“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 But Economics 101 has not been repealed.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.

In January, Loeffler opened a review into whether Planned Parenthood affiliates illegally received funds through the Paycheck Protection Program, which provided loans to small businesses to maintain payroll and cover other costs during the COVID-19 pandemic. She told The Daily Signal Wednesday that the process of scrutinizing the funding is ongoing.

“The Biden administration said they wanted to blow through the affiliation laws that prevented Planned Parenthood from getting that money and allow them to have those loans and forgave those loans,” she said, “and so our agency has really ensured that we look at where we can make sure that doesn’t happen again, and that we cooperate in any of the investigations.”

Planned Parenthood affiliates have been informed that they received the money unlawfully, she said.

The administration has “strict” rules for lending, Loeffler said, “and it’s clear that affiliation rules would have prohibited Planned Parenthood from getting those funds, and so that’s already not possible for Planned Parenthood under the application of the law to get those funds.”

Loeffler said the review is still in process. The administration sent letters to 88 Planned Parenthood affiliates asking them to prove they were eligible for the COVID-19-era relief, which totaled more than $88 million.

“We published the letters,” she said, “and we did let people know that we had contacted them, let them know that they did get the money unlawfully.”

Loeffler said the Planned Parenthood loans show the need for Vice President JD Vance’s task force on fighting taxpayer fraud.

“We should make sure that these funds are never even dispersed because they’re harder to claw back than they are to stop at the front end,” she said, “and I know the Vice President is very focused on how we cut that off.”

Loeffler has been tracking the issue since she was in the Senate, she said. In 2020, Loeffler penned a letter to the Department of Treasury asking them to investigate Planned Parenthood’s “abuse of the taxpayer-funded Paycheck Protection Program.”

Per Brennan, the Christian character of the event, and the Protestant content, flies in the face of the national value of religious diversity.

The bottom line on the religious diversity claims points to religion not being a national value at all.

I am perplexed how this squares with the rights noted in our Declaration of Independence asserted under the authority of the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” and the appeal of the signers at the Declaration’s conclusion to “the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions.”

The Constitution’s preamble notes its objective is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty.”

The late Claremont Institute scholar Harry V. Jaffa noted, in this context, that “What is a blessing is what is good in the eyes of God.”

Lincoln spoke, in his second inaugural address, to a nation that accepted God, but was no longer “one nation.”

“Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other.”

Today we have something very new with profound implications for our future.

Our social and political tensions are increasingly not rooted in different understandings about what God wants from us but in whether the Creator is relevant at all. True and false, good and evil, are among many different, equally legitimate, possibilities. It’s all relative.

This gets back to the objections to Rededicate 250.

Our differences about religion are now increasingly partisan.

Per Gallup, in 2001 the percentage of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who identified as having “no religion” was 11%. The percentage of Republicans/Republican-leaning independents identifying as “no religion” was 7%. This made a difference of 4 points.

By 2023, Democrat “nones” was up to 33% and Republicans 12%. The difference increased to 21 points.

Per Gallup, in 1980, among 30- to 50-year-olds, among those identifying as Republican, 84% were married, and among those identifying as Democrat, 82%. This made a difference of 2 points.

By 2024, the percent of Republicans married was 67% and of Democrats 49%—a difference of 18 points.

Growing divergent partisan attitudes about religion translate into significantly different partisan results regarding marriage, family, and children.

In 2025, Gallup reported differences in attitudes among Republicans and Democrats regarding capitalism and socialism.

Among Republicans, 74% said they have a positive view of capitalism. Among Democrats, 42% said they have a positive view of capitalism.

Among Republicans, 14% said they have a positive view of socialism. Among Democrats, 66% said they have a positive view of socialism.

The dramatically different views among Republicans and Democrats regarding capitalism and socialism flow logically from the different dispositions among the parties regarding religion.

The Eighth Commandment says “Thou shalt not steal.” It recognizes private property. The Tenth Commandment says “Thou shalt not covet.” It recognizes that your business is what is yours, not what your neighbor has.

Socialism is the opposite. It is secularism. It erases the sacred nature of private property and is driven by redistributing wealth—concern with what your neighbor has.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the new progressive socialist face of the Democratic Party, exclaimed: “You can’t earn a billion dollars. You just can’t earn that. You can get market power, you can break rules, you can abuse labor laws, you can pay people less than their worth, but you can’t earn that.”

Apparently, Bill Gates did not build Microsoft, or Jeff Bezos Amazon, or Elon Musk Tesla with super hard work, creativity and risk-taking. They are all scoundrels.

Progressives think we need AOC, who can draw on her work experience as a bartender, to straighten everything out.

Never has what party rules in Washington meant so much to our country’s future.

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.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.  

The midterm elections are about five months away, and we’re having here in California a hotly contested governor’s race. And of course, everybody’s heard about the mayor’s race. They all have something in common if we examine them. There is no Democratic agenda. 

There’s no antithetical agenda to the Republicans.  

What I’m getting at is if you watch the debates between Spencer Pratt, Karen Bass, and Councilman [Nithya] Raman, none of them run on their records as incumbents. Karen Bass does not say, “I solved the homeless problem, and here’s how I did it.” She’s not saying, “I’ve stopped crime, and here’s how I did it. I have solved and rebuilt Pacific Palisades after the fire, and here’s how I did it. And here’s my new fire prevention plan. Here’s my new water plan, so we don’t have empty … ” None of it.  

And when you see Councilman Raman, she doesn’t either. She doesn’t offer—all it is, is personal invective against Spencer Pratt. 

When you look at the governor’s race in California, you have two Republicans in this jungle primary: Chad Bianco, the sheriff from Southern California, and Steve Hilton, Northern California entrepreneur who’s running. They’re both conservative, but they’re up against a whole array of Democratic candidates. 

So, if you look at what Xavier Becerra says, Kathleen Porter says, Tom Steyer says, there’s no agenda. They don’t say, “I want to continue Gavin Newsom’s program. High-speed rail has been a great success. I know we’ve had some controversies, but I want to finish it, and I can come up with the $250 billion to do it. We should be proud that we have the most illegal aliens in the country. Gavin Newsom allotted $500 million to illegal alien medical care. I’d like to boost that and improve on it. We have a very sophisticated penal system. I know crime is high, but when you treat criminals humanitarily, in a humane way, crime goes down.  

“So, when Governor Newsom, which I second, allowed iPads for people in prisons to use, and maybe some of them abused them a little bit, that’s a good idea and I’ll build on it. And we have the homeless, half the homeless people in the country because they like our weather and we’re a humane people. We’ve got to improve on that. We have the highest gas prices, but that means less pollution. And we have the highest taxes, that’s share the wealth. And we’re going to tax accumulated wealth of billionaires. Why not? They can pay their fair share.” 

But they, they don’t defend the record in any specificity. None of them do. And none of them do in the Democratic Party on these congressional elections. They never say that we had a president. What happened?  

We had Joe Biden, and we had a very orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was a model operation. Or why do we need a border? Joe Biden showed you that we could let in ten thousand people a day, ten million over four years. Nothing was wrong with that.  

We had a few criminals here and there, but it was a very humane policy. And we want to open that border, tear down that wall, and resume the Biden immigration policy. 

Now, as far as crime, why would we want to be punitive? Some people, you know, they commit violent crimes, but they have to come up with cash to get out of jail. We got rid of cash bail because society, society is guilty, not the criminal. We should understand that by now.  

And, you know, before Trump came in, we had DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion. And what it was is that we took into account, in a preferential manner your race, superficial appearance, your ethnic background, your sexuality, your gender, etc.  

And that was a wonderful thing because the country had been founded by white males. The Founding Fathers were all white males. And ninety-five percent were white males. And you know how bad the country is now. So, why don’t we, kind of, reverse the process. And let other people have preferences to make up for systemic bias and racism? So, we want more DEI. That’s what we’re going to do if you elect us. 

Now, there’s been a lot of attack on government, DOGE, etc. But whatever you say about the fraud in Minnesota or the fraud in California or the fraud in Chicago, notice that a lot of the people who are allegedly committing it are people of color.  

So this is a right-wing racist campaign.  

But more importantly, even if it wasn’t DEI, what is so wrong with taking government money from wealthy people, taxing it, and then spreading it around? Do we really care if somebody is on electronic banking transfer or food stamp card and he has two or three of them? He’s in need. He’s not a billionaire like Ken Griffin. 

Here’s what I’m getting at. They don’t take the Biden record or the Obama record and defend it. They don’t give specific anecdotes to the Republicans, so that they can win.  

So, what do they do? When you listen to these debates, you look at these congressional races, they say the following.

Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump. We are not Donald Trump. Donald Trump is a Nazi. No, he’s a fascist. No, he’s an Epstein molester. No, he’s a pedophile. No, he’s a rapist. No, he’s a terrorist. That’s about all they have. And to the degree they do get specific, they call people fascists and Nazis. 

Why do they do that? They do that because they know the agenda was not popular with the American people. And so their agenda is not going to be defended. And they know that Donald Trump is a counterrevolutionary. He’s doing things that are shaking up the United States that we haven’t seen in 100 years. And that offends a lot of entrenched interests. And so, they think by just saying Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, fascist, fascist, Nazi, they can get that message across. 

More importantly, they do one other thing, one other thing in these elections. They talk about changing the system. Not working within it when they’re out of power.  

When they lose power, the Left, they say, the system, not us, lost our power. So, if we get back in power, we’re gonna start lawfare again, just like the five civil and criminal cases that went after Donald Trump.  

You know what else we’re gonna do? We’re gonna pack the court. We’re gonna get 15 justices to nullify the, since 1869, nine-justice court.  

We’re gonna get rid of the Electoral College through the National Popular Vote Compact. We’re gonna let in Puerto Rico. We’re gonna let in D.C. as states. We’re gonna get four senators, as well. We’re gonna get rid of the 180-200-year Senate filibuster. That’s what they talk about. 

They talk about changing the system because within the system they’re not successful.  

So we have not heard agendas that are positive, that counter the Republican agenda. This is not the party of JFK or Bill Clinton. This is something very different. This is a revolutionary socialist agenda that wants to change fundamentally the United States. It’s what Barack Obama said he wanted to do. But he didn’t, yet, have the power to do so. And now they want to reify that radical socialist agenda. 

And the only way they can do it is by demonizing other people and calling them names or changing the system. Otherwise, they’d have to have a positive agenda, and that would be equivalent with defeat.  

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

Since Newsom took office, total Medi-Cal spending has roughly doubled and is now approaching $200 billion annually. Yet multiple community hospitals have eliminated their inpatient pediatric departments in recent years.

In March 2026 alone, Providence Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital closed its pediatric unit, and UCI Health shut down pediatric services, including its pediatric intensive care unit, at Fountain Valley Regional Hospital. Similar closures occurred at Los Robles Health System in 2025 and Adventist Health White Memorial late last year.

As Medi-Cal covers about half of California’s children, the report argues that these closures are leaving families in several regions without local inpatient care for children. The report was first obtained by the Daily Signal.

“Children’s inpatient care is foundational to a functioning healthcare system. California’s current trajectory reflects a failure of leadership and prioritization. Expanding coverage without ensuring access to care is not a success; it is a systemic failure,” the report states.

“The true measure of healthcare policy is not how many individuals are enrolled in a program, but whether care is available when needed,” the report adds. “Right now, in California, that standard is not being met.”

According to the report, the closures, particularly in Northern and Central California, have created major access problems. Families now face multi-hour ambulance transfers, longer emergency department boarding times, greater concentration of care in overburdened regional children’s hospitals, and reduced surge capacity during respiratory illness seasons.

The report also points to emergency department congestion, noting that children often remain in emergency departments longer while awaiting transfer. This leads to increased clinical risk, higher provider burnout, and reduced emergency capacity for all patients.

“As pediatric units close, specialists relocate to larger systems, leaving entire regions without adequate pediatric expertise,” the report states. “Once these workforce ecosystems collapse, they take years—if not decades—to rebuild.”

But prior to the new reports of the state’s program failing in various ways, Medi-Cal had been under the media spotlight in recent years due to its expansions.

Under Newsom’s Medi-Cal expansion, the program’s growth included full-scope coverage for undocumented immigrants, first for adults ages 19 to 25, then for those over 50 in 2022, and for those ages 26 to 49 by 2024.

The expansions increased the number of Medi-Cal enrollees and shifted more of the financial burden onto the state, as coverage for undocumented immigrants is funded entirely by California. However, the report states that Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for inpatient pediatric care did not keep pace with the growth in enrollment.

Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for hospital services have long been a point of tension in California, with hospitals criticizing them as falling short of the actual cost of providing care. According to the California Hospital Association, Medi-Cal reimburses hospitals roughly 80 cents for every dollar spent on patient care.

“The structural challenge is clear: Policymakers expanded coverage without adequately ensuring the healthcare system could sustainably deliver care,” the report states.

The key failures, according to Defend Forgotten America, include the failure to align pediatric inpatient rates with post-pandemic labor costs, the lack of meaningful pediatric-specific stabilization funding, the absence of a rural pediatric preservation strategy, and the lack of enforceable transparency around pediatric unit closures.

“When state leadership dismisses pediatric closures as ‘local operational decisions,’ it deflects responsibility from the policies that created the crisis,” Defend Forgotten America states. “Hospitals do not set reimbursement policy—the state does.”

The report recommends several steps to address the issue. These include aligning pediatric inpatient reimbursement rates with actual costs, creating a pediatric infrastructure stabilization fund, expanding workforce incentives for rural areas, requiring advance notice and community impact assessments before closures, and conducting a statewide pediatric capacity audit.

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

Trump is on a hot streak with primary challenges.

Last weekend, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, placed third in the Senate primary, with Trump-backed challenger Rep. Julia Letlow advancing to the runoff round.

On Tuesday, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., a libertarian-leaning House rebel who has defied Trump on key votes, lost by nearly 10 points to the Trump-endorsed Ed Gallrein. Massie has been in the House since 2012.

But Trump didn’t stop there.

On Wednesday, he endorsed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to take the Senate seat of incumbent Republican Sen. John Cornyn, paving the way for the die-hard Trump loyalist to become the Republican nominee after the May 26 runoff.

By targeting multiple incumbent senators from his own party, Trump is engaging in a style of politics unheard of since 1938, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt supported multiple challengers against senators in a bid to reshape the Senate.

However, it was also a week of trouble on Capitol Hill, where the Republican-controlled Congress defied the president.

On Tuesday, shortly after losing his primary, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., voted to advance a resolution to restrain the president’s power to use military force against Iran. 

The resolution advanced 50-47, with four Republicans voting for it: Cassidy, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine.

Additionally, Congress failed to advance a party-line budget reconciliation bill, which would have injected funds into border security. 

Instead, the Senate broke for recess until June, as Republicans were divided over whether to support funding for security at the White House’s East Wing, where the president is attempting to build a ballroom.

Again, Cassidy played a role in this debate, refusing to support the funding.

“I think this is a spit-in-the-eye insult to all my taxpayers in Louisiana to spend a billion on a ballroom when we should be doing something about the high price of gas, groceries, and health care,” he said Tuesday.

He was not the only member of the Senate’s growing retirement caucus to be in opposition.

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., who announced his retirement in July shortly after the president called for a Republican to challenge him in his primary, has been a staunch opponent of the funding.

“I’ve got a lot of questions that need to be answered,” Tillis told NOTUS of the funding.

“If I’m in the Democratic marketing department, I’m probably thinking of a lot of ways I would use this to target senators that vote for it,” said Tillis, who added he thought “the timing and optics are really bad.”

Republicans were also unable to settle disagreements on the Department of Justice’s announcement of an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” as part of a settlement agreement in Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service.

The $1.776 billion fund is meant to “provide a systematic process to hear and redress claims of others who suffered weaponization and lawfare,” per the DOJ.

Tillis and Cassidy were opposed.

“I think it’s stupid on stilts,” said Tillis.

“People are concerned about paying their mortgage or rent, affording groceries, and paying for gas, not about putting together a $1.8 billion fund for the president and his allies to pay whomever they wish with no legal precedent or accountability,” said Cassidy.

Trump has defended the fund, writing on Truth Social that he is forgoing money he could have received from the settlement.

“Instead, I am helping others, who were so badly abused by an evil, corrupt, and weaponized Biden administration, receive, at long last, Justice!” he wrote.

Republicans, unable to settle disagreements, decided not to hold any vote on their ambitious budget bill at all. 

The House likewise went into recess, avoiding a vote on whether to restrain the president’s military power in Iran.

The growing flock of Republican lame ducks in the Senate defying the president could be a problem for the president going forward, given Republicans’ already slim majority.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., asked if the budget flop was related to Trump’s targeting of incumbents, replied, “I think it’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us.”

On Friday, Trump lashed out at Tillis, whom he called a “weak and ineffective Senator,” but argued the Republican party will have a new start with the senator and his ilk gone.

“Now he can have all the fun he wants for a few months, with some of his RINO [Republican in name only] friends, screwing the Republican Party,” said Trump. “In the end it will only get bigger, and better, and stronger, than ever before!!!”

Related Posts

Trump Endorses Paxton in Texas Senate Race

President Donald Trump weighed in Tuesday on the Texas Republican Senate primary runoff, backing the state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton over Sen. John Cornyn. “Ken is a true MAGA Warrior who has ALWAYS delivered for Texas, and will continue to do so in the United States Senate,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Tuesday. He…

Senate Tussles Over Ballroom Security Funding

A Senate referee struck funding for security at the White House’s East Wing from a Republican budget bill on Saturday, in what Democrats are celebrating as a blow to President Donald Trump’s ballroom ambitions. Republicans, however, argue that the security funding is unrelated to the White House ballroom and will soon be restored. Republicans are…

Massie Loses Primary to Trump-Backed Challenger Gallrein

Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky lost to a primary challenger backed by President Donald Trump on Tuesday, denying the libertarian rebel an eighth term in Congress and reaffirming the president’s dominance of the Republican Party. The Associated Press declared Ed Gallrein the victor shortly before 8 p.m. when he held an almost eight-point lead…

Gabbard posted her resignation letter on X, explaining that the reason for her resignation is to care for her husband, who is fighting “an extremely rare form of bone cancer.”

Gabbard says her husband, Abraham, “faces major challenges in the coming weeks and months,” and she “must step away from public service to be by his side and fully support him through this battle.”

“Unfortunately, I must submit my resignation, effective June 30, 2026,” the letter says.

Gabbard’s letter to the president adds that she is “deeply grateful for the trust you placed in me and for the opportunity to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the last year and a half.”

The intelligence chief believes she “made significant progress at the ODNI” over her tenure, which includes “advancing unprecedented transparency and restoring integrity in the intelligence community.”

During her tenure as director of national intelligence, Gabbard initiated a restructuring of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence called “ODNI 2.0,” with which she sought to right-size the intelligence community under the belief that the office had become bloated.

Gabbard also launched initiatives aimed at “eliminating politicization and weaponization within the intelligence community.” She dismissed, reassigned, or revoked security clearances from individuals in the intelligence community she believed were responsible for politicizing intelligence.

The director also released critical information on the intelligence community’s role in creating the Russian-collusion narrative in the lead-up to and the aftermath of the 2016 election of Trump.

Nevertheless, Gabbard claims “there is still important work to be done” and that she is “fully committed to ensuring a smooth and thorough transition over the coming weeks.”

Gabbard earned her Cabinet position after a political conversion.

The once 2020 Democrat presidential hopeful became a supporter of Trump over the course of the 2024 election cycle.

During the 2024 campaign, she became one of Trump’s closest advisers on how to combat former Vice President Kamala Harris because of Gabbard’s previous success debating Harris in 2020.

Gabbard’s departure comes at a critical juncture for the Trump administration.

Seen as one of the voices for foreign policy restraint in the administration, she has led intelligence-gathering efforts over the course of the United States’ war with Iran.

As the war in the Middle East persists, the Trump administration is also considering its next moves with respect to Cuba.

This story is developing and may be updated.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday to address allegations of fraud against the left-leaning nonprofit titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center: Manufacturing Hate.”

The Daily Signal’s Tyler O’Neil, who has long faulted the SPLC for putting mainstream conservative and Christian groups on a “hate map” alongside Ku Klux Klan chapters, testified as a witness for the hearing. Alongside him sat Wiley, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an organization that endorses the SPLC and places it among a coalition of groups the Leadership Conference supports.

The SPLC added Turning Point USA, Kirk’s organization, to the “hate map” last year, a few months before his assassination.

Because of Wiley’s connection to the SPLC, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked Wiley about what the SPLC claimed about Kirk. “Would you agree with the statement that Charlie Kirk was a dangerous extremist?”

Wiley took a sigh before answering. “I can’t answer the question that way,” she said. “I can certainly say that statements that I am aware of that Mr. Kirk made were ones that I would consider to be dangerous.”

She added, “I am referring to the ones that he made about black women and black communities. The stereotyping that stereotyped a whole group of people.”

While critics often accused Kirk of racism because of his opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in universities, commentators such as Ben Shapiro often praised him for keeping racists and antisemites out of Turning Point. When TPUSA’s national field director’s texts revealing racist comments toward African Americans were leaked, Kirk took immediate action.

“Turning Point assessed the situation and took decisive action within 72 hours of being made aware of the issue,” Kirk told The New Yorker.

In May 2025, when the SPLC added Turning Point to the “hate map,” SPLC released a report called “Turning Point USA: A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024.” This article accused Kirk and his organization of embracing a “white nationalist conspiracy theory” and enforcing a “social order rooted in white supremacy.”

The article warned that Kirk wanted to “restore America’s biblical values,” which is an “extreme, authoritarian vision for the country that threatens the foundation of our democracy.”

But Kirk was not only an authoritarian, white nationalist conspiracy theorist, according to the SPLC. He was also a “male supremacist” whose organization exploits “fear that white Christian supremacy is under attack by nefarious actors, including immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, and civil rights activists.”

Just four months later, Kirk was assassinated for his alleged hate. Tyler Robinson, who allegedly shot Kirk, texted his roommate, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out,” and “the guy spreads too much hate.”

In an April article titled “Why I support the Southern Poverty Law Center,” Wiley alluded that the SPLC indictment is merely a part of President Donald Trump’s attempt to attack civil rights. She said, “This indictment is not just an attack on SPLC. It is an attack on advocacy against hate and extremism and on enemies of organizations Donald Trump and Trump supporters have embraced.”

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, also testified before the committee. In 2012, the Family Research Council was targeted for an attempted mass shooting. According to Perkins, the SPLC “may not have pulled the trigger, but they inspired the gunman … then of course, Charlie Kirk, who also was targeted by SPLC was assassinated. So there is culpability that this list—this ideological labelling—leads to violence.”

Robert Gorham Fuller Jr., 87, was shot and killed on Feb. 14 at Cogir of Potomac in Potomac, Maryland. Fuller was a retired Navy Reserve officer, an attorney, and a millionaire philanthropist in Augusta, Maine, largely responsible for funding a new hospital, a new YMCA center, and the expansion of a high school there, according to news reports. He had reportedly moved to Maryland to be closer to family members.

Last week, a Maryland judge determined the suspect, Maurquise Emillo James, 22, was not competent to stand trial in the case. James was also charged in February with attempted first-degree murder for shooting at a state trooper in a traffic stop in Baltimore. Police believed the same gun was used in the Fuller shooting after recovering one of the bullet casings, Montgomery Community Media reported.

The judge ordered that James be placed in a psychiatric facility under the Maryland Department of Health until his next evaluation on Nov. 9, WTOP News reported.

Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Karla Smith said, based on his evaluation, “James at this point is not competent to proceed to trial.” The judge determined he “presents a danger to himself, to others, to the property of others. And based on that, the court will have him committed to work on competency.”

After the Fuller shooting and before the incident with the police officer, James reportedly continued working at the senior facility for several days.

The Montgomery County Attorney’s Office, which oversees prosecutions in the area, did not respond to the Daily Signal for this story by the time of publication.

A charging document said James administered Fuller’s medication to him the night before the killing, which police allege James committed, The Baltimore Sun reported.

A nurse at Cogir Potomac warned the senior living center in a written complaint 11 days before the homicide about unusual behavior by James, according to a negligence lawsuit filed by Linda Buttrick, who lived with Fuller.

The nurse was not identified by name in the lawsuit filed in Baltimore County Circuit Court on March 19. But the lawsuit said another employee made similar verbal warnings about James. The case was filed in Baltimore County, because Cogir operates in Baltimore and James lives there.

Buttrick’s attorney, Michael Belsky, said at this point he and his client are just waiting for a response from the defendants.

“We are continuing to move forward with the civil case and investigate the matter,” Belsky told the Daily Signal.

The facility in Maryland referred the Daily Signal to Cogir spokeswoman Heidi Brashear, with the Arizona-based parent corporation. Brashear did not respond to the Daily Signal for this story by publication time.

However, a spokesperson for the company told the Portland Press Herald that the well-being of residents is the company’s highest priority.

The Cogir spokesperson added, “We take all concerns raised by staff, residents and residents’ families seriously, and have clear processes to ensure every report is thoroughly reviewed and addressed.”

The lawsuit alleges the death was “entirely preventable,” and also names James as a defendant.

The lawsuit says that James’s mother is Cogir Health and Wellness Director Shenise James-Dubose.

The civil complaint says that Buttrick identified James as a suspect in the Fuller murder. According to the lawsuit, James continued to enter her apartment after the death of Fuller to dispense medication to Buttrick, the Portland Press Herald reported.

“Ms. Buttrick, a woman with Parkinson’s disease who had just discovered her partner’s body, was required to receive medications from the hands of the man she had identified to police as a suspect, alone in her home, which was still a crime scene, with zero protection and no recourse,” the lawsuit says.

“I want Kevin to be totally independent,” Trump said. “I want him to be independent and just do a great job. Don’t look at me, don’t look at anybody, just do your own thing and do a great job.”

Trump said Warsh will restore respect to the Fed. Trump repeatedly criticized Warsh’s successor, Jerome Powell, for failing to cut interest rates. While Trump has called for interest rate cuts for years, some investors say they expect a rate increase as the Fed’s next move amid rising inflation, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Justice Department also investigated Powell for spending over budget on the renovations of the Fed building and allegedly lying to Congress about the matter, but it dropped the investigation in April.

“Unfortunately, in the eyes of many, the Fed lost its way in recent years,” Trump said. “It became distracted by concerns far removed from its core mission and mandate, drifting into matters such as climate policy and DEI initiatives, with the Fed straying from its mandate, while the last administration blew out the deficit.”

Trump said Warsh will bring “much-needed reform” and will modernize data collection methods, roll back reliance on inaccurate models, and end the Fed’s practice of issuing “forward guidance.”

“Kevin will restore confidence in the Fed, which is so important, and among Americans all across the political spectrum, and people from all over the world, and they’re going to be looking to Kevin, probably, and possibly more than any other person that’s had your esteemed position before,” Trump said, adding that he will “safeguard the Fed’s integrity.”

“They’ll make their own decisions and hopefully make them well, but they’ll be listening to Kevin all the way,” Trump said of the Fed’s Board of Governors. “I really believe that even if they’re from a somewhat different persuasion, they’re going to be listening to him out of respect, because everybody respects him.”

Warsh thanked the president for the honor of being sworn in at the White House. He said he will lead a “reform-oriented Federal Reserve.”

“When we pursue those aims with wisdom and clarity, independence and resolve, inflation can be lower, growth stronger, real take-home pay higher, and America can be more prosperous, and no less important,” Warsh said, “America’s place in the world more secure.”

Warsh is the Shepard family distinguished visiting fellow in economics at the Hoover Institution and a lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is also a partner of Stanley Druckenmiller at Duquesne Family Office LLC.

Following the 2008 financial crisis, Warsh was skeptical of cutting rates. At the November 2010 Federal Open Market Committee meeting, Warsh expressed concerns about the Fed’s plan to stimulate the economy by lowering long-term interest rates through additional asset purchases.

But more recently, Warsh has criticized Powell for being too hesitant to lower interest rates. He told Fox Business’ “Kudlow” program in July that he had “some sympathy” for Trump being frustrated with how Powell is handling interest rates.

The elections board first announced last week that an undetermined number of mail ballots for the June 23 party primary were sent to the wrong voters, which it blamed on an error. While an undetermined number of voters will be voting a second ballot, the state’s top election official assured the public that only one ballot will be counted per voter for Maryland’s June party primary.

“The primary question that we have received from voters is ‘what do I do if I already returned my mail-in ballot.’ The answer is simply to vote the replacement ballot,” Jared DeMarinis, administrator for the Maryland State Board of Elections, said in a memo this week sent to voters across the state.

The memo went on to say the Maryland State Board of Elections has “safeguards that ensure only one ballot per voter is counted.”

The mishap of sending the wrong ballots to voters drew criticism from President Donald Trump, members of Congress, and other national election observers.

On Monday, Trump posted on Truth Social that the Justice Department should investigate Maryland. On Thursday, he referred to “Maryland voting, which is so crooked.”

“In Maryland, as you probably saw, they had 500,000 mail-in votes that were corrupt. They were corrupt. They said the printer made a mistake. Don’t believe that. And they got caught with 500,000 mail-in ballots that were corrupt. We’ve got to stop it. We have more corrupt elections than third world countries have.”

On Monday, Trump said, “I’ve asked law enforcement to look at it very strenuously.”

“They have 500,000 new ballots going. So, what happens to the original? Are they going to come in? And are they going to come in and infect our system? So, it’s a very, very serious thing that’s happened.”

The matter was likely incompetence and not corruption, said J. Christian Adams, president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election-integrity legal group.

“Not every screw up is nefarious,” Adams told the Daily Signal. “Maryland is notorious for incompetent election administration.”

Adams noted this was a very expensive mistake for the state, but he said it demonstrates bigger problems with reliance on mail-in ballots.

“When you leave elections in the hands of mail-in ballots, you are inviting failure, because 100,000 people don’t get the wrong ballot when they go to the polls,” Adams said.

Maryland is a closed-primary state, meaning Democrats and Republicans can vote only in their respective party primaries. But the error led to voters receiving ballots for contests they were not eligible to vote in.

The state blamed the error on the vendor, Taylor Print & Visual Impressions, a Minnesota-based printing corporation.

“Because the vendor could not isolate which voters received incorrect ballots, SBE is notifying every voter who requested a mail-in ballot,” the DeMarinis memo says.

A Taylor spokesperson did not respond to an inquiry from the Daily Signal for this story by publication time.

The state has notified more than 500,000 affected voters by postcards, emails, and text messages. Ballots must be returned by 8 p.m. EDT on Election Day, June 23, 2026.

His memo went on to explain how the state will prevent ballots from being double counted.

“Every mail-in ballot issued is tracked in Maryland’s secure statewide voter registration system with a unique code/identifier,” DeMarinis said. He continued, “If a voter requested a mail-in ballot and has a replacement ballot issued, the original mail-in ballot tracking information is noted in the statewide voter registration system so it cannot be received for canvassing. This ensures each voter can return only one ballot.”

Only eight Democrats voted for the bill.

Democrat Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Cleo Fields of Louisiana, Lauren Gillen of New York, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, Marcy Kaptur of Ohio, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, and Eugene Vindman of Virginia joined all voting Republicans in supporting the Parental Rights Over The Education and Care of Their (PROTECT) Kids Act.

Many of these Democrats are facing tough reelection prospects.

Gonzalez, Kaptur, and Perez are in “Toss-Up” races, while Davis is in a “Lean R” race, according to The Cook Political Report. Cuellar and Gillen have a slight edge in “Lean D” races.

While only a select few Democrats voted for the bill, also known as HR 2616, parental rights have been a priority for Republicans. House Republicans also passed a parental bill of rights in 2023.

Strong opposition to the bill came from the Congressional Equality Caucus, which nicknamed it the “Republicans’ Don’t Say Trans & Forced Outing Bill.” Chairman Mark Takano, D-Calif., in a statement, lambasted Republicans by bringing up their belief in small government and claiming the GOP is endangering the lives of trans students.

“The forced outing provision of this bill puts teachers in an impossible situation by requiring them to out trans kids to their parents in certain situations—even if the teacher knows the student will likely face physical abuse. Students like these are who Republicans want to put in immediate physical danger with this bill,” he also claimed.

The White House indicated that President Donald Trump would sign HR 2616, referring to the bill as “a crucial legislative step to defend children from radical ideology in schools.”

The Public Supports Parental Consent

Defending Education polling from 2023 shows 71% of voters support such a bill on parental consent and that majorities still support it even when broken down by race and political party.

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, who framed the bill as one where parents and schools “should be working together to support student success—not at odds with one another,” emphasizing student success as a reason he hoped his bill would receive bipartisan support.

“This legislation moves us in that direction by strengthening trust, improving transparency, and keeping the focus where it belongs—on students’ education,” he said.

Walberg also pointed to a Defending Education study, explaining that it found “at least 21,000 schools across the U.S. have policies that allow or encourage staff to hide a student’s name change or gender identity,” adding that “a lack of transparency risks confusion, undermines trust, and weakens the essential partnership between families and schools.”

Families have been impacted by schools transitioning their children without any consent or awareness, leading to lawsuits.

“Many schools are engaged in systematic attempts to erode parental rights,” Walberg said. “Schools are facilitating gender transitions or encouraging students to change their names and pronouns without telling parents.” These are “enormously consequential decisions that have lasting impacts on a child’s well-being and development.”

He also highlighted a desire for there to be more of a focus on academics. “Why aren’t schools more focused on helping students recover academically?” Walberg wondered. “Test scores in key subjects remain stagnant or have declined, and students are still working to overcome pandemic-era learning loss.”

Stutzman must have forgotten the 2024 election. Mass deportations, reminiscent of President Dwight Eisenhower’s, were one of the marquee promises of President Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign. Axios polling published in 2024 revealed the majority of Americans supported mass deportation (including a surprisingly high 41% of Democrats). Stutzman ought to know these things, but instead he has decided to sponsor one of the worst-written pieces of immigration legislation in history.

From Stutzman admitting he knows farmers who are employing illegal aliens under the table to revealing that the author—Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla.—has been lying to the American public about her desire for amnesty, the congressman’s defense of the DIGNIDAD Act proves why it ought to be rejected.

The “party line” on the DIGNIDAD Act from its GOP co-sponsors has been that the bill would not apply to anyone who arrived illegally during the Biden administration. During the interview, Stutzman said several times that this would mean it would apply to approximately 10 million illegal aliens. However, a 2017 MIT study estimated the number of illegal immigrants who arrived between 1990 and 2016 at around 22 million.

The DIGNIDAD Act would grant legal status, therefore, to the vast majority of illegal aliens in the country. It’s worth noting that Salazar has previously said she sees legal status as a first step on the path to citizenship. The bill also specifically states that records of gang membership are not disqualifying for legal status, allows an alien with a single DUI conviction to qualify for legal status, and allows DHS to waive certain grounds for inadmissibility in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Stutzman told Kinnett that he believes the bad provisions in the bill would be stripped in the amendment process. However, if, as he has stated to Kinnett and in other interviews, he is sponsoring this for the registration of the illegals as a national security measure, then the question arises: Why not write a bill that only does that? Why sign onto a bill that the author hopes will lead to citizenship for tens of millions of illegal immigrants?

At best, the congressman is engaging in an act of supreme legislative malpractice by gambling with mass amnesty. It is hard to pin him down, though.

In a July 2025 interview with WOWO’s Kayla Blakeslee, he said, “[DIGNIDAD] does not limit ICE from doing their jobs.” However, Section 1122 is specifically designated to severely limit enforcement in “sensitive locations.” When Kinnett brought this up, Stutzman didn’t push back at all.

This raises yet another question: Had Stutzman not read this when he signed on and defended it to Blakeslee, or was he knowingly lying?

The DIGNIDAD Act is deeply flawed, setting aside Stutzman’s inconsistent rhetoric defending it.

Salazar’s own duplicitous rhetoric is also worth noting. Despite having stated that she sees legal status as the first step on a path to citizenship, she is now claiming the bill would provide “Dignity not Amnesty.” In fact, at the time of writing, her pinned post on X says just that.

Stutzman, though, outed her. He told Kinnett, “Previous drafts of the bill had citizenship as a part of that, and I told Congresswoman Maria Salazar I absolutely would not sign on to the bill.”

Salazar’s previous statements, and this new revelation, make the slippery slope a very real possibility. As Kinnett pointed out, “We’ve seen this with making drugs that were higher on the schedule list a lot lower because, after all, it’s already been reduced, so why not reduce it even further? We’ve seen it on, carrying out certain sentences for less harsh punishments … Why aren’t we going to see maybe this kind of … permission structure carried on?”

Kinnett’s line of questioning is correct, and frankly you’d have to be dangerously naïve to look at recent history and think anything else will happen.

DIGNIDAD undercuts the mandate on immigration the Trump administration received in 2024. Hopefully, someone can refresh Stutzman’s memory on that.

Kinnett posed a question to Stutzman that all the DIGNIDAD Act’s GOP sponsors need to answer: “Is there a point that it would become so egregious that you would pull sponsorship?”

I doubt it. If the bill’s contents aren’t already egregious enough, it seems that its co-sponsors just don’t care.

“This is a growing crime, in fact, it has grown over 125 percent—adults using minors to go after other minors,” Strickland said in an interview with the Daily Signal.

Strickland compared this crime to how gangs will sometimes force minors to commit crimes on the gang’s behalf, often called “crash dummies.”

“There was a loophole in our state law, and now what it does is hold the adult accountable who uses a minor to go after another minor.”

Strickland says the bill he introduced, the Protecting Our Children from Online Extortion Act, would close this loophole.

The bill is described as expanding California’s extortion statute by “explicitly adding sexual conduct, intimate images, and explicit images generated by artificial intelligence (AI) to the categories of conduct that can be used to commit extortion.”

In a post to X, Barnes, who worked with Strickland to bring forth the bill, shared why he feels the bill is necessary to protect children. 

Strickland shared why he’s not just concerned about these crimes as a legislator, but as a father. 

“As a father, not just as a legislator, we need to close this loophole and hold these adults accountable who are using minors. Again, this is one of the fastest growing crimes, if you ask Sheriff Don Barnes.”

When asked by the Daily Signal what parents can do to prevent these crimes, Strickland argued that increasing parental awareness and strengthening state law are both necessary as online predators become more sophisticated in targeting children through digital platforms.

“People are finding out different ways to get to our kids … monitor and know what your kids are watching, that’s one. No. 2, call your local legislator and tell them to support this bill because it’s important we close this loophole.”

SB 1015 is currently pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The discussion begins with a central question: Who gets to define hate and extremism in America, and what happens when powerful institutions use public trust as political cover?

Jordan addresses concerns surrounding the Southern Poverty Law Center, questions about federal law enforcement’s use of outside organizations, the expanding Arctic Frost investigation, and whether Republicans have delivered what voters expected when they gave the GOP power in Washington.

The conversation ends on the question voters are asking ahead of the midterms: Did Republicans keep their promise?

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal.  

There’s been a very strange story that was printed not long ago by the liberal opinion journalist Nicholas Kristof. Now, apparently, he’s been retired. He’s written for decades at The New York Times.  

He’s sort of a social activist. He does some good things sometimes, but he tries to draw attention of The New York Times readership to supposed crises of morality all over the globe, such as the so-called genocide. And it depends on who you talk to. In Darfur, he visited it very many times. But he’s had a checkered career. 

During the anthrax scare near the millennium, he wrote a series of articles suggesting that a government scientist was responsible for sending that deadly anthrax bacillus in the mail to particular people.  

There was no real evidence of that. The person was never formally charged. And there was litigation back and forth. 

He also ran for governor of Oregon, where he moved as a young man, and his family has a farm. But he hadn’t lived there. He’d been, of course, living on the East Coast because he was working at The New York Times. The Democratic secretary of state disqualified him from trying to run for governor in 2022, arguing that his main residence was elsewhere, out of state. 

She was a liberal Democrat like he is, and yet he got very angry and accused her of being politically biased and corrupt. The Oregon Supreme Court, very liberal, upheld that decision, so although he’d raised $1.6 million, he could not stay—he could not run for governor. 

But here’s what he’s done recently. He’s written an article that alleges that prisoners following the Oct. 7 massacre of Jews in Israel by the Hamas terrorist organization and people of Gaza, who tagged along. Many of them were caught in jail, and some directly involved in the assault, some just in the subsequent operations in Gaza itself.  

And he’s interviewed them. Many of them are anonymous. And he says that they have been systematically raped, molested, tortured. 

But what got the sensational coverage for these allegations was that he said that in some cases, and one in particular, a former Hamas person said that he had been raped inside an Israeli jail by a canine, by a dog. And that this was a part of an Israeli policy to train canines to rape inmates and to abuse them. 

There’s a lot of things wrong with that.  

First of all, most of the sourcing for the article either came from the Euro-Med website, which is hard-Left, anti-Israeli, and founded by someone who’s closely connected with Hamas.  

Second, most of the sources were anonymous. Third, the ones that were not, are affiliated in many cases with the Hamas terrorist group. 

But most strange of all, there is no scientific proof that a trainer or an owner can prepare a dog to commit sexual intercourse against a human’s will or against a human at all.  

Dogs don’t rape people. To the degree that there has been any recorded incidents of dog-human sexual content, it’s in the context of bestiality. 

That is, an owner coaxing a dog in some fashion to have intercourse, but there’s no … Dog sexuality is so different from humans. You can’t just say to a dog, “Achieve sexual preparedness and go have intercourse in a forcible manner against that victim.”  

It doesn’t happen. And yet, Nicholas Kristof doubled down and said there was scientific evidence that it happened, and it didn’t. That was a complete fabrication. 

And when he said that it wasn’t necessarily the rule in Israeli jails, he said it was systematic. So the article is self-contradictory. 

 It’s based on either left-wing, anti-Israeli sources or pro-Hamas informants. Most of them anonymous.  

He has a history of not being reliable, even though his reputation is one of being a global humanitarian who tries to draw our attention to abuses. 

There’s one final thing. It wasn’t just a sin of commission. There was a sin of omission. Let me define what I mean by that. He knew, as did The New York Times, that Israel had been conducting an exhaustive investigation, exhaustive, over almost two and a half years, to find out what actually happened on Oct. 7. 

And they had all sorts of evidence. They had prisoners who confessed to what they did. And remember, these didn’t need to be coerced. In the Hamas mindset, they want to brag on what they did. They’re proud of it. They had instruction booklets telling them how to say, “Spread your legs,” and other commands in Hebrew. 

They were greeted as heroes by Gazan civilians when they came back and heard the story. When they brought back over 240 hostages, the hostages were in danger of losing their lives from an angry mob.  

So, there was no reticence on the part of cooperating with the Israelis. Then they had people who survived the attack who had testimonies. Then they had extensive photographs of the bodies of the slain.  

They had camera footage from the Hamas terrorists who were so exuberant and happy to kill Jews that they actually filmed it on their military helmets.  

And they collated all of that evidence together, and the result was medieval. It was a story of people losing their limbs, of women being raped repeatedly, gang-raped, being shot, being mutilated, being sexually—in a sexually perverted manner tortured, children beheaded. It’s horrific beyond words. 

That systematic report was coming out and has now appeared. 

And so, the supposition is that Nicholas Kristof, who’s very anti-Israel, cooked up an idea that he would preempt this story by an even cruder, weirder, surreal story that, well, whatever Hamas did to the Israelis that you’re going to read this week, that’s the implication—not explicit, but implicit. 

 It’s not going to be as bad as what I’m going to tell you, because the Israelis train dogs to rape people. 

That is the biggest blood libel and slur against the Jewish people that I’ve ever heard. And yet, The New York Times, which always brags about fact-checking, didn’t fact-check it at all.  

And the result is he is now being sued by the Israeli government and the Netanyahu administration. I don’t think that’s going to go anywhere. It’s very hard for a foreign country to sue an individual, especially when the prime minister is in the public realm. But it’s going to draw attention to The New York Times in general and Nicholas Kristof in particular. 

He has skated on thin ice for a long time. And he’s not a reliable opinion journalist. And this confirms that he should not be writing for The New York Times.  

It’s a free country. If they want to peddle these lies and these libels, they’re welcome to. But it’s going to destroy their reputation if he comes back again and pursues what he’s been doing for a long time. 

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

“It is a crisis in Minnesota,” claimed Colin McDonald, assistant attorney general for fraud enforcement, in a DOJ press conference. “A culture of fraud has taken root.”

FBI Director Kash Patel posted to X that the FBI and the Justice Department’s investigation revealed the defendants allegedly fraudulently obtained over $90 million from taxpayers, thereby preventing those funds from going toward legitimate Medicaid recipients.

“These charges involve the two LARGEST Medicaid fraud cases ever charged in this district and first-of-their-kind charges involving 7 additional Medicaid programs,” according to Patel.

Among these programs, Patel cited examples such as the “Housing Stabilization Services, Child Care, Medicaid programs, Individualized Home Supports (IHS) and more.”

One individual allegedly fraudulently obtained over $40 million from Early Intensive Development and Behavioral Intervention, a Minnesota Department of Human Services program intended to offer “medically necessary services and supports to people under the age of 21 with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or related conditions.”

In this scheme, the defendants allegedly used autism centers to bill for services not actually provided. According to Patel, “This not only defrauded taxpayers, but robbed valuable resources from families truly in need.”

McDonald also addressed the indictment.

He said that some of these programs had to “completely shut down” because the money dedicated to them was fraudulently drained out, costing taxpayers 50 times more than the state allotted when creating these programs.

These 15 indictments come after a series of fraud scandals in Minnesota, often involving the Somali community. According to Former Attorney General Pam Bondi, these 15 indictments added to the 98 already charged as of December 2025. Among these 98, 60 have been found guilty thus far.

McDonald pledged to continue the work of the DOJ until every fraudster in Minnesota is charged. He said, “This is not the end of the beginning of our work in Minnesota. This is the beginning of our work in Minnesota.”

McDonald then addressed the fraudsters directly. He said, “We will not rest until every fraudster knows that the cost of stealing from the American people is far higher than any scheme is worth.”

During Wednesday’s hearing, Republican and Democrat members brought up the justice’s viewpoint on commenting on the 2020 election.

In one of the more dramatic exchanges, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., asked Flowers who won the 2020 election.

“It wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on the outcomes of any election, except to say, legally speaking, Joe Biden was certified,” Flowers replied, echoing the response Jackson gave when she was a federal judge.

When Blumenthal kept pressing him for an answer, Flowers called Jackson’s argument persuasive and said it wouldn’t be appropriate for him to answer.

Blumenthal, clearly irritated at the exchange, replied, “Frankly, I know Justice Jackson. You’re no Justice Jackson.”

During opening statements, Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, accused his Democrat colleagues of committing “political theater” with their questions about certifying the 2020 election.

Grassley stressed that when Jackson was asked if she ever commented on the 2016 or 2020 election results, the justice replied that “it would be inappropriate … to publicly weigh into any subject of political debate.”

“Justice Jackson, like every nominee to come before this committee, didn’t think it was appropriate for a judicial nominee to weigh into a political debate concerning the results of the 2020 election,” Grassley said, adding that his Democrat colleagues were not “outraged” at her response.

“Her answer then, like the answers of the judicial nominees recently, was entirely prudent and unremarkable,” he also added.

Flowers referenced Grassley’s opening statement in his own responses throughout the hearing.

The exchange grabbed the attention of many Ohio conservatives, including state Reps. Brian Stewart and Adam Mathews, Turning Point USA’s Gabe Guidarini, and Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer, who all chimed in on X.

Appearing Thursday on Fox News’ “The Faulkner Focus,” Cooke argued that Democrats have yet to meaningfully reckon with their 2024 election losses, dismissing internal post-election reviews as inadequate.

“They are a day late and millions of voters now too short as we are looking at the midterms,” Cooke said of a post-election autopsy report released on Thursday by Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin. “This was not an autopsy—it was a confession on the Democrat side that they lost touch with millions of working-class, young men … and they still haven’t learned anything.”

Cooke criticized Democrats for being “border blind” amid surging illegal immigration and for overcomplicating core issues affecting voters.

“They are blaming themselves and then their TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome] is overcomplicating the fact that voters today matter the most,” she said. “That’s how you deliver—by addressing the economy and ensuring working-class Americans are heard.”

Cooke predicted electoral consequences, arguing that Democrats “don’t know who they are” and are grappling with “the biggest identity crisis they are facing.”

The segment also turned to controversy surrounding a Texas congressional candidate, Maureen Galindo, who won the Democrat primary in March before drawing backlash over anti-Zionist remarks. Cooke condemned the comments as dangerous and reflective of a broader trend.

“Antisemitism does not belong in America, but guess what? Democrats have allowed it to find a safe haven,” Cooke said. “This was the No. 1 candidate in her primary—which means Democrat voters knew exactly what they were choosing.”

Cooke warned against dismissing such rhetoric as isolated, arguing instead that it reflects a growing radicalism.

“We don’t need another American Holocaust,” she said, calling the candidate’s comments an attempt to “isolate Americans on our religious and political ideology.”

Cooke urged Republicans to forcefully confront what she described as rising anti-Jewish sentiment.

“This is the moment for the Republican Party,” she said. “We need to call out the hate, stand up, man up, and tell Americans what is really happening.”

She concluded that political leaders must stop fueling division and address the concerns of everyday Americans before it’s too late.