A majority of justices, though sympathetic, seemed reluctant to allow members of the Falun Gong movement to sue a U.S. tech firm they accused of assisting the Chinese communist government of “aiding and abetting” in torture.

In the case of Cisco v. Doe, the Supreme Court is considering a lower court’s ruling that would have allowed the lawsuit against Cisco to proceed.

“This case is about the systematic persecution of a religious minority by Chinese authorities and Cisco’s partnership in that persecution,” Paul Hoffman, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said during his argument.

“Each of the plaintiffs was tortured or killed by Chinese authorities because of their religious beliefs. Cisco provided substantial assistance to this persecution from U.S. territory by providing a customized surveillance system designed to identify Falun Gong believers to Chinese authorities for detention and forced conversion through torture and other barbaric treatment.”

The Falun Gong spiritual movement spread in China in the 1990s, but the Chinese Communist Party banned its practices in 1999. The lawsuit against Cisco commenced in 2011.

Most of the conservative-leaning justices on the court expressed concerns that opening up a new avenue for lawsuits could pose foreign policy and separation-of-powers problems.

The question before the court is whether two statutes, the 18th-century Alien Tort Statute and the 1991 Torture Victim Protection Act, provide a cause of action to sue. But several conservatives asked why Congress didn’t specify the right to sue in the law.

“The job for creating causes of action because of foreign policy concerns, as sympathetic as this particular case certainly is, that the responsibility for creating causes of action generally lies not with judges but with Congress,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said.

During arguments by Cisco attorney Kannon Shanmugam, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spent the most time questioning him.

“It is alleged that by its internal and public statements it [Cisco] knew that those people would be tortured,” Sotomayor asked. “So, what is the problem with how that fits into any conscious aiding-and-abetting statute, including our own domestic one that requires active inducement and active participation.”

Shanmugam said, “With regard to the allegations in this case, Justice Sotomayor, it will not surprise you to learn that Cisco vigorously disputes those allegations.”

He also argued Cisco cannot be held responsible for torture, as it didn’t commit the acts.

“That is a form of secondary liability. It’s not full-fledged aiding-and-abetting liability,” he said. “And that just underscores that when Congress acts, it often acts in a restricted fashion with regard to secondary liability.”

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.  

About 10 minutes before the would-be assassin Cole Tomas Allen from Torrance, California, tried to get into the White House Correspondents’ banquet and stormed the security at the entrance, he sent a manifesto, a reason why he was going to try to kill the president and Cabinet officers, to his family. 

We have that now, and it’s been released. And it’s curious. It is a petri dish of all of the conspiracy theories, all the lies, all the rage that’s been promulgated by the Left. And it really is confirmatory evidence that when the Left threatens people and they come up with these crazy ideas and they endorse violence, there are people who are very susceptible to that.

And this shooter was one. And he proves it with his manifesto. 

He says he wants to kill President Donald Trump for three reasons: that Donald Trump is a pedophile. There’s no evidence that Donald Trump has ever had sexual relations with any child or anybody under 18. Where does he get that? He gets that from the conspiracy theories of the Left and some on the Right, that the Epstein files were suppressed because Donald Trump was engaging in sexual relations with young girls. 

There’s no evidence that he ever did that. In fact, we have testimony from [Jeffrey Epstein’s] consort, Ms. Maxwell, that Donald Trump didn’t do that, and other people, young women, had said the same thing. 

The second thing he said, he is doing this to kill a rapist. Well, he should have remembered that George Stephanopoulos, who used that term falsely, forced ABC to pay a multimillion-dollar damage settlement to Donald Trump. That comes from the trial in which the judge in the E. Jean Carroll trial said that Donald Trump was guilty of sexual assault. And a jury in New York found him guilty, although it was very tenuous evidence.

But they never said that he was guilty of rape. The judge conflated the two and said it was almost the same, but it wasn’t.

They deliberately, despite all the evidence that he had not committed rape because E. Jean Carroll’s testimonies were unreliable and, kind of, outlandish, to tell you the truth. He was never convicted as a rapist. But that was the charge that George Stephanopoulos and much of the network news ran with. 

He also said, third, that he’s going to kill Donald Trump because he is a traitor. Well, where would that come from? That couldn’t come from the two-year, three years, actually, the Russian collusion caper, when people such as, I don’t know, James Clapper, former head of the National Intelligence Agency, said that—what—that he’s director of national intelligence. He said that Donald Trump was [Vladimir] Putin’s puppet. And people as diverse as former CIA Director [Michael] Hayden or John Brennan, CIA director, they all said that Donald Trump was basically a captive of Vladimir Putin. 

And just to set the record straight, Mr. [Robert] Mueller spent nearly two years and found no actionable evidence that Donald Trump had colluded with the Russians. If anybody was hard on Vladimir Putin, it was Donald Trump during his tenure. In his tenure alone, in four of successive presidencies. Putin didn’t dare to go into Ukraine.

He had killed the Wagner Group in Syria. He had OK’ed offensive weapons to Ukraine that had been canceled or put on hold by people like Joe Biden and Barack Obama. He had told the Europeans: Do not deal with Putin on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Please don’t do that. He got out of an asymmetrical deal. I could go on and on. But the idea that he was a traitor is ridiculous. 

He said his targets were cabinet officers and Donald Trump only. He wasn’t going to kill the security unless he had to. But he said not Kash Patel. And later on he will mention that he is half black and half white. You get the impression that he feels that maybe Kash Patel is a prominent, as the FBI director, is not identifiable as white.

In other words, he seems to be racially obsessed. And he mentions his race. And we know where that comes from, the saturation of race, race, race. DEI, DEI, DEI. 

He also says that he is acting on behalf of all the people who are raped in the detention camps. We know that unaccompanied minors were let in en masse during the Barack Obama and Joe Biden years. And we know that the Department of Homeland Security under Donald Trump is trying to find these people. There is no mass rape in detention camps.

And if that did happen, it did not happen under the Trump administration. He’s trying to close the border so that trafficking of young girls and boys does not continue, which it did en masse under Biden, but especially under Obama and especially Biden. 

He mentions teenage girls again. Well, the teenage girls comes out of the Epstein files. Epstein files. Epstein files. 

He comes up with the Marx-Engels social murder defense. In other words, he says, yes, he’s breaking the law, but he’s breaking the law because officials of the law and the system is unlawful.

And so, then he’s redressing that. Where did he get that? That couldn’t be from the Left and the glorification by independent journalists like Taylor Lorenz or, once again, Hasan Piker, lionizing, canonizing—whom? Luigi Mangione, who killed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson. Shot him in the back. Murdered him. And then he became a folk hero. They even tried to make an opera about him in San Francisco. He became a folk hero to the Left. 

And that sent a message, another message, to people who were unballanced, like Mr. Allen. That if you kill Donald Trump, you will be in the pantheon of leftist heroes. Just like Luigi Mangione is.

And more importantly, you will be in the moral and legal right. Because once you’ve established that, you as God and judge and jury and executioner, can determine who is a social enemy of the people, then you can then execute him. And by executing him, you will help the people.

That comes out of the long tradition of Marxist ideology. But more importantly, it’s been revived by the Left lately, who say to all of us, if you commit murder, as Hasan Piker has mentioned with Mangione, or if you assault people or if you steal things, it’s not a crime. You have the right to do all of these things because the system is criminal and has oppressed you. 

Let me just finish by saying, obviously, Cole Thomas Allen is unhinged. He’s crazy. He may be bright by graduating from Caltech, but he didn’t seem to be very bright in his manifesto. But what he wrote as an exegesis of why he was doing it is an encapsulation of ideology that’s promulgated by today’s Left. 

All of the conspiracy theories, all of the lies, all of the excuses, all of the justification for violence—it’s all there. And it didn’t come out of the head of Zeus. This man was influenced by people who traffic in these lies and these ideologies and these detrimental and very dangerous assumptions, day after day, after day. Even when they’re warned, day after day, after day, that what you’re doing is very dangerous. 

And we know how dangerous it is because this is the third attempt to kill Donald Trump within two years. And he has two more years in his tenure. And we should expect at least two more unless the Left doesn’t wise up or find a moral compass and stop what it’s been doing. 

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

The Daily Signal’s Senior National Security and Legal Analyst Mehek Cooke said the attempted assassination of President Donald Trump should be treated as a clear, intentional act of political violence and a warning sign of a broader national security crisis.

In an appearance Monday on NewsNation’s “Katie Pavlich Tonight,” Cooke addressed the legal consequences facing the suspect, identified as Cole Tomas Allen, 31, who is now charged with multiple offenses, including attempting to assassinate the president—a crime that carries a potential life sentence. She said prosecutors will focus heavily on intent, which she argued is already evident in the case.

“This is almost like a mosaic,” Cooke said, explaining that investigators will examine travel records, weapons purchases, and the fact that the suspect discharged his weapon multiple times while attempting to enter the ballroom at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where Trump and administration officials were presiding. “This wasn’t an accident. This wasn’t a fluke. And then he left a manifesto. All of this ties into intent.”

Cooke said the case should be a “slam dunk” for prosecutors and argued that anyone who had advance knowledge of the attack should also face legal consequences. She expressed confidence in U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro, saying the American people expect full accountability and transparency.

Beyond the courtroom, Cooke warned that the attack cannot be dismissed as an isolated incident. She said increasingly aggressive political rhetoric—now echoed not just by fringe figures but by prominent Democrat leaders—has created a dangerous environment.

“It doesn’t surprise me that you have podcasters and influencers doing the same,” Cooke said of the rhetoric, pointing to what she described as a strategy to exploit societal weakness.

Cooke specifically criticized Democrat leaders for doubling down on rhetoric portraying Trump as an existential threat, while simultaneously continuing normal political and media engagement around him.

“If he’s a Nazi, if he’s a fascist, if he’s all these terrible things, then why are these reporters showing up?” Cooke asked. “It just goes to show they are lying to the American people.”

She also emphasized that Trump faces heightened threats not only domestically but from foreign adversaries, including Iran, and said federal agencies must reassess security failures and follow through on promised reforms.

“We were promised that this would not happen again,” Cooke said. “The American people deserve to know what those changes are.”

Cooke concluded by urging Americans and conservative leaders to continue speaking clearly and forcefully. “We have a moral obligation, Katie, to continue to speak the truth,” she said.

The third assassination attempt against President Donald Trump continues to reverberate across the country, including in Ohio.

The attempt, made Saturday night at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, has sparked conversation not only about political violence, but also political rhetoric.

Corinne Baum, who until just recently worked at the BrightPath Bridgetown Child Care Center in Cincinnati, was terminated from her position following a social media post reacting to Saturday night’s news. Her post, circulated on X by the Libs of TikTok account, appears to express disappointment that Trump was ultimately unharmed.

“Man, there’s been a few creators on here saying that, like, Friday or yesterday could have been the day, and then I wake up to that news, but not that news,” a woman identified as Baum said in the social media clip as she audibly sighed. “We’re going to have to pay really close attention to what they’re trying to actually distract us from.” The caption also shows an unamused emoji.

The Libs of TikTok post also showed a screenshot of Baum’s LinkedIn profile identifying her as a teacher at The Children’s House, which became BrightPath in 2023. Her LinkedIn profile is now listed as a page that no longer exists.

The Libs of TikTok clip, which was posted on Sunday, has been viewed 1.8 million times as of Tuesday afternoon. On Monday, Fox 19 out of Cincinnati, where the center is also located, reported that Baum has since been fired, and that she had been instructing students at the center as of Sunday. Libs of TikTok chimed in that same day with a celebratory post about Baum’s termination.

“Our organization does not tolerate, and explicitly condemns, any calls for violence. The comments made online by this individual are deeply inconsistent with our values. The individual in question has been terminated,” a spokesperson for BrightPath said in a statement to The Daily Signal.

The username @corinneannn on TikTok is now a private account, but a Google search of the username shows a bio describing her as a “dog + cat mom” and “pre-k teacher.” The bio also reads “FDT,” which may be a reference to the president, and includes expletives about U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement in all caps, in addition to “EAT THE RICH FREE PALESTINE.”

Following the interrupted dinner on Saturday night, Cole Tomas Allen, 31, of California, has been charged with attempting to assassinate the president.

Biden administration officials may have sought to dodge public records laws and congressional oversight by classifying taxpayer-backed loans to Planned Parenthood as “Benghazi,” according to findings by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.

Ernst, chairwoman of the Senate Small Business Committee, has been investigating Small Business Administration loans to the nation’s largest abortion provider under the Paycheck Protection Program during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a letter sent Monday to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Ernst asked for a Justice Department investigation “for potential Federal Records Act violation by concealment and/or attempted concealment” of SBA records regarding loans to Planned Parenthood and loan forgiveness.

“What does Benghazi have to do with Planned Parenthood? It appears the Biden SBA used it as a codename to hide the $90 million in taxpayer funds they gifted to the abortion provider,” Ernst told The Daily Signal in a statement.

“I’ve already exposed the Biden administration’s blatant disregard for transparency, but this potential cover-up demands answers,” Ernst continued. “I’m calling for a DOJ investigation to determine if Biden officials were illegally concealing federal records over their egregious handout to Planned Parenthood.”

The 13-page letter from Ernst to Blanche, shared with The Daily Signal, shows examples of email communications from SBA personnel.

Benghazi is most well-known to Americans as the location of a 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. compound that resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

“I write to ask the Department of Justice (DOJ) to open an investigation into the possible unlawful concealment and attempted concealment of federal records by President Biden’s Small Business Administration officials, and potentially their White House colleagues, in their official emails regarding Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider,” Ernst’s letter to Blanche says.

The letter shows that in 2021, Peggy Hamilton, then-SBA general counsel, and other administration officials used official government email accounts in what may have been an attempt to conceal records.

On April 30, 2021, Hamilton sent a message to then-SBA Chief of Staff Antwaun Griffin explaining what she meant by writing “Benghazi” earlier in the day. “Can I schedule a meeting so we can decision Benghazi (Planned Parenthood)?” Hamilton wrote. Griffin replied one minute later, “Yes, let’s talk Benghazi.”

All government emails can generally be accessed by the public through the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Records Act.

“Under 18 U.S.C. § 2071, an individual who ‘willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to,’ conceal any federal record can be fined and imprisoned for up to three years,” Ernst says in the letter to Blanche.

Ernst contends congressional or public-record requests seeking Planned Parenthood documents from the SBA would miss these records because they were being concealed as “Benghazi.”

“DOJ should investigate SBA officials’ record concealments related to a series of meetings and emails, including an April 30, 2021, email from Peggy Hamilton, the SBA general counsel, with ‘Benghazi (PPP/PPH) Decisions’ in the subject line,” Ernst told Blanche. “This email appears to be the originating email for what became a months-long thread about Planned Parenthood’s SBA loans and the entity’s loan-forgiveness requests.”

Hamilton went on to work as general counsel for the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh until December 2025. The Daily Signal reached out to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Pittsburgh to obtain contact information for the story and also sent a message to Hamilton on LinkedIn on Monday seeking comment. Neither responded by publication time.

Griffin is a general manager at Amazon Business, which did not immediately respond to an inquiry for this story.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin brought a fiery exchange against a progressive climate control hawk who forgot to do her homework, suggesting his defense was “BS.”

Zeldin appeared before the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee on Monday to testify and defend the EPA’s 2027 budget. He soon got into a heated argument with Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who called his budget request a “climate change deniers’ manifesto.”

Yelling from DeLauro and gaveling by Chairman Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, quickly began.

“How can the EPA justify abandoning that duty to protect Americans, to appease polluters under the false flag of economic growth?” DeLauro claimed.

Zeldin quickly corrected her, saying climate change acknowledgment and activism are not the role of the EPA.

“Where does it say anything about fighting global climate change?” Zeldin responded, referring to Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. He cited Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a landmark Supreme Court case with which DeLauro was unfamiliar, which found that the EPA does not have the authority to “get creative” on the basis of climate change.

“You are a member of Congress, you should know,” Zeldin, also a former congressman, said. DeLauro continued to seem confused and unfamiliar with Zeldin’s defense.

The congresswoman also seemed unfamiliar with the major questions doctrine and the two biggest Supreme Court cases that deny her argument. Michigan v. EPA determined that the agency must take all costs and the economy into consideration, and West Virginia v. EPA determined that Congress must authorize major policy changes.

“You should know this,” he said. “I actually read the law and did my homework,” Zeldin continued as DeLauro continued yelling.

“This is the Appropriations Committee,” she yelled as the chairman gaveled for silence.

“I don’t have to listen to this BS,” DeLauro continued yelling.

Zeldin’s fight for his budget comes as he works to reform the EPA while also strengthening the economy, a directive from the Trump administration. “Protecting the environment and growing the economy … we chose both,” Zeldin said as he noted major wins from the Trump administration.

“Without apology or regret, I will always adhere to the best available reading of federal statute pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright,” Zeldin wrote in a post on X sharing the video of the heated exchange.

Related Posts

Sen. Mike Lee: Congress Must Have a Say Before Obama Commits to ‘Unilateral’ International Climate Change Plan

Sen. Mike Lee warned the Obama administration on Wednesday that it should reconsider its plan to not submit for congressional approval an international climate change agreement that could be signed later next month. To avoid the inevitable objection of congressional Republicans, the Obama administration has indicated it plans to work-around the constitutional requirement that a…

Paris Conference Leaders Want You to Think the Planet Is Facing a Climate Change Crisis. That’s Not True.

PARIS—Leaders from around the world, including President Barack Obama, have been saying that the COP21, also known as the Paris climate conference, is the last best hope to save the planet from catastrophic warming. Evidence and observed data, however, suggest otherwise. History shows us that this isn’t the only time international leaders have cried that…

Climate Change Is a Fact. But These New Emissions Regulations Won’t Help the Environment.

Draft regulations released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency could cut carbon dioxide from existing power plants by 30 percent. Such a drastic cut will amount to a massive energy tax devoid of any benefit. President Obama warned us it was coming, when he said in in 2008 that electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket” under…

Former FBI Director James Comey was indicted for a second time, CNN first reported on Tuesday.

The Justice Department confirmed the indictment later Tuesday afternoon in a press conference.

“A grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment against James Comey on two counts. The first count is that on or about May 15 of last year, he knowingly and wilfully made a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a press conference late Tuesday afternoon. 

The second charge is that Comey “knowingly and wittingly transmitted interstate commerce a communication that contained a threat to kill the president of the United States.”

Blanche said the two counts carry a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.

CNN reported that the charges are connected to Comey’s photo posted online of a sea shell arrangement that said “8647,” which was viewed as a threat to Trump, the 47th president.

Comey played a role in the Russia investigation into President Donald Trump, examining alleged ties between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. Comey was appointed as FBI director by President Barack Obama and has been a critic of Trump after the president fired him in 2017.

The Justice Department has not formally announced the indictment.

Comey was previously indicted Sept. 25 for making a false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding.

This story is developing and will be updated.

The Justice Department responded Tuesday after the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a complaint in federal district court demanding an apology from acting Attorney General Todd Blanche for making allegedly false statements.

Last week, a federal grand jury indicted the SPLC on wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy charges for allegedly paying members of the Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations while claiming to be dismantling these groups. The indictment also claims the SPLC set up shell companies to hide these transactions. The SPLC, for its part, claims it had paid informants for information that “saved lives.”

The SPLC claimed that Blanche lied about the informant program by denying knowledge of the center turning over information to law enforcement.

“A grand jury heard only a portion of the evidence against SPLC and chose to indict on 11 counts,” a Justice Department spokesperson told The Daily Signal on Tuesday. “These issues will all be litigated in court and the government remains confident in its case.”

The Justice Department was responding to a filing the SPLC made Tuesday with the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Alabama. The center requested an order “directing the government to (1) retract the false and unfairly prejudicial statement that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made on Fox News regarding the allegations against the SPLC; and (2) refrain from making any further false or otherwise prejudicial statements that compromise the SPLC’s fair trial rights.”

The SPLC flagged two statements Blanche made on Fox News’ “The Ingraham Angle” last week.

Blanche said, “There’s no allegation or information in the indictment that suggests [the SPLC] shared [the information from the informants] with law enforcement,” and, “There’s no information that we have that suggests that the money they were paying to these informants and these members of these organizations, they then turned around and shared what they learned with law enforcement.”

“To the contrary, or else we would have known, from their own words, that they had given money to these guys,” he added. “And we didn’t know.”

The SPLC maintains, however, that its attorneys “provided information to the government demonstrating unequivocally that the SPLC had shared information from its informants with law enforcement.”

The SPLC’s attorneys sent a letter to the U.S. attorney, asking that Blanche “publicly retract the statement.” The SPLC also claimed that the statement “gives rise to the concern that the grand jury heard evidence which incorrectly represented that the SPLC never shared information from informants with the government.”

The legal document goes on to reveal more about the case, including a Feb. 25 meeting between federal prosecutors and the SPLC discussing the informant program.

On April 6, the SPLC’s lawyers shared information about the program, highlighting that it resulted in an indictment against a member of the extremist group Vanguard America. The individual in question received a prison sentence.

The SPLC letter responding to Blanche’s statements cites another case, in which the center provided information to law enforcement leading to the 2020 arrest of a member of the white supremacist group Atomwaffen Division, who had intended to carry out a terrorist attack in Las Vegas, targeting a synagogue.

“The Department of Justice is well aware that the SPLC provided helpful information, through the use of its confidential informants, to law enforcement,” the SPLC motion states.

The motion cites the Alabama Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys, suggesting Blanche broke them and demanding the court require the government to apologize. The motion also suggests that Blanche’s statements aimed to influence the outcome of a potential trial.

The SPLC motion also cites statements from President Donald Trump, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, and others.

“Whether by design or independently, these communications are being published and amplified on platforms that are widely consumed by the jury pool that will be called upon to adjudicate the actual allegations against the SPLC that are contained in the indictment.”

Neither the White House nor the SPLC immediately responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

A House Judiciary subcommittee is scrutinizing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act to determine if the Biden‑Harris administration has used the federal law to target pro‑life advocates.

“As we just saw with the Department of Justice’s recent indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, important work is being done to hold left‑wing activist networks accountable—especially those increasingly operating as de facto partners of the federal government to undermine the rule of law,” Rep. Chip Roy, R‑Texas, told The Daily Signal.

“Nowhere have we seen this more than with the Biden‑Harris administration’s weaponization of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, where enforcement was driven by extremist abortion networks to go after pro‑life Americans.”

During Tuesday’s meeting of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government—titled “From Tool to Weapon: The FACE Act and the Dangers of Federalizing Criminal Law”—pro‑life activists who were prosecuted under the law, along with policy experts, testified that the legislation has been distorted by federal officials to restrict First Amendment rights and prosecute peaceful protesters.

“This hearing aims to expose these leftist groups and the constitutional implications of over‑federalizing criminal law,” Roy, the subcommittee chairman, said.

Democrats on the panel disputed those claims. Ranking Member Mary Gay Scanlon, D‑Pa., said Congress enacted the FACE Act in 1994 to protect abortion providers from violent attacks.

“Eliminating the FACE Act is a right‑wing priority drawn directly from the Project 2025 manifesto,” Scanlon said. “The facts stay the same: We continue to see criminal obstruction, threats, intimidation, and violence against abortion providers and the women seeking those services. The FACE Act is needed now as much as it’s ever been.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin, D‑Md., compared anti‑abortion activists arrested under the FACE Act to the “politically motivated” Jan. 6 protesters.

Witnesses challenged that characterization, including pro‑life activist Eva Edl, who testified that she was imprisoned under the Biden‑Harris administration for protesting outside abortion clinics. Edl said she was “counseling mothers” rather than threatening clinic staff.

“In my case, I was only charged with a first‑offense misdemeanor in Tennessee, but in Michigan I was convicted of two separate violations of FACE, faced up to 13 years in prison, and up to $300,000 in fines,” Edl said. “I am before you today to plead with our government to repeal the FACE Act, because it is targeting people who want to do right.”

“I plead with our government to stop the killing and go back to the foundational principles our forefathers built this country on—that all human life has equal value before God,” she added.

Roger Severino, vice president of economic and domestic policy at The Heritage Foundation and former director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, told the committee that the FACE Act is the “poster child of over‑criminalization.”

“Under our constitutional system, the federal government has only enumerated powers—it only has the authority explicitly given to it by the people in the Constitution,” Severino said.

Addressing Raskin’s claim that courts have upheld FACE Act prosecutions under the commerce clause, Severino said Congress has used the clause as a “catch‑all” to justify federal involvement in nearly every aspect of American life.

“We have delegated far too much authority to federal bureaucrats,” Severino said. “That discretion has given them unchecked power, which has been abused with the FACE Act and other cases.”

On Nov. 5, 2009, U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar.” He then opened fire at Fort Hood, murdering 13 people and wounding dozens.

Hasan’s jihadist ties were clear. He had business cards identifying him as “SoA” (Soldier of Allah), emails with al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, and an explicitly Islamist ideology. He even had a presentation defending suicide bombings under Islamic law.

But the Obama administration concluded the massacre was simply generic “workplace violence.”

On April 25, 2026, Caltech-educated “Teacher of the Month” Cole Tomas Allen tried to breach security at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, opening fire outside the ballroom where President Donald Trump and top officials were gathered.

Allen left behind an explicit anti-Trump manifesto in which he called himself the “Friendly Federal Assassin,” railed against Trump administration policies, and listed targets connected to the administration. He had previously posted numerous anti-Trump sentiments online.

The motive eluded President Barack Obama, who took to social media to offer the usual meaningless boilerplate about condemning all violence while saying that “we don’t yet have the details about the motives.”

Allen has been charged with attempting to assassinate the president.

This denial of obvious ideological motivation is a familiar playbook—once used for radical Islamic terrorism, now repurposed for radical left violence. False equivalence and moral evasion replace any sober analysis.

Recall Obama’s 2015 National Prayer Breakfast remarks, where he warned against getting on our “high horse” about ISIS and equated its barbarism to the Crusades, the Inquisition, American slavery, and Jim Crow—straining to dilute the unique threat of Islamic terrorism by dragging in distant and even revisionist history.

But left-wing terrorism, like Islamic terrorism before it, isn’t a “both sides” problem. The pattern has escalated over the past decade amid the left’s dehumanization of Trump and MAGA as threats to democracy.

It wasn’t a Republican who nearly killed Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., at the 2017 congressional baseball practice. It wasn’t a Republican who slaughtered six—including three 9-year-old children—at Nashville’s Covenant Christian School in 2023. It wasn’t a Republican who attacked a Minneapolis Catholic church in 2025, murdering two children with anti-Christian and “kill Trump” rage. And it wasn’t a MAGA supporter who assassinated Charlie Kirk in 2025, as late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel falsely and irresponsibly claimed.

What these attackers all shared is that they were radicalized leftists whose manifestos and digital footprints echoed core Democrat talking points.

Allen’s attack marks the third attempt on Trump’s life in less than two years, following the 2024 golf course incident in West Palm Beach and the 2024 Pennsylvania rally shooting, when a bullet grazed Trump’s ear and firefighter Corey Comperatore heroically died. No president has faced this many credible assassination attempts in such a short time.

Unlike jihadist attacks, which often appear random with mass murder as the primary objective, these radicalized Democrats target conservatives, MAGA, and Republicans with specificity.

Prominent Democrats offered the same deflection after Kirk’s assassination as they have since the most recent attempt on Trump’s life. They have made generic condemnations, vague platitudes, and a complete refusal to confront the obvious ideological radicalization that produced his killer.

Thus far, the only thing more predictable than violence carried out by indoctrinated leftists against MAGA targets is the Left’s ability to move on instantly while taking zero accountability—no introspection, no self-examination, no acknowledgment of the toxic rhetoric and dehumanization that fuel the violence.

When will such accountability arrive?

After Kirk’s assassination, I expected a national reckoning with the spiritual and cultural rot producing these terrorists. I even wrote a book about it, “For Christ and Country: The Martyrdom of Charlie Kirk.” But I was naïve to have such high expectations.

Not only did no reckoning come, it was actively suppressed. I experienced some part of this when Amazon refused to offer a Kindle version and has repeatedly blocked physical sales, telling customers it could not ship the book to their addresses.

As I argue in my book, the modern Left rejected God and the Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation, replacing them with government power, identity politics, and moral relativism. This created a gaping spiritual vacuum filled with rage, envy, and hatred. These can turn teachers, engineers, and even “Teacher of the Year” award winners into assassins.

Recently the Southern Poverty Law Center has been exposed for manufacturing and funding hatred. My book explains how the Anti-Defamation League has worked to cover up left-wing violence and falsely insists that America’s real problem is right-wing extremism.

The denial, false equivalence, and refusal to name the ideology driving this violence only fuels more violenceand makes the next attack inevitable.

This isn’t random. It is the direct and predictable result of a worldview that treats conservatives, Christians, and American patriots as existential enemies who must be eliminated.

The only thing all these killers have in common is that they were radicalized by the Left. It is well past time for an honest conversation. America desperately needs to reckon with the pathological ideas that are fueling violence. Lives depend on it.

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

The House of Representatives’ attempt to pass legislation on foreign surveillance, homeland security funding, and agricultural policy on a tight deadline has already screeched to a halt, with Republican intraparty disagreement on all fronts.

The House Rules Committee, a leadership-controlled panel that determines the conditions of debate for bills on the floor, went into recess Tuesday morning after failing to agree on a “rule” that would set up consideration of multiple bills.

The federal government’s authority to monitor foreigners without a warrant under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will expire Thursday. Meanwhile, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said that emergency funding to pay department staff will run out in early May, prompting congressional leadership to pass a funding measure this week.

Leadership and conservative hardliners had not settled on a framework for extending the government’s surveillance authority. A faction of conservatives has opposed the long-term extension of the FISA program without major reforms, citing past abuses that have resulted in the surveillance of American citizens.

However, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, have argued the program is vital for national security and already includes significant reforms to prevent its abuse.

Given the controversy that has surrounded FISA for several years, it could be an uphill battle to resolve Congress’ major disagreements this week.

Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., a House Freedom Caucus member, has offered an amendment to extend the program for three months, which would essentially punt on the debate.

The rules panel had hoped to advance other bills alongside FISA that are also the subject of controversy.

This bundle included a Senate-passed framework for a party-line budget bill to fund immigration enforcement. Having failed to get Democrats on board, who requested reforms as a condition of funding, the Senate has opted to use a process known as “reconciliation” to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement as well as Customs and Border Protection without needing Democrat votes.

The House has yet to approve a separate Senate-passed bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security while excluding immigration enforcement. Johnson has signaled he wants to tweak that bill, and the hard-line conservative House Freedom Caucus has never fully bought into this piecemeal funding approach, with its members arguing it could jeopardize the future funding of deportations and border security.

On Monday, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a Rules Committee Republican, expressed concerns about a scenario “where ICE and Border Patrol are left unfunded” in the fall of 2029 if Congress has still not managed to fund immigration enforcement through the normal appropriations process.

Additionally, the Rules Committee was hoping to advance “farm bill,” legislation affecting a myriad of agricultural issues and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The 2026 farm bill has been the subject of controversy, as it contains a provision protecting pesticide producers from certain lawsuits.

Some members have offered amendments to the farm bill, such as a proposed ban on the issuance of a central bank digital currency and the expansion of access to ethanol-blended gas, a priority for Midwestern representatives from districts with large corn output.

The bill would include grants and assistance that Republicans are eager to provide farmers ahead of midterm elections in November.

Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Rules Committee who often accuses Republicans of dysfunction, slammed committee leadership.

“When we showed up, we were told there is still no deal,” McGovern wrote on X. “Their chaos is only matched by their incompetence.”

To be sure, Democrat opposition to FISA proposals has also greatly limited the options of House Republican leadership.

Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said on Tuesday that he would not back a rule to advance FISA if the Rules Committee reported it out.

“I’m certainly not going to vote yes on the rule and our leadership has been very clear about not voting yes on the rule,” Himes said, per a Semafor reporter.

The Virginia Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments from Republican plaintiffs and Democrat defendants regarding the legality of the April 21 redistricting referendum.

The issue before the court is the process the General Assembly used to approve a special election for redrawing the commonwealth’s congressional districts.

The Supreme Court heard two challenges. The first case presented to justices was that the Virginia General Assembly wasn’t properly in a special session and Democrat state lawmakers added the constitutional amendment to the agenda without a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly.

The second was that the Virginia Constitution requires an intervening election to occur for the House of Delegates between the first and second passage of a proposed amendment.

One of the plaintiffs, apparently a Democrat voter who voted early in 2025, had been a supporter of the nonpartisan Virginia Redistricting Commission established in 2020, but had no idea a reversal was in the offing. Her representative in the House is the delegate who proposed the amendment, Henrico County Democratic Delegate Rodney Willett. She testified that had she known about it, she would have voted against Willett in 2025. Plaintiffs’ counsel Thomas McCarthy, when pressed by Virginia Supreme Court Justice Junius P. Fulton, noted that all of this was in a verified complaint, which means the plaintiff swears to the truth of it, and it was uncontested by the defendants.

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the head of the Election Transparency Initiative, said on my radio show: “The position of the defendants was, well, the election for these purposes really just means Election Day. That was their argument. And I don’t know of a case anywhere in the country that supports that position. I think it’s the strongest constitutional challenge.”

I asked Cuccinelli about the impact the April 21 election results might have, and he said, “It was actually Justice [Wesley] Russell’s very first question of any justice in the argument. He asked, ‘Does the yes vote matter at all?’ He asked this of the counsel for Virginia. So, the defendants and Richard Hawkins, on behalf of the solicitor general’s office of Virginia, conceded that the vote is irrelevant to the legal questions at issue. “

He went on to tell me that he expects the Supreme Court to issue its ruling before May 15.

There is concern that the justices could side with the General Assembly because that is who appointed them. Virginia Supreme Court justices are appointed for 12-year terms, and the only two whose terms are remotely close to expiring are Justice Arthur Kelsey, in 2027, and Stephen McCullough, in 2028. So that doesn’t appear to be an issue.

However, there was a time when legal issues like this could be adjudicated in a cut-and-dry manner. But in an age when progressive prosecutors don’t press charges against people who steal less than $1,000, and where police are told not to arrest people in possession of illegal drugs, knowing what is legal and what isn’t simply by reading the law can’t be counted on anymore.

Federal agents raided 22 locations in Minnesota on Tuesday as part of an investigation into widespread taxpayer fraud.

“Today the FBI with federal, state and local law enforcement is involved in court-authorized law enforcement activity as part of an ongoing fraud investigation,” a Department of Justice spokesperson said in a statement.

The raids focused on 22 prominent businesses, some of them tied to Somali immigrants, including daycares like the “Quality Learing Center” in Minneapolis that drew national attention for fraud allegations.

The Trump administration has investigated welfare fraud in Minnesota in the fallout of the Feeding Our Future scandal, where organizations fraudulently applied for and received federal funding for a children’s food assistance program. In January, the Trump administration froze health care funds for organizations in the state over allegations of daycare center fraud. Nearly 100 individuals have been charged so far in connection with fraud schemes in the state.

“The task force and the DOJ will be relentless in exposing these fraudsters wherever they may be hiding,” Vice President JD Vance posted on X.

The Department of Homeland Security said that its investigations unit worked with law enforcement partners to execute criminal search warrants in Minneapolis relating to the “rampant fraud of U.S. taxpayers’ dollars.”

“The American people deserve to know how their taxpayer money was abused,” the agency said.

“No stone will be left unturned,” it added.

Last week, the Trump administration announced it is increasing its anti-fraud efforts with $300 million in funding to investigate and prosecute fraudsters and drug traffickers.

The Justice Department announced the “Special Attorneys Program,” where state, local, tribal, and territorial governments can apply for grants for a federal prosecutor to probe crimes in their jurisdictions.

This is part of a broader whole-of-government effort following President Donald Trump’s appointment of a Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, chaired by Vance. The task force aims to work with every department and agency to eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse within federal benefit programs.

I remember sitting in the waiting room at Planned Parenthood, hands folded in my lap, telling myself I had no other choice.

I was afraid and alone. It was the kind of fear that makes you feel lonely even in a crowded room. I had walked in that day fully intending to go through with an abortion. When they called my name, I got up and walked out the door instead. I still cannot fully explain what happened at that moment, but more than 30 years later, I am beyond grateful that I left.

That experience is why I feel compelled to speak plainly to my fellow pro-life believers about something I think we are getting badly wrong: the push to prosecute women who seek abortions.

We cannot win the argument for life by making criminals of the women we are trying to help. That approach does not protect children. It will harden hearts against our movement and push vulnerable women further from the support they need.

Public policy must be grounded in the reality of who these women actually are. Research consistently shows that most women who seek abortions report doing so under pressure—whether from partners, family members, financial crises, or some combination of all three—and that many say they would have continued the pregnancy if they had more support.

I was one of those women. The difference in my case was a grandmother who refused to let me feel alone.

Criminalizing women who have abortions in these circumstances does not address any of that. It punishes people who are already in crisis while doing nothing about the conditions that drove them there.

Consider, too, the practical consequences that I do not think advocates for this approach have fully considered. Today, the majority of abortions in this country are drug-induced abortions rather than surgical procedures. This matters because abortion pill reversal is possible. If a woman acts quickly after taking the first pill, there is a chance to intervene and save the pregnancy.

But if we classify abortion as homicide and expose women to prosecution, a woman who has second thoughts after swallowing that first pill may be too frightened to call anyone. She will not reach out to a pro-life pregnancy center. She will not try reversal. She will go silent, and that baby will be lost.

The same fear could prevent women from seeking emergency medical care if complications arise. In trying to hold women accountable, we may end up costing lives we could have saved.

The same logic applies to the network of pregnancy resource centers, maternity homes, and adoption agencies that form the backbone of the pro-life movement’s real work. These organizations depend on trust. Women come through their doors in their most uncertain moments, often still deciding what to do. If seeking that help could later be used against them in a criminal proceeding, many women will not come at all. We would be dismantling the very infrastructure that saves lives.

Beyond that, there is the practical matter of whether such laws can even function. Criminal statutes require consistent enforcement, and most prosecutors across the country have already said they will not pursue cases against women. Public opinion is similarly resistant. A law that cannot be enforced and lacks public legitimacy does not end abortion. It only creates the appearance of action while delivering nothing.

There is a better way, and we already know what it looks like.

All of us in this movement share the same goal: a world where abortion is unthinkable. We get there by understanding and supporting pregnant women in difficult circumstances.

Concretely, that means expanding material support, funding pregnancy centers, and building the kind of community networks where a frightened woman can find a voice like my grandmother’s before she ever walks through the wrong door.

Research shows that concrete support influences decisions. My own experience tells me the same thing.

I walked out of that clinic over 30 years ago because someone loved me enough to show up. That is what changes the outcome. Not a prosecutor.

Protecting life requires more than conviction. It requires strategies that actually work, ones that keep women connected to help rather than driving them away.

The pro-life movement has spent decades building something remarkable. We should not undercut it now with policies that punish the very people we are called to serve.

No woman was ever talked out of an abortion by the threat of a prison cell. She chooses life when compassion shows her a way through.

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

Recently, I had the honor to address a group of young adults in the District of Columbia for “America Reads the Bible,” a weeklong gathering featuring national leaders from every sphere of influence reading the Bible aloud and broadcast live around the country. 

Held in celebration of America’s 250th year, this event, sponsored by Christians Engaged and the Family Policy Alliance, calls our nation to reengage with Scripture and the enduring truths of God’s Word.  

Before my address, I had participated earlier in the week by reading from the Book of Joshua from the main theater stage at the Museum of the Bible. 

As I addressed this group of young people—some of the best and brightest from the emerging generation—I could not help but be encouraged by what I saw. Before me were members of a rising generation of very serious young men and women of faith who made the time to learn more about the Bible and its role in our nation’s history. 

After my address, I had the chance to converse with some of the young people in attendance, and I was even more impressed.  

These young people expressed their desire that everything they think, say, and do, is in alignment with Christ and His teachings. 

Many also hope to become devoted and faithful husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, and citizens in their communities and the nation. They want to build lives that answer the question of why they were put on this earth at this precise moment in human history. 

Why did I find this so refreshing and encouraging? Because in my recent book “What Really Matters: Restoring a Legacy of Faith, Freedom and Family,” I discuss how crucial it is for young people of faith to understand the role faith played in our nation’s founding and the role it continues to play in our culture today. 

The young people I addressed that evening “get it.”  

They expressed appreciation for the greatness of America, particularly because of the religious liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights by our Founding Fathers. They understand why this freedom ought to be celebrated this year, the nation’s 250th anniversary. They revere the document and speak with reverence and respect, just as they do when speaking about our Constitution.  

Some students in attendance had read—and loved—the Federalist Papers, and we had an excellent conversation about the ideas that animated these letters. 

These young people are true patriots. They love God, our country, and the nation’s ideals. Perhaps most encouragingly, they seem willing to make the necessary sacrifices to ensure the freedoms they enjoy endure for succeeding generations. 

Many I spoke to that evening indicated that they have seen the emptiness and futility of life without faith. They yearn for the eternal truth of Scripture and the values that accompany it.  

These young people see the political and cultural decay that has resulted from the widespread abandonment of God. They want to help restore our nation by rediscovering the things that have been lost.  

They are figuring out “what really matters,” and it is not materialism, political power, or self-gratification. Instead, they are realizing faith, freedom, and family constitute the cornerstone of a life well lived.  

It is my hope that young Americans like these continue to be drawn back to those values in the months and years ahead, and that they work to rebuild the spiritual foundation required for a great American restoration from our current political and cultural decay. 

That is what I saw as I looked into the eyes of the young people who attended America Reads the Bible. 

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

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Daily Signal has obtained plans from a coalition of House Democrats showing it will push legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $25 an hour and “tax the rich” in an effort to strip “power and privilege” from “the wealthy and well‑connected” to advance “racial justice.”

Reps. Delia Ramirez, D‑Ill.; Analilia Mejia, D‑N.J.; Rashida Tlaib, D‑Mich.; Bonnie Watson Coleman, D‑N.J.; and Chuy García, D‑Ill., along with representatives from national unions and advocacy groups, plan to announce the Living Wage for All Act at a press conference Tuesday.

“This bill is about holding corporate America accountable,” Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, said in a statement obtained by The Daily Signal.

“While prices rise and profits grow, workers are still being paid poverty wages instead of a true living wage. That has to change if we are serious about dignity and fairness in this economy,” Appelbaum added.

Supporters argue the bill would shift the balance of power in the economy and advance broader political goals, including racial justice and voting rights.

“A living wage is about dignity, but it is also about who holds power in this country,” NAACP President Derrick Johnson said in a statement. “It is tied to every other fight for civil rights — from racial justice, to voting rights, to economic opportunity.”

Johnson added that “when people are denied fair wages, they are denied the ability to fully participate in our democracy.”

Mejia, who led the successful push to raise New Jersey’s minimum wage to $15 an hour, said a higher federal minimum wage would create “an economy that works for all, not just the billionaire class,” and help Americans better afford health care.

“I’m proud to partner with Congresswoman Delia Ramirez on the Living Wage for All Act to raise the federal minimum wage to $25 an hour,” Mejia said. “This bill would transform millions of lives.”

However, research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston suggests that minimum wage increases can contribute to inflation. According to the Fed, “following a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, all‑items inflation is cumulatively 0.08 percentage point higher than average in locations with a one‑standard‑deviation‑higher share of low‑wage workers.”

Beyond raising wages, the legislation also calls for higher taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, according to a press release obtained by The Daily Signal.

The proposal aligns with a broader push by democratic socialists to increase taxes on high earners, including initiatives such as New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s support for an 11.5% corporate tax.

E.J. Antoni, chief economist for the Thomas Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that these lawmakers are seeming “to perpetually forget that the labor market is a market, despite it being right there in the name, and therefore the labor market abides by the law of supply and demand.”

“If you create an artificial price floor, you will create surpluses,” Antoni said.

The economist said the minimum wage is a government-imposed price floor, meaning the price cannot legally fall below that level. And while more people will want to work for the higher price, few business owners will be able to afford to pay it, creating a surplus.

“In the labor market, we call that surplus ‘unemployment,’ exactly what happens whenever the minimum wage is above the market wage,” Antoni concluded. “The law of supply and demand will not be conned.”

Senior National Security and Legal Analyst Mehek Cooke warned that political rhetoric from the Left is contributing to a dangerous climate of violence surrounding President Donald Trump during an appearance on “Mornings With Maria” on Fox Business Network.

Cooke sharply criticized former President Barack Obama for publicly suggesting there was “no motive” behind recent attacks and threats targeting Trump and those around him at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. According to Cooke, the evidence points clearly in the opposite direction.

Cooke argued that Obama’s statement was not an expression of uncertainty but a deliberate political calculation. She said Democrats are concerned that continued attacks against Trump could generate sympathy among voters and drive turnout for Republicans in the midterm elections.

“This is all politics,” Cooke said. “The sympathetic voters, the people who did not know what they would do this midterm. The Left is aggressive—they have spent the last 10 years calling Trump Hitler, a fascist, everything under the sun.”

Cooke described the moment as a political turning point, saying millions of Americans—including undecided voters—are beginning to see through what she called years of inflammatory rhetoric from the Left. She accused Democrat leaders of spending a decade portraying Trump as a fascist and a dictator, only to now feign surprise when violence follows.

“The leaders of the Left are showing who they are,” Cooke said. “They’re not for us.”

Drawing a historical comparison, Cooke referenced the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, noting that political activity paused while the nation confronted the seriousness of the threat. She contrasted that response with today’s environment, where she said partisan politics continue unabated despite repeated threats against Trump.

Cooke stressed that Trump is not former President Joe Biden and requires constant, enhanced protection. She called for a comprehensive overhaul of security protocols, including the Secret Service, to address what she described as repeated failures and unresolved questions following recent incidents.

“We have to have a massive overhaul of our security,” Cooke said. “We have to start thinking differently about threats in this country.”

The vehicle kill switch may be getting another chance to be killed in Congress this week as a member of the House Rules Committee wants to repeal legislation that directs automakers to install surveillance technology on all new vehicles starting in 2027.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, a committee member and influential congressman on the conservative House Freedom Caucus, says the Biden-era mandate poses “a direct threat to our Fourth Amendment rights.”

“Republicans should not be continuing a blatantly invasive Biden-era policy that enables round-the-clock monitoring of Americans in their own cars,” Roy told The Daily Signal while the possibility of the amendment was still being discussed by the Rules Committee.

“That’s why I introduced an amendment to FISA to eliminate the ‘kill switch’ and stop this Big Brother technology from being built into new vehicles.”

This is Roy’s second attempt at killing the kill switch this year.

The need for an amendment already has large support from House conservatives, including Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky.; Scott Perry, R-Pa.; and Keith Self, R-Texas.

“The government should never have the ability to remotely kill your car or anything else you own,” Self told The Daily Signal. “When a group of us conservatives in the House tried to repeal this Joe Biden-era mandate set to take effect next year, 57 Republicans teamed up with 211 Democrats to stop us. That’s unacceptable.”

The kill switch mandate comes from the HALT Drunk Driving Act (Sec. 24220 of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act), which Democrats passed with support from 19 Republican senators and 13 Republican representatives.

The text of the bill requires installing technology to monitor drivers’ performance, passively detect blood alcohol, or detect impairment.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving supported this 2021 bipartisan bill. The organization claims that once the technology is in place, it will save 10,000 people a year from drunk driving incidents. According to the group, the technology is not a government tool and will be “passive,” operating without the driver needing to do anything.

The HALT Act required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to publish a draft of the mandate for the technology by 2024. In 2023, the agency reported that technology didn’t exist yet to comply with the federal mandate. As of January 2026, the agency has not completed the required draft, which was originally due in 2024.

Conservatives are already facing a fight over the FISA reauthorization bill, as many Republicans, including congressional leadership, do not want to reform the bill to require warrants to investigate American citizens.

Related Posts

RFK Jr. Must Cease Flow of Tax Dollars to CAIR, Roy Says

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Rep. Chip Roy of Texas sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday, urging him to suspend funding for the Council on American-Islamic Relations and its affiliates and initiate debarment proceedings. “Why should Americans’ taxpayer dollars go to groups like CAIR that facilitate terrorism?”…

Trump Administration Is ‘Looking Beyond the SPLC’ to Broader ‘Marxist’ Network: Chip Roy

Rep. Chip Roy told The Daily Signal that the Justice Department’s indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center, while a welcome move, represents just one step in a broader effort the administration has undertaken against leftist groups. “The indictments are an enormously important step forward and an indication that the administration is taking this seriously,”…

EXCLUSIVE: Bill to Dismantle Taxpayer-Funded Democrat ‘Talent Pipeline’ Expected to Pass House Committee

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A House committee will likely pass a bill to reform a taxpayer-funded scholarship that critics call a “talent pipeline for the Democratic Party and liberal activist organizations,” a committee spokesperson told The Daily Signal. The spokesperson for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce predicted that the bill will pass…

The Department of Justice is investigating allegations of ties between left-wing groups and Cole Tomas Allen, the 31-year-old California teacher charged with attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump at Saturday’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

When asked by The Daily Signal if the department is investigating Allen’s reported association with leftist groups, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said “yes, of course.”

The Justice Department held a press conference Monday shortly after the suspected shooter was charged with attempting to assassinate the president of the United States.

Reports said Allen was associated with a progressive collective known as “The Wide Awakes,” but the organization denied the connection in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation‘s Hudson Crozier.

Posts from the Wide Awakes Instagram account include a call to defund ICE and a declaration of American land as “Indian Land.”

Shortly before the Justice Department press conference, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the attempted violence.

“Those who constantly falsely label and slander the president as a fascist, as a threat to democracy and compare him to Hitler to score political points, are fueling this kind of violence,” she told reporters. “The left-wing cult of hatred against the president and all of those who support him and work for him has gotten multiple people hurt and killed, and it almost did so again this weekend.”

Leavitt said Allen’s manifesto echoed the rhetoric about the president on social media and in the press.

“Much of the manifesto of the would-be assassin is indistinguishable from the words that we hear daily from so many,” she said.

The California man also faces charges of transporting a firearm across state lines and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. He appeared in federal court in Washington for his arraignment on Monday.

Allen left a manifesto with family members referring to himself as the “Friendly Federal Assassin” and expressing plans to target senior Trump administration officials who were present in the hotel ballroom.

As the Trump administration continues to insist that states beef up election security, Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose is defending his role in sending voter data along to the federal government.

In May 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice began requesting that states hand over statewide voter registration lists. The lists contain information such as names, addresses, driver’s license information, and Social Security numbers that can be used to spot ineligible voters and remove them from the rolls.

Ohio is one of 12 states that have complied with the DOJ’s request so far. The department has sued another 29 states for denying the information.

In an interview with The Daily Signal, LaRose said Ohio has an interest in preventing voter fraud and “decided it was the right thing to do.”

“I believe the federal law requires us to share this data with the Department of Justice, so I did it,” LaRose said Friday. “Ohio is maintaining our voter rolls more accurately and more thoroughly than almost any other states, probably any other state in the country.”

While the secretary said he’s not afraid of being sued, he met with Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and her staff to ensure Ohio’s sensitive voter data “was going to be transmitted securely” and used only for “lawful purposes.”

States that have refused to comply argue that voter roll data is highly sensitive, and that it can be stolen for purposes of identity theft, harassment, or to access financial or government records.

LaRose said the federal government is bound by protection requirements he called “very stringent,” and added that any official who misused such data would be held criminally liable.

“I’m not going to bemoan any of our other Republican states that decided not to share this data, because, in some cases, they have state law that says they may not,” LaRose said.

At the same time, the secretary acknowledged he has a “responsibility to the people of Ohio” to guarantee data would be handled securely.

Earlier this month, Ohio Democratic state Rep. Allison Russo filed a records request to identify the types of data LaRose sent to the federal government, and to seek transparency on the EleXa program Ohio uses for voter integrity.

EleXa is a multi-state election integrity network used to replace the Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, which more than two dozen states have used to manage voter roll accuracy since 2019.

“Government use of personal information relies on public trust, and Ohio has a compelling interest and obligation in protecting individuals’ privacy and personal information,” Russo said in a statement.

“Secretary LaRose often mentions election integrity when making decisions, but election integrity must include securing voter information in a way that does not undermine privacy, enable manipulation, or erode confidence in our elections. Protecting this data is essential not only to prevent abuse, but to preserve the public’s trust that the democratic process is fair, secure, and worthy of participation.”

Russo’s office also maintained that data on 8 million Ohio voters was transferred to the DOJ “without clear legal authority for the agency’s request.”

LaRose insisted it should not be controversial to share such data, arguing that Social Security numbers come from the federal government, and that the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles “routinely” exchanges data with the federal government for taxes and other reasons. In addition, he said Ohio quit the ERIC program because it “proved unfixable.”

As for lawsuits, Ohio’s secretary of state said he predicts the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately rule that states must share data with the federal government under both the Federal Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act.