Georgia’s first “nonbinary transgender” politician could be sworn into the state’s Legislature this upcoming session.

Bentley Hudgins, who openly identifies as a nonbinary transgender, was the top vote-getter in last month’s Democrat primary election to represent House District 90, which includes parts of DeKalb County. Previously, Hudgins served as Georgia state director for the Human Rights Campaign.

“To me, it shows that the voters are tired of the hate and they just care about somebody’s qualifications,” Hudgins recently said in an interview. “But as a representative, I view the win, historic or not, as a starting point, and it’s up to me to prove to the people of my House district that good government can happen and that we can build a democracy that is worth fighting for.”

Hudgins, a Democrat, now heads to the November general election and could replace outgoing state Rep. Saira Draper.

Hudgins is not the only transgender who has been eyeing a seat in the state’s top legislative body. Democrat candidate for Georgia State House District 51 Aaron Baker and Democrat candidate for Georgia State Senate District 5 Robin McCoy came close of obtaining their party’s nomination.

Baker, who launched his campaign after boasting on social media that he was “getting his b—s removed,” came within 10% of the nomination. Baker ran against the incumbent, Esther Panitch.

In a previous interview, Baker revealed that he ran in order to bring change to an “anti-immigrant, anti-DEI and anti-trans” Legislature.

“After years of the Georgia Legislature ignoring the real affordability crisis people are facing, they have instead chosen to pass anti-immigrant, anti-DEI, and anti-trans legislation to scapegoat people like me. But we are fighting back,” Baker said.

McCoy, similarly to Baker, lost his election by less than 1,000 votes.

Teachers unions continue to embrace woke gender ideology and force it on young children. 

When a transgender flag flies over a building, make no mistake: That building has been conquered by left-wing extremists. 

Today, a rainbow flag flies over the building of the nation’s largest teacher union, the National Education Association, in Washington, D.C. The union is publicly declaring its dedication to gender ideology over and above the importance of improving student achievement.  

It is not the only teachers union embracing Pride Month. On June 1, the Florida Education Association changed its X profile picture to a trans flag and posted that it was celebrating Pride Month. All this while enrollment in Florida public schools continues to drop as more students flee to Florida’s many private and charter schools, where they are not, as a general rule, bombarded with gender ideology.  

The American Federation of Teachers joined in observing Pride Month, posting on the social media platform Bluesky. AFT also posted articles on its website about work advocating for gender ideology. Last June, the organization’s “LGBTQIA+ Task Force” advocated on Capitol Hill for “LGBTQIA+ rights, protections for trans healthcare and immigrant justice.” 

Note that these issues have nothing to do with improving the education of American students.  

In the classroom, the endorsement of LGBTQ+ issues by educators is a distraction. In a Senate hearing on June 3, Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., asked Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights and advocate for sex-rejecting procedures, about teachers talking with children about sexuality.  

Banks asked Minter if it was appropriate for teachers to talk to 12-year-old children about sexuality. Minter replied, “No.” Yet, when asked by Banks about pride flags, Minter refused to condemn the placement of pride flags in kindergarten classrooms.  

One cannot claim to condemn exposing young kids to radical gender ideology while hanging its banner in their classrooms. 

Many teachers understand this reality. Studies have shown that teachers, especially elementary school teachers, understand that gender identity should not have a place in schools. Nevertheless, their unions continue to display a dedication to this radical ideology.  

Doing so is a clear indication of unions’ real priorities. Teachers unions are advancing a political agenda in classrooms across America. In each classroom where a pride flag is put up—this month or any other—parents should recognize it for what it is: a sign of dedication to political ideology over educational quality. It is a symbol of a radical ideology that has no place in a room full of children.  

Parents have taken note. The number of states and families using education choice programs continues to rise. It is time for teachers unions to finally listen. Unless they focus on excellent schools providing quality education, parents with options will look elsewhere for their children.  

It is time to lower the pride flags waving above teachers unions and remove the radical ideologies they push in classrooms. Parents want schools that provide education, not indoctrination. 

Surprise, surprise: There really is no such thing as a free bus.

One of New York City’s socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s key campaign promises was that he would provide free bus services to everyone in the city.

Not only is that goal seemingly not even in the medium-term plans for the mayor, but one of the programs he pointed to as a successful model has gone belly up.

Bloomberg News reported Tuesday that Kansas City, Missouri, ended its experiment to provide free bus services to people in the city. It will now begin charging riders for the service.

“Kansas City reinstated bus fares this month after six years, unwinding a closely watched experiment that inspired zero-fare transit campaigns across the U.S., including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s,” Bloomberg reported.

Kansas City’s free bus was sold as a cost-saving measure that would make ridership more “equitable.”

The city created the program with a major federal cash influx during the COVID-19 lockdowns. But it became financially untenable as the initial funds ran out in 2023 and the cost of operations reportedly climbed to $15 million a year, nearly double the initial projections.

Part of the problem is endemic to other “free” transportation services in big cities. Without the small amount of buy-in from customers and given the tendency of blue cities to tolerate mass homelessness and recidivism, these services naturally become more dangerous and more expensive.

In his advocacy for the free bus program, Mamdani claimed that it would make the system safer. That claim seems doubtful at best.

In making this claim, he relied on crime reports showing that free buses lead to decreased assaults on bus drivers. Given that drivers don’t have to ask for tickets, there are possibly fewer reasons for a violent confrontation. But the report, as City Journal noted, was based on a very small sample from an already existing New York program.

And in most cases, assaults on passengers have typically gone up.

The New York Post reported in August that drivers and riders complained that Kansas City buses had become “unreliable, filthy, rolling homeless shelters.”

Free Press additionally reported that the Kansas City bus system became plagued by “loop riders,” which are “passengers who, when offered a free ride, would occupy bus seats for hours, sometimes all day, as they refused to get off at the end of a given route.”

Many of these loop riders made life worse for other bus passengers. An increase in assaults and vandalism on the buses meant that the city had to increase security and spend additional millions of dollars to keep passengers safe.

Some cities have learned this lesson and have dramatically improved their transportation systems by putting up stronger barriers to fare evaders. The Bay Area Rapid Transit system, which has been struggling for years, dramatically reduced costs and boosted ridership by installing new, more secure fare gates. A rare moment of sanity for the San Francisco Bay Area.

New York City would likely have even more extreme problems with rider safety and slower bus routes than other cities. Overall, crime is down in the city compared to a year ago, but random assaults and murders on the subway are up dramatically.

You can be sure that the small number of people who cause the most mayhem on the subway will find a free bus just as appealing, if not more so.

And that additional dysfunction eats into the overall cost of the free bus, which wouldn’t actually be free at all.

The Washington Examiner’s Daniel Idfresne recently reported that the New York City Independent Budget Office estimated the yearly cost to operate this free fare system would be $1.1 billion. This is reportedly a “roughly $450 million annual markup” from the estimate Mamdani cited on the campaign trail.

That’s a lot of money that the city simply doesn’t have. Budgetary gimmicks and delayed payments can’t continue forever.

Like with the mayor’s government-run grocery store plan, the free bus proposal likely comes with a massive, unsustainable price tag and a dubious path to success.

So, will that reality and the Kansas City bus failure deter Mamdani from going ahead with his plan?

Probably not.

Socialists have a particular knack for ignoring history, even very recent history.

The only limiting factor here may be that the bus program is run by a state-level agency and the folks in the state capital might not be so keen on losing out on a whole lot of revenue while gaining more than a few more headaches to appease the mayor.

The mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, has been campaigning with former officials from President Barack Obama’s administration to champion green tax policies.

Earlier this month, Paige Cognetti, the congressional candidate for Pennsylvania’s 8th Congressional District, was seen alongside Jon Carson, a former Obama administration official involved in the federal Chesapeake Bay cleanup effort.

Carson served as chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2009 to 2010, when the administration was implementing its Chesapeake Bay restoration strategy—commonly described by the Environmental Protection Agency as a regional “pollution diet” designed to reduce nutrient and sediment levels across multiple states.

Carson is associated with what Scranton residents call the “rain tax,” a city-imposed fee on homeowners as a penalty for using fertilizers, which run off into streams when it rains. Opponents of the fee say it is ineffective, hurts homeowners, and should not be pushed at the national level.

In an interview with the Daily Signal, Dwayne McDavitt, a resident of Scranton and retired law enforcement officer, said that Cognetti’s actions as mayor are exactly the type of thing Washington, D.C., needs less of.

“We should not be sending more people to Washington who champion this agenda. On paper, the tax is supposed to be for a stormwater fee,” McDavitt told the Daily Signal. “But this tax only applies to homeowners in Cognetti’s town. They told us this fee was to clean the Chesapeake Bay and prevent certain wildlife from dying, but they’re actually thriving.”

McDavitt added that the tax is ineffective because fertilizer use is the same as before.

“This is an excuse for the government to raise more money,” he said.

“Since the tax was enacted, housing prices in Scranton shot up, and the government had to seize those that went into foreclosure. The government pays for the housing,” McDavitt said. “She [Cognetti] would rather force people to be dependent on government rather than on themselves.”

Cognetti’s campaign appearances with Carson come as stormwater policy remains a contentious issue in Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Critics argue that the federal policies developed during the Obama era contributed to mandates that ultimately resulted in higher costs, including stormwater fees on homeowners and businesses.

McDavitt said Cognetti’s associations reveal her political leanings.

“She’s campaigning with them because that’s the only way she thinks she can get elected—by campaigning with the people that ran the Biden administration. She’s a far-left Biden supporter,” he said.

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

Few Americans would read the facts in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety without being disturbed. According to Damon Landor and the state of Louisiana, prison officials shaved his dreadlocks against his will and in violation of his religious beliefs as a devout Rastafarian. Even more appalling is the fact that Landor told the officers his dreadlocks were protected by his First Amendment “free exercise” rights, and he handed the officers a written opinion by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals directly on point. The officers ignored the court’s opinion.

The issue in the case that made its way to the Supreme Court wasn’t whether the officers’ conduct was outrageous—it was. The narrow legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether “appropriate relief” under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act may include money damages in suits against government officials in their individual capacities.

In a 6–3 decision written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Supreme Court held that RLUIPA does not authorize money damages against state corrections officials in their individual capacities. The court reasoned that Congress enacted RLUIPA under its spending clause authority, which binds only those who voluntarily and knowingly accept federal funding conditions. Because the individual prison officers were not part of any agreement with the federal government and did not personally consent to liability under RLUIPA, Landor could not pursue damages against them. The court therefore affirmed the judgment of the 5th Circuit.

Landor argued that RLUIPA permits money damages against government officials in their individual capacities because the statute authorizes claimants to obtain “appropriate relief against a government.” The United States, supporting Landor, submitted an amicus brief where it argued that the Supreme Court’s decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir interpreted identical language in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to allow damages against individual government officials.

Because RLUIPA and RFRA are often described as “sister statutes,” the government argued that they should be interpreted consistently. The United States further contended that damages are sometimes the only meaningful way to remedy violations of religious liberty. Once Landor’s dreadlocks were cut, there was no way to undo the harm. Allowing damages, supporters argued, provides accountability for officials who violate clearly established religious rights and ensures that victims receive a meaningful remedy.

The Louisiana Department of Corrections and the National Sheriffs’ Association had a different view. They argued that RLUIPA was designed to prevent ongoing burdens on religious exercise through injunctions and policy changes rather than to create personal liability for individual officers. They maintained that the court’s decision in Sossamon v. Texas treated RLUIPA’s authorization of “appropriate relief” as too ambiguous to clearly authorize damages.

They also argued that because RLUIPA was enacted under Congress’ spending clause authority, liability should extend only to entities that receive federal funds, not individual officers who are not direct recipients. Expanding RLUIPA to allow personal capacity damages, they warned, would expose sheriffs, jail officials, and correctional officers to personal lawsuits that go beyond what Congress intended.

Gorsuch explained that the Constitution’s spending clause may confer on Congress the power to spend money on the “general welfare,” but it does not “endow Congress with any power to regulate conduct.” And while Congress can attach strings to the funds it distributes, if a recipient violates those conditions, Congress can move to terminate the funding.

In this case, the Louisiana’s Department of Corrections accepted federal funding and agreed to comply with RLUIPA’s requirements, but the individual correctional officers employed by LDOC did not “voluntarily and knowingly” consent to the terms of the agreement between the federal government and the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections.

Because Congress lacks a general power to regulate individuals through the spending clause, the court concluded that personal liability may be imposed only on parties who knowingly and voluntarily consent to the conditions attached to federal funds. The majority also rejected arguments based on agency law, indirect receipt of federal funds, and the necessary and proper clause, reasoning that allowing damages suits against nonconsenting individuals would improperly expand federal power beyond its constitutional limits.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissent argued that RLUIPA requires local and state prisons that accept federal funding to accommodate a prisoner’s religious exercise, and that the statute specifically authorizes damage suits against government employees in their individual capacity. The majority “magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized.” As a result, prison officials will have little incentive to accommodate the free exercise rights of prisoners, knowing full well that if they violate the law, they won’t be held personally liable.

The Supreme Court held Tuesday that immigration law doesn’t require the government to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime before deeming him an applicant for admission.

The case involved removal proceedings against an immigrant legally residing in the United States who was charged with selling counterfeit products. It had the potential to affect the operations of Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and immigration courts.

In a 6-3 ruling, the majority—with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the court—reversed the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held the Immigration and Nationality Act requires border officers to have compelling evidence that a lawful immigrant committed a crime of “moral turpitude” before blocking readmission to the United States.

The plaintiff, Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national residing in the U.S. with a green card, was charged with counterfeiting before leaving the country and was convicted after returning and being placed on parole. The Immigration and Nationality Act says that green card holders who leave the country and re-enter are generally not regarded as seeking admission to the United States. However, an exception exists for a “crime involving moral turpitude,” which would include fraud or theft.

“The Government correctly regarded Lau as an applicant for admission, so it properly charged him with inadmissibility. Nothing in the INA required the border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude,” Thomas wrote for the majority.

Lau, a lawful permanent resident in the United States, was charged in May 2012 on New Jersey state charges for selling almost $300,000 worth of knockoff Coogi shorts, according to SCOTUSblog.

Before his trial, he left the country but returned on June 12, when immigration officers at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York stopped him.

Immigration officers determined that Lau was subject to the “moral turpitude” exception and paroled him. That allowed him to stay in the U.S. temporarily to face prosecution, but deferred his eligibility for admission.

A year later, he pleaded guilty to trademark counterfeiting and was sentenced to two years’ probation. In March 2014—during the Obama administration—the Department of Homeland Security began removal proceedings against Lau on the grounds that he wasn’t eligible for admission.

Lau challenged immigration officials’ decision to parole him rather than admit him into the country in June 2012, contending that he was improperly classified.

The case is Blanche v. Lau, renamed for acting Attorney General Todd Blanche after initially being named Bondi v. Lau for former Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“The Supreme Court 6-3 majority issued a short, straightforward decision because the analysis of the immigration statute is straightforward,” Lora Ries, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Border Security and Immigration Center, said in a public statement. “The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require Customs and Border Protection agents to have clear and convincing evidence that an alien seeking to enter the U.S. has committed a crime involving moral turpitude. Nor would such a requirement be practical, as port agents have very limited time to inspect plane loads of passengers at a time.” 

Ries added: “Lau benefited from the border agent paroling him into the country in lieu of denying admission outright or detaining him while his criminal case proceeded. Nonetheless, Lau demanded even more—full admission into the U.S., despite his crime and contrary to the INA. He overreached, and the Supreme Court rightly steered his case back to the law.” 

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Pro-life doctors are urging the Food and Drug Administration to reinstate abortion pill guardrails stripped during the Biden administration. Four years after Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion rates are higher than ever because these safeguards are no longer in place.

It’s not just babies dying from abortions; mothers’ lives are at risk from the FDA-approved abortion pill mifepristone.

In a letter obtained by the Daily Signal, four doctors, representing tens of thousands of pro-life medical professionals from across the country, urge acting Commissioner of the FDA Kyle Diamantas to reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement once needed to get a prescription for the abortion pill. During COVID-19, the Biden administration stripped this requirement, leading to a “public health crisis.”

New data shows that serious complication rates are far higher than previously disclosed on FDA labeling. Life-threatening complications include hemorrhage, sepsis, and incomplete abortions requiring surgical intervention.

“We are grateful to see a full safety review has been launched, and simultaneously with this review being conducted, ask that the in-person dispensing requirement be immediately reinstated,” reads the letter. “With your ascendence into the role of Acting Commissioner of the FDA, we urge you to protect American women and undo the FDA’s previous devastating actions.”

Diamantas has received support from pro-life groups. Students for Life President Kristan Hawkins told the Daily Signal that Diamantas promised he would be the “most pro-life FDA commissioner that the FDA has ever had.”

Within hours of his recent FDA appointment, he called Live Action President Lila Rose and told her “reviewing the abortion pill is a top priority for him and the administration,” Rose said on X.

He was appointed over a month ago but has made little news on the promise.

The letter continues, asking Diamantas to require doctors to report all “adverse events” of mifepristone, include a comprehensive evaluation of real-world safety data in the safety review of the drug, ensure the safety review is unbiased, and require ultrasounds to confirm gestational age.

Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, recently released an exposé video revealing the medical risks of ordering abortion pills online and the medical risks that follow. She says that they “found no medical oversight whatsoever.”

According to the letter, signed by Francis; Dr. Greg Burke, the vice president of the Catholic Medical Association; Dr. Mike Chupp, CEO of the Christian Medical and Dental Association; and Dr. Mike Artigues, president of the American College of Pediatricians, mifepristone is a life-threatening drug that often causes serious complications.

Between 2017 and 2023, more than 860,000 adverse events occurred after 45 days of using mifepristone. Of the adverse events, more than 10% experienced severe complications, including infection, hemorrhage, surgical intervention, or undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy.

Based on their research and the lack of safety reviews conducted on mifepristone, the risks surrounding the “safer than Tylenol” drug are 22 times higher than previously disclosed.

“Such blatant disregard for the health and safety of women and willful ignorance of what is occurring in emergency departments across the country undermines informed consent and public trust,” reads the letter. “Claims that mifepristone is ‘safer than Tylenol’ are not only scientifically unfounded but also violate FDA guidelines on comparative safety claims.”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., has issued a subpoena compelling former top federal health official Dr. Anthony Fauci to testify before Congress, escalating a yearslong clash over the origins of COVID-19 and the government’s pandemic response.

Paul, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said the subpoena became necessary after Fauci declined to appear voluntarily—despite previously agreeing to testify.

“Last week, Anthony Fauci notified us that he will not voluntarily testify,” Paul said on X. “Therefore, today I have issued a subpoena requiring him to testify before the Committee.”

Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is expected to appear before the panel in July.

Showdown Over Pandemic Accountability

The subpoena marks a major escalation in the ongoing battle between Fauci and Republican lawmakers, who have pressed for answers about federal funding for virus research and the early handling of COVID-19.

Paul said he reached his “breaking point” after months of negotiations and delays.

“He agreed, then he said he wouldn’t,” Paul said, adding that the committee had been seeking information for months.

The Kentucky senator has indicated he plans to question Fauci on a range of issues, including federal funding connected to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, whether gain-of-function research was supported with U.S. taxpayer dollars, and Fauci’s prior testimony to Congress.

“There are 120 secret U.S.-funded biolabs in 30 countries,” Paul wrote on X. “Anyone who tried to expose these foreign gain-of-function labs was threatened and silenced by the Biden administration and Fauci. This level of secrecy and intimidation should concern every American.”

New Documents Fuel Controversy

The subpoena follows the recent release of declassified materials by former Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, which she said raise serious questions about Fauci’s role in shaping the government’s understanding of the virus.

During the pandemic, suspicion about the origin of the virus, as well as the government’s involvement in it, arose among lawmakers, the scientific community, critics, and political figures in the United States. However, those same critics claimed their voices were suppressed through intimidation, legal repercussions, or censorship.

While those claims were long denied by Fauci, the administration of former President Joe Biden, and other public figures, the new documents released by Gabbard accuse Fauci of directing “millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, worked with politicized elements within the Intelligence Community to suppress the truth about his actions and hide the virus’ lab-leak origins.”

Paul also accused Fauci of lying to Congress while under oath in 2024.

Now, the documents have led to intensified calls from Republican lawmakers for further investigation and public testimony.

Broader Debate Over COVID-19 Origin

The question of how COVID-19 began remains unresolved, with U.S. intelligence agencies divided between competing theories, including a natural origin and a possible lab-related incident.

According to Paul, under Fauci’s discretion, the National Institutes of Health directed millions of taxpayer dollars and colluded with the Chinese Communist Party to develop artificial labs to manufacture an epidemic virus.

Fauci has contradicted the claims numerous times, consistently saying early evidence pointed toward a natural origin of COVID-19, while critics have argued that alternative theories were downplayed during the pandemic. He also sparred with Paul over whether what he was funding qualified as “gain-of-function” research.

The upcoming testimony could bring those competing narratives into direct confrontation under oath.

Pardon Adds Legal Layer

Complicating matters is a preemptive pardon issued by Biden in January 2025 to Fauci, along with several other public officials.

Biden said at the time the pardons were intended to protect public servants from politically motivated prosecutions and “should not be mistaken as an acknowledgment” of wrongdoing.

However, Paul has verbally challenged the pardon, claiming that “Biden’s pardon of Fauci is unconstitutionally vague, covers 10 years of potential crimes, and was signed by autopen without Biden’s direct authorization.”

“You can’t pardon someone for crimes never specified. This should be challenged in court.”

Virginia’s governing Democrats played “let’s make a deal” to pass a two-year budget that will take effect next week.

The state lawmakers opted to maintain a tax break that encourages companies to build data centers in the commonwealth. They offset that by imposing a new tax on the energy that those centers will use.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger is taking credit for the idea.

“Importantly, this budget positions the commonwealth to be a national leader on data centers,” she announced. “Virginia will institute a statewide energy consumption tax on data centers—an idea I first proposed this spring—to ensure this industry pays its fair share and does not drive up costs for Virginia families.”

Lawmakers hope the new policy can raise $1.2 trillion over the next two years. They promised to cap it at $600 million per year and refund any amount over that to companies at the end of the fiscal year.

“This compromise will bring hundreds of millions of dollars into our budget and at the same time make sure that they are paying their fair share,” Democrat Del. Sam Rasoul told WSLS after the proposal passed.

However, there is no guarantee that the agreement will raise that much. “What happens when the Virginia spenders ‘only’ collect three-quarters of a billion dollars?” Joe Thomas wrote in the Daily Signal.

No matter how much revenue it brings in, the proposal comes with real costs.

“The conference report creates a web of new regulations for data centers, many on an expedited timeline. They will dictate water use and create a new state noise regulation, one targeted only at data centers but not other noisy industrial neighbors,” Steve Haner, an energy policy analyst at the Thomas Jefferson Institute, told the Daily Signal.

“The Assembly wants information on all utility agreements with data centers. The consumption tax adds to state revenue but will not end the push to eliminate the sales and use tax exemption that previous assemblies approved. The political battles over the industry are going to intensify,” he added.

As if to prove the point, the state’s leading Democrat took to the Senate floor to critique her own agreement. “I still believe that expiring the data center sales and use tax exemption would be the best plan forward,” President Pro Tempore L. Louise Lucas said. “However, this conference report provides an alternative path where data centers pay their fair share to support services for Virginia and ensure structural balance.”

Lucas vowed to resume her “listening tour,” which passed through the Richmond area last week to hear from opponents of data centers.

Top Republicans have also opposed maintaining the tax break. “I am somebody who thinks we need to get rid of the data center tax break, because I don’t think we need to be giving $2 billion a year to huge AI big tech firms,” state Sen. Glen Sturtevant told the Daily Signal.

The process itself was troubling to the GOP.

“The budget has finally passed, but not in a manner that should make any Virginian proud,” House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore told WSLS. “More than 100 days after the General Assembly adjourned, lawmakers were forced to consider a budget that was substantially rewritten at the last minute and loaded with policy provisions that should have been debated openly during the regular legislative session.”

The budget deal also includes $20 million to fund construction of an “inland port” in Washington County. A similar project near Front Royal takes in railroad shipments from the Port of Virginia and moves the freight out by truck.

Lawmakers also approved studying improvements to Interstate 81 and appropriated $7 million to upgrade U.S. 460 in Buchanan County.

The lawmakers decided to spend some taxpayer money to beautify the neighborhood near their workplace. The budget ponies up $15 million to tear down the Richmond Coliseum, which closed in 2019 and has been wasting away ever since, just blocks from the capital.

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

Jack Fowler: Victor, you mentioned Tucker, and I saw this post this morning on X, and it’s “Tucker Carlson defends Graham Platner.” Quote, “Rather than respond to what his positions are, they’ve called him a Nazi because he had a tattoo that was not a swastika but was allegedly connected to the German military.” 

Victor Davis Hanson: Wait, he said allegedly? 

Fowler: Allegedly. “They’ve attacked the guy and his personal life. They don’t like him because he’s not sufficiently supportive of Israel.” That’s Tucker Carlson on Graham Platner. So, just thought I’d lay it out there. 

Hanson: So, let me get this straight. The Totenkopf just means, in German, “death’s head.” Many militaries have it, but there is a particular way of portraying that death’s head. And yes, in the 18th century, Austrian and Hungarian hussars, those were the light cavalry, they wore a skull. But this particular typology is popular in European right-wing circles and in other white supremacist circles because it denotes the Totenkopf, I think it’s called the Verband. 

That was the particular SS group that was responsible for the death camps, and they had it for a reason. They were there to kill people, and that particular insignia was worn by them.  

And No. 2, there were Waffen-SS, that is, military SS groups, and one of the most notorious was the 3rd Panzer Division, and they had Totenkopf. 

By the way, when the American soldiers saw those people and that they were Waffen-SS, and they tore off their shirts, and they found their—because they tattooed their blood types onto their arms. And that was the giveaway. And they tried to erase them when they were surrendering, but they did not treat them very well. 

They knew who they were. They knew they had murdered prisoners in Normandy. They knew all about how they had treated Americans. And they had that particular type of Totenkopf. 

When Graham Platner said he didn’t know, that is completely contradicted by girlfriends who said that he said, “My little Totenkopf.” He knew. With people who went in there, he went there. 

Then, when he was asked why he did it, he said, first, “I didn’t know.” When that exegesis did not work, then he said he had post-traumatic stress syndrome and he was suffering from it when he did it. Then when that didn’t work, he said he was a victim of toxic military masculinity culture that had imbibed him with it. 

In other words, he was lying because he knew what he had done, because he liked the idea of wearing it, and that’s why he told people about it and pulled off his shirt and took pictures of it. 

When Tucker says allegedly, that’s simply not true, Tucker. It’s not allegedly. That particular version of a death’s head is tied particularly with SS groups that slaughtered people both in the Holocaust and prisoners of war. And he knew that, and he put it on there for a reason. And that reason is substantiated with all of his white supremacist stuff he was on. 

And it’s not just that they’re looking into his personal life. They’re looking into his personal life because he keeps saying that they’re not going to find anything.  

And every time he says he didn’t abuse women, some woman comes and says, “He jammed my arms behind my back. He pushed me. He locked me in a room all night.” 

And then, when he says, “I’m just an oyster man,” OK, this is politics. Let me see your oyster business. Oh, you’re a one-person oyster man? Oh, you have one client, your mother? You’re working on an oyster island that your father’s owned.

And then, “I know what it’s like to buy a house.” No, you don’t. You got a $200,000 loan from your daddy. 

So, everything he says is not true. 

And the next thing is when Tucker is defending him. Tucker’s a conservative. He still believes, I think, maybe I’m wrong, maybe he’s gone full Bill Kristol, but I have been given things that he sends out. I think I’m still on a list, and I look at it, and he’s very critical of open borders. He wants deportation. I assume he still wants energy development. 

Graham Platner doesn’t want any of that. Nothing. 

So, what I’m getting at, Jack, is that the one issue that he may differ with Graham Platner is Jews. I mean, not differ, is Jews and their influence in the United States and Israel. And therefore, because that issue is the one issue that he’s upset but he’s not upset. 

I don’t hear Tucker saying, “I don’t like Trump because of his border policies. I don’t like Trump because he deported people. I don’t like Trump because he cracked down on crime. I don’t like Trump because he’s pumping too much oil. I don’t want—I like Trump.” 

No, it’s one issue. It’s the Iran war and the Jews made us do it. And that issue then overrides all the other issues. All the other issues pale. 

I am a 90% conservative, but I hate Israel so much and the people who support it so much, I am willing to cancel out all the other issues and join this fanatic communist socialist. Makes no sense. 

Fowler: Yeah. One last thing on tattoos, Victor. I don’t have any tattoos. I will never have a tattoo. I assume, though, by the variety you see on the street and the number of tattoo parlors, there’s probably several hundred thousand tattoos you could get if you wanted to get a tattoo. 

And to pick that particular tattoo out to put on you instead of having a tattoo of Kermit the Frog or something, a heart with an “I love you, Mom,” it’s kind of foolish for Tucker to pull the ‘allegedly’ thing.

Hanson: I only considered it at one time. I was, let me see now, I was like 47 or 46 and all my daughters’ friends at college had these strategically placed tattoos, on their foot or on their back so they could show it if they wanted. And they all had nose rings. 

And my daughter came home with a nose ring. 

Fowler: Fun. 

Hanson: And I said, “OK.” I got both my daughters and my son together and I said, “If anybody gets a nose ring or gets a tattoo, here is what I’m going to do. I’ve always wanted a barbed wire tattoo around my biceps, and I’ve always wanted to wear a wife-beater T-shirt.” 

“So, here’s what I’m going to do. Every single day that I pick you up at school or I’m with you, I’m going to have two barbed wire tattoos, one on each arm, and I’m going to show them.” 

And my son said something like, “Well, you don’t have big biceps.” 

I said, “That’ll be even more pathetic, won’t it?” 

And then I said, “If that doesn’t work, I don’t want to do it because I have sinus problems. I might have to get a nose ring.” 

Fowler: Got a diamond stud, yeah. 

Hanson: And that was it. 

The nose ring came out, and all three of them never had a tattoo. 

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

Students in the U.S. take for granted that every child has the chance to get an education.

Around the world, however, millions never get this opportunity, especially young girls. While poverty and regional conflicts account for many of the reasons, a simple solution could determine whether a girl stays in or drops out of school: hygiene. Specifically, menstrual hygiene products.

While serving in Uganda, one of us worked alongside The Dignity Project, a Christian nonprofit organization that provides reusable pads and feminine health education for women and girls living in the slums of Kampala.

These pads were more than just a product. After talking with girls from the slums, one pad could be the difference between attending school and dropping out.

In poor African homes with girls, menstruation can come with shame, isolation, and absence in the classroom. Many families simply cannot afford hygiene products each month.

In one household, a father forced the daughters to sit over dirt holes dug behind their home for the length of their cycles. This brutal act reinforces the shame that menstruation can cause, making girls feel as though they should be excluded because of a normal, female process.

This is a disheartening reality for impoverished girls in Uganda and many other parts of Africa.  

When girls are consistently absent from school during menstruation, the consequences go beyond just missed content.

These girls who miss school are likely to fall behind, eventually leading them to drop out of school entirely. Being forced into marriage due to poverty, family pressure, bride price arrangements, or tradition, teen girls are left voiceless.

According to the World Bank, “Uganda has one of the highest rates of adolescent pregnancy in the world, which is the result of both consensual and forced sex.”

Child marriage resulting in teen pregnancy remains a huge challenge. For some girls, marriage seems like an escape from the struggles and stigma surrounding menstruation. Once young girls leave school, they are exposed to a higher amount of exploitation than before.

Organizations such as The Dignity Project are changing the lives of thousands of young women.

The Project is targeting the barrier that keeps girls out of school through delivering pads and providing health education. Lillian Kirui, project coordinator of The Dignity Project in Uganda, explained in an interview, “My hopes for the future of this project is that we will continue to impact school-going girls so that they will be able to achieve their dreams and the aspirations they have for life without any restrictions.”

Motivated by the Christian call to provide human dignity to all, Kirui and her team are just one example of an organization fighting for girls to stay in school and pursue their goals without unfair restrictions.

Charitable organizations across the world recognize this problem, as well. For example, The Pad Project, founded in the U.S., has provided thousands of pads and pad-making machines to countries like Afghanistan, India, Kenya, and many others with one simple belief: “A period should end a sentence, not an education.”

No girl should lose her education because she lacks the basic hygiene products that she needs.

There are many Christian organizations providing simple acts of service that are life-changing for so many.

By helping girls remain in schools, these organizations are doing more than just offering a physical need. They are restoring dignity, broadening opportunities, and offering hope that ensures a girl’s future is not dictated by her ability to access basic hygiene products.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday decided on two religious freedom cases, in a pair of 6-3 rulings.

In a victory for tech giant Cisco, the Supreme Court held Tuesday that a company or entity cannot be held liable for aiding and abetting a violation of an anti-torture law. Members of China’s Falun Gong movement claimed that Cisco cooperated with the Chinese communist government’s persecution of the movement.

The court ruled in the case of Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe that courts can’t create a new cause of action under the Alien Tort Statute. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority.

“Courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms,” Barrett wrote for the majority. She later added, “The power to create causes of action belongs to Congress.” 

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

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

In another case, the high court held that a Louisiana prisoner could not sue a government official in his individual capacity for a violation of a religious freedom law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the 6-3 majority opinion for the court.

In Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, the court considered whether a prisoner can sue a prison official in his personal capacity for damages. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 forbids the government from imposing a “substantial burden” on incarcerated people’s religious free exercise rights.

The plaintiff, Damon Landor, had grown long dreadlocks as part of his practice of Rastafarianism. Officials honored his practices when he was incarcerated in 2020 on a drug offense, but after he was transferred with three weeks left in his sentence in 2022, a prison guard required him to have his head shaved.

Landor petitioned for the right to sue the guard for monetary damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. The trial court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals both determined that Landor wasn’t entitled to financial damages.

“Individuals may not be held liable in their personal capacities under a Spending Clause statute unless those individuals have voluntarily and knowingly consented to answer lawsuits under the statute; because the individual defendants in this case did not voluntarily and knowingly consent to face RLUIPA liability in an agreement with the federal government, Mr. Landor’s case cannot proceed against them,” Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

Interestingly, the conservative-leaning Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which litigates in favor of religious expression, and the left-leaning Americans United for Separation of Church and State both filed briefs to the high court in favor of the plaintiff.

The fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act has cleared its first major hurdle in Congress.  

The House Armed Services Committee approved its version of the legislation on June 4 in a 44-12 vote, while the Senate Armed Services Committee completed its markup and voted 18-9 on June 11 to advance its version of the fiscal year 2027 NDAA to the Senate floor.

Both bills now await consideration by their respective chambers before ultimately being reconciled in conference. As lawmakers begin debating the final shape of the legislation, the Senate proposal offers important insights into Congress’ current approach to rebuilding American military strength.  

The bill begins with the foundation of military power: the men and women who serve. The fiscal year 2027 NDAA reinforces merit-based standards, prioritizes combat effectiveness, and expands recruiting and retention incentives to address persistent personnel shortfalls.

These reforms are intended to ensure that the military remains focused on readiness and warfighting. 

The legislation also recognizes that military strength depends on more than the size of the force. A military can only be as strong as the industrial base that equips and sustains it. To address longstanding weaknesses in defense production, the bill invests in munitions manufacturing, shipbuilding capacity, and critical supply chains.

These efforts are intended to ensure the United States can produce the weapons, equipment, and materials necessary to sustain military operations during a prolonged conflict.  

For the Navy, the legislation makes significant investments in both fleet capacity and deterrence. The bill authorizes $10.2 billion for the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, $8.4 billion for Virginia-class submarines, and an additional $4.1 billion in advance procurement funding.

It also provides $3.45 billion for DDG-51 destroyers, including funding for an additional destroyer above the president’s request, alongside $1.4 billion for the Constellation-class frigate program and $2.2 billion for amphibious ships.

These investments strengthen America’s sea advantage and help ensure the Navy can sustain operations in a contested maritime environment.  

The Army portion of the bill focuses on ensuring the service can sustain operations in a prolonged conflict rather than simply fight the opening stages of a war. The legislation authorizes $2.03 billion in Army military construction funding while supporting modernization efforts through the Army Transformation Initiative, improvements to logistics networks, and investments in munitions production and prepositioned equipment.  

These efforts recognize that future conflicts will require more than advanced weapons systems. The Army must be able to rapidly deploy forces, maintain supply lines, and sustain combat operations over long periods of time. The bill takes important steps to ensure the Army remains prepared for any future conflicts. 

For the Air Force, the bill prioritizes long-range strikes and nuclear deterrence. The legislation continues support for the B-21 Raider bomber, maintains a force of at least 400 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, and invests in the infrastructure needed to support next-generation aircraft and new nuclear-armed air-launched weapons systems.  

For the Marine Corps, the bill continues to support the service’s transition toward a lighter, more agile force capable of operating in contested environments. The legislation provides roughly $723 million for artillery and munitions programs. It also supports investments in unmanned systems, precision fires, and expeditionary capabilities that enhance the Corps’ ability to operate across the Indo-Pacific.

These efforts strengthen the Marine Corps’ ability to deploy rapidly and operate strategically in important regions.  

The fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act reflects a growing recognition that military strength cannot be taken for granted. By investing in the personnel, infrastructure, industrial capacity, and modernization efforts that ground U.S. military power, the bill seeks to address the challenges facing today’s force while preparing for tomorrow’s threats.  

Additional work remains, but this legislation represents a meaningful step toward rebuilding the foundations of American military strength and ensuring the U.S. remains prepared for the challenges ahead.

In a case involving oil giant ExxonMobil, the Supreme Court held that a federal law granting the right to sue a foreign country over confiscated property overrides sovereign immunity.

The court ruled 6-3, splitting along ideological lines. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion.

ExxonMobil is seeking more than $1 billion in compensation for oil and gas assets seized by a Cuban state-owned company CIMEX. It filed the lawsuit in federal court in 2019 in the District of Columbia, CNBC reported.  

ExxonMobil wants the high court to reverse a 2024 lower court ruling that this was a foreign sovereign immunity matter, meaning a foreign government could not be sued.

The case was based on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act, which formalized the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. Title III of the law allows lawsuits in U.S. courts against entities that traffic in property confiscated by the Cuban government after the communist revolution of 1959.

However, most presidents did not allow lawsuits to proceed under the law. Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all suspended Title III, seeking to avoid diplomatic conflicts with U.S. allies such as Canada and Spain that are heavily invested in Cuba. Obama also expanded relations with Cuba during his second term.

President Donald Trump lifted the suspension of lawsuits in 2019, leading to about 40 complaints.

The defense cited the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, or FSIA, arguing that Title III violated international law.

“As the U. S. Government aptly explained at oral argument, applying the FSIA to suits under the Helms-Burton Act would create a ‘gross mismatch’ because Cuban agencies and instrumentalities were the Helms-Burton Act’s ‘main culprits,’” Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. “It would make little sense for Congress to construct an elaborate statute authorizing suits against the Cuban government agencies and instrumentalities if, because of the FSIA, almost no suits could ever get through the courthouse door.”

On Tuesday, a judge appointed by former President Joe Biden halted the Trump administration’s use of a citizenship database, which allows local governments to verify voter eligibility.

Biden nominated U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the District of Columbia in February 2024. The Senate confirmed her that December, meaning much of her record stems from rulings during the second Trump administration.

Sooknanan ruled Monday that a portion of President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order on election integrity was unlawful. The case centered on a partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to expand the SAVE database—short for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements. The expansion allowed agencies to search individuals using Social Security numbers, aggregate large amounts of data, and function as a citizenship verification tool to screen voter eligibility.

“Since then, states have partnered with the federal government to access the database and are actively removing U.S. citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information,” the judge wrote. “All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote. This court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

Here are three things to know about Sooknanan’s previous rulings:

1. Blocked Trump’s Removal of Labor Official

In March 2025, Sooknanan ruled that Trump’s removal of Federal Labor Relations Authority Chairwoman Susan Grundmann was unlawful and ordered her to be reinstated.

Sooknanan ruled the firing violated statutory protections for members of the independent labor board and rejected the administration’s argument that those protections were unconstitutional. The decision became part of a broader legal battle over presidential authority to remove officials from independent federal agencies.

2. Blocked FTC Action Against Media Matters

In August 2025, Sooknanan issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Federal Trade Commission from enforcing a civil investigative demand against Media Matters for America, a left-leaning media watchdog group.

She determined the group was likely to succeed in its claim that the FTC investigation violated the First Amendment and constituted retaliation for protected speech and reporting activities.

3. Issued Key Immigration Enforcement Rulings

In August 2025, Sooknanan issued an emergency order temporarily blocking the Trump administration from deporting hundreds of unaccompanied minors who came to the United States from Guatemala.

The ruling prompted the administration to halt planned removal flights while litigation over the children’s legal protections continued.

Later, Sooknanan rejected the Trump administration’s effort to dismiss a challenge to its use of Guantánamo Bay for immigration detention.

She subsequently ruled the administration lacked statutory authority to detain migrants at the facility, though she did not order the operation shut down.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—In an effort to beef up America’s manufacturing and reduce reliance on foreign companies, the Export-Import Bank, a federal credit agency, is unveiling a new loan opportunity for manufacturers.

Specifically, the bank is now “offering lender guarantees of up to 90% on equipment loans and operating leases” to American small and medium-sized manufacturers, a move it says will accelerate “the reindustrialization of America.“

The bank, which was established in 1934, seeks to provide financing for American exporters to give them a competitive advantage. 

The announcement of the initiative comes after the National Security Council—which advises the president on military and foreign policy—held a round table discussion Monday with the heads of the Export-Import Bank, the Department of Commerce, and the Small Business Administration on the topic of reindustrialization.

“For too long, the United States has relied on foreign production of machine tools and manufacturing machines,” reads an Export-Import Bank document explaining the project.

It adds, “Now, EXIM’s expanded Make More in America (MMIA) initiative will re-establish the domestic supply and secure U.S. leadership across all industrial manufacturing subsectors, from castings and forging to high-end automation.”

Export-Import Bank Chairman John Jovanovic said in a statement of the initiative, “We are putting American small business manufacturers first at EXIM and improving access to capital so they can grow and compete internationally.”

He added that by providing “up to a 90% guarantee on equipment financing, EXIM is helping lower costs and support investment, making it easier for businesses to expand operations and compete globally.”

Related Posts

State Department Cracks Down on Foreign Fraudsters

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—President Donald Trump is revoking the visas of three foreign nationals charged with defrauding the American people, the Daily Signal can first report. Three foreign nationals who the State Department says “swindled investors, looted taxpayer-funded programs, and abused the system” will no longer be allowed to enter the United States. “The…

SCOOP: Rick Scott Moves to Terminate DHS Program That Incentivizes Hiring Foreign Grads

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Sen. Rick Scott introduced a bill designed to end the Optional Practical Training visa program, which incentivizes employers to hire foreign students. The Florida Republican’s Prioritizing American Talent Act would prohibit Department of Homeland Security funding from being used to help foreigners secure employment in the U.S. The Optional Practical Training program, created…

‘END IT NOW’: MAGA Demands Trump End Visa Program That Takes Jobs From Americans

The MAGA movement is demanding that the Trump administration finally end a visa program that incentivizes employers to hire foreign students. The Optional Practical Training program, created in 1992, allows foreign students to remain in the United States to work for nearly four years after graduation. Employers receive a tax break for hiring foreign graduates…

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—President Donald Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services on Friday will terminate $67 million of teenage pregnancy prevention grants to defund “sexually explicit” curricula, according to documents obtained exclusively by the Daily Signal.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health’s Office of Population Affairs provides grants to organizations that promote teen pregnancy prevention, as well as organizations that write teen pregnancy prevention curricula. HHS terminated 53 of 67 of the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program grants after a department review.

The Biden-era HHS awarded organizations that push curricula the Trump administration calls “medically inaccurate,” “age-inappropriate,” and “sexually explicit,” violating the statute that set up the program.

HHS will announce two new award opportunities for potential partners that promote body literacy in place of radical gender ideology, abortion, and contraception. The opportunities will “focus on programs that do not promote material that depicts, describes, exposes, or presents obscene, indecent, or sexually explicit content, including content that normalizes or promotes sexual activity for minors.”

Explicit Curricula Losing Funding

Grantees in question used curricula that promoted pornography, contraception, transgenderism, abortion, and more to middle and high school-aged audiences.

WARNING: The following excerpts may be unsuitable for some readers.

For instance, the “Positive Prevention Plus” curriculum for high schoolers defines “gender identity” as “a person’s deeply-felt sense of being male or female, or being something in-between (cisgender, transgender).” The “gender binary” definition says the term “refers to a belief system that represents gender as two distinct and opposite categories, male and female,” as opposed to “gender expansive,” which refers to a “wider, more flexible range of gender identities and expressions instead of the binary gender system.”

Another part of that curriculum walks minors through the process of obtaining abortions, citing California state law that “minors can access abortion without parental notification or consent.” Positive Prevention Plus describes abortion as a “very safe procedure when done under medical supervision, with a major complication occurring less than one-quarter of 1% of the time.”

“Key points regarding terminating a pregnancy include: a pregnant person, including minors, can access abortion legally for any reason until 24 weeks after their last menstrual period,” the curriculum says.

“After that, if the pregnancy puts the person’s health or life at risk, the person still can legally access abortion,” the materials continue. “A pregnancy can be terminated through medication or through a procedure to empty the uterus early in pregnancy.”

Another curriculum titled “Wrap It Up,” intended for grades 9-12, includes content glorifying pornography when used in a “safe, private way” to obtain ideas on how to “spice things up” with partners.

The “Love Notes” curriculum, designed for ages 14-19, features excerpts describing various forms of pornography, including a celebrity interview discussing exposure to abusive pornography beginning at age 11 and escalating to graphic violent content by age 14.

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

“The interviewer adds: Spanking people, way more violent. Finneas describes it as: Hard-core pornography,” according to the curriculum.

The SHARP Curriculum for ages 15-19 asks teenagers to discuss “obtaining condoms,” including comparing “differences in costs, privacy, and any other concerns.” The conversation facilitator is told to “Briefly discuss carrying condoms, covering the following topics: Where can teenagers carry condoms?”

The “Be Proud, Be Responsible” curriculum includes a “role play” scenario of two boys weighing whether or not to use condoms to avoid HIV.

“Alonzo: You have slept with Will three times already, always unprotected. You have goals and dreams for the future and you want to use condoms. Your role: get Will to agree that condoms need to be used when you are both having sex,” the curriculum says.

“Will: You and Alonzo have just started being sexually intimate,” the scenario continues. “You have not used a condom during sex because you think you are too young to get HIV. You think only older guys get HIV; and that young ones are safe. You are not interested in using condoms until you are older. You think that condoms ruin the mood and interfere with the pleasure of having sex. You also know that Alonzo has a serious girlfriend.”

The “Linking Families and Teens” curriculum describes condoms as “easy to use,” saying, “Many teens use condoms successfully.”

“Straight, gay, bisexual, queer, and people of all gender identities and sexual orientations use condoms,” the curriculum states.

The teacher is told to say to students: “We are now going to learn how condoms are used. For some of you this may feel awkward. For others, it may be no big deal. But, condoms are so important we want everyone to have this experience.”

The curriculum includes “facilitator tips,” including information on how to make “dental dams.” The facilitator is also told to teach the “steps to using a condom” using a demonstration with a “wooden penis.”

“Ask who wants to practice the steps themselves, and pass out a practice condom to each participant,” the teacher instructions read.

The “Making Proud Choices” curriculum, aimed for ages 11-16, has students “practice the steps for using an external condom correctly.”

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

Another curriculum called Plan A features a video of underage characters drinking out of red Solo cups, “engaging in sexual relations,” and “discussing sexual intercourse.”

A character in the video says “Our culture is so old fashioned. My parents never talk about sex. And if they knew I was getting busy, they’d freak.”

Another character responds with “They don’t know you’re a lesbian?” to which the other says, “No, anyway, I’m bisexual.”

New Funding Opportunities

In addition to terminating 53 grants, HHS issued two new notices of funding opportunities for organizations aligned with the administration’s priorities.

The first notice asks for applications for projects that “rigorously evaluate promising interventions that contribute to adolescent optimal health and preventing teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), behavioral risk factors underlying teen pregnancy, or other associated risk factors.”

The Office of Population Affairs intends to make available approximately $8.3 million for nine grant awards.

The second notice will take applications for projects “provide medically accurate and age-appropriate programs that reduce teen pregnancy and advance adolescent health by strengthening body literacy, informed consent, and optimal health through the replication of effective teen pregnancy prevention (TPP) programs.”

After House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries refused to answer the Daily Signal’s question on his party’s pro-radical Islam problem, conservative lawmakers exclusively told the outlet that this is a result of “importing people that hate America.”

“The Democrats have nominated a Nazi and an al-Qaeda terrorist; the Democratic Party has fetishized Islamic terrorism,” Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., told the Daily Signal regarding Graham Platner, the Senate candidate in Maine, and Adam Hamawy, the House candidate in New Jersey.

“I feel bad for the transgenders; they used to be the Democrats’ favorite people. Now it’s radical Islamists,” he added.

Fine, a member of the congressional Sharia-Free America Caucus, called the Democratic Party a “mainstream, antisemitic pro-Muslim party.”

“Look how aggressively they fought to protect Iran,” he added. “I don’t see Democrats fighting hard to keep it out of their party as hard as I fight to keep it out of mine.”

Over 50 Democrats voted against a resolution to designate Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism. Iranian-sponsored terrorists have killed an estimated 40,000 protesters in 2026 alone, and the country is responsible for arming proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, who rape and kill young Israeli girls.

Fine compared the major religions, saying Christianity and Judaism allow freedom of religion, but Islam does not.

“When your civil rights group is a terrorist threat group, [and] when your top politicians are Rashida Tlaib, Zohran Mamdani, Abdul El-Sayed, and Ilhan Omar—people who downplay radical Islam—you have lost the battle,” Fine continued.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, has been accused by conservatives of acting as a front for radical Islamic terrorism. The group continues to lobby Congress. In April, CAIR visited over 210 congressional offices in one day.

Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, echoed Fine’s assessment.

“They [radical Islamists] have gone from the accommodation phase to the intimidation phase. The next phase is taking political power,” Self told the Daily Signal. “Once they get political power, they are going to, under our very generous laws, enact legislation that goes against the U.S. Constitution.”

“This goes hand-in-hand with [Democrats’] hatred towards Israel,” Self, co-founder of the Sharia-Free America Caucus, added.

“Support for Israel used to be a bipartisan issue. Now it is hard to find a pro-Israel party,” he continued. “We are losing the race to stop the Islamification of America. We are going to have to enlist governors, because they have more power on the ground than the federal government does. The law is not being enforced.”

Vice President JD Vance spoke optimistically of peace talks between the United States and Iran on Monday, even as President Donald Trump has threatened to resume strikes if Iran doesn’t rein in regional allies, and congressional stakeholders have questioned whether America is getting a fair deal.

On Monday morning, Vance departed from Switzerland after talks with Iran in which Qatar and Pakistan served as intermediaries.

“The final deal is the house,” Vance said Monday morning. “We set the foundation. We haven’t built the house, but we’ve laid a successful foundation to get to a good place for the American people.”

Vance suggested Iran had indicated its willingness to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors into the country to inspect its nuclear programs, although Iran has not said as much publicly.

He added “technical teams” would take over the negotiations that the memorandum of understanding has made possible.

The vice president also addressed the easing of sanctions, saying negotiators were considering unfreezing Iranian money so it could “go to buy American soy, American corn, and American wheat for the benefit of the Iranian people.” 

Curt Mills, executive editor of The American Conservative, who has been critical of the administration’s military intervention, said that the attempts to include pro-business provisions in the deal set these talks apart from those of the past.

“There’s going to obviously be every effort to make this different and, frankly, sexier than the … Obama deal,” Mills told the Daily Signal, referring to President Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which attempted to curtail Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon. 

Trump was first elected president in 2016 as a harsh public critic of the deal, which, as a candidate, he called “the worst deal ever negotiated.” 

Mills said talk of easing sanctions and a $300 billion fund for reconstruction in Iran is likely related to the fact American negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are investors in the region and because “the Iranians need to rebuild their country.”

Talk of freeing up money for the reconstruction in Iran has been controversial on Capitol Hill, including among Republicans. 

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recently told reporters, “I don’t want to see us send a penny to the ayatollah.”

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has similarly expressed concerns that Iran would “use the money that is being released to rebuild their ballistic missile arsenal and begin to enrich [uranium] again.”

The developing deal has had no cheerleaders among congressional Democrats.

“Everyone that bought Trump’s book, ‘The Art of the Deal,’ ought to ask him for a refund,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the floor on Thursday amid reports of potential reconstruction aid for Iran.

The U.S. Constitution says the president’s treaty power requires “the Advice and Consent of the Senate … provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

However, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed by Obama without congressional approval, side-stepping the Constitution’s treaty clause.

Congress then passed the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act in 2015, requiring the president to allow Congress to review future Iran nuclear deals.

The vice president’s conciliatory tone is a far cry from Trump’s public angling and occasional threats of military strikes.

On Sunday, the president urged Iran to rein-in proxies in Lebanon, threatening to “hit Iran very hard again” if they disobeyed.

Israeli and Hezbollah forces have continued to exchange strikes during the current ceasefire. Israel and Lebanon are not signatories of the memorandum of understanding that laid the groundwork for the current negotiations.

The same day, Trump said that if Iran shut off the Strait of Hormuz, then it “won’t have a country.”

Vance told reporters that Iranian negotiators in Switzerland “did threaten to walk out” after the president’s remarks, which he defended as a response to Iranian “trash talk.”

“What we told the Iranians yesterday is, when you guys engage in what us millennials might call ‘trash talk,’ you can’t expect the president of the United States not to respond and not to correct the record,” Vance said.

“So, yes, there was a little bit of threatening, there was a little bit of whining,” he added. “But at the end of the day, the talks continued and we made great progress.”

Related Posts

US and Iran Beginning Discussions on a Final Deal—Here’s What We Know

President Donald Trump announced that the United States and Iran are beginning discussions on a final deal. Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran on Thursday, opening a round of negotiations to reach a final peace agreement in 60 days. The memorandum of understanding, first reached over the weekend with Iran, involves the U.S….

JD Vance Survives the Women of ‘The View’

Fresh off negotiating a peace deal with the mullahs and extremists of Iran, Vice President JD Vance waded into the much more turbulent waters of ABC’s “The View” Tuesday. After receiving warm, respectful applause from most of the audience, Vance endured a hostile interrogation not from the usual four rotating co-hosts of the show, but…

Trump’s Iran Gamble

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Sami Winc: Victor, let’s go ahead and get to the memorandum of understanding. It was a very short two-page document, easy to read through,…

June 22 (Reuters)—A federal judge on Monday blocked the Trump administration from using a revamped version of an immigration database for checking the accuracy of state voter rolls, dealing a blow to U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to boost the role of the federal government in elections ahead of the midterm elections in November. 

Last year, the Department of Homeland Security revamped a system it uses to verify individuals’ citizenship and immigration status to make it easier for state and local officials to use it to make sure voters were U.S. citizens. 

In a 75-page decision on Monday, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in Washington, D.C., sided with voting rights and privacy advocates who argued that the overhaul of the system, known as SAVE, made it less accurate and risked disenfranchising eligible voters. 

“The federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” wrote Sooknanan, an appointee of Democrat President Joe Biden. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.” 

Neither DHS nor the Justice Department, which represents the administration in court, immediately responded to requests for comment.  

Trump Seeks to Boost Federal Role in Elections

Trump’s Republicans are locked in a fierce battle to maintain control of both houses of Congress in the Nov. 3 midterm elections.  

In the U.S., federal elections are administered by individual states. Trump and his allies have long asserted that states are not doing enough to prevent voter fraud, even though audits and academic studies have found that it is rare.

His administration’s efforts to boost the federal government’s control over elections have largely been stymied by the courts.

Three federal judges in separate cases have blocked Trump’s 2025 executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and restricting the counting of mail ballots.

A March 2026 executive order restricting mail-in voting has also drawn legal challenges. Federal judges have also rejected nine of the lawsuits the administration has brought against 30 states and the District of Columbia for refusing to hand over their complete voter rolls.

Critics say Republicans are driven less by concerns over election security than by an effort to gain political advantage by narrowing the electorate, risking the disenfranchisement of eligible, often Democrat-leaning voters.

Database Revamp Raises Privacy Concerns

Last year’s SAVE revamp allowed users to search many records at a time and gave them access to individuals’ Social Security numbers. 

Since then, several Republican-led states have compared their voter lists to the database and cancelled the registrations of registered voters flagged as noncitizens.

The advocacy groups that brought the lawsuit, including the League of Women Voters, said that this has resulted in people who were wrongfully identified as noncitizens being kicked off voter rolls. 

Voting-rights advocates argue that SAVE can be outdated, meaning immigrants who have been naturalized and are thus eligible to vote are sometimes labeled as noncitizens.

Sooknanan ruled that the revamp also violated privacy laws restricting the federal government’s disclosure of Social Security numbers and other information. 

(Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Matthew Lewis)