“This is both a market correction and a cultural correction,” Allen Mendenhall, a senior adviser for The Heritage Foundation’s Free Enterprise Initiative, told the Daily Signal. “After years of performative corporate activism, companies are rediscovering that their customers—particularly families—do not want firms serving as vehicles for ideological agendas.”

“Businesses are increasingly rejecting pressure from activist investors and corporate bureaucracies in favor of listening to consumers and respecting longstanding moral and religious convictions,” he added. “Top-down cultural engineering is losing its grip.”

Many companies have adopted Pride messaging as a result of the environmental, social, and governance investing movement. Investors used ESG standards to direct their dollars, and they often relied on the Human Rights Campaign‘s Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies based on their pro-LGBTQ+ policies and statements, to determine where money went.

Yet Trump issued executive orders combating so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion, noting that discrimination in favor of racial minorities and those who identify as LGBTQ+ still violates federal civil rights laws. This has inspired many companies to opt out of HRC’s index, though some had already begun to do so in 2024.

The Human Rights Campaign recently surveyed consumers who identify as LGBTQ+, finding that these consumers identified five companies perceived as pulling back their commitment to the LGBTQ+ community: Target, Walmart, Amazon, Chick-fil-A, and Home Depot.

The Daily Signal reached out to each of the companies below for comment, but only Amazon and Puma responded.

1. Amazon

Amazon launched a “Pride Out Loud” campaign in 2021, and LGBTQ+ consumers named it as one of the more pro-LGBTQ+ brands between 2017 and 2022, according to the HRC survey.

The online retailer made news for withdrawing its sponsorship of Pride Amsterdam last year, however.

The company declined to comment on how many Pride events it has ceased sponsoring and stated that it supports employee-led groups that seek to sponsor such events.

“We’re committed to building a workforce that helps us build the best range of products and services for the most globally diverse customers in the world,” an Amazon spokesperson told the Daily Signal. “We support our employees with opportunities that allow them to grow, thrive, and connect internally and in their communities.”

2. Facebook/Meta

In 2018, Facebook launched a “Happy Pride” page for creators and introduced LGBTQ+ themes for Facebook Messenger in 2021. The company dropped those themes last year, while embracing policy changes that allowed more criticism of transgender ideology on Facebook. The company also appeared to release fewer posts celebrating Pride.

3. Home Depot

Home Depot has reportedly dialed back its Pride messaging, removing a DEI section from its website and withdrawing its sponsorship for Toronto Pride.

4. McDonald’s

In 2022, McDonald’s released a statement celebrating Pride, offering “gender reassignment support,” announcing a “House of Pride” parade, and hosting a float in Chicago’s parade. McDonald’s exited the HRC index last year, however, and seems not to be pushing Pride messaging. 

5. Nike

Nike launched a “Be True” product line focused on Pride messaging, but appears to have dialed it back in 2024, and while the company still sells “Be True” products, observers noted that it did not launch a new 2026 product line.

6. PepsiCo

In 2022, PepsiCo ran a Pride Month marketing campaign and donated $100,000 to “LGBT+ safe spaces hit hard by COVID-19.” This year, PepsiCo scaled back sponsorship of NYC Pride.

7. Puma

While the athletic wear company Puma launched a Pride collection last year, it does not appear to have done so this year.

“PUMA continues to view diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) as an integral part of its company culture,” Anne Putz, senior director of corporate communications, told the Daily Signal. She noted the company’s support for the LGBTQ+ event Christopher Street Day in Nuremberg, Germany, near the company’s headquarters.

“At the same time, PUMA is currently undergoing a transformation, during which we are further sharpening our product portfolio,” Putz added. “This strategic focus does not change the importance we attach to DEI, which remains firmly embedded in our culture.”

8. Target

Target appears to have faced backlash for its loud LGBTQ+ marketing back in 2023, and it removed itself from the HRC Corporate Equality Index last year.

9. Walmart

Walmart has reportedly dialed back its Pride messaging and opted out of the HRC index.

10. YouTube

Last year, YouTube Creator and Artist Stories published a celebration of Pride, but it appears not to have done so this year.

A Warning

“On one hand, many major companies have scaled back overt ideological messaging and refocused on core business priorities that serve their customers and shareholders,” Doug Napier, executive chairman and CEO of 1792 Exchange, told the Daily Signal. “However, others that publicly pledged to exit the activism business continue to support divisive causes, revealing a gap between rhetoric and genuine commitment.”

“Corporate leaders must implement structural changes that prioritize integrity and core business functions over radical social causes,” he added.

But something remarkable is happening during the 2026 World Cup, which is jointly hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Fans from all across the world have arrived in America—and they are absolutely loving it.

We too often take our way of life for granted, but many soccer tourists now here cannot stop marveling at what they see.

The unlikely symbol of this phenomenon is “Freddy,” a young German soccer fan who has become an internet sensation while documenting his first road trip across the U.S. Freddy’s viral social media posts have attracted tens of millions of impressions because they reflect something both rare and refreshing: genuine, boy-like wonder.

As he has crisscrossed the American South, Freddy has gushed at everything from Waffle House and Taco Bell to Buc-ee’s; Bass Pro Shops; sprawling football stadiums; and the impressive size of regular, middle-class American homes. Americans, accustomed to taking all these things for granted, have watched with glee as a slack-jawed foreign visitor experiences it all for the first time.

But Freddy the German is hardly alone.

Scores of other World Cup visitors from Europe, Asia, and elsewhere have flooded social media with similar observations. They have wandered through Walmart and Costco as if they were touring cultural landmarks. They have posted videos about yellow school buses, small-town diners, Texas barbecue, oversize grocery stores, and the sheer abundance and variety that characterize everyday life in the most prosperous country on planet Earth.

Elsa the Swede has fallen in love with ranch dressing. And even the Transportation Security Administration took notice, posting on social media: “If you’re visiting for a very large sporting event & you happen to discover RANCH while you’re here … please pack it in your CHECKED BAG on the way home.”

These reactions, bursting with youthful exuberance, are amusing. But they also point toward a profound insight: Sometimes it takes an outsider to recognize what insiders can no longer see.

The average American rarely pauses to consider how extraordinary our country remains today. We gripe about suburban sprawl while living in homes that would be considered luxurious by the standards of much of the world. We roll our eyes at chain restaurants that millions of foreign tourists eagerly seek out. We treat abundance as ordinary because abundance is all most of us have ever known.

That familiarity breeds a certain blindness.

But the World Cup tourists are not blind. They see an America that remains dynamic, entrepreneurial, and welcoming. They encounter strangers eager to offer travel advice. They find communities proud to share local traditions. They discover a country that is far friendlier than the caricatures would suggest. The America they are experiencing bears little resemblance to the negative stereotypes they had long imbibed back home.

America, like every country, has problems. The risk of prolonged decline is very real. Patriotism also does not require pretending that everything is perfect.

But it does require perspective—and, above all, gratitude.

As we approach our long-awaited America 250 celebration next weekend, Americans would do well to remember that ours remains the most successful experiment in republican self-governance in human history. The U.S. is still the world’s leading economic, military, and cultural power. And most importantly, as we prepare to celebrate the immortal words of 1776, it remains a nation founded upon timeless truths about human nature and human dignity.

That last point matters. Our republic was founded on the biblically rooted proposition that human beings possess God-given rights, and that legitimate government exists to secure those rights and advance the common good.

In other words, America is great because America is good. Not perfect. Not above reproach. But fundamentally good.

We see that goodness reflected in the generosity that has met so many awestruck foreigners visiting during the World Cup. It is reflected in the spirit that built the businesses, attractions, and communities now spellbinding them.

The foreign visitors who are spending this summer discovering America have unintentionally delivered an important message to those privileged enough to call this great land home. They have reminded us that our country remains worthy of admiration. They have reminded us that gratitude is often more appropriate—as it is here—than despair. As we prepare to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, that lesson could not be timelier.

There are plenty of reasons for concern. But there is also still reason to hope.

The world still sees something special in the land of the free and the home of the brave. We Americans should see it too.

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.

After the California governor’s opposition failed to keep a union-backed wealth tax off the ballot, he had to explain himself to voters he has spent years training to believe billionaires are the problem.

He chose Substack.

There, in the same political breath, Newsom opposed a California billionaire tax while calling for a national billionaire tax. Same target. Same moral language. Same argument about concentrated wealth. One difference: the national tax helps Newsom audition for president, while the California tax might make his own billionaires leave.

That is why the California initiative is dangerous to him. It takes him seriously. Newsom is not opposing the tax because it violates his principles; he is opposing it because it proves them.

Nationally, Newsom wants Washington to tax the ultra-rich as part of a grand “economic reset.” Billionaires, he says, have too much power. The tax code favors them. Concentrated wealth threatens democracy. America needs a new bargain.

But when a California ballot measure proposes a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of California billionaires, Newsom suddenly becomes Milton Friedman with better hair.

Now incentives matter. Now tax policy affects behavior. Now capital is mobile. Now wealthy people are not a captive herd tied to the Capitol lawn, waiting to be milked.

Newsom made the case against his own slogan. Billionaires can move. Wealth is movable. What sounds like justice from a national podium can become a fiscal panic when applied to California.

And this was not merely a dispute over the rate. When opposition mounted, the union behind the measure offered to lower the proposed tax to 2%. Newsom still opposed it.

So, the problem was not 5%, or even 2%. The problem was taxing billionaires in the one place Newsom needs them to stay.

He could not tell his own base the truth. He could not say that state wealth taxes punish success, drive out capital, and shrink the tax base. That would sound too much like the conservatives he mocks.

So, he offered the best fig leaf he could find. The measure was too narrow, too earmarked, too much the work of one interest group. It did not fund enough schools, housing, clinics, universities, or public safety programs.

But that was not the real objection. That was the alibi.

His real objection was simpler: billionaires can leave. Wealth is movable. California cannot spend applause, and Sacramento cannot replace fleeing capital with revolutionary slogans.

That is why this tax is not merely another left-wing spending measure; it is a trap. It asks Newsom to govern as if his own speeches were true.

If billionaires are the problem, tax them here. If extreme wealth endangers democracy, seize some of it now. If every Sacramento promise needs money, why wait for Congress? Why not make California the model?

Newsom knows the answer.

California already depends on the very wealth its politicians denounce. The state moralizes against billionaires while budgeting around them. It attacks inequality while relying on capital gains. It denounces success while spending the proceeds of success. It talks like a commune and taxes like a desperate empire.

That is the old Jacobin dilemma.

The Jacobins rose by teaching the crowd that private fortune was proof of public injustice. Property had to answer to virtue. The suffering of the many could be blamed on the excess of the few. It transformed envy into morality and confiscation into justice.

But once that appetite is fed, it does not remain obedient. If wealth is immoral, why spare this fortune? If public need justifies seizure, why exempt that class? If the rich are enemies of the people, why wait?

The men who stir up class fury always assume they will stay in charge of it. History is not kind to that assumption.

California is not revolutionary France. Newsom is not Robespierre. Robespierre did not have to worry about Palo Alto moving to Austin.

Newsom’s problem is more modern. He wants Jacobin language without the Jacobin tax collector showing up in Sacramento. He wants the crowd angry enough to cheer a national billionaire tax, but not angry enough to pass one in his own state.

The richest state in America has tent cities under freeways. Silicon Valley sits beside open-air misery. Sacramento speaks endlessly of compassion while the middle class is priced out, the poor become clients of government, and the rich insulate themselves or leave.

California is where progressive theory gets mugged by arithmetic.

A federal billionaire tax lets Newsom pose as tribune of the people. A California billionaire tax forces him to govern a state whose finances depend on the people he condemns.

The Jacobins learned too late that you cannot teach people to hate property and expect property to remain safe, productive, and available for your plans. Newsom’s lesson is less bloody but just as plain. You cannot call billionaires the enemy and then act surprised when voters ask you to govern as if you meant it.

Newsom wants a billionaire tax for America because it sounds righteous from a presidential podium. He is fighting one in California because Sacramento cannot pay its bills with applause.

The moment the policy threatens his own tax base, the revolutionary discovers prudence. The tribune becomes an accountant.

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

The late James Q. Wilson, former professor of government at Harvard University, once said, “It is not money, but the family that is the foundation of public life. As it has become weaker, every structure built on that foundation has become weaker.” 

Those words came to mind when I reviewed some sobering and disturbing statistics from Pew Research and others on the views of Christians when it comes to marriage and cohabitation—especially young Christians. 

It has been stated many times that the downfall of every great civilization, as well as institution, comes from within—not from aggressive external attacks but from moral compromises made along the way that slowly weaken its foundation. 

As our society has debuckled itself from the institution of marriage, with catastrophic results, it seems now many churches are doing the same thing—choosing to conform to the culture rather than transforming it. As a result, the church’s voice in our culture becomes weaker—to the point of irrelevance—and our children are paying the price. This is evident in these statistics, especially when it comes to today’s young adults. 

In 2019, Pew reported 58% of white evangelicals said cohabitation was acceptable as long as the couple eventually plans to marry. 

Alarming as that statistic is, it is more sobering among young evangelicals. Nine years ago, a General Social Survey reported more than 40% of evangelicals between the ages of 20 and 29 thought cohabitation was acceptable even if they had no plans to marry. 

In addition, a new survey from David Ayers at the Institute of Family Studies found nearly half of evangelical Protestants between the ages of 15 and 22 who are not presently cohabitating or married believe they will likely cohabit with a member of the opposite sex sometime in the future. 

The study also found that 65% of evangelicals between the ages of 23 and 44 who had already cohabitated plan on doing so again. This not only impacts our church’s witness when it comes to marriage and family but also accelerates the continued fragmentation of the family unit—the stabilizing factor in all civilizations—regardless of faith. 

Why has this happened? In the rush to be seen as “culturally relevant,” “tolerant,” and “nonjudgmental,” many Christians and churches have pushed aside the Biblical teachings regarding marriage and family. While it is commendable for churches to try to reach the unchurched, many have chosen to avoid so-called “hot topics”—especially when it comes to human sexuality—leaving a vacuum our culture is eager to fill. 

A generation of young believers is learning more about sex and marriage from popular culture than from their churches. When the world—and not churches—is the main educator on these issues, these are the results.

Jim Daly, the president of Focus on the Family, has written, “It will be up to us to show a fraying culture that marriage is so much more than ‘just a piece of paper’ or an association of any two or more persons who profess to love each other. It is a sacred union of a man and a woman that confers myriad benefits on the spouses, their children, and society at large—benefits that cannot be replicated by any other relationship. I would go so far as to say a society cannot flourish, or even long survive, without stable marriages at its core.”

And I would add that when churches no longer view marriage as sacred, but just as another optional arrangement, churches themselves cannot flourish.

Why? Because when churches no longer treat marriage any differently than the culture—blindly accepting cohabitation as the “new normal”—they have lost their way—and their influence. They especially damage their credibility with rising generations of young Christians and other people of faith. Children still look to adults and institutions for guidance, and when those adults and institutions silently concede their rightful leadership, our children will do the same.

It is time for those of us who believe in the sanctity of marriage to no longer sit on the sidelines while our children learn about marriage from the Kardashians or “The Bachelor.” Instead, we must emphasize the beauty and sanctity of marriage; why it is spiritually, emotionally, and physically beneficial to not cohabit with someone of the opposite sex; and why waiting will be ultimately to their benefit.

With this vision of marriage prioritized in our churches, we can once again not only have stable families but also a church possessing the moral authority to be a clear and convincing voice reestablishing a flourishing society and the dignity of love.

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

Meritocracy is a simple concept: Those who work hard and excel will be rewarded, and the fruits of one’s labor are evidence of capability and competency.

Unfortunately, a government-sanctioned assault on meritocratic principles has been underway for over 60 years. Following the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the doctrine of disparate impact fueled discrimination against qualified Americans based on their race or gender in hiring.

In the 1970s and ‘80s, a new wave of discriminatory policies immersed academia, with the proliferation of affirmative action initiatives. In the 2010s, discriminatory DEI policies began to take hold in corporate America, freezing qualified applicants out of jobs and stunting the career growth of others. In fact, until Louisiana v. Callis, interpretations of the Voting Rights Act allowed congressional and state legislative districts to be drawn strictly based on race.

The second Trump administration has taken numerous actions to restore America to its status as a meritocratic nation. Recently, on June 9, the Department of Justice released an opinion that found previous Equal Employment Opportunity Commission hiring guidelines based upon the aforementioned disparate impact doctrine resulted in unconstitutional racial discrimination.

In all aspects of American society, discrimination was ingrained into its structures. Whether in the public or private sectors, academia, or even the Congress, discrimination against certain groups was tolerated, despite Orwellian declarations of equality.

These efforts—including the Biden administration’s estimated $1.1 trillion in government spending on DEI policies, universities spending millions on DEI staff, and private corporations’ $340 billion in racial diversity initiatives post-2020—are finally being undone.

This is not the first action the Trump administration has taken to curtail the harmful effects of the disparate impact doctrine. In December 2025, the DOJ discontinued enforcement of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act for race- or sex-based quotas, without actual intent to discriminate. Earlier in 2025, the DOJ issued guidance asserting that race- and sex-based DEI programs are unconstitutional and impermissible, particularly for states and schools receiving federal funding.

This latest decision allows corporations to test for competence without having to worry about unintended disparities in results. Employers can now freely use metrics that are “generally related” to job function, including aptitude tests and SAT scores.

Employers have already begun rolling back their commitment to discriminatory DEI policies. The frequency of DEI mentions in corporate earnings calls and documents has declined from its peak in 2022.

A recent White House report found these initiatives associated with a 2.7% decline in productivity. This equated to a $94 billion loss to the economy in 2023 alone. The Heritage Foundation’s Free Enterprise Initiative has kept the pressure on these companies to abandon these harmful and immoral policies.

This new rule is a fantastic step in restoring both meritocracy and moral order to the American economy. Employers, ever since Griggs v. Duke Power Company, have had to avoid false claims of discrimination and execute complex workarounds to restrictions on aptitude testing. Consequently, thousands of talented Americans lost career opportunities because of their immutable characteristics.

This was the very sort of structural discrimination the Civil Rights movement claimed to oppose. By rejecting race- and sex-based preferences, the rule reaffirms the fundamental American principle that opportunity should be earned, not allocated.

Americans still believe broadly in meritocracy; 68% thought the Supreme Court’s decision eliminating affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard  was “mostly a good thing.” While American institutions have drifted from the concept of meritocracy in previous decades, the citizenry has not.

To trope Benjamin Franklin, meritocracy endures only so long as it is actively maintained. The DOJ’s recent guidance is another step in that direction, restoring the idea that opportunity should track merit, not demographic identity, and that fairness requires treating individuals as individuals.

As stated by Fine, respondents prioritized the issue above topics such as abortion, health care, and the conflict involving Iran.

“I had to fight with my pollster, because no one ever asks about the rise of radical Islam in America, and I wanted it placed in my survey,” Fine said. “It was one of the largest issues people rated. My constituents believe it concerned them more than the war in Iran, abortion, and more.”

Separately, he referenced remarks by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, claiming the mayor had expressed sympathy for a Hamas sniper. The mayor in February also called for a broader acceptance of the “Prophet Mohammed” on Islamic migration.

“Look, the history of Islam is one of conquest,” Fine said, describing why he believes the issue resonates with certain voters.

Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, told the Daily Signal that concerns raised by Fine are among the reasons he co-founded the Sharia-Free America Caucus. Self said the group aims to educate lawmakers and the public about what he described as the risks of Sharia law.

“We are educating ourselves, our constituents, and our wider audience,” Self said. “We believe in the values of this country, [and] we believe in capitalism and our Christian foundations. We are a very forgiving country.”

Self argued that without continued focus on the issue, the perceived threat could grow.

“[We see] the rape gangs uncovered in the U.K., killing your daughter because she dishonored the family, and more,” Self said. “We do not want that to come to America.”

A recent report from Rupert Lowe MP noted that at least 250,000 Christian white girls in the United Kingdom have been raped in the 21st century, 83% of whom have been victims of Islamic rape gangs. According to testimonies outlined in the report, the survivors revealed that their rapists believed they had a religious duty to conduct the act.

“Our efforts will continue,” Self added. “We continue to grow slowly. We will have a planning session soon to outline what we think we can encourage governors to do—things we will recommend to governors and states to ask for their help, because they can do more than us in most cases.”

States like Texas and Florida have taken initiatives that the federal government has failed to take, such as designating the Council on American-Islamic Relations as a terrorist organization for its controversial financial trail and involvement in advocating for Sharia.

States like Indiana could soon follow, Indiana state Rep. Andrew Ireland told the Daily Signal.

Self also said he believes some individuals exploit constitutional protections to avoid scrutiny.

“If awareness on this issue is not raised, both by voters and by politicians, radical Islamists will continue to hide behind this freedom of religion, freedom of speech curtain,” he said.

“That is to be expected. They are going to go on the offensive because they think they got the upper hand,” Self added.

He concluded that the issue is “more important than ever,” asserting that the threat “is spreading right now.”

“The videos of Imams openly preaching treason are gaining traction,” Self said. “They are on the offensive, make no mistake about it.”

In the House, it narrowly passed 218-214.

Not one Democrat voted for it in either chamber.

President Donald Trump signed it into law on July 4, 2025.

One provision in this narrowly passed law had the potential to help school children all across the country. It was the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program. This program, now set to begin in 2027, will give Americans a nonrefundable tax credit of up to $1,700 per year for making donations to support school choice scholarships set up in the states.

“Under the program,” explains the Congressional Research Service, “taxpayers will be eligible to receive a tax credit of up to $1,700 for the value of cash contributions to certain scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). These organizations, in turn, will be required to use these contributions to grant scholarships to students at private and public elementary and secondary schools located within their states.”

Recipients of these scholarships would be subject to a family income limit. “Eligibility for scholarships,” said the CRS, “will be limited to students whose family income is below 300% of their area median income.”

Recipients will be able to use the money from these scholarships to cover basic educational costs, including tuition and books, at elementary and secondary schools, whether they are “public, private or religious.”

Whether or not to participate in this school-choice scholarship program was left to the states themselves. “States (and the District of Columbia) may choose whether to recognize eligible SGOs within their jurisdictions,” explained the CRS report. “To qualify for the credit, a contribution must be made to a state-sponsored SGO (which need not be located in the same state as the taxpayer), and the organization must only provide scholarships to students located within the state that recognized it. This effectively allows states to decide whether to make students who live within their borders eligible for the program.”

Why would the political leadership of a state prevent students in their state from receiving scholarship money voluntarily contributed by individual Americans? Because they want to prevent families, who would otherwise lack the necessary resources, from choosing to send their children to private or religious schools rather than to government-run schools.

By contrast, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska wasted little time in signing his state up for these scholarships. On Sept. 29, 2025, he went to St. Teresa Catholic School, not far from the Nebraska capital, and signed an executive order backing his state’s participation in the program. “This program is a game-changer for Nebraska students and their families, generating funds that will help send students to the school of their choice,” he said.

South Dakota soon followed Nebraska. Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden announced on Nov. 14, 2025, that his state also would be joining the school-choice scholarship program. “Parents should have the freedom to choose the learning environment that sets their kids up for success,” he said. “I am grateful that President Trump has the same conviction and is helping us create more opportunities for our students.”

Yet it was not just Republican governors who had their states join the program. The Colorado Sun reported on Dec. 5, 2025, that Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis “said it was a no-brainer for the state to take advantage of the federal tax credit scholarship program, describing it as ‘a real boom of investment in kids.'”

“I mean, it would be crazy not to,” he said.

When the Kentucky state Legislature passed a bill in March that opted their state into the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program, Democrat Gov. Andy Beshear took a different approach. He vetoed the bill. “Kentuckians have been firm that public dollars should only be used for public education,” Beshear said.

“Kentuckians love our public schools,” he said.

The Kentucky Legislature overwhelmingly disagreed—with the state Senate voting 31-5 and the state House voting 77-14 to override Beshear’s veto.

What did California, the nation’s most populous state, do about the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program? Republican Rep. Vince Fong of California sent Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom a letter in January urging him to bring their state into the program. “By electing to participate, you would ensure this new federal education benefit will flow to California students, regardless of whether they attend a public or private school, and at no cost to the State,” Fong wrote to Newsom.

The IRS published a list indicating that, as of June 22, there were 28 states that had signed up to participate in the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit Program. Newsom’s California was not one of them.

Newsom, as this column has noted before, attended Notre Dame des Victoires, a Catholic grammar school in the heart of San Francisco.

When that school marked its 100th anniversary in 2024, Newsom recalled the remarkable opportunity it had provided him.

“Attending Ecole Notre Dame des Victoires was a transformative experience,” he said. “It was here that I learned not only how to conjugate verbs in French, but also about the rich tapestry of French Catholic history. This foundation has stayed with me throughout my life, and I am grateful for the lifelong connections and values instilled in me during my time at NDV.”

So, why is he not supporting a program that would provide funding to help children in San Francisco today embrace a similar experience?

The 2025 National Assessment of Educational Progress “long-term trend” tests showed a continuing pattern in American education: Catholic school students outscored public school students in reading and math. Among 13-year-olds, the average reading score among public school students was 255 out of 500. Among Catholic school students, it was 276 out of 500. The average mathematics score among 13-year-olds in public schools was 269 out of 500. Among Catholic school students, it was 291 out of 500.

Embracing unlimited school choice, where every student gets a voucher equal to the full per-pupil expenditures in the local public schools, would be good for students and for our country.

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

“Sacred Honor: The Declaration That Defines a Nation” premieres on the Daily Signal’s YouTube on July 2, 2026. The following radio interview transcript has been edited for clarity.

Jason Chaffetz: Our next guest is Bradley Devlin. He’s the politics editor at the Daily Signal, and if you’re not following @DailySignal, you should be. A lot of good content, a lot of good stuff there. I’m going to go to this cut, No. 1, because this is going to set up what we’re going to talk about with Bradley Devlin. 

This is “Sacred Honor: The Declaration That Defines a Nation.” It’s the trailer and so, let’s go to Cut One. 

Bradley, welcome to “The Sean Hannity Show.” Tell us what you’ve done, why you did it, and where people can see this. 

Bradley Devlin: Jason, it’s good to be with you, and thank you to you and your team for playing the trailer. Yes, you heard Mike Lee. You heard Sen. Eric Schmitt from Missouri. You have heard Representative Brandon Gill from Texas, and you’ll hear a few other voices of special guests when this thing premieres on July 2. 

The reason that we did this is because America faces a real choice. You know, there was just a Gallup poll this morning that came out that says 45% of Gen Zers report lacking meaning or purpose or both in their lives. And they are getting to the age that the Founding Fathers were when they made that pledge, that solemn pledge, that pledge of their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for their unalienable rights. 

Jefferson was 33, Madison was 25, Monroe was just 18 at the time. And so, we made this to try to inspire people to a higher form of politics, to recover the virtues that our founders displayed through their political action, to save this country, to save the republic that they entrusted to us, because every generation has to recommit themselves to that pledge of their sacred honor for those rights, for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Because if it goes wrong, Marx was 29, Engels was 27 when they wrote “The Communist Manifesto.” Fidel was 30, and Che Guevara was 27 when Cuba had its revolution. 

So, it could go one or two ways for this country in the next 250 years. We could lose it a whole lot quicker than that, and that’s why we made this. 

Chaffetz: I mean, the timing couldn’t be better. It is so needed and so desperate. Let’s go back to that poll because, you know, generations, they have different experiences. 

I’m still having a hard time, like, admitting it, but I have six grandkids. And we got a 3-year-old grandchild, and she’s just so cute, so wonderful. She knows how to take that phone of her mom. She doesn’t have her own phone, but she takes her mom’s phone, and she can type in the four digits. 

She knows the four numbers. And then she hits the little green button, and that’s the FaceTime. And then she can see my picture, and she’ll hit it. A couple of times a day, I’ll get this sweet little grandchild will be FaceTiming me and she’s three. It’s just different than the rotary phones that I had when I was growing up. So, but this poll, this Gallup poll, it really is disturbing. Walk us through what this generation, these new younger generations are going through. 

Devlin: Yeah. I’m so glad that your grandchildren are using it to connect with their family, but most people aren’t using that technology in this way. They are using it and becoming more isolated and more insular, and as they become more isolated and more insular, they’re feeling lonely. They don’t feel like they’re part of something higher, part of something meaningful, part of something as a collective, whether that’s a community or a locality—your local rotary club or a church—or it’s something bigger. It’s the nation, right? It’s this country that every generation has fought to defend. And I see these trends and how familiar they are to other episodes in history that we just talked about, right? Marx and Engels are writing “The Communist Manifesto” amongst a large upheaval in Europe in the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. 

How do we adjust to that major change? It can go one of two ways. We can answer the call of the Enlightenment and mix that modern and ancient thinking into something like the Founding, or it can go terrible, and we get something like the Russian Revolution and “The Communist Manifesto” a few decades before it. 

Or we have the communist revolutions that follow the upheaval and the destruction that was World War II. And here we are today, Jason, in a very similar situation. We have AI, right? Pope Leo chose his name because he’s hearkening back to the previous Pope Leo, who was in the middle of the Industrial Revolution. He says, “We’re gonna go through something similar here with the AI revolution, and we need to make sure that we’re protecting human dignity, reminding each o-each other what it means to be human.” And what it means to be human, I think, is encapsulated so well in our founding story. It’s a political story. 

The Declaration of Independence is this culmination of one of the greatest political acts in history. It’s not just principles that come out of nowhere. It is a fierce contest of ambitions and convictions and interests, and they have to navigate that as a collective. And as a collective that’s really operating together as the first time, they’re figuring out the hierarchy in that room in Independence Hall in Philadelphia, and they’re figuring out what their collective identity is based on the heritage they had received from Britain. 

And so, here we are. We need to recover what it means to be an American, what it means to be human, even at a more fundamental level, and that’s how we’re gonna be able to address these problems that are emerging from this technological revolution that’s happening right before our eyes. 

Chaffetz: Yeah, the technology itself, it can be good, right? 

Think of the advances in medicine and the research that you can do, but it can also be bad. It can be downright evil, and I think it’s scary in many ways. I wrote an op-ed a few months ago for foxnews.com, and the op-ed was basically, it’s the one issue, artificial intelligence, that’s scaring everybody, and yet no political party has taken a definitive stance on how it fits in today’s culture. 

And if we don’t adhere and stay true to the principles in our founding documents, then shame on us because it will overwhelm us. You go to my X account, and I tweeted out Marc Thiessen. There was the research done by The Washington Post about how AI is being trained up to be very leftist, that only X AI is being trained to have more of a balance in its approach. 

But if you think that we’re going to be relying on AI to do everything and that there are the evil sides, the evil forces, if you will—do you think they’re just gonna sit by and let this happen? No, they’re going to want to manipulate these models and redefine history and redefine who we are as a people, and that is a scary thing. 

And then you’ve got this whole generation, and Bradley, I want you to talk about this. You got this generation that gauges the success of their life, their worthiness, based on how many likes and how many people are following them. Like, it’s a contest, and it’s so destructive to a young generation and to an older generation. 

Devlin: I mean, so many great points there, Jason, and especially when it comes to getting the shock, the hit, of having the likes pour in or the reposts pour in. 

I mean, this is what it’s all about, right? They have isolated themselves, and now they’ve replaced real community with a fake community that can only register its presence or its love for you in the form of likes and clicks and all of that, and AI has a very similar function. Not only is it leftist, Jason—of course, we expected that. 

We saw the images of black George Washington when Google first came out with its AI. Everybody saw how ridiculous that was. But it’s also a flatterer, and that’s what’s so dangerous, too. We’ve seen this really be a cancer on the minds of so many young people, so many people in Gen Z and even Gen Alpha now, who have committed terrible acts against themselves, even up to suicide, because AI has egged them on. 

It’s a flatterer. And so the first impulse that you have politically when you see a problem like that, it’s going to be, what’s a limiting principle? And I’m not inherently against limiting principles. You want to be able to find a place where you can stake your flag in the ground and stake it deep so that it lasts for generations. 

But what the founding story tells us about how to confront these problems, even for people in my age demographic, young folks around 20 to 35, is it’s not a limiting principle, it’s a virtue. It’s the highest virtue in politics, and that’s prudence. It’s judgment. It’s cultivating that judgment. 

And being a flatterer, as AI is to you, telling you, “No, that’s perfect. Oh, do more of that. Yeah, just one more bite of that apple, Mr. Adam and Mrs. Eve,” that is what can really derail you. The founders were not flatterers in any way, shape, or form. They were strong, great men. And I think the miracle of the founding is that there were so many great men of history in a single room. 

And so, we need to recover that sense of who we are and develop that virtue of prudence by understanding our history and knowing our history so that we’re not replacing a real community with fake communities, whether or not that lives in a chatbot or on your favorite social media program. 

Chaffetz: What I hear you saying, and I totally a hundred percent agree, you got to get the principles right. 

When I served in Congress, I would draw on the whiteboard and at the top I’d write principle, and then I’d put a line under it, and then I’d put policy underneath that. 

And it was a reminder, visually, for them and for me to just say principle over policy. I can answer any policy question if you get the principle right. And I think that’s the issues that people are facing today. 

If you get the principles right of how you want to lead your life and what you want to do. And the second part of that is, at least for me personally, I believe in prayer, and I believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe in a religion and a higher being and the reality of Jesus Christ. 

And that prayer and that ability to communicate and to be inspired is something that drives me and that informs me, and that can keep me centered if I don’t get off track. 

Devlin: Absolutely. And just the prayer to be thankful for the existence of God in the first place, because without God, there is no principles to which we can build on. There is no objective truth. There is no enduring, eternal thing that we can point to and orient ourselves in the world, right? And that’s what makes the Declaration so powerful. It’s this mixture of modern political philosophy and ancient political philosophy all infused with Christian teaching that tells us not only to just go to the policy, but to go to the principle, and not only to just go to principles, but go to first principles, right? 

Chaffetz: Bradley Devlin, congratulations. Politics editor at the Daily Signal, and you got a documentary, “Sacred Honor: The Declaration That Defines a Nation,” coming out, I believe you said July 2. 

So, watch for that. Thanks so much for joining us on “The Sean Hannity Show.” Do appreciate it. We’ll be right back. 

Sami Winc: [New York City Mayor Zohran] Mamdani was at a rally, and he came out and said that AIPAC—again, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee—was a monster. And then he was asked about that, and he said, well, I was talking about all super PACs when I said that.

Victor Davis Hanson: He is such a liar. He’s such a liar. He’s such a liar. I hate to use that word, but every time he’s called on something, he does two things. He does not back down, and then he lies about what he said. He did not talk about all PACs, and he talked specifically about AIPAC.

AIPAC is not a fringe organization. Mr. Mamdani, this is not Antifa, which you don’t seem to criticize. This is not Black Lives Matter, a crooked organization that caused havoc, and then the architects stole all the money, and then they did lasting damage to the United States by taking over intersections or demanding the abolishment of the—you don’t ever criticize them.

You criticize no other PACs. There’s a lot of PACs. How about the CARE PAC, the Committee of Arab American Relations. Huh? You don’t ever mention that.

So, he’s talking about Jews, and he’s basically saying that Jewish people who stick up for Israel are monsters. And he says they have too much influence, except—and what he’s doing right now, he’s a man, he’s a communist, and full of himself. To quote a novel by Tom Wolfe, “A Man in Full.” He thinks he’s at the pinnacle of his power.

Now he’s getting all of his staffers in this huge city with all this money, multibillion, and he’s staffing it with communists and socialists, and he thinks it’s a movement he’s building. And now he’s getting both brazen and he’s being implicit about what he feels.

I hate to say this, but all people who are Jewish American in New York City, if you’re on the left, he hates you because he is an antisemitic racist. And he hates you if you’re not Jewish and you’re in favor of Israel as a, you know, a home, a traditional home for the Jewish people. And he doesn’t care anymore.

He thinks—he looks at all, he looks at the architecture, he says, well, [Texas state Rep. James] Talarico, he’s doing what I did. He’s smiling, he’s faking it out, and he’s doing what our Virginia governor did.

Sellenberger. Was that her name?

Winc: [Abigail] Spanberger, I think.

Hanson: Spanberger. … Yes, I remember. So, he’s doing what she did. It’s go act like you’re a moderate, and then once you’re in office, go full commie.

[Graham] Platner, he’s kind of befuddled, but he’s got a very mean streak on him. Every time anybody asks him a question, he starts grimacing and gets angry, like he’d like to strangle the person.

But Mamdani looks at “the squad” and [Rep. Ilhan] Omar and [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], and he thinks it’s his moment that we’re gonna go communist.

Mamdani, in a much more volatile period of immigration even than now, in the 1900s to 1920s, Eugene Debs was a socialist, perhaps a communist. He ran for president five times. He was in jail in his last bid in 1920. He only won 1 million votes out of about 130 million or 140 million Americans at the time.

We have never had a grassroots socialist-commie movement. Socialism and communism are a boutique creed of the elite wealthy—people who are wealthy.

If you don’t believe me, Mr. Mamdani, look in the mirror. You are a settler colonialist.

You came from Uganda, where the Indian population was 1% and controlled 65% of the economic activity of their colony, Uganda.

Then you came over here with your parents, and your dad is an endowed professor. Endowed professors at Columbia, I would imagine, make about $400,000. Your mother is a subsidized filmmaker.

And look around you—Ms. Ilhan Omar, another communist socialist, says she was worth $30 million until people said that’s impossible. So, now she’s worth zero. But you figure it out.

And then you turn over to [Sen.] Bernie Sanders, the archetypical socialist. He’s got three homes. Three homes. One on a lake, one in Washington, and one in Burlington. Three homes for a childless, 80-something couple. He’s got a lot of money.

And if you look at all of these socialists—maybe not Mr. Talarico; he’s on his mom’s checking account. But Graham Platner, his dad is a very well-known, wealthy lawyer. His mother is an elite restaurant owner and operator, and she’s your only client. She is his only client.

I could go on and on.

Bill Ayers—he was, Bill Ayers, the socialist communist bomber who disappeared when [Barack] Obama was elected because it had been said that Obama admitted that he had written his memoirs in the Ayers home.

But, you know, a lot of people looked at passages in Bill Ayers’ memoir, and then they looked in Obama’s, and there were metaphors and similes, some quite long, that were identical, meaning there was this accusation that Bill Ayers ghostwrote much of it.

Who knows whether it’s true or not, but my point is, he was in the third row with Bernardine Dohrn, the terrorist. I saw a clip—Megyn Kelly brought it to my attention. She interviewed Bill Ayers in 2014 on Fox, and I remember that interview, but I didn’t remember how bad it was.

The questions were just:

“You killed people?”

“Yes.”

“But that was a—can you guarantee you wouldn’t do it again?”

“No.”

“Did you steal money?”

“Yes, I stole money.”

“And you lied to people and got fake IDs?”

“Yes.”

“And the people that your wife was responsible for killing orphaned nine children?”

He didn’t apologize. That was another thing Obama did. He’s doing just like Spanberger, all these other people, like Talarico.

They act like they’re moderate because nobody wants to—nobody in their right mind would elect a socialist or communist. But Obama got elected because “there is no red state, there is no blue state, there’s just American state.”

Remember that 2004 convention address? That was such a lie. And now he’s back to his old—he was like, oh, I’m Barack Obama. I’m a socialist community organizer again because I got my eight years and I’m a multimillionaire out of it.

It’s just, why can’t a commie just say, “I am a socialist communist”? I don’t know any socialist that’s really not a communist. “I’m a socialist communist. I’m proud of it, and I want to convince you to be a socialist communist, and all my friends are socialist communists.”

But they never do that.

Winc: Can I ask you something? Because you’re right on—there was a story, it’s not really significant, but in the Daily Mail today of this billionaire and his wife who were out saying that they wanted communism for landlords and the global welfare state. And they were very young.

And I was looking at it, going—

Hanson: And they had a big home. Wasn’t he, I think, was he from India or something? Yes, I remember reading about them.

Why doesn’t he open his mansion up?

Remember that scene in “Doctor Zhivago” when he comes back, and the aristocratic house has about 10 people in it? Why don’t they do that? I had a good friend—no, wait a second. The aristocratic house had about 20 people in it, and they were bossing around his father—or father-in-law—and his wife and stuff.

You know, one of my—she was a very misunderstood person in this area, Carol Harris of Harris Farms. She was a wonderful person. I really liked her, and she was a staunch conservative and donated heavily, as did her husband, John, to conservative causes. But she had a good sense of humor.

So, I was over there once at a reception, and she came up to me and said, “Victor, I’m just worried about this Obama character. He’s a socialist.”

I shouldn’t have done it, but I said, “Carol, now, you look here. This beautiful palazzo you have on the Kings River—it must be, I don’t know, 15,000 square feet.”

She looked kind of like a deer in the headlights, and she goes, “Why? What?”

And I said, “Well, I’m from Selma. We got a lot of poor people. Now, if you’ll let me intervene, that bedroom—we can put the Smiths and the Jones and everybody, like ‘Doctor Zhivago.’”

And she said, “Oh my gosh, I remember ‘Doctor Zhivago.’” And then she started laughing because I was trying to be real serious.

I really miss her. She was a wonderful person. Very eccentric, but in a good way.

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

“Look, we’ve got so many entertainers here,” he told the Daily Signal in an exclusive interview. “We’ve got a military band. We have all these different acts. You have all these great different speakers.” 

And safety “is a big emphasis,” he asserted. “We are working with all the bodies. From, you know, the Secret Service, local police, Federal Park Service, all that. So, you know, we’ve got it secure.” 

Freedom 250 is a weekslong celebration of the 250th anniversary of America’s independence. It features events nationwide focused on America’s founding, civic engagement, and future initiatives to unite Americans and honor the country on its 250th birthday. 

A public-private partnership, its events include Rededicate 250, a prayer event in Washington, D.C.; UFC Freedom 250; the Great American State Fair; Salute to America 250; and Rushmore 250, to be held at the historic site. 

The Controversy

Several musical acts were set to perform at the Great American State Fair but dropped out, mainly for partisan reasons. Country singer Martina McBride was set to perform on June 25. She explained on X that she had signed up “to perform at a nonpartisan event,” but that “things started changing and what we were told is, in fact, not what is happening.” 

Freedom 250 has also faced many questions about security. An alleged terrorist plot targeted UFC Freedom 250, where conspirators sought to attack and kill government officials and attendees at the event. The FBI has since charged five men involved in the plot.  

Krach said every visitor at a Freedom 250 event should feel welcome because the celebration is going to be secure. 

‘Gratitude’ and ‘Freedom’

Freedom 250 seeks to unite the country and encourage Americans to celebrate the 250th anniversary. 

Krach told a story explaining that goal at Rededicate 250.  

Krach thanked a security guard from New York for his service, and the security guard shook his head and responded, “Wow, you’re like the 35th person who’s done this today. I have had more people thank me for my service today than I have in my 25 years in New York.” 

“That is the feeling we want people to walk away with. You know, gratitude, right?” he told the Daily Signal. “Gratitude for being able to live in this great country.”  

He compared the United States to other countries such as Iran. “And it’s like, well, they don’t have freedom. These authoritarian regimes. So, you know, that feeling of gratitude,” Krach said. 

The Top Events

Freedom 250 has “over 4,000 events”, but Krach told the Daily Signal that several events “stand out.” 

The Great American State Fair will take place June 25 to July 10. There will be a different theme each day, ranging from the “Horsepower of America” to “The Next 250,” which focuses on innovation. 

Freedom 250 posted on X that this event will feature “President Donald J. Trump, military flyovers, patriotic performances, and an unforgettable tribute to the people, history, and spirit of the United States.” 

“We’ve got all the states coming in, and all the territories—they all have their own pavilions. We also have pavilions for innovation, history, and education,” Krach said. “The Great American State Fair is something for everybody.” 

On the Fourth of July, “Salute to America” will feature performances, flyovers, and fireworks. 

Krach said “it will be the biggest fireworks display the world has ever seen.” 

“I will be launching what will be the LARGEST FIREWORKS SHOW IN HISTORY, right here in our nation’s capital. Do not miss it,” Trump posted on Truth Social. 

The Patriot Games is a national athletic competition for America’s youth, occurring Aug. 9-11. It will “bring together outstanding young Americans from across the nation to compete, inspire, and showcase the values that have shaped the United States for nearly 250 years,” according to the Freedom 250 website. 

The winners, one female and one male, will split a $250,000 scholarship. 

Freedom 250 posted on X: “Athletes from across the country. One national stage. The competition that will define a generation.” 

In June 2024, Mayor Karen Bass signed the city’s 2024-2025 budget, which cut the department’s funding by $17.6 million, according to data shared by Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia.

The cuts sparked widespread backlash after the devastating January 2025 Palisades Fire, as Angelenos questioned whether Bass had adequately funded and staffed the fire department, and whether the destruction could have been reduced had the department been better prepared.

Now, the LAFD union, United Firefighters of Los Angeles City, is advocating for change by going directly to voters.

After firefighters raised more than $1 million and gathered the signatures needed to qualify, the Los Angeles City Council voted 14-0 to place a ballot measure before voters that would add a 0.5% sales tax on purchased goods.

If passed, the tax would fund what firefighters say are much-needed and long-overdue improvements to the department.

Firefighter-paramedic Richard Ramirez said at the campaign launch that the department is overwhelmed.

“In 1960, Los Angeles had about 2.5 million residents, and the fire department handled approximately 100,000 emergency calls a year,” he said. “Today, in 2026, LA has almost 4 million people, but we have fewer fire stations and about the same number of firefighters now responding to more than half a million emergency calls every year.”

Bass has voiced support for the ballot measure, but critics are questioning why firefighters had to take matters into their own hands to secure funding instead of having those funds allocated through the city budget.

“It is totally unacceptable that the City Council and mayor have underfunded the fire department and essentially told the firefighters’ union to go out and get their own tax increase,” the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association said in a statement.

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

Bass is also facing pushback from former LAFD Fire Chief Kristin Crowley, a 26-year veteran of the department, who says Bass falsely placed blame on her for the destruction caused by the January 2025 Palisades Fire.

Bass accused Crowley of allowing roughly 1,000 firefighters to go home instead of keeping them on duty ahead of the forecasted fire weather, failing to predeploy additional fire engines before the Palisades Fire, and refusing to conduct an after-action report on the department’s response.

As a result, Bass removed Crowley as fire chief and demoted her three ranks to assistant chief.

Crowley’s legal team disputed Bass’ allegations, filing an unlawful retaliation lawsuit claiming Crowley repeatedly warned city leaders before the Palisades Fire that budget cuts, understaffing, aging infrastructure, and outdated equipment had left the department unprepared for a major wildfire.

The lawsuit alleges Bass made false statements to shift blame, including falsely claiming she was unaware of the expected weather event, falsely claiming the LAFD budget had not been cut, and falsely claiming the department had enough resources to send an additional 1,000 firefighters to battle the fire.

“These false statements were not mistakes but part of a deliberate strategy to divert scrutiny from Bass’ decisions and to avoid accountability,” Crowley’s lawsuit states.

The lawsuit is still in its early stages with no trial date.

The strikes throw the fate of the interim peace deal recently agreed between the two countries into question.

“The Singapore-flagged cargo ship was exiting the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast at the time of Iran’s attack,” Central Command stated. “The unwarranted aggression against commercial shipping by Iranian forces clearly violated the ceasefire.”

Tehran has insisted it would control the Strait of Hormuz and warned Gulf states not to side with Washington after Thursday’s attack on a cargo ship traveling near Oman’s coast. On Friday, President Donald Trump accused Iran of “a foolish violation of our Ceasefire Agreement.”

Iran had expressed anger at what it said was an “interventionist, irresponsible and provocative” statement by the United States and six Gulf states that rejected its assertion that it could charge tolls on vessels transiting the strait.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio—wrapping up a tour of the Gulf to reassure regional allies about the interim pact—issued a joint statement with the Gulf Cooperation Council calling for “free, unconditional, and unrestricted navigation” in the strait without tolls or “attempts to assert control.”

Iran’s foreign ministry said the strait should be governed by Iran and Oman, while Ali Akbar Velayati, top adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, warned Washington’s Gulf allies that their survival depended on Tehran’s tolerance.

This story is developing and will be updated.

Reuters contributed to this report.

The Religious Liberty Commission, established by executive order last May, interviewed more than 100 witnesses across seven hearings.

The hearings produced a common theme: “Far too often in our national life, religion is treated not as a protected and valued contribution to public life, but as a problem or annoyance to be managed, restricted, or sidelined.”

The report highlights harrowing stories of religious persecution and issues 12 recommendations for the administration.

Attacks on Religious Freedom

The commission heard from mothers kept in the dark by schools’ pushing gender ideology on their kids, students who were bullied for their faith, and health care workers who risked losing their jobs.

The report highlights Svitlana Roman, one of the parents who challenged Montgomery County Public Schools’ LGBTQ+ books program, which did not allow parents to opt their children out of pro-LGBTQ+ lessons. The Supreme Court ultimately vindicated her rights last year. The report also mentions Jennifer Mead, the Michigan mom whose 11-year-old daughter was “transitioned” by school officials behind her back.

The report highlights the case of Shea Encinas, a fifth grader who was forced to read a book promoting transgender identity to a kindergarten student. It recounts Lydia Booth, a student who was ordered to remove her mask reading, “Jesus loves me.”

The Religious Liberty Commission recounts the stories of Dr. Eithan Haim, who was indicted by the Justice Department under President Joe Biden for exposing Texas Children’s Hospital’s gender mutilation surgeries for minors; and Valerie Kloosterman, who sought a religious exemption from using biology-rejecting pronouns and lost her job at the University of Michigan’s health system as a result.

The commission mentions coach Joe Kennedy, who lost his job for praying after a football game; teacher Monica Gill, who sued her school board over a pro-transgender policy forcing her to violate her beliefs; and Marisol Arroyo-Castro, who faced the prospect of losing her job because she kept a crucifix on her desk.

The commission heard from many servicemembers who lost their jobs because they sought religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Other servicemembers spoke about difficulties accessing the sacraments, abiding by kosher and Sabbath restrictions, and maintaining religious attire—such as Sikhs wearing a turban.

The commission didn’t just hear from Christians. The report highlights a Muslim doctor, Ismail Royer, and a Jewish doctor, Kenneth Prager, warning against “physician-assisted suicide,” and Dr. Akshar Patel, a representative of a Hindu temple that faced vandalism.

The report outlines antisemitism, from college presidents reportedly telling the president of Yeshiva University that they feared joining his coalition against terrorism, to students like Shabbos Kestenbaum, who were targeted simply for being Jewish.

Recommendations

The commission presents 12 recommendations for the administration.

It urges the Justice Department to issue guidance clarifying the proper understanding of the establishment clause and the separation of church and state—principles many Americans misunderstand. While the federal government cannot establish an official religion, the “separation of church and state” is nowhere explicitly stated as a principle in American law.

The report warns that secularism is incompatible with the First Amendment because it “excludes religious voices from the process of self-government.”

The report asks the Justice Department, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to release “Know Your Rights” posters to inform students, parents, school teachers, and others that they have the right to be free from anti-religious discrimination.

The report urges a policy requiring public officials who consider their employees to have improperly engaged in religious expression to provide a written explanation of the violation within 30 days of any action.

It urges government departments to create religious liberty violation reporting hotlines and to combat antisemitism, asks the Justice Department to create a religious liberty task force, and recommends repealing the Johnson Amendment. It recommends that the Department of War streamline the religious accommodation process and continue efforts to restore the retirement or re-enlistment eligibility for service members harmed by COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

The report asks Trump to nominate and confirm “federal judges with the courage to decide religious liberty cases on the merits.” It asks the administration to “protect religious Americans from government-led litigation targeting their free exercise.”

Finally, the commission asks Trump to “honor the courage of religious liberty heroes through creating a Presidential Medal of Religious Liberty” and other awards.

The commission also urges the government to foster a culture of faith.

“Among our conclusions, we believe that safeguarding religious liberty requires more than defending legal rights after they have been violated. It requires cultivating a culture that understands why those rights exist in the first place,” the report states. It notes that religion brings many benefits to society, from forming the “conscience” to constrain government abuses, to promoting charity, to fostering strong families and community bonds, to promoting general health and happiness.

The agency sent letters to several Planned Parenthood affiliates, state and local health departments, university systems, and nonprofits notifying them of the termination of Teen Pregnancy Prevention program grants. The grantees included Planned Parenthood California Central Coast; Planned Parenthood of The Heartland Inc.; the Wisconsin Department of Health; the Maryland Department of Health; the Baltimore City Health Department; the Oklahoma City-County Health Department; the Public Health Authority of Cabarrus County, North Carolina; and Hennepin County, Minnesota.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health’s Office of Population Affairs provides grants to organizations that promote teen pregnancy prevention, as well as organizations that write teen pregnancy prevention curricula. But HHS determined that many of the organizations were using curricula that are “medically inaccurate,” “age-inappropriate,” and “sexually explicit,” violating the statute that established the program.

“After a review of all curricular content, OASH believes that some curricula normalize adolescent sexual activity and are not age appropriate, as they contain overly sexually explicit or pornographic content that is not necessary to achieve the TPP program’s statutory mission,” a letter notifying a grantee of the termination, obtained by the Daily Signal, reads.

“As a result, OASH is adjusting its discretionary Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Program award portfolio, which includes the decision not to renew some of its TPP Program awards in order to better prioritize agency resources towards the above-mentioned priorities,” the letter states.

HHS terminated a total of $67 million in Teen Pregnancy Prevention grants, including 53 of the 67 Biden-era grants.

Many of the grantees used curricula that encouraged sexual activity as they presented teen pregnancy prevention programs at schools.

For instance, the Maryland Department of Health used a curriculum including a role play scenario with two boys weighing whether or not to use condoms to avoid contracting HIV. The department did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment by time of publication.

Planned Parenthood California Central Coast used the Love Notes curriculum, which is designed for teens ages 14-19. It includes a story of two high schoolers who have been “hooking for a while—kissing, touching, fooling around a bit.” The story describes one teen trying to convince the other teen, whose mom is not home, to have sex, and the other saying, “I’m not feeling this is right for me…but I guess I should just get over it.” Planned Parenthood California Central Coast offers abortions and so-called gender affirming care to minors.

“We offer hormone therapy for patients 16 years and older at all our 6 health centers,” the website says. “Patients do not need to participate in therapy or provide information from a mental health provider to receive care with us.”

The curriculum also features excerpts describing various forms of pornography, including a celebrity interview discussing exposure to abusive pornography beginning at age 11 and escalating to graphic, violent content by age 14.

The celebrity, “Billie,” described abusive porn, including “being slapped, choked, thrown around.”

Planned Parenthood California Central Coast did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment by time of publication.

The Baltimore City Health Department used the Seventeen Days Curriculum, designed for 14-17-year-olds. An excerpt describes two teens, Maya and Jordan, discussing having sex in a car. The department didn’t respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment by publication time.

Bridgercare, which says on its website that it sees “patients who need help paying for their visit, teens, LGBTQ+ individuals, survivors of sexual assault, and people who are not sexually active or have multiple partners,” uses the Making Proud Choices curriculum. The curriculum designed for ages 11-16 includes a graphic description of how to use contraception.

“Many of you have never seen or touched a condom,” the curriculum says. “We’re going to practice using external condoms so that you will know what they feel like and how to use them if and when you are ready to use them.”

The Montana-based “reproductive healthcare facility,” says on its website it “welcomes teens of all genders and sexual orientations.” Bridgercare did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Healthy Futures of Texas used the SHARP Curriculum. It is made for ages 15-19 and asks teenagers to discuss “obtaining condoms,” including comparing “differences in costs, privacy, and any other concerns.” The conversation facilitator is told to “Briefly discuss carrying condoms, covering the following topics: Where can teenagers carry condoms?” Healthy Futures of Texas did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

In addition to terminating the grants, HHS announced two new grant opportunities that promote body literacy in place of radical gender ideology, abortion, and contraception. The opportunities will “focus on programs that do not promote material that depicts, describes, exposes, or presents obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit content, including content that normalizes or promotes sexual activity for minors.”

On Wednesday, just as he was about to sign a housing bill, the president canceled the ceremony, delaying it until the SAVE America Act came to his desk to sign. Trump called it “a national emergency.” Although the housing bill can still pass without Trump’s signature, it’s clear where his focus is.

Just a day before, Tony Kinnett, host of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” predicted there was “not a snowball’s chance in hell” for the bill to pass. After Trump’s move, however, the legislation “may actually have a pretty stellar pathway forward,” Kinnett acknowledged.

Not only is the bill a priority for Trump, but it’s “a very popular bill with the American people,” Kinnett pointed out. He also lamented “all of the different federal judges that have directly attempted to intervene on the most basic election security measures that almost every other civilized country [uses].”

Polling on voter ID and the SAVE America Act has shown strong support at the national and state levels. During Thursday’s show, Kinnett referenced a Harvard/Harris poll showing 71% of registered voters support the legislation.

Kinnett noted that Kevin Roberts, president of The Heritage Foundation, has been particularly vocal about the need to pass the SAVE America Act, describing it as one of the “two major priorities before the midterms.”

“Heritage Action will be tracking which members of Congress failed to act in the interest of the American people,” Roberts warned. “Republicans only have a guaranteed trifecta through the end of the year, and they should not be wasting it on more vacations. America expects results.”

One option for getting the bill passed is to attach it to “must-pass” legislation, such as extending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told the Daily Signal’s Pedro Rodriguez that he’s “fine with” a suggestion that the Senate vote on the SAVE America Act every day until November. He also said he would support a vote on the SAVE America Act with FISA, as well as through Reconciliation 3.0. Another idea would be using the talking filibuster.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., emphasized that the SAVE America Act is a priority. He promoted tying the legislation to FISA. “All you do is put a death wish on FISA,” he told Rodriguez.

Throughout the show this week, Kinnett said that tying the SAVE America Act to other legislation is the way to success.

“There are several bills that the establishment part of the party on the Republican side of the aisle really, really wants,” Kinnett said on his show Thursday. This includes FISA.

The recent reactions from Democrats, Kinnett said, are a sign the bill has a chance of passing.

“You can tell there’s some panic and fear about this,” Kinnett said, citing reactions by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who was “trying to act really confident” but failing. Schumer claimed the legislation amounted to an “all-out assault on voting rights” and that Republicans should focus on other issues.

If Trump has failed as Democrats try to claim, Kinnett argued, Schumer would be saying so, rather than complaining about priorities.

The court’s 6-3 decision would revoke the status of 330,000 Haitians and 6,100 Syrians.

“We stand here in solidarity with everyone concerned about today’s decision. If you are worried about what this means for your status, I would encourage you to call our Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs hotline,” Mamdani said.

Regarding the decision, Mamdani added that “it is something that we will never accept.”

The Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

The mayor’s announcement has been met with backlash from conservative officials and former immigration officers.

Scott Mechkowski, the Oversight Project’s visiting fellow for deportation studies, told the Daily Signal that his prior experience working with ICE in New York reaffirms to him that nothing the mayor tries will stop deportation efforts from the federal government,

“Mamdani can refuse to help; what he can’t do is build a wall around this city. ICE operates in New York with or without him, and a phone number doesn’t keep a single work permit alive one day past the deadline,” he said. “Standing on a stage promising families he’ll keep them here, when he knows he can’t, isn’t courage. It’s handing scared people a lie and calling it hope.”

In a statement to the Daily Signal, Mateo Forero, the director of investigations at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, described the mayor’s effort as “a blatant attempt to undermine federal immigration law” that criminally “obstructs” federal authority.

“By actively shielding removable aliens through sanctuary policies, legal hotlines, and public defiance, the mayor is actively and unlawfully obstructing federal authority over immigration enforcement,” Forero continued. “The Trump administration has the ability to use every available tool—including taking legal action, imposing funding conditions, and conducting direct enforcement operations—to counter the mayor’s defiance.”

Former Commander-at-Large of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Greg Bovino responded to the announcement by writing that Americans are “watching a replacement-level mindset being imported,” and he called for the federal government to take immediate action against the mayor.

“He’s choosing Haitians, Syrians, and whoever else over New Yorkers, all the while forcing citizens to pay for it with higher taxes and collapsing services. This can’t last,” Bovino said.

“Mayors don’t get to nullify federal law,” he continued. “Americans shouldn’t be forced to fund their own demographic decline. Where is the accountability? Or are we all supposed to pretend this is normal?”

New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino also responded to the post, writing that “Mamdani considers New York an independent city-state, with its own foreign policy, immigration policy, and economic policy.”

“He does not recognize the legitimacy of the federal government or even the United States as a nation to any extent beyond that which his party can directly control or benefit from financially,” she continued.

Paladino also called for the federal government to take immediate action.

“It is LONG PAST TIME for an appropriately severe reaction from the federal government. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. This is not politics, this is the enemy,” she added.

Regrettably, the Big Tech companies that profit from this advertising have done far too little to stop the problem. 

Fortunately, Congress is now saying enough is enough.

Bipartisan legislation, referred to as the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, was introduced this month by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. The bill makes it harder for dominant technology platforms to use their market power to suppress competitors and entrench their dominance.

Big Tech companies have amassed extraordinary power over how Americans communicate, shop, and access information online. For consumers, that concentration has created a wide range of problems. One consequence of that concentration is an online scam epidemic that continues to grow while consumers bear the costs.

Big Tech is well aware of the problem. It’s proven that it can police content aggressively when it wants to do so.

However, Big Tech makes hundreds of billions of dollars annually from digital advertising. Platforms have little incentive to crack down on the international fraud rings that are posting ads that milk innocent and unsuspecting Americans out of billions of dollars. 

If Big Tech companies were in a true competitive marketplace, they would face greater pressure to earn consumer trust and differentiate themselves by providing safer online experiences, but they aren’t. 

A mechanic with a monopoly in town can gouge on repair prices or, worse, charge for something that was never broken in the first place. However, that same mechanic will become concerned about his customers’ needs when he knows competitors are trying to take them away.

That principle applies just as much to Silicon Valley as it does to Main Street.

The Grassley-Klobuchar legislation seeks to restore some competitive pressures.

The legislation prohibits dominant technology platforms from engaging in practices that can entrench their market power, preventing covered platforms from unfairly favoring their own products and services over those of competitors. It also prohibits the use of nonpublic business data to gain an advantage over rivals and ends discrimination against businesses that depend on their platforms to reach customers. 

By opening markets to greater competition and making it easier for new companies to enter the marketplace, the bill would increase pressure on platforms to earn users’ business through stronger trust, safety, and consumer protection practices.

Famed bank robber Willie Sutton reportedly was once asked, “Why do you rob banks?” His answer: “That’s where the money is.” 

No legislation will eliminate the prevalence of international fraud cartels on Big Tech platforms overnight. But by creating marketplace incentives, the Grassley-Klobuchar bill will make it much harder for these companies to continue letting them run roughshod.

Americans deserve an internet where Big Tech works as hard to stop fraudsters as they do to attract advertisers. 

More competition will not solve every problem facing the digital economy, but it can help ensure that consumer protection becomes a business priority rather than a public-relations catchphrase. And that is exactly why the fraud cartels monopolizing social media should be worried.

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

It caught many folks in the District of Columbia off guard when President Donald Trump requested Congress tie the SAVE America Act to a $350 billion investment in defense in a third budget reconciliation bill.

After months of beltway insiders trying to shelve the SAVE America Act, some establishment politicians have sought to selectively highlight the $1.5 trillion topline as an annual funding increase, but this brushes past critical distinctions between discretionary and mandatory spending.

For those tracking the president’s fiscal year 2027 budget submitted to Congress this spring, the president’s request was not random. In fact, it was a request months—or even years—in the making, representing major strategic importance for American national security and American jobs.

Here’s the White House’s Office of Management and Budget’s explanation for these funds:

“The Budget also includes a request for $350 billion in additional mandatory resources for critical Administration priorities such as increasing access to critical munitions and further expansion of the defense industrial base. The mandatory funding protects key priorities such as providing flexibility in maturing technology for delivery and allowing for acquisition approaches for portfolios of capabilities that broaden opportunities for new entrants.”

Under the leadership of OMB Director Russell Vought and acting Deputy Director Hal Duncan, the American people have strong advocates for commonsense policy interwoven with smart, long-term thinking. This request is no different.

No matter how one feels about the ongoing conflicts in Iran or Ukraine, one thing has been made crystal clear: the American industrial base, after decades of being hollowed out and outsourced, lacks the capacity to supply the resources our warfighters need in a sustained conflict. Just as President Joe Biden’s weakness prompted adversaries to take advantage of the situation abroad, an American military with depleted stockpiles and an inability to mobilize undermines the deterrence strategy that keeps us out of war.

America celebrates her 250th birthday this year, but this principle of deterrence is centuries old. The Roman poet Vegetius wrote in the late fourth or early fifth century AD, “If you want peace, prepare for war.”

American security and prosperity are underpinned by American military and economic might, and Trump’s defense budget is meant to send a massive demand signal to American factories both to encourage investment in infrastructure and labor and to make sure the weapons our warfighters need are built and delivered on time.

This is more than just a slogan, coming as it does during China’s massive, historic military buildup. For example, China’s navy now has more battle force ships than ours and is engaged in a massive buildup of its nuclear arsenal.

The Trump administration has picked up this cause just as President Ronald Reagan did under the banner of “Peace through Strength.”

But it’s not just the Trump administration that sees this opportunity for a generational investment in jobs for the American industrial base. The Heritage Foundation published an analysis of the 2027 budget request this month, spotlighting why mandatory spending, rather than yearly appropriations, is the right way to fund this new investment.

“Many of these steps are commonsense economic policies that will also be helpful to the U.S. economy as a whole, the health of which is an essential part of national security. One cannot have a defense industrial base without an industrial base. To this end, the Trump Administration is rightfully looking to ameliorate long-term capacity issues with the defense industrial base by focusing on increasing capital flows to industry, reducing costs of production, expanding the available labor pool, and increasing and stabilizing demand.”

Federal policy is finally aligning to work with the free market, not against it. Critics of the ossifying defense contracting space have argued it is increasingly inefficient and ineffective at delivering for the American people.

Trump’s defense investment aligns with innovators at the Pentagon. When Shyam Sankar, Palantir’s chief technology officer, published “The Defense Reformation” in 2024, it was a scathing critique of the apathetic defense planners lost in Soviet-style five-year plans. Now, his book “Mobilize,” diving into these principles, is a New York Times bestseller.

American deterrence is back in style in “America First” policy, and hopefully not too late. The best time to start is now, with a third reconciliation bill attacking fraud, promoting accountability, and investing in American jobs through a generational investment in the American industrial base.

In a letter Thursday to Justice Department Assistant Inspector General M. Sean O’Neill, DEA Administrator Terry Cole requested a probe to assess how DEA supervisors responded to a whistleblower complaint by Special Agent David Howell, who first reported to supervisors and Justice Department officials that the agency was allowing fentanyl into New Mexico.

Starting during the Biden administration, the DEA allowed the shipments of drugs into the United States because Justice Department prosecutors wanted to build a larger criminal case against traffickers, The Associated Press first reported.

Cole, in his letter, also asked whether the DEA’s tracking of fentanyl, rather than seizures, was conducted in accordance with applicable Justice Department and agency guidelines.

“The alleged conduct occurred under the Biden administration’s disastrous open border policies,” a Justice Department spokesperson told the Daily Signal in an email. “The Trump administration has closed the border and is aggressively pursuing drug traffickers. DEA Administrator Cole has requested an independent DOJ-OIG review of DEA’s actions in light of this reporting to reaffirm the public’s confidence in our law enforcement agencies. Should that review identify areas of improvement, the DEA will of course implement changes to better their practices.”

The operation allowed drug shipments to pass through the U.S.-Mexico border for the purpose of gathering intelligence. The operation primarily affected the Albuquerque area. The drug shipments included a single load of 74,000 fentanyl pills that was delivered to a mobile home park in Albuquerque, under the DEA’s oversight.

The DEA chief’s request for an investigation marks a seeming departure from the agency’s initial response to the allegations earlier this week, when a DEA spokesperson said, “Public descriptions suggesting that DEA knowingly permitted fentanyl to reach communities are false and fundamentally mischaracterize the facts.”

Tristan Leavitt, president of Empower Oversight, a whistleblower advocacy group that is representing Howell, said he is encouraged by the call for an investigation but added the Justice Department can act now.

“It’s encouraging to see the DEA administrator calling for an inspector general investigation,” Leavitt told the Daily Signal.

“Embracing independent oversight is smarter than circling the wagons to defend disastrous decisions pushed by the Biden U.S. Attorney’s Office before he led the agency,” Leavitt continued. “But IG investigations take time, so the Justice Department shouldn’t wait for that report before fixing the fentanyl wiretap protocols that the Biden DOJ gutted.”

Former U.S. Attorney Alex Uballez, who was appointed by President Joe Biden and who oversaw the program, told The Associated Press it was justified for intelligence gathering and added, “The bigger fish are worth catching.”

The Associated Press reported the program began in 2023 and ended in 2025.

In a statement posted on the DEA website, Cole said the allegations should be determined by an independent investigation, “not debated through speculation or incomplete information.”

He added, “This request should not be interpreted as a lack of confidence in the men and women of DEA.”

“If the review confirms that DEA personnel acted appropriately, it will provide an independent assessment that reinforces confidence in the professionalism of this agency and its workforce,” Cole said. “If improvements are identified, DEA will implement them. Strong institutions are sustained—not diminished—by objective oversight and a willingness to continuously assess and improve.”

Inspectors general have a quasi-independent oversight role within federal departments, but with limitations, lacking the power to issue subpoenas and prosecute cases.

On the state front, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham asked the state’s attorney general, Raúl Torrez, to open a criminal investigation into federal agents or other federal officials who were involved in allowing the fentanyl to come into the state.

The DEA operation is reminiscent of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program under President Barack Obama’s administration dubbed “Operation Fast and Furious,” which allowed illegal guns to flow from the United States into Mexico for the purpose of tracking them to build a case against drug cartels. However, the government lost track of some of the guns, one of which was used in the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

On Wednesday, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget officially requested over $67 billion in Pentagon funding as part of a nearly $88 billion supplemental funding package.

OMB Director Russ Vought explained in a letter that the package is meant to address “operational costs” of the war, “including funding for military personnel and readiness expenses, operational costs to rebuild stocks expended by DOW, classified programs, and other key expenses.”

The White House is also seeking funding for national parks, Ebola prevention, and agricultural priorities.

Congress’ upcoming fight over supplemental funding is part of a larger debate over how Capitol Hill should interact with the Pentagon.

The supplemental is distinct from the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, which is an annual defense policy bill, as well as from the annual defense funding bill.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told Punchbowl News on Thursday that Republicans in the Senate will try to find the bipartisan support necessary to fund the military, with a partisan bill as the backup measure.

“We need to let [the supplemental] play out and find out if there’s a path there,” Thune told the outlet. “And then if there isn’t, we’ll go to Plan B—which, like I said, I’m not ruling out. I think [Reconciliation] 3.0 is an option, but I think we have to exhaust all the other options first.”

Budget reconciliation is a type of bill that allows Congress to enact major budgetary changes without needing 60 votes in the Senate.

Congressional Republicans recently used the procedure to fund immigration enforcement agencies for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s term without any Democrat support.

Democrats have already indicated they aren’t eager to expand the Pentagon’s budget.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement on X in response to the supplemental, “After dragging America into a reckless war, [Trump] now wants Congress to hand him tens of billions more to paper over the damage—while families are still paying higher prices.”

Schumer added that Democrats should not write “another blank check for Trump.”

Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate subcommittee that handles Pentagon funding, also expressed opposition on Wednesday.

“Our nation’s military has real needs, from filling munitions backlogs to protecting our troops and bases from modern drone warfare,” Coons wrote.

“But the administration’s supplemental accomplishes few of those goals,” he continued. “If brought to the floor, my Democratic colleagues and I would oppose it.”

This longstanding partisan rift on defense funding and other funding areas has resulted in prominent Republicans floating the idea of sidestepping the usual bipartisan process and pursuing reconciliation.

“Here’s the bottom line, and everybody knows this: If we want to get more money to defense—and I do—the only way we’re going to do it in the foreseeable future is through reconciliation,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said Wednesday as he discussed the overall defense funding picture.

“Some don’t like doing it through reconciliation. They think resorting to reconciliation too often bastardizes the appropriations process,” he continued. “They’re right, but this whole political environment right now is bastardized.”

In the House, a group of Republicans is attempting to craft one last ambitious reconciliation bill before the midterms, although they have yet to release a plan for such legislation.

This effort, backed by the chamber’s Republican leadership, comes as The Heritage Foundation and the Republican Study Committee have urged the Republican Congress to harness the full force of its majorities ahead of the midterms.

There is some overlap between the House’s ambitious reconciliation goals and the more modest ideas being floated in the Senate.

The board of the House Freedom Caucus—a fiscally conservative faction in the chamber—recently released a proposal to use reconciliation to bypass the bipartisan appropriations process.

“Republicans should also use reconciliation to deny Democrats the ability to weaponize government shutdown threats for political leverage ahead of the midterm elections by providing responsible short-term funding for key government personnel and services,” reads the board’s proposal for Reconciliation 3.0.

Related Posts

Senator Promises to ‘Figure Out’ How to Keep Planned Parenthood From Getting Massive Payout on July 4

On America’s 250th anniversary, Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest provider of abortions, will once again be eligible for federal funding after a yearlong ban that coincided with the closure of dozens of abortion clinics. Some members of Congress, like Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, have promised to do everything they can to prevent the…

The GOP’s Last-Ditch Effort Behind Closed Doors of Reconciliation 3.0 Meeting

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Wednesday called the House Budget Committee to his office for an impromptu closed-door meeting to plan the must-pass “Reconciliation 3.0.” With their deadline approaching, this could be the GOP’s last chance to eliminate fraud and wasteful spending, permanently defund Planned Parenthood, and pass the SAVE America Act. Rep….

‘NATIONAL EMERGENCY’: Trump Cancels Housing Bill Signing Until Congress Passes Voter ID Law

President Donald Trump said he will not move forward with a housing bill signing, which was scheduled for noon Wednesday, until Congress passes the SAVE America Act. “Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National…