Color me shocked.

Mamdani announced in a press conference Wednesday that New York City faces a financial “crisis of historic magnitude” and asked the City Council for extended time to submit his budget. What a surprise that the young mayor is late to turn in his first big homework assignment.

Mamdani is correct that he faces a huge problem, though. The city’s budget deficit over the next few years is projected to rise to about $12 billion.

To put that number into perspective, New York City’s deficit is bigger than the entire budget of about a dozen states.

Mamdani blamed this financial calamity on his predecessor, Mayor Eric Adams, of course.

You can be sure that New York Democrats will return to the “blame Adams” well for some time given that they practically threw him out of the party for opposing President Joe Biden’s open border policies.

Adams does deserve some of the blame. So, does the entire New York City political apparatus—which is notably bereft of Republicans. But this reality is hardly an endorsement of Mamdani’s platform, at least for those not totally bought into the socialist flim-flam sauce he’s selling.

Mamdani never said he’d reduce his predecessor’s spending, far from it. Instead, his entire campaign was built on giving new, “free” things away. Free childcare, free buses, and government-run grocery stores were all at the top of Mamdani’s agenda. All that free stuff doesn’t come cheap.

Mamdani’s excuse for why he can’t afford to fund all these programs is that the city doesn’t collect enough money. Keep in mind, the New York City budget is larger than that of nearly every state in the union, despite having a much lower population than many.

That’s still not enough to fund Mamdani’s grandiose proposals.

“Years of mismanagement and chronic under budgeting, alongside a structural imbalance between what New York City sends to the state and what we receive in return, have taken a toll,” he said, insisting that the problem was one of “revenue.”

In a sense this was all part of the plan. Mamdani spent his first months messaging about how he was frantically searching for money to give to you, the people. Finding nothing, he’ll now seek to do more of what he spoke about gleefully on Tax Day: tax the rich. Or at least say he’s taxing the rich while actually squeezing money out of everyone.

He’s also clearly angling to get a bailout from New York State.

New York City is nearly tapped out, but surely there are more people to soak elsewhere. Unfortunately, the state is running on fumes. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has been reduced to begging rich former New Yorkers living in Florida to please come back to pay for all the fraud, er, I mean wonderful government programs.

This has created an interesting dynamic where Hochul is forced to play a push and pull game over money with a mayor who is quite popular with the Democratic base.

But even in a scenario in which Mamdani gets some kind of bailout from Albany, the future of what was once the financial capital of the U.S. is looking murky.

Mamdani is refusing to take his foot off the spending gas. His further plans put even the previous high revenue in jeopardy. And people are leaving. The “rich” certainly have been, but recent trends show that pretty much every demographic has been fleeing the state as of late (besides the hordes of Biden’s immigrant “asylum” seekers).

The Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit think tank, did a study on New York City and found that after the post-COVID-19 influx of immigrants the Big Apple continued its trend of population decline.

This reality is even more dire when one considers that the people leaving typically have more taxable wealth than those arriving.

“Net domestic outmigration not only affects population, but also the taxable income that stays in New York,” the Citizens Budget Commission study read. “Not all income earned by NYC residents moves when they move, but some does. Furthermore, per capita income indicates that in-movers typically earn less than out-movers.  Between 2019 and 2023, New Yorkers who moved out made $68 billion more than those who moved to New York City. This includes a shift of $14 billion to Florida, $2 billion to Texas, and $23 billion to other parts of New York State.”

That leaves Mamdani and his fellow Democrats trapped in an ongoing turf war over who they are allowed to pillage.

As New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino—one of the few Republican officials left in the city—said in an interview with talk show host Glenn Beck, Mamdani’s ideas to get more money are “insane.”

The reality for Mamdani and his friends in the city council is that their larger budget problem can’t be solved with a short- or long-term bailout or tax gimmicks to milk every last dollar out of businesses that may not be around much longer.

The problem is baked into their governing model that’s long on promises, short on examples of success. The New Era of socialism is already looking so much like the old ones. Oh well, you get what you vote for.

“I haven’t heard officially that it is dead, but it shows no signs of life,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D‑Conn., told The Daily Signal.

Democrats have repeatedly likened the measure to “Jim Crow 2.0” and argued it would disenfranchise voters.

Asked whether Trump and hard‑line conservatives could revive the bill ahead of the midterms, Blumenthal predicted it would remain dormant. “It seems to be lacking any kind of momentum,” he said.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D‑Va., said Democrats must stay vigilant despite the bill’s failure to advance.

“Even if it hasn’t passed, there are members here and the president who still really want to do it,” Kaine told The Daily Signal, adding that an attempt could still be made to pass the measure by unanimous consent on the Senate floor.

Kaine also declined to speculate on whether Senate Republican Leader John Thune would pursue changes to chamber rules, such as abolishing the filibuster, but signaled confidence that Thune would not.

Republicans on Capitol Hill have previously categorized Thune’s previous efforts to allegedly bring the bill to a vote as theatrics.

Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D‑N.M., echoed Kaine’s assessment, saying the legislation appears driven more by only some members who want to push politics.

“I don’t know if President Trump has given up on passing the SAVE America Act. We’ll see what happens legislatively between now and the midterms,” Luján said. “This feels like it’s more about the midterms than anything else.”

Luján added that he and other senators have highlighted concerns about the bill’s impact nationwide. “I was one of the colleagues on the floor who shed light on how this would hurt all states, not just some,” he said.

Republican House lawmakers have said Thune has urged colleagues to avoid publicly discussing abolishing the filibuster. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R‑Fla., also wrote on social media that Thune told lawmakers there would be “no SAVE America Act.”

When asked by The Daily Signal to respond to the claims directed at him by his congressional colleagues, Thune said he “will look for a window” to bring the bill to the floor for a vote.

“We didn’t have a vote on it last week because of the budget resolution and the Kennedy amendment,” Thune added.

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

We’re approaching 60 days of the so-called Iran war, and we’re still getting these loud voices that Donald Trump has failed, that the war’s not going well.

It’s completely nonempirical. It’s antithetical to the evidence. 

Here we are at 60 days, and Iran is losing about $500 million in input per day. It’s running out of storage space in a week or two for its daily output of oil, at which point they either have to stop pumping or they’re going to have—if they don’t stop pumping—their wells will collapse. 

They either have to stop pumping, or they have to build, as fast as they can, storage facilities, which will be known to us and we can take out. 

So, they’re at the brink economically. They have no military ability. The course of the war, how it ends, is entirely in the hands of the United States. It depends on whether you want an unconditional surrender and you want to pay an extra price—maybe another month or two—with economic strangulation, or you want to use air power to take out bridges, and you can do that. 

What I’m getting at is it’s not a military problem like Afghanistan and Helmand Province, or the Marines having to go into Fallujah in Iraq. It’s entirely a political problem. It’s not a military problem. The military problem has been solved. It’s just a question of how much political price does President Donald Trump—or risk, I should say—want to take to get an unconditional surrender and the removal of the regime. 

He doesn’t need to do that. That was not one of his prewar agendas. The prewar agenda was to neutralize the nuclear proliferation of Iran, the missile and drone force, to attrite its military so it was not capable of conducting war, to stop the subsidies to its terrorist proxies, and to make sure it no longer attacked Americans and our allies as it has for 47 years. These have mostly been met—not quite, but mostly. 

So, what are the ripples strategically? Well, just recently, OPEC has announced—I should say the United Arab Emirates and perhaps Oman as well—that they don’t want to be in OPEC. Remember about OPEC: It was formed in 1973, and the whole purpose was to drive up the price of oil, and they did that by not pumping what they could pump. 

So, right now, they have each individual country has a quota, and that’s only about 70% or 80% of what they could pump if they were not in the cartel. That is what the United States is pumping right now—maximum. Russia will probably be pumping at maximum very soon. Venezuela will be pumping at maximum very soon. 

But what you’re talking about is 2 million barrels, maybe, from the UAE alone. Maybe if Saudi Arabia gets out, they can pump another 20%. What I’m getting at is the long-range strategic value of the Straits of Hormuz are going to decline because all of these countries, once they see one person getting out and taking advantage of these high prices, they will swarm to get out. 

But once they get out and pump more oil—and they’re immediately capable of pumping more oil—the price will drop, and the Straits of Hormuz will not be so important. And that will not be good for Iran if it has oil wells at all in two or three weeks. 

The other thing to remember is China. Everybody talks about, “Well, China, China, China.”

China hasn’t come out well. It had threatened to go into Taiwan all of the Biden administration. Year after year, it issued videos of bombing Japan, threatening to take out Taiwan, lecturing people: “Don’t tell us that we can’t take it.” 

Pundits saying that they were emboldened by the Russians. I never understood that—Russia is in a Stalingrad-like quagmire. But once they looked at this type of war—an air war in a gulf—and they were thinking, we have to transmit, what, 300,000 troops or so across 110 miles of open sea. And from what we can see from the Americans, the Israelis, these Western powers have enormous ability to flood the zone with drones, with missiles, sophisticated air defenses, submarine drones, surface drones. It could be a nightmare. 

And that’s not talking about the Taiwanese ability to defend themselves as well. So, in a cost-benefit analysis, I think the message is the United States can pretty much do what it wants militarily, and China will be somewhat deterred. 

Remember that it has lost its hold in Venezuela and in Iran. It was basically, along with Russia, controlling the Maduro regime, buying their sanctioned oil for a discount, selling them arms, trying to spread their influence in Latin America—the Panama Canal was a good example. 

And the same was true of Iran. They were buying sanctioned oil at a discount and then flooding Iran with sophisticated weapons and hoping Iran would use those weapons to hamper or neuter Israel and attack United States installations, as they did in Syria and Iraq. And then China wanted Iran—which they did—to supply Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. 

That’s going to be over with. Iran is broke. The people will not stand for—or the government won’t be so stupid when they’re impoverished—to start giving, what, $50-$60 million a month to Arab terrorists just so they can cause havoc when the people are starving. 

And they’ve lost probably a half a trillion dollars of a 50-year investment in their military, industrial, and nuclear industries. 

So, China’s on the losing end. Russia had lost the Assad regime. They were kicked out of the Middle East. They have a temporary little blip because the price of oil is going up. But as I said, with the breakup of OPEC and the increased production in Venezuela and the United States, as soon as this thing calms down, the price of oil is going to crash, and Russia will be a big loser in this. 

More importantly, they saw, again, a demonstration of U.S. air power, and maybe by extension, they correlated it with NATO proficiency. So I think they will try to get out of the war and get as much territory as they can along the existing battlefield today—maybe call it a DMZ. But they’re running out of people and money. They’ve lost a million and a half soldiers. 

And so, this war probably reminded them that they don’t have very many strategic options elsewhere, and they can’t develop them as long as they’re tied down in Ukraine. 

Europe was a big, big, big loser. They had forged a relationship with Donald Trump. They had agreed for a 2% and had met that 2% investment of GDP in defense, but they were talking about 5%. NATO had called Trump “Daddy,” and then all of a sudden Trump assumed they were normal allies. 

So, when he went in there, he didn’t want to disclose what he was going to do because he felt the U.S. Left and the Congress, or the Europeans would tell—and they would have revealed any type of surprise. 

But more importantly, he felt that the Spanish, the Italians, the British, the French—all of them—would just say, “No comment,” or “This is a United States effort. We support our NATO ally,” and then call him up and say “Donald, were not going to talk about it but use our airspace, use out NATO bases you pay for most of them. And this is what were gonna do but were gonna do it under the radar.”

No. Instead, they pandered to their Islamic constituencies, their left-wing constituencies. In Spain, even in Italy with Meloni, they said: No bombers in Sicily. No planes in Spain. Can’t fly over France. Can’t use Diego Garcia unless it’s for defensive purposes. 

What is a defensive strike? What does that mean? We’ll let you have a missile battery if somebody tries to destroy our base—we’ll allow you to defend our base—but don’t take off anywhere and attack anybody. 

It was absolutely ridiculous. Europe came off really badly—really badly. 

And then they made it worse when they said they were going to patrol the strait and then they realized the Strait might be kinetic, and they would have to use some force if we were to turn it over to them and they don’t have that force. So, it’s all talk, talk, talk, and it’s based on envy and anger at the United States. 

And it’s a very dangerous game they’re playing because at some point the United States says: We love you. Europe’s a great place. You’ve got problems—just settle them yourself. Maybe we’ll have a coalition of the willing, just like you did in Serbia. 

You went into Serbia—that wasn’t a NATO country. Kosovo—you weren’t protecting a NATO country. You went into Libya—those people weren’t in NATO. But you freelance all the time—in Chad, in the Falklands you people—and we always help you. And then when we want to freelance, you’re reluctant. 

So, go ahead, do what you want, but count us out. 

And finally, the American Left kept saying the war was lost—the war was lost—the war was lost. Donald Trump blew it. 

Don’t count him out. We have six months before the midterms. The price of oil could crash. A lot of the things Donald Trump put into practice—with the big, beautiful bill, deregulation, tax cuts, enormous amount of foreign investment—all of that has plenty of time to kick in in August or July and have a stronger economy than we do now, with cheap oil. 

More importantly, he can say that in his regime, his realm, his tenure, he neutralized the threat from Venezuela. It’s not spreading communism throughout South America—Latin America, and he neutralized the Middle East in a way that all seven prior presidents had dreamed and had never done.

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

“We have a ripe moment in this new era to advance causes that are really good for families,” Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said at an event celebrating The Heritage Foundation’s newest policy paper, “Saving America by Saving the Family.” “The federal government has a real role to play here,” he continued.

According to the paper, America is facing a crisis. Fewer than half of U.S. households are headed by a married couple, 40% of children are born outside of marriage, and the fertility rate dropped to a record low in 2024—1.59 births per woman, well below the 2.1 births per woman needed to meet population replacement.

All of these factors have a serious and direct impact on the economy. The more people there are to contribute to the economy and the country, the stronger the nation becomes.

Banks shared that he was always a social conservative, “first concerned about our culture.” But now, he said he knows that these pro-family causes directly impact economic issues.

President Donald Trump has begun to champion these ideas brought forward by The Heritage Foundation, which is asking whether America can be saved by first saving the family. Some of the main concepts in the policy paper have already been put into motion by the federal government, whether through the Trump administration or Congress.

Banks highlighted ideas such as school choice, choice in child care, reforming the inheritance tax, and creating tax-exempt savings accounts for newlyweds. These are ideas that will “encourage younger couples to get married younger, have kids younger, and preserve this spring country as our founders imagine,” he said.

“What is … more important than conserving the family? Child tax credits, I think, kind of opened the door to an understanding that pro-family tax policy and economic policy are critical to protecting and conserving the family. And the family is fundamental to the survival of our country and our American culture,” Banks continued.

“My mom and dad saw the American dream, and I’ve lived the American dream. I’ve seen it. … Marriage is the silver bullet to avoid poverty.”

After Fidelity Investments and Vanguard Financial announced they would stop issuing grants to the SPLC due to the indictment, The Daily Signal reached out to 15 companies on the Fortune 1000 whose foundations sent the SPLC more than $10,000 since 2020.

Two of these companies have followed Fidelity’s lead in stating that the SPLC will not be eligible to receive grants through donor-advised funds due to the federal indictment.

“Corporate donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center underscore the need for companies to ensure they are not inadvertently supporting extremism,” Dustin DeVito, director of research at 1792 Exchange, told The Daily Signal in a statement Friday.

“Companies that outsource charitable giving programs to providers like Benevity should also verify that those platforms are not relying on defamatory SPLC smears to exclude eligible charities,” he added.

SPLC Scandals

Last week, a federal grand jury indicted the SPLC on wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy charges for sending money to members of the very white supremacist groups the center claims it exists to dismantle. The SPLC did not deny funding members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations, but insisted the funds were part of an informant program that it used to prevent violent attacks.

The indictment, however, suggests that the SPLC didn’t just pay these field agents—it actually supervised “racist postings” for an organizer of the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally.

The claim that the SPLC might be propping up hate in order to raise money aligns with long-term criticism of the group. Critics have long said the SPLC puts mainstream conservative and Christian groups on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan in order to exaggerate the threat of “hate” and raise money by presenting itself as the key opponent of “hate.” The group has even put groups of medical professionals on the “hate map” for disagreeing with the SPLC’s outspoken support for transgender medical interventions.

Major Companies Funding SPLC

At least 15 major companies have given the SPLC at least $10,000 since 2020, according to an analysis from 1792 Exchange confirmed by The Daily Signal’s own research. Of these, only Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Thrivent Financial, and T. Rowe Price responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time.

1. Gilead Sciences: $750,000

The foundation of the biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences gave the SPLC $500,000 in 2022 “to promote student health & wellbeing by advancing education equity,” and another $250,000 in 2023 for the same purpose.

2. Raymond James Financial: $689,079

The investment bank Raymond James Financial gave the SPLC $78,505 in the year ending March 2021, $96,360 in the year ending March 2023, $105,375 the following year, and $408,839 the year after.

3. BNY Charitable: $428,500

BNY, formerly the Bank of New York, gave $428,500 to the SPLC since 2020.

The BNY Mellon Charitable Gift Fund gave the SPLC: $115,000 in 2020, $174,000 in 2021, $35,000 in 2022, $51,250 in 2023, and $53,250 in 2024.

4. PayPal: $310,435

PayPal Charitable Giving Fund gave the SPLC: $158,936 in 2020, $68,166 in 2021, $44,007 in 2022, and $39,326 in 2023.

5. T. Rowe Price: $235,425

The investment management firm T. Rowe Price gave the SPLC: $7,150 in the year ending March 2021, $45,650 the following year, $51,225 the next year, $50,500 ahead of March 2024, and $80,900 in the most recent available filing.

“T. Rowe Price Charitable is aware of the federal indictment involving the SPLC,” the company told The Daily Signal in a statement Friday. “We are closely monitoring the legal process and will continue to observe the situation, taking action as necessary to ensure compliance with applicable regulatory and oversight standards.”

6. Allstate: $125,000

The foundation for the insurance company Allstate gave the SPLC: $100,000 in 2023 for “defending and expanding the rights of low-income black and brown workers in the Deep South,” and $25,000 in 2024 for a “racial equity go grant.”

7. TIAA: $101,575

The foundation for the Fortune 500 financial services company TIAA gave the SPLC: $78,745 in 2020, and $22,830 for the year ending in May 2021. The foundation closed in 2021, transferring the accounts to Renaissance Charitable Foundation.

8. Goldman Sachs: $90,500

The Goldman Sachs Charitable Gift Fund gave the SPLC: $47,000 in the year ending June 2020, $10,000 in the following year, $13,000 the year after, $10,000 the next year, and $10,500 ahead of June 2024.

“We would not allow donations from our donor advised funds to be directed to an organization under federal criminal indictment,” Tony Fratto, global head of communications for Goldman Sachs, told The Daily Signal in a statement Wednesday.

9. Thrivent Financial: $52,237

The Fortune 500 nonprofit financial services company Thrivent Financial for Lutherans gave the SPLC: $6,239 in 2020, $10,424 in 2021, $12,150 in 2022, $10,336 in 2023, and $13,088 in 2024.

“Thrivent’s generosity programs help clients direct charitable donations to more than 60,000 eligible nonprofits,” Justin Herndon, the nonprofit’s director of public relations, told The Daily Signal in a statement Thursday.

“While client-directed gifts to the SPLC were previously allowed, we recently reviewed the organization against our program criteria and suspended them from our list of eligible organizations pending further review,” he announced.

10. JPMorgan Chase: $46,373

The JPMorgan Chase Foundation gave the SPLC: $14,519 in 2020, $10,846 in 2021, $7,534 in 2022, $7,405 in 2023, and $6,069 in 2024.

Of note: JPMorgan Chase also contributed $500,000 to the SPLC after the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville. The company would not comment when asked about Charlottesville, and did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

11. Northrop Grumman: $31,093

The foundation for the defense technology company Northrop Grumman gave the SPLC $31,093 in 2020.

12. Pfizer: $29,955

The foundation for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer gave the SPLC: $11,528 in 2021, $6,678 in 2022, $7,224 in 2023, and $4,525 in 2024.

13. GE Aerospace: $23,241

The foundation for the jet engine maker GE Aerospace gave the SPLC: $17,649 in 2020, $2,557 in 2021, $2,125 in 2022, and $910 in 2023.

14. Bank of America: $40,586

The Bank of America Charitable Foundation matches the grants employees give to various entities, including the SPLC. Bank of America Charitable gave the SPLC: $18,681 in 2021, $10,190 in 2021, $6,466 in 2022, and $5,249 in 2023.

A Bank of America spokesperson clarified that those contributions came from an employee matching grant program, for which all IRS-designated 501(c)(3) nonprofits are eligible.

15. Liberty Mutual: $10,000

The foundation for the insurance company Liberty Mutual gave the SPLC $10,000 in 2022.

The 34 rules placed in the Federal Register on Wednesday included reversing a 2024 Biden administration rule that attempted to force firearms dealers to run background checks on buyers at gun shows. Gun control advocates called this the “gun show loophole.”

Another change ends the 2023 Biden administration rule that restricted pistol braces. Pistol braces are attachments that allow a person holding a pistol to keep the weapon against their shoulder. The Biden administration justified the regulation by claiming the attachment turned the pistol into a barreled rifle that is subject to stronger regulation.

Earlier this week, the Senate confirmed Robert Cekada as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“ATF’s mission is to protect public safety and enforce the law—and these reforms reflect our commitment to doing that through regulations that are clear, legally sound, and narrowly tailored to that purpose,” Cekada said in a statement. “Our enforcement focus from here on out is on willful violators and criminal actors, not inadvertent compliance issues by responsible owners and licensees.”

The focus of the proposed rules, now open for public comment, is to scale back enforcement against licensed gun dealers and gun owners who make paperwork errors, and to emphasize a focus on criminals.

The Gun Owners of America, a pro–Second Amendment group, had filed several lawsuits against the federal government opposing regulations, but “that all went away with this new ATF director,” Gun Owners of America national spokesman Stephen Willeford said.

The top priorities for the Gun Owners of America were doing away with the pistol brace regulation and reversing the Biden rule that categorized anyone selling a firearm as being in the business of selling firearms.

But, he said, the changes have come later than promised, which he blamed on former Attorney General Pam Bondi, a former Florida attorney general.

“The Trump administration told us in the first week they would undo all of the Biden administration rulings in the first week, not laws but rulings,” Willeford, co-author of “A Town Called Sutherland Springs: Faith and Heroism Through Tragedy,” told the Daily Signal. “We were worried when Pam Bondi became attorney general. She was never pro-2A in Florida.”

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche asserted the Trump administration is taking a different path than the prior administration.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Blanche said in a statement. “This Department of Justice is ending the weaponization of federal authority against law-abiding gun owners. We will continue to vigorously defend their rights as the Constitution demands.”

The rules include repealing existing regulations, modernizing firearms regulations, reducing burdens on gun owners and gun dealers, and providing legal clarifications.

The changes are a response to President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14206, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” signed in February 2025, geared at ending “the federal government’s violation of Americans’ fundamental Second Amendment right to protect themselves, their families, and their freedoms.”

Gun control advocates are upset with the changes. Nick Wilson, senior director of public safety at the Center for American Progress, took aim at scrapping the gun show regulation.

“The Trump administration is once again prioritizing the interests of the gun industry over the safety of American families,” Wilson said in a statement Thursday. “The new proposed rule guts a key provision of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022—essentially getting rid of near-universal background checks. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche attempted to spin this as ‘the most comprehensive regulatory reform package in the history’ of ATF, but this is really an irresponsible effort to strip away lifesaving protections in order to maximize gun industry profits.”

Why would it? Before Saturday night’s foiled attack at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner at the Washington Hilton, there were at least two known assassination attempts against President Donald Trump, along with an armed invasion of the grounds of his club at Mar-a-Lago that led to the death of the armed intruder, and one successful assassination attempt that took the life of Charlie Kirk—all within the last two years. 

Did the murder of Kirk calm down the Left? No, much of the Left upped the ante. People on college campuses gloated, saying Kirk deserved to die, and the Left’s leadership failed to call out this behavior. Their silence sent a strong signal—it gave permission for such rhetoric to continue, in other places and against other targets. 

There were protesters outside the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner Saturday night, with some holding signs that read “Death to tyrants.” I don’t believe it is at all a stretch to imagine those protesters would have been cheering if the gunman had been successful Saturday night. 

Americans on the left must stop this kind of hatred on their side of the aisle. It is tearing our country apart. 

In the organization I lead, we do our absolute best not to use the word “enemy” when referring to our political opposition. (It is possible the word has slipped through on social media on rare occasions, but if it has, it was a mistake.) As a policy, we train our employees and consultants that the word “enemy” is reserved for the people outside of this country who wish us dead.  

We cannot dehumanize our fellow Americans. We live in communities together. We can have political disagreements and still agree that we all love and want the best for the country. 

This week, many conservatives and Trump supporters are asking whether that assumption about our political opposition holds true any longer: Do they want the best for our country despite disagreements, or do they actually wish those who disagree with them were dead? 

Many Democrat leaders despise Trump so much that they spew hatred constantly. They should take a long look in the mirror and reflect on what can be done to help our country heal. House Minority Leader Hakeem “Maximum Warfare” Jeffries, who just last week spoke of competition with Republicans as if it were World War III, is a prime offender, but there are many others. 

They claim to care about “democracy,” yet they do not respect election outcomes enough to allow the majority to govern. They “resist” at every single turn. They use the language of their base, blindly repeating the phrase “no kings.”  

If we truly had a “king” in this country, the current battle over the Department of Homeland Security’s funding would not exist; the “king” would order the funding, and that would be that.  

If we had a “king,” there would be no reason for Americans like me to crisscross this country working to get the SAVE America Act, a simple, common-sense piece of legislation whose components have more than 80% approval, passed. 

Democrats should prove to Americans that they really care about representative democracy, drop their opposition, and join Republicans in passing the SAVE America Act 

Finally—and most importantly—leading Democrats need to call out the hateful language and the language that calls for death to their fellow Americans. They need to remind their base that we live in the greatest country there has ever been, and while we may have disagreements with people about legislative direction, we can all agree to live peacefully in this country.  

If people are championing the death of an insurance company CEO, or calling for death to “tyrants,” or using explicitly hate-filled speech, Democrats should not invite those people on the campaign trail and should not amplify those voices. Instead, they should call this behavior out and draw a line in concrete making clear that they will not tolerate it in their party. 

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

After being voted out by Ohioans once before, Brown is hoping for a second chance, giving a recent interview on key topics, including immigration.

During an interview earlier this month with Youngstown’s WFMJ, the former senator was asked what he thinks needs to change with immigration enforcement in the United States.

“I support closing the border to people so they just can’t cross the border at will. But I also say we, of course, should be deporting people that have committed a crime,” Brown said.

“But we’ve also seen these mass arrests and deportations that are disrupting families who are here working every day, paying taxes, paying into Social Security, paying into Medicare. Those are the kinds of people that I want to see in this country who are doing the work they ought to do.”

Drew Thompson, the campaign manager for Jon Husted for Senate, framed the issue as one where Husted has to clean up Brown’s mess.

“After shocking Ohioans in 2024 by claiming he only hears about illegal immigration from the far Right, Sherrod Brown is now desperate to return to Washington and continue the same Biden-era open border policies he supported for 32 years. Jon Husted, on the other hand, is working to clean up Sherrod Brown’s mess by funding border security, supporting border agents, and standing for the rule of law,” Thompson told The Daily Signal.

When asked during the interview why voters would give him another chance, Brown spoke to his previous time in the Senate.

“Well, they’re going to elect me because I’m speaking to workers and farmers and consumers, fighting for them every day. That’s what I did when I was in the Senate,” Brown offered.

When Brown was asked at the start of the interview why he was running again, and what would be different about this term, should he be elected, the Democrat focused on going after Husted’s record.

“Ohio needs a stronger voice,” he responded.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee says Ohioans should be concerned about Brown’s record. In a statement to The Daily Signal, NRSC regional press secretary Nick Puglia said, “Sherrod Brown’s lies aren’t going to trick Ohioans. They know Brown has fought for over half a century alongside liberals like Kamala Harris to open our borders and protect dangerous criminal illegals from deportation.”

During his three terms as senator, Brown repeatedly opposed border security measures. A 2024 campaign ad for Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, highlighted Brown’s opposition to a border wall in 2017 and 2019. The ad also highlighted Brown’s “F” rating from NumbersUSA, a group looking to reduce immigration to the United States.

During his most recent term in the Senate, Brown also took several votes against border security, especially as it relates to the border wall. Brown in 2021 also voted against providing $800 million for U.S. Customs and Border Protection for opioid and narcotic detection at the southern border.

Although Brown’s remarks in the recent interview speak to deporting criminal illegal immigrants as a matter of something he would support, he voted against an amendment in August 2021 that was “relating to providing sufficient resources to detain and deport a higher number of illegal aliens who have been convicted of a crime.” That amendment received support from other Democrats.

Brown also was a co-sponsor of the End Mass Deportations Act, which would have rescinded President Donald Trump’s executive order from his first term to prioritize deporting criminal illegals and denying funding for sanctuary cities.

In March 2024, Brown sponsored a resolution “declaring racism a public health crisis,” which included concerns with “immigration enforcement systems” as an example of “structural racism.”

The race is considered a “Toss-Up” by the Cook Political Report, which recently updated the race forecast.

“You claim to be tough on illegal deportation, but you’ve got illegals working in your backyard as we speak,” Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, a fellow Republican candidate, said Monday night. “Who’s the real Rick Jackson?”

Jackson refuted the claim by stating that he is not aware of the immigration status of his employees.

Jones later raised the charge during a segment in which candidates were allowed to question one another directly.

He pointed to criticism that Jackson, while calling himself President Donald Trump’s strongest ally in the race, has donated to Trump rivals such as Liz Cheney and Nikki Haley, profited from staffing abortion doctors at Planned Parenthood, and hired illegal immigrants to perform landscaping work at his home.

Jones also referenced a legal case involving Jackson Investment Group LLC and its subsidiary JIG Real Estate LLC. The case reportedly alleged that the companies—led by Jackson as CEO—employed multiple workers without proper employment authorization documents to perform landscaping services.

“So, you don’t have any illegals working for you right now?” he asked.

“I don’t know,” Jackson replied. He said he was not directly involved in hiring individual workers, noting that he employs thousands of people each year and relies on others to manage hiring and verification. Jackson said his companies obey the law and use employment verification procedures, before Jones cut him off.

“It’s just a yes or no answer,” Jones responded. “I asked him if he has illegals working for him right now. He said he did, and then he said he didn’t.”

Moderators then moved the debate on.

Ahead of the debate, the New York Post reported on legal documents from a workers’ compensation case involving Jackson that allegedly stated he had “maintained a long‑standing workforce of multiple laborers performing landscaping and property maintenance work for decades,” including individuals without work authorization.

According to the report, Jackson testified in a deposition that he was unaware that any workers were undocumented but also acknowledged not personally vetting new hires using the required I‑9 employment verification forms.

In the same deposition, Jackson reportedly said he was not directly involved in hiring decisions and primarily interacted with a landscaping superintendent.

“I know that sounds confusing,” Jackson said in the deposition, according to the report. He added that employees were often hired through other entities affiliated with his businesses and that he was unsure whether JIG Real Estate directly employed workers from a payroll perspective.

Jackson has said that if elected governor, he would prioritize deporting criminal illegal aliens. In a recent campaign advertisement, he said, “I don’t care if you’re Muslim or Mongolian, you don’t have the right to force your culture on our country,” adding that criminal illegal immigrants would be “deported or departed” under his administration.

Asked about the exchange at the debate, Jackson’s campaign told Fox News Digital that “it’s just like a corrupt politician to attack Rick over someone hired by his landscaper.”

“Rick would never knowingly hire someone in the country illegally, and as governor, he’ll make Georgia No. 1 in criminal illegal deportations,” the campaign added. “The takeaway from this debate is the universal agreement that Burt Jones has used his office corruptly to enrich himself and attack his political opponents.”

The Republican primary—featuring Jones, Jackson, Attorney General Chris Carr, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and others—will be held May 19.

Jack Fowler: Jimmy Kimmel, who’s got a role in this kerfuffle—it’s not a kerfuffle. This is an assassination attempt egged on by morons. Your thoughts about Jimmy Kimmel? 

Victor Davis Hanson: I mean, the worst part about it was not just what he said, that I think everybody remembers, that he set up a little skit and photoshopped himself at the dais of the White House Correspondents’ [Dinner], as if he was [President Donald] Trump or somebody.

And then they splice shots of people that he doesn’t like in the audience in unflattering ways. And you got the impression that they were actually there and listening to Jimmy Kimmel, which was kind of a dissimulation. 

And then he said that, look at beautiful Melania, she has—and she was smiling—the look of a soon-to-be widow, something to that effect. In other words, Donald Trump will either die or be shot, and she’ll be probably kind of, ha ha … she’ll be happy about it. And then when he got caught on it, then he lied and said, well, I was just thinking maybe because she’s so much younger than Donald Trump and he might die. It was just pathetic. 

So, there’s two issues, and that is, under the First Amendment, does he have a right to say that, as long as he doesn’t threaten the life of the president? Absolutely.

Does Disney have a prerogative? Yes. They can put him on there if they want. If they want to be that stupid. It’s their choice. And do people have a choice to lobby to get him off? Yes. There’s nothing he did, unless he threatened the president. Now, maybe he was implying that, but not as much as Madonna, I suppose. 

So, he’s a bore. He is talentless. He’s a mean-spirited person, but he has a right to sound off, and people have a right to say, we don’t want to buy … we don’t want to go to Disneyland. We don’t want to buy anything that has to do with Disney. We’re done with you because you’re putting this guy on to get ratings. And the more he’s on there, the more he’s foul-mouthed, the more he hates Trump.

And you all know that if anybody, anybody said 25% of what he had said about Barack Obama, he would be yanked with a cane, in two seconds, off the stage. 

You remember the clown in the Missouri State Fair, Jack? All he did was he put an Obama mask on. It wasn’t a racist blackface or anything. It was just Obama’s face. And they immediately banned him for life, as I remember, from the fair. For life. And that was their prerogative, if they wanted to do that. 

But we’ll see. I think he does it because he thinks that he can’t do anything—everything else he has tried, his ratings have gone down. At least they’ve gone down enough that they don’t justify his obscene salary in the cost-to-benefit analysis. 

Fowler: Right. 

Hanson: He’s like [Stephen] Colbert. They lose $40 or $50 million, and they pay that guy $20 million or more, $30 million. And he can’t make any money for them. So, it’s kind of like, well, we’re left-wing and we want a left-wing, you know, expensive—we can write it off or something. 

But so, it’s the same thing with all these people. They have the right to say whatever they want, as long as they don’t threaten the life of the president of the United States. 

But it’s so boring. 

Fowler: Victor, I have not watched late-night television, not that anyway, for years.  

Hanson: I haven’t either. 

Fowler: And I did watch Johnny Carson, and it was just humor. And there was no sense, with him, of self-importance or self-satisfaction or smuggery. 

It was just the opposite. 

Hanson: Yeah. He banned people. Anybody who came in and acted like he was a prima donna, he banned. And the other thing is they asked him once, why don’t you—in that period, it got very political during the [Richard] Nixon years. And they asked him, they said, why don’t you go out? And he said, why would I want to offend half my audience? 

That’s what—Michael Jordan said, the same thing, with Jordan. Why don’t you be political? And even Steve—is it Steve Kerr, the coach of the Warriors? 

Fowler: Mm-hmm. 

Hanson: Who could not keep his mouth shut about politics and principles and ethics. And then people reminded him, oh yeah, you go over to China and you play there and you’re part of the NBA investment, franchising Chinese teams, and they’ve got a million people in a slave labor camp. That doesn’t bother you, Mr. Morals.  

And I only mention that because the other day he came out and he had an interview with a left-wing interviewer, and she was throwing these soft T-ball swings for him, you know. And he kind of said—I was really shocked—he said, I was kind of wrong, what I did. I shouldn’t get into politics. And the critics were right about the China thing. So, I was surprised. So, he got smart is what I’m trying to say. 

Fowler: Yeah. Yeah. 

Hanson: And late-night comedy is a joke now. They’re not very talented. Just a small audience. You got 500 channels to watch, other than that. You’ve got streaming people. We got [Greg] Gutfeld who’s out. He’s got much better ratings than these guys do. And it’s a—I don’t know. 

Fowler: Well, it was—I don’t know if it was a great American institution, but once upon a time, it was fun and it was unthreatening. 

Hanson: I never understood it , though, because my parents would—my dad would watch it. Or he taught at the night school, and he’d get home at 10:30, when I was in high school. And then they’d turn it on, my mom and him. That generation, those guys would stay up till 11, and then they’d watch Carson. It started at 11 after—they would watch the late-night news. There was no 10 o’clock news, then it was 11. 

And then it would be over at 11:30. 

Then they’d watch him for—you know, midnight. And then my dad would say, “Up and out.” He’d always imitate Dwight Eisenhower, telling everybody not to, I mean, to vote for Dick Nixon. “Victor, Alfred, Nels, get up and get out and vote for Dick Nixon. Ike, get up.” And it would be 6 o’clock in the morning. 

And I thought, I just saw you when I went to bed at 10. And he stayed up till 11. All those guys did, in that generation. 

Hey, we sleep when we die, as a motto for some of us. 

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

States’ and families’ rights are protected, and pesticide companies can continue to be held liable for poisoning Americans. The Farm Bill passed the House on Thursday by a vote of 224-200.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., forced Congress to go on the record with a vote stripping the liability shield for pesticide companies accused of harming Americans. Her amendment passed with huge bipartisan support, receiving a vote of 280-142.

“I do not support giving blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. Pesticides are linked to a 30% increase in childhood cancer, and over 170 studies corroborate the evidence,” Luna said, celebrating the win. “This amendment ensures we stand on the side of the American people and the health of our nation, not corporate interests.”

The amendment, the Strike Pesticide Preemption Provision, removes language from the Farm Bill. It now protects states’ ability to enforce and regulate pesticide rules and labels beyond what the Environmental Protection Agency requires and allows lawsuits against pesticide companies to continue to be lawful.

The charge was primarily led by Luna and Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and had support from Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas.

The amendment came in the wake of the Supreme Court case Monsanto v. Durnell, which could instate these liability shield protections Luna fought to remove. Bayer/Monsanto, the Roundup pesticide giant, is currently paying $7.2 billion to settle lawsuits claiming its pesticides cause cancer.

One MAHA loss in this bill included Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, attempting a nationwide ban on soda from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to fund unhealthy, sugary drinks that provide ZERO nutritional value,” Self wrote on X after the amendment failed 186-238. “Assistance programs should prioritize real nutrition, not subsidize unhealthy junk with taxpayer dollars.”

Striking down the pesticide liability shield language was a fight Luna did not let up on. Speaker Mike Johnson announced Wednesday afternoon that the Farm Bill would be punted until members return from their weeklong recess. He made a deal with oil hawks, like Roy, who strongly oppose the E15 bill—which, if passed in the House, will be attached to the Farm Bill when sent to the Senate. The E15 bill has been put on the back burner and will get a vote on May 13, which will hold the Farm Bill until then.

But predictably, the chattering Washington class of political dinosaurs insists that the GOP surrender on this one macro issue that is clearly working. Beltway GOP insiders seem intent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Here is the harsh current reality: The GOP faces a very tough November, and my latest Arizona poll underscores that challenge. In a state President Donald Trump won by more than five points, his job approval rating now stands at -16%, with 39% approval and 55% disapproval. This mirrors my last two Wisconsin polls, which show Trump at -15% in that battleground state.

Both swing-state polls show that the war with Iran is unpopular. Right now, only 31% of Arizona voters believe the war is a “net positive” for America, while 51% say they are more worried about higher prices, and only 20% believe those costs are necessary to keep America safe. But despite the unpopularity of the war, Trump’s overall approval has not budged compared to my prewar polling.

So, the economy remains the foremost concern of voters, who continue to struggle and now largely blame the governing GOP. Of all available policy tools to improve the prosperity of the masses right now, the single most effective is immigration.

In order to grow real wages—meaning pay adjusted for the cost of living—immigration provides leverage on both fronts. First, removing millions of illegal workers—where Trump has made significant progress—raises the pay of American citizens in the workforce, especially blue-collar strivers. Second, removing illegal immigrants from the country reduces the strain on resources like housing, providing needed relief to consumers struggling with high prices.

Voters in Arizona grasp the efficacy of immigration enforcement and overwhelmingly back deportations. Specifically, a supermajority of 66% say that state and local police should fully cooperate with federal authorities in the Trump deportation agenda. Even 45% of Kamala Harris voters agree on this point. Within the large Hispanic population of Arizona, a majority—52%—support this law enforcement effort on immigration. That number is particularly crucial because Latino support for Trump has cratered since he took office, with only 28% of Arizona Hispanics expressing positive job approval for the president in this poll.

But in the face of common sense and sound electoral politics, establishment politicians like Rep. Maria Salazar, R-Fla., insist on pushing a so-called dignity agenda to allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain permanently in the U.S. Despite their claims to the contrary, such a policy retreat represents mass de facto amnesty—a surrender on the foundational issue of the patriotic populist movement.

In addition, such a retreat on immigration would amount to a massive political surrender that would dispirit the base and abandon the most popular and effective element of the current conservative agenda.

So, D.C. Republicans: Stop catering to a small cadre of donor-class interests who clamor for a bygone era of porous borders and managed decline. These are not the early 2000s, and George W. Bush is not our leader. Americans demand sovereignty and recognize that immigration control provides a pathway to a safer, more prosperous, and more cohesive society.

Stick to principles—and stick to winning politics.

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

The House voted by voice Thursday to pass the Senate’s measure to fund the Department of Homeland Security, sending the bill to President Donald Trump’s desk to end a record-long partial government shutdown. The House will recess after Thursday for a week.

On Wednesday night, after days of struggling to come to a deal, the House passed a resolution unlocking the process of budget reconciliation, allowing Republicans to fund immigration enforcement without needing Democrat votes in the Senate.

In order to do so, Republican leadership had to overcome some rank-and-file members’ complaints about a piecemeal approach to funding the Department of Homeland Security, in which Republicans would fund the agency’s non-immigration responsibilities in a separate bipartisan bill.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, an opponent of the piecemeal approach, explained to reporters why he did not demand a recorded vote on Thursday.

“If there was a vote, I would’ve voted no,” he said. “But we weren’t going to win that vote, so we decided to let it pass by voice vote.”

Roy has argued that leaving immigration funding outside of the typical bipartisan process risks a partisan targeting of funding in the future.

Final Touches

House Republicans also overcame bitter disagreements in passing a three-year extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. 

A faction of Republicans had for weeks demanded major reforms to the espionage program to prevent the surveillance of American citizens.

Leadership ultimately won them over with warrant reforms, as well as a prohibition on the development of a central bank digital currency—something privacy hawks have long argued could be used as a potential surveillance tool.

The future of the House FISA bill is uncertain in the Senate, and the surveillance authority expires at midnight.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has said the House’s FISA bill is “dead on arrival” in the Senate due to the central bank digital currency ban.

Senate Republicans are attempting to advance a 45-day FISA extension.

The House would have to fast-track this bill under a process known as “suspension of the rules” with a two-thirds vote in order to meet the deadline.

This is usually forbidden on Thursdays and Fridays, but the House Rules Committee, a leadership-controlled panel, voted to make an exception this week in a resolution that passed on Thursday.

Johnson said after the DHS vote that the Senate should pass the House’s FISA bill to “check the last box,” saying they “don’t seem to have another alternative.” 

Farm Bill

Johnson’s other success was passing a massive farm bill by a 224-200 margin to revamp agricultural policy and provide assistance to farmers ahead of the midterm elections.

Several members initially objected to elements in the bill, prompting Republicans to set up several amendment votes on subjects of disagreement before the farm bill ultimately passed.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., for example, objected to language blocking state regulations of pesticide companies, and her amendment changing this provision passed 280-142.

Midwestern Republicans, hoping to score a win with corn farmers in their districts ahead of midterms, demanded that leadership work with them to build a regulatory environment more friendly to ethanol-blended gasoline, which is often derived from corn.

Thune has indicated the Senate wishes to proceed with its own farm bill.

Related Posts

Vital House Surveillance, Farm, Immigration Bills Stall in Committee

The House of Representatives’ attempt to pass legislation on foreign surveillance, homeland security funding, and agricultural policy on a tight deadline has already screeched to a halt, with Republican intraparty disagreement on all fronts. The House Rules Committee, a leadership-controlled panel that determines the conditions of debate for bills on the floor, went into recess…

Will the House Do as the Senate Tells It on Reconciliation?

In the wee hours of Thursday morning, the Senate adopted a budget framework to provide funds for immigration enforcement that Democrats have denied since February. But getting that framework through the House in order to ultimately send a bill to the president’s desk may be a challenge. Senate Republicans are pursuing a two-track approach—a party-line…

2 Democrats Side With Republicans to Confirm Mullin for DHS Secretary

The Senate has voted to confirm Markwayne Mullin, the senator from Oklahoma, as the new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. The upper chamber voted to confirm Mullin 54 to 45 on Monday evening. Two Democrats, Sens. John Fetterman, D-Pa., and Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., joined 52 Republicans by voting in favor of President Donald…

Trump announced the nomination of Dr. Nicole B. Saphier, a radiologist and director of breast imaging at Memorial Sloan Kettering Monmouth, replacing “Make America Healthy Again” nominee Dr. Casey Means. Before Means, Trump had nominated Dr. Janette Nesheiwat for the role before withdrawing her nomination.

“I am pleased to announce that I am nominating Dr. Nicole B. Saphier to be the next SURGEON GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Nicole is a STAR physician who has spent her career guiding women facing breast cancer through their diagnosis and treatment while tirelessly advocating to increase early cancer detection and prevention, while at the same time working with men and women on all other forms of cancer diagnoses and treatments.”

“She is also an INCREDIBLE COMMUNICATOR, who makes complicated health issues more easily understood by all Americans,” Trump added.

In a separate post, Trump slammed Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who held up Means’ nomination. The president said he hopes Louisianans vote Cassidy out of office.

“For months, Senator Bill Cassidy (of the GREAT State of Louisiana!), a very disloyal person whose ‘TRUMP’ Endorsement got him elected, but later voted to impeach ‘President Trump’ on what has now proven to be a total Hoax and Scam, has stood in the way of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Nominee, Casey Means, for the important position of U.S. Surgeon General,” Trump said.

Trump said he nominated Means, a “strong MAHA Warrior,” at the recommendation of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy.

“Nevertheless, despite Senator Cassidy’s intransigence and political games, Casey will continue to fight for MAHA on the many important Health issues facing our Country, such as the rising childhood disease epidemic, increased autism rates, poor nutrition, over-medicalization, and researching the root causes of infertility, and many other difficult medical problems,” he said. “Casey, thank you for your service to our Nation!”

Trump told The Daily Signal on March 29 he was considering withdrawing Means’ nomination.

“Something like that would be possible,” he said.

However, the White House stood by her nomination.

“Dr. Casey Means has spent her entire career as an entrepreneur, bestselling author, and researcher bringing attention to America’s chronic disease epidemic and how our healthcare system is failing the American people,” press secretary Karoline Leavitt said at the time.

The Southern Baptist Convention raised concerns about Means’ past use of illicit drugs, as detailed in her book “Good Energy,” and her lack of commitment in her confirmation hearings to limit the abortion pill.

Means stood out as one of the few public figures willing to take a stance against the birth control pill, saying it is prescribed “like candy” and reflects a “disrespect of things that create life.”

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about His Majesty’s speech is how he noted the ways that the constitutional vision of the American Founders is an inheritance of Western civilization through our British ancestors.

“They carried with them, and carried forward, the great inheritance of the British Enlightenment—as well as the ideals which had an even deeper history in English common law and Magna Carta,” he said. “These roots run deep, and they are still vital.”

While Charles acknowledged the real problems facing the English-speaking peoples, he averred that returning to those deep roots will sustain us.

The wisdom at the heart of the king’s speech reflects the insights of a great American conservative thinker: Russell Kirk. In his 1974 “Roots of American Order”—written to commemorate the 200th anniversary of American independence—the Michigan writer also stressed the need to understand the common roots of British and American civilization.

Like His Majesty, Kirk did not conceive of this legacy as some kind of narrow ethnic heritage, let alone a blood-and-soil nationalism. Rather, both men understand the West as a kind of spiritual inheritance.

Kirk opened “The Roots of American Order” by defining his terms. “We can distinguish two sorts of roots, intertwined,” he wrote, “the roots of the moral order, of order in the soul; and the roots of the civil social order, of order in the republic.”

Building on the work of political philosophers such as Simone Weil and Eric Voegelin, Kirk argued that institutions, customs, ideas, and culture all shaped who Americans are as a people. If we were to “freshen the colors of the picture” we have of American civilization, he went on to write, then we must look to the sources of those inheritances—specifically, in the four great cities of the West: Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, and London.

From Jerusalem, Americans inherited a certain conception of the human person and his place in a divinely created order. The Hebrew prophets were lawgivers who established certain moral principles that still help us discern right from wrong. And, of course, as Charles would say in the House of Representatives years after Kirk, “the Christian faith is a firm anchor and daily inspiration that guides us not only personally, but together as members of our community.” Without these religious roots, the Anglo-American conception of freedom would be altogether unintelligible. Only faith can truly sanction liberty.

From Athens and Rome, Kirk argued Americans received a great philosophic heritage. The writings of Plato, Cicero, and other Greek and Roman sages represent the origin of liberal education.

But, curiously, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution did not look to what Publius called in Federalist No. 9 the “petty republics of Greece and Italy” as models for the political forms of their new country. Instead, Kirk maintained, the Founders primarily took inspiration from British history.

London may have been “the youngest of the four cities from which American order is drawn,” Kirk wrote, but it is the most influential. “America’s classical heritage, and in some sense even America’s Christian and Jewish heritage, crossed the Atlantic only after being transmuted by Britain’s historical experience,” he contended.

From the Middle Ages to the Glorious Revolution, a conception of justice as the rule of law—not of men—emerged in the city on the Thames, working itself out as a series of limits on power and, ultimately, a mixed constitution. When English settlers came to North America seeking freedom and fortune, they replicated those free institutions on these shores. As Kirk put it:

“Of medieval London, few traces remain today: most of its fabric vanished in the Great Fire of the seventeenth century, and remnants were demolished after the First World War or effaced by German bombs in the Second World War. Even St. Paul’s is a neoclassical building on the medieval site of Ludgate Hill; even the famous river profile of the Parliament Houses is nineteenth-century Gothic. But the invisible London, the city of the rule of law, the city of enterprise and cultural diffusion, still overshadows New York and Washington.”

It is for this reason that Kirk could declare that the War for Independence was “a revolution not made, but prevented.” The American Founders were not attempting, as their would-be imitators in France tried later, to rip up the contract of eternal society and introduce modes and orders altogether new. Theirs was a revolution of memory, an attempt to defend ancient and natural liberties against the schemes of centralizing power.

In that sense, Kirk argued, the Founders were doing their best to uphold the inheritance of London in an uncertain time. Or, as His Majesty charmingly put it, “The Founding Fathers were bold and imaginative rebels with a cause … By balancing contending forces and drawing strength in diversity, they united 13 disparate colonies to forge a nation on the revolutionary idea of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’”

Today, the English-speaking peoples on both sides of the Atlantic need a dose of that boldness and imagination to withstand the multiple crises we face. The United States and the United Kingdom alike face the threats of foreign aggression and domestic decadence. As both Kirk and the King remind us, it is only by drawing on the common spiritual heritage of our two peoples—remembering our roots—that we might restore order in the commonwealth, and order in the soul.

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

Before the Supreme Court ruling, a federal district court issued an injunction against using the current map. The Supreme Court temporarily stayed the injunction before its decision this week terminated that stay, meaning that the court’s prohibition against enforcing the map is back in effect.

A new map from the GOP-controlled state Legislature could give Republicans one to two more seats in the 2026 midterms as the party seeks to hold a slim lead in the House of Representatives.

“Yesterday’s historic Supreme Court victory for Louisiana has an immediate consequence for the State,” Landry and Murrill’s statement said. “The Supreme Court previously stayed an injunction against the State’s enforcement of the current Congressional map.”

“By the Court’s order, however, that stay automatically terminated with yesterday’s decision. Accordingly, the State is currently enjoined from carrying out congressional elections under the current map,” they continued.

Landry and Murrill said they are working with the Legislature and the secretary of state’s office to “develop a path forward.”

The Washington Post reported that Landry will soon suspend the May 16 primary. The next day, early voting is scheduled to begin.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the boundaries of Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District, a majority-minority district, relied too much on race. The ruling could impact which party controls Congress in the years ahead. 

When asked about the ruling and informed it was a win for Republicans, President Donald Trump said on Wednesday, “That’s the kind of ruling I like.”

He said, “Some states don’t need to redraw, and some do.”

The district is represented by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. During arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts said the district was drawn like a “snake,” as it stretched more than 200 miles.  

Liberal groups have warned that the case, Louisiana v. Callais, could net Republicans up to 19 new seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, as the ruling could impact parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 

“Cousin marriage—which is permitted under Sharia—is fundamentally incompatible with American culture and values. It should not be allowed anywhere in our country,” the Texas Republican told The Daily Signal. “The vast majority of states have already banned this third‑world practice. It’s time for Congress to finish the job and enact a nationwide prohibition.”

Marriage between close family members is legal, with few or no restrictions, in 18 states and the District of Columbia. Self argues that blood‑related marriages are common in certain ethnic and cultural groups, with rates reaching as high as 40%.

“The expectation of assimilation into Western values includes accepting America’s cultural marriage standards,” Self said.

If enacted, the Consanguineous Marriage Prohibition Act would deny federal benefit recognition of marriages between individuals who are first cousins or more closely related. The bill would alter benefit calculations under Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. It would also affect federal employees’ life and health insurance benefits.

The legislation would not alter broader legal definitions of marriage.

In a press release shared with The Daily Signal, Self said cousin marriages pose serious health risks to children born from such unions.

“Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) studies have shown that children of these marriages have twice the incidence of birth defects, and the risk of stillbirths and infant deaths is increased by 50%,” the release said. “Throughout their lives, these children experience learning disabilities, health issues, and reduced life expectancy.”

Self’s proposal comes after allegations that Rep. Ilhan Omar, D‑Minn., married her cousin to obtain immigration benefits and entry into the United States. Omar has denied the accusation, calling it a “ridiculous lie.”

In January, Rep. Nancy Mace, R‑S.C., subpoenaed Omar and her alleged “brother‑husband” as part of an effort to determine whether Omar committed immigration fraud or violated federal law.

“If these allegations are true, they raise grave concerns involving potential marriage fraud, immigration fraud, and violations of federal and state law,” Mace said at the time. “No one, no matter how politically protected, should be above the law.”

Omar did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

This week, Moreno sent a letter to Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, demanding answers regarding Modou Ngom, an illegal immigrant alleged to be responsible for a deadly incident earlier this month in Ohio.

“I write today to bring your attention to an inexcusable failure of our immigration and commercial licensing systems, which led to the tragic death of an Ohio family,” Moreno said in his letter to the secretaries.

He wrote in the letter that the “case is not an isolated administrative failure—it is a systemic breakdown with fatal consequences.”

Ngom allegedly triggered a chain-reaction crash that killed three people, including a 1-year-old child, on 1-71 in Delaware County. Others were seriously injured, and lawsuits against Ngom are being filed.

According to Moreno, Ngom is “an illegal immigrant who entered the country unlawfully, falsified his identity, lied to immigration officials to achieve naturalization, fraudulently obtained a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), and established a trucking company on false pretenses.”

“Simply put, he is a criminal and should never have been in the U.S. in the first place,” the letter states.

Citing the Ohio Department of Public Safety, the senator pointed to a timeline going back to the 1990s, when Ngom first came to the country. Ngom’s Ohio driver’s license, obtained under a different name, was said to have been obtained in 2003. He obtained the CDL in 2007.

Ngom became a naturalized citizen in the 2010s, using the name of Lamine Gaye, though he later went back to using Ngom.

The letter also points to other safety violations.

“When the federal government turns a blind eye and fails to police its own borders, it is innocent American families on Ohio roads who pay the ultimate price. It is no surprise to me that this man was not apprehended under the Biden Administration. Nonetheless, lessons must be learned from this preventable tragedy,” Moreno wrote in his letter, pointing to the previous administration’s relaxed immigration enforcement.

His letter also applauded President Donald Trump’s handling of the immigration issue. Moreno said Trump has “taken historic steps to remove illegal aliens from our nation,” and that “when that responsibility is neglected, the consequences are measured in American lives.”

Ngom was indicted on counts of vehicular homicide and vehicular assault, though the senator called for more to be done. Crashes by foreign drivers have also impacted other states.

“The Department of Justice should bring all appropriate federal charges against Ngom, including, potentially, immigration fraud, false statements, and identity-document crimes. I also encourage the Department of State—if it is determined that Ngom procured U.S. citizenship through fraud or willful misrepresentation—to initiate denaturalization consistent with federal law,” Moreno wrote.

The Transportation Department put out a news release in February regarding a rule finalized by Duffy to “stop unqualified foreign drivers from obtaining licenses to drive commercial trucks and buses.”

Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president the power to convene both houses of Congress “on extraordinary Occasions.” That power exists for moments precisely like this one, when national security demands immediate action and legislative inertia threatens public safety.

As I have previously recommended, Trump should have immediately convened both houses and kept them in session until they completely funded the Department of Homeland Security.

The president did not take that immediate step in that initial flurry of events on Saturday night. However, it is not too late.

The Senate’s stonewalling continues unabated while the security of the nation remains at risk. Trump should accordingly invoke this power now to force Congress to act.

This is not a radical suggestion; it’s a return to first principles. The Framers deliberately modeled the president’s convening authority on the historic prerogative of English monarchs to summon Parliament during crises.

Perhaps the first and most vivid precedent comes from 1295, when King Edward I faced grave military threats from France, Scotland, and Wales. National security and fiscal necessity compelled him to summon what became known as the (then-unicameral) Model Parliament to secure the funding and legislative support required to defend the realm.

As Edward wrote in his writ of summons: “[I]nasmuch as a most righteous law of the emperors ordains that what touches all should be approved by all, so it evidently appears that common dangers should be met by remedies agreed upon in common.”

Our own Constitution embeds this same logic. The Senate needs to act now for our homeland’s common good.

In many instances in 2025-26, the Senate has operated in a state of suspended animation—holding pro forma sessions that allow lawmakers to claim they are “in session” while doing nothing of substance and yet blocking the president’s use of his clear recess appointments clause power, which I have also advised the president to invoke.

At all times, Congress (in particular the Senate) should be either in session to perform urgently needed work for the nation or it should be in recess, where the president can pick up the slack by making recess appointments so that he can push his energetic executive branch forward. At the moment, however, the Senate often operates in a limbo zone where it does no work and yet denies the president the power to use recess appointments. The conjunction of those two things makes no sense.

This is not governance; it is evasion. Trump needs something dramatic to change the dynamic in the Senate, where a relative handful of holdouts have blocked full funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

The recent security lapse left the president, his wife, and his Cabinet exposed. The Secret Service, charged with protecting the Nation’s highest officials, cannot operate effectively in an underfunded department.

By forcing Congress into real session, the president can break the logjam and compel lawmakers to confront their responsibilities.

Critics would inevitably raise a familiar objection: the current impasse involves border and immigration funding, not Secret Service appropriations. This is a distinction without a difference. Money is often fungible inside agencies.

DHS is a single Cabinet-level department encompassing Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Secret Service, and more.

Appropriations bills frequently allocate funds at the departmental level, leaving internal reallocations to agency leadership under statutory guidelines. A dollar denied for border security is a dollar that cannot be redirected to protective operations when emergencies arise—and vice versa.

Full funding for the entire department eliminates these shell games and ensures that no mission—whether securing the border or safeguarding the president—suffers because of artificial congressional silos.

The stakes could not be higher. America watched in horror as a would-be assassin barreled past lax security. What if he had been wearing a suicide-bomb vest and had gotten into the banquet itself? The Secret Service’s own after-action reviews have repeatedly highlighted serious problems at the Secret Service. Yet Congress has treated these warnings as optional.

Pro forma sessions allow senators to return home for fundraisers and ribbon-cuttings while the executive branch is left to improvise protection with inadequate resources.

Trump’s convening power offers him and us a constitutional circuit breaker. He can still keep both chambers in Washington until a clean, comprehensive DHS funding bill reaches his desk—no poison pills, no partial measures, no excuses.

Some will wring their hands about “separation of powers.” But the Constitution itself rejects the notion that the president must sit idly by while legislators hide behind procedural tricks.

The same document that vests legislative power in Congress also equips the executive with tools to overcome legislative paralysis in emergencies. And it is the Senate’s aggrandizement of power to try to block recess appointments while not even being in session that is the true violation of the separation of powers.

The Framers understood that extraordinary occasions—wars, economic collapses, security crises—require decisive leadership. They did not intend for the president to be a mere spectator when the nation’s safety is on the line.

Nor is this merely about one agency. Full DHS funding is essential to border security, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and disaster response. Partial funding bills that pit one mission against another only empower those who prefer open borders and lax enforcement.

If he demanded funding for all of DHS without exception, Trump could signal that American sovereignty and the physical safety of our leaders are nonnegotiable.

The American people are exhausted by dysfunction. They elected Trump to restore order, secure the border, and protect the nation. They did not elect him to preside over endless procedural theater while threats multiply.

Even though the ideal moment to act was Saturday night, invoking Article II, Section 3 now would still demonstrate the very leadership the moment requires. He can still tell a grateful nation that the era of congressional evasion is over.

Finally, beyond immediate funding, lasting security requires structural change at the White House itself.

The White House ballroom must be built in order to avoid security incidents in the future. Modern protective operations demand expanded, purpose-built facilities that allow the Secret Service to control access, screen visitors, and manage events without compromising the historic residence.

A single federal judge should not be allowed to try to block such efforts, especially when the objection rests on nothing more substantive than one woman who purports to have her architectural feelings hurt by the new ballroom’s aesthetics. Boo hoo. National security cannot be held hostage to subjective aesthetic complaints or to the whims of a single jurist, let alone both.

The executive branch must be free to modernize White House infrastructure when the safety of the president and his family is at stake.

History will judge whether Trump seizes this constitutional tool while it can still have maximum impact. The precedent of English kings confronting national emergencies by summoning Parliament reminds us that Anglo-Saxon executives have always possessed the power—and the duty—to act when legislatures falter.

When King Edward I summoned what became known as the Model Parliament in 1295 amid serious military threats from France, Scotland, and Wales, Parliament granted the funding and support needed to defend the realm. This decisive action proved that English monarchs have long recognized the necessity of convening the legislature when the realm faced existential threats.

Today’s threat is no less real: determined enemies both within and without, coupled with a Congress seemingly content to sit on its hands.

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

The 78-year-old governor’s departure, which she says is due to lack of campaign funds, comes after months of trailing Platner in polls and fundraising totals.

Maine is an important target for Democrats, who must net an additional four seats in order to gain control of the Senate.

“I very simply do not have the one thing that political campaigns unfortunately require today: the financial resources,” Mills wrote in a Thursday morning statement. 

Mills did not endorse Platner in the statement.

In a late March poll from Emerson College, Mills trailed Platner by a 27-point margin, 55% to 28%, with 13% undecided. Before her announcement, Mills’ campaign had cut digital ad buys.

Platner, a 41-year-old oyster farmer, has plenty of baggage, as his opponents have called attention to his past online posts saying that women should “act like an adult” to avoid rape and ridiculing rural white voters and black people.

Platner has asked voters to look past his online history, saying, “I’m asking you not to judge me for the worst thing I said on the internet on my worst day 14 years ago.”

Platner has branded himself as an anti-establishment Democrat, blasting Senate Democrats for acceding to Republicans in previous shutdown fights. An ally of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., he has also accused Israel of committing “genocide” and supported populist proposals such as “Medicare for All.”

His campaign has employed strategist Morris Katz, who assisted New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s successful campaign.

He will face off against a resilient opponent in Collins, a moderate Republican from a prominent political family seeking a sixth term.

In 2020, Collins defeated her Democrat opponent by over eight points despite having trailed in every public poll.

Collins said in a statement Thursday, “I’m sure this was a difficult decision for Governor Mills, and I thank her for her decades of service to the people of Maine.”

The Daily Signal reached out to Platner’s campaign for comment, but did not hear back by publication time.

Platner’s campaign issued a statement later on Thursday morning. “Janet Mills has dedicated her career to this beautiful state. We are all eternally grateful for her service to Maine as Governor, Attorney General, district attorney, and in the legislature,” the statement read.

This story was updated with a statement from Graham Platner’s campaign.