Trump to Pull Stefanik UN Ambassador Nomination to Protect Republican House Majority

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / March 27, 2025

President Donald Trump is pulling the nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., to be United Nations ambassador.

The move is designed to protect House Republicans’ slim majority, the president said.

“With a very tight Majority, I don’t want to take a chance on anyone else running for Elise’s seat,” the president said on Truth Social. “The people love Elise and, with her, we have nothing to worry about come Election Day.”

Others can do a good job in the position, so Stefanik “will stay in Congress, rejoin the House Leadership Team, and continue to fight for our amazing American People,” according to Trump.

“Speaker [Mike] Johnson is thrilled! I look forward to the day when Elise is able to join my Administration in the future,” he said. “She is absolutely FANTASTIC. Thank you Elise!”

While Stefanik would likely have had no trouble getting the necessary votes for confirmation, Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House with 218 seats while Democrats hold 213 seats. There are currently four vacant seats.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, was expected to slow-walk the special election to replace Stefanik.

Stefanik’s nomination was expected to move forward on April 2, the day after the Florida special elections, Axios reported last week. She would have been the last of Trump’s Cabinet to get confirmed.

Stefanik is the second of Trump’s Cabinet picks to have their nominations withdrawn, following Rep. Matt Gaetz’s withdrawal in November after it became clear he did not have the votes to be confirmed.

This is a breaking news story and it may be updated.

Watch Our Live Inauguration Day Coverage

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / January 20, 2025

The Daily Signal’s Tony Kinnett will be doing live coverage today from Washington, D.C. Catch his show, which you can watch right here, starting at 10:30 a.m. Eastern and concluding half an hour after the inauguration. Stay tuned to get smart commentary from guests, including Scott Rasmussen and Kurt Schlichter, and watch the inauguration itself.

American Tea Parties, Greek Yogurt Parties

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / June 21, 2011

When it comes to crushing debts, unsustainable entitlements and ballooning deficits, Americans and Europeans are all in the same sinking boat. Where they part ways is in their response to the looming crisis.

Faced with out-of-control government spending and the prospect of a bleak economic future, Americans from across the country have rallied under the banner of the Tea Party and sent a clear message to Washington: Enough! In a vigorous manifestation of that greatest of all checks on government—the “vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America”—citizens began a grassroots wave of orderly protests that have since only grown in number and promise to keep the pressure on Washington to pull its financial act together.

Meanwhile in Greece, proposed austerity measures to avert bankruptcy have left the country paralyzed by strikes and riots. Last week in Athens, Greek police fired teargas at protesters who responded by throwing stones and yogurt. This week, the country is being hit with blackouts as the main power company goes on strike. Violent protests have sadly become the norm whenever European governments attempt to tackle their financial woes. Their citizens, coddled by the nanny-state and its promises of cradle-to-grave no-hassle living, do not take well to being told it’s time to face the music.

Cynics will say that Americans aren’t hurling stones and yogurt because the government has yet to touch their benefits, and that when it does, things will get ugly here too. Perhaps. But there are reasons to believe that Americans, who by and large still view themselves as free citizens of a republic rather than dependent wards of the welfare state, will have the fortitude to accept whatever painful cuts are necessary. And thanks to the efforts of the Tea Party, these cuts, when they do occur, will not be as drastic as they would have been had the people sat by in torpor until the crisis hit.

GOP Wins: Supreme Court Rules on Texas Redistricting Maps for 2026 Midterms

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Rebecca Downs / December 04, 2025

In a huge win for Republicans that could help keep them in control of the House, the Supreme Court allowed Texas’ GOP-friendly redistricting maps to remain in place for the 2026 midterms.

The maps could grant Republicans up to five additional seats in the House of Representatives.

Thursday’s ruling, a 6-3 unsigned opinion, comes after a lower court recently tossed out the maps. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott appealed that decision.

The Supreme Court decision was an ideological split, with the six conservative justices ruling in favor of pausing the ruling from a lower court, thereby allowing the maps to stand. Three liberal justices dissented.

The lower court had asserted that the redistricting posed constitutional issues based on race.

As the opinion in Abbott v. LULAC read in part, “Texas is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the District Court committed at least two serious errors.” The opinion also mentioned that the lower court “improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”

Texas is not the only state to consider redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms. California voters passed Proposition 50 last month to redraw maps to give Democrats a further edge in the Golden State, an effort spearheaded by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Those maps have also been challenged.

Both sides of the political aisle have been pushing for redistricting, with President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance urging red states to redraw their maps. Vance has indicated Republicans need to act after years of “very aggressive Democratic tricks” on redistricting.

The 2026 midterms look to be particularly consequential, with Republicans only narrowly controlling the House. They also maintain a slim majority in the Senate.

Experts Warn of Tool China Is Using To Play ‘Long Game’ in New Cold War

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Rebecca Downs / Virginia Allen / December 04, 2025

America is in a new Cold War with China and ports are at the center of the conflict, according to foreign policy experts.

“China has truly a global portfolio of ports worldwide,” said Alex Wooley, communications director for a research lab at William and Mary that does in-depth research on Chinese investments.

China is currently financing over 180 port projects around the globe at 93 unique ports that are worth about $32 billion, Wooley explained at an event at The Heritage Foundation in the District of Columbia on Thursday. Among these ports that AidData has identified, a third are in high income countries, he said, and 40% are in Europe.

The large amount of port projects are evidence of China’s “long game” strategy, according to Wooley.

“While the U.S. was largely paying attention to other areas of the world, China was patiently building these long-term relationships with countries to build ports,” he said.

China is “everywhere,” Wooley said, adding that he and the researchers at AidData have discovered an interesting shift in China’s foreign investments.

“There’s an increasing decline of Chinese aid, what would traditionally be called foreign aid, and instead, there’s a movement toward financing, typical sort of loans and commercial interest rates, to high income countries,” Wooley said. The trend reveals that China is “moving to very exotic financing instruments, in part because that evades detection, evades transparency.”

The research institute has also found that China is working to gain a stake in “critical infrastructure assets,” such as airports and critical minerals. To this end, port assets are a “double win” for China, he said.

“The ports are an end in itself because it sort of reaffirms China’s maritime dominance, or attempt to being dominant, and also provide for means by which they get these critical commodities and minerals, etc., to China,” Wooley explained.

China, according to the researcher, is likely driven by a desire for profit in building the ports, but even more so, a motive for strategic geopolitical power. China could use the ports as naval facilities in the future.

China has spent decades building its global influenced through port projects and at this point, the U.S. will have to “pick and choose” how to compete with China on this front because “it’s difficult to catch up,” he said.

The U.S. needs to think strategically, including regarding where to establish new military bases, but most important is that the U.S. not waiver in the action it chooses to take to address the growing threat of China’s port control, Wooley says, because China is doubling down.

Brent Sadler, a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for National Security and author of “Naval Power in Action,” said the South China Sea is the most import location for the U.S. to prioritize its maritime presence right now, followed by the eastern Mediterranean.

“China has banked a lot of their future global vision in controlling or having access to Europe,” Sadler said. “It’s a huge economy. It’s also one in which could influence what happens in Eurasia, so they want to have that. That’s that Maritime Silk Road, … so if you can challenge that, you’re going to draw their attention, their resources, to that region,” which would be strategic for the U.S., Sadler explained.

From an economic perspective, it is critical that shipping “remains free and open,” the Heritage researcher said, “and so I think it behooves all of us that there is stability and strong governments that don’t threaten international trade.”

In the future, when entering into agreement with China, Sadler said the free world needs to see the country for what it is, a nation that is not interested in advancing democracy, or free markets for that matter.

These Democrat Narratives Are a Lame Excuse for an Agenda

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Rebecca Downs / Virginia Allen / Victor Davis Hanson / December 04, 2025

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson, for The Daily Signal. I’d like to talk about Democratic talking points. By that, I mean, these memes, these topics, these themes that they use. But they seem to be divorced from reality.

Take the Epstein files. Remember, Epstein files? Epstein files. Epstein files. Gotta have the Epstein files released. They all said that Trump was hiding things. And rational people said the Democratic administration had the files for four years. Given what they had done to Trump with lawfare, you would’ve thought that if there was anything incriminating, they would’ve released it.

And then, of course, there were rumors that 80% to 90% of the people mentioned in the files were Democrats. And then there was also an investigation, through leaks, that Donald Trump ostracized Jeffrey Epstein—and here’s the key point—before he was convicted of sexual crime. So, there was nothing there. And yet, as soon as Trump comes in, Epstein files, Epstein files. Epstein files. So, he releases them. And what does it show? Exactly what everybody knew and what the Democrats, themselves, knew. Did they say, “We’re sorry, we cooked this all up, there was nothing in the files”? No. They went on right to Obamacare.

Affordable Care Act. Let’s shut down the government. Republicans will not give us all this money. Multi-billion-dollar subsidies. And then people said, “Well, come on, you guys. You publicize it as the new health care plan. Only 25 million Americans are in it. A small fraction. It doesn’t work. You, yourself, said that they needed subsidies. And you were willing to put a time limit on it. And the subsidies ran out. And they weren’t even enough.”

It’s just constant, constant, constant. This isn’t the issue. Yes, it is. Affordable Care Act. Affordable Care Act. That’s all that matters. Affordable care—and then the government was shut down, for the longest time in history. Forty days. And now it’s open. Has anybody heard anybody talk about the Affordable Care Act? I haven’t.

And then it was Trump’s health. Trump’s health. Trump’s health. He’s got spots on his arms. He has cankles. He’s limping. He looks bad. He’s losing his mind. Everybody said, “Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You people hid the demonstrable cognitive decline of Joe Biden for four years with a very strange White House media conspiracy. Now you’re suggesting that Trump is non compos mentis? But he just took a health exam. An MRI body scan.” No, no, no, no. He’s cognitively declined. So then, he releases it. It shows that he is in perfect health for someone his age. Does anybody talk about Trump’s health? No. No. No.

And then it’s affordability. Affordability. Affordability. That’s what it’s all about. Affordability. Well, wait a minute. During the Biden administration, there was a cumulative inflation of 21%. That averages out to 5.2% per year. Per year. When Donald Trump came in, Jan. 20th, 2025, it had dipped to 3%. But given all the things that Trump has done, it’s still 3%. He has not increased inflation. He has brought in $10 trillion, at least, of foreign investment. There’s going to be enormous stimuli next year, as far as oil and gas production at record levels, the Big Beautiful Bill’s deregulation, tax cuts. And do we hear about affordability? Affordability? Affordability? Not really. I mean, there’s no real issue. The inflation rate is lower, this year, than in any year on average of the Biden administration. And it’s going get better next year.

So, what am I trying to get at? What’s going on? Why do they fixate on these themes, and then they just drive it, drive it, drive it? And the fact is, their acts of commission and omission, they feel that they can create chaos. They can make people angry. They can bomb Tesla dealerships. They can shut down the government. They can stop ICE. They can tell soldiers to disobey orders. But that’s a negative message. What is omitted? That’s the committed message.

But what is omitted? Do they say, “Here’s my alternate plan for immigration. I want one million, two million, three million illegal. I want to go back to the Biden [administration], two million illegal aliens a year”? No, nothing. “Obamacare: Here’s how we’re going to solve it so we don’t need subsidies. A, B, C.” Nothing.

Trump’s health: “We introduce legislation that every president has to have an annual physical, every year. And everything has to be transparent.” If that had been true, Biden would’ve been 25th Amendmented the first year of his term. Do they have a crime initiative? Do they have a foreign policy initiative? Do they have any initiative? No. So, what they try to do is: A, create chaos so we’ll all lay down in the fetal position, say, “Please stop it. I don’t want it.” Or they’re going to talk about affordability, affordability, affordability, without ever mentioning that under their auspices, the DEI, the ESG, The Green New Deal, it was all regulate, regulate, restrict, slow down. And we had 21% inflation. We had low GDP. Do we want to go back to that?

So, they don’t talk about it. So don’t pay any attention to Epstein files, Obamacare, Trump’s MRI, affordability. These are all just excuses for the absence of 51% on the issues. And a lack of a systematic, comprehensive, alternate agenda, that they can present to Donald Trump. That all this is absurd does not mean it doesn’t work. I mean, we have a candidate who, in Virginia, running for attorney general, said that he wanted his opponent dead and his children dead. And he won. He won. We had a candidate for the mayoral race who said he wanted to seize the means of production. And [Zohran] Mamdani won.

We have all these races where crazy things happen. But that doesn’t mean that we have to accept them, as not crazy. They’re crazy. And don’t pay any attention to them because it’s just an excuse for the lack of a serious agenda.

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

‘BLATANT LIES’: Josh Shapiro Slams Kamala Harris’ Book

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Rebecca Downs / Virginia Allen / Victor Davis Hanson / Jacob Adams / George Caldwell / December 04, 2025

Democrat Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has called out former Vice President Kamala Harris over her campaign memoir’s characterization of him, which he says are “blatant lies.”

In Harris’ book titled “107 Days,” which recounts her failed presidential campaign, the former vice president explained why Shapiro was snubbed as her running mate. She alleged that Shapiro was focused on the features of the vice-presidential residence during the vetting process and seeking too much power for the office. She claimed he wanted “to be in the room for every decision” she made.

“That’s complete and utter bulls–t. I can tell you that her accounts are just blatant lies,” the governor said in response to passages read aloud to him from Harris’ book, according to a recent interview by The Atlantic’s journalist Tim Alberta.

“I mean, she’s trying to sell books and cover her a–,” Shapiro told The Atlantic of Harris. “I shouldn’t say ‘cover her a–.’ I think that’s not appropriate. She’s trying to sell books. Period.”

Shapiro, who was a leading candidate to become Harris’ vice-presidential running mate before the selection of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, campaigned on Harris’ behalf in the Keystone State in 2024.

In the interview, Shapiro also attempted to explain the shortcomings which led to his party losing ground in recent years.

“Democrats lost ground in some of these communities by failing to show up and failing to treat people with a level of respect that they deserve,” Shapiro said. “Donald Trump has been a once-in-a-generation political figure who’s managed to connect on a deeper cultural level.”

Harris’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Robert F. Kennedy’s Immunization Board Delays Decision on Future of Hep B Vaccine

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Rebecca Downs / Virginia Allen / Victor Davis Hanson / Jacob Adams / George Caldwell / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / December 04, 2025

Robert F. Kennedy’s hand-picked vaccine advisory board unexpectedly delayed its vote on the hepatitis B vaccine’s future in the childhood immunization schedule.

Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, met Thursday, the first of two days, to hear presentations and vote on the universal hepatitis B vaccine recommendation for infants. The board voted 6-3 to delay the vote to give advisers time to examine last minute changes to the hepatitis B vote wording.

There was a split between some of the attendees who support changing the recommendation and others who don’t. The panel plans to revisit the issue on Friday.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy has signaled his support for changing the recommendation, claiming that the hepatitis B birth dose is a “likely culprit” of autism in an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s podcast in June.

Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., an OBGYN, says there is no need to get the hepatitis B vaccine if the mother tests negative for it during pregnancy. Hepatitis B is mostly transmitted through sex or sharing a needle with someone with hepatitis B, and mothers exposed to the disease are likely to pass it to their babies.

Marshall told The Daily Signal in an exclusive interview that removing the hepatitis B vaccine from the schedule would help restore the patient-doctor relationship and give families more choice in their children’s healthcare.

“If you as a mother said, I want my baby to have the vaccine, I’m definitely OK giving it,” he said, “but I really want to put that decision back into the hands of mom and dad, and not in the hands of a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., that’s never delivered a baby, never taken care of a newborn.”

The removal of the vaccine from the schedule means insurance companies may no longer be required to cover it. But Marshall said ACIP shouldn’t make its decision based on what an insurance company is going to do

“I certainly have the empathy, but I think regardless, the health departments are going to carry it and they’re going to give free vaccines to everybody, regardless of what the insurance company does. And a lot of people go to health department anyway, the county health department,” he said.

Marshall said he worries that offering the hepatitus B shot on day one of the baby’s life unnecessarily interferes with its immune system.

“There is more we don’t know about immune systems than we do,” he said. “I’m just afraid giving a baby a vaccine this early interferes with its own immune system.”

Marshall proposed letting the baby’s immune system develop before giving the hepatitus B vaccine.

“Now, if that mom is a prostitute, if she has multiple sexual partners, if she’s doing IV drugs, if she’s got a positive drug test, if we don’t have a hepatitis B screen on her, then sure, I would probably get that baby the vaccine,” he said. “So there’s a way the [Centers for Disease Control] could recommend it without being on day number one.”

To Marshall, ACIP’s biggest challenge will be determining the right age to give the hepatitus B vaccine to babies with minimal impact.

“I’m concerned about the impurities that we that are getting these vaccines, all the nonessential substances… And just the quality of where it’s made even bothers me,” he said. “They should probably be American made vaccines, until proven otherwise. And then it’s the interaction when you start giving multiple vaccines at the same time, it’s really hard to figure out, is that impacting the baby, the child’s immune system as well.”

After the vote, ACIP will make its recommendation to the CDC, which will ultimately decides the future of the childhood immunization schedule.

“I think that’s the research we should be focused on, is trying to sort out the best timing of it,” Marshall continued. “By the first year of life, I think a baby’s going to receive 20, 25 jabs, and it just seems like it’s too many to me. My gut feeling as a doctor is, we try really hard not to mix medicines.”

Similarly, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has said on X that there is “no medical reason to give newborns” the hepatitus B vaccine if the mother “is not infected.”

President Donald Trump’s pollster Tony Fabrizio found that 80% of voters say it’s important to people to receive the hepatitus B vaccine. That includes 70% of Trump voters.

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a physician who chairs the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, has said he is “very concerned” about the possibility of changing the hepatitis B vaccine schedule.

“This is policy by people who don’t understand the epidemiology of hepatitis B, or who have grown comfortable with the fact that we’ve been so successful with our recommendation that now the incidence of hepatitis B is so low, they feel like we can rest on our laurels,” he told CBS News’ Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”

Since 1991, ACIP has recommended that all babies receive the vaccine.

On Friday, ACIP will vote on if the government should drop its birth dose recommendation for hep B vaccination for babies whose mother tested negative. The guidance would remain for babies whose mother is positive or whose infection status is unknown.

The earlier version of the guidance said parents of children whose mother’s infection status is unknown should make the decision in consultation with a doctor.

What’s Next After Trump Voids Biden Autopen Orders?

The Trump administration could have a tough time making all of former President Joe Biden’s autopen actions “null and void,” which likely means he will face litigation, legal experts warn.

On Tuesday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social, “Any and all Documents, Proclamations, Executive Orders, Memorandums, or Contracts, signed by Order of the now infamous and unauthorized ‘AUTOPEN,’ within the Administration of Joseph R. Biden Jr., are hereby null, void, and of no further force or effect. Anyone receiving “Pardons,” “Commutations,” or any other Legal Document so signed, please be advised that said Document has been fully and completely terminated, and is of no Legal effect.”

Clemency may be the only question, since Trump can overturn any Biden executive order whether the president signed it personally or by autopen.

“The autopen is only the instrumentality of fraud,” Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, told The Daily Signal. The Oversight Project began analyzing and investigating Biden’s use of the autopen while he was still in office.

“The president has caught the ball and is pushing as hard as possible,” Howell added. “The Department of Justice is the last missing link to take action. This could be an important step in meeting the promise for more accountability.”

The office of Joe Biden did not respond to a request for comment.

Here are three keys to know what’s next.

1. ‘Proving That Biden Didn’t Know’

When matters are litigated, the burden will be on the Trump administration to prove Biden was unaware of actions taken in his name, warned Stewart Whitson, director of federal affairs for the Foundation for Government Accountability, a watchdog group.

“The challenge for the Trump administration is going to be proving that Biden didn’t know,” Whitson told The Daily Signal. “That could be proven through eyewitness testimony. It could also be proven through accessing documents, such as emails, that might suggest the president didn’t know.”

A strong starting point for the Justice Department to gain search warrants and compel testimony would be the evidence obtained by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Whitson said.

In October, the committee issued a report titled, “The Biden Autopen Presidency: Decline, Delusion, and Deception in the White House,” based on interviews with 14 senior Biden White House staffers.

The investigation found that senior Biden staff exercised presidential authority or facilitated executive actions without direct authorization from President Biden himself, including through misuse of the autopen.

The committee found instances where executive actions were executed without clear record of the president’s approval. The committee also identified questions surrounding the issuance of pardons and commutations during the final days of the Biden presidency. This included pardons for Biden family members where the autopen was used without confirmed presidential authorization.

Former White House Chief of Staff Jeff Zients told the committee he didn’t know who was in charge of the autopen.

“Without sufficient recordkeeping, it is impossible to verify that the autopen was used properly,” the oversight committee report says. “Further, recently uncovered documents and witness testimony indicate that even when a verbal decision was ‘memorialized’ in an email, it does not prove that President Biden had made the decision himself.”

2. Clemency ‘Easiest to Undo’

During his Biden’s four years in office, the White House issued 4,245 acts of clemency. That’s more than the previous record of 3,796 held by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Of those, 96% were granted between Oct. 1, 2024, and Jan. 20, 2025.

These included pardons of five Biden family members, along with pardons for former National Institutes of Health official and former White House advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley, and House members on the Select Subcommittee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

A Biden Justice Department attorney raised concerns about what he called “highly problematic” pardon review process for what the White House characterized as nonviolent offenders.

Biden’s own words during a New York Times interview published in July, reveal that he was aware of “categories” of people with clemency, but not individuals. He did say he was aware of some pardons for Milley and the Jan. 6 committee members.

Biden’s comments to the Times should make the clemency “the easiest to undo,” said Howell of the Oversight Project.

“You don’t need to take the Oversight Project’s word for it. Biden told The New York Times after the Oversight Project forced him out of the basement, that he authorized broad categories for pardons, and the staff picked the names. So that was definitely not done by Biden,” Howell explained.

It could depend on the definition of categories, said Paul Kamenar, counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center, a watchdog group.

“If Biden told someone ‘pardon everybody on the January 6 Committee,’ that’s a broad category but it’s also finite,” Kamenar told The Daily Signal. “To say, ‘all or most nonviolent drug offenders’ would be more of a problem.”

3. What Will Litigation Look Like?

To reverse the pardons, the Justice Department would have to act, and then courts would resolve the question, legal experts said.

“If Biden never authorized it, it’s an invalid pardon anyway,” Kamenar explained. “The way this gets settled is if Adam Schiff or someone pardoned gets arrested, and he comes back to say, ‘I was pardoned.’ The government could then come back and produce evidence that, ‘No, Biden didn’t authorize the pardon.’”

Schiff, now a California Democrat senator, was previously a member of the House Jan. 6 committee.

Other clemency issues will be more difficult to litigate if it means reincarceration or returning old penalties, said John Malcolm, director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“This is totally unprecedented territory,” Malcolm told The Daily Signal. “Normally pardons and grants of clemency, for example, are not subject to challenge since a president’s pardon power is plenary.”

“Here, the issue will be litigated when Trump takes some action that runs contrary to what Biden did–such as seeking to reincarcerate someone who was pardoned or granted clemency or setting an execution date for one of the 37 death row inmates whose sentences Biden commuted–and then we’ll see what a court does,” Malom added.

Trump’s move is a key first step, said Whitson of the Foundation for Government Accountability.

“The bigger threat that President Trump has brought to the public’s attention is the idea of unelected staffers exercising power they don’t have,” Whitson told The Daily Signal. “It could be at the behest of a well-funded organizations or even foreign funding pushing unelected bureaucrats to act.”

Cornyn Slams Biden Admin Over Failed Vetting of Afghan Nationals

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has “zero confidence” in what the Biden administration did to vet Afghan nationals coming to the United States in the wake of the shooting of two National Guardsmen in Washington before Thanksgiving.

“We just concluded a briefing from U.S. Customs and Immigration Service officials, which gives me zero confidence that the Afghan nationals who came to the United States were adequately vetted,” Cornyn told members of the press at the Capitol.

“Unfortunately, one of the National Guardsmen is dead, but there’s also been subsequent arrests of individuals,” the Texas senator continued.

The Texas lawmaker articulated how the previous administration’s border policies failed to thoroughly vet those that were welcomed into the United States.

“This is part of the open border policies of the Biden administration that really is not confined to Afghan nationals, where they use this process known as parole, which basically means massive numbers of individuals simply waived in a country, and we know next to zero about them,” Cornyn added.

Republicans were sounding the alarm about the lack of vetting of Afghan nationals as far back as October 2021.

“Some of these individuals are being paroled into the interior of the United States, or they are even prematurely leaving military bases before undergoing proper and necessary vetting,” Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La., then the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Border Security, told his colleagues at a joint hearing on Oct. 21, 2021.

The hearing focused on Operation Allies Welcome, the Biden administration that allowed National Guardsmen shooting suspect Rahmanullah Lakanwal to come into the country. Lakanwal had been evacuated with his family from Afghanistan by American military forces in August 2021.

Then-House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark E. Green, R-Tenn., subsequently sent a letter with three House colleagues including Higgins to Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas in May 2023 inquiring about the vetting and screening of Afghan evacuees.

At least one person expressed concern about Lakanwal’s state writing a January 2024 email reported by The New York Times that, “Rahmanullah has not been functional as a person, father and provider since March of last year.” The New York Post recently reported that more than 5,000 Afghans who came to the U.S. after the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan in August 2021 had been flagged by the Department of Homeland Security for “national security” issues.

Cornyn contended that it was the executive branch that was at fault.

“Well, this, this individual, these Afghan nationals, were not, did not come in through any legislative act that we passed. It was strictly done by the Biden administration using what’s known as parole,” the senator said.

“But parole is supposed to be done on a case by case basis, and it’s illegitimate to try to do it in the way of massive tens of thousands of people into the country that you know nothing about,” Cornyn continued.

“My impression is we do not know where [the Afghan nationals] are. The Biden administration simply lost track of them once they came into the country again without proper vetting,” Cornyn explained.

President Donald Trump for his part has sought to rectify the mistakes of his predecessor by promising to “reexamine every single alien who’s entered our country from Afghanistan under Biden” and to “take all necessary measures to ensure the removal of any alien from any country who does not belong here or add benefit to our country.”

SEEING DOUBLE? Trump Endorses Retiring Rep’s Twin Brother for Texas Seat

President Donald Trump appears to think being a congressman runs in the family.

On Thursday, Trump endorsed Trever Nehls, the identical twin brother of retiring Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, for the House seat of Texas’ 22nd district.

“It is my Honor to endorse MAGA Warrior TREVER NEHLS, who is running to represent the incredible people of Texas’ 22nd Congressional District,” Trump wrote Thursday on the social media platform Truth Social. “Trever’s brother is the GREAT Congressman from Texas, Troy Nehls. He and his family are fierce advocates for our Movement to, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.”

This is not the only time Trever is looking to succeed Troy. Troy was previously constable of Fort Bend County, a position that then went to Trever in 2013.

Troy then went on to serve as sheriff in the county, an office for which Trever launched a campaign following Troy’s transition to Congress. He ultimately did not win the election but was the Republican nominee.

*Left to right: Trever Nehls, President Donald Trump, and Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas. (Trever Nehls/Facebook)*

The 22nd Congressional District has been represented by prominent Republicans such as former Rep. Ron Paul and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

Troy Nehls announced his decision not to seek reelection on Nov. 29, writing on X that he would “focus on [his] family and return home.”

Trever Nehls announced his candidacy the same day, writing on Facebook, “I know this district and this district knows me. I will work every day to earn your trust and carry on the tradition of America First leadership that our outgoing Congressman Troy Nehls set.”

Trever Nehls would not be the only Congressman to succeed his brother. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., won election in his brother Mike Fitzpatrick’s district after he decided not to seek another term. Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, R-Fla., is also a successor to his brother, former Rep. Lincoln Díaz-Balart.

EXCLUSIVE: No New Somali Refugees Have Entered the US Since Jan. 20, State Department Says

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A State Department spokesperson confirmed to The Daily Signal Wednesday that no new Somali refugees have been admitted to the U.S. since President Donald Trump took office.

The Somali community in Minnesota has gained renewed scrutiny in the wake of multiple fraud scandals, including a massive $250 million fraud scandal involving the now-defunct nonprofit Feeding Our Futures.

“Since President Trump took office on January 20, 2025, no Somali refugees have been admitted in our nation,” the State Department representative told The Daily Signal. “Admitted refugees during the Biden-era receive reception and placement services, the first 90 days of which have been provided by the State Department.”

The State Department’s Refugee Admissions Program tracks how many refugees the U.S. admits every month. Since Trump signed an executive order suspending entry into the U.S. under the program, only a handful of refugees have been admitted from three countries: Afghanistan, El Salvador, and South Africa.

Thousands of Somali refugees entered the country in the first months of fiscal year 2025, however, which began on Oct. 1, 2024. The program records the admission of 4,992 Somali refugees from October through January. Six hundred and seventy of them settled in Minnesota. Ohio received the second-largest number at 245, followed closely by New York at 211. In fiscal year 2024, 1,267 Somalis settled in the Land of 10,000 Lakes.

Roughly 76,000 people of Somali descent live in Minnesota, more than half of whom were born in the U.S., according to Census Bureau data cited by CBS News.

The Somali Fraud Scandals

Multiple high-profile fraud charges and convictions have drawn the Minnesota Somali community into the national spotlight.

The office of U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen has charged 78 defendants connected to the $250 million Feeding Our Future fraud scheme, and 56 of them have pleaded guilty. Authorities have also filed charges in a $14 million fraud case involving an autism program and a multi-million-dollar fraud case involving housing stabilization services.

Last month, conservative journalist Christopher Rufo highlighted how many fraudsters sent cash to the Somali terrorist group Al-Shabaab.

Members of this community reportedly went to train with al-Shabaab in Somalia and the Islamic State, but law enforcement has partnered with others in the community to combat radicalism.

Somali refugees come to the U.S. to escape the civil war in their homeland, which has dragged on for more than 30 years. Piracy, grinding poverty, and the influence of radical Islamist groups like Al-Shabaab also make life hard in the East African country.

Trump’s Comments About the Somali Community

“Somalians ripped off that state for billions of dollars,” Trump said in a Cabinet meeting Tuesday. “They contribute nothing. I don’t want them in our country, I’ll be honest with you.” Trump condemned Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who came from Somalia and represents a Somali-majority area of the state, as “garbage.”

“We strongly condemn the dangerous and openly racist rhetoric targeting Rep. Ilhan Omar and the broader Somali American community,” the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic activist group that often pushes leftist causes, told The Daily Signal in response to Trump’s remarks. “Efforts to smear all Somali Americans with raw racism is the latest example of political leaders trying to use a boogeyman to distract the American public from real issues.”

CAIR, which has historic ties to terrorist-funding networks, did not address the fraud scandal in its statement.

State Rep. Kristin Robbins, a Republican and chair of the committee on Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy, previously told The Daily Signal that while most of the fraudsters are Somali, she has worked with whistleblowers who also hail from that community.

“Two things can be true at the same time: Most of the fraud of the people so far indicted and prosecuted has been from the Somali community. Also, some of the best whistleblowers have come from the Somali community,” she said.

‘Righteous Strikes’: Congress Reacts to Classified Briefing on Narco-Terrorist Strikes

When members of Congress emerged from a classified briefing on the now-controversial Sept. 2 strikes against an alleged Venezuelan narco-terrorist boat, Democrats continued to accuse the Trump administration of war crimes and called for the firing of Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, while Republicans claimed the Trump administration was well within its rights to carry out the strikes.

After news reports this week created conflicting narratives about the Sept. 2 strikes, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, head of Special Operations Command, came to Capitol Hill to brief members of the House and Senate.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Hegseth should be fired in comments made to the press on Thursday. The Arizona senator is currently being investigated by the Department of War and the DOJ following his participation in a video that called for members of the military to “refuse illegal orders” from the Trump administration in the midst of America’s campaign against the alleged drug traffickers.

Kelly and the other members who took part in the video have been labeled “the Seditious Six” by members of the Trump administration. “As veterans of various sorts, the Seditious Six knew exactly what they were doing—sowing doubt through a politically-motivated influence operation. The @DeptofWar won’t fall for it or stand for it,” Hegseth wrote about Kelly and the other video participants on November 25.

It’s not the first time Kelly has called for Hegseth’s termination. Kelly had previously called for Hegseth to be fired after the leak of a private Signal group chat of high-ranking Trump officials to The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg.

Trump’s Pentagon Is Focus on ‘Destroying the Enemy,’ Not ‘Navy Drag Queen Show,’ Says Dept. of War Press Sec.

Daily Signal President @RobertBluey sat down with Department of War @PressSecDOW to discuss the Pentagon’s renewed commitment to the “warrior ethos.” According to… pic.twitter.com/vlmRydkExY
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 4, 2025

During the closed-door briefing, the members watched the video of the strikes against the alleged drug traffickers.

Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., described the footage from Sept. 2 as “one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.“

“You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel were killed by the United States,” Himes added.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., however, described the September 2 attacks as “righteous strikes” at a press gaggle on Thursday.

“I didn’t see anything disturbing about it,” Cotton said of the video. “What’s disturbing to me is that millions of Americans have died from drugs being run to America by these cartels.”

“These are Narco terrorists who are trafficking drugs that are destined for the United States to kill thousands of Arkansans and millions of Americans,” Cotton said.

“I saw two survivors trying to put the boats loaded with drugs bound for the United States back over, so they could stay in the fight,” the Arkansas senator explained. “And potentially, given all the contacts we heard of other Narco terrorist boats in the area coming to their aid, to recover their cargo, and recover those narco-terrorists.”

Previously, the Washington Post reported from an anonymous source that Hegseth had given an oral order to “kill everybody,” which precipitated a second strike on the drug boat when two survivors were spotted. On Monday, however, the New York Times reported that Hegseth had not given that oral order and that Bradley had overseen the operation and the second strike.

Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley, who oversaw the controversial deadly boast strike on an alleged Venezuelan narco-terrorist vessel, will meet with members of Congress on Thursday.@SecWar Pete Hegseth has repeatedly defended the strikes. @Virginia_Allen5…
— The Daily Signal (@DailySignal) December 4, 2025

Fellow Arkansan, Republican Rep. Rick Crawford, who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, also expressed support for the Department of War’s actions on September 2.

“There is no doubt in my mind about the highly professional manner in which the Department of War conducted, and is conducting the operations our nation has called them to do to protect the homeland from these dangerous cartels,” Crawford said in a statement posted on X.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., told The Daily Signal that, “President Trump and [War] Secretary [Pete] Hegseth have every right to destroy every narco-terrorist trying to smuggle drugs into the U.S. that they can find.”

“The truth is the Democrats never wanted Secretary Hegseth—he’s a threat to permanent Washington’s status quo and the Democrats can’t stand that. I support Secretary Hegseth and applaud the work he has done to bring a realist perspective to our foreign policy and a warrior ethos back to our military,” the Missouri senator added.

Cotton also praised the Trump administration for its strikes on the narco-terrorists.

“What’s gratifying to me is that the president has made the decision, finally, after decades of letting it happen, that we’re going to take the battle to them. And we’re going to continue to strike these boats until [the] cartels learn their lesson, when their drugs are no longer coming to America,” Cotton stated.

Cotton detailed the process by which the attacks had been authorized.

“Look, this is not like a firefight in some cave in Afghanistan that had three people. This was witnessed by literally hundreds of uniformed and civilian personnel at the Pentagon, at Fort Bragg, at other installations. Dozens of them were lawyers. Everybody was watching. Everybody had seen the intelligence and the legal basis leading up to these strikes,” Cotton said.

The Army veteran expressed an openness to releasing the footage he saw in the closed-door briefing to the public stating he would leave the determination up to the Department of Defense but that he “didn’t see anything in there that concerned me.”

“Look, these videos have been made and released for 25 years,” Cotton added.

When asked if he would have made the same call on the strikes, Cotton said he would have. “If I was Admiral Bradley, and I’d been delegated that authority, absolutely,” the senator concluded.

Inside the DOW’s Operations Against Narco-Terrorists and Venezuela

The big issue in Washington right now is what is the United States trying to get out of ongoing operations around Venezuela?

Very rarely is it the case that the question occupying minds on Capitol Hill and in think tanks is the same one everyday Americans are asking. But what’s happening between America and Venezuela is a rare exception.

A recent CBS/YouGov poll found that 76% of Americans believe the administration needs to explain its position on the use of military force in Venezuela.

The same poll found that 53% are in support of the strikes against the narco-terrorists looking to bring drugs into the United States, but 70% of Americans are against taking military action in Venezuela.

On Tuesday, Trump told reporters at a cabinet meeting that “we’re going to start doing those strikes on land” in Venezuela, too.

To provide that explanation, Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson is on this week’s episode of “The Signal Sitdown” about the Department of War’s ongoing operations in our near abroad.

For over 90 days, the United States has been performing airstrikes in the waters surrounding Latin and South America—the waters of the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific. There have been over 20 of these strikes targeting what the government has claimed are narco-terrorists—people attempting to bring drugs into the United States.

Throughout the campaign, the narco-terrorist strikes have been tied to Venezuela and the regime of Nicolas Maduro.

The Trump administration has tried to make that connection more explicit and more intense in recent weeks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio also announced it would be designating the Cartel de los Soles, or the Cartel of the Sun, a Foreign Terrorist Organization on Nov. 16, a designation that became effective on November 24. In the release, Rubio named Maduro the head of the Cartel of the Sun.

But the Cartel of the Sun isn’t your normal cartel. It’s actually a slang term that Venezuelan journalists started to use in the 1990s to describe corrupt military and law enforcement officials that are involved in drug running. Cartel of the Sun comes from the “sun” insignias on their military epaulettes.

With the Foreign Terrorist Organization designation, however, it’s given the Trump administration “options” on how to further deal with Maduro and the drug trade to the nation’s south, Wilson told The Daily Signal. What the president ultimately decides to do with that designation remains to be seen.

The Trump Case Is Finally Dead, but Fani Willis Left Fulton County Taxpayers on the Hook for Millions of Dollars

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis did not just blow up her own witch-hunt RICO prosecution through her unethical misbehavior. She handed the persecuted defendants, including President Donald Trump, the right to send Fulton County taxpayers the bill.

A Fulton County judge has finally dismissed the 2020 election prosecution case Willis pursued against President Donald Trump and the remaining defendants in its entirety. It was a meritless case that should never have been brought in the first place. This came after the Georgia Court of Appeals and then the state Supreme Court disqualified Willis over a “significant appearance of impropriety” arising from her romantic relationship with the special prosecutor she hired, Nathan Wade, as well as numerous other problems with the case.

Georgia Code § 17-11-6, enacted this year, gives every defendant whose charges were dismissed the right to recover “all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs” from the budget of the DA’s office itself.

In plain English, Willis’s ethical lapses did not just destroy her own high-profile prosecution. It opened the door for as many as 15 defendants to send their multimillion-dollar legal invoices to the taxpayers of Fulton County. Many of those taxpayers voted to reelect Willis as their DA in last year’s election, bringing to mind the famous line from Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” uttered by Puck: “What fools these mortals be!”

In August 2023, Willis brought her politically-motivated indictment against Trump and 18 co-defendants, accusing them of a criminal “enterprise” to overturn Georgia’s 2020 election results. Nineteen people in all were unjustly dragged into court, from the former president to lawyers, party officials, and local activists, simply for doing what they had every constitutional right to do: question the outcome of the election, provide legal advice, and lobby state legislators to address their concerns.

Four defendants, facing early trial dates and multiple felony charges, eventually entered plea deals to minor charges in exchange for dramatically reduced sentences (and were granted first-offender status, which means that those convictions will be wiped away if they successfully complete a period of probation), leaving Trump and 14 others to face trial. It was supposed to be the showcase trial of Willis’s tenure, something she obviously envisioned putting her, a local, unknown prosecutor, on the national stage of the Democratic Party: the “Fulton 19” in a televised, RICO spectacle that she herself predicted could take four months of trial time and 150 witnesses.

But the unjustified prosecution turned into a soap opera about the prosecutor’s misdeeds.

Defense motions revealed that Willis had appointed her romantic partner, private attorney Nathan Wade, as special prosecutor and paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funds to run the case. Bank and credit-card records showed Wade paying for trips with Willis to places like Napa Valley and the Caribbean at the same time, prompting allegations that she personally benefited from the prosecution through shared luxury travel on the county’s dime.

Judge Scott McAfee did not initially find an actual financial conflict, but he did find that the relationship created an “appearance of impropriety” and a “financial cloud of impropriety and potential untruthfulness” over the prosecution. Wade resigned to keep Willis on the case, but that was not enough to remedy the “impropriety.”

Upon appeal from Trump and the other defendants, the Georgia Court of Appeals disqualified Willis outright (and her entire office), holding that her conduct created a “significant appearance of impropriety.” The Georgia Supreme Court wisely declined to rescue her when it decided not to hear her appeal.

Once Willis was out, responsibility passed to Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, to determine if the prosecution should be dropped or referred to a DA in a different county to pursue. After reviewing the evidence (or should we say lack of evidence?), the law, and the costs involved, Skandalakis moved to dismiss all the charges that remained against the defendants.

In his motion to the court, he wrote what should have been obvious from the very beginning, that “It is not illegal to question or challenge election results. Our nation’s foundational principles of free speech and electoral scrutiny are rooted in this very freedom.” As our colleague John Malcolm pointed out long ago in a previous article, Skandalakis noted that the alternate electors who were prosecuted “lacked criminal intent” and “believed their actions were legally required to preserve Georgia’s electoral vote in the event” Trump won his then-pending lawsuit contesting the results.

And the lawyers who were prosecuted? Skandalakis said he was “extremely reluctant to criminalize the act of attorneys providing flawed legal advice.” While we might disagree with his claim that the lawyers provided “flawed” legal advice, the point Skandalakis makes is vitally important—the lawyers were being criminally prosecuted for doing what lawyers are supposed to do: provide good faith legal advice and vigorously represent their clients, even if the arguments they make are ultimately rejected by a court. He noted that since “multiple interpretations are equally plausible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and should not be presumed to have acted criminally.”

McAfee then issued a one-paragraph order dismissing the case “in its entirety.”

That phrase should keep Fulton County’s finance office awake at night.

When legislators passed the bill to codify § 17-11-6 this year, they were not shy about what they were doing. Asked whether the measure would benefit the Trump defendants, the bill’s sponsor explained that it would apply to “all 15 defendants” who were still fighting the case.

The new law mandates two crucial things. First, it says that if a prosecuting attorney in a criminal case “is disqualified due to improper conduct” and a subsequent prosecutor or the court dismisses the case, the defendant “shall be entitled to an award of all reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the defendant in defending the case.” Second, and most important for taxpayers, it mandates that any award “shall be paid from the funds of the office of the prosecuting attorney as budgeted by the county.”

Nineteen defendants were indicted. Four took plea deals. That leaves up to 15 individuals, including the former president, whose charges have now been dismissed in their entirety and who may invoke § 17-11-6.

What might that cost? We already know some of the numbers that are public. The Georgia Republican Party spent roughly $2.3 million defending three of its leaders who served as alternate electors. Other defendants poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into high-powered legal teams or raised large sums on crowdfunding sites to keep up with the onslaught. Trump himself has been represented by nationally known lawyers whose hourly rates are not exactly discounted.

Local media are already reporting that Fulton County taxpayers could be “on the hook” for “tens of millions” of dollars in fee awards if the defendants file, as they no doubt will, motions seeking those funds under the new statute and judges deem their bills to be reasonable. Those payments must come out of the budget allocated to the Fulton County DA’s office, which means either service cuts, delayed reforms, or higher taxes to refill the pot. Fulton County is already contemplating a property tax increase of roughly $32 million just to address a separate federal mandate to fix its “abhorrent, unconstitutional” jail conditions.

In other words, while Willis may never personally sign a reimbursement check, her conduct has put every homeowner and small business in Fulton County in the position of underwriting the legal defense of the victims she chose to indict in her unwarranted prosecution to further her political ambitions.

When a prosecutor’s “improper conduct” blows up a case, the innocent should not be financially ruined for the privilege of having been wrongly dragged into court. Reimbursement of their legal fees can’t reimburse these defendants for the aggravation, stress, reputational harm, and the personal, emotional costs they have suffered, but at least some of their financial woes will be addressed through this law.

But there is a second lesson that Georgia, and the rest of the country, should draw from this fiasco. Prosecutorial power is so immense that its misuse by unethical lawyers can be catastrophic, not just for the defendants who have to fight baseless charges, but for taxpayers who have to remedy that DA’s malfeasance. The Willis-Wade debacle also made the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office an object of ridicule. Now it threatens to drain millions from public safety budgets to reimburse defendants who never should have been victimized in the first place.

Georgia legislators did the right thing when they made counties liable for the costs of prosecutorial misconduct. But they should also make sure that district attorneys face real, personal consequences for the same illicit behavior. That means tighter rules, mandatory disclosure of personal and financial ties with outside counsel, and a meaningful disciplinary process when a DA’s inexcusable “lapse in judgment” results in the collapse of such sham show trials and political vendettas.

The lesson is simple. When prosecutors treat their office as a vehicle to further their political agendas and personal relationships, it is not just defendants who suffer. It is every citizen who pays taxes and discovers they are footing the tab for someone else’s lawfare.

Stefanik and Johnson War Over House GOP Leadership

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., a member of House Republican leadership and gubernatorial candidate in New York, is warring with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., over how the GOP’s narrow House majority should be managed heading into 2026.

What started with Stefanik leveling an accusation that Johnson was “protect[ing] the deep state” by allegedly blocking a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act has turned into an all-out offensive on Johnson’s leadership. Stefanik has now claimed Johnson’s leadership of the House GOP has left the conference “rudderless,” and that if there was another vote for House Speaker today, Johnson would not have the vote.

“He certainly wouldn’t have the votes to be speaker if there was a roll-call vote tomorrow,” Stefanik said of Johnson in a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I believe that the majority of Republicans would vote for new leadership. It’s that widespread.”

Stefanik went so far as to suggest former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was better at the role. “Whereas Kevin McCarthy was a political animal, Mike Johnson is a political novice and, boy, does it show, with the House Republicans underperforming for the first time in the Trump era,” Stefanik said.

The New York Republican added that President Donald Trump “is the leader of the Republicans and he certainly doesn’t need Mike Johnson.”

*Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La. (Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)*

In response to Stefanik’s remarks, Johnson told reporters Wednesday, “I’m not sure how to comment on what Elise is doing or what the rationale behind this is, but you can talk to Republicans in Congress. 99.9% are united. We’re working together to keep delivering our agenda and that’s my focus.”

The speaker added that, “I think we’re leading and delivering. I’ve made the point. We’ve had the most consequential congress in the modern era and objectively I think it’s one of the top five of all time. So we’ll put the record up against all that.”

The dispute first bubbled up Monday, when Stefanik said Johnson was “getting rolled by House Dems” because, according to Stefanik, Johnson had refused to put a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act that would require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to tell members of Congress if candidates are being investigated.

Johnson, Stefanik asserted, was “siding with [House judiciary committee Democrat Rep.] Jamie Raskin against Trump Republicans to block this provision to protect the deep state.”

Johnson was asked about the social media spat over the provision on Tuesday.

“I don’t exactly know why Elise won’t just call me. I texted her yesterday,” said Johnson. “I explained to her on a text message as soon as I heard this… it has to go through committees of jurisdiction… there’s a four corners engagement and agreement that’s required.”

? Elise Stefanik GOES OFF on Mike Johnson following his response to a question from @AndiNapier this morning about Stefanik's accusation that the Speaker is 'protecting the deep state.' https://t.co/24H2cPmxab pic.twitter.com/ggbJY7XtgS
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) December 2, 2025

Johnson said that House and Senate leaders of the committees of jurisdiction were not able to agree on the provision, and for that reason it was not included. But Johnson also said he was not aware of how the debate over the provision had progressed. “In this case—I found out last night, this wasn’t even on my radar—that that apparently didn’t happen,” he said.

By Wednesday, after a discussion with President Donald Trump and the Speaker, Stefanik had gotten what she wanted, announcing that the provision would be returned to the bill.

“He [Johnson] and I had very successful discussions last night. It’s a provision that he supports. Jim Jordan, the four corners—other than Jamie Raskin—they supported the provision, which, and first of all, it’s good policy,” she said Wednesday morning on CNBC.

Discharge Petition

Stefanik, who is running for governor in New York in 2026, is also supporting a discharge petition—a means of forcing a bill to come to a vote if leadership or committees are not advancing it—from Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., that would force consideration of a new bill to crack down on stock trading among members of Congress.

Stefanik is one of ten Republicans to sign on to the petition so far, which will require 218 signatures in order to succeed.

“This bipartisan, commonsense, good governance discharge petition will finally crack down on the corrosive decay of a Congress that is failing the American people,” Stefanik said in a statement of the petition.

Discharge petitions, which have become increasingly common this Congress, are not beloved by all, and are often seen as a flouting leadership’s agenda.

“I am not a fan of the discharge petition. That is a tool of the minority,” House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain, R-Mich., told The Daily Signal Tuesday when asked about its increasing prevalence.

“I come from the business world. If you have an idea, if you have a product or a piece of legislation that you want to get on the floor, it’s your job to sell it, right?”

*House Republican Conference Chair Lisa McClain, R-Mich. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)*

McClain admitted that getting buy-in from enough Republicans to advance a bill can be difficult with the GOP’s narrow majority in the House.

“We have a very diverse conference, right? We have people who are in very, very ruby red seats and then we have people that are in not so ruby red seats that maybe Biden won by eight points,” McClain said. “So that is an interesting piece to navigate, but at the end of the day, you got to navigate it.”

Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., who formerly chaired the Main Street Caucus and was instrumental in raising the threshold for a motion to vacate the Speaker’s office, also expressed a dislike for the discharge petition becoming more common.

“I’m not a big fan of discharge petitions. Let’s be clear, discharge petitions empower the minority,” he told The Daily Signal Tuesday.

Of major concern to these Republicans is the idea that members of their own party could empower Democrats to take contentious votes in the run up to the 2026 midterms.

“They allow a small group of Republicans, five or 10, to empower the Democrats to control the floor… it’s a tool that I’m not a fan of. But there are a lot of tools that I don’t particularly like that occasionally have their uses. I would not want to entirely get rid of the discharge petition. I would say I wish members were a little more reticent to look to that discharge petition any time they didn’t get their way.”

The Daily Signal was referred to public statements when contacting Johnson’s and Stefanik’s offices.

Beijing’s Aggressive Campaign Against Japan’s Iron Lady Backfires

Communist China and Japan have been engaging in a serious diplomatic dispute over Taiwan for almost a month. While Japan strives to de-escalate tensions, China’s aggressive stance—particularly toward newly-elected Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi—only heightens concerns.

Takaichi made history as Japan’s first female prime minister in late October, drawing parallels to Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister. Both women emerged from working-class backgrounds to reach the zenith of political power. They are recognized for their strong work ethic, decisive leadership, and unwavering commitment to conservative values.

On Nov. 7, Takaichi was asked by an opposition lawmaker in parliament about the potential threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. She responded that such an action would pose a “survival-threatening situation” for Japan, according to the country’s 2015 security law. In this critical context, Japan’s constitution allows for the mobilization of defense forces. However, Takaichi also emphasized Japan’s longstanding policy on Taiwan focusing on a peaceful resolution.

Takaichi’s statement echoes a decade of Japanese government policy. Her mentor, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, emphasized that “a Taiwan emergency is a Japan emergency.” This is due to the proximity of several Japan-controlled islands, including the disputed Senkaku Islands (known as the Diaoyu Islands in China) are located about 60 miles from Taiwan. This close distance means that if China were to attack Taiwan, Japan’s national security would likely be impacted.

Tokyo’s security concerns deepened in 2022 when the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire military exercises near Taiwan in direct response to U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit. Five PLA ballistic missiles landed in controlled waters, triggering a decisive shift in Japanese public sentiment toward prioritizing defense spending.

Beijing’s insistence that its actions regarding Taiwan are purely internal affairs has led to a range of aggressive responses to Takaichi’s suggestion of possible Japanese military involvement. Xue Jian, China’s consul general in Osaka, Japan, threatened to sever Takaichi’s “filthy neck” on X.com. Although he deleted his post following wide condemnation, neither Xue nor the Chinese government has issued an apology. Instead, China has repeatedly demanded that Takaichi retract her comments, warning of a “crushing defeat” if Japan intervenes regarding Taiwan.

Despite X.com being banned in China, the Chinese foreign ministry has been waging a “war of words” on the platform under its official account, warning “Whoever dares to challenge China’s bottom line will face a resolute, head-on blow and be shattered against the great wall of steel forged by 1.4 billion people.”

Beijing followed its warnings with various pressure campaigns, including sending four coast guard vessels into Japanese waters near the disputed Senkaku Islands, suspending imports of Japanese seafood, seafood, advising Chinese citizens not to travel to Japan, and ordering China’s major airlines to cancel flights to Japan. Chinese authorities even abruptly canceled several scheduled performances by Japanese artists in China. Following Beijing’s lead, Hong Kong has halted engagements with the Japanese Consulate.

Despite Beijing’s aggressive tactics, Takaichi has upheld her “iron lady” reputation, standing firm in her position. At the same time, she has sought to ease tensions by sending a senior official to Beijing and resisting calls to expel Chinese diplomat Xue.

Yet, China continues to escalate. Chinese U.N. Ambassador Fu Chong opposes Japan’s bid for a permanent Security Council seat, calling Takaichi’s remarks on Taiwan “totally unqualified.” He warns in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres that any armed intervention by Japan in the Taiwan Strait would be seen as aggression, asserting that China will defend its sovereignty under international law.

Still, recent developments indicate that Beijing’s aggressive campaigns against Japan may have backfired. Instead of backing down under Beijing’s pressure, her government is moving forward to deploy a medium-range surface-to-air missile unit on Yonaguni, an island just 68 miles off Taiwan’s east coast, to boost Japan’s national defense. Takaichi’s unyielding style earns her strong public support in Japan.

Asian neighbors also welcome Japan playing a bigger role in regional security. Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lawrence Wong, noted in a public forum, “All Southeast Asian countries endorse Japan’s expanded role in our region, especially in terms of security, as it significantly enhances stability.” Wong clearly understands that China’s aggressive stance toward Japan reveals the risks of a China-dominated world order to other nations.

In his appeal to France, Wang Yi, China’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, sought condemnation of Takaichi but was met with disappointment, as the French government declined to act on his request. Most notably, the United States remains unwavering in its support for Japan.

The U.S. Ambassador to Japan George Glass highlighted support for the country on social media, stating, “Coercion is a difficult habit for Beijing to break. Just as the United States stood with Japan during China’s unjust seafood ban, we will support our ally again.” Additionally, the Trump administration announced a $330 million arms sale to Taiwan in mid-November, ignoring Beijing’s complaints.

A desperate Chinese leader Xi Jinping sought to pressure Takaichi by calling President Donald Trump just before Thanksgiving, claiming “Taiwan’s return to China is an essential component of the postwar international order.” Trump promptly informed Takaichi about the call, and didn’t ask Takaichi to retract her remark, according to the Japanese government spokesperson, signaling the U.S.-Japan alliance remains strong.

China’s monthlong aggressive tactics have failed to intimidate or humiliate Takaichi, and instead have backfired on Beijing, creating significant implications for future Taiwan discussions. For years, China claimed its control over Taiwan was a domestic issue, labeling external dialogue as “interference.” However, by voicing its grievances to the U.N. and other global entities, China has internationalized the issue. Japan-based expert Yaita Akio notes that this shift undermines China’s previous narrative of “non-interference,” making it difficult for Beijing to silence future global involvement in Taiwan. This unexpected outcome must be frustrating for Xi.

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

HHS Clarifies Which Health Records Doctors Can’t Hide from Parents

Health and Human Services’ actions against a school that illegally vaccinated a child demonstrates that the agency will not tolerate information on a child’s gender transition being withheld from parents, The Daily Signal has learned.

HHS opened an investigation on Wednesday into a Midwestern school that vaccinated a child without parental consent.

HHS penned a Dear Colleague letter reminding health care providers that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, requires them to provide parents access to their children’s health information. The agency also directed the Health Resources and Services Administration to add a grant requirement saying that federally funded health centers must comply with parental rights laws.

.@HHSGov has launched an investigation into a troubling incident where a midwestern school administered a federally funded vaccine to a child despite a legally recognized state exemption.

If a provider ignores consent, violates an exemption, or keeps parents in the dark, HHS… pic.twitter.com/tKT4B40560
— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) December 4, 2025

These actions, that reinforce parent legal authority to direct their children’s health care decisions, carry implications extending beyond vaccination, according to an HHS official.

HHS’ move is a warning to health care providers that the agency will enforce parental rights law if those providers or schools seek to hide transgender procedures on children from their parents.

“The HIPAA Privacy Rule is clear: Providers must share health care information about minors to their parents,” the HHS official told The Daily Signal. “Anyone intentionally hiding this data may have ulterior motives, which could include the desire to hide sex-rejecting procedures or vaccinations from a child’s parents.”

“Today’s Dear Colleague letter is a warning shot that HHS will not abide by violations of HIPAA,” the official continued.

Under HIPAA, parents can access their child’s medical records, and parents must generally sign off on all medical procedures for their children. However, some states allow children to begin medically transitioning without a parent signing off. For instance, Maine law allows 16-year-olds to access transgender hormone regimens without parental consent.

HHS’ Office of Civil Rights’ letter to health care providers reiterates that parents have the right to access their children’s protected health information under HIPAA.

It’s noteworthy that HHS is investigating a school for violating parental rights in health care because schools have been repeat offenders of laws establishing parental rights, said Matt Bowman, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and former HHS deputy general counsel.

“Schools increasingly take federal funds to provide medical care, and as we’ve seen, they in some instances, take it upon themselves to violate parental rights with respect to embarking kids on paths that lead to dangerous gender transition procedures,” Bowman told The Daily Signal. “And schools need to realize they are subject to federal laws that protect parental rights and access when they start engaging in practice of medicine.”

For example, in Ashland, California, the San Lorenzo High School-Based Health Center offers access to “gender-affirming hormone therapy and other types of medical transitioning services;” “gender-affirming care,” including “chest binders, shapewear, etc.”; and “information and counseling about transitioning.”

?Clinic at a Bay Area public high school offers free binders, hormones & more

If parents go to the clinic website associated w/the school there is NO mention of these services

La Clinica is major provider to low income communities in Alameda county especially Latino immigrants pic.twitter.com/PTnlw6DG8W
— WomenAreReal (@WomenAreReals) February 28, 2024

Parents Defending Education exposed the school-based health centers at Nova High School and Meany Middle School in Seattle, Washington, for providing students with “gender-affirming medications (estrogen, androgen blockers, testosterone, etc.) and injection techniques,” “hormone therapy for adolescents and specialty referrals for younger patients as needed,” and “referrals for gender-affirming surgeries.”

HHS has clarified that before a minor receives medical, dental, behavioral health, or other services at a federally funded health center, a parent or legal guardian must give consent in accordance with applicable state or federal law.

The letter reinforces that parents can exercise their children’s rights with respect to protected health information, including the right of access.

OCR is also initiating compliance reviews of a number of large health care providers to ensure that parents receive timely access to their children’s health information.

Bowman said he is confident that HHS’ investigation sends a message to schools and health care entities “that they need to fully respect parental and religious liberty rights.”

“We’re very encouraged by the broad position HHS is taking and the message they’re sending to those in the healthcare field,” he said.

Navy Admiral Faces Questions Over Boat Strikes in Classified Briefing

The Navy admiral who oversaw the controversial deadly boat strike on an alleged Venezuelan narco-terrorist vessel will meet with members of Congress on Thursday.

Members of both the House and Senate will question Navy Adm. Frank “Mitch” Bradley in a classified congressional briefing to discuss the more than 20 strikes the U.S. has carried out in the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific in recent months. Special attention is expected to be given to a strike on Sept. 2.

The Washington Post reports that following an initial strike on a narco-vessel on Sept. 2, two survivors were seen in the water and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth ordered a second strike to kill the men.

Bradley oversaw the operation that day and is expected to answer questions regarding the details of the orders he received from Hegseth and the orders he gave.

Both Republican and Democrat lawmaker have expressed concerns over the multiple boat strikes that have killed more than 80 alleged narco-terrorist and have specially raised questions over the reported second strike on Sept. 2.

Hegseth has repeatedly defended the strikes, and on Saturday, following The Washington Post’s report on the second strike targeting the two men, he blamed the “fake news” for “fabricated, inflammatory, and derogatory reporting to discredit our incredible warriors fighting to protect the homeland.”

Asked about the incident, President Donald Trump said he did not “know anything” about it, adding, Hegseth “said he did not do it.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the Department of War’s second strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.

Leavitt said at Monday’s press briefing that Hegseth authorized Bradley to carry out the second strike on Sept. 2.

On Wednesday night, Martha Raddatz of ABC News reported: “According to a source familiar with the incident, the two survivors climbed back on to the boat after the initial strike. They were believed to be potentially in communication with others, and salvaging some of the drugs. Because of that, it was determined they were still in the fight and valid targets.”

The Daily Signal’s Elizabeth Mitchell contributed to this report.

Don’t Trust the Government to Solve the Housing Affordability Problem That It Created

Owning a home is a cornerstone of the American Dream. But with the recent rise in home prices and mortgage rates, homeownership feels like a far-off dream for an increasing share of Americans, especially those in their 20s and 30s.

In 2019, the median first-time homebuyer was 33 years old. Today, the typical first-time homebuyer is 40 years old.

That shift didn’t happen on its own. It’s an unintended consequence of the federal government’s COVID-era policies that included pumping trillions of dollars into the economy and driving short-term borrowing costs down to near zero. These policies briefly led to a homebuyer’s paradise, but over the medium-term they’ve left a dysfunctional housing market in their wake.

Federal lawmakers passed an unprecedented $7 trillion in new spending between 2020 and 2022, including three rounds of stimulus checks, state and local government bailouts, and boosts to unemployment benefits, Medicaid, and Obamacare. Many Americans had ample money in their pockets in the early 2020s, and, at the time, housing was viewed as a strong investment.

Simultaneously, the Federal Reserve pushed easy money and low short-term interest rates, while nearly doubling its holdings of mortgage-backed securities. These actions kept mortgage borrowing costs down. For new homebuyers in mid-2020 through mid-2022, the cost of homeownership became relatively manageable, and, as a result, home sales spiked during this period.

But such artificial government stimulus can last only so long before it turns into runaway inflation. Inflation peaked in June 2022, shortly after the Fed finally reversed course on its easy money policy. And from early 2022 through 2024 the Fed tightened the money supply to beat back inflation. Mortgage interest rates, which dropped below 2.65% in January 2021, shot up to near 7.8% by October 2023.

Such a dramatic increase in interest rates translates into a jaw-dropping rise in monthly payments on a 30-year loan. For a $400,000 mortgage, monthly principal and interest climbed from roughly $1,612 at the low to almost $2,877 at the peak, an additional $1,265 per month. Even after rates eased back somewhat, the financial burden of a new mortgage remained enormous. As of September 2025, the same $400,000 loan carried payments near $2,488, up 54% from January 2021. For millions of potential buyers who missed the low-interest-rate window, the math for purchasing a home no longer computes.

At the same time, many recent homebuyers and those who refinanced their mortgages into rock-bottom rates in the early 2020s are reluctant to sell their homes and lose those favorable financing terms. Why give up a 3% mortgage for a 7% market rate if it means paying hundreds of thousands of dollars more in interest over the life of a loan? By 2023, more than 80% of outstanding mortgages were locked in at rates at least one percentage point below prevailing market rates, which in turn created a “lock-in” effect where existing homeowners stay put. As a result, there are fewer homes on the market than today’s high home prices would otherwise suggest.

In a healthy housing market, high home prices would drive homebuilders to increase construction of new homes. That resulting new supply would help ease prices for new homebuyers. But several factors have dampened the supply response, including the higher financing costs, strict local zoning laws, and federal environmental restrictions that add bureaucratic red tape to new construction.

The government manufactured the recent spike in home prices and mortgage interest rates that have made housing seem unattainable for many young Americans today. Lawmakers juiced demand for housing while the Fed worked to slash the cost of obtaining a mortgage.

Interest rates aren’t just a benign, reversible lever for policymakers to push and pull at will. Interest rates are a critical market price that the government can control in the short run, but often at great cost. There are always tradeoffs. When the government spends with reckless abandon, American families always pay the price.

One consequence of the government’s heavy-handed actions is that it trains homebuyers and homebuilders to look to the government—not natural market forces—to determine when and whether to buy or sell. Potential homebuyers wait for the government to create the next buyer’s paradise situation, while homebuilders and sellers of existing homes stay on the sideline waiting for the government to swing conditions in their own favor.

The result is a centrally planned and stale housing market that works well for almost nobody.

The best thing that the government can do to solve for the lack of affordable housing is to get out of the way. The Fed should strive to keep inflation in check while avoiding massive swings in interest rates. Lawmakers and regulators should reduce burdensome taxes and regulations. Local officials should open up more land for construction and streamline permitting processes.

If we want the American Dream to remain attainable for the next generation, we must return to a free and dynamic housing market that allows people to build homes, build families, build equity, and plan out their own future.

Not just in government-created windows of opportunity, but whenever it’s right for the individuals and families.

Iryna’s Law Needs to Be Replicated Around the Country

Momentum is building to address America’s repeat-offender problem. The stabbing of the young Ukrainian woman, Iryna Zarutska, by a deranged career criminal on a North Carolina train has prompted that state’s lawmakers to make a serious pivot on crime.

On Monday, Iryna’s Law went into effect.

The legislation is a much-needed corrective to the main problem facing the criminal justice system. That issue being repeat offenders ending up back on the streets and almost endless amounts of leniency by left-leaning governments and judges.

The North Carolina law is aimed directly at that problem, making it harder for criminals to immediately end up back on the prowl while creating a mechanism to quickly remove out-of-control judges.

Iryna’s Law essentially ends no cash bail in North Carolina for violent offenses. No cash bail had been a rallying cry for many criminal justice reformers. But in many cases, it has led to higher crime by those released. For instance, according to the New York Post, the John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s Data Collaborative for Justice found that “66% of the people released under bail reform who had a recent prior arrest were re-arrested within two years of their release.”

The North Carolina law does allow for cashless bail in some cases, but the practice would be dramatically curtailed.

Yahoo reported that under Iryna’s Law, “anyone charged with a violent crime or convicted of three or more crimes in the last 10 years is ineligible for an unsecured bond, which means they will have to pay money to get out on bond.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis praised North Carolina’s change to bail.

No cash bail is insane and dangerous.

Good for NC for ending the madness. https://t.co/7N5U3A4qa3
— Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) December 1, 2025

Iryna’s Law also changes pretrial release conditions in cases where a suspect has a history of mental illness. The law states that a person charged with any crime in the state “while still residing in or subsequent to his escape or during an unauthorized absence from involuntary commitment in a mental health facility” will not be allowed pretrial release.

Importantly, the law provides a mechanism to crack down on out-of-control judges.

The law sets “the grounds and procedures for suspension and removal of magistrates.” The chief justice for each district now has the power to suspend a magistrate. In the case where a judge fails “to make written findings of fact” when determining the release of a person charged with a violent offense, they could be subject to suspension or removal.

To top it all off, Iryna’s Law begins the process of reviving the death penalty in the state, which has been on moratorium for two decades.

This is all excellent news. And it seems the new North Carolina law is already paying off.

?#BREAKING: An 18 year-old in Charlotte NC is being held on a staggering $5.3 MILLION bond after he was charged for 16 (!!!) shootings across Charlotte.

This is his 3rd arrest in 3 months…

…AS AN 18 YEAR-OLD!!!

Due to Iryna's Law, he's being held in jail. pic.twitter.com/bKu380iseL
— Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) December 3, 2025

I’ve written previously about how much of the crime problem in American is an issue of recidivism. Most of the people who commit crimes have a long criminal history.

What happened to Zarutska was just one of many incidents in recent days highlighting the problem that infects mostly blue cities and districts around the country. Zarutska was stabbed to death by suspect Decarlos Brown Jr., a man who had been arrested over a dozen times—in many cases for serious violent crimes—in the last decade.

In another recent case, a young woman was lit on fire while riding a train in Chicago. The suspect is 50-year-old Lawrence Reed, a man who’d been arrested 72 times in Cook County, Illinois, alone. He had been convicted in 15 of those cases, yet was still out on the streets.

Despite prosecutors attempting to keep Reed locked up, a judge let him go.

These are only the high-profile cases, the tip of the iceberg.

To seriously tackle crime, we must accept that some people have been given too many chances to prove they can be law-abiding, upstanding citizens. At some point, repeat offenders have to be put away for a long time or for good.

There are some cities and jurisdictions that will simply refuse to make any changes. Far-left Democrats and the activist class that sustains them will simply not accept the necessity of keeping a large number of people behind bars if that’s what needs to be done to ensure public safety.

However, states can essentially override reckless city governments by passing laws similar to the one now in effect in North Carolina. And that’s almost certainly the way forward.

While President Donald Trump has done a great service to this cause by deploying the National Guard to crime-ridden Washington and threatening to do it with more cities, it’s time for states to step in and get their legal system fixed to alleviate the crime issue in the long term.

How Many Terrorists Came From Afghanistan to America?

Former President Joe Biden’s record as commander in chief will forever be defined by Aug. 26, 2021.

That was the catastrophic day in the American withdrawal from Afghanistan that Biden declared should be completed by Sept. 11, 2021—the 20th anniversary of the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks that had triggered the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.

“U.S. troops as well as forces deployed by our NATO Allies and operational partners, will be out of Afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous attack on September 11th,” Biden said on April 14, 2021.

As American forces prepared to meet Biden’s deadline, the Taliban—that Afghan regime that had provided sanctuary to al-Qaeda before the 9/11 terrorist attacks—returned to power. According to a timeline published by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country on Aug. 15, 2021, as Taliban forces entered the capital city of Kabul.

But the greatest catastrophe happened 11 days after that.

“By far the worst security incident occurred on Aug. 26, 2021, when an (Islamic State-Khorasan) suicide bomber detonated explosives in the middle of a crowd gathered in front of the ‘Abbey Gate’ entrance to (Hamid Karzai International Airport),” said the SIGAR report published on Oct. 30, 2021.

“The attack at HKIA left 13 U.S. service members (11 Marines, one Navy corpsman, and one Army soldier) and approximately 170 Afghans dead, with at least 200 or more wounded, including 18 U.S. service members,” said the report. “It was the deadliest day for the U.S. military in Afghanistan since 2011 and the first U.S. military combat deaths since February 2020.”

In the days before and after this terrorist attack, Biden facilitated the movement of Afghan evacuees to the United States through the Operation Allies Refuge and Operation Allies Welcome programs.

A year later, the inspector general for the Department of Homeland Security issued a report concluding that many of these Afghans were not properly vetted.

“The United States welcomed more than 79,000 Afghan evacuees between July 2021 and January 2022, as part of OAR/OAW,” said this report.

“DHS encountered obstacles to screen, vet, and inspect all Afghan evacuees arriving as part of Operation Allies Refuge (OAR)/Operation Allies Welcome (OAW),” it said. “Specifically, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) did not always have critical data to properly screen, vet, or inspect the evacuees. We determined some information used to vet the evacuees through U.S. Government databases, such as name, date of birth, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. We also determined CBP admitted or paroled into evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States.”

“As a result,” the report concluded, “DHS may have admitted or paroled individuals into the United States who pose a risk to national security and the safety of local communities.”

One such individual, Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, pleaded guilty this June to “terrorism-related offenses” in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

He had entered the United States just two weeks after the IS-K terrorist attack at the Kabul airport.

“Tawhedi entered the United States on September 9, 2021, on a special immigrant visa and is currently on parole status pending adjudication of his immigration proceedings,” said an affidavit that an FBI agent filed in the federal court case.

“Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, a native and citizen of Afghanistan, pleaded guilty today in federal court in Oklahoma City to two terrorism-related offenses: conspiring and attempting to provide material support and resources to the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated foreign terrorist organization, and receiving, attempting to receive, and conspiring to receive firearms and ammunition in furtherance of a federal crime of terrorism,” said a statement issued by the Justice Department.

Tawhedi himself described his actions in a written statement filed in court as part of the petition entering his guilty plea.

“Between June 2024 and October 7, 2024, I knowingly and voluntarily agreed with at least one other person to provide support to ISIS and attempted to provide support to ISIS,” he said. “This was done by offering myself as personnel and purchasing guns and ammunition and attempting to receive them while within the United States for the purpose of carrying out an attack on Election Day.”

Tawhedi’s colleague in this plot, his brother-in-law Abdullah Haji Zada, was sentenced last month to 15 years in prison. Zada, 19, entered the country before Biden became president, according to a sentencing memorandum filed by the U.S. attorney in his case.

“Mr. Zada, who was 17 years old at the time of his arrest, is a citizen of Afghanistan with legal permanent resident status,” said this memorandum.

“He entered the United States on March 27, 2018, on a special immigrant visa,” it said.

“Specifically, Mr. Zada worked with Mr. Tawhedi to obtain firearms for use in a thwarted Election Day terrorist attack on behalf of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (‘ISIS’), which Mr. Tawhedi has admitted was intended to kill as many people as possible.”

The day before Thanksgiving, two members of the National Guard were shot in Washington, D.C. One of them, 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom, died from her wounds.

The alleged shooter—Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal—entered the United States, like Tawhedi, the month after the ISIS terror attack at the Kabul airport. “In the wake of the disastrous Biden withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden administration justified bringing the alleged shooter to the United States in September 2021 due to his prior work with the U.S. government, including the CIA, as a member of a partner force in Kandahar, which ended shortly following the chaotic evacuation,” CIA Director John Ratcliffe told Fox News.

How many more terrorists are among the more than 79,000 Afghans Biden brought into the United States after the Taliban regained control of that country?

That is a question the Biden administration could not answer.

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

Journalists Can Promote ‘Sedition’ When It’s ‘ICE Resistance’

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Rebecca Downs / Virginia Allen / Victor Davis Hanson / Jacob Adams / George Caldwell / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Fred Lucas / Jacob Adams / George Caldwell / Tyler O'Neil / Jacob Adams / Bradley Devlin / Hans von Spakovsky / Nathan Desautels / George Caldwell / Helen Raleigh / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Virginia Allen / Preston Brashers / William Duvall / Jarrett Stepman / Terence Jeffrey / Tim Graham / December 04, 2025

After some Trump supporters rioted at the Capitol in 2021, the national media aggressively reported on people who showed disrespect for the Capitol Police and for the rule of law itself. They touted groups like “Sedition Hunters” who aided President Joe Biden’s Justice Department in prosecuting Trump backers inside the Capitol, the violent and the nonviolent.

But now, with the parties in power switched, suddenly it’s the media who favor “sedition,” in disrespecting law enforcement and the rule of law itself, especially on mass deportation. Exhibit A is National “Public” Radio and Odette Yousef, NPR’s so-called Domestic Extremism Correspondent.

In January 2022, Yousef touted the “Sedition Hunters” for seven minutes, never once classifying them as on the Left. They were “independent researchers” and “online sleuths.” Some of these hunter heroes weren’t even Americans. Yousef gushed about the Dutch: “Mary has been working with a group called Capitol Terrorists Exposers from her home in The Hague.” But you couldn’t use her last name, because heroes face villains.

These days, it’s somehow not “domestic extremism” when radical leftists seek to undermine attempts to enforce immigration laws and capture illegal immigrants, both the violent and the nonviolent. Instead, Yousef and NPR championed the “ICE Resistance” in two days of reports lasting 15 minutes on the badly named show “All Things Considered.”

On Nov. 19, the headline online was “Grassroots resistance swells in the wake of the immigration crackdown in Chicago.” Anchor Juana Summers began by noting the deportation effort has “touched the lives of citizens and non-citizens deeply,” leading to “a swell of grassroots resistance.”

Yousef chronicled a group called Protect Rogers Park, a “community defense network,” and went riding around with “community organizer” Gabe Gonzalez. They banded together against “an expected onslaught of federal immigration enforcement.” Their goal? “To make the work of immigration enforcement as inefficient as possible.” To rage against the machine, in leftist parlance. But no one was identified as the Left.

NPR also interviewed activist Jill Garvey and described her take: Their project is opposing “an authoritarian strategy that, unchecked, could ultimately eat away at the freedom and rights of everyone in this country.” Garvey claimed President Donald Trump is forming a “national police force” to “occupy” and “terrorize” cities. None of this is pernicious conspiracy theorizing or “domestic extremism.”

On the night of Nov. 20, Yousef leaked out one label about Protect Rogers Park: “It’s known for its international diversity and as kind of a hotbed for lefty activism.” This makes them a pile of NPR listeners, for sure. Anchor Ailsa Chang described it as “hyperlocal grassroots work to counter enforcement activities.” Yousef said the group’s goal was “getting people to the scene of an ICE arrest to make it annoying—you know, loud, slow, and ultimately expensive.”

In this second report, Gonzalez claimed Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s goal is “kidnapping people.” Yousef allowed a brief rebuttal from the Department of Homeland Security: “Illegal aliens are not kidnapped. They are arrested for breaking the law.” But the leftists performed “continuous proactive patrolling” to foil “aggressive immigration raids.”

NPR wrapped up with Garvey touting their work to “protect vulnerable people” with “a little bit of contagious courage.” Chang repeated: “A little bit of contagious courage.”

This is not how NPR would describe right-wingers blocking an entrance to an abortion clinic. You could describe that activism as “protecting vulnerable people” with “contagious courage.” It’s designed to be loud and make abortion clinics “as inefficient as possible.” But that’s not heroic at NPR. Performing the abortions is heroic.

This is why conservative taxpayers are happy that NPR was defunded. They’ve never “considered all things.”

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

Victor Davis Hanson: Targeting Christians at Christmas, Attacking the Culture They Chose to Join

In this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Jack Fowler explore the troubling phenomenon of immigrants attacking the cultures they chose to join, including attacks on Christmas markets in Europe.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.

Jack Fowler: Victor, let me get right to this story. All over Europe, Muslims are desecrating churches and holy places and disrupting seasonal Christmas markets. So, last night—we’re recording on Sunday the 30th. So, this was Saturday, Nov. 29. I’m reading from an X post in Brussels:

“In a terrifying sight, Muslims stormed the opening night of the Christmas market in Brussels, waving Palestinian flags, setting off smoke bombs and scaring families. Coming to your town if Islam is not exiled from the West.”

Victor, I’ve seen numerous other videos. Germany, particularly, has these Christmas seasonal things in their plazas, and now many places they’re surrounded by these massive concrete blocks to prevent any car bombings, etc. I don’t know that German citizens are going to be car bombing their Christmas seasonal markets. It’s all because of the growing and intensifying local Muslim outrage at these kind of institutions. Also, we see many signs of church masses being disrupted, priests being smacked, urinating at St. Peter’s, etc. This is getting more prevalent. Your thoughts?

Victor Davis Hanson: Well, I’ll just enumerate them. There are many. No. 1, there’s no reciprocity. Thank God. I mean, do you really believe that if you were a Christian, and there’s a few left in the West Bank, but if you were in the West Bank and you decided to go to the feast of Ramadan, go desecrate a mosque, I don’t think you’d be alive.

No. 2, what is the reaction of the authorities to this, the government? Well, the reaction of the government is, we are left-wing secularists, maybe agnostics or even atheists. So, we look at our Christians as deviant people. So, if you want to go torment them, we’re not going to get involved. In fact, DEI postulates that we should favor the non-white, non-European, non-Christian movement over its antithesis here in Europe or the United States.

So, these people who desecrate Christmas ornaments, festivities, shrines do so on the prompt basically, implicit though it is, that they can get away with it because the authorities either are so guilt-ridden and ashamed of their own culture and civilization and inheritance or, as secular leftists, they feel that they despise Christians too. And then, when you confront them, like Greta Thunberg, she was on a ship with a bunch of radical Islamists, and they were not very sympathetic to the trans movement or the gay movement. So, there’s all these contradictions between the Left and radical Islam, but compared to their mutual antipathy toward Christians, it’s not much.

Then there’s the question, not just of reciprocity and the inaction of authorities, but what is the purpose of it, Jack? Why do people come from the failed states of the Middle East or Turkey and come over here, here in the West, I’m speaking broadly of the United States and Europe, and then no sooner they get here, they create a chauvinist, rah-rah superiority of Islamic countries and Arab countries over their homeland in Europe. Is it, we’re going to take over and that Europe belongs to us and our demographics are 3.5 to 4.0 children per family in Europe’s 1.4? So, they’re vanishing at 20 million a year and we’re increasing by 5 million and we’re going catch them.

Is that the plan or is it just a complex of inferiority? Well, I came over here and everything works and it’s so much nicer. Who do these people think they are? There must be something they did to us in Syria or Iraq or Egypt or Jordan or the West Bank. It’s not like this. Maybe it was the Crusades. I don’t know. But it’s a very strange mentality for them to come to United States or to Europe and then so boldly to attack an icon of the civilization that you wanted to join.

I don’t mean you have to go to church. I don’t mean you have to know anything about the Bible. I’m just saying just don’t desecrate it. But they think they can and will be rewarded in some ways by the exemptions they’re given. It’s going to get worse because the demographics are on their side and the immigration policies are on their side. And there’s going to be one great pushback.

And we’ll see what happens. Whether it will be centrist, organized and political, or it will be violent and hard, hardcore right wing. But there will be a pushback. And all of those governments in Western Europe are threatened. The Macron government has no popular support. [British Prime Minister Keir] Starmer is the least popular prime minister in the last … 12% [approval], I think. The Dutch government is a coalition of conservative governments. [Italian Prime Minister Giorgia] Meloni is still solid. She’s conservative.

The Spanish socialist government, we’ll see how long that lasts. But there is a pushback in Europe against it. And it’ll be the last hurrah because demographically this will be about the last chance, really, if the immigration policies proceed that you’ll see an organized effective saying, “No more, not here. We’re not going to do it anymore. I’m sorry.”

Fowler: What if there are more mosques than operating cathedrals in Europe?

Hanson: See, it’s very different than here in the United States because we do have a melting pot. Until recently, it worked. When I talk to, let’s say, Mexican American couples or families that are 45, and I’m in the local supermarket, and the person ahead of me cannot speak a word of English and basically speaks an indigenous language from Chiapas or Michoacan and has four or five different EBT cards, and the person who is the clerk and the person ahead of me in line are Mexican American citizens and they’re very patriotic and proud. They look at that in the same way I would look at it if a bunch of Swedish illegal aliens came over and abused the system, and I had a member of my family depended on dialysis or something and couldn’t get service.

Because we acculturate people, at least we used to when they came in diverse numbers and they were manageable and we believed in our civilization. They don’t have that tradition of the melting pot. They were pretty much like the Japanese. They were uniformly French. The decolonization started it. Enoch Powell, “Rivers of Blood” and all that. They were aware of what was going on in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, but not like now.

And they have no mechanism to acculturate.

Fowler: Can you imagine, though, in 75 years, if the demographics proved the destiny of Europe, what Europe would be like? Germany is now essentially Jordan and in all its ways and operation and economy.

Hanson: I think it would be historically sort of like around 900 BC, when you were in the Greek Dark Ages and you walked around and you looked at these Mycenaean palaces that were crumbling and what was that Lion’s Gate? Hmm. My brother fell into a Tholos tomb. Who built these? They were gods. Somebody did it. Or maybe the sixth century in Western Europe in the beginnings of the Dark Ages and you’d go by and say, wow, the Roman Forum.

What’s beneath all that brush? All that overgrowth. What was this harbor at Ostia that now is all clogged? Who were these people who built this stuff? We use this aqueduct, but we don’t know how to fix it. Who built it? Wow, there’s a sewer here in Lyon. I don’t know how it came here. So, that’s going to be the attitude. They’re going to come in there, and they’re going to be living in an infrastructure that somebody built, but they have no interest in knowing who that was. And we get in the news of the violence they have no interest in assimilating into the body politic and enhancing European culture in the sense of its economy, military, politics.

Fowler: Right. There’s no Protestant work ethic in the Syrian refugees.

Hanson: No. So, they’re just going to be bizarre. Who was Leonardo da Vinci? What was the Duomo? Who did this? Perseus? Saulini? I don’t know what this statue is. Who did this? I could care less. The bridge still works. I’ll use it till it collapses. That’s the attitude.

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

Texas Rep. Jackson Introduces Bill to Move UN HQ Out of New York

Texas Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson introduced a bill Wednesday, which, if signed into law, would move the headquarters of the United Nations out of New York City.

“This bill sends a clear message: America is done propping up a city that rejects our values while claiming to represent our nation on the world stage,” Jackson said in a statement to The Daily Signal. “Under President [Donald] Trump, strength and security are back, and when the U.N. gathers in America, they should see a city that reflects that strength, not the chaos and weakness we see in New York today.”

In November, New York City elected self-identified Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as its mayor.

The bill would direct the secretary of state to formulate a plan to move the United Nations’ headquarters from New York City, where it has resided since construction was completed in 1952.

Specifically, the secretary would seek to negotiate a new headquarters with the United Nations and submit a list of relocation options to the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations committees.

Jackson, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has represented the Texas panhandle area since 2021.

What Will Finally End the Russia-Ukraine War?

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Ukraine is in the news again. There’s been some peace proposals submitted by U.S. President Donald Trump to the international community, apparently. A lot of hysteria, a lot of controversy, whether they were too lax, too strong, too punitive, not punitive enough vis-a-vis Russia.

But I thought it would be wise just to review some basic questions, maybe offer a few answers, how we got in this mess in the first place.

So, why did Russian President Vladimir Putin invade? Why did he invade Ukraine? Well, he invaded Ukraine because of two reasons. One, there was no deterrence. He had invaded Ossetia in 2008 during the weakened lame-duck Bush administration and Georgia. In 2014, he felt that President Barack Obama, especially after the hot mic exchange in Seoul, South Korea, in 2012, wouldn’t do anything. And he was right. So, he took Crimea and he took the Donbas.

And then in 2022, on Feb. 24, he invaded again. Why? Because there was still that lack of deterrence. President Joe Biden said his reaction would depend on whether it was a major or minor invasion. He’d been very weak on hacking. He said, if you’re gonna hack, do not hack particular humanitarian sites. So, Putin, again, correctly thought that the United States and the West in general would not attack.

Next question: Why does he keep fighting?

This has been going on for four years. We don’t know what the dead, wounded, and missing—that is, the total casualties—are. It could be over 1.5 million. Russia may have lost a million dead and wounded alone.

So, why is he doing this? He’s doing this because he feels that there is a magical DMZ line somewhere where the battlefront is today that he has to get beyond. Because if he doesn’t—and every dictator doesn’t have sole power, he has to report to certain constituencies, public opinion. But in Putin’s case, the Russian military and the Russian oligarchic class.

And if he says to them, “I lost 1.2, 1.3 million Russians, wounded or dead. I destroyed the reputation of the Russian military, and I crashed the Russian economy. And all I got was 60 or 70 miles westward of where we were before Feb. 24, 2022,” that’s not enough. So, he’s trying to push westward.

Most of the peace negotiations and the outlines are clear. We all know what they are. Putin can tell the Russians, his constituencies, “I institutionalized my theft of Crimea and Donbas. I moved westward somewhat. I ensured that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians would not be in NATO.”

And Zelenskyy is going to say, “I’m a hero. He wanted the whole country. He only got 10% more than he did when he invaded in 2022. We stopped him, and we’re gonna be in the EU. We may not be in NATO, but we stopped him, and he suffered four times the amount of casualties that we did.”

So, they each think they can win.

And what is the dispute left about?

Ukraine’s not gonna be in NATO. Putin knows that. All it is, where is the DMZ? Does Putin get to push areas westward that Ukraine, Ukrainians are currently in and fighting successfully and he can’t dislodge, or not? So, that’s what the dispute is over, and the security guarantees.

If Ukraine is not in NATO, how can it defend the next invasion from Russia? Well, it’s the greatest military in Europe right now. It’s battle-hardened. It’s got a huge army. It’s well supplied. Will that continue? Will the EU or NATO continue to arm it? Will the United States back them up in extremis?

That’s all. That’s the only two issues: security guarantees and where we draw the DMZ line.

Why does NATO or the West not supply Ukraine to win the war? “I mean, give them Tomahawk missiles,” we’re told. “Give them F-16s. Russia’s on the ropes.” And the reason is that Putin engages in nuclear blusters.

He has 6,000 nuclear weapons. So, from time to time, a Russian oligarch, a Russian media host, Putin’s inner circle say, “We’re gonna use a nuclear weapon if you do this or that.” And we recoil. No Tomahawks are willing to use a nuclear weapon. Ninety-eight percent of that is bluff. Two percent may not be a nuclear poker. You can’t take those odds.

So, that is one reason why we have restricted. The other is the MAGA brand.

I mean, there’s a base of Donald Trump’s support that says, “We don’t want forever wars. Don’t get involved. We don’t want advisers. We don’t want anything. We’ve given $170 billion. That’s enough.”

There’s realists who say, “We have to think of the geostrategic consequences. We want to play Russia off against China. We don’t want them to join. We want to go back to history, Henry Kissinger’s paradigm. No better friend are we to Russia than we are to China and vice versa.”

There’s a lot of people in the United States that may be pro-Putin. They feel, “Wow, you know, he’s Christian, he’s fighting for the West, no DEI, no trans. He’s no more corrupt than Zelenskyy is.”

So, I don’t know if that is—there is a more sizable constituency, which says that the borders always change over there. This was all part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine was created in 1939, when Josef Stalin ganged up against the West with Adolf Hitler and got what is now Western Ukraine, which used to be, for a thousand years, Christian, Polish-speaking Poland. And it was ethnically cleansed during World War II, and the Soviets never gave it up, and the postwar agreements gave Poland parts of Pomerania and East Prussia in compensation.

As far as the Donbas area, that was an anti-Soviet jurisdictional matter. We’ll let Ukraine be semi-autonomous on this border, so they don’t have a national liberationist front or something. Crimea—it’s been Russian since 1783.

So, a lot of Americans say, “We don’t want countries coming in here and discussing our changing borders with Mexico. So, we don’t want to get involved at all.” I think that’s why NATO hasn’t used its full powers to defeat Russia, which it could vis-a-vis this proxy.

Why do we support Ukraine? A lot of people say we should support Russia. Well, Ukraine was invaded. Russia wasn’t invaded. Russia was the aggressor. We like to support the underdog and Europe. Ukraine is quasi-European. It’s corrupt, but it’s quasi-European and quasi-Western. Putin is not. Ukraine, if it wins the war, it doesn’t want any more territory. If Putin wins the war, he wants to continue going.

And Ukraine also is a very capable ally. We don’t have any friends in the world that are militarily competent—maybe Israel, maybe Ukraine—outside of some NATO country. So, when we see a country that’s defending itself and fighting heroically against enormous odds, like Israel, we tend to feel we should continue to support it.

Another question, isn’t this amoral, feeding Verdun, feeding Stalingrad? There’s, you know, are we gonna go all the way to 2 million? The only politician who says it is is Donald Trump. He’s complained that it’s amoral. He’s talked about it in human terms. It is.

So, one side has to win and one side has to lose to stop the carnage, if you can’t have a peace. So, what will stop the war? The war will stop if Putin, if we pull out or NATO pulls support from Ukraine, Putin will bury Ukraine and take it all, or it’ll take a large swath. That would end the war.

Or, if we continue to give aid to Ukraine and Putin, at some magical point, feels he can’t win, and he’s removed from office or his autocratic successor feels that they can’t win, they might have a negotiation.

Or, as I said at the beginning, if Putin feels that he gets a little bit more westward than the current battle line, and they agree on the other terms, which we reviewed, then he’ll probably say, “For now, I got a lot for Russia and we’re beyond where the fighting is now. We’re westward of that.”

All in all, it’s a mess, and it’s a reminder that when you lose deterrence, wars follow. If you want peace, the Romans said, prepare for war.

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

Fact Check: Report Claims China Is ‘Winning the Clean Energy Race’

China is outpacing other advanced economies in the addition of renewable energy systems, and is “winning the clean energy race,” according to Axios, but the reality of the situation is more complex, climate experts explain.

“What race? The notion of ‘a race’ is a rhetorical tool used to evoke emotion and feelings of competition when no such race actually exists,” Jack Spencer, a senior research fellow for energy and environmental policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

“The real issue, and the only one that U.S. policymakers should care about, is whether American families and businesses have access to affordable, reliable energy,” Spencer said, adding that the U.S. is “failing” in this regard.

“But we are failing not because we haven’t built enough wind and solar, but because politicians and special interests have forced us to spend scarce resources on so-called green energy when we should have been investing in reliable energy like natural gas, coal, and nuclear.”

Citing data from the McKinsey Global Institute, Axios reports that while the U.S., EU, and other “advanced economies” have slowed their share of “global solar and wind generation capacity additions” in the past several years, China has grown its significantly.

From 2022 to 2025, China increased its share of wind and solar generation capacity by about 30%, while the U.S. and nations with robust economies saw a decline.

“China is one of the few countries on the planet that can add significant renewable energy systems to its grid without compromising the grid integrity or incurring brownouts and blackouts,” Gregory Wrightstone, executive director of Co2 Coalition, told The Daily Signal. The reason China is capable of this, according to Wrightstone, “is because their additions of electricity power generation from fossil fuel powered plants (coal and natural gas) are outpacing the renewable additions.” In other words, while China is expanding wind and solar energy system, it is also increasing use of fossil fuels.

In February, Reuters reported that China began construction on over 94 gigawatts of coal-fired power in 2024, making it the largest year for such new construction projects in China since 2015.

China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world and has pledged to control its emissions, but power shortage concerns have spurred new construction of coal-fired power.

“These thermal energy sources supply reliable abundant electricity that back up the intermittent energy from wind and solar that only produce energy when the wind blows and the sun shines,” Wrightstone said.

“The Western world has been decreasing its reliance on dependable coal and natural gas and turning more toward the renewables, and the result has been skyrocketing electricity prices and grid instability,” he added. “Every gigawatt of renewables needs to be backed up by a similar amount of reliable thermal power generation.”

Electricity costs have increased across all sectors over the past decade, according to the Energy Information Administration, rising from $10.41 in 2015 to $13.66 today.

If the U.S. wants to gain ground in energy production in comparison to China, it should focus on nuclear power, according to Spencer.

“There are around 60 power reactors being built today, and China is building half of them. They are building them faster and cheaper than any Western nation,” the Heritage expert said.

“If the U.S. doesn’t get its act together,” Spencer warns “China and Russia will be the global suppliers of commercial nuclear energy, and this will undoubtedly result in geopolitical advantage for those nations.”

Republican Strategists Discuss Implications of Tennessee Special Election Results

GOP strategists are weighing in on what Republican candidate Matt Van Epps’ victory in yesterday’s special congressional election in Tennessee means for Republican chances in the upcoming midterm elections.

Epps, a former combat veteran and West Point graduate, defeated his Democrat opponent Aftyn Behn last night by a margin of nearly nine points in a race that drew extensive national media attention after Democrats secured electoral victories in several states last November. Epps will represent Tennessee’s 7th Congressional District in the House, succeeding Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., who resigned from Congress to pursue a private sector job.

The Daily Signal spoke with Chapin Fay, the founder and CEO of Lighthouse Public Affairs, about his key takeaways from the Tennessee race. Fay emphasized the Republican victory in spite of the adverse conditions affecting Republican turnout yesterday.

“This was an off-cycle, December special election heading into the midterms, which are historically difficult for the party in power. Despite the national Democrat machine and the media, this Democrat candidate did not even come close,” Fay explained.

“This is not to say there weren’t mistakes made, so I think the Republicans will modify their strategy,” Fay noted, adding, “I absolutely think Republicans will take lessons from this.”

“If Democrats are overconfident and run more far left candidates, the midterms won’t be the bloodbath they think it will be,” Fay concluded. As for what more Republicans can do, Fay pointed out that “President [Donald] Trump and his agenda needs to be paying dividends next year.”

He contended that the president’s priorities of “fewer wars, protecting Americans from the scourge of drugs” are “all good things.” Fay also spotlighted the importance of candidate selection.

“Running a far-left candidate will work in places like NYC, but not Tennessee and certainly not the swing states Trump won. My advice is to run candidates that align with the politics and issues of the district,” he said.

“The desire is to nationalize all these races when members of Congress are local elected officials. Run good candidates that align with the district and the issues but also have a positive policy agenda and clearly articulate it. Have your three points and run with it,” Fay continued.

Matthew Bartlett, a co-founder of Darby Field Advisors and a Trump administration official during the president’s first term, told The Daily Signal, “Just like in New Jersey, Virginia, New York, it’s no surprise which party won, but it’s the margins that count because the margins lead to money and momentum.”

“It is not an unmitigated disaster because the Republican candidate didn’t lose, but a nine-point win in an R-22 district a few months back should absolutely raise eyebrows,” Bartlett continued, referencing Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris in the district in the 2024 presidential election.

Bartlett contended that it was affordability issues that had brought the GOP to power.

“You need to recognize just how tough it is for people in America and demonstrate every day that you are fighting on their behalf,” Bartlett said.

“Democrats want to take your money and spend your money, and the only thing you get for it is higher prices,” Bartlett explained as a potential line of messaging when asked about what advice he would give to Republicans regarding a winning message.

“Every campaign is about ‘the now.’ What are you doing for me now,” he noted.

Matt Terrill, the managing partner of Firehouse Strategies, a public affairs firm in Washington, also emphasized that GOP elections without Trump on the ballot would be different than when the president was also running.

“President Trump is able to perform quite well with younger voters and traditionally Democrat voters. But in the 2024 election they were turning out for him,” Terrill said.

“Looking at the playbook in 2024, Republicans won on safety and security and on affordability,” Terrill concluded.

Editor’s note: This piece has been updated to fix misattribution.

China’s Development of the Scarborough Shoal

In recent days, in the South China Sea, the USS Nimitz carrier strike group has been conducting operations and bilateral exercises with the Philippines, to include anti-submarine warfare drills. This comes as tensions have increased between China and Japan, on top of a simmering confrontation at the flashpoint of Scarborough Shoal with the Philippines.

For decades, China has been conducting illegal maritime encroachments into its neighbors’ waters and is now trying to mask its malign activities with a new tactic—environmentalism. This is particularly hypocritical given China has destroyed many pristine coral reefs under an archipelago of man-made island military bases. China now plans to establish a maritime nature reserve that will consist of two parts: A “core zone” that will include the damaged reef within the Scarborough Shoal that will prohibit any human activity, and the “experimental zone,” which will cover 400-800 yards of water on either side of the reef where research, the breeding of fish, and tourism may take place.

Scarborough Shoal is not just a grouping of rocks and coral; it is a rich fishing ground. Fishermen from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan have been active in the area for generations. That changed drastically in 2012, when China reneged on a negotiated deal brokered by the U.S. and forcibly seized control of it from the Philippines. Today, China has effective control of the shoal and is limiting access and increasing intimidation of non-Chinese fishing vessels.

Map of the South China Sea pointing the location of the Scarborough Shoals. — Infographic showing Scarborough Shoal and other islands and reefs in the disputed South China Sea. (Graphic by JOHN SAEKI/AFP via Getty Images)

In recent years, China’s increased presence around the shoal is up from an average of 48 ships a month near the end of 2024, to 95 ships a month during the first half of 2025. Countries with vested economic interests in the region are not happy about China’s actions, especially the Philippines, which stands staunchly opposed to China’s increasingly brazen dominance in their water. Scarborough Shoal is within the Philippines’ 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone, making China’s plans particularly problematic given its proximity to the capital of Manila and its strategic port of Subic Bay.

One potential protection against China’s activities is the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, which states: “If one nation’s ’metropolitan’ territory, military, aircraft, islands, or public vessels are attacked, the other must respond in accordance with their ’constitutional processes.’” The United States has affirmed commitment to protecting the Philippine’s sovereignty under the Biden administration, which released a joint statement with the Philippines president, saying, “An armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea, would invoke United States mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.”

With all this in mind, it is critical the U.S. act quickly with the Philippines to deter Beijing from moving forward with its plan to establish a marine preserve at Scarborough Shoal. This should be done through both diplomatic pressure and increased military presence like the current U.S. carrier strike group in the region.

In response to Chinese duplicity, in 2013, the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China and won. That case concluded with the international tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ruling in 2016 that China’s Nine-Dash Line violated the U.N.’s conventions and that fishermen from the Philippines and China have traditional fishing rights within the shoal.

China does not recognize the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling and continues to claim sovereignty over the territory using the same disproven historical arguments.

China may want to appear as if it’s protecting the damaged reefs within Scarborough Shoal, but China has shown it does not care about the environmental impact of its activities in the region. Chinese fishing vessels have participated in damaging practices when harvesting clams, and within the South China Sea, China is thought to have caused the destruction of around 4,600 acres of reef. Why does China suddenly care about this reef, and why build a nature reserve now?

Satellite images released on Oct. 8 depict the placement of a barricade at the mouth of the Scarborough Shoal, which has been confirmed by the Philippine Navy. This is not the first time a barricade has been placed at the shoal, but paired with the plans for a nature reserve, it demonstrates China’s goal of gaining full control.

As of Oct. 17, China was operating fighter jets and patrol aircraft in the skies overhead, as well as maritime security vessels nearby, and placed new buoys within and around the shoal to assert dominance over the disputed feature. On Nov. 16, China moved eight maritime ships and coast guard vessels that had previously been stationed at the shoal to Subi Reef, near Thitu Island, which is claimed by China but is occupied by Philippine troops.

Besides resources, China may be able to further strengthen its de facto administrative control of nearby waters, further restricting activities by the Philippines and other nations in the Scarborough Shoal. If China moves forward with its plan for a nature reserve, it is highly likely that there will be heightened law enforcement activity and presence near the shoal, further burnishing its control of the shoal and surrounding waters. This was indeed suspect back in 2016, with China to turn Scarborough Shoal into a man-made island garrison, as it has done with several features under its control in the Spratly Islands.

If this were to happen, it would threaten United States operations and exercises with the Philippines, along with access to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. The bases open to U.S. forces under this agreement include Fort Magsaysay, Basa Air Base, Antonio Bautista Air Base, Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base, and Lumbia Air Base.

If China succeeds in constructing this nature reserve, we should expect increased Chinese military presence, maritime coercion by paramilitary forces, and further encroachment. With rising tensions in the region and the recent deadly collision between a Chinese destroyer and a Philippine Coast Guard cutter, China will likely not back down lightly.

The United States has strategic interest in this region. A little demonstration of resolve today could go a long way toward preventing a more intractable long-term problem at the Scarborough Shoal from getting worse.

Supreme Court Justices Hear Street Preacher Who Challenged Law After Pleading No Contest to Breaking It

Justices didn’t seem to break along predictable lines Wednesday, when they presented critical questions to both sides in a case regarding a Christian pastor’s free speech challenge to a Mississippi city ordinance.

In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether someone convicted under a law has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law to prevent its future enforcement without nullifying a prior conviction for violating that law.

Brandon, Mississippi, adopted a city ordinance regulating protests around the city’s amphitheater. Pastor Gabriel Olivier preached outside a designated “protest zone” even after police warned him not to do so. He pleaded no contest to violating the ordinance but now wants to prevent future enforcement.

“I am grateful to have had my case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court—an opportunity few others in my situation have ever had,” Olivier said in a statement released by First Liberty, the religious freedom law firm that represents him, after the oral arguments concluded. “I pray this case results in a decision that allows others to be able to fight for their First Amendment rights in court.”

Doors Olivier ‘Chose Not to Enter’

During his opening arguments, G. Todd Butler, representing Brandon, said Olivier had multiple opportunities to challenge the law and his conviction in state courts. Butler scoffed at the argument that “courthouse doors are closed” to Olivier.

“That argument ignores the countless doors the petitioner chose not to enter,” Butler told justices. “What this case is about is the petitioner’s preferred door, one that offers a favored venue, and an opportunity for attorneys fees.”

Olivier shared his Christian faith near the amphitheater in May 2021. Police told him he was required to speak only in the designated “protest zone.”

Olivier first did as requested, but later argued the designated area was too isolated. So, he returned to his original location and was arrested for violating the city’s ordinance.

Had he challenged his arrest, it would have been less murky legal territory, since he would clearly have standing as someone harmed or affected by the law. However, in June 2021, Olivier made a no-contest plea, which is not admitting guilt but not disputing charges. He received a fine and a suspended 10-day sentence.

Olivier wanted to return to preach at the amphitheater area again, so to avoid another arrest, he challenged the constitutionality of the city’s ordinance in federal court.

Supreme Court Arguments

During arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about “collateral consequences” of challenging the law but not the conviction, and how that could affect the enforcement of the terms of future convictions that might be challenged in a similar manner.

Allyson Ho, volunteering pro bono with First Liberty to represent Olivier, replied that past court rulings determined it “would not automatically, or even permissibly preclude the state” from enforcing the conditions of the conviction.

Along those same lines, Chief Justice Roberts asked, “What about a requirement that the individual show up for probation meetings?”

“Absolutely, your honor, because, again, the only effect that the federal judgment has is forward-looking,” Ho replied. “It is a prospective relief. It prohibits the enforcement of the ordinance against him on a forward-looking basis. It does not reach back.”

The district court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined Olivier could not challenge the Brandon ordinance even if its future enforcement would violate his constitutional rights. It based the dismissal on the Supreme Court case Heck v. Humphrey (1994). The high court ruled in Heck that a person can’t bring a civil rights lawsuit if success in the lawsuit would imply the conviction is invalid—unless that conviction has already been reversed through appeal or clemency.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the plaintiffs’ call for only looking forward without challenging the previous conviction was unusual.

“By definition, a win by you, or win by a third party, would call the prior convictions into question,” Sotomayor said. “It will be used by you and others to try to go back in other proceedings and get those expunged or otherwise set aside. You may or may not win. But it will call it into question.”

Ho disagreed, and said the high court has used only “two buckets” in applying the Heck precedent. Neither, she said, would apply to Olivier, since he was never incarcerated.

“The first bucket are claims where the federal relief would result in immediate or faster release from confinement,” Ho said. “The second bucket is damages resulting from past confinement.”

Questions for Butler

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Butler, the city’s attorney, “about your initial litany of doors” for Olivier.

“Were they all state forums, all state remedies, that you discussed? Is there any other federal remedy?” Jackson asked. “If we agree with you, this person ends up with no federal remedy, and that just seems odd.”

Butler replied, “My laundry list of things were state court remedies.” But he said the Heck precedent was in part about steering plaintiffs to resort to state litigation.

Roberts pressed the city’s attorney about whether this meant an automatic arrest and jail time if Olivier preaches again at the amphitheater outside the protest zone.

“When you commit a crime, a particular one, and you’re convicted, you undertake not to commit further violations of that provision,” Roberts said. “Now, if he does, is he subject to reincarceration? Certainly, that’s a big part of the probation in this particular case.”

Butler suggested Olivier may go to jail if he violates the ordinance again.

“If he violated the ordinance, he would immediately not pass go and go straight to jail for 10 days, because he was under the suspended sentence,” Butler said. “And that constitutes custody under this court’s jurisprudence.”

The city passed the ordinance in question in 2019, in response to what it considered a hardship for local police to control protesters that showed up in the area.

The Trump administration is siding with Olivier, as U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, and Assistant Solicitor General Ashley Robertson gave a brief argument to justices, as well.

Rand Paul Says Trump Boat Strikes ‘Prelude to War’ With Venezuela

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday that the Trump administration’s strikes on alleged drug boats are bringing the United States closer to war with Venezuela.

Paul, a leading critic of foreign intervention, has sharply criticized President Donald Trump’s continued strikes on alleged drug traffickers and warned the president against pursuing regime change. Trump declared Venezuelan airspace to be closed over the weekend, ratcheting up his pressure campaign against dictator Nicolás Maduro, whom the White House views as an illegitimate leader.

“I think most of this is a prelude to war with Venezuela. All of this is a lead up,” Paul told reporters in the Capitol.

“I hope it’s not a prelude to war, but I feel like they’re building up towards war,” the senator continued. “Hopefully, this second bombing of survivors … which is clearly illegal, hopefully there’ll be enough of an uproar over this, that will slow down the drumbeats.”

His comments on Tuesday came in response to Sept. 2 strikes on an alleged drug vessel in the Caribbean Sea, which sparked outrage over concerns that a follow-up strike on two survivors violated the laws of war.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that Adm. Frank Bradley ordered the strikes, but acted within his authority to eliminate the alleged drug traffickers.

The White House referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s comments during a Tuesday afternoon Cabinet meeting.

“We’ve only just begun striking narco-boats and putting narco-terrorists at the bottom of the ocean because they’ve been poisoning the American people,” Hegseth said. “And [former President] Joe Biden tried to approach it with kid gloves.”

Paul has faulted the administration for failing to show proof the vessels are trafficking drugs.

The boat strikes remain politically popular, according to recent polling. A Nov. 23 CBS News/YouGov poll found that 53% of American adults support military strikes against alleged drug boats. However, the same poll found that 7 in 10 American adults oppose potential U.S. military action against Maduro’s regime.

Though the Pentagon has limited its strikes against drug traffickers to the Caribbean Sea, Trump has repeatedly floated expanding the military operation to land.

“That was what people liked about Donald Trump, was that he wasn’t for these offensive wars of choice,” Paul said. “He wasn’t for regime change.”

Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis joined Paul in criticizing the Sept. 2 strikes, pressing for congressional oversight and accountability in the incident.

“Somebody made a horrible decision—somebody needs to be held accountable,” Tillis told the Daily Caller News Foundation on Tuesday. “You don’t have to have served in the military to understand that that was a violation of ethical, moral, and legal code. And so if the facts play out the way they’re currently being reported, then somebody needs to get the hell out of Washington.”

Both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee have launched inquiries into the lethal double-strike.

Republican Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt defended the secretary of war, calling The Washington Post story that first reported on the Sept. 2 strikes “totally debunked.”

“This nonsense about it being a war crime is total bulls—. It’s all they have,” Schmitt told reporters on Tuesday. “And the desire then to treat [Hegseth] as a war criminal, to treat servicemen as war criminals, is beyond just a normal political debate.”

Democrat lawmakers have largely denounced the deadly strike and called for Hegseth’s resignation despite the White House saying Hegseth did not make an order to kill the survivors.

“This is beyond the pale, and we would not accept it, and we never have accepted it, from any other administration in my lifetime,” Democrat Nevada Sen. Jacky Rosen told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “And so, we cannot normalize this. Laws are not suggestions. The rules of engagement are not suggestions at someone’s whim.”

“[Hegseth] likes to tout his position as a secretary: He’s the one in charge. Everything stops with him. The buck stops at his desk for everything that happens … He needs to take responsibility. He needs to resign,” Rosen continued.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Trump Blocks Immigration of Foreigners From 19 Countries

The Trump administration is pushing pause on immigration applications from 19 countries and reviewing approved applications from those same nations. Multiple reports indicate the list of nations could be expanded.

For now, the immigration application pause applies to foreigners from: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Burundi, Chad, Cuba, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen.

The 19 counties were already considered “high-risk,” and in June, President Donald Trump announced full or partial restrictions on entry of individuals from these nations into the U.S.

Additionally, the U.S. government will conduct a re-review of any foreigner from one of the 19 countries who entered the U.S. since the start of the Biden administration and was granted asylum or withholding of removal.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “has determined the operational necessity to ensure that all asylum applicants and aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States do not pose a threat to national security or public safety,” USCIS wrote in a Tuesday memo.

The re-evaluation of approved immigration applications is expected to slow the process for those waiting for approval, but “USCIS has determined the operational necessity to ensure that all asylum applicants and aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States do not pose a threat to national security or public safety,” according to the agency.

The action is being taken following a shooting in the District of Columbia last week that left one National Guard member dead and another seriously injured. The suspected shooter is an Afghan national who worked with U.S. troops in Afghanistan but came to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul in 2021. The alleged shooter yelled “Allahu akbar,” translated “God is most great,” during the attack, according to documents filed in court on Tuesday and reported by The Washington Post.

The Trump administration has also paused the progressing of all visas for Afghan nationals.

Rubio Announces Visa Restrictions on Anyone Carrying Out ‘Violations of Religious Freedom’

The State Department has announced new restrictions on visas for anyone who is seen to be supporting or conducting violations of religious freedom.

“The United States is taking decisive action in response to the atrocities and violence against Christians in Nigeria and around the world,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Wednesday.

The United States is taking decisive action in response to the atrocities and violence against Christians in Nigeria and around the world. The @StateDept will restrict U.S. visas for those who knowingly direct, authorize, fund, support, or carry out violations of religious…
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) December 3, 2025

The department “will restrict U.S. visas for those who knowingly direct, authorize, fund, support, or carry out violations of religious freedom,” Rubio said in a statement. The policy will also, in some cases, restrict visas of family members who are known to have carried out violations of religious freedom.

The policy is in response “to the mass killings and violence against Christians by radical Islamic terrorists, Fulani ethnic militias, and other violent actors in Nigeria and beyond,” according to the State Department. While Nigeria is the only nation the new policy specifically names, it will also apply to “other governments or individuals engaged in violations of religious freedom.”

President Donald Trump designated Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” in October in response to persecution of Christians in the African nation. Trump has also tasked Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and the House Appropriations Committee to look further into the issue of the persecution of Christians in Nigeria and report their findings.

Moore and a group of lawmakers held a roundtable in the District of Columbia on Tuesday aimed at discussing the further investigation of the persecution of Christinas in Nigeria.

The U.S. “cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening in Nigeria, and numerous other countries,” Trump said.

It is estimated that more than 50,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria since 2009, and about 7,000 in the first half of 2025 alone, most at the hands of either Boko Haram or Muslim Fulani militants.

The persecution of Christians in Nigeria has not only gained the attention of lawmakers in Washington, but also celebrity rapper and songwriter Nicki Minaj.

?? ????? https://t.co/73kRty55Bf
— Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) November 18, 2025

Minaj has been vocal in her support of Trump’s actions to address the situation in Nigeria and has called for action “to defend Christians in Nigeria, to combat extremism and to bring a stop to violence against those who simply want to exercise their natural right to freedom of religion or belief.”

Trump to Pull Stefanik UN Ambassador Nomination to Protect Republican House Majority

Watch Our Live Inauguration Day Coverage

American Tea Parties, Greek Yogurt Parties

GOP Wins: Supreme Court Rules on Texas Redistricting Maps for 2026 Midterms

Related posts:

Experts Warn of Tool China Is Using To Play ‘Long Game’ in New Cold War

Related posts:

These Democrat Narratives Are a Lame Excuse for an Agenda

Related posts:

‘BLATANT LIES’: Josh Shapiro Slams Kamala Harris’ Book

Related posts:

Robert F. Kennedy’s Immunization Board Delays Decision on Future of Hep B Vaccine

Related posts:

What’s Next After Trump Voids Biden Autopen Orders?

1. ‘Proving That Biden Didn’t Know’

2. Clemency ‘Easiest to Undo’

3. What Will Litigation Look Like?

Related posts:

Cornyn Slams Biden Admin Over Failed Vetting of Afghan Nationals

Related posts:

SEEING DOUBLE? Trump Endorses Retiring Rep’s Twin Brother for Texas Seat

Related posts:

EXCLUSIVE: No New Somali Refugees Have Entered the US Since Jan. 20, State Department Says

The Somali Fraud Scandals

Trump’s Comments About the Somali Community

Related posts:

‘Righteous Strikes’: Congress Reacts to Classified Briefing on Narco-Terrorist Strikes

Related posts:

Inside the DOW’s Operations Against Narco-Terrorists and Venezuela

Related posts:

The Trump Case Is Finally Dead, but Fani Willis Left Fulton County Taxpayers on the Hook for Millions of Dollars

Related posts:

Stefanik and Johnson War Over House GOP Leadership

Discharge Petition

Related posts:

Beijing’s Aggressive Campaign Against Japan’s Iron Lady Backfires

Related posts:

HHS Clarifies Which Health Records Doctors Can’t Hide from Parents

Related posts:

Navy Admiral Faces Questions Over Boat Strikes in Classified Briefing

Related posts:

Don’t Trust the Government to Solve the Housing Affordability Problem That It Created

Related posts:

Iryna’s Law Needs to Be Replicated Around the Country

Related posts:

How Many Terrorists Came From Afghanistan to America?

Related posts:

Journalists Can Promote ‘Sedition’ When It’s ‘ICE Resistance’

Related posts:

Victor Davis Hanson: Targeting Christians at Christmas, Attacking the Culture They Chose to Join

Related posts:

Texas Rep. Jackson Introduces Bill to Move UN HQ Out of New York

Related posts:

What Will Finally End the Russia-Ukraine War?

Related posts:

Fact Check: Report Claims China Is ‘Winning the Clean Energy Race’

Related posts:

Republican Strategists Discuss Implications of Tennessee Special Election Results

Related posts:

China’s Development of the Scarborough Shoal

Related posts:

Supreme Court Justices Hear Street Preacher Who Challenged Law After Pleading No Contest to Breaking It

Doors Olivier ‘Chose Not to Enter’

Supreme Court Arguments

Questions for Butler

Related posts:

Rand Paul Says Trump Boat Strikes ‘Prelude to War’ With Venezuela

Related posts:

Trump Blocks Immigration of Foreigners From 19 Countries

Related posts:

Rubio Announces Visa Restrictions on Anyone Carrying Out ‘Violations of Religious Freedom’

Related posts: