In St. Mary’s Catholic Parish v. Roy, two Catholic parishes, two Catholic parents, and the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver sued Lisa Roy, executive director of the Colorado Department of Early Childhood. Lower courts upheld the Colorado exclusion.

In seeking Supreme Court review, the plaintiffs cited Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), in which the Supreme Court redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy promised in that opinion that “religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.”

“This court promised in Obergefell that religious groups would be protected when they dissent from secular orthodoxies about marriage and sexuality,” the St. Mary’s parish brief notes. “The free exercise clause simply cannot do that important work—which this court has described as ‘at the heart of our pluralistic society’—if it can be so easily evaded.”

A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld Colorado’s rules, finding that the Centennial State did not explicitly discriminate against St. Mary’s for religious reasons.

Employment Division v. Smith

The case revolves around the interpretation of Employment Division v. Smith (1990), in which the Supreme Court held that a “neutral law of general applicability” does not violate the First Amendment by engaging in religious discrimination. The Supreme Court allowed Oregon to exclude a Native American man from receiving unemployment benefits because he had consumed the hallucinogen peyote, which he claimed was part of his religious practice.

Congress responded to this decision by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993), requiring the application of strict scrutiny to laws restricting religious freedom.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has upheld religious freedom in key cases such as Hosanna Tabor v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012), which St. Mary’s parish claims creates a new jurisprudence at odds with Smith. The church cites Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), in noting that courts “need not ask whether the law at issue is neutral or generally applicable,” an apparent rejection of Smith.

A ‘Circuit Split’

This confusion has led to a “circuit split,” in which multiple circuit courts of appeals take dueling approaches to the law.

Four circuit courts and three state supreme courts have held that U.S. Supreme Court precedent “requires courts to assess all avenues of discretion and categories of exemptions from a law to see if any undermine the government’s asserted interest ‘in a similar way,'” St. Mary’s Parish notes.

Meanwhile, they add that two circuit courts and two state high courts “drastically narrow the general-applicability analysis, looking only for ‘unfettered’ discretion and considering only secular exemptions identical to the requested religious accommodation.”

In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, the church raises three questions: whether churches must demonstrate that states like Colorado had “unfettered discretion or categorial exemptions for identical secular conduct;” whether other precedents override Smith; and whether Smith should be overruled.

When the court granted certiorari Monday, it took up the first two questions, without considering the third—meaning that the court will not likely be overturning Smith in its entirety in this case.

Colorado Defends Excluding Catholics

For her part, Colorado Early Childhood Department Executive Director Lisa Roy argues that the Centennial State’s law is clear: the program must exclude any preschool provider who discriminates against minor children or their parents because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other protected characteristic.

Roy’s response brief claims that the parish seeks “an exemption from this law to allow them to receive public funding while turning away preschoolers because of their, or their parents’, gender identity or sexual orientation.”

Yet the church’s brief states that Colorado would allow various exemptions to the law, and its decision to exclude the church therefore constitutes discrimination. It cites Dawn Odean, director of Colorado’s Universal Preschool program, who testified that the state could allow preschools “to admit only ‘gender-nonconforming children’ and to prioritize serving ‘children of color from historically underserved areas’ and ‘the LGBTQ community.'”

The Colorado Association of Private Schools, in a friend-of-the-court brief, writes that Colorado’s program “divides religious preschools into two classes: those that affirm the State’s pro-LGBTQ views and those that don’t.”

“The former are religious winners—they may participate in the [Universal Preschool program] and access funding,” the brief notes. “The latter are religious losers—they’re excluded from the program.”

The post Supreme Court Takes Up Case of Catholics Excluded From ‘Universal’ Preschool Program Over LGBTQ Stance appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“Some very audible and prolonged booing for US Rep. Haley Stevens, who is running for U.S. Senate, at the Michigan Democratic Party convention,” observed a reporter for The Detroit News in attendance.

Stevens is facing attacks from her left flank from two primary opponents.

Stevens is seeking the Democrat nomination to face off against Republican former Rep. Mike Rogers, who lost to now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin by fewer than 20,000 votes in 2024.

The race is to fill the seat of incumbent Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., who is not seeking reelection. Democrats need to net four additional seats in order to win the Senate, so holding on to Michigan is critical for their path to a majority.

Stevens trails her two Democrat rivals, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and former Wayne County health commissioner Abdul El-Sayed, by 11 points in a new Emerson College poll of the race.

The polling shows McMorrow and El-Sayed tied at 24% each. The Democrat primary will be held on Aug. 4, 2026.

McMorrow and El-Sayed have both set themselves apart from Stevens by harshly criticizing Israel and the current Senate Democrat leadership.

Stevens, on the other hand, is a staunch supporter of Israel, and has the support of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The sole federal officeholder in the race, Stevens has been in Congress since 2019 and represents the Detroit-area 11th Congressional District.

Stevens is a member of the House “Problem Solvers Caucus,” a bipartisan group whose website describes it as “committed to advancing common-sense solutions to key issues facing our nation.”

She has called El-Sayed’s recent campaign event with controversial online commentator Hasan Piker “unamerican.” Piker has made controversial remarks on his livestream, such as that the United States “deserved” the Sept. 11 attacks. 

Stevens also filed articles of impeachment against Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., alleging “abuse of authority and undermining of the public health.”

Although no Republican has won a Senate race in the state in the 21st century, the Cook Political Report currently lists the race as a “TOSS UP,” the only Democrat-held seat with that status.

Rogers secured President Donald Trump’s endorsement, as well as that of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, shortly after entering the race.

Trump has won twice in Michigan—in 2016 and 2020—running on promises to restore the state’s industries.

In 2024, Trump made major inroads among the state’s large Arab population with promises of peace in the Middle East. The issue of Israel has been divisive for Michigan’s left.

Former President Joe Biden’s stance on Israel was the subject of fierce debate among Democrats in the state in 2024, leading Dearborn Mayor Abdullah Hammoud and Rep. Rashida Tlaib to ultimately withhold their endorsements of party nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.

The Democrat campaigns did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The post Michigan Senate Candidate Stevens Booed at Convention appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Justice Department has sought ballots and election records related to the 2024 election from Wayne County, which includes Detroit, Fox News reported.

The Justice Department’s request didn’t specify how many records, but Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said in a letter to the department that 864,767 ballots were cast in the 2024 election.

She referred several times to the recent FBI raid seeking election documents in Georgia. However, the Fulton County, Georgia, raid—and the FBI subsequently obtaining election records from Maricopa County, Arizona—pertained to the 2020 election.

“I am dismayed that it appears you have decided to move forward on theories similar to those deployed in Fulton County, in Michigan,” Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a Democrat, said in a letter Friday to U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon.

Nessel later added, “Much like Fulton County, the city of Detroit became the target of efforts to overturn the 2020 election.”

While Nessel is raising the Fulton County comparison, the Justice Department is seeking information from the 2024 election.

On April 14, Dhillon wrote to Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett and asked for “all ballots (including absentee and provisional), ballot receipts, and ballot envelopes” from the November 2024 federal election.

Dhillon’s letter said the request was based on a “history of fraud convictions and other allegations” in Wayne County and warned that failure to comply “may result in the United States seeking a court order for production of such records.”

The Justice Department is suing 29 states and the District of Columbia for not providing requested election records, while 16 states have voluntarily provided the information.

When the FBI obtained election records from Maricopa County, Arizona, those were provided by the state Senate, which already had the information after conducting a 2021 audit.

The post Dem AG Fears Michigan Could Face FBI Raid on Election Data appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Meanwhile, Democrats’ comrades in Great Britain, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour Party, hope to sink their collective fangs into election integrity and poison the SAVE-like reforms that the Conservative Party enacted while in power.

Legendary Tory Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli reputedly remarked: “A man who is not a Liberal at 16 has no heart; a man who is not a Conservative at 60 has no head.”

Ironically, Disraeli’s 21st-Century philosophical opponents apparently excavated his 19th-Century observation as they drafted the Representation of the People Bill. Its very first proposal is the “Extension of right to vote etc to 16 and 17 year olds.” This provision does not ease vote fraud, per se. However, it confirms Labour’s belief that the U.K.’s most momentous decisions should be made by left-leaning children.

Britain’s Electoral Commission warmly describes Labour’s opening fusillade against clean elections. “The bill includes provisions to enable automatic or direct registration. Electoral registration officers would have a duty to register eligible voters using Council and other accurate data, without waiting for them [voters] to submit an application form.”

Rather than let citizens swim upstream if they choose to register, Labour wants to chase them around the English Channel with drift nets.

California and other Democratic states automatically register people to vote when they apply for drivers’ licenses and other government benefits. That’s how foreign citizens occasionally become ensnared in the voter rolls.

Some quickly demand removal to avoid any heat from ICE. Surely some foreign citizens have voted, naively reckoning that they should cast their unrequested mass mail-in ballots. Labour apparently observed such chaos and thought: Let’s try this at home!

Labour also wants to use mailing-address databases to register voters. Given how often people change residences, this is absurd.

Labour plans to abandon the requirement that Britons show photo ID to vote. Just as Washington’s Right tries to make this extremely popular ballot-security measure universal for federal elections, London’s Left sprints the other way.

In January 2024, then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government mandated photo ID at the polls. Consequently, the Electoral Commission found that “0.08% of people who tried to vote at a polling station in July 2024 were not able to because of the ID requirement.”

So, literally 99.92% of voters presented photo IDs and voted. As for the helpless 0.08%, Labour could FedEx them photo IDs. Instead, Labour wants to hand ballots to people with non-photo ID, including bank cards, prepaid cards, and even cards with surnames and only first initials (e.g., S. Jones or A. Patel). 

About this, the Election Commission warns: “As bank cards do not include a photo and sometimes do not include a full name, polling station staff may not be able to verify that the person is who they say they are.” Perfect! What could go wrong?

Labour’s bill also would slap a £100,000 ($135,476) cap on political donations made by often right-leaning British subjects who reside overseas.

One such Englishman is fighting back. Cryptocurrency billionaire Ben Delo soon will return from Hong Kong, so he generously can support Reform UK, the party that he has buoyed with £4 million ($5,419,040) in donations. 

“It seems that Labour intends to change the law, to make it harder for the opposition to win elections,” Delo wrote April 8 in The Telegraph. “I will move back to Britain early so I can contribute more to Reform’s budget.”

(President Donald J. Trump pardoned Delo in March 2025. He previously pleaded guilty to one count of keeping cryptocurrency customers’ records insufficient to satisfy U.S. regulations.) 

While this idea lies outside Labour’s proposal, the Electoral Commission “previously recommended introducing ‘vouching’ or attestation at polling stations.” Thus, a registered voter could tell a poll worker: “Don’t worry, mate. Mustafa, Igor, Jorge, and Simon lack ID cards. But they’re splendid chaps. So, let’s get on with it and hand them their ballots.”

At best, this fosters electoral slovenliness. At worst, it turbocharges illegal-alien ballot-box stuffing.

“Labour are weakening protections brought in by the Conservatives to stop electoral fraud,” said Shadow Minister Paul Holmes MP, Tory spokesman for ballot integrity. “Law-abiding voters will rightly ask why, and wonder whether Labour are doing this to secure the votes of people with dubious legal status in our country.”

“Labour’s bill is an industrial-scale scandal waiting to happen: removing the photo ID requirement will destroy one of the few perfunctory safeguards we have in Britain and open the floodgates to criminal impersonation at the polls,” Oxford-based legal scholar Dr. Patrick Nash tells me. He lambasted Labour’s legislation between bites of curried beef at Cinnamon Club, the repurposed Westminster Public Library, now a temple of modern Indian cuisine. 

“Worse,” Nash added, “it beggars belief that the Electoral Commission—the official regulator of electoral integrity—still exists, given that it routinely denies the existence of serious fraud and has even launched its own far-left campaign to introduce ‘vouching’ at the polls. The Government must scrap its voter ID vandalism immediately and shutter the Electoral Commission for being an incompetent, politicized bureaucracy. Americans will doubtless recognize the direct parallels between Labour’s moves and the Democrats’ cynical opposition to the SAVE Act.”

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

The post Democrats’ British Comrades Hammer UK’s Election Integrity appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a letter to the FTC, Banks called on the commission to uphold federal prohibitions against deceptive trade practices by holding abortion drug companies to the same standards as other companies.

“Mifepristone manufacturers and dispensers continue to mislead pregnant women into thinking that abortion drugs are much safer than they really are, and that even if something bad does happen, they can receive appropriate treatment without disclosing their abortion,” the letter stated.

“Companies that profit from abortion drugs should be honest about their risks,” the letter added. “The FTC has the tools in its toolbox to hold abortion drug companies to their obligations under consumer protection law.”

Banks said that medication abortion, involving the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, accounts for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States. He noted that these drugs are often prescribed online, without in-person screening for dangerous complications such as ectopic pregnancy. They are then shipped nationwide, including into states that have restricted abortion.

Banks took issue with marketing claims that mifepristone is “safer than Tylenol” or other common over-the-counter medications.

“There is no scientific basis for the claim that mifepristone is ‘safer than Tylenol,’” Banks wrote, arguing that such claims lack the standards of controlled studies and could thus constitute deceptive trade practices under FTC precedent.

Banks’ letter cites a report by the Ethics and Public Policy Center that, according to insurance claims data, more than 10% of women who take the abortion pill experience serious adverse events, including hemorrhaging and sepsis.

The letter references the death of Amber Thurman, a 28-year-old Georgia mother who died after suffering septic shock “due to complications from mifepristone.”

Some clinics advise women to tell emergency room staff they are experiencing a miscarriage rather than disclose an abortion, while asserting—without proper evidence, the letter says—that the treatments are the same for both.

“According to various clinics, women who receive emergency treatment following a chemical abortion can get the care they need without mentioning the abortion,” Banks stated. “Some clinics even claim that the treatment for chemical abortion complications is the same as treatment for miscarriage.”

The senator emphasizes that federal law, as interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission, prohibits claims “that are likely to reasonably mislead consumers to their detriment.”

The post EXCLUSIVE: Banks Asks FTC to Investigate Abortion Drug Manufacturers  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This has positioned Eisgruber to lead the pushback from university administrators and faculty against demands from the Trump administration and Congress that they do more to combat Jew-hatred if they wish to receive further federal funding. And he is guiding America’s most elite educational institutions along a predictable path to failure.

Princeton historically prided itself on excellence and shaped my understanding of political movements, public policy, and technology in ways that influence my work every day.

This is why I find Eisgruber’s monotonous drumbeat of cries for “academic freedom” so disappointing.

Academic freedom is valuable when it enables the pursuit of truth, not as a cover for bigotry. The ability to spout hate does not obligate the American taxpayer to support it. Stripped of high-sounding verbiage, Eisgruber is advocating for the “right” of antisemites to inculcate hatred in America’s future leaders, free from the pesky burdens of America’s civil rights laws.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits an institution receiving federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

The Trump administration clarified that Jews do not lose this protection for also sharing religious practices. A university that supports denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, characterizing Zionism as a racist endeavor, or otherwise judging Israel by arbitrary standards applied nowhere else, is rightly ineligible for government funding.

It is that simple.

History provides a sobering precedent.

Germany stood at the pinnacle of academia for nearly two centuries. But then, even before but especially after World War I, ancient and pernicious hatred rebranded itself as a meritorious academic discipline: “antisemitism.” This gave Hitler’s genocidal evil an intellectual veneer; half of the architects of his Final Solution held doctorates from Germany’s, and the world’s, finest schools.

When the Nazis purged Jews from government positions and universities in 1933, they cast prejudice as beneficial, calling their edict the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service.”

The truth was precisely the opposite: The brain drain of scholars like Albert Einstein, Max Born, and Lise Meitner permanently ended Germany’s status as the global leader in scientific research. German universities ruined their own reputation by prioritizing bigotry over scholarship.

The parallel is obvious.

Today, America’s elite universities demand “academic freedom” to teach “anti-Zionism” instead. And the brain drain is already happening, on Eisgruber’s watch and under his nose.

When Princeton joins other leading schools putting antisemitic mythology on the curriculum, giving tenure to hateful professors, and supporting student organizations that back Hamas terrorism against Jews, Jewish students rightly choose to go elsewhere.

American academia suffers the consequences.

Today we are seeing hesitation in the face of harassment, equivocation where there should be enforcement. Formerly elite universities, in and beyond the Ivy League, now substitute antisemitic indoctrination for anthropology, archaeology, history, religion, sociology, and a host of other academic disciplines.

To claim that this comports with the reputed priorities of the Ivy League is laughable.

If academic freedom means tolerance for anti-Jewish discrimination, its schools will follow Germany’s in reputation and authority. Yet learned professors obfuscate, blaming government control rather than hatred for Germany’s lost academic prowess.

They have it backward.

The Nazis put university-grown hatred into practice; President Donald Trump and Congress are fighting to save American academia from that same bigotry. Their demands are as simple as they are morally proper: enforce Title VI. Protect Jewish students as they would any other group. Draw the line between free expression and harassment. And ensure compliance with the law, which is a core prerequisite of federal funding.

As an alumnus, I am not condemning the university, but “speaking up,” in the words of its recent campaign, for what it is supposed to represent. The Ivy League should be leading the way in upholding civil rights, rather than fighting against what is both necessary and right.

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

The post There’s No Academic Freedom to Incite Hatred appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Then, imagine a representative from the state attorney general’s office shows up at your office demanding constitutionally protected records and donor information without legal cause. 

For First Choice Women’s Resource Centers in New Jersey, this was exactly what happened in November 2023. The state’s then-Attorney General Matthew Platkin demanded First Choice hand over 10 years’ worth of internal documents and private donor records simply because the organization offered life-affirming support to vulnerable women. 

In December 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers Inc. v. Platkin. The outcome of the case will determine whether nonprofits can continue their life-changing care without politically motivated interference.

In short, the case is a fishing expedition by a state official so focused on promoting abortion that he’s willing to sideline real care for women—the care that pregnancy centers like First Choice in New Jersey and the nearly 3,000 centers nationwide provide.

Pregnancy centers are under attack now, but any other charity could be next. 

In this politically charged era of American history, it is tempting to assume the attorney general was simply doing his job, perhaps investigating complaints of mismanagement or illegal activity. But that is not the case. Even Platkin’s counsel admitted he hadn’t had any complaints about First Choice.

If Platkin gets away with targeting First Choice simply for providing care for women, any charity any attorney general disagrees with becomes fair game. 

For over half a century, pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and other life-affirming charities have offered women an alternative to abortion: real support.

Data shows that women want this kind of support. Sixty-seven percent of women said their abortions were inconsistent with their own values and preferences. Through counseling, material assistance, and long-term support, these organizations help thousands of women navigate pregnancy while building healthy and stable futures for their families. 

The national network of nearly 3,000 pregnancy resource centers has offered a lifeline to pregnant women who want to choose life but lack adequate resources or support. Pregnancy resource centers have cumulatively donated hundreds of millions of dollars toward this goal, including $452 million in 2024 alone, with most offering medical, material, educational, and other resources completely free of charge. The broader pro-life safety net of local charities offers additional material, financial, and medical support, empowering vulnerable women to thrive as mothers.

Dozens of women have come forward to testify that pregnancy resource centers like First Choice enabled them to continue their pregnancies and become confident and competent mothers. Many of these women also attest that pregnancy resource centers gave them long-term and wrap-around support, helping them overcome drug addictions, homelessness, poverty, domestic abuse, and more. 

Whether you contribute to an addiction recovery program, run a food pantry, or raise funds for cancer research, this case should give you pause. There is a reason we respect the privacy of people who give generously to private charities: Charities bring love, hope, and support to those in need.

Groups across the political spectrum have filed amicus briefs in defense of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers. They recognize what a threat this case will hold if it is wrongly decided. (Even the American Civil Liberties Union agrees this case is outrageous.)

From the beginning, it was obvious that Platkin’s subpoena, which demanded First Choice’s donor records and other private information, was a politically motivated investigation. Within weeks of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, he launched a “Reproductive Rights Strike Force” and later joined a group of extreme state attorneys general in a joint letter criticizing pregnancy resource centers.

It is disappointing, but not surprising, that he burdened the women running First Choice with a time-consuming and costly court case. Americans across the political spectrum are rightly concerned by this overt display of government power against a nonprofit charity. If First Choice loses the case, any nonprofit in America could be entangled in politically motivated, unwarranted investigations that drastically impede their ability to provide care in their communities.

The pro-life safety net’s work is far from finished, but its dedicated, faithful service to moms and their babies shouldn’t be controversial. Organizations like Her PLAN, of which I serve as executive director, are strengthening and extending the pro-life safety net in states across the country to meet growing needs. America’s legacy of neighbors helping neighbors through nonprofit organizations hinges on the decision in the First Choice case. 

If the Supreme Court hands the attorney general’s office a victory, charities nationwide, the women and families who depend on them, and the donors who sustain them will face the same political targeting. 

Pregnancy centers and the entire charitable community anxiously await the Supreme Court’s decision, hoping and praying it will protect donor privacy and nonprofit independence from political retribution. For the sake of vulnerable women, their children, and the selfless individuals who serve them each day with steadfast resolve, it’s my greatest hope that it does.

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

The post How Will SCOTUS Respond to NJ Tightening Its Hold on Nonprofits? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For decades, America’s military edge was unquestioned. That era is over. China is closing the gap fast, and the nations that move decisively now will lock in advantages that compound over time. Those who hesitate will be left behind permanently. 

The good news: American innovation—particularly AI—is already delivering results for America’s national security, preventing supply-chain shortfalls, detecting cyberattacks in real time, and optimizing military logistics. Not as experiments, but as operational reality. The question is no longer whether these technologies work. It’s whether America will build the infrastructure and maintain the policies to stay ahead of an adversary running hard to catch us. 

Accelerating New Weapons Design and Procurement 

As the United States navigates existing and evolving threats, producing advanced munitions at an adequate scale will be a prerequisite for success. Traditionally, the path from concept to fielded capability stretched across years, or even decades, as weapon designs moved through prototyping, testing, and federal procurement bureaucracy.

However, AI-assisted design, manufacturing, and supply chain management have compressed these timelines at a speed we have never seen before. For example, California-based company Divergent Technologies utilizes AI-enabled engineering software and robotic assembly to 3D print components and machinery in the automotive and aerospace industries.  

Last year, Divergent and CoAspire announced that AI-driven manufacturing had taken the Rapidly Adaptable Affordable Cruise Missile (RAACM) from concept to flight-tested hardware in 16 weeks. What once took years can now be done in months—a revolutionary development. A nation that can surge weapons production in weeks rather than years holds a decisive advantage in any conflict, and that advantage will increasingly belong to whoever builds the AI infrastructure to support it. 

Autonomous Technologies Bypass Enemy Countermeasures

Autonomous drone technology further proves how AI has crossed from theory to operational reality, and nowhere is that more evident than in Ukraine. By reducing human presence in high-risk combat environments, autonomous vehicles protect servicemember lives while maintaining battlefield effectiveness.

Take, for example, Shield AI’s V-BAT drone, which last year executed more than 35 missions and enhanced U.S. drones’ ability to skirt Russian jammers that were previously grounding many U.S. systems. Traditional drones rely on GPS for navigation and radio links to human operators—both targets of Russian electronic warfare. Jamming these signals effectively renders a drone blind or uncontrollable. The V-BAT drones’ resilience to jammers helped turn a once aspirational idea into a tangible advantage on the front lines, handing American and allied efforts a competitive edge. 

Defending Critical Infrastructure in Real-Time

America’s critical infrastructure is under constant cyberattacks from sophisticated state-backed adversaries. In 2024, multiple U.S. government agencies warned that Chinese hackers had embedded malicious code inside U.S. communications, energy, transportation, and water systems, prepped to launch disruptive attacks during a future conflict. 

Threats at this scale exceed what human analysts can monitor alone. Our adversaries are increasingly using AI to accelerate attacks and almost instantaneously adapt to changing defenses, underscoring the need for the U.S. to match this evolving threat with an equally adept defense. AI meets this need by continuously scanning network traffic, detecting anomalies, and neutralizing threats before they become breaches. 

In December 2025, Darktrace Federal was awarded a State Department contract to deploy AI-powered network detection and response capabilities across the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s global IT infrastructure, protecting U.S. diplomatic personnel, facilities, and sensitive information in more than 170 countries, including conflict zones. 

The real-time response capabilities of AI have proven critical in protecting sensitive information and infrastructure, especially for agencies under persistent pressure from Chinese and Russian AI-enabled adversaries. The U.S. needs to enable, not undermine, American AI innovation if we want to remain ahead in national security. 

Domestic Infrastructure Enables our Security

None of this works without infrastructure. The weapons systems, autonomous platforms, and cyber defenses described above all run on massive compute power. They all depend on the data centers and energy systems that power modern AI. 

That means the local decisions being made today about AI infrastructure are also decisions about national security. Every community that says yes to this infrastructure is helping to strengthen our nation’s security. And every conflicting state mandate, every permitting delay, is ultimately a choice to cede that future—and America’s technological edge—to competitors like China, who will not hesitate. 

The question facing U.S. leaders is no longer whether AI will shape national security. The tools are already deployed, and the results are already measurable. Weapons systems are fielded in weeks rather than years. Autonomous drones operating where human pilots cannot. Critical networks are defended in real time against state-backed attacks. 

These use cases make one reality clear: The nations that harness AI fastest will not only gain a tactical edge, but will set the terms that others follow. The infrastructure that determines American leadership is being built right now, community by community, across hundreds of towns and cities. Washington’s only real choice is whether to accelerate that buildout or hand China the advantage by slowing it down. 

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

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

The post AI Isn’t the Future of Our National Security. It’s the Present. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

During a podcast appearance with Katie Miller last week, Donalds, R-Fla., revealed that DeSantis once considered him for a top leadership role in the state party.

“When Governor DeSantis was elected back in 2018, we had a conversation and he asked if I’d be interested in becoming state party chairman of Florida,” Donalds said.

Republican leaders in Florida told The Daily Signal that DeSantis’ past support for Donalds may explain why the outgoing governor has declined to take sides in a race that includes three of his closest allies.

Donalds is running for governor against DeSantis’ current lieutenant governor, Jay Collins, and former Florida House Speaker Paul Renner.

“If the governor thinks highly enough of Byron to ask him to lead the state party once he becomes governor, it’s obvious that it could foreshadow him not wanting to make an endorsement that would hurt Byron,” one Republican elected official in Florida told The Daily Signal.

Another Florida county Republican chairman echoed that sentiment, saying DeSantis appears reluctant to disrupt alliances inside the party.

“Look, it’s clear that he does not want to step on any toes,” the chairman said. “If DeSantis likes Byron and thinks the Trump-endorsed candidate will be the next governor, he might not want to make an endorsement that will not sit well with his current lieutenant governor.”

Others pointed to Donalds’ political rise since 2018 as evidence of why DeSantis once viewed him as leadership material.

That moment, Sweetwater Commissioner Ian Valecillo and Miami Young Republicans President Miguel Granda told The Daily Signal, shows Donalds was already being recognized at the state level.

“What’s notable is how much he’s grown since then,” Valecillo said. “He’s gone from a local race setback to becoming one of the most influential conservative voices in the country.”

Valecillo noted that Donalds ultimately could not take on the state party role because he did not win the Collier County Republican Party chairmanship at the time, but said the congressman proved he did not need a formal title to lead.

“He’s built his own credibility with voters, and today he’s in a far stronger position to shape the future of Florida’s Republican Party than he was back then,” Valecillo said.

Granda argued that Donalds represents a continuation of the DeSantis agenda.

“He isn’t just a successor—he’s a continuation of everything that has made Florida the blueprint for the rest of America,” he said.

“For eight years, Ron DeSantis has shown the rest of the country what bold, principled conservative leadership looks like, and Florida has thrived because of it,” Granda added. “This November, Florida has the opportunity to keep that momentum going by electing Congressman Byron Donalds as the next governor of the Sunshine State.”

The post DeSantis’ Respect for Byron Donalds Could Be Why He Hasn’t Endorsed a Successor, GOP Leaders Say appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Gas prices have risen during the U.S. and Israeli war on Iran and Iranian attacks on nearby countries, creating political headwinds for President Donald Trump ahead of the November midterm elections, where his Republican Party will defend slim majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Gas below $3 a gallon “could happen later this year, that might not happen until next year. But prices have likely peaked, and they’ll start going down,” Wright told CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “Certainly with the resolution of this conflict, you’ll see prices go down.”

Trump administration officials have offered differing views on how gas prices may shift. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week predicted gas prices would fall to the $3 per gallon range this summer, while Wright on Sunday laid out a lengthier likely timeline to reach that price.

Trump himself has said that gas prices may remain elevated until November. 

All of them have predicted gas prices will eventually get cheaper once the Iran war ends. “Under $3 a gallon is pretty tremendous in inflation-adjusted terms,” Wright said. “We’ll get back there for sure.”

The average price for a gallon of regular gas on Sunday was $4.05, according to an estimate by AAA, compared to $3.16 a year ago.

The war’s impact on oil delivery also has airlines warning of a potential jet fuel shortage. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Sunday said jet fuel will become more plentiful as the Iran conflict recedes.

“So yes, a small disruption, hopefully for a short period of time, but in the long run it becomes cheaper for Americans to travel because of decreased jet fuel prices,” Duffy said.

The U.S. and Iran on Thursday agreed to a 10-day ceasefire, but Trump on Sunday accused Iran of violating it with attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz this weekend. U.S. officials will arrive in Pakistan for further negotiations on Monday, Trump wrote in a social media post.  

“We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran,” he posted, revisiting a threat he had made prior to the ceasefire. 

(Reporting by Leah Douglas in Washington; additional reporting by Tim McLaughlin in Boston; Editing by Sergio Non and Bill Berkrot)

The post Energy Secretary: Gas Prices Could Stay Above $3 Per Gallon Until Next Year appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Gallup survey released Thursday revealed a remarkable surge in young men saying that religion is “very important” to them, with data from 2024-2025 showing 42%, a 14-point increase from 2022-2023.

The poll found that the phenomenon happening among young men aged 18-29 is not happening among their female peers, only 29% of whom said that religion is “very important” to them (a figure that has stayed roughly the same since 2020).

The upward trend in religiosity is also largely not occurring among other age groups, with the exception of men aged 30-49 (who saw a five-point increase over the same timespan) and men aged 50-64 (who saw a three-point increase).

Notably, the numbers mark a clear reversal from the beginning of the millennium, when young women led young men in saying that religion was “very important” to them (52% vs. 43%).

As reported by The New York Times, college students like Mason Gubser likely epitomize the changing attitudes of many young men in their approach to faith. Gubser told the Times that he had become dissatisfied with a life centered on constant phone scrolling.

“All my entertainment is right here in front of me, but there’s no fulfillment from that,” he said. “I wanted something new and something traditional and something that felt holy.”

Gubser, now 21, eventually found the Catholic center on the Texas A&M University campus, where he became Catholic two years ago and is now engaged to be married. “What I was really looking for, and still am, was purpose,” he remarked. “The church definitely provides that.”

The surge in religion among young men is likely driving upward trends in different segments of Christianity, particularly Catholicism. Data acquired from 140 of the country’s 175 dioceses “saw a 38 percent increase in Easter converts across U.S. dioceses relative to last year.”

In addition, Orthodox churches are also seeing increases in both attendance and membership, which reportedly is being driven by young men. Another sign of a potentially budding revival are sales of Bibles, which saw a 22% spike in sales in 2024 and are currently seeing an explosion in the sales of high-end versions.

David Closson, who serves as director of the Center for Biblical Worldview at Family Research Council, sees the new Gallup data as highly significant.

“The new Gallup data is striking, particularly because it reverses a long-standing trend,” he told The Washington Stand. “For decades, young women have been more religious than young men, but that gap has now flipped. One factor appears to be political realignment. The report itself notes that much of the increase is concentrated among young Republican men, suggesting that broader ideological shifts are influencing religious engagement.”

“At the same time,” Closson continued, “we should not ignore deeper cultural dynamics. For years, young men have been told that traditional expressions of masculinity are problematic or even harmful. In that context, it is not surprising that some are gravitating toward faith communities that offer a clearer sense of identity, purpose, and moral framework. For many young men, church provides structure, accountability, and a vision of ordered freedom, all of which can be especially compelling in a culture that often feels unmoored.”

Clossen further noted that cultural factors are likely key to understanding the differences between the religious movement of young men and their female counterparts.

“The divergence between young men and young women also raises important questions. While young men are showing renewed interest in the importance of religion, young women’s numbers have remained flat and, in some respects, are at historic lows,” he explained. “That suggests we are not simply seeing a general religious revival, but a more targeted shift that may reflect differences in how young men and women are responding to cultural pressures and expectations.”

As for the church, Closson posited that the current moment “presents a significant opportunity. The data suggest that many young men are open to deeper conversations about meaning, truth, and faith. Churches should be ready to meet that moment with serious teaching, intentional discipleship, and a robust vision of biblical manhood that emphasizes responsibility, service, and spiritual leadership.

At the same time, the church must not lose sight of the need to engage young women thoughtfully and faithfully, ensuring that the message of the gospel speaks clearly and compellingly to both men and women in a rapidly changing cultural landscape.”

Joseph Backholm, who serves as senior fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at FRC, observed that the new Gallup data points toward an inevitable cultural yearning for the eternal. “I think young men are discovering that materialism doesn’t have the answers to the questions they’re asking,” he told TWS.

“A life without rules or meaning creates chaos, inside of us and around us. Secularism has an obvious appeal because it offers the opportunity to do whatever you want, but it doesn’t work because everyone does what they want. What was supposed to make everyone happier actually makes everyone more miserable, and secularism can’t explain why. So, it shouldn’t be surprising that young people are turning to church in an effort to understand the world as it actually is.”

“Young men also might be drawn to religion as a form of rebellion,” Backholm elaborated. “The Left has been waging a war on men for a while now, so it’s possible that young men are being drawn to religion as a way of rebelling against everything on the Left. If that’s true, that might be part of the reason young men are more religious than young women. Secularists like women better than men. As a result, women like secularism more.”

Still, “It’s also true that the Holy Spirit is at work in the world and Jesus is drawing us to Himself,” he reflected. “We live in a war between truth and lies, but Jesus promised us that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. While we see evidence of the war all around us, we shouldn’t be surprised when we see the truth advancing in measurable ways. Over time, that’s the only possible outcome.”

“Lies are eventually exposed as such,” Backholm concluded. “It often takes longer than we prefer, but lies do not endure because they cannot endure. The world was never going to just descend into universal secularism. We need to be confident that the truth is true, and right now, it seems young men are discovering this in a new way.”

Originally published by The Washington Stand.

The post Young Men Becoming Increasingly Religious, Polling Confirms appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Trump administration has sued multiple states for failing to turn over voter rolls to the Department of Justice, which is seeking to ensure compliance with the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and other federal laws aimed at protecting the right to vote. Dhillon told Bartiromo that, even in states trying to comply with the laws, issues concerning voting eligibility were still being identified.

“States are not in compliance, even those ones who want to. So, for the ones that we’ve run so far—60 million records that we’ve run—we found at least 350,000 dead people currently on the voter rolls in those jurisdictions, and we’ve referred approximately 25,000 people with no citizenship records to [the Department of] Homeland Security to look at, you know, dig into that further and see the extent to which people voted,” Dhillon told Bartiromo. “I’m in touch with voting rights activists who are showing me information about people who have voted who are not American citizens. So the Left told us this never happens and it’s a myth, it definitely happened.”

“Just recently, someone was indicted in Minnesota, of all places, for voting without being a citizen, and so I’ve sent a document request to them on that,” Dhillon continued. “Minnesota has a weird vouching law that allows citizens to vouch for each other’s citizenship. That’s crazy and inconsistent with the Help America Vote Act and we’re not going to rest until we complete this project.”

Dhillon also noted that, despite the Civil Rights Act of 1960 giving the attorney general access to voting rolls to ensure compliance with the law, multiple states have refused to hand them over.

“I’m suing 29 states and the District of Columbia for their refusal to give us the voter rolls to which the attorney general or the acting attorney general is entitled under the Civil Rights Act of 1960,” Dhillon told Bartiromo, later adding that, in several cases, federal judges ruled against the Trump administration.

“We’re expediting the appeals in these cases,” Dhillon said. “There’ll be an appeal in the Ninth Circuit [Court of Appeals] and the Sixth Circuit soon.”

President Trump issued an executive order in March 2025 requiring the federal government’s Election Assistance Commission to update its voter registration form to require proof of citizenship.

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post DOJ’s Harmeet Dhillon Details Just How Much of a ‘Mess’ Voter Rolls Are appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Traveling to Angola for the third leg of his apostolic visit to Africa—the third trip outside Italy since his pontificate began in May 2025—Leo greeted reporters aboard the papal plane and answered their questions.

While the 10-day trip to the Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea was long-planned, the fall-out from an aggressive Sunday post by Trump to Truth Social lambasting the pope threatened to overshadow His Holiness’s mission to “primarily come to Africa as pastor, as the head of the Catholic Church, to be with, to celebrate with, to encourage and accompany all of the Catholics throughout Africa.”

“There’s been a certain narrative that has not been accurate in all of its aspects, but because of the political situation created when on the first day of the trip the president of the United States made some comments about me,” the American-born supreme pontiff said. “Much of what has been written since then has been more commentary on commentary, trying to interpret what has been said.”

“Just one little example: the talk that I gave at the prayer meeting for peace a couple of days ago was prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting,” he continued. “And yet as it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate again the president, which is not in my interest at all.”

Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic, later praised the pope hours after his comments. He previously acknowledged differences between the Administration’s priorities and methods and those of the Holy See, but expressed that continued dialogue and understanding would strengthen the relationship between the two powers.

“I am grateful to Pope Leo for saying this. While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict–and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen–the reality is often much more complicated,” he wrote in a Sunday evening X post. “Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day. The President–and the entire administration–work to apply those moral principles in a messy world. He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we’ll be in his.”

The remarks by the Holy Father signify the latest attempt to move on from the perceived rift between the spiritual shepherd of the Catholic Church and the leader of the world’s most powerful country. The U.S.-led military operation ordered by Trump against the Iranian regime moved Pope Leo to continually call for peace.

Echoing long-standing positions of the Holy See, the pope criticized armed conflicts throughout the world, favoring dialogue over the use of force to end, for example, the charged exchanges of both rhetoric and arms in the Middle East.

President Trump, meanwhile, has repeatedly declared his intention to prevent the Iranian regime from obtaining nuclear weapons by any means necessary. The commander in chief has defended against criticism of the U.S. military’s execution of Operation Epic Fury by warning of the risks to global security and countless lives if Iran is able to make good on its threats against, chiefly, the U.S. and Israel.

The pope’s clear preference for diplomacy was seemingly at odds with Trump’s perspective that Iran had not sufficiently embraced the repeated outreach of the United States, and that there was no other option left to neutralize the regime’s supposed imminent threat.

“I have no disagreement with the fact, the pope can say what he wants and I want him to say what he wants. But I can disagree,” Trump told reporters Thursday. “I think that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. If they do, the whole world would be in jeopardy. The Middle East will be blown up and the whole world will be in jeopardy.”

“We’re very close to making a deal. That’d be a great thing. The pope has to understand, Iran has killed more than 42,000 people over the last few months. Think of it. Protestors, without guns, without anything. They were totally unarmed protestors. The pope has to understand that this is the real world,” he continued. “It’s a nasty world. But as far as the pope and saying what he wants, he can do that. … And I’m sure the pope is a great guy. I haven’t met him. But I disagree with the pope.”

“I want him to preach the Gospel. I’m all about the Gospel, but I also know that you cannot let a certain country, which is a very mean-spirited country, have a nuclear weapon. If they did, they would use it, and I think they’d use it quickly, and they would kill many millions of people. So, you know, the pope can disagree with me on that, but certainly we’re allowed to have that. I’m all about the gospel. I’m about it as much as anybody can be, but I can’t allow, as president of the United States of America, I can’t allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And here’s the story. They won’t have. They’ve already agreed not to have. That’s good news, and I think the pope will be very happy.”

Seemingly in response to a March 29 comment by Leo that God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war,” Trump blasted the pontiff on social media as “WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy.”

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country,” he continued. “And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History.”

Leo responded Monday to Trump’s broadside, saying he had “no fear of the Trump administration,” and vowed to continue advocating for peace rather than distract from his ministry by debating the president.

“The things that I say are certainly not meant as attacks on anyone, and the message of the Gospel is very clear: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers,’” Leo told reporters. “I have no fear of the Trump administration, or speaking out loudly of the message of the Gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the Church is here to do. We are not politicians, we don’t deal with foreign policy with the same perspective he might understand it, but I do believe in the message of the Gospel, as a peacemaker.”

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Pope Leo Dismisses Media Narrative of Rift With Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

It’s been almost four years since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade. You’ve probably seen the headlines about brick-and-mortar clinics closing or consolidating in recent years, but that is actually a long-term trend. Planned Parenthood operates nearly 600 clinics now, compared to 860 clinics 20 years ago.

There are certainly challenges to Planned Parenthood’s business model, but that hasn’t stopped efforts to promote abortion in every state. Since Roe was struck down, Planned Parenthood has helped 171,000 women travel get abortions, spending $3.7 million last year to assist 12,200 clients.

It’s worth noting that for all the Left’s talk about abortion as “reproductive care,” Planned Parenthood delivered zero babies in 2025 and performed 143 abortions for every adoption referral made last year.

 In the medical data section, Planned Parenthood reported:

• 434,450 abortions, an all-time high, up from last year’s 402,230 abortions.
• 331,417 breast cancer screenings and Pap tests, down from 364,594 the previous year.
• 125,422 preventive care visits, down from last year’s 129,594.
• 3,038 adoption referrals, up from 2,148 the previous year.
• 2,268,991 contraceptive services, down from 2,223,680 the previous year.
• 2.09 million patients, slightly up from last year’s 2.08 million, but quite a drop-off from the 2.4 million reported five years ago.

Today, dangerous abortion pills distributed through the mail make it possible for the abortion industry’s tentacles to reach everywhere—even states that have enacted strong pro-life protections. Planned Parenthood, for its part, is providing mail-order abortions in 24 states, a direct result of policy decisions made in previous administrations.

Abortion pills have been available in the U.S. since 2000, but they weren’t always the go-to method. Things changed in 2016. President Barack Obama weakened safety protocols for abortion pills, including expanding the cutoff from seven to 10 weeks’ gestation and ending requirements for in-person post-abortion care.

In 2021, President Joe Biden used the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to allow abortion pills to be obtained online via telehealth and shipped through the mail. In the graph above you can see the corresponding rise in abortions in 2016 and 2021 thanks to those reckless policies. Planned Parenthood for its part reported a 31% increase in telehealth appointments in just one year. Abortion pills are a key reason.

Planned Parenthood’s annual report shows it continues to also be a leader in the trans industrial complex, while burying its gender services in an “other” category. The organization’s public reporting first mentioned these offerings in 2015-2016. At the time, there were 8,153 procedures in that category. In the latest report, that number ballooned to 50,411, and Planned Parenthood now brags that it’s “the second-largest provider of hormone therapy” in the U.S.

Different accounting mechanisms, or perhaps Planned Parenthood’s involvement administering COVID-19 vaccinations, may account for the dramatic spike in 2021. But there’s no way to know from the annual report, because Planned Parenthood has never provided a specific breakdown.

Last summer, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Among other things, it defunded abortion providers like Planned Parenthood of their Medicaid reimbursements for one year (Medicaid makes up the bulk of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding). That defund provision kicked in July 2025. This year’s Planned Parenthood report covers the financial year ending June 30, 2025. We’ll have to wait for next year’s annual report to see how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act affected Planned Parenthood’s bottom line.

But here’s what we know about Planned Parenthood’s finances right before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

In the financial data section, Planned Parenthood reported:

• $2.496 billion in net assets, slightly down from $2.522 billion the previous year.
• $832 million in government funding, up from $792.2 million the previous year.
• More than $2 billion in total revenue, almost equal to the previous year.
• $728.2 million in private contributions and bequests, up from $684.1 million the previous year.

If Congress pursues another budget reconciliation bill, it must apply the defund provision to the full 10-year timeframe that other provisions are subject to. Otherwise, Planned Parenthood will start receiving Medicaid reimbursements again on July 4, 2026.

What a horrible way to celebrate America’s 250th birthday.

President Donald Trump, for his part, can reinstate the Protect Life Rule for Title X family planning funds. During his first term, this regulation enforced physical and financial separation of federal family planning grants from any recipient’s abortion activity. Rather than comply with the rule, Planned Parenthood walked away from $60 million in family planning grants. It appears the Department of Health and Human Services is on its way to restoring this commonsense requirement.

 More than 400,000 boys and girls lost their life thanks to Planned Parenthood last year, with many of their mothers harmed in the process too. A pro-life Congress and presidential administration should support real women’s health care, not force the American people to subsidize the abortion industry and make 2026 another record-breaking year for Planned Parenthood.

The post 434,450 Reasons to Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Trump said the U.S. delegation would arrive on Monday evening, a timetable that leaves just a day for talks to make progress before a two-week ceasefire ends.

“We’re offering a very fair and reasonable DEAL, and I hope they take it because, if they don’t, the United States is going to knock out every single Power Plant, and every single Bridge, in Iran,” he posted on social media. “NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!”

However, there was no immediate confirmation from Iran that it would attend any new talks. Iran’s Tasnim news agency reported that there had been no decision taken to send a delegation while a U.S. blockade of Iranian ports was in place.

A White House official said the U.S. delegation would be headed by Vice President JD Vance, who led the war’s first peace talks a week ago. Trump’s envoy Steve Kushner and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner would also attend. Earlier, Trump had told ABC News and MS Now that Vance would not go.

Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, earlier said the two sides had made progress but were still far apart on nuclear issues and the Strait of Hormuz.

The vital shipping strait remained closed on Sunday, a day after Iran fired on two vessels that tried to cross.

Iran, which has blocked off the strait to ships apart from its own since the United States and Israel attacked on February 28, had announced on Friday it would reopen it. But it reversed that decision on Saturday after Trump declined to lift a U.S. blockade of Iranian ports.

“Iran decided to fire bullets yesterday in the Strait of Hormuz — A Total Violation of our Ceasefire Agreement!” Trump wrote in Sunday morning’s post. “That wasn’t nice, was it?”

Strait of Hormuz Still Shut

Trump’s renewed threat to hit Iran’s power plants and bridges fits a pattern of such warnings throughout the war, several of which preceded moves to de-escalate. He abruptly announced the ceasefire two weeks ago just hours after declaring that Iran’s “whole civilisation will die tonight”.

Iran has said that if the United States attacks its civilian infrastructure it would hit power stations and desalination plants of Gulf Arab neighbours.

Now in its eighth week, the war has created the most severe shock to global energy supplies in history, sending oil prices surging because of the de facto closure of the strait, which before the war carried one-fifth of the world’s oil shipments.

Two liquefied petroleum gas tankers were seen on ship-tracking websites moving eastbound towards the strait early on Sunday morning, but the semi-official Tasnim news agency reported that Iran’s armed forces turned them back. Marine traffic data showed no other movements after midnight.

Friday’s announcement that the strait would reopen caused the sharpest one-day drop in oil prices in years, while stock markets hit fresh all-time highs on the expectation that the disruption would soon end. But with the strait yet to reopen, markets could face new volatility when they reopen on Monday.

Amrita Sen, founder of the Energy Aspects think tank, predicted oil prices would rise on Monday when traders returned to their desks having realised they might have been prematurely optimistic last week.

“Events over the weekend with Iran firing on merchant vessels and shutting the strait again highlight just how precarious the situation is,” she said.

Thousands of people have been killed by U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran and in an Israeli invasion of Lebanon conducted in parallel. Iran responded to attacks with missiles and drones against its Arab neighbours that host U.S. bases.

Pakistani Capital Locks Down for Talks

Two giant U.S. C-17 cargo planes landed at Pakistan’s Nur Khan air base on Sunday afternoon carrying security equipment and vehicles in preparation for the U.S. delegation’s arrival, two Pakistani security sources said.

City authorities in the capital Islamabad halted public transport and heavy goods traffic through the city. Rolls of barbed wire were rolled out near the Serena Hotel where last week’s talks were held. The hotel told all guests on Sunday to leave.

When U.S. and Iranian negotiators met last weekend in Islamabad, Washington proposed a 20-year suspension of all Iranian nuclear activity, while Iran suggested a halt of 3 to 5 years, according to people familiar with the proposals.

A statement from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei said Iran’s navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

Apart from the two-week ceasefire in the Iran war set to expire early on Wednesday, Israel and Lebanon announced a separate ceasefire last week.

(Reporting by Reuters bureaus; Writing by Susan Heavey, James Mackenzie and Peter Graff; Editing by Sergio Non, William Mallard, Alex Richardson and Tomasz Janowski)

The post Trump Says US Delegation to Go to Pakistan for Iran Talks, Threatens New Strikes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Spanberger signed a bill Monday that added the Commonwealth of Virginia to the National Popular Vote Compact, which is a misguided and downright unconstitutional attempt to get around the Electoral College in presidential elections.

The compact, which has now enlisted 18 states and the District of Columbia, would make the state’s Electoral College votes be whatever the national popular vote is, potentially nullifying democracy in the name of democracy.

I’d like to note that this move is awful for several reasons, the first one being that the National Popular Vote idea is a toxic one that undermines America’s federal, constitutional system.

The Electoral College really is the best method for a country as large and diverse as the U.S. to choose presidents. It ensures that the only truly “national” election for an office as important as the presidency relies on a consensus of states and the varied polities represented by the states.

The Electoral College ensures that the interests of the American people aren’t just represented by states like California and Texas, but by Wyoming and Delaware too.

I chose that mix of modern red and blue states for a reason.

The Left has pushed particularly hard for the Electoral College’s abolition in recent years because they believe switching to a popular vote favors them.

That sort of held until 2024 when President Donald Trump won the election and the popular vote too.

There is a perception that big states are blue and small states are red, but that’s not true.

The electoral map is mixed and constantly evolving. The idea that giving small states a slight comparative advantage favors Republicans isn’t true when you consider tiny, deep blue states like Rhode Island.

The electoral map is, as always, in flux.

Changing the system that has been remarkably effective since the beginning to serve the temporary interests of one party is foolish and shortsighted. Adding more “democracy” to our presidential elections is hardly a guarantee that we will have better presidents.

Fortunately, the Founders created a system not reliant on pure democracy. They made one that prevents large-scale constitutional changes without a massive amount of buy-in from the states the Left seemingly wants to bypass.

But more democracy for the sake of democracy is not really what this is about. This is about the fortunes of the Democratic Party and the Left in particular right now.

They look at America and see an electoral map that looks increasingly stacked against them.

Blue state uninhabitability for middle-class Americans means that the states with Democratic majorities are bleeding electoral votes, and the situation will soon be much worse.

As David Marcus, a Fox News columnist, sagely put on X, the following information is almost certainly why Virginia Democrats are “going for broke” with power grabs.

Big, blue states are getting less “big.” Red states are reaping the benefits. And that means that without a switch to something like a national popular vote their electoral road to the White House looks increasingly steep.

This National Popular Vote move is very on brand for Spanberger and the new Democrat majority in Virginia. They’ve spent much of their early days in power passing as many far-Left laws as possible, most notably focusing on changes to ensure that their current majority becomes permanent.

That’s why, despite Spanberger saying years ago that gerrymandering is “detrimental to our democracy,” she’s signed off on one of the most extremely partisan redistricting plans in the country.

Democrats did this while essentially bypassing a Virginia constitutional amendment that established a bipartisan redistricting commission.

Spanberger’s popularity has tanked, but it seems the reasoning is that popularity doesn’t matter so much if the game can be jerry-rigged to keep themselves in power. It’s not the worst bet, though these schemes often have a way of backfiring.

The moves accrue little benefit to effective governance in Virginia, of course. But they do deliver maximum benefits to Democrat politicians who undoubtedly hope that they can make the commonwealth a one-party state and yet another lab of left-wing social engineering à la California.

That Virginia Democrats signed off on the National Popular Vote Compact stems from similar reasoning.

They need to solidify wins now. The “affordability” message was just election-time sloganeering. The party is just as radical as ever. And now that it’s pulled off a win, the party won’t let the lie go to waste.

Both the ruthless redistricting plan and the National Popular Vote sign off demonstrate that the Democrats aren’t going to change their policies to win over voters. Instead, they intend to change the system so they won’t have to.

The post Virginia Dems Sign Onto National Popular Vote Compact. It’s All About Power, Not Democracy. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Here are examples of how campaigns and groups are using new technology to project a positive image of candidates and slam opponents.

Gottheimer in the Ring

Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., a gubernatorial candidate, wants his voters to get the impression he’s fighting President Donald Trump in Congress, and a new video from his campaign presents that idea in a very literal manner.

In this largely AI-generated video, a likeness of Gottheimer takes on Trump in the boxing ring.

“Josh Gottheimer’s been fighting for people all his life. He worked for Presidents Clinton and Obama,” says the narrator as an AI-generated image of Gottheimer standing next to the two presidents in front of the Capitol appears.

In the climax of the advertisement, Gottheimer lifts his arms up in victory after a “Raging Bull”-esque fistfight with a besuited Trump.

Platner’s Posts

The National Republican Senatorial Committee is taking aim at Maine Democrat Senate candidate Graham Platner’s online history.

In a video posted in April, a deepfake likeness of Platner is shown shirtless, hunched over a laptop as he types incessantly. 

A narrator’s voice, which sounds much like Platner’s, reads out some of Platner’s resurfaced comments from online forum posts.

NRSC already made use of deepfake technology with a similar video, in which a likeness of Texas Democrat Senate candidate James Talarico reads out his posts from X.

The video has a watermark disclosing that it is AI-generated, and a narrator specifies at the beginning and end that it is a “dramatic reading.”

Platner’s campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the video, but he has previously said he has “transformed over time” since the posts and regrets them.

Burning Down a Barn

Conservative group Virginians for Fair Maps is out with a video blasting Gov. Abigail Spanberger for supporting pro-Democrat redistricting.

“Abigail Spanberger and the Richmond Democrats want to burn Virginia’s democracy to the ground,” says the narrator as a likeness of Spanberger is shown using a match and a jerry can of gasoline to burn down a barn.

“Their rigged maps are designed to elect 10 Democrats and only one Republican. It’s a scam that would end competitive elections in Virginia and create a liberal inferno,” the narrator adds.

Spanberger’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the video.

The post Campaigns Make Use of AI in Attacks appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rebellions are, at root, when the people of a place make a stand against the status quo.

What pushed so many men and women in the American colonies to the ledge of revolt? What motivated them to risk their lives taking a stand for their rights and liberties?

Ultimately, it was their fortitude, character, and faith that emboldened them to revolt.

It is easier to understand this within the context of the decades leading up to the War for Independence. Historian Nathaniel Philbrick notes that, after the end of the French and Indian War in 1763, Britain was bogged down by a massive debt (more than $22 billion in contemporary American currency).

Great Britain decided that the colonies should contribute to repaying the debt, particularly since it was incurred by the mother country coming to their aid. So ended the “salutary neglect,” and so began the decades of taxation.

The taxation that followed formed the backbone of the colonists’ motivations for revolting. These taxes crippled economic growth. Americans came to view the taxes as nothing more than an expression of the British greed and demeaning attitude toward them as the subjects of the monarch.

Barely two years after the end of the French and Indian War came the institution of the Stamp Act (1765). This was a tax on all paper goods purchased by the colonists. Colonists had no say in the tax, which was just the beginning of many such taxes that would be instituted by Parliament without representation from the colonists.

Enraged, a mob of colonists swarmed the local lieutenant governor’s home. It tore apart the inside of the home, sending a clear message to British authorities. Within a year, the Stamp Act was rescinded by Parliament.

Historians have remarked that the distaste towards this and other bills was something to be expected. However, the violence that ensued was an entirely different beast. In hindsight, Parliament may have perceived an unrest in the colonies that went far deeper than finances. But the British government needed money, so it continued to tax the colonies.

The earliest members of the revolt against Great Britain faced unimaginable odds, but they were convinced they had to fight for their freedom. These were people from many walks of life, from farmers and countrymen to lawyers and doctors.

Colonists from all walks of life were tired of the oppression and taxation that came from a power that found itself over 3,000 miles away.

The rebels were convinced that Great Britain, the world superpower, was in the wrong, and they were dedicated to opposing this injustice, no matter what, even if it cost them their livelihoods or their lives.

Some names and words echo through history. Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” is well-known to this day, as are Nathan Hale’s last words: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” However, the American experiment began because of countless men and women—known and unknown—who possessed courage, character, and faith.

They were willing to risk their lives for the benefit of their families and the future of the colonies. This courage came from doing what is right for its own sake. That is ultimately built on a faith in God.

In a time when many claim that America is a fundamentally irreligious and atheistic project, this is a truth worth emphasizing. We mustn’t forget that even the religious freethinker Thomas Jefferson made clear in the Declaration of Independence that man’s inalienable rights are no mere political convenience. They are given by God, and it is because of this divine source that all are bound to respect them.

As we approach the 250th anniversary of our independence, Americans ought to remember and honor our forebears by living for justice, truth, and faith. That way we will ensure that our nation thrives for centuries to come, no matter the odds we face.

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

The post What the Colonists Fought For appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“Call Sign Courage: The Matt Lohmeier Story,” a documentary produced with support from The Heritage Foundation, highlights Lohmeier’s efforts to advocate for a merit-based military in opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies promoted by the Biden administration.

In prior years, Lohmeier publicly spoke out against what he characterized as neo-Marxist ideology in military training, the use of critical race theory as an institutional framework, the politicization of the armed forces, authoritarian ideological enforcement, and the erosion of merit-based service.

Through public commentary and his book, Lohmeier, a former Air Force pilot turned Space Force commander, called for a return to constitutional loyalty, individual moral courage, free expression, unity, and merit-based leadership within the military.

The film also features remarks from top Biden-appointed defense officials, including former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, in which they defended the inclusion of such concepts in the armed forces.

“We have a diversity, equity, and inclusion focus in the military,” Austin told the Senate Armed Services Committee in June 2021.

“I personally find it offensive that we are accusing the United States military … of being ‘woke’ because we are studying some theories that are out there,” Milley said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing that same month.

According to the film, Lohmeier’s resistance led to his removal from command — he was fired without pension under the Biden administration. The film’s website states that he was “made a public example of as a non-compliant officer.”

Beyond career repercussions, the documentary also depicts alleged intimidation incidents involving Lohmeier and his family, including reported home invasions during that period.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard described the film as “a story about a love of country, love of God.”

“His humility allows for this story to be told in a deeply impactful way,” Gabbard said at an October event at The Heritage Foundation. “You can read articles in a newspaper or online, or hear reporters talk about something—but the real impact of what Matt and his family went through can only be felt when people hear him and see his story for themselves.”

Gabbard added that storytelling such as Lohmeier’s has the power “to shape policy and bring about real and lasting change.”

As depicted throughout the film, Lohmeier turned his fight against Biden-era policies into a movement aimed at uniting service members and advocating for a return to “merit-based, unified service.”

“You look at the expectations that the American people should have of our public institutions—that the people who work there every day should be motivated by service,” Gabbard said.

In January 2021, President Donald Trump appointed Lohmeier as the 29th under secretary of the Air Force.

The documentary is now available to watch for free on X through Sunday, April 19.

The post Elon Musk Promotes Story of Pilot Ousted for Urging Merit-Based Military appeared first on The Daily Signal.

So many people want government to pay for it.

My state just agreed. New York will fund free child care. Yay!

But wait … what government does isn’t free. Taxpayers pay. And taxpayers pay more because “government rules have unintended consequences,” says Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women’s Forum. 

Washington, D.C. day care teachers must have a degree in Early Childhood Education. That can take two years and cost $22,000.

“Of course you’re going to have to pay a lot more,” says Lukas in my new video, “when you’ve asked people to invest tens of thousands of dollars in degrees.”

Many government rules are just dumb. 

Illinois says providers must offer coins for pay phones.

Providers must have “one crib with mattress, sheet, and blanket per infant,” but wait! Illinois also says, “Soft bedding … shall not be used.”

Which is it?!

Illinois bureaucrats told us their rules are “being updated.”

Red states have dumb rules, too.

Oklahoma’s regulations specify exact number of items providers must have: two nesting, stacking and interlocking toys per one to two kids, two toddler pounding toys, two support pillows, three squeaky toys, two knobbed puzzles, three wrist or ankle bells …

Really. Oklahoma’s regulations go on for 180 pages!

“Policymakers talk about the lack of affordable care,” says Lukas, “yet here they are layering on regulations that make it impossible for people to come and fill that need. This pushes good people out of the industry.”

It also stops good people from providing in-home care.

“In-home day care is often what parents want most,” says Lucas. “Places that most replicate that comfortable, family-supportive environment.”

In-home care used to be the most common form of child care, but not anymore.

“Regulations make it really hard for someone who has their own kids, who’s already going to be staying at home, to invite other kids to that home,” says Lucas. 

Michigan requires a license to take care of even one other child. Getting that license can take six months, and requires CPR training, infectious disease training, child abuse training, a six-hour orientation, an environmental health inspection …

“Those rules don’t help kids as much as raise costs,” says Lucas. “Fewer people enter the market, and parents are left with fewer options.”

Lukas is raising five kids, but she says the rules would discourage her from ever trying to offer home care.

“There are things that no family would ever comply with. I would have to go into my cabinets and find every cereal box and make sure it was in a sealed container … ”

Delaware’s regulations say: “Food must be stored in closed or sealed containers … ” 

Also, endless government rules don’t guarantee safety. Missouri’s Adventure Learning Center had a license. Teachers there were caught telling 3-year-olds to fight. 

Real crooks ignore government rules altogether, as Minnesota’s day care scandal showed. Incompetent government rarely checks.

“Here they were,” says Lukas, driving the law-abiding centers out of the day care market, but in the meantime, “funneling millions of taxpayer dollars … letting money flow to those who weren’t providing any care at all.”

“There should be no regulations?” I ask.

“A background check for a daycare provider is a reasonable requirement, but other than that, I think we really should be trusting parents, not government, to make the decision on what makes sense for their child. … Parents, not government, care the most about kids.”

Activists and politicians always think more rules make things better.

More often than not, they make things worse.

COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

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

The post Little Kids, Big Government appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Attorneys for the estate of Donald A. King and his organization, the Dustin Inman Society, filed an 81-page brief Thursday asking a higher court to reconsider the case. They claimed that Judge Corey L. Maze of the Northern District of Alabama erred in rejecting their attempts to obtain evidence proving the SPLC acted with actual malice in branding the society an “anti-immigrant hate group.”

“The case was decided by stacking four errors,” Harry Mihet, chief litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel and one of DIS’s attorneys, told The Daily Signal in a Friday phone call. “Cutting off discovery, ignoring what the SPLC already knew, twisting the legal standard, and stretching the single-publication rule, until the plaintiffs had no case left. And so the case was decided, not because there is no evidence available, but because the court did not allow any evidence to be gathered, to show that the SPLC acted with actual malice.”

“The case is really about a simple principle: you can’t block discovery, and then win because there’s no evidence,” he added.

Critics say the SPLC routinely smears mainstream conservative and Christian groups by placing them on a “hate map” with chapters of the Ku Klux Klan. King, founder of the Dustin Inman Society, sued the center for defamation after it branded his Georgia-based organization—which opposes illegal immigration—an “anti-immigrant hate group.”

The SPLC claims that “The Dustin Inman Society, led by D.A. King, poses as an organization concerned about immigration issues, yet focuses on vilifying all immigrants.” In 2011, the SPLC stated that the society was not a “hate group,” but it reversed course and applied the label in 2018. The society’s board includes legal immigrants, and King’s adopted sister is herself a legal immigrant.

Judge W. Keith Watkins of the Middle District of Alabama allowed the defamation case to move forward in 2023, but Judge Maze later took the case, and rejected the society’s discovery motions.

Alleged Errors

The society’s lawyers claim that Maze violated precedent when he denied the society’s request for documents related to SPLC’s internal policies for designating “hate groups,” SPLC’s communications about the society, and materials concerning SPLC’s methodology as applied to other groups in the immigration context.

The denial of discovery left behind “a record stripped of the evidence on which defamation plaintiffs depend,” they said, and then the judge “granted summary judgment because that evidence was missing.”

The society also claims Maze erred by finding that the statute of limitations prevented the society from obtaining documents related to the SPLC’s decision to brand the society a “hate group” in 2018 and beforehand.

“The statute of limitations bars stale claims; it does not bar relevant evidence,” the filing states.

The society also faulted the judge for using “wrong legal standards” to analyze the defamation claims.

Maze ruled that the society did not have a defamation claim because the SPLC’s definition of “anti-immigrant” meant animus against illegal immigrants, as well as legal ones. But the society’s lawyers say Maze took the SPLC’s definition on faith, rather than asking how a third-party would view the “anti-immigrant” accusation.

“A defendant’s self-serving testimony that it believed in the truth of its statements ‘cannot, by itself, defeat summary judgment,'” the brief states, citing precedent.

Finally, the judge allegedly shielded the SPLC by finding that the Alabama Supreme Court would view the SPLC’s repeated attack on DIS as a single publication, dating only to a time outside the statute of limitations.

The society’s lawyers noted that the Alabama Supreme Court has never ruled in a situation quite like this one, and the single-publication rule arguably does not apply.

“The ‘no evidence’ conclusion did not reflect any weakness in [the society’s] case,” the brief argues. “It reflected the cumulative force of four rulings that made the case nearly impossible to prove.”

Why Does This Matter?

The SPLC has faced renewed scrutiny after the assassination of Charlie Kirk last year. The SPLC gained its reputation by suing Ku Klux Klan groups into bankruptcy, and it now publishes a “hate map” that includes conservative and Christian groups alongside Klan chapters. The SPLC added Turning Point USA, Kirk’s organization, to the “hate map” in May.

In 2012, a terrorist used the “hate map” to target the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian nonprofit in Washington, D.C.

The SPLC condemned both the Kirk assassination and the attack on FRC, but it has kept both groups on the “hate map.”

Last year, FBI Director Kash Patel announced that the bureau had formally severed all ties with the SPLC, which he called a “partisan smear machine.”

The post Judge Shielded SPLC From Scrutiny in Groundbreaking Defamation Case: Appeal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Although the bell won’t sound for another year or so, the race will come upon us as fast as Democrats are running away from Eric Swalwell.

The track will be muddy. Primaries always are. And if Democrats hold to form, the race will be fixed. Just ask Bernie Sanders, anybody who ran against Joe Biden in 2020, or anybody who didn’t want Kamala Harris in 2024.

Assessing the Track Conditions

The contenders will also be facing strong headwinds. The party that has demonstrated a clear dislike of America will be facing an electorate just coming off the high of America 250 and amping up for the 2028 Olympics. “USA! USA! USA!” will trump “No Kings.”

Plus, the Democrats have been so consumed by Trump Derangement Syndrome that they’ll be flummoxed running without their Trump blinders on. They can’t run against a man who’s not in the race (and they can’t run against his accomplishments).

“Yes, let’s reopen the border! Let’s send crime skyrocketing! Let’s give Iran back its nukes! Let’s get back to chopping off the body parts of children and letting hairy men stomp on girls in sports!”

What could they say? “Vote for us because Donald Trump ragged on the Pope”?

So right out of the starting gate, the Democrats will be in for a slog.

The Racing Sheet

Who at this point appears to be considering joining the race?

Gavin Newsom is so badly itching to get to the White House it’s a wonder he didn’t join the ballroom construction crew just for the opportunity.

Harris just said she’s “thinking about” another run. (Pause for laughter.) Her chances? About the same as her word salads becoming a featured item at Golden Corral.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker isn’t losing weight for the health of it. But is anybody going to place a bet on the politician who’s about to lose the Chicago Bears to Indiana?

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin admits she’s considering a run. The first clue? Her participation in that odious video urging U.S. servicemembers to defy Trump’s orders. Nothing like a call to mutiny to raise your profile among the base. She’s also hanging out in Iowa. And it’s not like she’s there to see the “Field of Dreams” ballfield.

Slotkin will hide her CIA spook roots by touting her family’s farming roots. Fun fact: They’re the folks who brought us Ball Park Franks.

“Did someone say ‘franks’?” asked Pritzker.

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly has been positioning himself by not only taking part in that mutiny video, which alone should disqualify him from being commander in chief, but through his continuous assaults on Trump. How’d that work out for Stephen Colbert? Fani Willis? Eric Swalwell? Call it the Trump curse, but the loudest enemies of Trump have a history of imploding.

Pete Buttigieg might try again. Sorry, Pothole Pete. Democrats tried the DEI thing with Harris. And even Democrats are not going to follow Trump with someone who makes Dylan Mulvaney look like the Marlboro Man.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer? Her actions during COVID-19 and witch-like aura make her a long shot.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro would be a strong contender, but today’s Democratic Party treats Jews worse than it treats MAGA.

Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey? No. Just no. If Democrats wanted a tear-soaked drama queen, they’d elect Susan Lucci.

Finally, there’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. According to Axios, the little progressive darling has been quietly making organizational moves for a potential run. Don’t underestimate AOC, particularly in the early furloughs.

• She’s a natural attention-grabber who will suck the oxygen away from lesser candidates.
• She wields social media skills like Zorro wields a sword.
• She’s already in the rarified Democrat air of being known by her initials, like JFK, LBJ, RBG … BLM, KKK …
• She’ll have the Democratic Socialists of America riding her. If they could elect as mayor of New York City a radical Islamist communist who’s barely a U.S. citizen and had nothing on his résumé but a famous mother and failed rap career, imagine what they can do with the charismatic bartender-turned-congresswoman.

“Did somebody say ‘bartender’?” asked Harris.

And they’re off … toward the debates.

Down the Stretch

Policy differences mean little in debates. Much more important are the dynamics and visuals. Think back to the 2020 Democratic primary. Tulsi Gabbard destroyed Harris’ campaign in 90 seconds. Not just because she exposed Harris’ atrocious record as California attorney general and San Francisco DA, but because of how Harris fell apart under the attack. She showed off her thin skin and weak chin. Democrats saw it. America saw it. Somehow the autopen missed it.

What can we expect during those early debates in 2027, assuming the above named candidates enter?

Newsom and AOC will jump to the front of the pack by virtue of their star quality, organization, and name recognition. The other candidates will play supporting roles or be extras. By virtue of being one-two, Newsom and AOC will at some point be positioned next to each other on the debate stage. The tall central-casting candidate from California next to the short girly-girl who pretends to be from the New York hood.

As terrible as it may be to say, the simple truth is standing next to Newsom, AOC is going to look like his nanny.

“Did somebody say ‘nanny’?” asks Harris’ husband, Doug Emhoff.

All told, a safe early bet is California Golden Boy to win, Bronx Bartender to place, Pennsylvania Hebrew to show.

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

The post The Horses Approach the Gate for the 2028 Democrat Primary appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“A visa is a privilege, not a right,” he said. “If you are going to break the terms of your visa, if you’re going to engage in criminal activity, if you’re going to undermine our national security, that is grounds for revocation.”

The State Department has revoked the green cards of family members of Masoumeh Ebtekar, called “Screaming Mary.” Ebtekar worked as the English-speaking spokeswoman for Iranian militants that held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

Ebtekar’s son, Seyed Eissa Hashemi, and his wife and son were taken into custody in Los Angeles and face deportation. The three entered the U.S. with visas in 2014, under the Obama administration.

“We’ve been clear from the beginning, if you are going to be here on a visa and you’re going to undermine our national security, you’re going to support terrorism, you’re going to break our laws, that is grounds for revocation,” Pigott said. “That’s what happens in America First visa policy.”

The State Department also revoked the lawful permanent residence status of the niece and grandniece of deceased Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Major General Qasem Soleimani, killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2020. His niece, Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, and her daughter were taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

Pigott said the United States has “no obligation” to house people who support terrorism and pose a threat to national security.

“It may have been ignored by previous administrations, but it is not being ignored by this administration,” he said. “We are taking this incredibly seriously, and we are making sure we’re putting the American people first.”

So far, the State Department has revoked more than 100,000 visas, most of them for people who directly violated the law, Pigott said.

“We have reinvigorated existing mechanisms for revocations,” he said, “and that includes a continuous ability to continuously vet people that are here on visas in this country, for people that are supporting terrorism, for people that are supporting the propaganda of a terrorist-funding regime, for people that are breaking our laws.”

Border security is not just about the U.S.-Mexico border, Pigott said.

“The actions of this president have led to the most secure border history, but visa security is border security,” Pigott said. “It’s who we’re letting into this country, and part of that is that continuous vetting.”

The post State Department Official Gives Strong Message to Families of Iranian Terrorists Living in US appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As the U.S. Supreme Court weighs the Trump administration’s constitutional argument for tighter birthright citizenship, Italy’s Constitutional Court has already signed off on a law raising the bar for would-be citizens. Italy’s rationale is instructive for the U.S., whose prow seems pointed toward consequences the Italian government is now trying to correct.

Italy’s new law renders citizenship less touristy and likelier to indicate meaningful membership of the self-governing society within its borders. By contrast, in the U.S., the citizen/noncitizen distinction is losing substance within America’s permeable borders and beleaguered immigration enforcement.

Although how tightly countries should draw circles around citizenries is debatable, whether citizenship ought to be a meaningful distinction should be a settled question. But in present-day America, it’s not. That’s a problem.

Diluting citizenship as a meaningful distinction threatens democracies and empires alike. This is as true today in Italy and the U.S. as it was in ancient Greece and Rome.

Countries can become and will longer remain what they ought to be—just, self-governing societies—by ensuring citizenship means something real within their borders.

Italy’s New Citizenship Restrictions

Since its formation as a unified country in 1861, Italy has granted citizenship to people descended from at least one Italian citizen—even if their closest link was a great-great-grandparent. This constitutional principle is jus sanguinis, meaning “right of blood.” Until recently, applicants have not been required to speak Italian, reside in Italy, or pay the taxes that come with living there.

That changed in March 2026, when the Italian Constitutional Court upheld the “Tajani Decree” over lower-court objections.

A new two-generation limit now requires applicants to trace their ancestry to a parent’s or a grandparent’s Italian citizenship. Additionally, that family member’s citizenship must be (or have been) exclusively Italian, not dually held with another country. New applicants must also, as my Grandma Gargiulo, 91, says, “talk Italian good.”

Media vs. Administration

As in the U.S., in Italy the administration’s policy has rankled the media more than, well … citizens.

Although applications submitted before the policy’s adoption are grandfathered in as valid, relatively few who intended to apply have missed their chance. Some would-be Italians within this vocal minority are now out significant time and money that they spent preparing to apply under the old rules. But most of the outrage appears feigned by media with little or no stake in the policy change.

In fact, most coverage ignores why it may be wise for Italy to draw a tighter circle, if only to reduce fraud and inefficiency. “Nationality cannot simply be a tool for traveling to Miami with a European passport,” stated Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, for whom the new law is named.

Besides clogging the system, the ratio of potential applicants to actual Italian residents is absurdly disproportional. Until 2025, some 60 million to 80 million Italian descendants worldwide could have applied for citizenship—in a country of 61 million residents. Scaled to America’s population of 342 million, the same loosely drawn circle could invite up to 513 million people worldwide to apply for citizenship with a reasonable presumption of acceptance.

In short, having offered citizenship too loosely for decades, Italy is now making citizenship mean something more.

Strength of Distinction

If Italy’s citizen/noncitizen distinction is waxing stronger, America’s is waning. But challenges posed by U.S. immigration, law, and enforcement have weakened citizenship as a definition—if not de jure, then de facto. Officials dilute citizenship as a meaningful distinction when they fail to enforce—or even to regard—citizenship as a vehicle for appropriately conferring rights on lawful citizens and, just as appropriately, not on others.

Despite moving in contrary directions, Italy’s policy oddly parallels America’s own citizenship policy—which is so hotly contested, it has become fused with immigration and law enforcement policy. The similarities go beyond lopsided media coverage.

Although America does not share Italy’s “right of blood” policy, something like it is the historically-enforced interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Just this month, the Trump administration argued before the Supreme Court that the U.S. currently construes this amendment too broadly, and that the nation thus too casually confers citizenship on people born within its borders—including babies planted by cartel lords and the Chinese Communist Party.

Thus, Italy and the U.S. occupy different spots on a timeline. Though the younger country, Italy has already reached its threshold of pain caused by a weak citizenship distinction. Despite residing in a country that has reached its 250th year, Americans sharply disagree about whether their nation’s own pain threshold for weakly distinguishing citizens from noncitizens lies behind or ahead.

3 American Positions

Broadly speaking, Americans take any of three positions on citizenship and immigration law. One faction maintains sharp distinctions between the legal status and rights of citizens versus noncitizens, and it would prosecute violations. This faction accepts that although some good would-be citizens may be excluded, a country must draw the line somewhere. This position roughly parallels the Italian government’s today.

The second American faction accepts citizenship distinctions and immigration law enforcement in theory, but—like opponents of Italy’s new law—it wants to make the distinctions fewer and softer. For example, in the past, the U.S. has granted legal amnesty to illegal immigrants who have flown under the radar long enough. Essentially, this concession rewarded illegal aliens for not making trouble. This second American faction accepts the risk of incidentally awarding amnesty to some number of bad actors, including potential threats to American safety and security: Every lot has a few bad apples.

The third faction eyes distinctions between citizens and noncitizens as dubious, even irrelevant, particularly regarding who has a right to live in America. This faction’s root objection is not to how, but to whether citizen/noncitizen distinctions are to be enforced. Changing the law would be nice; disregarding current law is easier and faster. Hence, much of the outcry against the Trump administration’s use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The objections are not merely to the Trump administration’s methods (although their occasional madness makes a decent scapegoat). The real objection is to distinguishing citizens from noncitizens at all.

Classical Cautionary Tales

The American faction that minimizes citizen distinctions accepts the security risks of practically open borders. Revealingly, this position has no corresponding champion in Italy’s jus sanguinis controversy. But the Italian nation’s ancestors tried it before. It went poorly.

In 212 A.D., Caracalla (successor to Commodus of “Gladiator” infamy) granted citizenship to all free residents of the Roman Empire, instantly naturalizing 30 million people living between Scotland and Syria. But “citizenship, once granted, became irrelevant,” writes Cambridge University’s Mary Beard in her epilogue to “SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome” (2015). “For no sooner had one barrier of privilege been removed than another was put up in its place, on very different terms … with unequal rights formally written into Roman law. … The new boundary between insiders and outsiders followed the line of wealth, class, and status.” Simply put, when governments erase citizenship distinctions, the people invent new ones—often unjust ones.

Writing from Athens 500 years earlier, Plato predicted similar trouble with eroding citizen/noncitizen distinctions. He listed it as a step in a democracy’s descent down the slippery slope from self-government to despotism. As the “infection of anarchy” spreads, Plato wrote in the “Republic,” “citizens, resident aliens, and strangers from abroad are all on an equal footing.” (Eerily, the U.S. is also losing other distinctions that Plato says doom a democracy, e.g., authority of parent over child, of teacher over student, of human over animal).

Like ancient history and political philosophy, America has its own tales cautioning against minimizing citizenship’s distinction. Undeniably, enforcing U.S. citizenship and immigration law comes with its share of tragedies. But more obviously—because more frequently—so does failure to enforce these laws, resulting in compromised borders, fraud, addiction, and violence.

That is why Italy’s decision to draw a tighter and more solid circle around citizenship is so instructive to Americans. Italy’s present (soon to be past) problem depicts the future of the U.S. Each day the U.S. draws a looser and more perforated circle around citizenship, the meaning of citizenship becomes less recognizable. The consequences of America’s too permeable circle were foreshadowed by Italy in 1861-2025, epitomized by third-century Rome, and forewarned in Plato’s Academy.

This is not to say the Italian administration’s policy or the Trump administration’s enforcement cannot be improved. Most policies can be. But U.S. citizenship and immigration policy will only deteriorate—and will continue to write preventable tragedies—if Americans feel squeamish about maintaining citizenship as a meaningful distinction, albeit with charity for all and with malice toward none.

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

The post American Immigration Policy Could Learn From Modern Italy, Ancient Rome, and Plato appeared first on The Daily Signal.

That was reported by the New York Post and Fox News on Thursday. According to those reports, Roman Ceron Amatitla—who is a Mexican national illegally living in the U.S.—is accused of a heinous crime but could end up being released.

The accusations against Amatitla are enraging.

According to the New York Post, he’s been charged with eight counts of second-degree murder and first-degree arson in connection to a fire at a building in Flushing on March 16.

Just before starting the fire, Amatitla allegedly “entered and exited the Avery Avenue building multiple times, urinated in front of the apartments, and then went to a nearby gas station—where he bought a beer, stole a second one, and took a pack of matches after refusing to pay for a lighter.”

Then, according to authorities, he went into the building a final time, lit a piece of paper on fire, and threw it into a stairwell.

After that, the New York Post reported, he “stayed in the immediate area to watch people burn and jump from the windows.”

One of the victims was 3 years old.

Amatitla should have never been here, but now that he allegedly killed four Americans and hurt seven others you would think that New York, despite its status as a sanctuary state, would quietly relinquish him to federal authorities.

Nope.

The Department of Homeland Security put out a statement about the situation, saying that on April 14, DHS requested that the New York City Department of Corrections not release Amatitla. But NYCDOC refused to cooperate in any way with federal authorities.

“This monster set fire to a building and watched as innocent people, including a three-year-old, burned to death. New York City sanctuary politicians REFUSE to cooperate with [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and are committing to RELEASING this MURDERER onto New York streets,” DHS acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis wrote. “New York’s sanctuary politicians must stop putting politics above public safety. We are calling on Governor Hochul and Mayor Mamdani to commit to honoring this detainer and turning him over.”

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani signed an executive order preventing local authorities from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul has also decided to further hamstring local police departments from cooperating with ICE. So much for her being a “moderate.”

Even for New York, the refusal to work with ICE in this case is remarkable.

Think about it for a moment.

If you are a Democrat and your goal is to convince the American people that you’ve moderated on your extremely unpopular immigration ideas, an easy step to take would be to let ICE at the very least have the accused mass murderers.

But as we’ve seen with the “Maryland Dad” situation, Democrats are willing to go to bat for even domestic abusers, human traffickers, and all kinds of other violent criminals to maintain their open borders position.

In a way, it makes sense.

If they were to give these folks over to ICE it would mean they’d have to acknowledge that ICE agents aren’t the Gestapo and may actually be keeping Americans safe.

That goes against virtually all their messaging since President Donald Trump’s election. So, you get situations like this where even the most seemingly evil, bloodthirsty criminal is protected from deportation.

In this case, I’d seriously doubt Amatitla would escape jail time, even in New York. But this case highlights how sanctuary cities and states struggle to deal with even the worst of the worst.

New York is shielding thousands of violent criminals in their fanatical devotion to thwarting U.S. immigration law. Not only do these violent criminals escape deportation, but it seems in many cases they escape any kind of justice.

DHS stated that that New York’s failure to honor ICE detainers has led to the “release of 6,947 criminal illegal aliens since January 20. The crimes of these aliens include 29 homicides, 2,509 assaults, 199 burglaries, 305 robberies, 392 dangerous drugs offenses, 300 weapons offenses, and 207 sexual predatory offenses.”

How many of these people go on to commit other crimes? Given the record of repeat offenders, likely quite a few.

That’s what the nation has to endure to appease the Left’s open borders madness.

The post New York Refuses ICE Detainer for Illegal Alien Accused of Killing 4 in Arson appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Having run for this very office, I experienced firsthand the intense level of local, state and national scrutiny one receives when seeking the top job in the biggest state in the country.

The left-wing media treats liberal Democrat candidates different from how it treats conservative Republican candidates, but the media are not the problem if one’s candidacy starts to resonate. The heat comes from the same-party campaign rivals.

When I decided to run for governor of California, I sought the advice of several experienced strategists, politicians, pundits and some professors. They all said the same thing, only worded differently: “Is there anything in your background that would be a problem?”

These questions, they advised, include but are not limited to: Skeletons in your closet? What about your friends, associates, and family members? Taxes? Sexual harassment or misconduct or assaults? Any present or past behavior that could be deemed scandalous? Dating history, marriage, or divorce?

Outstanding warrants? Traffic tickets? Unpaid traffic tickets? DUIs? Automobile accidents you caused or were involved in? Arrests? Misdemeanors? Felonies? Unpaid bills? Credit card debt? Lawsuits filed by or lawsuits against you?

Drug use and drug abuse? Alcoholism? Abuse of prescription drugs? Sketchy business dealings? Bankruptcy? Inappropriate internet activity, including porn sites, other illicit sites or sending “compromising pictures”? Social media posts that could come back to haunt you? 911 calls from your home?

Your work history? To what church do you belong? Who is your pastor? Ever been fired? If so, why? Is your campaign biography accurate, with no exaggerations or embellishments? Do your neighbors like you?

And, for good measure, I was advised to hire a private detective to investigate myself. My experienced campaign manager took me on only after I addressed all those questions—and others—and obtained a report from a well-regarded private investigator. My campaign manager cautioned, “If you are accused of picking your feet in Poughkeepsie—especially if you DID pick your feet in Poughkeepsie—it will come out.”

This brings us to Swalwell, who, according to a University of California, Berkeley poll conducted in March, was the leading Democrat in the primary. He was endorsed by Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who, like Swalwell, served as a prosecutor in an impeachment trial against President Donald Trump.

According to Reuters, “ … a fifth woman came forward to accuse Swalwell of unwanted sexual contact, saying the Democratic lawmaker drugged and raped her during an encounter in 2018.” Swalwell first denied the accusations. He then dropped out of the race for governor, followed by his resignation from Congress.

Former House Speaker and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., claimed she knew nothing about the rumors against Swalwell. But Willie Brown, once a mentor to former Vice President Kamala Harris and a former mayor of San Francisco, and who for 15 years served as speaker of the California Assembly, said: “No, I’m not surprised frankly because there have been rumors after rumors after rumors, his colleagues in Washington pretty much said that. That’s what Adam Schiff said, that’s what Nancy Pelosi said.”

But Swalwell’s problems are just beginning. The sheriff of Los Angeles County has launched a criminal probe, as has the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Civil lawsuits may follow.

Then there are Swalwell’s financial issues. Despite a combined income with his wife of over $400,000, he is deeply in debt. He owes $100,000 in student loans, borrowed against his retirement account to help fund his campaign and deferred paying income taxes to conserve cash flow. This is not exactly a good look for someone vying to be the chief executive of a state with a budget deficit and massive unfunded pension liabilities.

On top of everything, these scandals could cost the father of three children his marriage. After all, Swalwell set the standard. During the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Swalwell considered Kavanaugh unfit due to allegations of sexual misconduct. Swalwell tweeted: “Support survivors. Believe survivors. We are with you.”

All of this raises a question. When Swalwell decided to run for governor, “What was he thinking?”

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.

The post The Implosion of Eric Swalwell: What Was He Thinking? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

How Did Ohioans Benefit?

The average tax refund is $3,308 for Ohioans, with that number being higher or lower depending on one’s income. A majority of Ohioans who filed, 71.6%, will receive a refund.

Ohioans also benefit from Trump campaign promises, including no taxes on overtime, which benefits 24% of Ohioans, and no taxes on Social Security, which benefits around 2.1 million seniors in the Buckeye State.

The Working Families Tax Cuts were championed by Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio., who frequently posts on X about such relief, especially in light of Tax Day and benefits for everyday Ohioans.

In a second post about tax cuts this week, Husted reaffirmed his support for President Donald Trump’s policy.

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, addressed these benefits in a Wednesday press conference, highlighting tax relief as a matter of “contrast” between the two parties.

Moreno referred to April 15 as a “religious holiday” for Democrats, adding they were “a little less happy than they would have been” because of tax relief, for which he thanked President Donald Trump and Republicans.

Moreno also argued that Republicans remain committed to tax relief.

“Republicans have stayed true to our focus: low taxes, low regulations, small government,” he said.

“[We] added a critical component, which is a laser focus on helping the men and women who build this country every day. And I am so proud of the fact that it took only Republicans to get this bill across the finish line, and we delivered for working families,” Moreno said.

Taxes and the Midterms

The National Republican Congressional Committee saw Tax Day as an opportunity to go after Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s record. The 22-term Democrat represents Ohio’s 9th Congressional District.

An ad campaign highlighted Kaptur’s voting record, calling on viewers to “remember who made [Tax Day] worse.” The ad likened Kaptur to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., while drawing a contrast between Democrats and Republicans on the issue.

“While Republicans fought to protect your hard-earned paychecks, Marcy Kaptur voted for the largest hike since WWII. Marcy Kaptur sided with Bernie and AOC against critical tax relief for you, higher costs, less freedom, more pressure on you. Marcy Kaptur voted for higher taxes and voted to make your life harder,” a narrator declared.

The NRCC also used Tax Day to call for Ohioans to vote Kaptur out of office.

“For 40 years, out-of-touch Democrat Marcy Kaptur has voted to increase taxes on hardworking Ohioans. Kaptur’s radical agenda of ever-increasing taxes is one of many reasons she will lose her seat this fall,” NRCC spokesperson Zach Bannon said in a statement to The Daily Signal.

In a statement to The Daily Signal, the Kaptur campaign defended the congresswoman’s record.

“Congresswoman Kaptur has fought hard for tax relief for seniors and parents. Her priority is always fighting to put money back into the pockets of Northwest Ohio families,” a campaign spokesperson said.

“Right now, those same hardworking families are paying an additional $3,200 a year because of reckless across-the-board tariffs and the War of choice in Iran sending gasoline soaring over $4 a gallon, and diesel up well over $5.50.”

Her campaign also took issue with tax breaks: “Marcy voted to cap insulin at $35 and let Medicare negotiate drug prices. She voted against the massive permanent tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, that cut Medicaid, Medicare, SNAP, and funding for rural hospitals to pay for it. Marcy Kaptur will always fight to make sure Northwest Ohio’s families don’t pick up the bill for the GOP’s Billionaire donors.”

Under Ohio’s newly drawn district maps for 2026, Kaptur is regarded as a vulnerable incumbent as she runs for reelection in a district more favorable to Republicans. She won by 0.7% in 2024.

The race for Ohio’s 9th is regarded as a “Toss-Up,” as is Husted’s race.

RNC Spokesman Hunter Lovell addressed these races and more in a statement for The Daily Signal.

“President Trump and Senator Jon Husted’s Working Families Tax Cuts are a home run for Ohioans, who are keeping more of their hard-earned money on Tax Day. Even after four years of sky-high Bidenflation, Marcy Kaptur and Greg Landsman fought to block the largest tax cuts in history, proving Democrats would rather raise taxes than help Americans get ahead,” he said.

Americans for Action Prosperity Action also touted the senator’s relief plans over X. The group endorsed Husted last month.

What’s Next for Taxes in Ohio?

In Ohio, the state Legislature has made taxes a priority issue for some time.

The state has made progress on taxes in other ways, including with a 2.75% flat tax passed by the state Legislature. That resulted in Ohio moving up from the 25th to the 15th spot in the “Rich States, Poor States” index by the American Legislative Exchange Council, making it the largest jump on the list from last year to this year.

A Tax Day statement from Americans for Prosperity-Ohio’s State Director Donovan O’Neil highlighted this jump and praised the new tax rate. “Our massive jump in economic competitiveness this year shows that bold tax reforms like a low, flat income tax empowers citizens, families, and businesses to thrive,” he said, adding that his organization “fought for years to protect Ohioans from burdensome income taxes.”

Addressing the property tax has been of particular importance for Prosperity for Us, a group that focuses on state ballot initiatives as a way to build a “state-based citizen initiative movement to restore and ensure prosperity and increased financial ability for Americans.” This includes Ohio.

This and other groups, such as the Committee to Abolish Ohio Property Taxes, are backing a ballot initiative to eliminate property taxes in Ohio. Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, has warned that passage could result in Ohio having to adopt up to a potential 20% sales tax to make up for lost revenue.

The post How Taxes Affect Ohioans on April 15 and Beyond appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Katie Porter, one of the leading Democratic hopefuls, declared that the race now boils down to a stark choice: “California values against MAGA.” Others called Hilton a “Trump puppet.” The implication is clear: Any candidate endorsed by President Trump is a dangerous interloper foisting flyover-country extremism on the enlightened progressive utopia that is modern California.

One wonders what these “California values” actually are. The term is invoked with the same pious certainty once reserved for the Ten Commandments, yet the state it supposedly defines is America’s poster child for policy-induced decline.

Under one-party Democratic rule (with legislative majorities dating back decades and a full trifecta since 2011), California boasts the highest state income tax in the country, the highest gas prices, and among the most punitive regulations on business and housing. It leads the nation in homelessness while spending billions with little visible result. 

Sanctuary policies shield illegal immigrants from federal law enforcement, even as American citizens in working-class neighborhoods bear the brunt of the resulting crime and strained social services. 

California’s aggressive green energy ambition has delivered rolling blackouts, sky-high utility bills, and dangerous dependence on foreign oil — all while the state’s own refining capacity collapses. 

Businesses and middle-class families flee by the hundreds of thousands to Texas, Florida, and Nevada, voting with their U-Haul trailers against the very “values” Democrats insist define the state.

These are not the values that built California. The Golden State was forged by pioneers, Dust Bowl refugees, Okie farmers, aerospace engineers, and Hollywood dreamers who understood that merit, risk, and reward — not redistribution and guilt — were the engines of prosperity. 

It was the state of the Gold Rush, the great Central Valley farmlands, and the Southern California defense plants that helped win World War II, and the Silicon Valley garages where tinkerers became titans. 

Those California values prized self-reliance, law and order, affordable energy, secure borders, and the right of ordinary people to raise families without being priced out or preyed upon. They were, in short, what we now call MAGA values — though the acronym is new, the principles are as old as the Republic itself.

Steve Hilton, a naturalized American citizen who has lived and worked in California for years, has spent the better part of the last decade documenting precisely how far the state has fallen from those founding virtues. A former advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, he is no carpetbagging ideologue but a clear-eyed observer of progressive governance in action. 

He has watched, as Trump noted, while this once-great state “has gone to Hell.” Hilton’s platform — lower taxes, housing deregulation, crackdowns on crime and vagrancy, energy realism, and an end to one-party complacency — represents a return to the practical, results-oriented governance that made California the envy of the world, not its punchline.

Democrats’ frantic reframing is less about substance than self-preservation. Their “California values” are the values of coastal elites ensconced in gated enclaves in Atherton, Malibu, or Beverly Hills — people who send their children to private schools, employ private security, and lecture the rest of us about compassion while the working poor and middle class absorb the consequences of their experiments. 

The same politicians who champion open borders fly private jets to climate summits. The same officials who decry “systemic racism” oversee cities where Black and Hispanic residents suffer the highest rates of violent crime. The rhetoric of “values” is simply the latest euphemism for preserving a status quo that has enriched the few while beggaring the many.

Trump’s endorsement signals that the fight for California is now a national priority. A state that produces more than a tenth of the nation’s GDP, that once symbolized American dynamism, cannot be written off as a lost cause.

If Hilton prevails in the June top-two primary and carries the fight into November, he will do so with the explicit backing of a president who has already begun reversing the national decline Democrats spent years accelerating. Federal partnership on border security, energy production, and infrastructure —precisely what Sacramento has rejected — could begin the long work of restoration.

The Democrats’ panic is understandable. For years they have governed without serious opposition, confident that demographic destiny and cultural inertia would keep their machine humming. 

Trump’s intervention and Hilton’s candidacy threaten to expose the hollowness of their claims. The real choice before California voters is not between “California values” and some alien MAGA ideology; It is between the values that are emptying the state of its people, businesses, and hope, and the values that once made it the greatest state in the Union. 

The post The ‘California Values’ That Ruined California appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The seizure, which took place April 11 at the Hidalgo International Bridge, highlights both the scale of narcotics trafficking along the southern border and the Trump administration’s renewed enforcement focus at ports of entry.

CBP officers referred a commercial passenger bus for secondary inspection after detecting anomalies during primary screening. During a canine examination and nonintrusive inspection system scan, officers discovered 36 packages containing 78 pounds of suspected cocaine concealed inside the seats of the bus. Authorities estimate the street value of the narcotics at $1,042,034.

“This hard narcotics seizure exemplifies CBP’s steadfast effort to keep our borders secure,” said Carlos Rodriguez, port director at the Hidalgo Port of Entry, in a statement to The Daily Signal. “This poison will not enter our streets thanks to the enforcement focus of our frontline officers.”

Homeland Security Investigations has launched a criminal investigation into the smuggling operation.

The Hidalgo interdiction comes amid a sharp nationwide rise in drug seizures. In March alone, CBP seized more than 65,000 pounds of narcotics, including 613 pounds of fentanyl. Overall, CBP seized 27% more drugs in March than during the same month last year.

The crackdown on illicit drugs extends beyond one month. Through the first half of fiscal year 2026, CBP has seized 24% more drugs than during the same period in fiscal year 2024, and 19% more than the four-year average over that timeframe.

Under President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, the administration has prioritized aggressive enforcement at ports of entry, expanded the use of nonintrusive inspection technology, and reinforced deterrence for smugglers and criminal networks.

“The largest difference is in terms of enhanced enforcement focus and consequence delivery,” Rodriguez said. “Under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Mullin, the administration has empowered our agents and officers to do their job again. As a result, CBP has delivered the most secure border in American history, setting border crossing records repeatedly this year.”

CBP officials say that shift in enforcement posture has translated into stronger interdictions at ports of entry, where most hard narcotics including fentanyl are seized.

During an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal, Rodriguez emphasized that seizures like this one carry consequences far beyond statistics.

“Narcotics such as cocaine—and harder substances like fentanyl—are deadly,” Rodriguez said. “They lead to overdoses and addiction, and drug trafficking fuels cartel violence against anyone who stands in their way as they push drugs north.”

“People who become addicted often grow desperate and resort to theft and violence to feed their habits,” he added. “Narcotics exact a human cost. They lay waste to everything they touch, and most people are unaware of the true human cost.”

The post EXCLUSIVE: CBP Makes Massive Cocaine Seizure From Bus appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Victor Davis Hanson: Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I know a lot of you have been exasperated by the reaction to the Iran war, from the Democratic grandees in the House and Senate, the liberal media, The New York Times, particularly The Washington Post, NPR, PBS, and network—even The Wall Street Journal’s news section. And then we have some people on the right who have also looked at the war and said it was lost, it went south, it was gonna—World War III, blah, blah, blah.

All of them share one thing in common, excuse me, two things in common. One, they wanted it not to go well. Wanted it not to go well because it would reflect badly on President Donald Trump and his administration. And if you were a Democrat, that would give you some momentum going into the midterms. And if you were a disaffected former supporter, it would prove to the world that you were right all along, and Donald Trump is reckless and got us into a forever, unwinnable war.

But whatever the particular reason was, both of them were not historical analyses. Both these people never were empirical. They were never historical. Had they looked at America’s wars in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and more importantly, more recently, the bombing campaign in Serbia, or the bombing campaign in Libya, or the first Gulf War, or the second Gulf War, or the Afghan—they would’ve come up with some data, some information. 

And then they could have compared this particular engagement and compared it with the others, or they could have said to themselves, I’m not going to prejudice what happens. I’m gonna look at exactly what the data is on the ground. How many missiles were destroyed, who was taken out? Had they taken out the Israeli commander, command and control, have they shot down 45 planes as they did during the first Gulf War, U.S. craft? And then they could have come up with a reasoned analysis.

But they didn’t do that. They didn’t do that. But the evidence was there. The evidence was there. In the first five weeks, the United States, with the Israeli Air Force, wiped out most of the top echelon of the four ruling cliques in the Iranian nation. That would be the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the regular army, the theocratic apparatus at top and the elected politicians, such as they do have elections. All four of them were attrited.

And right now, they would also say to themselves that they are motivated by two or three catalysts that explain everything they say. One, they don’t know who is in charge, and they’re all grasping for power, and they’re all terrified somebody is in charge that they don’t know about. Two, they’ve seen 30, 40, 50 people taken out, and they don’t want to identify and be a leader and be dead. Three, they’re competing for power, and that manifests itself in two ways.

No. 1, they’re afraid of the hardliners. So, they send out, communiqués, they freelance, not official all the time, and they wanna sound harder than the other person. So, they’re not accused of being soft. Usually the theocratic clique, what’s left of it, or the Revolutionary Guard, what’s left of it, accuses the politicians and the army of being too soft.

And the final catalyst that explains this crazy stuff that emanates from Iran is they’re afraid of the Iranian people. The Iranian people are sick and tired. Before the war even started, the hyperinflation was strangling them. They couldn’t afford gas. They couldn’t afford food, they can’t go out of the country, they couldn’t get … and it’s 10 times worse now. And they’re gonna be restive just like during the fall of the Berlin Wall. You didn’t see a revolution immediately. It was weeks and months in Eastern Europe and two years in the Soviet Union before it became Russia again.

That means in the next two years, I think, you’re going to see a lot of popular resistance, and these people know it and they know that if they go down, they’re going to be … they’re gonna have a Nuremberg war crimes trial, and the people are gonna take it out on them, so they don’t know where the nexus of power is. 

So, it is confused. But people couldn’t just accept that they had to say, Donald Trump got us in a forever war, even though, tragically, but, lost 13 or 14 or 15 depending on the calculus we use. We never have had a war like that before. We’ve never taken on a country of 93 million people that had the most fearsome, terrible reputation of being dangerous and unpredictable, and running the Middle East with a ring of fire proxies in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Gaza, Lebanon, indomitable.

They had terrified seven presidents. And yet in five weeks, we destroyed its ability to make war. Yes, they have a few drones, a few ballistic missiles that can cause damage, but not if that damage will be replied to as Donald Trump has warned them, by the destruction of their oil capacity or their electrical generation, which all presidents had done. We did it to Serbia, we did things to Libya. We did it in the first Gulf War, it being dual-use. We took out bridges, we took out generation. We didn’t in World War II, we didn’t Korea, we didn’t Vietnam. Donald Trump’s the first president that hasn’t done that in a wide-scale fashion. 

So, what has happened? It took four or five weeks in the country of that size, area and population, to find these tunnels, to find these hidden airfields, to find these silos, to find these people in bunkers, and systematically we got to the point where their military is almost gone.

Then the next stage happened. Trump said to them: We can have a negotiation style if you meet our demands. And that was to—it was self-interested in the sense that he wanted a peace, so the prices would go down, oil would be more available. The midterms are coming up, but it was also to let the regime, such as it was after this main luminaries had been killed, it was to give them a chance and show the world that Trump was not a madman. He was willing to negotiate.

And they, of course, said no. They said no because they hoped that popular resistance in Europe and popular resistance in the Democratic Party and on the left and on the old, some of the MAGA apostates on the right, they would so pressure Trump that he would give in to them. He didn’t. So, that was obvious. He’s never given in to anybody. He’s always done what he thought was right, whether you agree with it or not. 

So, then we came into the third phase. We had the destruction of the military, No. 1. No. 2, we had the negotiation cycle, and now it’s the ultimate and finale to the war, and that is economic strangulation. Iran walked right, put their head right into a noose. They said, we’re gonna shut down the Strait of Hormuz, only us can determine who gets in and who gets out, and they have to be pro-Iranian. And we’re not gonna let Gulf states sell oil. Ha ha ha. We’re gonna—and everybody said, oh, that was brilliant. 

The Left went crazy. It was delighted. Oh my gosh. The Pentagon was caught on unprepared … The Pentagon had been preparing that for 50 years. Under Reagan, they opened it. They know how to do it. So, all that Trump said is that’s a good idea. Shut down the strait. And let in the good guys and stop the bad guys. 

But your bad guys are our good guys. And your good guys are our bad guys. So, we’re gonna take a page outta your book, and we’re not gonna let in anybody anywhere near Iran, and we’re gonna let in everybody else. And the difference between the strategies is not just that we flipped it, but you have no wherewithal, PT boats, and a bunch of mines won’t stop us, but we have a huge fleet. And that will stop you from stopping us. And if you decide that you wanna send the remnants of your missiles into the Gulf or Israel, or at our fleet, go ahead. Because we haven’t even decided to hit dual-use targets yet. We’re not like Barack Obama and Libya and taking out television stations and ports. 

We’re not like Bill Clinton and Serbia that destroyed every bridge on the Danube and took out their grid of a million and a half people. We’re not Harry Truman that destroyed all the hydroelectric plants in North Korea. We let you off easy. Well, it doesn’t mean there’s not an American tradition of hitting dual-use targets. 

So, we’re gonna hit your electrical and put you in darkness and we’re gonna hit Kharg or take it. We’ll either take the oil and rob it from you or take it. And what was the result of all that in the last 48 hours? Ships are coming in that we let, and ships are not coming in, that we don’t let, and people, economists at the major research universities in Europe, the United States, have now flipped on a dime and they’re actually looking in empirical fashion, at last, at what this means. And the ranges are absolutely stunning. $400 million, and more, per day lost economically to Iran, whether that’s lack of oil sales or petrochemical sales, or lack of key imported mechanical goods, electrical goods that keep their infrastructure running, or food. They’re in dire straits. 

They’re losing all of their income from the Strait of Hormuz and they’re losing all of their income from the petrochemical and oil. And they were broke to begin with, and they can’t do anything about it because Trump did it sequentially. Military, first, chance of negotiation, second, put the boot on the neck, third. 

So, what is gonna happen now? You’ll see two things. Two things, possibly three. They may decide they want to go down in a blaze of glory and empty their arsenal of remnant ballistic missiles and drones. If they do that, they will be in darkness, and they will have no oil for the next 10 years. So, that we’ll see if there’s saner heads among them. 

No. 2, they have a choice to agree to negotiations, and this time they’re not gonna have every clique saying 15 here and 10 demands here, and no, no, they’re just gonna have 10. And if they don’t abide by them, the United States can force them to abide by them. Or they can just simply give up, give up, no demands, nothing. 

Just say we’re done. And they’re gonna have a … and what I meant by give up is the regime gives up. I don’t know if it’s gonna be immediate, but the people take over. All of those are favorable results for us. And so to conclude, I don’t think that it’s a very wise thing every 24 hours to be glued to your computer or the television and whatever. A pundit on the left or a Democratic senator says, or disgruntled person on the right says, then take that as gospel and not look at the data and not look at the evidence that’s out there to examine both, as I said, empirically or historically. 

’Cause if you did do that, you could see there was very, very little chance of winning. There’s only one last caveat: Iran is ruined militarily and it’s going to be ruined economically if it doesn’t give in, and they they’re now going to negotiate with a different attitude. If you believe that they will abide by a demand that we’ve given them, no nuclear material for 20 years, whatever it is, then you have to believe that they will never break their word. 

I don’t think they’ve ever kept their word.

And No. 2, that there will be a president someday, like Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, and people of that caliber and mindset would enforce every one of those negotiated demands. And I don’t think they will ever tell the truth or honor any of their commitments. 

And I don’t think that the next left-wing or Democratic president would ever force them to, which means we better get them to surrender unconditionally or [have them] face economic ruin, which will usher in a regime change.

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

The post How Trump Outsmarted Iran While Critics Rooted Against America and the Media Melted Down appeared first on The Daily Signal.