit a legal framework, drilled into them at the academy, and they live or die by how precisely they apply it under conditions nobody writing the policy will ever face themselves.

If an agent’s account of a given stop turns out to be wrong, the investigation should say so, and accountability should follow. That’s what the process is for. What shouldn’t get lost in the meantime is the simplest fact common to all three cases: A driver who stops when a federal agent tells him to stop does not end up in a morgue over an operation meant for somebody else.

Compliance isn’t submission to tyranny. It’s the one move available to everybody in these encounters that reliably keeps them alive long enough for the rest of the process—courts, investigations, and lawful appeals— to work the way it’s supposed to.

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

Spanberger is a choice beloved by the Left—a moderate in front of the cameras but effectively a democratic socialist—often more liberal than AOC, when voting in Congress.

Leading up to last November’s election, Spanberger presented herself as a mother and former law enforcement officer who cared deeply about affordability, the economy, and public education.

The question on every Virginian’s lips after November’s election was: How would Spanberger actually govern in practice? Would she govern for all Virginians, or would she remain a radical wrapped in moderate’s clothing?

That’s a question the Virginia Institute for Public Policy has been working to answer. Partnering with a dozen conservative organizations across the Commonwealth, we presented “Power of the Pen,” a wide-ranging book of recommendations to the governor for the veto session.

In “Power of the Pen,” we offer recommendations on which bills should be signed, which vetoed, and which amended. We try to be collegiate, asking her to take mainly actions which a moderate could reasonably take. In 2025, we gave the Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin the same test, perhaps even a little tougher. Gov. Youngkin scored 86.2%.

When Gov. Spanberger scored 32.5% this year, it was bad. It’s not the kind of result you’d expect of a moderate, with the Governor scoring 0% on energy and 0% on the Second Amendment.

Even the vast majority of the “good” actions taken by Gov. Spanberger were not taken out of political principle, but as part of internecine squabbles amongst Democrats. Collective bargaining, retail marijuana, an all-out assault on education choice—all vetoed because Democrats could not agree on how to introduce policies that would harm Virginia.

There are three little words which should strike fear at the heart of every Virginian: “To be continued.”

Nearly 450 bills, including all the worst excesses of the Democratic trifecta—such as massive sales tax increases and huge pay raises for public-sector workers—were “continued,” allowing them to be dealt with in 2027. The most politically unpopular decisions have been parked conveniently until after the all-important midterms. They can be brought back at any time.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the 2026 General Assembly session, it’s that the biggest danger is more of a jigsaw than a single, terrible bill.

The $15-per-hour (plus escalator) minimum wage will cost Virginians jobs. The new payroll tax for paid family and medical leave will make Virginians worse off, while simultaneously increasing business costs. Taxes on gasoline will rise. Every Virginian’s energy bill will skyrocket thanks to Virginia rejoining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.

I’ve been around politics long enough to know that not everything is planned. Chaos and uncertainty reign supreme; power struggles and incompetence cause delay after delay.

One of my first lessons when I was a legislator myself was that incompetence is far more common than conspiracy. In my view, arguments among Democrats are real: The Left is always blinded by competing versions of ideological purity.

The delays to 2027 were not, in my opinion, planned. But that makes them even more dangerous: After the midterms, the Democrats will have a window of opportunity to do pretty much whatever they want. If they’ve enjoyed success at the federal level, they’ll feel emboldened at the state level. If they’ve lost, they’ll double down in Virginia.

Every bill marked “continued”—and every gubernatorial veto caused by petty squabbles over wording—will be fair game at the General Assembly’s 2027 session. There is a storm coming in Virginia politics.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from 2026, it’s this: Gov. Spanberger will not be the one to stop the storm. She is not a moderate, and she never will be. But she would very much like Virginians, and all Americans, to believe that she is.

That’s her only path to the presidency.

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

According to the Georgia Recorder, the site has raised concerns for contamination, whether it be the locality’s air, soil, or water.

The site will now come under the scrutiny of Georgia’s first-ever “Superfund research center.” Six universities are collaborating on the center, which will operate with $15 million in funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences over a period of five years.

Georgia’s Emory University and Georgia Tech will join Texas Tech University, among others, in analyzing the locality’s four hazardous Superfund sites.

The concentration of sites is a rarity across the state.

The Daily Signal reached out to the EPA for comment regarding Brunswick’s Superfund sites. A spokesperson at the agency addressed the Terry Creek Dredge Spoils/Hercules Outfall Superfund site.

“Toxaphene, a chlorinated pesticide, is the main contaminant of concern at this site,” the spokesperson said. “The remedial action to backfill the old outfall ditch and construct a new, concrete-lined conveyance structure is complete. The next step is the remedial investigation of the dredge spoils at Terry and Dupree Creeks.”

The spokesperson continued, “The conveyance channel provides protection against rising sea levels and storm surges. EPA used rip rap to armor the banks of the former ditch along Dupree Creek, a process known as coastal hardening. Remaining sediments in the Outfall Ditch are covered with 2 to 8 feet of clean fill. Regular inspections will ensure that erosion and other issues are promptly resolved.”

Further, the collaboration will analyze the site that Holmes lives near. Holmes has shared her concerns over the toxicity that the pesticide plant has brought to Brunswick, telling the Georgia Recorder, “Everything from that chemical plant has flowed into our community.”

She continued, “If you can imagine this entire area here completely flooded … the flooding would be—we would have like a river on our street.” The flooding once got to the point where, following a hurricane, her neighbor canoed down the street.

The Superfund site is located nearly a half mile from Holmes’ house. For Holmes, the concern goes beyond the flooding; it extends into the possibility of what the floodwater may be contaminated with.

That’s what the research center will help determine.

The center has two primary objectives, according to Emory professor Noah Scovronick, the Georgia Recorder reports. The first is “to understand the health effects of past chemical exposures, and the other is to try and reduce people’s future exposures.”

To accomplish these objectives, researchers will analyze correlations between the hazardous materials at the former industrial sites, as well as potential health effects, and execute environmental sampling to determine where people could have been susceptible to these contaminants.

Further, scientists will need to model the effects of severe weather such as rising tides and powerful storms. Scovronick continued to explain that the locality’s increase in extreme weather could emit further contaminants into the locality’s surroundings.

Contamination into the community’s atmosphere could look like rising tides and powerful storms flooding the Superfund sites, scattering the chemicals into the nearby environment. For sites that have hazardous materials contained in structures, flooding could rupture these measures that are meant to protect people from contaminants.

For now, residents like Holmes await the researchers’ answer to the question: What contaminants has her family already been exposed to?

Contrary to speculation ahead of the speech, Trump did not outright assert that Chinese interference in the 2020 election determined the outcome in favor of Joe Biden. Rather, at several times in his address, Trump focused on what the Chinese government was capable of or had attempted to do in its effort to influence U.S. elections.

1. ‘Chinese Government Wanted the US President to Lose’

Trump said, “The Chinese government wanted the U.S. president to lose the next election,” referring to the 2020 election.

A 2020 U.S. intelligence report appears to support that claim.

“We assess that China prefers that President Trump – whom Beijing sees as unpredictable – does not win reelection,” an August 2020 report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said. “China has been expanding its influence efforts ahead of November 2020 to shape the policy environment in the United States, pressure political figures it views as opposed to China’s interests, and deflect and counter criticism of China.”

2. ‘Fought Like Hell’

What China wanted to accomplish and what China actually accomplished in previous elections might still be in dispute.

Trump said that documents show China meddled in the 2018 midterm elections and then, in 2019, turned its attention to the 2020 election.

Trump said, “Raw intelligence obtained by the FBI in 2020, yet buried by rogue bureaucrats, stated that China’s activities even included an attempt to manufacture illegal ballots for Joe Biden.”

Trump also said, “They did not want—and they just didn’t want it. They fought like hell not to have it, Donald Trump to win, and for good reason.”

This would seem to contradict a March 2021 joint report of the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security, released during the early months of the Biden administration. According to the report, China considered trying to influence the presidential election but did not deploy an operation comparable to Russia’s meddling in 2016. It concluded that no evidence supported the claim that a foreign government manipulated any election results.

However, Trump asserted several times that documents show entrenched federal employees, or the “deep state,” willingly suppressed information about Chinese election meddling from being presented to the president, Congress, and the public.

3. ‘220 Million US Voter Files’

Trump asserted, “The People’s Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China’s illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files.” He cited newly declassified documents for his claim. 

The number would encompass almost all registered voters in the United States. In 2024, there were 234.5 million individuals registered to vote across the U.S., according to the Election Assistance Commission.

He added, “That information includes names, addresses, phone numbers, political party preferences and other sensitive data that would be needed to register to vote and engage in other nefarious activities, which is exactly what was happening.”

Some state voter information is readily accessible, while other information requires special access. Various states have different rules about who can access voter registration data, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Some states only make it available to campaigns or researchers for a fee. Voter names are generally widely available. Public information is frequently used by political campaigns, and while clearly vulnerable to foreign access, that is not an entirely new development.

4. ‘Revocation of Their Licenses’

Trump noted that the broadcast networks ABC and NBC declined to cover the primetime address and said that “fraud like this should mean a revocation of their licenses.”

“They use our public multibillion-dollar-in-value airways for absolutely no money. They pay nothing,” Trump said.

“In a rare move, NBC and ABC fake news have both said that they would not cover this speech. They knew what it was about because of the fact that they don’t like the topic, because they know how corrupt our system is, and they don’t want to reveal it.”

NBC and ABC are networks of local affiliate TV stations that carry their programming. Therefore, the networks themselves do not hold broadcast licenses with the Federal Communications Commission.

Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in the cases of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) and CBS v. FCC (1981) that there is not a First Amendment right to scarce public airwaves, recognizing the FCC’s authority to regulate broadcasters.

However, even revoking the licenses of affiliate stations would involve a lengthy legal process with the FCC.

Sami Winc: So, Victor, the Left. Let’s talk about them. I know that you’re currently working on an article about the Left as middle class and representative of the middle class, or maybe not. And so, I’ll go with that first, and then maybe we can look at some of the communist socialist questions with the Left. 

Victor Davis Hanson: I think I’m going to title it “The Left-Wing Search for the Aborigine White Working-Class Male.” And just to preface it, as the Democratic Party in the post-JFK period went left, left, left, it started to lose the white working class. 

For example, in 2024, those who were white, male or female, but did not have a college education were still 40% of the electorate. And they were overrepresented because they registered and voted with greater frequency than other groups. Of that group, [Donald] Trump won 66%. And what that means to the Democratic Party, and this has been going on, is they have no margin of error when they lose that great of a demographic. 

So, they have to pander, pander, pander to DEI. So, the black, black, black, black, black, BLM, BLM, da, da, da, da, La Raza, La Raza, La Raza, open borders, open borders. And then that only further … that 66% used to be 52, 58. Each election it goes up. So, they’re in a doom loop. So, they’ve decided that they’ve got to come up with a Bill Clinton solution. 

And that is, how do you win back 50%? They can’t. They’ll never get over 50%. And they’re losing them because of their agenda. They won’t change. We love illegal immigrants. We want open borders. We’re going to have a new demographic, a new Democratic majority. Demography is destiny. No cash bail. Trans, trans, trans, trans everywhere. 

You know, abortion to the moment of birth. Green New Deal, Green New Deal, war on fossil fuels. All of those are 30-70 issues. So, they don’t want to change the issues. They just won’t do it. And they know they have to. So they came up with another solution. It’s an old solution. Let’s find working white-class male candidates. 

But there are none, really, that are genuine, that want that agenda or want to hang out with them. Remember, these people … they talk about oligarchs and billionaires. This is the party of oligarchs and billionaires. I’m talking about their donor class. 

Who are their donor class that funds all this left-wing activity? It’s Melinda Gates, the bitter divorced wife who’s worth $100 billion. It’s MacKenzie … is that her name? Bezos, who was divorced, also embittered. She’s got $75 or $80 billion, and she’s a big left-wing donor. 

And then there was Jeffrey Epstein. He was a big donor. There was, of course, Bill Gates. There were the Soros manifestations, all of their secret little funds. There was this nut in China, Neville Singham. There was our friend, my neighbor for a while at campus, [Samuel] Bankman-Fried. He was a big donor, the biggest in the midterms a few years ago. And then there’s Laurene Jobs, another widow. 

And the money is all predictable. Either they inherited it from their husband in a divorce, or he died. That’s Laurene Jobs, or the divorces of the former Mrs. Gates and the former Mrs. Bezos. So, they didn’t create the money themselves. 

And when you look at Singham, or you look at Epstein or Bankman-Fried or Reid Hoffman, it’s not like they’re building rockets or Teslas, or they’re bringing products to your doorstep like Amazon. They’re all into finance, crypto, investment. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s a different type of wealth than farming, mining, construction, or invention. 

So, they’re a very wealthy party. And these new socialists that have joined it are very wealthy. Andrew Stiles, who’s a very effective writer for The Free Beacon, has a whole story today. He calls them “trust fund socialists.” He looks at all of them. 

It’s [Zohran] Mamdani, who’s very wealthy. He has an estate. His family has an estate on Lake Victoria where he was married, with highly reinforced security, a two-acre estate, that settler-colonial family. 

Winc: Yeah. Do you think that’s where he’s going to abscond to as soon as he’s done every communist thing he can? 

Hanson: His Indian Uganda community, as I keep saying, is 1% that controls 60% of the wealth, and no one says a word. 

And then, when you look at Graham Platner, he went to prep school, Hotchkiss, subsidized by his parents. 

And then you look at [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], upper-upper-middle class, keeps talking about “eat the rich” and all this stuff. 

So, the socialist candidates, they’re either in graduate school or law school, or they got subsidies, or they’re recent immigrants that were subsidized. But they’re all well off. And the donors are the billionaire class. 

And so, they have a problem. The white working class looks at these people and says, “You’re wealthy. Mamdani, you sound like a spoiled brat. Platner, we don’t buy your shtick.” 

So, what the Left is doing is … and this is how they got in trouble. They had Morris Katz and this other guy that were their finders of fake middle-class candidates. 

And that guy goes, “And then we looked at Platner, and he was the thing.” 

Did you vet him? 

Well, kind of. 

I mean, they were incompetent. It’s not like they have James Carville or Mark Penn or Doug Schoen, the old guys that won the elections. These people are … or Mark Halperin. Those type of guys are experts. They’re professionals. 

I don’t agree with Carville, but I give him his due. He’s smart. And so, I like Mark Penn. I like Mark Halperin. I like Doug Schoen. They’re all professionals. 

But that’s not who they’re listening to. They’re listening to these little nepo babies, and they know nothing. 

So, now their solution is, well, if we’re all wealthy, and the wealthy class funds us, and we like wealthy socialists, and we never said a word about [Nancy] Pelosi cashing in, then we need fake working-class people because there are none that are genuine. 

And then they think, well, you know, when we went Left, we couldn’t nominate a Democratic candidate from the North because they lost. So, we had LBJ, a Southerner. He won. 

And then we went to [Hubert] Humphrey. He was a northern liberal. He lost. 

So, then we thought, well, that was an outlier. We’ll get [George] McGovern, a North Dakota northern liberal. And he lost in ’72. 

So, then they said, we’re not going to do this anymore. We’ve got to go back to LBJ. “Hi, I’m Jimmy Carter.” So, that worked. 

And then he lost the second time to [Ronald] Reagan. 

And then they said, well, he lost. We’re going to go to [Walter] Mondale. And he lost in ’84. 

So, then they said, well, we’ve got to have a … and they put in Mike Dukakis. And he lost. 

And then guys like Schoen and Penn and all those guys said, “I told you. You can’t double down on left-wing extremism from a bunch of northern do-gooders. You need southern boys to do your bidding.” 

And so, they got Bill Clinton. And he won twice, with the help of Ross Perot, who took away a lot of the vote from George Bush and Bob Dole. 

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

In a letter obtained by the Daily Signal to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and Andrew N. Ferguson, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, Jackson points to specific examples of these companies advising with a leftist agenda in mind rather than investor returns. 

“Two foreign-owned proxy advisory firms have used their 90% market share to impose radical diversity quotas and net-zero mandates on American companies,” Jackson told the Daily Signal. 

“[Institutional Shareholder Services Inc.] and Glass Lewis have become socialist political activists, putting woke DEI and Green New Scam policies ahead of shareholder returns. Americans want capitalism, not corporate terrorism,” Jackson said. 

If an American holds stocks through a mutual fund, pension fund, or 401(k), Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. or Glass Lewis could be hired to analyze the shareholder proposals and recommend how votes should be cast. 

This is not the first time ISS and Glass Lewis have been accused of imposing a leftist political agenda. On Dec. 11, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting American Investors From Foreign-Owned and Politically Motivated Proxy Advisors.” 

The executive order directed federal agencies to review proxy-adviser regulations, examine potential antitrust concerns, and investigate whether the firms were advancing DEI and ESG activism. The president advised the agencies to take action if needed. 

Now, Jackson is seeking an update on the investigation. 

In the letter, Jackson writes that he is “concerned by Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (Glass Lewis) and their continued use of their more than 90 percent share of the proxy advisor market to conduct anticompetitive activities, imposing political agendas on American companies and colluding to oppose companies’ efforts to redomicile to the state of Texas.” 

“Most recently, ISS and Glass Lewis each recommended that shareholders oppose ExxonMobil Corp.’s decision to move its legal domicile to Texas—the state where the company has been operationally headquartered since 1989.” 

Jackson argues that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. and Glass Lewis failed to disclose a potential conflict when recommending against ExxonMobil’s move to Texas. The firms are in a legal battle challenging the state of Texas and Attorney General Ken Paxton. They recently sued the state over a Senate bill requiring the proxy-adviser law. 

Jackson also wants to review the FTC’s and the Justice Department’s efforts to examine potential violations of federal antitrust laws by Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. and Glass Lewis. 

Sarah Wynn-Williams, Meta’s former global head of public policy, testified before Congress that the company worked “hand in glove” with the Chinese Communist Party. Now, Congress is investigating and demanding answers. 

“Meta’s efforts to destroy Ms. Wynn-Williams with lawfare are a matter of grave public concern,” Hawley wrote in a letter to Zuckerberg. 

Hawley, chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Counterterrorism, heard Wynn-Williams’ testimony last year when she appeared before his subcommittee. More than a year later, she is still being silenced. Hawley is demanding information from Meta and Zuckerberg to further investigate the company’s alleged lawfare. 

“Ms. Wynn-Williams raised serious questions about Meta’s dealings with the Chinese government, the harms Meta’s platforms pose to users, and Meta’s representations to Congress,” Hawley wrote, referring to last year’s hearing. 

“She testified that Meta worked hand in glove with the Chinese Communist Party to construct and test custom-built censorship tools to silence and censor CCP critics,” and assisted the Chinese government in developing artificial intelligence for its military and stealing intellectual property from Americans. 

Meta attempted to silence Wynn-Williams before the hearing, but once the claims were public, the company placed a gag order on her through private arbitration. She now cannot speak critically of Meta, even if her claims are true, and faces financial penalties. 

“To this day, Meta continues to relentlessly pursue her in arbitration, attempting to bankrupt her and subjecting her and her family to constant stress,” Hawley wrote. 

Hawley has given Meta until Aug. 14 to collect and provide the requested information so that his subcommittee can continue its investigation. 

Hawley requested Meta’s legal bills and attorney fees to evaluate the financial investment it has made to keep Wynn-Williams silent. He asked for all motions, discovery materials, and the arbitration complaint to review how the company is handling the case. He also requested any documents showing Meta gathering information on Wynn-Williams and her family. 

Hawley wants to know whether this is a standalone situation or whether Meta has a history of silencing employees. He also requested that the company provide documents related to every arbitration or lawsuit against any former or current Meta employee. 

“My Senate Judiciary Subcommittee is investigating the allegations that you [Zuckerberg], Meta, and Meta executives made false or misleading statements to Congress and whether any person has acted to obstruct the Subcommittee’s inquiry into Meta’s business ventures in China, its dealings with the Chinese Communist Party, and Meta’s knowledge of the grave harms—including child sex abuse, addictiveness, and bullying—that emanate from its products,” Hawley concluded. 

Meta did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment. 

The four states—California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Nevada—did not cooperate with the Trump administration in its review of voter information, but the Department of Homeland Security obtained the information from publicly available data, Mullin said.

He also called on states to crosscheck voter data with the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, a database from the DHS that verifies citizenship.

The secretary said that in 23 states that have cooperated with the agency’s SAVE program, which helps determine voter eligibility, data show another 23,000 noncitizens and 400,000 dead people are registered to vote.

He said that states will need to work with DHS on ensuring voter eligibility if they wish to receive federal election grants.

“We are going to make our security enhancements mandatory, meaning that if these states want a grant, and they want to be reimbursed to run federal elections, they’re going to have to implement security measures,” Mullin said.

The announcement follows a primetime address by President Donald Trump about the release of declassified documents showing evidence that China has been meddling in U.S. elections by hacking into voter registration databases and by other means.

“President Trump gave DHS the tools and resources to secure elections,” Mullin said. “But we have to have states partner with us. If they choose not to, then voters should hold them accountable.”

Mullin said in 30 days the DHS would release a cybersecurity plan for protecting elections.

The president said the declassified information shows China conducted a massive hacking of voter registration information that yielded access to 220 million U.S. voter files.

Trump said the effort aimed to steal information about thousands of voters and added that information from 2018 and 2019 shows that Chinese operatives wanted to harm him so he would be forced to resign or be defeated in his reelection bid.

The president further claimed China paid U.S. journalists to write negative stories about him during his first term.

Trump delivered his address as he is pushing Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require photo identification to vote and proof of citizenship to register to vote. The president, as he concluded his remarks, made a passionate plea for Congress to pass the legislation.

Mullin later added that voting machines must also be secured, adding that “foreign adversaries have parts that are vital pieces in our voting machines.”

“We know that they can access what they consider the key to the back of these machines. We know that they can change voter registration and your vote,” Mullin said. “We know it’s possible. There’s not a question, it’s not even for debate. One thing that I love about numbers and I love about facts is they don’t lie.”

He noted voting as an illegal immigrant carries a maximum five-year prison sentence or $250,000 in fines. 

“If you are an illegal and you attempt to vote, we will find you, and we will charge you,” Mullin warned. 

The iconic property was the retirement home of James Monroe, the fifth president of the United States, and the last member of the founding generation to occupy the White House.

Monroe inherited Oak Hill in 1808 and eventually built a mansion on the property, which also included 10 additional buildings. After the former president died in 1831, the property remained in private hands until last year. It had been controlled by the DeLashmutt family for eight decades until it was sold to The Conservation Fund for preservation in 2025.

“Oak Hill has the chance to be permanently protected and open to the public, for recreation, for historic preservation, and for future generations,” Heather Richards, vice president and mid-Atlantic regional director at The Conservation Fund, said at the time her organization acquired the property.

Now the work of turning the property into a public facility can begin.

Brenda Hafera studies history as assistant director and research fellow in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation. She told the Daily Signal that, as state curators transform the property into a park, they ought to “follow the model of Mount Vernon instead of Monticello or Montpelier. They should seek to comprehensively articulate the legacy and contributions of James Monroe, incorporate the story of slavery, adopt a modest tone, and adhere to primary sources.”

Historic places often devolve away from celebrating the achievements of their former owners. Hafera has reviewed some of Virginia’s most important historic sites.

“Monticello does not provide adequate attention to Thomas Jefferson’s political contributions, nor does it fully explain the meaning and significance of the Declaration of Independence,” she said. “Montpelier boasts no exhibits on James Madison and engages in activism and historical distortions, such as portraying the Constitution as a pro-slavery document. These concerns are not simply about the legacies of the Founding Fathers, but about the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution, and about our collective history as a people.”

There is plenty to learn about Monroe, the youngest member of his generation to become president. He served in the Continental Army during the American Revolution and was almost killed when he was shot in the shoulder during Gen. George Washington’s surprise attack at Trenton.

After the Revolution, he served in the U.S. Senate and was twice elected governor of Virginia. As a Cabinet member, he served as secretary of state and secretary of war.

He is perhaps best known for his Monroe Doctrine, unveiled in 1823 during his second term. It warned European nations that the United States would protect smaller nations in the Americas and wouldn’t allow new colonization in the region. It has been invoked many times, right up to today.

“We must reassert the Monroe Doctrine, work tirelessly to expunge China (and every other foreign power) from our shores, and become the masters of a hemisphere that is peaceful, prosperous, and free from the tired rivalries and conflicts of the Old World,” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts wrote last year.

The project enjoys wide bipartisan support. Then-Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin visited Oak Hill in 2025. “After careful consideration and, I have to say, an enormous amount of arm-twisting and a site visit with Del. Geary Higgins,” he quipped, “our package of budget amendments includes language to authorize the consideration of establishing Oak Hill, the historic home of Virginia governor and fifth president of the United States James Monroe, as a state park.”

Democrat Del. John McAuliff has also worked to move the project forward in the Assembly, while others have been raising funding for the project. Loudoun County put up $27 million, state and federal grants added $18 million, private donors put in $12 million, and the State Parks Acquisition and Development Fund contributed $10 million.

Monroe’s presidency is remembered as the “era of good feelings,” a time with little partisan strife and great American prosperity. Hafera told the Daily Signal that, if Oak Hill’s exhibits are handled respectfully, it can “be a center of civic education that stewards the inherent value of the site and a place where families and citizens can gather, rather than an institution that engages in modern activism and provokes visitors.”

That’s a goal worth working toward as Oak Hill becomes Loudoun County’s second state park.

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

Graham, who previously ran for Florida’s governor’s mansion in 2018 and served as assistant secretary for legislation and congressional affairs at Biden’s U.S. Department of Education, said she wants to make public education a central issue in the Jolly-Graham campaign for governor.

When she was appointed to that position in the previous administration, former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said, “No one is better equipped” to serve in the role.

However, when in office, Graham oversaw policies such as the implementation of protections for transgender students to be able to use their bathroom of choice, in addition to the usage of pronouns.

The policies took effect on Aug. 1, 2024, as part of a bid by the Biden administration to “extend protections to LGBTQ students.”

Policies like these, which were reimplemented by Graham’s Education Department after President Donald Trump rolled back an Obama-era initiative, have resulted in lawsuits from traumatized schoolchildren who feel unsafe sharing bathrooms with the opposite sex.

As reported by The College Fix, a Philadelphia high school student was told to tolerate individuals of the opposite biological sex who identify as a different gender in private areas, such as bathrooms.

“The girls’ bathroom had always been the girls’ getaway place—a place for privacy, mostly, but also a little refuge—a place to get away from boys, maybe talk about boys, but not meet boys,” the student wrote in an op-ed reported on by The College Fix.

“I do have trouble with a policy that says anyone who’s in an opposite-sex mood today can stroll in and observe me in my intimate moments—and with school officials who value the feelings of a few students more than the dignity and privacy of all those in their care,” she continued.

That student joined an already existing lawsuit over a similar incident against the Bayertown Area School District for damages, The College Fix noted.

“As a member of Joe Biden’s education regime, Gwen Graham tried to destroy school choice and fought to let boys in girls sports and girls’ bathrooms,” Gates McGavick, communications director for Byron Donalds for Governor, told the Daily Signal. “The Jolly-Graham ticket’s extremism on education is a clear example of their disconnect with Florida voters.” 

Graham has also been a staunch opponent of school choice initiatives, a policy that the state of Florida has long embraced.

In Florida, according to the James Madison Institute, a Florida-based think tank that has long advocated for parents’ right to choose their children’s education, over 51% of Florida’s children go to a school outside of their assigned school district.

As noted by the James Madison Institute, the organization’s initiative titled the A+ Plan, a school choice initiative championed by the state of Florida, “proved to be an extraordinary success. It transformed K-12 education in our state and turned Florida into a national leader in student outcomes.”

“Gwen Graham was a very loyal soldier in Joe Biden’s administration, where her central crusade at the Biden Department of Education was forcing public schools to allow men in girls’ sports and locker rooms,” the Donalds campaign said in a statement.

“Graham also tried to annihilate school choice every chance she got,” the campaign added.

Graham’s campaign did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Those concerns deserve to be taken seriously, but banning or regulating data centers out of business would needlessly sacrifice economic opportunity and America’s technological leadership.

Let’s look first at the water issue. Data centers’ water usage comes primarily from their cooling systems. Most data centers currently use an evaporative cooling system, which uses freshwater to absorb heat and let that water evaporate, carrying the heat away. This can lead to decreasing water supplies, especially in drought-prone areas. However, there are solutions already being put into place.

Many developers have heeded community feedback and are rapidly moving toward more water-sustainable methods of their own accord.

Microsoft pledged that every data center built after August of 2024 would use chip-level closed loop cooling which uses no additional water for cooling after the system is initially filled. Amazon’s data centers already use air cooling 90% of the time and employ evaporative cooling only during times of extreme heat. In an effort to reduce community water impacts even further, the company has already taken steps to require some of its facilities to use 100% reclaimed water. Google has voluntarily pledged by 2030 to replenish more water than they consume in communities where they operate.

Steps like this, taken at the local and individual business level, demonstrate that communities can enjoy the economic benefits of data centers without devastating environmental impacts.

Water withdrawals are not the only environmental concern critics raise. Some wonder about thermal and chemical pollution of water deposited back into the local water supply from data centers after cooling using a non-closed loop system.

Data centers, just like other industrial facilities, must obtain a special permit that governs wastewater discharges into public waterways, ensuring public health and safety are protected. Further, most companies send their wastewater to wastewater reclamation facilities that remove any pollutants before depositing it back into local water supply.

In the future, data centers may even produce more freshwater than they will use. Research is also being done to use data center waste heat to help desalinate seawater, where the system would cool the chips and produce needed freshwater simultaneously. This technology would provide data centers with an essential feature for operation while simultaneously replenishing community water supplies where needed.

Regardless, the issue must be put into perspective. Data centers are projected to consume less than a 0.5% of the total national water supply per day by 2030. That number will likely be lower as developers continue to innovate, become more efficient, and respond to community concerns.

On a national level, data centers are not destroying America’s water supply, and innovations that reduce water usage help alleviate strain on local rivers, reservoirs, or aquifers should be encouraged.

Then there is the noise. Some local communities have complained that the noise emanating from data centers is a problem. Understandably, no one wants a noisy industrial facility down the road. It is a legitimate concern and data center owners are already responding to this issue to reduce noise by using quieter cooling systems or fan silencers, soundproofing materials in construction, and better site planning.

In Mäntsälä, Finland, local officials reportedly described Nebius’ data center as a good community investment with no noise complaints, helped by a design that relies on free cooling, which uses cool outside air to remove heat. With technological innovations already underway to address community concerns, blanket data center moratoria are not the only solution.

The fact is that data center developers are already responding to each of these challenges. The market is forcing them to innovate in response to what people want. Regulation will just get in the way of this process by replacing the demand of those who live near and work at data centers with that of politicians and bureaucrats.  

Free enterprise rewards companies that meet the needs of the people as efficiently as possible. This means not only innovating to stay ahead of their competitors, but also working to maintain good community relations.

Businesses have repeatedly innovated to reduce water and electricity use because doing so lowers costs while minimizing their environmental footprint. Further, companies that ignore legitimate concerns over water use or noise risk damaging their reputations, facing local opposition, and losing future business opportunities. Those market incentives, combined with narrowly tailored environmental protections, encourage continuous improvement without resorting to blanket moratoria or one-size-fits-all mandates.

America needs more, not fewer, data centers. Blanket moratoria are a solution in search of a problem. Policy solutions should encourage innovation and development that enables both local communities and these critical facilities to thrive.

This week, 34 members of the House and the Senate submitted a comment letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget on a proposed rule to strengthen accountability and oversight of federal grantmaking.  

Led by Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., and Rep. Michael Cloud, R-Texas, these members are taking an active role in highlighting how the Trump administration’s actions to encourage oversight and accountability over public funds align with congressional intent set forth in federal law.

“It is vital that recipients of government assistance comply with federal law,” the members wrote in a comment letter submitted to OMB. “As members of the United States Congress, we have an interest in ensuring that federal funds do not flow to projects or recipients that violate laws passed by our institution—or constitutional provisions passed by Congress and ratified by the States. And as representatives of the American people, we have an interest in stopping these funds from advancing peripheral and experimental ideologies that seek to destabilize the American project and harm the American people.”

Legislators take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and “faithfully discharge the duties of the office.” These are “duties,” plural, in recognition of the multiple functions of a legislator.

Over time, members of Congress overpromised and underdelivered, leading citizens to expect less of their elected representatives in Washington, D.C.

In some ways, this is good; the federal government should not be the first stop to solve societal problems. But it can also cause problems, as our Republic cannot function if those elected to serve lose the public’s trust.

The 34 members of Congress highlight this at the end of their letter: “We commend OMB for seeking to ensure that all assistance disbursed by the federal government aligns with the Constitution and with federal law. The American people deserve no less.”

At a time when the American people are frustrated with Congress being more talk than action, it is refreshing to see representatives work with the administration to take back the reins from unelected bureaucrats in the administrative state.

The OMB’s proposed rule makes commonsense changes such as connecting the dots between government agencies to ensure fraudsters can no longer scam one agency, get flagged, then scam a different one.

As one example, Minnesota saw scams targeting federal child nutrition programs, then housing support programs, and finally taking advantage of programs to aid children with autism. By expanding the U.S. Treasury’s “Do Not Pay” tool the opportunities for fraud plummet, as proven by the recovered $11.7 billion in fiscal year 2025.

Another simple but effective tool would require grantees to submit certification of services rendered before the government authorizes payment.

No more pay first, chase fraud later.

These rule changes are the executive branch working to faithfully execute the law as Congress intended. While it is easy to be cynical, most laws are crafted by Congress not to produce loopholes for fraud. Thus, Congress has a responsibility to see that the executive carries out these functions with maximum integrity.

We should all encourage more of this inter-branch cooperation to secure public funds. The way the federal government stewards taxpayer dollars is a direct reflection of its respect for those it represents.

Socialists spend like drunken sailors because they have little respect for those whom they are supposed to serve. Conservatives have long sought to ensure an efficient and effective government that promotes subsidiarity, which means this cleanup of federal financial management could not come at a better time.

As Americans reflect on 250 years since the Declaration of Independence, we should all recommit to upholding our rights and duties as citizens, starting with restoring trust in the stewardship of public funds.

Trump, who spoke Thursday evening in a prime time address to the nation, said the “deep state” had this information and suppressed it from the president and Congress.

“They kept it secret and hidden. Did not disclose to me or Congress,” Trump said.

Trump said the declassified information shows “shocking vulnerabilities in our election infrastructure.

“No country can be great without fair and honest elections,” Trump said. “You have to trust your country because if there can be no trust, there can be no greatness.”

The president said that China conducted a massive hacking of voter registration information. 

“The People’s Republic of China carried out what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China’s illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files,” Trump said. 

He said the information includes names, addresses, phone numbers, political party preferences, and other data.

“This data loss presents an unprecedented election, security nightmare,” the president added. 

At least a portion of the declassified information was released Thursday night.

The point of the hacking, according to Trump, was to steal information about thousands of voters. He also said information from 2018 and 2019 shows that Chinese operatives wanted to harm Trump so he would be forced to resign or be defeated in his reelection bid.

“The Chinese government wanted U.S. president to lose the next election and the reason they wanted me to lose is because they knew I was wise to them, charged them billions in tariffs, and built the largest military in the world,” Trump said.

Trump, who has long disputed his 2020 loss to Joe Biden,  also said the FBI found China attempted to manufacture ballots in favor of Biden. 

“Raw intelligence obtained by the FBI in 2020, yet buried by rogue bureaucrats, stated that China’s activities even included an attempt to manufacture illegal ballots for Joe Biden,” Trump said. 

The president further said China paid U.S. journalists to write negative stories about him during his first term.

“The Chinese government sought to identify U.S. journalists who had reported negatively on the U.S. president and pay them large sums of money to write more negative articles about him, as many as they could, and they did not care what they said,” Trump asserted. 

Trump said elections were “vulnerable and easily compromised and people within our government knew that.”

The Department of Homeland Security has information showing about 278,000 registered voters are foreigners, Trump said.

“According to the DHS review, state voter rolls and public records, they identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in federal elections,” Trump said. “Since Democrat states refused to share their voter files, the real number is actually much higher than that.” 

The address comes as Trump is pushing Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require photo identification to vote and proof of citizenship to register to vote. The president, as he concluded his remarks, made a passionate plea for Congress to pass the legislation.

In March 2021, during the early months of the Biden administration, the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security issued a joint report that asserted China considered trying to influence the presidential election but backed off. It further said, “No evidence found that a foreign government manipulated any election results.”

Still, there have been documented cases of China election meddling and hacking.

In the 2024 campaign, FBI officials said Chinese government operatives targeted the phones of candidates, including now-President Trump, now-Vice President JD Vance, and individuals associated with then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

A Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security report released in December 2023 found Chinese cyber actors collected publicly available voter information during the 2022 election.

In July 2024, the Justice Department Office of Inspector General issued a report that described China as one of several foreign governments that conducted malign influence campaigns directed at U.S. elections. This included using fake online personas and promoting propaganda

Former Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat, has again outraised Republican Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed to replace now-Vice President JD Vance.

Brown’s campaign reported more than $17.1 million raised from April 1 to June 30, which included $14.1 million to its principal committee, Friends of Sherrod Brown, and about $3 million to affiliated fundraising committees.

Husted’s campaign reported $7.7 million raised, with $3.4 million going to the principal campaign committee and $4.3 million to affiliated committees, which included Husted Victory, Team Husted, and JON PAC. NBC 4 reported that this was more than double the campaign’s first-quarter total. The campaign has more than $11 million in cash on hand.

A press release from the Brown campaign highlighted that the campaign took in “nearly 70,000 new donors,” and that 96% of individual donations were $100 or less. The press release also stressed Brown’s “grassroots” focus, with the average grassroots donation being $33.

“Ohioans across the state are fed up with Jon Husted, who repeatedly puts corporations, billionaires, and special interests first at the expense of hard-working families,” Patrick Eisenhauer, Friends of Sherrod Brown’s campaign manager, said. “While Jon Husted has repeatedly voted to raise the cost of health care, gas, and groceries, Sherrod Brown is fighting for Ohioans who deserve someone who will take on the rigged system in the Senate.”

Both campaigns and their supporters have focused on affordability issues. Americans for Prosperity Action, which endorsed Husted, has also stressed a focus on affordability in this particular race, and overall, when it comes to Republicans holding the Senate.

This is the fourth quarter in a row that Brown has raised more than Husted, as NBC 4 noted.

A press release from the Husted campaign touted how that $3.4 million amount “is the largest second-quarter fundraising total ever posted by an Ohio Republican U.S. Senate candidate.”

Both Husted and his campaign spokesperson focused on Brown’s previous time in office.

“Sherrod Brown spent 32 years in Washington raising Ohioans’ taxes, shipping jobs overseas, and supporting open-border policies that put illegal immigrants above the Ohioans he swore to serve,” Husted said. “Voters fired Sherrod Brown two years ago, and today’s fundraising haul shows they are eager to keep Brown in retirement. Ohioans deserve a fighter who will put their families first, and that’s what I’ll bring to the U.S. Senate.”

Brown, who was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006, lost reelection in 2024 to now-Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno. There was chatter last summer that he was being recruited by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., with Brown making his run official last August.

“Democrats will bring out the cavalry to bail out Sherrod Brown, but there is not enough money in the world to erase his failed record,” Husted spokesperson Amy Natoce added. “National Democrats poured more than $250 million into Ohio in 2024, and Ohioans still gave Sherrod Brown the boot. The same will happen this November.”

The fundraising numbers show that Husted does have an advantage in one area. While both candidates take most of their individual donations from fellow Ohioans, a majority of Brown’s individual donations come from out of state. The opposite is true for Husted.

According to Open Secrets, citing Federal Election Commission data, 59.3% of Brown’s individual donations for the campaign committee come from out of state, while 40.5% come from in state for the 2025-2026 cycle, with 0.10% undisclosed.

Husted’s profile on Open Secrets shows 55.1% of individual donations for the campaign committee come from in state, while 44.9% are from out of state for that same cycle.

The race is rated by Cook Political Report as a “Toss-Up.” Whoever wins in November will have to run again in 2028 if seeking reelection.

Senate Bill 54, the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act, was designed to reduce plastic waste by requiring companies that produce packaging to help pay for the cost of recycling and disposing of it. 

Supporters say it shifts landfill cleanup costs from taxpayers to manufacturers, but critics argue those costs will either shut down businesses altogether or ultimately be passed on to consumers.

In an interview with the Daily Signal, Assemblyman Carl DeMaio challenged both the environmental benefits of SB 54 and its impact on affordability.

“A lot of these environmental mandates are actually bad for the environment, and they cost consumers much, much more in the form of a higher cost of living,” DeMaio said.

DeMaio pointed to California’s 2014 plastic bag ban as an example.

“These people are not even good environmentalists with these band-aids. the last time they did an environmental mandate. It was banning plastic bags in 2014, quadrupling the waste in landfills because people started buying thicker plastic bags, and so many of these band-aids are being sold as good for the environment, and they’re actually bad for the environment, and worse than that, they increase costs.”

Asked what he would say to Californians worried about higher grocery costs, DeMaio didn’t hold back.

“Well, bend over and take it, because California Democrats don’t seem to care about your cost of living.”

Other organizations, such as the Dairy Institute of California, warn that their estimates on the cost for California families are much higher than $200.

Executive Director Katie Davey told SFGate that the group’s analysis found SB 54 could increase grocery costs by an average of $1,300 per household annually—far above CalRecycle’s estimate of roughly $60 to $190 per household per year.

The debate comes as California was recently ranked the least affordable state in the nation in Consumer Affairs’ annual report, with many Californians concerned that this bill will only add to the financial stress placed on families.

SB 54 is also facing legal challenges from critics who say the law could affect consumers far beyond California.

A coalition of 17 Republican attorneys general and the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors filed lawsuits arguing the law unlawfully regulates businesses beyond California’s borders.

They contend that because many manufacturers use the same packaging nationwide, California’s requirements could force companies to redesign packaging for products sold across the country rather than create California-specific versions.

The plaintiffs argue that those additional compliance costs could ultimately be passed on to consumers beyond California’s borders.

During a recent interview on Newsmax, DeMaio said the average California family of four spends $29,000 more each year than families in other parts of the country on necessities such as housing, groceries, insurance, and utilities.

“Policies like SB 54 cost consumers, and we’re nickeling and diming them and it all adds up to that $29,000 figure—it crushes working families and this is why people are fleeing the state of California, they just can’t afford to live here.”

This is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.  

Christopher Nolan, the renowned British director, has a new film coming out, another remake of “The Odyssey” by Homer. It’s supposed to come out July 17.  

Everybody’s been talking about it, not because they know what’s in it or they’re trying to guess how he treats this age-old epic, but because one of the stars, Lupita Nyong’o, and forgive me if I mispronounced her name, has been very vocal that, as she views the script and Homer’s work himself, there’s a matter of feminism that Homer did not highlight women sufficiently. 

Homer wrote “The Odyssey,” remember, around 700 to 650 BC at the dawn of the Greek city-state. It’s the second of his two epics, The Iliad and The Odyssey, and it’s a much different epic than The Iliad, which takes place in about 11 weeks on the plain of Troy.  

This is a panoramic view of the Mediterranean and traces the 20-year odyssey of the hero Odysseus to get back from Troy to the northeastern island off the coast of Greece, Ithaca. 

What she said was that there was not a sufficient portrayal of women or they were not powerful enough. I couldn’t understand that. I taught “The Odyssey” for 20 years in English at the California State University system to a variety of students, probably 2,000 students in humanities courses, as well as a much smaller number in Greek. 

And one thing one comes away with is that there’s no literature anywhere in the world at that time that has been more deferential or more interested in women.  

Remember that Odysseus is trying to get home to his palace as king of Ithaca, and his wife Penelope is there for 20 years, and soon the suitors, and these are people who want to marry her for the purposes of expropriating the kingdom. 

She’s got to deal with them. She has no enforcer. The men of Ithaca have all gone with Odysseus to Troy, and they’ve all been lost, and their families are angry. Everybody’s mad at Odysseus. He’s not there. The suitors then represent this anger, and they want to take over, one of them at least does, the palace. 

But she brilliantly puts them off in hopes that someday he’ll come back. She weaves every evening and says that when she’s done with her shawl, blanket, tapestry, then she’ll marry one.  

Then she unweaves it during the night, and they don’t catch on for a long, long time. And she sort of organizes the resistance, or she has loyal servants and people on Ithaca that are all waiting for Odysseus to come. 

So, when he comes, the suitors are in his house, but they haven’t taken it over, thanks to Penelope.  

He also is waylaid by two supernatural immortals. One is Circe, the witch. I guess you’d call her a witch. She’s a sorceress, and she meets Odysseus and his crew on her own private island. They’re very rambunctious, her crew is. 

They’re kind of coarse and crude. They drink. And she turns them into swine, pigs. Kind of a commentary on what women think of rowdy men that are empowered, like Circe. And then she makes up with Odysseus and tries to help him. She becomes his lover. But the point is that she’s not a typical Greek woman of 650 BC. 

She’s very powerful. He meets another woman, Calypso. He’s there on her island for seven years, and she’s a divine figure as well, and she makes love with him. She attends to his needs. She’s very unhappy when the god Hermes tells her that he must leave; it is now the will of Zeus to go back. 

But she’s also a powerful character, as is the goddess Athena, who is the patron saint of Odysseus, and she makes numerous appearances in the book. 

And what you get from her is even though she’s not quite Zeus, by her wisdom, courage, and influence, she’s really one of the two or three most powerful of the gods on Olympus, and she alone makes it possible for Odysseus to get home. 

If you look at Helen, Helen is the one that supposedly caused the Trojan War because she ran off from her husband Menelaus with the kind of player Paris, and she’s known as the most beautiful woman in the world, the most powerful woman because of her beauty, and she’s disrupted the entire course of what would then be mythical history. 

In actuality, it may be reminiscent of a Mycenaean campaign over to the coast of Asia Minor. 

So, there’s all sorts of characters in “The Odyssey” that are female, and they represent all aspects of femininity, from domestic loyalty to self-reliance to defining your own sexuality, all of them. 

There’s even monsters such as Scylla, the monster Scylla, that kind of embodied angry women or the deadly feminine. So, there are all aspects. 

I don’t understand why Lupita Nyong’o said that she didn’t really feel that women were appreciated because then she admitted she’d never read “The Odyssey.”  

How can you go in the United States to a premier college and then get a master’s from Yale and not have ever read “The Odyssey”? 

And if not reading “The Odyssey” and reading it for the first time, you don’t think you would weigh in in advance of the movie to sort of say that women don’t play enough of a role? 

The other issue, very quickly, is people were very controversial because she is Black, and of course Helen is described by Homer as fair, fair-armed, beautiful. And you get the impression from Homer’s description she’s white, as are most of the characters in “The Odyssey.” 

“The Iliad” has the Ethiopians. They’re noble, and that’s a word in Greek which means sun-faced, meaning because they’re in Africa, they’re a little darker, but they’re always treated with respect and honor. 

But people have complained, why are you having a black character play a so-called white role? That used to be called character appropriation.  

I don’t think it really matters unless the race is central to the character or, by changing the race or radically changing the appearance or the nationality or the ethnicity, it changes the intent of the author. 

Historically, the same thing would be true. So, I don’t think it would be wise to have a black Abraham Lincoln, nor, if you have a biopic of Martin Luther King Jr., to have a white person play Martin Luther King. 

In the past, people have been criticized. We used to see Charles Bronson and Burt Lancaster as Indian chiefs. We saw Audrey Hepburn in one Western playing an Indian. That was always criticized. Sir Laurence Olivier played Othello even though he was not black. 

But I think people now, the idea is that white characters should not play black characters, but black characters should play white characters. It’s kind of reminiscent of cultural appropriation. If you’re white and you have blond hair, you probably shouldn’t have dreadlocks. If you’re black and you want to wear a blond wig, it’s OK. 

But by and large, we’re not going to worry about the color of the actress or actor. It’s how well these characters appear on the screen and to what degree they’re good or bad actresses next week when we see it. 

Finally, what we all should be happy about is that you actually see a great work of literature put onto the screen. And we’ve had other versions. Kirk Douglas was Odysseus in one movie. We’ve had a recent one from Italy. 

One of the things that is a little bit bothersome: This is the national epic of the Greek people. We’ve had all of these wonderful Greek actors for years that have been very successful in Hollywood and European film. There’s a number of them on the stage.  

So, why in the world, if you really wanted to portray the national epic of Greece, wouldn’t you find a Greek Helen or a Greek Penelope? 

And I think that’s kind of tragic. It would be almost as if a director was making another version of “How the West Was Won” and there were no Americans in it. There were all Europeans or Africans or Asians, but no American actors, even though that was our past. 

And so, the same thing is true. That would be my only limitation, but I’m suspending judgment, of course, because we haven’t seen it. 

So, watch for the issue coming up in the media of cultural appropriation. Can one person of one race play a character of another race? And what is the role of women in “The Odyssey”? But these are all peripheral issues. 

In finishing, the real issue is there’s a hero who fought at Troy. He offended the gods. They’re trying to punish him. And he wants to get back to his family, his wife, and his son. 

And it takes him 10 years on the plain of Troy to fight. And when the war is over and he should go home, like most of the Greek heroes, Ajax and Agamemnon, they’re waylaid. Bad things happen to them. They get on the wrong side of the gods. 

And we have a 10-year odyssey. And it’s brilliantly portrayed through flashbacks. And you’re going to meet Cyclops. You’re going to meet the Laestrygonians, the Lotus Eaters, Circe, Calypso, all of these mythical monsters that try to stop him. 

And they cannot stop Odysseus. He wants to get home. And the suitors and the people at Ithaca cannot stop Penelope. She wants to preserve the kingdom in confidence that he will get home. 

So, in essence, it’s a monumental love story about duty, loyalty, and family. 

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

On the campaign trail, Talarico has claimed he supports border security and touted legislation he authored in the Texas Legislature to increase security at ports of entry by installing X-ray inspection technology systems at Texas-Mexico border crossings.

Talarico’s campaign website also says he wants to strengthen border security, support law enforcement response efforts, maximize safety, and enhance infrastructure and road technology at the border.

However, his voting record in the Texas House tells a different story.

Talarico has served in the Texas House since 2018. During that time, he has frequently voted against border security measures, often along partisan lines. 

During the 86th Legislative Session, Talarico voted against House Bill 888, which allows people who misrepresent a child as a family member to be arrested and charged with a Class B misdemeanor in any county throughout Texas.

In 2021, during the 87th Legislative Session, Talarico again voted against a border security bill, House Bill 9, that appropriates $1.8 billion for border security efforts. The bill devoted $750 million to constructing an additional border barrier and $450 million to increasing the number of Texas National Guard and other law enforcement personnel at the border.

During the 88th Legislative Session, Talarico voted against three additional border security measures

He voted “no” on House Bill 7, which created a Texas Border Protection Unit and funded border security infrastructure.

He also voted against Senate Bill 602, which expanded Border Patrol’s authority to arrest individuals accused of committing state crimes, and Senate Bill 1403, which authorized interstate cooperation and assistance for defensive border infrastructure.

Talarico was recorded as absent for the vote on House Bill 6, which allocated funds for border barriers and increased penalties for human smuggling. 

During the fourth called session of the 88th Legislative Session, Talarico continued his opposition to border security measures, voting against Senate Bill 3. The bill provided funding for the construction, operation, and maintenance of border barrier infrastructure and border security operations, including additional overtime expenses and costs associated with increased law enforcement presence.

Talarico also voted “no” on Senate Bill 4, a sweeping border security bill that made unauthorized entry into Texas from a foreign nation a state crime and allowed local police to arrest migrants

He voted against House Bill 4, which prohibits the illegal entry into, or illegal presence in, Texas by a person who is an alien, establishes enforcement provisions, and authorizes the removal of people who violated certain provisions instead of arrest. The bill also created criminal offenses.

Talarico stated he opposed the bill because it didn’t offer real solutions to the problem.

“We have real problems on our southern border, but this bill doesn’t provide any real solutions. Instead, this legislation doubled down on those same dangerous border stunts,” he said. “We spent $10 billion, and border crossings are actually up in the very places where we’ve pulled these stunts.

“This bill doesn’t reform our asylum system, it doesn’t establish a guest worker program, it doesn’t relieve the visa backlog. It doesn’t modernize our ports of entry where 93% of the fentanyl gets in. But why work on solutions when you can score points off the problem? Trapping migrants in razor wire makes for much better TV. Texans deserve solutions, not stunts.”

In the most recent session, Talarico voted against Senate Bill 8, which allows local law enforcement to assist the federal government with deportation efforts. The bill required counties with a population of 100,000 or more to enter 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, allowing local law enforcement to receive delegated authority to act as ICE agents in certain capacities.

Talarico has also missed more than 800 votes in the Texas House between May 2019 and May 2025.

Beyond his voting record, Talarico has made multiple statements that have raised concerns among some Texas voters.

During a Texas Democratic Senate primary debate, Talarico said he believes America’s southern border should be “like our front porch. There should be a giant welcome mat out front and a lock on the door.”

Todd Bensman, a senior research fellow for the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, told the Daily Signal that Talarico uses confusing rhetoric intentionally.

“Talarico does a lot of what I call ‘masking’ in his rhetoric about border security and what he’ll do well if he’s elected senator. It all amounts to relief, catch and release, and opening up the border to border-crossers,” Bensman said. “He’s proposing that we have expedited asylum-claim processing for people that cross the border so that, theoretically, those who are declined would be deported.”

Bensman added that Talarico supports a catch-and-release approach.

“If they’re not hardened criminals, they get to stay,” Bensman said. “Which means you can come over the border, and if you’re not a hardened criminal, you get to stay.”

Paxton released a statement on Talarico’s voting record, calling him a hypocrite.

“James Talarico has a long streak of lying to voters, but the truth is, no one, not a soul, looks at James Talarico and thinks, ‘Now there’s a guy who will be tough on the cartel.’ And they would be right. He never has been tough on the border,” Paxton said.

“James Talarico is a hypocrite who has taken a page out of the Joe Biden playbook: He talks tough, but when it comes down to it, he wants America and Texas to be a place of lawlessness, and he wants the American dream dead.”

Talarico’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

“We are using every tool to get the SAVE America Act passed,” Rep. Julie Fedorchak, R-N.D., told the Daily Signal, a co-sponsor of the proposal. “This bill has a very legitimate budget impact and provides tools and grants for states to implement REAL ID.”

The SAVE America Act, short for Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, passed the House but not the Senate. It would require government identification and proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections and also restrict mail-in ballots.

“We have passed it multiple times, so the House is not the problem. The Senate needs to act,” Fedorchak said.

However, to overcome a Senate filibuster, a proposal would have to be tied to a spending measure so it could pass on a simple majority vote through the process of reconciliation. Fedorchak notes that passing her SAVE America Through REAL ID Act as part of the proposed reconciliation bill could ultimately incentivize states to adopt voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements in elections.

Fedorchak and Rep. Laurel Lee, R-Fla., the chairwoman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Elections, introduced the SAVE America Through REAL ID Act last month. The proposal would establish a $50 million federal grant program to help states issue REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses and identification cards free of charge to eligible low-income Americans. This would require the use of REAL ID for voting.

“The federal government would provide $50 million as a starting point. It could be more, combined with other tools,” Fedorchak said.

“The goal is for all states to have proof of citizenship since it’s common sense that only American citizens should vote,” she later added.

On Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., along with Vice President JD Vance, met with the House Republican Conference about passing “Reconciliation 3.0.” Johnson called it “our best shot at enacting our party’s top priority legislation.”

He said the key committees to hammer out the bill would include the House Administration Committee, where Lee oversees election issues; the House Armed Services Committee; the House Agriculture Committee; and the House Intelligence Committee.

Fedorchak said that “outside the Beltway,” the SAVE America Act is popular because the vast majority of Americans “think only citizens should vote and that you should have photo ID.”

The policy of voter ID has 83% public support, according to a 2025 Pew Research Center poll. That’s consistent with historic polling. A smaller majority, but still a solid 59%, support requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, according to a YouGov poll from March.

The Fedorchak and Lee REAL ID bill would also allow states to waive application and issuance fees for eligible individuals. The funding would help cover administrative costs associated with processing REAL ID applications and support mobile and remote REAL ID services for rural communities.

Further, the proposal would provide resources to state and local governments to assist applicants in obtaining required supporting documentation needed to secure a REAL ID.

Sorry, I’m a little grumpy, but I can’t help it. The sky is yellow, my headache won’t go away, I haven’t been outside in days, and the reason is that our snooty, supposedly climate-conscious neighbor up north can’t handle its business.

For anyone living in the northern half of the United States, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. Those in the Mid-Atlantic will soon.

Once again, raging, out-of-control Canadian forest fires have created air quality conditions worse than Delhi throughout much of our country.

Here’s a little tour of pictures from American cities in the past few days that look like they are stills from the next “Blade Runner” movie.

Chicago.

Buffalo.

New York City.

Finally, Detroit.

It’s downright dystopian. And no small matter for the quality of life in America. The toxic smoke is a huge hazard leading to all kinds of nasty health conditions, ER visits, and even a few deaths.

Not to mention that it’s causing a plethora of negative, downstream economic effects.

Their problem has become our problem that we need to seriously consider rectifying. More on that in a bit.

Now you know what the Left and their allies in the media are going to say.

This is all because of man-made climate change. If only those ignorant, red-state Americans would stop driving those gas-guzzling SUVs and set their A/C to over 78 degrees during heat waves, then we wouldn’t have so many fires.

But this is nonsense.

The number of forest fires in the Americas has been decreasing for half a century. The reason we seem to have more fires is because generally poor forest management has created conditions that lead to massive, towering infernos. Those cause more suffering than lots of smaller, but controlled burns.

Kenneth Green, writing for the Fraser Institute in 2023, argued that Canada’s fires are a product of poor forest management, not climate change.

He pointed to a 2020 study in the journal Progress in Disaster Science that found that “Canada has failed to fund the proactive management of forest fires sufficiently and is not poised to do better moving forward.”

This has been a problem in the U.S., too, as environmentalist ideas that have plagued federal and state governments over the decades have led to a regression in forest management techniques well known to our forefathers.

In Canada, they have more forests to burn.

Unfortunately, nearly all forested land is owned by the government. Hence, not much changes.

Even if we accept that global temperatures are rising—by the hand of man or naturally—Canada has responded poorly to the fire threat.

Frankly, if everything climate doomers said were true, and we take them at their word that they are most worried about carbon emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, then there is no excuse for not making aggressive forest management a top priority.

In 2023 the worst year of Canadian forest fires (so far), an estimated 3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide was pumped into the atmosphere.

That’s around five times what the entire Canadian economy produced that year.

So, all the best laid plans of mice and men and globalist climate engineers haven’t accounted for the overwhelming effect of forest fires that are natural, but containable. They demand that our lives get upended but fail to handle basic governance.

Canada could literally shut down their entire economy and force their people to live in mud huts and that wouldn’t even come close to offsetting the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by a single bad fire season.

I guess it’s easier for Canadian politicians to put the squeeze on the country’s oil producers and blame America—their national pastime—than address this growing fire problem, that’s increasingly our problem too.

Maybe it’s time for us to motivate them to do something.

Canada currently has only a tiny force of water bombers that they’ve struggled to expand.

We have a huge air wing of B-1 and B-2 bombers that I’m sure can be diverted for a few days to drop massive payloads of “water” on their country.

OK, I kid, I kid.

I told you I was cranky.

But we really should do something to pressure Canada to act since they seem to be about as committed to solving this issue as California is to building a functioning bullet train.

Kevin Kijewski, a Republican attorney who ran for the Michigan attorney general office, had an interesting idea.

He wrote in 2025 that the Canadian smoke has done enormous damage to the health of Michiganders and has caused the state’s tourism industry to lose tens of millions of dollars.

Kijewski noted that the 1991 U.S.-Canada Air Quality Agreement, “which commits both nations to prevent and reduce transboundary air pollution that harms public health and the environment,” could be used to motivate Canada to deal with the fire problem or face additional economic consequences.

The State Department, under the terms of the treaty, can “advocate for remedies such as compensatory tariffs on Canadian timber imports or other trade measures until Ottawa demonstrates improved wildfire prevention and suppression.”

Maybe it’s time for President Donald Trump to turn up the heat on Canada since it seems so lackadaisical in turning it down and putting it out.

El-Sayed’s tax return information was shared on Wednesday with WLNS. This is a pivot from El-Sayed previously saying that his returns would not be out until after the primary, a move that he blames on his wife’s family owning property abroad, and which he tried to justify by saying taxes can be “complicated.”

As mentioned in the local news report, the joint tax return information from the couple shows a reported total income for 2025 of $686,069 and an adjusted gross income of $675,246. That’s $130,749 in wages, $262,299 in capital gains, and $292,881 in additional income.

The 2025 financial disclosure estimated a net worth between $580,000 and $1.7 million.

The information shared was not enough for Stevens, who posted extensively to X throughout Wednesday, from criticizing El-Sayed to being wealthier than the average Michigander, to the vague “additional income” information and property.

According to her tax information already released, Stevens’ 2025 adjusted gross income was $169,970.

She continued to post on Thursday as well.

Beyond providing fodder for party infighting over personal finances, the tax return information shows that such wealth also flies in the face of El-Sayed’s image of being “Mr. Socialist Worker Man,” as Tony Kinnett pointed out during Wednesday’s “The Tony Kinnett Cast.”

“I love it,” Kinnett said of the primary battle. “I love it when Democrats start going after each other like this because they earned it. Because after all of the young socialists went after anyone who wasn’t pro-Islam and pro-open Marxism, they would go after all of the other candidates in the most vile ways that they can find. And it has truly upset Haley Stevens and her team,” Kinnett added, as he read from Stevens’ many posts on X.

Kinnett also pointed to El-Sayed’s capital gains, which he said “means that he’s a big stock market player,” which also could be in conflict with the Democratic Socialists of America, which wants to ban the stock market.

Stevens has her own baggage, particularly her goofy mannerisms on the campaign trail and during her time in the House, as Kinnett covered on Tuesday and Wednesday’s shows.

WLNS points to questions with Stevens’ own release of tax return information. Although the report mentioned she “volunteered her tax returns ahead of Tax Day earlier this year — which is not required by law — and has introduced legislation that would require members of Congress to publicly disclose their returns,” she also has “requested extensions to delay her annual financial disclosure filings every year since she entered Congress, even as her campaign criticized El-Sayed for delaying his.”

Stevens is currently ahead in certain polls, as Kinnett referenced on air, despite how “awful” she may be, and despite El-Sayed having previously led Stevens significantly, which Kinnett said “is a major warning.”

Stevens has herself promoted polls where she’s up, with a Detroit News/WDIV-TV poll showing her up by 7 points against El-Sayed, 48%-41%.

El-Sayed is also faring particularly poorly with black voters, which Kinnett said could be due to the candidate’s criticisms of former President Barack Obama.

The winner of the Democrat primary will face former Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., who was also the nominee in 2024 and lost to now Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., by 0.3%.