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Stefanik is the second of Trump’s Cabinet picks to have their nominations withdrawn, following Rep.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.

Trump Says This Economic Policy Is Responsible for ‘Expectation-Smashing’ GDP Report

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / December 23, 2025

President Donald Trump said tariffs are the reason that real gross domestic product increased at an annual rate of 4.3% in the third quarter of 2025.

In July, August, and September, GDP increased at 4.3%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, even though economists predicted the economy would grow at a 3.2% annual rate due to the second quarter’s 3.8% growth.

“The TARIFFS are responsible for the GREAT USA Economic Numbers JUST ANNOUNCED…AND THEY WILL ONLY GET BETTER!” Trump wrote on TruthSocial. “Also, NO INFLATION & GREAT NATIONAL SECURITY. Pray for the U.S. Supreme Court!!!”

The Supreme Court is considering a case that would overturn Trump’s tariffs.

Due to the recent government shutdown, the Dec. 23 report for the third quarter of 2025 replaces the release of the advance estimate originally scheduled for Oct. 30, as well as the second estimate originally scheduled for Nov. 26.

White House deputy press secretary Kush Desai said the report shows that Americans “can count on benefitting from a historic economic boom in 2026.”

“Today’s blockbuster, expectation-smashing GDP report is the latest proof that President Trump’s America First trade and economic agenda continues to turn the page on the Biden economic disaster: American consumers are spending, and American exports are surging,” Desai said. “President Trump built the greatest economy in the world in his first term, and he’s in the process of doing it all over again.”

Truth Dies in Darkness: Washington Post Refuses to Correct Fake Heritage Quotes

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Rob Bluey / December 23, 2025

The Washington Post published an article Monday that fabricates two quotes attributed to Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts.

Roberts sent an email Sunday to Heritage staff announcing personnel changes at the organization. Washington Post reporters Jacob Bogage and Isaac Arnsdorf claim to have obtained the internal email, although the two quotes they cite from Roberts are noticeably different.

Below are the quotes from the Post’s article compared to Roberts’ email (emphasis added).

WASHINGTON POST: “This weekend, most of our staff, from our legal and economic centers, are departing immediately. We wish them well, though the manner of their departures speaks volumes.”

KEVIN ROBERTS: “This weekend, additional staff, from our legal and economic centers, are departing immediately. We wish them well, though the manner of their departures speaks volumes.”

WASHINGTON POST: “Heritage has always been home to voices within the conservative movement, but alignment on mission and loyalty to senior leadership are nonnegotiable.”

KEVIN ROBERTS: “Heritage has always been a home for many voices within the conservative movement—but alignment on mission and loyalty to the institution and colleagues are non-negotiable.”

The Heritage Foundation asked the Post reporters and White House editor Amy Gardner to correct the story Monday night.

According to a Heritage spokesman, a Post reporter suggested there were multiple versions of the email; Roberts sent only one email Sunday.

“They never asked to confirm their lousy information and printed it anyway because it suited their narrative,” said Cody Sargent, a spokesman for Heritage. “Garbage.”

Fake news @washingtonpost ran fabricated/altered quotes from a leaked email without fact checking. The "reporters" responsible are @iarnsdorf and @jacobbogage.

They never asked to confirm their lousy information and printed it anyway because it suited their narrative. Garbage. pic.twitter.com/laddniV80I
— Cody Sargent (@codydsargent) December 23, 2025

The Daily Signal, which was founded by Heritage and now operates as an independent media organization, contacted multiple Post staffers Monday night for comment. More than 12 hours later, Post spokeswoman Liza Pluto, Gardner, and Arnsdorf have failed to respond or correct the story.

Earlier this year, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos promised big changes at the publication, announcing the opinion pages would promote “personal liberties and free markets.” That followed the Post’s decision to withhold an endorsement from Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris in 2024.

More than 300,000 subscribers reportedly canceled in the wake of those events, and several longtime Post employees quit.

‘Demonstrably Untrue’: Victor Davis Hanson Rebuts Tucker Carlson’s Israel, Qatar Claims

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Rob Bluey / Victor Davis Hanson / December 23, 2025

Victor Davis Hanson responds to Tucker Carlson’s claims that Israel offers little strategic value to the United States, laying out Israel’s cultural importance, democratic legitimacy, military cooperation, and technological innovation—and why America benefits directly on today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.”

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a segment from 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, I’m looking at an X post today and it’s posted by someone, Open Source Intel. There‘s a link in here to a video of Tucker Carlson giving an interview, which I watched. It’s a few minutes long, but here’s the synopsis of it.

He’s in Qatar. I’m going to call it “Gutter.”

He questions why the United States prioritizes Israel over Gulf States such as Qatar, arguing that the strategic value is one-sided. He, Tucker, said Israel is, quote, “a completely insignificant country,” end quote, with no resources, 9 million people. Adding that, quote, “The only reason it has any significance is because we provide a security guarantee.”

Carlson added, “Do we have to defend Israel?” and claimed there is, quote, “no strategic interests in Israel for the United States,” saying, “What are we getting out of this? Nothing. It’s only costs.”

By contrast, he argued the Gulf States matter far more, saying, quote, “The six GCC nations, there are very obvious benefits to the United States,” and he described those ties as, quote, “much more important than the relationship with Israel.” Infinitely more important, he concluded that Qatar’s relationship with the U.S. is so much more important than with Israel.

Man, oh, man, Victor, your thoughts.

Victor Davis Hanson: I would like to say it pains me to say this, but the Tucker that is talking is not the one that I had a seven-to-eight-year relationship every Monday after the monologue. But to be frank, everything he just said is demonstrably untrue.

It’s not an insignificant country. Let me not just say platitudes but let me be precise and offer examples and data.

First of all, Israel is the home of half of the Judeo-Christian, and you can argue the whole home of the Judeo-Christian tradition. It’s the protector of Jerusalem. Does Tucker really believe that Jerusalem in the hands of the Jordanians was better than under the Israelis? Does he really believe that prior to the existence of Israel, the Middle East was a better place? So, it’s got historical and cultural value.

No. 2, when he says it doesn’t have resources: It’s completely self-sufficient in fossil fuels. It is a net exporter of natural gas. It will be working with the Cypriots and the Greeks to tap offshore Mediterranean natural gas, which will be sent to Europe if Turkey doesn’t interfere.

He’s talking about Qatar, which is an autocracy. And I have always said that there was no strategic point in demonizing Saudi Arabia in the way that Joe Biden did. Said it was a rogue nation, then he turned around and begged it to pump oil.

Tucker, there’s not one constitutional government there. When you say they have three million people in Qatar, there’s only about 20 % are citizens. The rest are helots. That is, they are laborers with no civil rights.

They don’t have the civil rights that Arabs do inside Israel, which are full citizens. They don’t vote on any legislation in Qatar. Nobody votes on it. But in Israel, Arabs vote on their own government. And they have Arab representatives throughout the Israeli bureaucracy and throughout the Knesset.

That was wrong.

When he said it’s insignificant, we don’t get anything out of it: It has 12 Nobel Prize winners. And if you look at 11 million people, it’s pretty much the highest per capita Nobel Prize winners.

And they have given us everything from flash drives to drip irrigation.

I’ll give you an example, Tucker. I came home in 1980 from graduate school, and we had 20 acres of sandy vineyard that was uphill almost. You could not irrigate it, furrow. My grandfather almost had a heart attack.

And then I came home, and one day my brother was there, my twin brother, and he had this curious little black tubing. And he was with an Israeli Dutch engineer who was unraveling it. And I said, “What in the world is that?” And he said, “It’s called drip irrigation.” I said, “What?”

And he said, “Yeah, we’re going to have high-pressure blades on the pump, we’ll change them, and we’ll put some filters on it, and we’re going to send all this water uphill under enormous 60 pounds of pressure, and we’re going to have one gallon per hour emitters at every vine.”

I said, “You don’t have to do furrows, you don’t have to cut?” No. I said, ”Who thought this up?” He said the Israelis did, and then the engineer explained it to me, who was an Israeli. It was called Netafim. It had just been invented.

And that story could be replicated all through American life.

When we send over F-35s, it’s the only country in the world that makes adaptations to it to improve its efficacy. And it usually shares those completely with us.

When he said, “What do we get out of it?” Just forget Israel for a minute and ask yourself, “What was the position of the United States government toward a nuclear Iran?

I can tell you what it was. George Bush had an initiative—that Barack Obama canceled—to build a missile defense system on the request of Europe in the Czech Republic and perhaps in Poland to protect the European continent from a missile, which they now have, to reach Europe and they probably would have had a nuclear weapon with and probably within a year a miniaturized one that would fit on an intercontinental ballistic missile.

And Europe would be at the mercy of the Iranian theocracy because you know what they would do. Every five minutes they would say the, “We want the 72 virgins, you love life, we love death. You’re a one bomb continent, we can live with half our population,” that whole stuff that they do with Israel.

And so, when we decided, we, we, the United States decided to take that out, who did we ask permission to get into Iranian airspace, the Israelis.

There were no air defenses. We flew all the way from the United States. We were there for 28 minutes. We took them out, and we returned in complete safety. That would have been impossible without the Israelis.

And does Tucker really believe that Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis are not enemies of the United States? We don’t have any soldiers fighting Hezbollah. They blew up our Marines. They blew up our embassy. The Houthis attacked our ships. Hamas people have committed terrorist acts.

Who has deterred them? The Israelis have.

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

Why Western Leaders Won’t Acknowledge ‘Radical Islam’

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Rob Bluey / Victor Davis Hanson / Victor Davis Hanson / December 22, 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. We’ve had a lot of incidents worldwide of Islamic terrorism or threats of Islamic terrorism. The most egregious is in Bondi Beach, Australia, where two gunmen, a father and son, killed 16 people and wounded 40.

How that happens in front of police who reacted very quickly I don’t know. They were only stopped by a heroic Syrian immigrant who tackled one of the shooters and disarmed him.

The problem with all of this is that there was no needed reaction from the prime minister of Australia. We didn’t hear: We have to be very careful about radical Islam. These two people got two guns legally that they should not have had since they were on a watch lists with terrorist activity, and there was no reason that he, this one shooter, the father, had six guns, among them semi-automatic weapons.

One of the most gun-controlled societies in the world. We didn’t hear that.

Instead, we heard that they condone all extremism. This is not who we are. In the utmost—you know, the whole boilerplate. And then they said, we oppose all extremism. And it was a nanosecond before they said white extremism that had nothing to do with this.

The second incident was in the Champs-Élysées in Paris, they canceled the annual Christmas celebration because they were afraid of radical Islamic protests. This is a French, predominantly at one time, Catholic country, and they’re afraid of 10% to 12% of their population, can cancel the entire celebration.

Would they ever do that for an Islamic celebration? Would the majority say, “We’re the majority and you can’t—” no, they wouldn’t.

And then we come to the United States, we lost two soldiers overseas, stationed in Syria, that were executed, ambushed by a supposedly ISIS murderer. Details are still out.

Back home, Brown University had a shooter who went into a classroom, yelled something—people are disagreeing whether it was “Al Akbar,” what it was—but he executed two students and may have wounded nine others.

And again, the same mystery. How can a university with thousands of feet taking a video every hour not have him on their video records? How did he know where the classroom was? How did he know his way around Providence, Rhode Island? Why did they get another suspect who was a white male, former army recruit, blasted his name everywhere as a likely suspect? He had nothing to do with it. And now we’re told to be very, very careful about this suspect. He may, may, may, allegedly, allegedly, be a Palestinian student.

What am I getting at with all of these situations? I could multiply them tenfold. They are indicative of three or four pathologies in the West right now.

No. 1, the borders of, it’s hard to say Australia because it is an island continent, but they are open. Europe’s are open. Ours had been open until President Donald Trump. By open, I mean thousands of people are coming from the poorest and sometimes the most antithetical of societies into Western countries. And they are not assimilating, not acculturating, and not integrating. In fact, they’re creating enclaves of resistance mostly.

In the case of those from the Middle East, the Oct. 7 slaughter of Jews and the reaction against the perpetrators in Gaza set off a whole new round where our Western university campuses were literally taken over by foreign nationals on student visas that were rooting for Hamas, a terrorist designated organization, or chanting “River to the sea,” the erasure of Israel and the Jews entirely in the Middle East, etc., etc.

So, there are no borders.

Second problem was there was a diversity, equity, inclusion ideology in the West that said that society is binary and 30% of the non-white population is a perpetual victim of these victimizers. There’s no proof needed that the 70% victimizers have done anything. It’s just that their heritage was oppressive and therefore the 30% deserve reparatory action.

That can be affirmative action. It can be DEI admittance, preference in hiring. It can mean awards are given disproportionately. It can mean that merit will not be a criteria. It can mean a lot of stuff. But in the case of these incidents, it means, if the perpetrator is from the Middle East, there’s a feeling, a general feeling, that you cannot identify him.

Or, if you do identify him or you say it’s a radical, Muslim, you have to then say, “We deplore all violence. We don’t—we deplore antisemitism”—which is the case in point in Australia—“but we also deplore Islamophobia, of which there is no examples of people mass shooting Muslims in the case that we have seen.”

The third catalyst for all this is, let’s be honest, it’s Western decline.

The West is in spiritual, emotional, psychological, sociological, economic decline. The fertility rate is 1.4 in Europe, 1.7-something in the United States. Green energy, ideology, and zealotry has made energy almost unaffordable in Western Europe and, to a degree, in the United States, partly on the prompt of the Chinese, who sell cheap solar, wind, and green advocacy so they can build nuclear plants, coal plants, import embargoed oil, and have an edge competitively in economic rivalry.

In addition to that, the West is not defended. The military budget in Europe, until recently, was anemic. And I think Germany at one time recently had only eight operable tanks, as we see in Ukraine. And the world doesn’t stop because Europe says it’s going to disarm. And we, to a greater extent, under the Obama and Biden administration, were disarmed. We were short almost 50,000 recruits.

I could go on. But the combination of a lack of confidence in the West—in their culture, their tradition, their values, their heritage, their ancestors—coupled with this utopian idea that you’re gonna change the demographic by bringing in poor people from antithetical societies, with the false multiplier that you’re gonna be racially and sexually and gender-fixated and oppressed and dole out special beneficia to people based on their superficial appearance, it was a perfect storm. And if we didn’t have these catastrophes, we’d have to invent them.

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

EXCLUSIVE: Christmas Ad Draws Inspiration From ‘Home Alone’ to Unwrap Dangers of Illegal Vapes

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Rob Bluey / Victor Davis Hanson / Victor Davis Hanson / Virginia Allen / December 22, 2025

A new Christmas ad aims to expose the “greedy criminals targeting vulnerable kids” with illegal vapes.

Illegal vapes, largely from China, have flooded the U.S. market in recent years with flavors and advertising specifically aimed at enticing children.

“This Christmas, it’s time to get those who profit from illegal vapes a supersized dose of Kevin,” the ad tells viewers, referring to Kevin McCallister, the lead character in the 1990 Christmas classic “Home Alone.”

“Illegal vape distributors, get your illegal vapes away from our kids and out of our homes,” the ad warns as a scene similar to Kevin McCallister defending his home from the “wet bandits” in “Home Alone” plays across the screen.

Communities United for Smart Policy, the nonprofit policy advocacy group that sponsored the ad, recently found that 70% of parents want stronger enforcement aimed at removing illegal vapes from their communities.

The survey, conducted of over 1,000 parents, found “overwhelming concern about the spread of illegal vape products and strong bipartisan support for tougher enforcement against the stores that sell them,” according to Communities United for Smart Policy. “Parents view illegal vapes not as a niche regulatory issue, but as a direct threat to community safety.”

The poll also found that “73% of parents agree that stores selling illegal vapes pose safety concerns in their community,” and 78% of parents are in favor of “legislation that supports enforcement efforts to combat illegal vape distribution.”

As of September, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Customs and Border Protection had “stopped more than 6 million unauthorized e-cigarettes worth over $120 million from entering the country,” according to the policy group.

“Illegal vapes and the shops that sell them are harming the health and safety of our communities,” former Rep. Dr. Michael C. Burgess said.

“While this escalating problem is no laughing matter, this holiday-themed video directly appeals to parents and the youth being targeted by these illegal products designed to look like toys and games,” Burgess continued. “[Communities United for Smart Policy] hopes it raises awareness, especially as kids enter a long holiday break from school with more unsupervised time on their hands.”

Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and pose a danger to young people.

“Aerosol from e-cigarettes can also contain harmful and potentially harmful substances. These include cancer-causing chemicals and tiny particles that can be inhaled deep into lungs,” according to the CDC.

Members of Congress have taken action to stop the flow of the illicit materials into the U.S.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas put forward the Ensuring the Necessary Destruction of (END) Illicit Chinese Tobacco Act. The act, which passed in November, allows the FDA to destroy counterfeit vapes and other tobacco products, including those from China.

“China is raking in the dough at the expense of American teens and young adults by lining U.S. shelves with illegal vapes and e-cigarettes,” Cornyn said. “This legislation would crack down on China’s counterfeit cash cow that’s corroding our nation’s health and extend the FDA’s destruction authority to these dangerous imported tobacco products.”

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has urged the FDA to do more to crack down on the illegal drugs entering the U.S. market.

“To combat Chinese influence, FDA should increase the number of regulated, legal, American products available to consumers,” Cotton wrote in a letter to the FDA in November.

Even as the CDC saw a decline in the use of e-cigarettes among youth in 2024 compared to 2023, Congress continues to push the FDA to do more to crack down on illicit vapes.

Why China Rejects Trump’s ‘G2’

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Rob Bluey / Victor Davis Hanson / Victor Davis Hanson / Virginia Allen / Bryan Burack / December 22, 2025

In the coming year, President Donald Trump may meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping up to a half dozen times, an intense period of high-level diplomacy amid unprecedented mutual trade and supply chain warfare with China.

The stage was set by the leaders’ Oct. 2025 summit in Korea, which Trump described as a convening of the “G2,” recalling a discarded diplomatic idea that the U.S. and China stand as peers above other countries and groupings like the G7 and G20, and should partner together to govern the world.

However, China has conspicuously declined to join Trump’s revival of the G2 label, even though Xi has sought to establish such global power-sharing arrangements with the United States in the past.

Xi’s change of heart is a reminder that, no matter how many times the leaders convene in 2026, the United States and China are headed for more conflict, rather than a turn toward cooperation.

China “embraced” the G2 concept early in the Obama administration as a potential means to “make major global decisions without other U.S. partners present.” Later, China promoted a “New Type of Great Power Relations,” a similar concept which emphasized curtailing U.S. influence over the Chinese Communist Party’s so-called core interests.

Then and now, China’s own behavior ruled out such an arrangement. Instead, China’s actions continue pushing the world toward a bipolar order of competing techno-economic blocs, much like the first Cold War.

China continues to deindustrialize the rest of the world by doubling down on state-subsidized industrial overcapacity and an unsustainable attempt to prop up its struggling economy by dumping unprofitable exports around the world.

In November, Xi reiterated his longstanding directive for China’s industry and government to pursue one-sided decoupling from the U.S. and other advanced economies. China is currently attempting to “tighten international production chains’ dependence on China,” while severing its reliance on foreign technology.

These strategies, unanswered for far too long, have allowed China to pursue its own economic and technological autonomy while cultivating Western economies’ dependence on China, both of which China is now leveraging to exercise veto power over all of the world’s technological supply chains.

The economic coercion China has deployed through its dominance of rare earths has, in effect, constrained U.S. sovereignty, leading to compromises on critical national security actions.

Senior U.S. officials, who should be fully focused on advancing U.S. national security, have instead been tasked with “ensuring that departments do not take actions that could threaten the détente [with China].”

China’s economic coercion leaves the United States—and ultimately, the free world—with only two options.

The first is surrender: Flinch away from the pain of weaning off decades of addiction to Chinese industry. Allow China continued access to Western markets while it decouples on its own terms. Permit the continued concentration of critical technologies and industrial capacity inside China. Become compliant vassals who export capital and commodities to China’s factories, ever fearful China will cut dissenters off from its manufactures.

The second option is to fight back: Reclaim American sovereignty. Purge our supply chains of dependencies on adversaries with the same speed and purpose that China has purged Western suppliers from its own. Close our markets to China’s overcapacity. Reestablish secure supply chains. Reindustrialize the free world.

The trend toward mutual decoupling between the United States and China seems to be all but guaranteed.

Both countries perceive decoupling as urgently necessary for their vital interests. This decoupling is unlikely to be confined to specific advanced technologies.

Commodity trade could have been an exception, but China has begun restricting both the import and export of commodities to coerce the U.S. and the world at large.

By comparison, exploiting foreign reliance on China’s manufactures would generate less backlash and consequences for the Chinese state than restricting commodity exports. Such sanctions can be more targeted and have already been used to attack Western companies.

Any critical industry, large employer, or politically important company dependent on China now faces existential sanctions risk.

Until one country or the other fundamentally reconsiders its interests—or folds and accepts reliance on the other—this process will increasingly separate the world into two rival techno-economic blocs.

There will be ambiguity, contestation and differing degrees of alignment.

Ultimately, only the United States and China have the heft to act as centers of gravity in this century. There will be exceptions, but firmly delineated bipolarity, not multipolarity, will be the prevailing geo-economic paradigm going forward.

Xi and the CCP seem to understand this trajectory.

Despite U.S. policy paralysis stemming from China’s rare earth coercion, despite the second Trump administration’s openness to a mutually beneficial relationship with China and despite genuine attempts at reaching a trade deal, the coming years will more closely resemble a fight than an embrace.

The United States can either accept China’s dominion or will have to deprive China of the thing it needs most to fuel its economy and enable its blackmail: access to the world’s most important consumer and capital markets.

This process will indeed forge a sort of “G2” world—one characterized by technological rivalry, competition for industrial scale and a less open field for China’s predatory industrial policy. That’s not the kind of “G2” that Xi wants.

How AmericaFest Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Legacy

PHOENIX—In an interview just months before his assassination, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said, “I want to be remembered for courage for my faith, that would be the most important thing. The most important thing is my faith.”

More than 10,000 gathered at AmericaFest in Phoenix over the weekend, the first major Turning Point USA conference since Kirk’s death on Sept. 10. When The Daily Signal asked attendees about Kirk’s legacy, their responses showed that Kirk is being remembered exactly how he wanted to be.

Charlie Kirk, a Christian Martyr

Attendees of Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest shared with The Daily Signal that Kirk’s faith has inspired them to live out their Christian faith.

“I see Charlie Kirk’s legacy as living in faith, living in purpose, living out his God-given gift of blessing others through communication, through civil discourse, and through living a life that was believing in the best of America, believing in the best of his family,” said a father who brought his three young daughters to the event. “[Kirk] is inspiring generations to love Jesus.”

Just got home from church.

I wore my white freedom Charlie Kirk shirt.

Saw a guy there wearing the same thing.

I shook his hand and he told me he started coming to church after what happened to Charlie.

I felt that.

THAT is the legacy Charlie would be proud of.… pic.twitter.com/AglVeY4aIc
— AmericanPapaBear™ (@AmericaPapaBear) December 14, 2025

“I see Charlie Kirk’s legacy as a martyr who wanted to make a difference in the world,” one young woman told The Daily Signal.

One young man, wearing the white “Freedom” shirt Charlie was wearing when he was killed, said, “I see him as a disciple, and a leader, and a role model, specifically to young men.”

TPUSA Announces ‘Make Heaven Crowded Tour’

AmericaFest also put faith at the center of the weekend’s festivities.

The conference included a Faith Night on Saturday with worship and prayer on the main stage. The audience also heard from Christian leaders like Allie Beth Stuckey and Bryce Crawford.

On Sunday morning, the doors opened earlier than usual for continued worship and a church service.

Since Kirk’s death, the organization has partnered with over 8,000 churches nationwide. Kirk’s wife and new Turning Point USA CEO, Erika Kirk, announced the organization’s 2026 Make Heaven Crowded tour.

Andrew Kolvet, Turning Point spokesman and executive producer of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” told Christian Broadcasting Network that this will be a “revival tour all across the country.” The tour will travel to major cities, including Washington, D.C., Phoenix, and Nashville.

Faith Takes Center Stage

Speakers from the main stage extolled the virtues of Charlie Kirk’s faith as well.

“Charlie’s death made me want to reconnect with God,” said Fox News host Jesse Watters on the main stage Saturday night. He had previously shared with Erika Kirk that, since Charlie Kirk’s death, he has formed a Bible study with his male co-hosts on “The Five,” calling it “the most beautiful thing.”

Vice President JD Vance on honoring Charlie Kirk’s legacy by standing firm in faith, fighting for America, and committing to victory together.@VP pic.twitter.com/ssoOOy2hMB
— Turning Point USA (@TPUSA) December 21, 2025

Vice President JD Vance took the stage on Sunday and asked the audience to “promise to honor his legacy by having faith in the God he loved.”

Accreditation Mandates Bring CRT Into Colleges and K-12 Schools

A recent report from Defending Education has found that more than half of collegiate social work programs appear to embed anti-racism and diversity, equity, and inclusion standards into their core competencies, admissions requirements, and field work evaluations.

This is not by accident. The sole accreditor of these schools, the Council on Social Work Education, requires adherence to these standards.

This means, in practice, that left-wing ideologies—many of which promote discrimination on the basis of race—are de facto orthodoxy in most of the nation’s social work programs, just so the institution can remain accredited.

This accreditation is required for graduates of these programs to gain licenses necessary to work in their fields.

So, what are students in college and graduate school learning in their social work programs?

At the University of Alaska Anchorage, applicants are evaluated on their “demonstration of social work values, ethics, and commitment to social justice, diversity, and anti-racism.”

California State University Dominguez Hills proudly states that its program is “grounded in Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality.”

Most Americans rightfully think social work is about improving the lives of others, not promoting a political ideology. Both students in social work programs, as well as parents of students in K-12 schools, have reason to be concerned.

Politicizing of these social work programs by their accreditor, the CSWE is failing students who are pursuing degrees in social work in multiple ways.

Before students are even admitted to their programs, schools are encouraged to evaluate them on ideological alignment instead of academic readiness.

For example, at the University of Maine, applicants to its school of social work must write an essay describing their “commitments to anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion and plans to advance them through graduate study in social work and professional practice as a social worker.”

Instead of evaluating a student’s readiness for their programs, these programs administer a litmus test of ideological conformity.

The failings only continue once students are accepted.

To be accredited by the CSWE, programs are required to “recognize the pervasive impact of White supremacy and privilege and prepare students to have the knowledge, awareness, and skills necessary to engage in anti-racist practices.”

At Arizona State’s school of social work, this includes direct evaluation of a student’s ability to “demonstrate anti-racist and anti-oppressive social work practice at the individual, family, group, organizational, community, research, and policy levels.”

Yet again, these programs demonstrate a commitment to encourage a specific ideology—pushed by their sole accreditor—as opposed to pursuing excellence in the skills and practices required to be a competent and effective social worker.

But how do woke college programs impact K-12 schools?

As the youth mental health crisis worsens, parents, teachers, and administrators are scrambling for solutions. Many school districts are hiring more school social workers, hoping that increased individualized support will help students both emotionally and academically.

As districts expand their social work staff, these new hires are required to have a degree from programs steeped in critical race theory and harmful DEI ideology.

Do we really think they just check that bias at the school gates?

If college programs train social workers to “understand and identify white supremacy,” is it realistic to assume they won’t start seeing it everywhere once they enter a school setting?

If they are taught to “radically shift dominant narratives which often obscure and constrain BIPOC expressions and insights” why wouldn’t they attempt exactly that once employed at an elementary school?

The CSWE has ensured that anti-racism, DEI and “anti-oppressive” ideology is embedded in most social work programs across the country, making it a near certainty that families will encounter social workers who prioritize ideology over wellbeing.

This isn’t just a problem in higher education it’s an urgent K-12 issue as well.

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

Slippery Slopes Have 2 Sides

Most conservatives are likely familiar with John Adams’ insightful observation, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

For years, we have accepted the obvious implication of that statement: If the system isn’t working as intended, the problem is with the people. It’s the “if you can keep it” part of Ben Franklin’s description of the republic the Founders gave us.

Until recently, even those frustrated by our national decline generally accepted that understanding.

They diagnosed the disease—cultural rot, moral confusion, the collapse of institutional trust—and argued, rightly, that renewal must begin there.

But something has shifted. Increasingly, some post-liberal voices on the right suggest the solution is not to reform the people, but to revise—or replace—our system of government itself.

The American experiment has not failed. It was hijacked by the progressive movement more than a century ago.

Over the past 100 years, the federal government has usurped roles never intended for it: family formation, moral instruction, income distribution, education, overregulation, even meaning itself, aided and abetted by the media/entertainment/advertising-industrial complex.

As the state grew more behemoth, church and community institutions were hollowed out; which was the cause and which the effect may be arguable, but the correlation is indisputable.

The “little platoons” that once formed Americans into responsible citizens have been crowded out by self-perpetuating bureaucracies fueled by massive, unsustainable debt.

The challenge of our time is to return the government to its constitutional limits, enabling families, churches, and community organizations to once again fulfill their historical responsibilities.

We can take encouragement from the Trump administration’s reductions in regulatory overreach, shrinking of the federal workforce and dismantling of the Department of Education—among other smaller-government outcomes—along with the Supreme Court’s rediscovery of judicial humility.

But there is a danger in the populist moment in which we find ourselves. It has brought necessary corrective energy but, unmoored to enduring principles, could lead us down a slippery slope towards a post-liberal version of the utopia the Left has been pursuing for a century.

Conservatives have always recognized that utopia (from the Greek, meaning “no place”) does not—and cannot, exist—and its pursuit always leads to tyranny.

Now is not the time to fool ourselves into thinking our version of it might work.

The answer is neither the totalitarianism towards which we have been slowly but inexorably heading nor a benevolent authoritarianism for which some now advocate, but a strong civil society and a limited, non-interventive state.

That was, and remains, the genius of the American system of government.

Yes, the law is a teacher, and the more our laws reflect the Judeo-Christian ethic that formed the basis of Western Civilization, the better.

But as a Christian, my religion doesn’t allow me to force anyone into my religion.

Freedom of conscience is essential. The consent of the governed is foundational. Separation of powers is necessary. Checks and balances are prudent. The Bill of Rights is indispensable.

We don’t need a new form of government; we need a moral and cultural renewal worthy of the one our forefathers gave us.

Fortunately, there is much we can do in arenas conservatives have, until recently, virtually abandoned—journalism, education, the arts, entertainment and advertising—and in which we are seeing a nascent creative resurgence gaining momentum.

The more we move back into pre-political and non-political spaces, the more we will affect the hearts and minds—and ultimately the votes—of the people.

Every step we manage to make along the path of religious and cultural revival will move us in the right direction. Dismissing constitutional limits in pursuit of even well-intended outcomes will only increase our peril.

Right-minded leaders who wield the power of the federal government must also steadily weaken it, for we can be certain it will again fall into the wrong hands.

Renewal, not reinvention, is the answer.

As we return to our roots, as we recommit to constitutional limits, as we reinvigorate federalism and the pre-New Deal subsidiarity Alexis de Tocqueville found so remarkable, we will restore the blessings of liberty and regenerate little platoons in every corner of America.

That work is slower, less exhilarating and more difficult than knocking down Constitutional pillars and hoping America will remain standing. But it’s the only way to ensure this nation of the people, by the people, and for the people will remain subject to the people.

EJ Antoni on Affordability: ‘Keep Your Foot Down on the Throttle, Mr. President’

The new buzzword today seems to be affordability. Suddenly, the entire media has woken up to the fact that Americans are in a cost-of-living crisis, something that has been true for several years now.

Of course, the mainstream media had no interest in discussing the issue when Joe Biden was in office, but now they view it as a cudgel to beat President Donald Trump.

The irony here is off the charts. The liars in the media, which is probably most of them if we’re being serious, are trying to pin on Trump a crisis that began literally years before he took office.

Recall that these left-wing stooges dutifully reported that inflation was “transitory,” then said it was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s fault, then said it was somehow a sign the economy was great, etc.

In other words, the media refused to acknowledge the American people’s financial pain, despite many food and energy prices rising by a third or more, credit card interest rates hitting about 30%, the monthly mortgage payment on a median-price home doubling, and health insurance premiums hitting stratospheric levels.

Of course, these were all reasons why the electorate overwhelming decided to send Trump back to Washington, to fix the mess created by the radical left’s big-government agenda. Only now, as if awaking from some kind of drunken stupor, does the media acknowledge what American families have known for years: we’re in a cost-of-living crisis.

Of course, the left-wing apparatchiks in the media gleefully report on the people’s pain today during a Trump presidency, then conveniently ignore both how the previous administration got us here and the fact that things are getting better.

Let’s throw some numbers out to illustrate each of these two points.

Imagine a family with both adults working and each with a weekly paycheck equal to the average worker’s weekly earnings. Under Biden, prices rose so much faster than incomes that it was the equivalent of the family taking more than a $4,300 pay cut to their combined annual income.

Conversely, during this second Trump term, earnings growth has outpaced inflation and that same family has seen their inflation-adjusted annual income rise almost $1,700.

This illustrates two things. First, the average American’s situation is clearly improving today. Things were getting worse under Biden and now they’re getting better under Trump.

But secondly, the average American still has not been made whole as it were. People fell so far behind under the previous administration that they still haven’t recovered to where they were in, say, 2019.

So, we’re moving in the right direction but there’s still a long way to go, and those two facts are not mutually exclusive.

It’s a testament to the president’s economic agenda that in a mere nine months or so he has effectively undone one-quarter of the damage caused by the radical left during the Biden years. And it’s worth examining exactly how he did this because it’s clearly a winning formula and will help enlighten us on how to clean up the rest of the mess created by the radical left’s big government agenda.

First, we’ve seen significant reductions in some areas of federal spending and the federal workforce. In fact, the Trump administration has managed to reduce federal payrolls every single month since taking office, with the number of bureaucrats now at the lowest level in more than a decade, while government purchases declined in the first half of the year.

There’s also been a tremendous effort to cut bureaucratic red tape, removing burdensome overregulation that has been holding back the productive private sector.

And with the Trump administration’s pro-American energy policies, domestic energy production has set multiple record highs this year.

We’ve also seen reductions in taxes on both personal income and business investment, further spurring on economic activity and incentivizing hiring and wage increases. It’s also worth noting who is being hired and getting wage increases.

Thanks to the Trump administration’s enforcement of immigration law, we’ve seen the number of native-born Americans with jobs rise more than 2.6 million over the last 12 months, while the number of jobs among foreign-born workers has fallen slightly.

This is exactly the opposite of what we saw under Biden, where much of his last year in office was marred by annual declines in the number of jobs among native-born Americans while all net job growth went to foreign-born workers.

In fact, for the entirety of the Biden administration, the annual percentage increase in jobs among foreign-born workers exceeded that of native-born Americans, but Trump has flipped this. Now, for the first time in more than four years, the growth rate for jobs among native-born Americans exceeds that of their foreign-born counterparts.

This is an important point because it illustrates that America isn’t just some economic zone wherein all people and jobs are interchangeable, but she’s a nation, and Trump has chosen to prioritize that nation’s people.

For Americans, it’s a totally different situation if two million jobs are added to the economy but they all go to other people versus two million more Americans being employed.

So, the winning formula has been something like this: reduce government spending, taxation, and regulation, encourage reliable energy production, and support a healthy labor market for Americans. These things have undoubtedly helped us make progress in alleviating the cost-of-living crisis.

How do we go the rest of the way and fully dig out of this hole? We double down on this successful agenda.

The administration should go full throttle on its efforts to right-size the government, including ramping up the efforts of the Department of Government Efficiency and supercharging the push for deregulation.

That’s especially true for housing, where we desperately need to cut red tape and let homebuilders bring more supply to market, thereby putting downward pressure on prices. But it’s not just burdensome regulation on home construction that needs to be corrected. It’s also ancillary factors like financial regulations that affect the mortgage market, which is inseparable from the housing market, that need to be overhauled.

All these places where government has its tendrils are performing suboptimally and getting the government out of the way will allow the private market to self-correct and answer the demand for more homes.

Similarly, for the sake of Americans’ pocketbooks and especially considering the huge electricity demand from A.I., we need to flood the market with more generation capacity. Take all the clean coal power plants out of mothballs. Cancel all future solar and wind projects. Fast-track all natural gas and nuclear projects on the drawing board.

While we’re at it, cut the red tape for the oil sector as well to bring prices at the pump down even more, giving consumers additional relief. Lower energy prices will put downward pressure on prices on all other prices throughout the economy.

All the while, keep cutting government spending and payrolls, get additional tax relief done for individuals and businesses, and keep enforcing immigration law.

This has been the winning formula for the Trump administration to get earnings growth to outpace inflation. If you want more of these positive results, you must do more of what caused them.

Keep your foot down on the throttle, Mr. President, and you’ll not only make life more affordable, but more affordable than ever.

DOJ Decides If Government Agency Can Perform Abortions

The Department of Justice has reversed the Biden administration’s decision to allow Department of Veterans Affairs doctors to perform abortions on the taxpayers’ dime.

After the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Biden administration told Veterans Affairs doctors that they could perform abortions, even though federal law prohibits taxpayers from funding abortion.

In 2022, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel advised that federal law authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs and its employees to provide abortion services.

Trump’s Office of Legal Counsel on Dec. 18 withdrew this opinion, instead saying that the VA may not provide abortion services.

“DOJ’s opinion states that VA is not legally authorized to provide abortions, and VA is complying with it immediately,” VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz told The Daily Signal. “DOJ’s opinion is consistent with VA’s proposed rule, which continues to work its way through the regulatory process.”

In 1992, Congress passed the Veterans Health Care Act, amending Title 38 of the U.S. Code to expand and improve health care for female veterans. The law orders the VA to provide “[g]eneral reproductive health care” to women, but it expressly prohibits “infertility services, abortions, or pregnancy care (including prenatal and delivery care), except for such care relating to a pregnancy that is complicated or in which the risks of complication are increased by a service-connected condition.”

The Biden administration removed the exclusion on abortion counseling and established exceptions to the exclusion on abortions.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Josh Craddock wrote that existing law “unambiguously commands that VA may not provide abortions when furnishing medical care under 38 U.S.C. § 1710 or any other provision in chapter 17 of Title 38.”

“Nothing about our interpretation of section 106 undermines VA’s authority to provide infertility services or authorized pregnancy care, however,” Craddock wrote.

The VA announced in August that it reversed the policy allowing taxpayer-funded abortion services to be provided to veterans.

The VA said it will return its medical package and Civilian Health and Medical Program benefits to the time before the 2022 agency rule.

“It is without question that VA has the authority to bar provision of abortion services through the VA medical benefits package to veterans,” the memo read.

This One Issue Is Driving Gen Z to the Right

PHOENIX—All eyes were on Gen Z this weekend as more than 10,000 students gathered at Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest, where speakers and panels discussed the issues motivating Gen Z heading into a pivotal election year.

After making impressive inroads with young voters in the 2024 presidential election, the conservative movement is vigorously debating how to address young voters’ concerns heading into the 2026 midterms and the 2028 presidential election.

From the main stage to The Daily Signal’s interviews with students in attendance, one issue rose above the rest: affordability.

Affordability Is Everything

“Probably the most important economic issue of our time today is affordable housing. Gen Z is going into a housing market that is practically unaffordable,” said Gabe Guidarini, a TPUSA Action field representative. “We have to pay rent just to get by, working multiple incomes. You shouldn’t have to work multiple incomes just to rent an apartment, let alone own a house.”

Guidarini was one of several Gen Z speakers featured at a breakout session called “The Gen Z Factor,” which discussed why young voters shifted to the right in 2024 and how conservatives could make further inroads.

Adam Pennings, director of Run Gen Z, an organization dedicated to electing Gen Z leaders to local public office, also focused on affordability in the breakout session.

“Affordability is on every young person’s mind,” Pennings said.

“If you see a young person in college, I guarantee you they’re worried about if they’re going to find a job. The job market is not a great place,” Pennings said. “The housing market is not a great place. The healthcare system is not a great place and they’re very worried about that.”

Guidarini warned of the consequences if Republicans ignore the issue, “If the GOP doesn’t address (the affordability crisis), then what’s to stop socialist demagogues like Zohran Mamdani and his people from selling us a rotten bag of goods. The GOP needs to take firm stances on that and fight for young people.”

The Gen Z Focus

In the 2024 election, Republicans saw a 14-point increase in support from voters aged 18 to 29 compared to 2012, according to The New York Times.

Turning Point USA and its slain founder Charlie Kirk have received a large amount of credit for laying the groundwork for this cultural and political shift among Gen Z voters.

In the wake of Kirk’s murder, Turning Point USA has redoubled its efforts to politically and spiritually activate young people.

And students have responded to these efforts. Since Kirk’s murder on Sept. 10, the organization has received over 140,000 student requests, bringing total involvement to more than 1 million students. Turning Point USA boasts over 3,000 active high school clubs and over 1,000 college chapters. At AmericaFest alone, Turning Point USA estimated 200 new clubs were formed.

There is an undeniable sense of urgency because Gen Z could prove to be the difference between victory and defeat in 2026 and 2028.

Students’ Affordability Concerns

Guidarini’s and Pennings’ concerns about affordability reflected the views of the Gen Z conference goers that spoke to The Daily Signal.

“Democrats have made my life worse because as a college student, I am already broke enough,” said Chris, a 22-year-old college senior. “They’re already taxing the heck out of us, and I don’t think I’ll be able to live in California any more with all these stupid tax policies.”

California has the highest income tax margins in the country, ranging from 1% to 13.3% based on income.

Matthew, a 19-year-old student, told The Daily Signal he believes “having Donald Trump as president or a Republican as a president is going to make [paying taxes] a lot easier.”

Earnings growth has outpaced inflation this year and the average American's weekly paycheck now buys 1.6% more than in Jan, after falling 4.0% under Biden – what a difference a president makes… pic.twitter.com/bVOJ0NhDag
— E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) December 18, 2025

The “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” the budget reconciliation package Trump signed into law in July, extended the 2017 Trump tax cuts and included provisions such as no tax on tips or overtime.

The president has recently claimed that 2026 will be the “largest tax refund season of all time.”

Beyond taxation, another major affordability concern is the price of housing, which has delayed or prevented many young Americans and their families from owning a home.

In the 1960’s roughly 35% of 30 year olds were married and owned a home. Today that number is 12%.

TRUST IN TRUMP: Prices are steady, and wages are outpacing inflation! ??

President Trump's policies and bold deregulation are continuing to drive inflation down and put MORE MONEY in Americans' pockets.? pic.twitter.com/fQkq4HNOa6
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) December 18, 2025

The Trump administration has looked to encourage home building and lower housing costs through slashing regulations and lowering energy prices.

For weeks, however, the administration has teased a larger initiative to lower housing prices, and reports suggest Trump could announce this reform effort in the coming days or weeks.

Gas Prices Are the Lowest in Years. So Why Does Filling Up a Tank Break the Bank?

There’s a good chance that if you’re filling up your car today, you’re paying the lowest price in four years. According to December AAA data, the national average gas price is about $2.90 per gallon—marking the first time it has fallen below $3 since 2021.

Despite this decline, a Fox News poll found that 54% of registered voters still believe gas prices have “increased a lot” or “increased a little” compared to a year ago.

Why does gas still feel costly for so many Americans? In large part, Democrats’ aggressive green energy policies are causing gas prices to remain elevated in many states.

In an effort to discourage the use of fossil fuels, many Democrat-run states have imposed costly state gas taxes.

California, Illinois, and Washington have some of the highest state gas taxes in the nation. California’s state gas tax is nearly $0.71 per gallon. By contrast, my home state of Texas has one of the lowest state gas taxes in the country at just $0.20 per gallon.

It’s no surprise these high state taxes significantly increase the price consumers pay at the pump. California, Illinois, and Washington all report gas prices above the national average.

In California and Washington, prices exceed $4 per gallon. Meanwhile, Texas drivers enjoy prices closer to $2.50 per gallon, with some stations reporting prices as low as $1.96 per gallon, according to data from GasBuddy.

But state policies are only one part of the problem. On the federal level, the previous administration enacted unprecedented restrictions on U.S. oil and natural gas production.

In 2022, President Joe Biden canceled all the remaining offshore lease sales in the Gulf of America and Alaska. Only after pressure from a federal court and Congress did the Biden administration authorize one lease sale every two years in the Gulf of America.

The Biden administration further tightened regulations on energy development, blocked liquefied natural gas exports and spent billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing green energy projects.

Then, on his way out the door, Biden issued an executive order blocking offshore oil and natural gas leases on more than 625 million acres of U.S. coastal and offshore waters.

These radical green energy policies had real consequences—U.S. energy companies canceled developments, foreign energy suppliers profited, and domestic gas prices surged. When lease sales are sporadic and scarce, American energy producers cannot plan long-term investments, and consumers pay more at the pump.

In short, the past policies of the Biden administration have a lasting effect on today’s energy markets.

That’s why President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are working together to implement the same strategy that kept the national average gas price below $3 during Trump’s first term.

Americans benefit when the federal government supports U.S. energy production through deregulation and by eliminating costly green energy mandates. These reforms jump start domestic production and help deliver lower energy costs.

In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, my Republican colleagues and I reopened millions of acres for offshore oil and gas leasing and require at least 30 offshore lease sales each year from 2026 to 2039. These reforms will jump-start domestic energy production and help deliver lower energy costs for families and businesses.

Last month, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management announced the final notice of sale for one oil and gas lease sale in the Gulf of America. More than just a minor administrative announcement, this is a sign that more affordable energy is on the way.

It’s critical that we continue reversing the Biden administration’s restrictive energy policies so domestic businesses can plan for long-term growth.

Americans want abundant and affordable energy, not extreme green energy mandates.

Expanding America’s domestic energy production is key to lowering gas prices, creating jobs, and growing the economy. Policies that support U.S. energy will fuel economic expansion and improve affordability for millions of Americans.

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

DHS Encourages Illegal Aliens to Go ‘Home for the Holidays’ With $3,000 Stipend

Illegal aliens who choose to self-deport “home for the holidays” will be given $3,000.

“During the Christmas Season, the U.S. taxpayer is so generously TRIPLING the incentive to leave voluntarily for those in this country illegally, offering a $3,000 exit bonus, but just until the end of the year,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement Monday morning.

DHS has been offering illegal aliens $1,000 to self-deport through a Customs and Border Protection app, an offer many illegal aliens have accepted, according to Noem.

“Since January 2025, 1.9 million illegal aliens have voluntarily self-deported and tens of thousands have used the CBP Home program,” the secretary said.

In addition to the $3,000 stipend, illegal aliens who use the CBP Home app will also receive a free flight “home in time for Christmas.”

This Christmas season, the U.S. taxpayer is generously TRIPLING the incentive for illegal aliens to leave voluntarily. Through the end of the year, illegal aliens who self-deport using the CBP Home App can receive a $3,000 exit bonus.

Illegal aliens should take advantage of this… pic.twitter.com/AKQZChPYfZ
— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) December 22, 2025

“Illegal aliens should take advantage of this gift and self-deport because if they don’t, we will find them, we will arrest them, and they will never return,” Noem said.

$3,000 TO LEAVE NOW.

In addition to a free flight home, illegal aliens can sign up to self-deport through the CBP Home app by the end of the year to receive a $3,000 stipend once they return.

If you do not self-deport, we will find you, we will arrest you, and you will never be… pic.twitter.com/aPouoh0Ouu
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) December 22, 2025

DHS is calling Christmastime self-deportation “the best gift that an illegal alien can give themselves and their families this holiday season. It’s a fast, free, and easy process: Just download the app, fill out your information, and DHS will take care of the rest—including arranging and paying for your travel back home.”

Illegal aliens who do not self-deport will be “arrested, deported, and they will never be able to return to the United States,” according to DHS.

The administration has deported over 600,000 illegal aliens since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January and plans to increase deportation efforts in 2026.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement is currently in the process of hiring 10,000 new agents to conduct arrests and help with deportations.

Trump Administration Announces Change to Offshore Wind Construction

President Donald Trump’s Department of the Interior is pausing offshore wind project construction due to “national security risks.”

“Due to national security concerns identified by the Department of War, Interior is PAUSING leases for 5 expensive, unreliable, heavily subsidized offshore wind farms!” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum wrote on X.

“ONE natural gas pipeline supplies as much energy as these 5 projects COMBINED,” Burgum added. “POTUS is bringing common sense back to energy policy & putting security FIRST!”

In a press release obtained by Fox Digital, the Interior Department said the pause will “give the Department, along with the Department of War and other relevant government agencies, time to work with leaseholders and state partners to assess the possibility of mitigating the national security risks posed by these projects.”

Burgum aims to address risks like “the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our east coast population centers.”

Leases with Vineyard Wind 1, Revolution Wind, CVOW, Sunrise Wind, and Empire Wind will be paused.

Shortly after Trump’s inauguration, he issued a memorandum temporarily stopping offshore wind energy leasing on federal waters and halting approvals, permits, and loans for all wind projects pending a comprehensive review.

During his campaign, Trump promised to end offshore wind energy projects “on Day One.”

“We are going to make sure that that ends on day one,” he said. “I’m going to write it out in an executive order. It’s going to end on Day One.”

Throw the Book at Them: American Library Association Is (Still) Grooming Our Kids

Imagine if your 15-year-old came to my house, and I gave them a book about edgy sex positions? What if I gave your 16-year-old a book with graphic illustrations of oral or anal sex?

Would you be happy with that? Or would you be mighty suspicious of me?

Many parents may not know it, but there is an ongoing fight over certain books and whether they should be given to minors without their parents’ knowledge or consent. That’s what the American Library Association wants. The ALA recently launched a nationwide campaign against so-called book bans, with ALA President Sam Helmick (they/them) saying it is about the “freedom to read.”

Except, the ALA’s critics do not want to “ban” anything. Nor do they want to challenge the freedom to read—I know because I’m one of them. We do, however, want people to know that the ALA wants inappropriate materials in your kids’ hands, regardless of your parental preferences.

In 2023, Sen. Mike Lee revealed a video of Deborah Caldwell-Stone, then-director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, admitting that the ALA is reframing sexually inappropriate content for minors as “diverse materials” focused on “inclusion.” Caldwell-Stone said the previously quiet part out loud.

It shocked me because I always thought that ALA librarians were the “good guys.” After all, who ever imagined that librarians would play the part of creepy guy in a trenchcoat?

But some of society’s most trusted leaders misuse their power and prestige as cover, at the expense of our kids (think about the Catholic priest scandals). While a tiny percentage of priests are up to no good, the wrongdoers use the cover of their innocent job titles to engage in perverse conduct. In a similar vein, librarians who want to “reframe” perverse fetish instruction manuals as “diverse education” aren’t thinking about your kids’ best interests.

One of the books in question is “Let’s Talk About It,” which is aimed at teenagers with graphic images of how to insert butt plugs or advice on fetish pornography websites. Another is “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” which contains multiple pages of illustrations depicting oral sex. The explicit images were entered into the congressional record in 2023 for all to see (fair warning). The pictures are worth a thousand words.

I have reported on these developments at the ALA through my blog “SafeLibraries,” exposing those who are advocating for minors to read books like “Gender Queer” without parental knowledge.

I have regularly posted on social media about how this exposure constitutes “grooming,” and I have revealed individual librarians who are intent—with the ALA’s backing—on keeping these books available to kids.

One such librarian is Amanda Jones, who has publicly supported “Gender Queer” and “Let’s Talk About It” as suitable for kids. Those who dare to question “Gender Queer,” are in her words, “targeting LGBTQ and other marginalized communities.”

Now, Jones has sued me in federal court for defamation and false light for calling that “grooming.” (I have filed an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the case with the help of veteran First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, and it is currently pending.) I stand by that opinion.

Let’s be very clear: This is not a partisan issue. So-called book bans are abhorrent, and even sexually explicit books like “Gender Queer” have a place on Amazon.com or at Barnes & Noble. However, that place is not somewhere kids have unfettered access.

None of us—Democrat or Republican—grew up in a world with images of blowjobs or butt plugs on the shelves. Is it “banning books” if the public library doesn’t stock Marquis De Sade? Is it “censorship” when sexual content can be found everywhere but the kids’ section?

For the ALA and individual librarians to recommend books about “marginalized communities,” that is one thing. As they grow older, kids should learn about differences in race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. But a 14-year-old should never be encouraged by their local librarian to read about oral or anal sex—full stop.

This is not normal. Even left-wing friends of mine have been repulsed after skimming “Gender Queer,” especially at a time when U.S. literacy is plummeting (according to even leftist librarians). Nevertheless, the ALA has joined forces with Hollywood to celebrate Amanda Jones in a new documentary called “The Librarians,” ironically produced by “Sex and the City” actress Sarah Jessica Parker.

I have been called a “Nazi” and a “fascist” for taking this stance, which is shared by parents on both sides of the political aisle. But the ALA won’t silence us, and it is time for all parents to speak out against child grooming—especially in our libraries.

Originally published by RealClearPolitics

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

Daily Signal Reaches 1 Million Subscribers on YouTube

The Daily Signal reached 1 million followers on YouTube Friday, capping off an incredible year of growth for its video content.

In 2025 alone, The Daily Signal has added over 600,000 subscribers to its YouTube channel and increased its annual video views by over 400%.

“We have provided original, smart conservative commentary and reporting, and our rapidly growing audience has shown there was a hunger for that type of video content,” says Tim Kennedy, digital media manager for The Daily Signal.

Daily Signal senior contributor Victor Davis Hanson started a new video series for The Daily Signal in 2025, which has been tremendously popular.

The series, called “Victor Davis Hanson: In a Few Words,” features the renowned historian’s analysis of the news in videos 10 minutes or shorter, perfect for a busy audience. That series has just under 100 million views on YouTube this year—and millions more on other social media platforms.

>>> How to subscribe to The Daily Signal YouTube channel:

Daily Signal national correspondent Tony Kinnett, who helms the popular “Tony Kinnett Cast” and “Top News in 10” shows, has also played an outsized role in the channel’s growth.

“The Tony Kinnett Cast,” which airs every weekday at 7 p.m. ET, features Kinnett’s provocative analysis of the national news that matters for conservatives—and it’s found a huge audience, reaching over 16 million viewers this year.

“It’s all due to our incredible community. When we took the show from a local program on WIBC in Indianapolis to a nationally syndicated program out of The Daily Signal, we weren’t expecting the level of support we received from our YouTube subscribers,” says Kinnett.

“Maybe it’s uncouth to focus as much on our livestream chats and comment section as we do, but I’m afraid I don’t care. I’d rather pay attention to our audience than some ratings tracker in New York or Los Angeles any day.”

The Daily Signal’s YouTube channel also features two other weekly shows, “The Signal Sitdown” and “Problematic Women.”

“The Signal Sitdown” features politics editor Bradley Devlin’s interviews with top Washington, D.C., insiders. Devlin’s interviews have been featured in places as varied as The Washington Post and President Donald Trump’s Truth Social feed. This year, “The Signal Sitdown” guest list included White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Sens. Rand Paul and Eric Schmitt, and more.

“Problematic Women” is a show for and by young conservative women who don’t fit the radical Left’s mold, providing viewers with unique pro-American takes on pop culture, policy debates, and politics—because it is “not wrong to be right.”

This year, The Daily Signal has focused extensively on YouTube because it’s the social media platform most used by adults in the United States, according to Pew Research Center. Eighty-five percent of adults, and a whopping 93% of 18- to 29-year-olds use YouTube. It’s not just for cat videos: One-third of Americans say they use YouTube to get news.

“Since founding The Daily Signal in 2014, we’ve operated with the goal of reaching Americans across a variety of platforms, recognizing they have a limited amount of time to consume the news and a deep distrust of legacy media,” said Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of The Daily Signal.

“I’m incredibly proud of our team for achieving this milestone and can’t wait to continue building on this success in 2026.”

The YouTube milestone caps off an incredible year of social media growth for The Daily Signal. The Daily Signal began 2025 with 2 million followers across YouTube, X, Facebook, Truth Social, Rumble, and Instagram, and has already tripled that number to 6 million followers across platforms.

If you value The Daily Signal, we hope you will consider fueling our critical efforts today. Please make your best tax-deductible monthly or annual gift by clicking on this link.

Minnesota Fraud Exposes the Baked-In Flaws of Welfare

The U.S. welfare system is broken, and the Minnesota scandal is a blaring warning to that reality.

The failure of political leaders on many fronts bears some of the blame. But the main culprit is the massive federal welfare system that annually passes hundreds of billions of dollars down to states to dole out, with the philosophy that the more people on the rolls, the better.

The structure of the U.S. welfare system creates incentives for states to expand the rolls—and little incentive for them to ensure that money is going to those who truly need it. As welfare rolls expand, programs receive more money. It’s a system based on the Democratic perspective that government should provide more support to more people.

And the U.S. welfare system is massive. It consists of roughly 90 different programs that cost more than $1 trillion annually.

Because the majority of U.S. welfare funding comes from the federal government, states have reason to expand their rolls and little financial incentive to protect against waste and fraud.

And massive fraud is what happened in Minnesota.

The state’s welfare scandals went like this: Nonprofits, or alleged nonprofits, claimed to be serving people in need. That enabled them to receive hundreds of millions in federal funding, or a mix of state and federal dollars. The scammers then took the money that was supposedly for the needy and pocketed it. Fraudsters used this playbook to steal money from a federal child nutrition program, a Medicaid housing program, and a federal program for children with autism, to the tune of billions of dollars.

Over a few years—including the COVID-19 years when government spent not only like drunken sailors, but drunken sailors on uppers—the number of “people” these Minnesota “nonprofits” were serving skyrocketed, along with the taxpayer dollars they received to fund their “services.” Because the alleged rolls were growing for these programs, government provided more dollars. And the scammers made off like bandits.

It’s not that the blue state of Minnesota and its politicians are happy about the fraud that occurred or that they cheer welfare scammers. But when the mindset is that growing welfare rolls are a sign of success, and that people are entitled to benefits—and when welfare funding flows readily—the ground is fertile for exploitation.

Beyond the fraud and the unsustainable costs of the current U.S. welfare system, perhaps more tragically is that it fails to address the underlying causes of poverty. It is a system based on inputs rather than on promoting upward mobility.

After 60 years of the war on poverty, taxpayers are spending an ever-increasing amount of money on welfare programs. Yet poverty—or more accurately, self-sufficiency—in the U.S. has remained flat.

Government throws money at material poverty but fails to address deeper human needs that drive poverty, like lack of work and family breakdown. And sadly, the welfare system undermines or penalizes work and marriage, which are the greatest protectors against poverty.

The scandal in Minnesota should be a wake-up call on multiple fronts. One of the urgent calls should be the need for welfare reform. There are many ways the system should be reformed—work requirements for able-bodied adults, getting rid of marriage penalties, and better prioritizing spending—but perhaps most relevant to the current scandal would be changing the funding structure and the way success is measured.

First, to better protect against fraud, states should be required to fund more of the welfare system themselves. Passing down dollars from the federal government to states creates a lack of accountability and makes it easier for fraud to occur. But this isn’t the only change. After all, not all the money scammed away in Minnesota was federal funding.

Programs should also be funded based on whether they promote upward mobility, not based on the number of people they serve. Welfare reform in 1996 restructured the largest cash assistance program at the time, in part, by ending the structure of more money for larger welfare rolls.

Instead, states were provided a fixed funding stream and rewarded if they helped move people into work and off the roles. The 1996 reform worked to decrease poverty, even among some of the most vulnerable populations. More welfare programs should be designed like this.

Another option would be a “pay for outcomes” structure, where programs are funded when they meet an agreed upon outcome: increasing graduation rates, boosting employment, raising participants’ income, etc. Rather than paying for inputs, a pay-for-outcomes model rewards a program after it proves itself.

These are just a few recommendations. But they would be a good start toward turning the broken welfare system into what it should be—a system that helps people improve their lives. These reforms would also help make sure that what happened in Minnesota never, ever happens again.

Originally published by Fox News

Vance Addresses MAGA Infighting at AmericaFest

Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Katrina Trinko / David Azerrad / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Rob Bluey / Victor Davis Hanson / Victor Davis Hanson / Virginia Allen / Bryan Burack / Virginia Grace McKinnon / Reagan Dugan / Paul Runko / Steve McKee / EJ Antoni / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Virginia Grace McKinnon / Rep. Craig Goldman / Virginia Allen / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / Dan Kleinman / Katrina Trinko / Rachel Sheffield / Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell / December 21, 2025

Vice President JD Vance said Republicans have more important work to do than cancelling each other.

“I didn’t bring a list of conservatives to denounce or to de-platform, and I don’t really care if some people out there—I’m sure we’ll have the fake news media denounced me after this speech—but let me just say the best way to honor Charlie is that none of us here should be doing something after Charlie’s death that he himself refused to do in life,” Vance said at Turning Point USA’s America Fest conference, the first since the assassination of founder Charlie Kirk.

Vance addressed infighting in the conservative movement following America Fest speeches where conservative leaders shot arrows at each other.

Ben Shapiro, the first speaker after Charlie Kirk’s wife Erika, called right-wing pundits Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon “frauds and grifters.” In his speech, Carlson shot back, calling Shapiro “pompous.”

“Calls to de-platform at a Charlie Kirk event?” Carlson said. “That’s hilarious.”

Vance said he will fight alongside all conservatives.

“When I say that I’m going to fight alongside of you, I mean, all of you, each and every one,” Vance said. “President Trump did not build the greatest coalition in politics by running his supporters through endless, self-defeating purity tests. He says, ‘Make America Great Again’ because every American is invited.”

The conservative movement will build “by adding, by growing, not by tearing down,” Vance argued.

“We’re building a better country right now, and you have a rightful place in the success of your nation and the success of this movement,” Vance said.

“Charlie Kirk was a great builder, too,” he continued. “He understood that any family can have its disagreements, it’s tough conversations. We can learn and improve and treat one another better. We can love each other despite the disagreement, but winning demands teamwork, and I’m honored to be on Turning Point’s team. I’m honored to be on your team, and I will stay that way.”

The only thing the Trump administration demands for Americans to be on their team is to be a great “patriot,” the vice president said.

“Charlie invited all of us here for a reason, because he believed that each of us, all of us, had something worth saying, and he trusted all of you to make your own judgment, and we have far more important work to do, than canceling each other,” he said.

America Is Surviving, Not Living, and It’s Breaking Us

Life in America doesn’t feel like life right now. It feels like triage.

People get up, commute, grind through work, juggle kids and side hustles, scroll through their phones in bed until their eyes burn, then do it again tomorrow. They are surviving, but they are not living.

The numbers explain why.

The average American now carries around $100,000 in total consumer debt, once you add mortgages, credit cards, auto loans, and student loans, according to recent Experian data.

Total household debt has reached a record $18.6 trillion, up more than $4 trillion since just before the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, new surveys suggest roughly seven in 10 Americans feel they are living paycheck to paycheck, up sharply from just a few years ago. When that many people are one layoff, one medical bill or one blown transmission away from disaster, you don’t get a peaceful society.

You get a country permanently clenched.

A 2024 national study found 84% of Americans experience financial stress, driven above all by the cost of food and housing, and the lack of savings.

Another survey from Empower shows people now spend close to four hours a day thinking about money—for younger adults, that number is even higher. That isn’t financial planning; it is mental captivity. You cannot dream big when your brain is stuck in an endless loop of, “How am I going to pay for this?”

The pressure doesn’t stop at the wallet.

Kaiser Family Foundation data show that roughly 1 in 3 adults reports symptoms of anxiety or depression. Federal health statistics estimate that more than one in five Americans lives with some form of mental illness. Among younger adults, the picture is worse still: The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that about half of those aged 18 to 24 have anxiety or depression symptoms. That is a rising generation stepping into adulthood already exhausted.

Anger is the exhaust of all this pressure.

People lash out at politicians, bosses, corporations or each other because they don’t see any safe outlet for their fear. Social media monetizes anger by keeping us outraged and glued to our screens. But beneath the daily fights over politics and culture is a simpler reality: Millions of Americans feel life is slipping out of their control.

Meanwhile, our spiritual foundations are eroding.

On a typical weekend, only about 3 in 10 American adults now attend religious services, down from roughly 42% two decades ago. A majority seldom or never goes to church. Younger generations are the least connected to organized religion and are far more likely to say they have no religious affiliation at all. When people are stretched thin financially and emotionally, God becomes one more thing they “don’t have time for.”

Yet removing God and community from the picture has not made Americans calmer or happier. It has made them more isolated. People still worship—but they worship politics, celebrities, or themselves. They chase meaning in consumerism, online tribes, or the next outrage cycle, and they end up lonelier and more resentful. We have more comfort and entertainment than any society in history, and yet we are anxious, debt-burdened, and spiritually malnourished.

So, what do we do?

First, we need leaders willing to tell the truth about the cost-of-living crisis and the debt trap.

Both parties helped build an economy that runs on easy credit while housing, health care and education spiral out of reach. A serious politics would prioritize productive work, stable families and broad-based ownership over financial speculation and permanent dependency. Policies that reward saving rather than constant borrowing, encourage building and homeownership, and stop treating young Americans as nothing more than student loan collateral.

Second, we have to rebuild community on purpose.

Policy can help—encouraging walkable neighborhoods, strengthening local institutions, and supporting family formation—but it cannot substitute for the choice to be rooted. That means neighbors who know each other, families that put phones down at dinner, and churches that focus less on partisan theater and more on caring for broken people. A society of isolated individuals staring at screens will always feel on edge, no matter what the gross domestic product numbers say.

Third, we must treat the mental health crisis as both a medical and a moral challenge.

Therapy and medication can be lifesaving, but they cannot manufacture purpose. People need responsibilities that matter, relationships that endure, and a vision of life that goes beyond consumption and self-expression. Politics can make it easier or harder to build that kind of life, but it cannot replace the hard work of commitment, forgiveness, and self-discipline.

Finally, we have to stop sprinting away from God and then wondering why everything feels empty. The American experiment was never meant to function on material prosperity alone. It assumed a people who believed they were accountable to something higher than their appetites and their politics. If we abandon that, we should not be surprised when public life becomes vicious and private life becomes joyless.

Right now, too many Americans are white-knuckling their way through each month—nervous, numb, and spiritually adrift. Changing course will require more than a new policy or a new president. It will require rebuilding the financial, social, and spiritual foundations that make real life possible—and having the honesty to admit that our souls are just as overdrawn as our credit cards.

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

Government Control in the Digital Age

Politicians push government IDs.

In a Transportation Security Administration announcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sternly warns, “You will need a REAL ID to travel by air or visit federal buildings.”

European politicians go much further, reports Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev.

They’re pushing government-mandated digital IDs that tie your identity to nearly everything you do.

Spain’s prime minister promises “an end to anonymity” online!

Britain’s prime minister warns, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.”

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands enthusiastically told the World Economic Forum that digital IDs are good for knowing “who actually got a vaccination or not.”

Many American tech leaders also like digital IDs.

The second richest man in the world, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, says, “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything.”

That’s a good thing?

“That is a recipe for disaster and totalitarianism!” says privacy specialist Naomi Brockwell. “Privacy is not about hiding. It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A digital ID will strip individuals of that choice.”

“I already have a government-issued ID,” says Tokarev. “Why is a digital one worse?”

“It connects everything,” says Brockwell. “Your financial decisions, social media posts, your likes, things that you’re watching, places you’re going. You won’t be able to voice things anonymously online anymore. Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

Digital ID backers say the new ID will make life easier.

“You can access your own money, make payments so much more easily,” says the U.K.’s prime minister.

Yes, says Brockwell, “until those services start saying, ‘No, you can’t use our system.’”

Even without a digital ID, Canada froze the bank accounts of truckers who protested COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

With a digital ID, politicians could do that much more easily.

“You’re essentially putting a giant target on every aspect of your life,” warns Brockwell, “wrapping it up in a nice bow and saying, ‘Here, if you want to control me, just untie this.’”

In the U.S., many states are passing age verification laws that require you to identify yourself and prove your age before accessing certain websites.

Proponents say this will protect kids from dangerous content.

“Unfortunately, politicians just can’t promise that it will only ever be used for that,” says Brockwell. “You always have governments with these great-sounding bills called the ‘Let’s Stop All the Bad People Doing All the Bad Things’ Bill. … But what they’re voting for is a system of control and oppression. … You’ll be ranked based on past activities and choices that you’ve made.”

China does that.

People with low social credit scores may be denied entry into schools or find they cannot buy a train ticket.

“It makes you super easy to target,” says Brockwell. “Easy to silence if suddenly you become ‘problematic.’ Whoever controls that data has a lot of power. We’re simply handing it to them. People need to be aware that they have no control over who will get access to this tool and who will control this tool in the future.”

Tokarev points out that companies like Facebook, Google, and Chase Bank already have her data. “Shouldn’t I trust my government more?”

“Governments, unlike companies, can throw you in jail,” Brockwell replies.

“This is America,” says Tokarev. “We’re not going to become China.”

“We are skyrocketing towards that direction!” insists Brockwell. “The surveillance infrastructure we’re trying to put in place in the United States is heading directly towards where China currently is.”

What can we do about it?

“People need to be reminded that they’re empowered to actually affect that change,” says Brockwell. “They can reach out to representatives; they can push back. Protect themselves and not build this infrastructure in the first place.”

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

California Church Appeals to SCOTUS Over $1.2M in COVID-19 Fines

Almost three years after the COVID-19 pandemic was officially declared over, a church in California is still facing over $1.2 million in fines for keeping its doors open to minister to the spiritual needs of the public.

Calvary Chapel San Jose’s legal saga began in August 2020 when county inspectors reportedly “made 44 visits to the church” over the next five months due to Pastor Mike McClure’s refusal to cancel the church’s in-person services. At the time, California’s public health orders that regulated which businesses could remain open due to being deemed “essential” notably favored retail stores, bars, casinos, and restaurants, while requiring churches to remain closed. At one point, even strip clubs were allowed to remain open while other businesses were required to close.

State officials eventually ordered Calvary Chapel to pay over $1.2 million in fines for continuing to hold public services. But the church fought back by filing a lawsuit against Santa Clara County in August 2023, claiming that county officials surveilled the church in violation of its constitutional rights.

“This type of expansive geofencing operation is not only an invasion of privacy but represents a terrifying precedent if allowed to go unaddressed,” the suit stated. It went on to note, “The county consistently imposed harsher restrictions on churches and fined Calvary millions of dollars while overlooking other large gatherings,” citing protests, weddings, and graduation parties.

On Monday, the American Center for Law and Justice petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case. The ACLJ pointed out that Calvary Chapel was specifically required to, at various times, “limit the number of congregants, socially distance the worshippers, ban them from singing, and require them to wear face masks,” while various other gatherings and businesses were allowed a wide range of exceptions to the COVID-19 rules.

Robert Tyler, who serves as president and chief counsel at Advocates for Faith and Freedom, the firm representing Pastor Mike McClure, joined Tuesday’s edition of “Washington Watch” to analyze the case.

“[L]et’s not forget that five years ago we were in lockdown, particularly here in California,” he recounted. “Californians were told, you can’t go to church, you can’t worship, you can’t sit down in a service, you can’t sing, you can’t raise your hands, you can’t lay your hands on people, you can’t take Communion, you can’t be baptized. Uh, these were things that were going on in California … five years ago.”

Tyler continued, “Pastor Mike McClure and the church had a restraining order that we were fighting off. Pastor Mike was being brought up on contempt charges in December [2020] and again in January [2021]. And so we fought, and Pastor Mike [was] convicted in his heart saying, ‘This isn’t right. We have a First Amendment and we have a right to worship, and the government can’t come in and tell us that you cannot pray with someone and lay hands on them.’ Especially when at the time people were not mass dying from COVID. They were dying from suicide, kids were being abused by their abusers, locked in homes. It was a horrible time. And so Mike is standing and continues to stand, and we’re standing with him five years later.”

Tyler further described how Calvary Chapel was forced to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court due to the failures of the California court system. “[T]hey issued $1.2 million in fines [and] upheld those fines. … Although, they started out [at] $4 million, we got them down substantially. But here we are today and a church is being fined. Not much different than what we’re seeing in South Korea right now, where you have just a lot of craziness going on over there with this new president over there. We’ve got to be careful here in the United States.”

Tyler went on to elaborate on how part of what is at issue in the case is a disputed definition of the Constitution’s free exercise clause.

“[B]ack in the 1990, Justice [Antonin] Scalia actually gave us this pretty bad interpretation of the free exercise clause,” he explained. “We’ve had some development positively, and frankly, if the California courts had had applied the law as the U.S. Supreme Court gave us some interpretation back five years ago, … we wouldn’t be here today, but they didn’t apply it that way. … [I]t said you can’t go around and allow Costco and liquor stores to remain open and … not allow churches to remain open. … And here they’re trying to say, ‘Well, this is about masks. You have to be wearing masks.’ And Pastor Mike is saying, ‘Look, I’m a pastor. I’m not the mask police. If people want to come in and worship, we allow them to come in and worship.’ We’re saying that the government shouldn’t have the right to be able to step in and dictate how people are worshipping.”

Tyler concluded by underscoring that the Calvary Chapel case could have wide-ranging implications for the freedom of worship in the U.S.

“[W]e’re actually asking for the court to take another look at how [it] analyzes free exercise and actually go back to how it used to look at the free exercise clause, even before it did in the early 1990s, when the free exercise clause meant much more,” he contended. “… [W]hat happened is they weakened it so that government had a lot more leverage over churches and the free exercise of religion. We’re trying to give the leverage back to the free exercise of religion and take it away from the government.”

Originally published by The Washington Stand

The Piercing Cold of Christmas

Christmas evokes a warmth during the winter: bright lights, roaring fires, and good cheer with loved ones.

However, as St. Andrew’s Novena distinctly emphasizes, the “piercing cold” conditions of the first Christmas starkly contrast with the holiday season’s comforts, beckoning us to not only recognize Christ’s humility, but to care for the poor, forgotten, and the suffering.

The novena—spanning from the apostle’s feast day (Nov. 30) to Christmas Eve—is prayed 15 times a day. And while its roots are nebulous, most likely originating from Ireland, it humbly presents the harsh realities the Holy Family endured “at midnight, in Bethlehem” that further reveal God’s infinite love.

By subverting the typical grandeur of royal births, instead embracing the “piercing” elements in a stable, Christ, in this singular instance, revolutionized the course of history and humanity’s relationship with each other.

In so doing, God honors the poor and marginalized’s inherent dignity in perpetuity. Indeed, salvation is not reserved for merely the powerful, but also those who are deemed lowly. As Christ would teach during his earthly ministry, “The last shall be first, and the first shall be last.”

Certainly, one can reflect why “the Word became flesh” more than 2,000 years ago and not at any other point in time. However, in the centuries since, critics argue Christians purloined pagan myths and holidays, particularly Christmas; and there is a general consensus Jesus’ birth did not coincide with Dec. 25.

To be sure, the Gospels do not specify a date—but this does not negate Christmas Day’s historicity. Jesus’ birth is no myth. He was born in time—living, suffering, dying, and rising on the third day in ancient Israel. And much like the “piercing cold” of Christmas, He was pierced with a lance on Calvary.

In the wake of his resurrection, the seismic event in history, his disciples continue to proclaim this reality. Indeed, Christ’s death—much like His birth—subverted prior conceptions of class, race, wealth, and power.

In the ancient world, the very idea of Jesus’ divinity, after dying via crucifixion, was considered “scandalous, obscene, grotesque” because, as Tom Holland notes in “Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World,” divinity was reserved for the “greatest of the great—for victors, and heroes, and kings.”

If one believes in the Resurrection, then one must reconcile with his birth’s wonderfully contradictory nature: that poverty and eternal glory occupied the manger, as it did on the cross on Good Friday.

This is precisely why the St. Andrew’s Novena’s call to reflect on his birth’s environment is imperative—because of its physicality.

The Holy Family was poor; they uprooted from Nazareth to Bethlehem to comply with a Roman census; the Blessed Mother endured labor pains; they unsuccessfully searched for proper lodgings; and, while amongst animals, the wind struck them in the darkest hours. But precisely in this dark hour, Christ—the light of the world—broke into history. In fact, His life is history.

The first Christmas echoes daily in our own hearts, to believers and non-believers alike. Like that “piercing cold” night, Jesus continually knocks, seeking to transform and heal us. But as Pope Benedict XVI asked in a 2012 Christmas homily, “[D]o we really have room for God when he seeks to enter under our roof? Do we have time and space for him? Do we not actually turn away God himself?”

These questions extend to our treatment of neighbors, the impoverished, and those suffering temporally, mentally, and spiritually. Indeed, everyone is infinitely loved, formed in the image and likeness of God. Yet, too often, we fall short of this mission.

However, as Pope Leo XIV reminds us in his first apostolic exhortation, Dilexi Te, caring for those around us, particularly the poor, “has always been a central part” of Church tradition. Moreover, Christian charity serves as “a beacon as it were of evangelical light to illumine the hearts and guide the decisions of Christians in every age.”

Ultimately, Christmas is a day of gratitude—not only for those in our lives and the gifts received, but God’s blessings, sacrifice, and love. Yet St. Andrew’s Novena offers the opportunity to reflect on the elements Christ endured for our salvation, not only on Good Friday, but also at midnight in Bethlehem.

As we cozy up in warm blankets, carols, gifts, libations, and merriment, may we commit ourselves to also remember, in a tangible way, the poor and those suffering from the “piercing cold” afflictions of the day. In them, we will find Christ—our great hope.

Originally published by RealClearReligion.

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

This Christmas, Revive the Lost Art of Matchmaking

Forget Christmas socks, board games, or even cash. The gift many single young adults want most is a spouse. Put on your Santa hat and keep your eyes out for potential matches.

Marriage is a bedrock societal institution. It’s beneficial for those who tie the knot, too.

“Today, married women live longer, earn more, and report more meaning in their lives, compared to single women,” Sophie Anderson and Brad Wilcox wrote recently for the Institute for Family Studies. “They are also markedly happier than their single peers.”

Married men are better off, too. The truth about marriage is a pretty compelling sales pitch. And most young people are already convinced. Even accounting for a dip in recent years, a strong majority of young Americans desire marriage.

But many single adults encounter a major logistical difficulty. They’ve yet to find a potential spouse who they’re attracted to and who shares their values and goals. That’s where matchmaking comes in.

Consider how my brother-in-law, Rob, met his wife, Monica.

It was 2002. Rob was a cop in Eugene, Oregon, while Monica lived in Washington state. They didn’t know each other. But they had something better than a modern dating app—a family member on the lookout.

Monica’s aunt worked at a courthouse in Oregon. The aunt asked a friend if she knew any eligible young men for Monica. As it happened, her friend knew Rob and suggested him. The aunt soon met Rob and showed him Monica’s picture. She asked if he’d be interested in her. He sure was. After exchanging some emails, Monica came down from Washington state to meet him.

Seven months later, they were married.

Years later, it’s easy to take their relationship for granted, especially when you know their five children. Of course, they were going to get married and have a family. It had to be this way.

No, it didn’t. Their marriage was only possible because someone cared enough about Monica to play matchmaker.

These types of connections used to be commonplace. Part of that was of necessity. Decades ago, online dating didn’t exist. Singles needed family and friends to help them meet potential spouses. Now, singles can view the profiles of dozens of other singles on their phone.

It’s easier than ever to date, but marriage has been in a long decline. Part of that comes from changing values. It’s little wonder that marriage rates have dropped as society dissolved the connection between sex and marriage.

This suggests that while online dating can help those who are marriage-minded, it isn’t a cure-all. If a young adult’s online dating app had worked, he or she wouldn’t still be single. This is why family and friends shouldn’t stop playing matchmaker.

Think about a single young adult you know. Perhaps it’s a grandchild, niece, nephew, or just a friend. You know something about their character and big-picture goals. Imagine you come across or already know someone of the opposite sex who has similar desires in those broad categories.

When that happens, you should be proactive about making an effort to introduce them to each other. You can’t make the sparks fly—that’s their job. But to not make the connection is to remove the possibility of that happening. Society and older adults should have the confidence to nudge younger adults toward beneficial outcomes.

Now, this can feel awkward. No one is saying that everyone should be married or that someone who isn’t dating is doing something wrong.

But working to connect someone sends the message that you believe that he or she has something attractive to another person. That’s a compliment, even when singles act defensively to mask their insecurities.

It’s time to revive the lost art of matchmaking.

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

It Will Be OK

On Christmas Day 1863, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote the poem we now know as the song “I Heard the Bells on Christmas Day.”

Earlier in the year, Longfellow had unsuccessfully pressured his son, Charles, not to join the Union Army. On Christmas Day, Longfellow learned his beloved son had been critically wounded at the Battle of New Hope Church.

“I heard the bells on Christmas Day / Their old, familiar carols play, / and wild and sweet / The words repeat / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

“And thought how, as the day had come, / The belfries of all Christendom / Had rolled along / The unbroken song / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

Longfellow’s life had been one of tragedy. His first wife died in childbirth. His second wife, Frances, whom he adored, burned to death in an accident. Someone dropped a lit candle on the dress she was wearing. It went up in flames, killing her. Now, Longfellow’s son’s fate was unknown on a battlefield.

In a letter dated March 14, 1863, Charles informed his father that he had joined the Union Army, where he would quickly get promoted to lieutenant.

“I have tried hard to resist the temptation of going without your leave but I cannot any longer,” Charles wrote. “I feel it to be my first duty to do what I can for my country and I would willingly lay down my life for it if it would be of any good.”

As Longfellow wrote on Christmas morning, feeling overwhelmed, worrying about his son and the Confederacy seemingly on the verge of winning the war, his poem turned dark.

“Then from each black, accursed mouth / The cannon thundered in the South, / And with the sound / The carols drowned / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

“It was as if an earthquake rent / The hearth-stones of a continent, / And made forlorn / The households born / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!”

“And in despair I bowed my head; / ‘There is no peace on earth,’ I said; /‘For hate is strong, And mocks the song / Of peace on earth, good-will to men!’”

This year seems genuinely insane. We have an armada surrounding Venezuela. Jews fear for their lives even in the United States.

Violence seems to be everywhere. People are hating their neighbors instead of loving them. Some Americans worry about Washington.

Others worry about making ends meet. Everyone seems to be filled with anxiety. Despair comes easily at Christmas as we all idolize a perfect Christmas memory we live perpetually to duplicate and never quite can.

This Christmas, as I write this, my wife, with stage 4 lung cancer, is battling the flu. My kids are sick. Bills are due. Presents must be ordered, even still, and wrapped. Balancing work and family and travel is wearing me out.

Two thousand years ago, a couple had to travel from their home in Nazareth to the town of Bethlehem. With no rooms available due to local crowding, the very pregnant wife gave birth in a food trough in a barn to the King of all creation.

God, who wandered the desert with the Israelites, came to the planet fully man, born in a barn. He wants a relationship so badly with us, he did that, lived a perfect life, died as if he were a criminal, then conquered death for us.

We do not get to escape the troubles of the world. But God came into the world, experienced those troubles as we do, and conquered death. This world is the worst we will ever have it. Eternity calls. We just have to have the courage to make it through this world, as he did.

Longfellow knew that. On Christmas Day 1863, under the weight of worry and grief, he concluded his poem thusly, “Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: / ‘God is not dead, nor doth He sleep; / The Wrong shall fail, / The Right prevail, / With peace on earth, good-will to men.’”

Merry Christmas.

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

Culture of Death Advances With Euthanasia Legalization in Illinois and New York

Within a single week, the governors of Illinois and New York both announced their support for physician-assisted suicide legislation.

In Illinois, Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, signed a bill legalizing the practice Dec. 12. In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, announced Dec. 17 that she has reached an agreement with the state legislature and will sign the Medical Aid in Dying Act in January 2026.

With these developments, Illinois and New York join 11 other states and Washington, D.C., that have already authorized physician-assisted suicide.

Hochul explained her decision in a personal essay published shortly before her Wednesday press conference. She noted that bodily autonomy ultimately shaped her thinking about the bill: “I have come to this as a matter of individual choice that does not have to be about shortening life but rather about shortening death,”

Hochul, who identifies as Catholic, also framed her reasoning in theological terms, saying she reflected on what she has learned about God.

“I was taught that God is merciful and compassionate, and so must we be,” she wrote. “This includes permitting a merciful option to those facing the unimaginable and searching for comfort in their final months in this life.”

In her press release, Hochul emphasized the bill’s guardrails. Once signed, the law will allow “medical aid in dying” for terminally ill adults with less than six months to live. Additional restrictions include a mandatory five-day waiting period between the prescription and dispensing of the lethal medication.

Individuals requesting euthanasia must make an oral request and undergo a mental health evaluation by a psychologist or psychiatrist. Anyone who stands to benefit financially from the patient’s death is barred from serving as a witness to the request. The bill also requires an in-person medical evaluation and permits religiously affiliated hospice providers to opt out of providing physician-assisted suicide.

The safeguards in New York’s bill closely resemble those adopted in Illinois.

The Illinois law, signed by Pritzker last week, allows adults 18 and older to request end-of-life medication if they have an illness with a prognosis of six months or less.

The law requires confirmation of a terminal diagnosis by two physicians, mandates both an oral and written request for the medication, and stipulates that the drugs must be self-administered.

It also requires that individuals seeking medical assistance in dying receive information about all end-of-life care options, including hospice, palliative care, and pain management.

In both Illinois and New York, lawmakers have emphasized the safeguards built into their physician-assisted suicide laws. Each bill limits “medical aid in dying” to adults with terminal diagnoses.

Yet even The New York Times, in its coverage of New York’s proposal, acknowledged that other countries with similar laws have significantly broadened them over time.

Canada offers a striking example. When it first legalized “medical assistance in dying” in 2016, eligibility was limited to those with terminal conditions. But in 2021, the law was amended so that a patient’s death no longer needed to be “reasonably foreseeable.”

The results were predictable: in 2023, 15,300 Canadians died by assisted suicide, accounting for 4.7% of all deaths nationwide.

And in 2027, Canada is scheduled to expand eligibility even further to include individuals “suffering solely from a mental illness.”

The Netherlands also offers a cautionary example of how physician-assisted suicide laws can expand over time.

In 2002, it became the first nation to formally legalize euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Under the original law, adults experiencing unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement were eligible, and minors ages 12-16 could also request euthanasia with parental consent.

Although children under 12 were not included in the law, a 2004 medical protocol (the Groningen Protocol) created guidelines under which physicians could end the lives of infants with severe, untreatable conditions without facing prosecution.

Over time, Dutch practice also broadened to include patients whose suffering is primarily psychiatric, and courts affirmed that mental illness can meet the legal standard of “unbearable suffering.”

In 2020, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that euthanasia may be performed on patients with advanced dementia based on a previously written advance directive, even if the patient can no longer express a current wish to die.

In 2023, the government announced plans to expand euthanasia eligibility to include terminally ill children between the ages of 1 and 12.

In short, lawmakers in Illinois and New York will champion their new laws and defend them by pointing to the safeguards they have put in place.

But history shows that such guardrails rarely hold. In countries that have adopted physician-assisted suicide, restrictions requiring terminal diagnoses are eventually loosened, distinctions between physical suffering and psychiatric suffering disappear, and protections for minors are removed over time.

Ultimately, these restrictions cannot last because a worldview rooted in radical bodily autonomy eventually demands the elimination of every constraint on personal choice.

But even if the broader culture rejects the existence of objective moral truth, Christians must insist that some actions are morally wrong by their very nature.

It is always sinful to take an innocent human life, even when a person requests it.

Christian ethics affirms that God is the author of life (Genesis 1:26) and explicitly forbids murder (Exodus 20:13). Assisted or not, intentionally ending an innocent human life is murder, and God condemns it.

In 1996, the Southern Baptist Convention warned that “American society seems to be embracing the culture of death.” Its resolution criticized physician-assisted suicide and urged doctors, nurses, and churches to prioritize the emotional, psychological, and spiritual care of suffering patients, with the goal of relieving “the sense of isolation and abandonment some dying patients feel.”

Both Pritzker and Hochul noted that stories of profound suffering motivated their push for physician-assisted suicide. In the months and years ahead, Christians must be prepared to articulate why the culture of death is destructive and contrary to true human flourishing.

A Center for Biblical Worldview report released in October found that 54% of churchgoers desire additional biblical teaching on euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.

Notably, this topic generated the lowest interest among all areas surveyed. Yet as the Illinois and New York laws take effect in 2026, it is more important than ever for Christians to defend a biblical ethic of life and to explain clearly why every human being, from conception to natural death, is valuable and worthy of respect, dignity, and protection.

Originally published by The Washington Stand

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

Ilhan Omar Can Accuse ICE With No Proof

As a leftist Muslim immigrant from Somalia, radical Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., is wonderfully blessed with a diversity, equity, and inclusion press. She is perennially assumed to be a victim of racism, sexism, and xenophobia whenever she is criticized, and especially when she’s verbally targeted by President Donald Trump.

At the end of a typically syrupy interview with Esme Murphy from the local CBS station WCCO in Minneapolis on Sunday, Omar claimed her 19-year-old son Adnan Hirsi was pulled over by Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel.

“Yesterday, after he made a stop at Target, he did get pulled over by ICE agents, and once he was able to produce his passport ID, they did let him go,” Omar asserted. She said her son “always carries” his passport with him, because she tells him ICE agents “are racially profiling, they are looking for young men who look Somali that they think are undocumented.”

The CBS anchor didn’t question any of this. The station later reported that ICE’s acting Director Todd Lyons said the agency has ‘absolutely zero record of its officers or agents pulling over Congresswoman Omar’s son” and accused her of trying to “unfairly demonize our law enforcement officers.”

On Wednesday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer oozed all over Omar on “The Situation Room.” Blitzer turned to her accusations against ICE. “I know that the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown has become very personal for you, even though you’re a member of Congress. You have said that federal immigration agents actually pulled over your son on Saturday and asked him to prove his citizenship. He is, of course, a U.S. citizen, as are you.”

But at least Blitzer made one soft offering of a rebuttal: “The Department of Homeland Security says—and I’m quoting them—‘ICE has absolutely zero record of its officers or agents pulling over Congresswoman Omar’s son’ and have accused you of seeking to—quote—‘demonize ICE as part of a P.R. stunt,’ their words. What do you say to that?”

Omar presented “zero record” of her son’s supposed stop, just some word-salad demonization of ICE. “Well, if ICE is saying that they have documentation of every single person that they have pulled over in Minneapolis, we would love to see that record … they have not been able to provide a single information.”

Blitzer just moved on. She didn’t have to give CNN “a single information” to back up her claims. The burden of proof is entirely on ICE. They’re guilty until they prove their innocence.

Instead, Blitzer turned back to Trump’s taunts. “When President Trump attacked you again a few days later during a separate event in Pennsylvania, his statements were actually met with cheers from the crowd, and many of them were shouting, ‘Send her back,’ their words, ‘Send her back.’ What goes through your mind when you hear that kind—and do you fear at all for your safety?”

These interviewers just put the ball on the tee. “Please denounce Trump’s words as dangerous and creepy.”

Omar proclaimed, “Somali Americans are here to stay,” and Blitzer agreed: “As they should be. They’re U.S. citizens. Almost all of them are now U.S. citizens, naturalized U.S. citizens.”

Omar said that “nearly 60% [were] born in the United States.” Blitzer added: “And they’re very good U.S. citizens, to be sure.”

Blitzer made no mention of more than $1 billion in welfare fraud in Minnesota, largely committed by Somali Americans, nor Trump’s claims that Omar married her brother for a few years. That would violate their corporate intent to stay “woke.”

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

Republicans Will Win In 2026

In a Wall Street Journal interview a few days ago, President Donald Trump was circumspect regarding his party’s prospects in the 2026 congressional elections.

Although no one doubts the president’s supreme confidence that he is doing the right things for the country (“I’ve created the greatest economy in history”), he acknowledged “that he couldn’t predict if that would translate into political gains for Republicans next fall.”

The party of the sitting president has picked up congressional seats in midterm elections only twice since World War II: Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002. And the case of Bush was far from business as usual. The election followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Patriotism was surging, with Bush’s approval peaking at 90%, and by the 2002 elections, it still was above 60%.

Trump’s latest approval rating by Gallup is down to 36%.

But the case of President Ronald Reagan shows that, although sticking to principles may create some early turbulence, eventually the right path pays off.

Reagan’s approval rating, per Gallup, was down to 36% in the second year of his presidency.

Currently, per Gallup, the percent expressing “satisfaction with the way things are going” in the country is 23%.

In November 1982, at the time of the midterm elections in Reagan’s first term, satisfaction stood at 24%.

In those 1982 elections, Democrats picked up one Senate seat and 26 seats in the House.

But by the time of the presidential election two years later, November 1984, Reagan’s approval was over 60% and he won the presidential election in a landslide, capturing 49 of 50 states.

The state of the economy when Reagan took office in 1981—double-digit inflation and double-digit interest rates—was decidedly worse than now.

However, the overall challenges that Trump faces today are, I believe, greater.

Today, federal debt stands at almost 100% of gross domestic product. In 1981, it was less than 25%.

In 1980, per Statista, 18.4% of our babies were born to unmarried women. By 2008, it hit 40%, and it has remained steady since.

Per USAFacts, in 1980, the percent of U.S. households headed by a married couple was 60.8%. In 2022, this was down to 46.8%.

In 1980, the main security threat facing the U.S. was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a security threat but not an economic threat. Today, the U.S. faces both Russia under Vladimir Putin and the enormous economic and security threat from China. In addition, we must deal with the ongoing threat of Islamic terrorism.

Per the World Bank, U.S. defense spending in 1980, at the time of Reagan’s election, stood at 5.2% of gross domestic product. Reagan got this up to 6.8% by 1982. Per Statista, projected defense spending in 2025 stands at 3.2% of GDP, hovering around a historic low.

Social Security and Medicare, our two largest entitlement programs, which together account for some 45% of the federal budget, are broke. Per their trustees, Social Security will have insufficient funds to pay benefits by 2034, and Medicare Hospital Insurance funding will fall short in 2033.

The world has changed dramatically since Social Security was signed into law in 1935 and Medicare in 1965. What firm does business today like it did 50-plus years ago?

These programs need thorough modernization. Politicians may not want to talk about it. But citizens know there is something wrong.

Although the road of change was rocky at first, Reagan’s unwavering commitment to the USA as “the land of the free and home of the brave” won the day.

Today we have historically outsized challenges. It’s obvious that America’s socialists—the Democratic Party—is the wrong address.

If we are going to have a future, we need bold, courageous leadership today.

Republicans are the only address. To our good fortune, we have great leaders like Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Capitol Hill.

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

Little-Known Issue Contributing to Deadly Muslim Attacks on Christians in Nigeria

Persecution of Christians in Nigeria is not driven solely by religion, according to Pastor Brad Brandon.

While religion plays a direct role, socio-economic issues are a significant factor contributing to the bloodshed, says Brandon, founder and CEO of Across Nigeria, a Christian organization with the mission of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the people of Nigeria and supporting persecuted Christians in the African nation.

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.

A Missionary Calling

A decade ago, Brandon was pastoring a church in Connecticut when he realized his relationship with God “had become very stale.”

“I cried out to Him and just said, ‘God, I don’t want this anymore. I want to be back close with you and have that side-by-side walk with you again,’” Brandon tells The Daily Signal he recalls praying.

Shortly thereafter, Brandon got involved with Christian missions work in Nigeria. When he traveled to the African nation in 2016, he gave God the credit for leading him to a Fulani Muslim village, which became the start of Across Nigeria.

Brad Brandon stands with a man in Nigeria. (Courtesy of Across Nigeria)

Brandon has dedicated much of the past 10 years of his life to serving Christians in Nigeria and building relationships with Fulani Muslims, giving him unique insight into current tensions between Christians and Fulani Muslims.

Why Fulani Muslims Are Attacking Christians

While Boko Haram and the Islamic State—West Africa are driven by their radical Islamic ideology to persecute Christians in Nigeria, many Fulani Muslims are in conflict with Christians over issues of farming and ranching.

“Although there are some militarized radical Fulani Muslims who are ideological in their beliefs and in their actions, I would say many of the Fulani Muslims are in conflict with the Christians … [because of a] lack of good grazing ground for their cattle,” he said.

Boko Haram and the Islamic State are terrorist groups, both of which have a strong presence in Nigeria, but the Fulani Muslims are an ethnic group in Northern Nigeria and are responsible for a great deal of the current violence being carried out against Christians.

“They raise cattle,” Brandon said of the Nigerian Fulani Muslims. “The Christians do farming [and] especially during the dry season, you’ll see an increase in the violence. When the cattle are looking for food, they’ll wander onto a farmer’s crops [and] destroy the crops. The farmer comes out, chases the cattle away, the Fulani come back and retaliate, and before you know it, hundreds of Christians are killed.”

Stopping the Fulani Violence

While the socio-economic issues do not justify the violence from the Fulani Muslims “it gives us an insight into how we can solve the problem,” the Christian missionary said.

“We’re helping those communities with wells, with medical care, with schools, because we want to increase their socio-economic position so that their young people aren’t drawn into radical ideologies and terrorism,” he explained.

To date, Across Nigeria has built eight schools serving over 4,000 students primarily in Fulani Muslims communities. Violence has dropped by 60% to 70% in every area where a school has been built, Brandon said.

One of the solutions to the tensions in Nigeria between Christians and Fulani Muslim is a ranching system that would include fences for cattle, which Brandon says is not a perfect plan, but does have “some good points to it.”

‘Christian Lives Are Expendable’

Brandon also places responsibility at the feet of the Nigerian government for allowing the persecution to continue.

About 25 years ago, Christians and Fulani Muslims lived peacefully side-by-side, Brandon explained. But because the “Nigerian government has been silent on the issue of Christians being killed,” Brandon says, the message to “the Fulani is that when we have a problem, Christian lives are expendable, and we’re not going to get in trouble for killing them.”

Additionally, Brandon say he believes that the instability in northern Nigeria is viewed as a benefit to and by the Nigerian government.

“It allows them to retain power,” he said the government. “It allows them to be able to do things in the north that they couldn’t do if it was stabilized.”

Trump in Action

The persecution of Christians in Nigeria has gained international attention, including from President Donald Trump, who at the end of October announced he was designating Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern.

Trump has also directed members of Congress to look into the issue of Christian persecution in Nigeria and report back to him.

“I’m appreciative of President Trump for drawing attention to this,” Brandon said, adding that “there hasn’t been a president in recent history that has done anything about this.”

When President Joe Biden entered the White House, he removed Nigeria from the Country of Particular Concern list despite the fact that persecution of Christians was taking place at the time.

Trump put Nigeria on the list of countries of Particular Concern during his first term, “so he’s always had his finger on the pulse of what’s happening in Nigeria,” the missionary said.

What the Fed Chair Candidates’ Backgrounds Reveal About If They’ll Cut Interest Rates

President Donald Trump recently told The Wall Street Journal he is favoring selecting either National Economic Council head Kevin Hassett or former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh for the next chair of the Federal Reserve.

Trump has said he expects the next Fed chair to cut interest rates.

How have the candidates under consideration approached interest rate cuts in the past?

Kevin Warsh

Following the 2009 financial crisis, Warsh was skeptical of cutting rates.

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

“Given what ails us, additional monetary policy measures are, at best, poor substitutes for more powerful pro-growth policies,” he said.

Warsh said the Fed should be “leery of drawing inapt lessons from the crisis to the current policy conjuncture.”

“But when non-traditional tools are needed to loosen policy and markets are functioning more or less normally—even with output and employment below trend—the risk-reward ratio for policy action is decidedly less favorable,” he said. “In my view, these risks increase with the size of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet. As a result, we cannot and should not be as aggressive as conventional policy rules—cultivated in more benign environments—might judge appropriate.”

Warsh maintained that the Fed should not be treated as a “repair shop for broken fiscal, trade, or regulatory policies.”

Despite Warsh’s mixed record on interest rates, economist and former Trump Bureau of Labor Statistics nominee EJ Antoni thinks Warsh understands that the next Fed chair needs to do more than adjust the Fed’s benchmark interest rate.

“The entire novel monetary framework that [current Federal Reserve Chair Jerome] Powell and his associates built in 2020 needs to be undone,” Antoni told The Daily Signal. “Powell has so thoroughly botched the job that any of his potential replacements would be infinitely better than him.”

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

“Economic growth in the U.S. is poised to boom, but it’s being held down by bad economic policies coming from the central bank, bad supervision policies, bad monetary policies, and a very confusing set of standards as we’ve gone from last year to this year,” Warsh said.

Kevin Hassett

Trump’s other top pick, Kevin Hassett, is a strong supporter of cutting interest rates in his positions in both of Trump’s presidential terms.

Hassett told The Wall Street Journal that while there may be “plenty of room” to cut rates, he would not cave to political pressure if inflation was high.

He told Fox News’ Bret Baier that if the Fed were data driven, it would lower rates.

“The president has expressed frustration with the policy decisions of the Fed,” he said. “And I think that that frustration that he has with the policy decisions is based on pretty sound analysis. The fact is that inflation is way down. Interest rates in the U.S. are amongst the highest anywhere on earth. And reducing interest rates would be sensible and would save the taxpayers lots of money right now.”

Christopher Waller

Previously, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the short list also includes Fed Governor Christopher Waller and Fed Vice Chair of Supervision Michelle Bowman.

In March 2024, Waller said the data did not yet justify immediate rate cuts when inflation was still above target. He said that recent inflation and economic figures reinforced his view that the Fed should wait before lowering interest rates, adding that he saw “no rush” to cut rates.

“As a result, in the absence of an unexpected and material deterioration in the economy, I am going to need to see at least a couple months of better inflation data before I have enough confidence that beginning to cut rates will keep the economy on a path to 2% inflation,” Waller said.

But he changed his tune over the summer, saying that inflation was cooling and labor market risks were rising, showing it was time to ease policy.

“It makes sense to cut the [Federal Open Market Committee]’s policy rate by 25 basis points two weeks from now,” Waller told a gathering of the Money Marketeers of New York University in July.

Michelle Bowman

In September, when Bowman dissented from the Fed’s decision to cut rates by half a percentage point, she became the first Fed governor to dissent on an interest rate decision in 19 years.

She gave remarks at a bankers convention in May 2024 suggesting that illegal immigration was responsible for high housing prices.

“There is a risk that strong consumer demand for services, increased immigration, and continued labor market tightness could lead to persistently high core services inflation,” she said.

“Given the current low inventory of affordable housing, the inflow of new immigrants to some geographic areas could result in upward pressure on rents, as additional housing supply may take time to materialize,” she continued

While Bowman has kept the door open to lowering rates, she has warned against easing policy too soon. She said in August 2024 that rate cuts would be appropriate if inflation moves toward the 2% target.

“Should the incoming data continue to show that inflation is moving sustainably toward our 2% goal, it will become appropriate to gradually lower the federal funds rate to prevent monetary policy from becoming overly restrictive on economic activity and employment,” she said.

“But we need to be patient and avoid undermining continued progress on lowering inflation by overreacting to any single data point,” she continued.

None of the Fed chair candidates could be reached for comment.

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

Watch Our Live Inauguration Day Coverage

American Tea Parties, Greek Yogurt Parties

Trump Says This Economic Policy Is Responsible for ‘Expectation-Smashing’ GDP Report

Related posts:

Truth Dies in Darkness: Washington Post Refuses to Correct Fake Heritage Quotes

Related posts:

‘Demonstrably Untrue’: Victor Davis Hanson Rebuts Tucker Carlson’s Israel, Qatar Claims

Related posts:

Why Western Leaders Won’t Acknowledge ‘Radical Islam’

Related posts:

EXCLUSIVE: Christmas Ad Draws Inspiration From ‘Home Alone’ to Unwrap Dangers of Illegal Vapes

Related posts:

Why China Rejects Trump’s ‘G2’

Related posts:

How AmericaFest Celebrated Charlie Kirk’s Legacy

Charlie Kirk, a Christian Martyr

TPUSA Announces ‘Make Heaven Crowded Tour’

Faith Takes Center Stage

Related posts:

Accreditation Mandates Bring CRT Into Colleges and K-12 Schools

Related posts:

Slippery Slopes Have 2 Sides

Related posts:

EJ Antoni on Affordability: ‘Keep Your Foot Down on the Throttle, Mr. President’

Related posts:

DOJ Decides If Government Agency Can Perform Abortions

Related posts:

This One Issue Is Driving Gen Z to the Right

Affordability Is Everything

The Gen Z Focus

Students’ Affordability Concerns

Related posts:

Gas Prices Are the Lowest in Years. So Why Does Filling Up a Tank Break the Bank?

Related posts:

DHS Encourages Illegal Aliens to Go ‘Home for the Holidays’ With $3,000 Stipend

Related posts:

Trump Administration Announces Change to Offshore Wind Construction

Related posts:

Throw the Book at Them: American Library Association Is (Still) Grooming Our Kids

Related posts:

Daily Signal Reaches 1 Million Subscribers on YouTube

Related posts:

Minnesota Fraud Exposes the Baked-In Flaws of Welfare

Related posts:

Vance Addresses MAGA Infighting at AmericaFest

Related posts:

America Is Surviving, Not Living, and It’s Breaking Us

Related posts:

Government Control in the Digital Age

Related posts:

California Church Appeals to SCOTUS Over $1.2M in COVID-19 Fines

Related posts:

The Piercing Cold of Christmas

Related posts:

This Christmas, Revive the Lost Art of Matchmaking

Related posts:

It Will Be OK

Related posts:

Culture of Death Advances With Euthanasia Legalization in Illinois and New York

Related posts:

Ilhan Omar Can Accuse ICE With No Proof

Related posts:

Republicans Will Win In 2026

Related posts:

Little-Known Issue Contributing to Deadly Muslim Attacks on Christians in Nigeria

A Missionary Calling

Why Fulani Muslims Are Attacking Christians

Stopping the Fulani Violence

‘Christian Lives Are Expendable’

Trump in Action

Related posts:

What the Fed Chair Candidates’ Backgrounds Reveal About If They’ll Cut Interest Rates

Kevin Warsh

Kevin Hassett

Christopher Waller

Michelle Bowman

Related posts: