This week marks the anniversary of one of the most consequential yet least celebrated moments in American economic history. 

On May 17, 1792, 24 merchants, brokers, and auctioneers gathered at 68 Wall Street in New York and signed a concise, two-sentence agreement under a buttonwood tree. In plain language, they pledged to trade public stocks only with one another (to eliminate disreputable brokers) and to charge a set commission of one-quarter of 1% (to ensure fairness and transparency). These two simple actions brought order and confidence by establishing a trusted network of brokers and clarity on commissions. 

No flashy rhetoric. No sweeping proclamations. Just a practical, straightforward commitment to restore trust and stability in the wake of the chaotic financial panic of 1792. 

That unassuming document became the foundation of what we now know as the New York Stock Exchange. It was not government fiat or royal decree that gave birth to America’s capital markets. It was private businessmen, acting in their own enlightened self-interest, agreeing to rules that would let commerce flourish. 

In the fragile early years of our Republic, a mere three years after the Constitution was ratified and amid Alexander Hamilton’s efforts to stabilize the national debt, these men understood something fundamental: reliable markets require reliable behavior. Focus on the transaction. Honor your word. Serve your customers. Get back to business. 

Two hundred and thirty-four years later, as the U.S. prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, those lessons are as timely as ever. The entrepreneurial spirit that turned a collection of agrarian colonies into the world’s greatest economic engine was never about chasing every cultural controversy or scoring political points. It was about creating value, employing people, innovating relentlessly, and building wealth that lifts entire communities. The Buttonwood signers didn’t boycott one another over partisan disputes or demand ideological litmus tests before striking a deal. They simply agreed to trade fairly and move forward together.

Today, too many corporations have drifted from this straightforward mission. Shareholder value, customer satisfaction, and employee opportunity have been placed on the back burner as divisive social and political crusades have been given priority status. From boardrooms to proxy statements, too many companies find themselves pressured, sometimes internally, sometimes by crusading investors or activist organizations, to take stands on issues far removed from their core business purpose.

The results are predictable: boycotts, talent flight, legal risk, and a severe loss of public trust. Consumers, employees, and shareholders increasingly wonder why the brands they once depended on seem more interested in lecturing them than serving them. 

None of this is inevitable. All of this is fixable. The genius and success of American enterprise have always been rooted in its capacity for self-correction.

Just as the Buttonwood signers responded to panic with pragmatism, today’s business leaders can choose clarity and common sense over activism. They can refocus on what they do best: delivering superior goods and services, competing vigorously, rewarding merit, and respecting the diverse convictions of their customers, employees, and shareholders. They can insist that boardrooms prioritize long-term value creation over short-term applause from any ideological corner. 

And they can remember that neutrality on contested social questions is not cowardice; it is fidelity to the fiduciary duty that built the New York Stock Exchange and our American economy. 

In the same spirit of the 1792 Buttonwood Agreement, 1792 Exchange was established to restore confidence in the marketplace. We convene broad coalitions of like-minded allies who together work to leverage the principle of collective, multiplied impact to help guide companies back to neutrality. By providing data, research, and analysis on corporate behavior and governance, we inform investors, customers, and vendors and help protect corporations from activist pressure by keeping them focused on sound governance and business excellence. 

As we approach America’s 250th anniversary, this is an ideal moment for this kind of recommitment. The semiquincentennial should be celebrated with more than fireworks, parades, and picnics. It should serve as an important opportunity to reflect on the principles of liberty, integrity, and tenacity that turned a hopeful revolutionary experiment into history’s most prosperous republic. 

The Buttonwood Agreement embodies these principles in their purest commercial form. Twenty-four ordinary businessmen, meeting under a tree, accomplished something extraordinary. 

Corporate America would do well to follow their example. In an age of polarization, the surest path to renewed public trust and sustained prosperity is the oldest one: get back to business. The markets that began under that buttonwood tree in New York—and the nation they helped build—will be stronger for it. 

The history is clear. The choice is ours. And America’s next 250 years are waiting.

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

On “The Kevin Roberts Show” on May 13, Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts and co-host Larry O’Connor said that the Southern Poverty Law Center has gone from promoting civil rights to encouraging left-wing extremism.

“It’s an organization that didn’t monitor violent extremists like they said they did,” O’Connor said. “Over time, it helped redefine ordinary political disagreement as some sort of moral disqualification and, frankly, divided our country even further.”

The SPLC is scheduled for a trial before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on May 20 for charges of committing wire fraud, manufacturing false statements, and conspiracy to send $3 million to the Ku Klux Klan—one of the entities the SPLC targeted in the past. The Daily Signal’s Tyler O’Neil will testify against the SPLC with evidence he has gathered in his reporting over the last several years.

“What happened was each successive generation of leaders, of board members, of scholars at the SPLC were more radical. Such that, by the time I was in college in the early 1990s, and in the deep South at that time, to deny anything that the SPLC said in a political science or history class would be tantamount to self-identifying as a racist,” Roberts said. “And that obviously was very different from the early origins of the SPLC, which was not founded to eliminate free speech.”

Roberts said that when he founded John Paul the Great Academy, a K-12 private Catholic school in Lafayette, Louisiana, he received backlash from the SPLC for participating in school choice, even though educational choice benefits impoverished families.

“We wanted to participate in Gov. [Bobby] Jindal’s school choice program for the benefit of poor students, most of whom, because we were in a deep South city of African Americans, were very happy to have any student of any background at our school. But because we were religious, and because the SPLC had labeled school choice as being racist, therefore, we were double offenders,” Roberts said.

Roberts added that the SPLC not only manufactured stories of racism but also exaggerated the amount of racism present in America.

“What they did was cause millions of Americans—their supporters—to believe that racism continued to exist on a scale and scope that it simply didn’t. That led those millions of Americans with different politics than yours and mine to conclude that all of us—not some of us—all of us on the political Right were fascists, racists, and Nazis by definition,” Roberts said to O’Connor.

With the trial scheduled for Wednesday, the SPLC will have to answer the accusations of Roberts and others.

“I have confidence that the SPLC will have some serious repercussions from their actions,” Roberts said.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A coalition of more than 300 directors of pro-life pregnancy centers, led by Americans United for Life and a pro-life company, wrote a letter to President Donald Trump and congressional leadership asking them to extend the defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill” defunded Planned Parenthood for one year, but that expires July 4. John Mize, CEO of Americans United for Life; Anton Krecic, CEO of Seven Weeks Coffee; and hundreds of pregnancy center directors penned a letter to Trump, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune asking them to extend the policy.

 “With the moratorium on funding abortion providers like Planned Parenthood set to expire on our great nation’s 250th anniversary,” the letter says, “we call for the defunding of abortion providers by July 4 and look forward to walking and working alongside you as you create policies that strengthen families and protect the pre-born.”

The letter promotes pregnancy centers as an alternative to Planned Parenthood, due to the range of services they provide, including pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, STD testing, material resource assistance, medical referrals, education classes, pregnancy counseling, after-abortion recovery and care, and fatherhood programs.

“Pregnancy centers not only provide important services, but they promote the flourishing of families,” the letter says. “Their goal is to come alongside mothers and fathers with physical and emotional support so that they don’t feel like abortion is their only option. Our communities are far richer for the work done by pregnancy centers.”

Unlike abortion facilities, pregnancy centers provide real woman’s health care, said Krecic, who founded Seven Weeks Coffee, a pro-life coffee bean company that donates a portion of its profits to pregnancy centers.

“Supporting women with practical resources, baby essentials, parenting support, and medical guidance that support moms during pregnancy and far after birth,” he said. “It’s our privilege to support over 1,200 centers nationwide and have a coalition of pregnancy centers that are standing together asking Washington to end federal abortion funding.”

“Unlike abortion businesses, pregnancy centers provide real woman’s health care. Supporting women with practical resources, baby essentials, parenting support, and medical guidance that support moms during pregnancy and far after birth. It’s our privilege to support over 1,200 centers nationwide and have a coalition of pregnancy centers that are standing together asking Washington to end federal abortion funding.” Krecic said.

The pregnancy centers also urge action on the chemical abortion pill following a report from the Ethics and Public Policy Center showing that about 11% of women experience adverse effects after taking mifepristone. The Biden-era Food and Drug Administration removed the in-person dispensing requirements for the abortion pill.

“We cannot in good conscience celebrate 250 years of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by simultaneously federally funding the largest abortion provider in the country,” the pregnancy center directors wrote. “Nor can we ignore the devastation caused by the abortion pill.”

Mize said pregnancy centers are uniquely situated to understand the harms inflicted on women by Planned Parenthood.

“Federal dollars must never be used against the taxpayer’s conscience to prop up dangerous abortion providers,” Mize told the Daily Signal. “Congress must extend the One Big, Beautiful Bill’s defunding provision and rededicate the nation to a culture of life, rather than let America’s 250th birthday be a celebration for abortion providers.”

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—A socialist group with ties to a China-based financier is setting up indoor hubs for radical activism in neighborhoods across the U.S.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation has at least 28 event spaces, often called “Liberation Centers,” open since 2021 or in preparation, a Daily Caller News Foundation review of online PSL posts and local news reports found.

The organization uses the centers to cultivate “revolutionary” thought and attract new local followers while organizing protests against foreign policy decisions and law enforcement.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Columbus Liberation Center (@columbusliberationcenter)

Former tech mogul Neville Singham, based in Shanghai, has donated tens of millions of dollars to a network of leftist groups that share several top officials with the PSL, the Daily Caller News Foundation and The New York Times reported. Like Singham, the PSL aligns itself with pro-Chinese Communist Party narratives. The group’s websites praise late Chinese communist dictator Mao Zedong for how he “liberated” China with the CCP’s bloody revolution and deny the government’s infamous massacre of pro-democracy protesters in 1989.

The PSL did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s requests for comment.

PSL activists frame their activity in the U.S. around building a “movement against racism, poverty and war,” according to the Atlanta Liberation Center’s website. They have gotten so adept that neighborhoods wary of socialist political agendas should take note, Manhattan Institute investigative analyst Stu Smith told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Their model is simple; find a local grievance, radicalize it, and turn it into movement infrastructure,” said Smith, who researches left-wing activist networks for the conservative think tank. “These centers are often staffed by semi-local organizers who cut their teeth elsewhere, then parachute into new communities.”

“They reach out to teenagers, encourage school disruptions and walkouts, and help create mini-PSL pipelines disguised as harmless ‘student unions,’” Smith told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

A February Instagram post from the PSL’s Columbus, Ohio, chapter offers an example, calling on students and parents to help arrange “walk outs” against Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “Join the PSL at the Columbus Liberation Center this Sunday for a student & parent organizing meeting to build connection between highschool organizers, discuss strategies for building the movement, and plan together on our next steps!” the post reads.

Other PSL social media posts invite supporters into rooms with literature on “Trans Liberation,” signs honoring late Cuban revolutionary and mass murderer Che Guevara, or a “Prison Abolition — Marxist Perspective” workshop.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by PSL – Central PA (@psl.centralpa)

“If you want a foreign-maligned influence operation in your backyard, targeting your community and your children, then ignore the Liberation Centers,” Smith said.

‘We Must Be Organized!’

In addition to Liberation Centers already open, the PSL scheduled grand openings in June for locations in Houston, Texas, and Washington, D.C., the group’s online posts show. The group has also fundraised for a Louisville, Kentucky, Liberation Center since at least 2024.

The PSL chapter in the nation’s capital demands a 90% budget cut for the Metropolitan Police Department, cashless bail, “access to gender affirming care” for “trans youth,” “Guaranteed Income,” and other far-left agenda items, according to the upcoming D.C. Liberation Center’s website.

Two of the 28 spaces the Daily Caller News Foundation identified are a PSL-affiliated cafe in Durham, North Carolina, and the group’s “Lancaster People’s Center” in Pennsylvania, which serve the same event-hosting function as the so-called Liberation Centers, according to PSL posts.

PSL centers have popped up in conservative and liberal areas alike, from Portland, Oregon, to the West Virginia panhandle. Pennsylvania appears to have the most of any state with seven in Lancaster, Pittsburgh, Reading, Phoenixville, Philadelphia, York, and the West Chester borough of Chester County.

The PSL is not required to publicly disclose its funding, and several of its Liberation Centers claim to rely on PSL volunteer staff and crowdfunding. The PSL’s Albuquerque Liberation Center, in turn, calls itself “the fiscal sponsor of activists building working-class power in” the area.

“It is not just one group or one campaign,” Smith said of the PSL and other Singham-backed groups. “It is an ecosystem of overlapping organizations, causes, and front-facing projects that all reinforce each other locally.”

Singham led an Illinois-based tech firm that he sold for $785 million in 2017 and poured money into a web of advocacy groups, The New York Times reported. The paper and The Daily Beast documented several examples of Singham or the activists he supports attending CCP propaganda events alongside Chinese officials. Singham also previously advised the China-funded tech firm Huawei, The Daily Beast reported.

Smith told the Daily Caller News Foundation his own town has a nearby PSL center, declining to reveal his location.

“I don’t live in some massive activist hub, either,” Smith said. “My guess is we ended up with one because the local radicals got especially rowdy during the [2020 Black Lives Matter] ‘Summer of Love,’ and PSL saw an opportunity to plant a flag.”

In a Wednesday Instagram post, the PSL invited potential allies to channel their rage against “capitalism, racism, war” into sophisticated politics by joining the organization.

“It’s not enough to be angry – we must be organized!” the group’s national chapter declared.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—A California school district spent $300,000 to partner with an LGBTQ center that provides “affirming programs, resources, and community care” to minors ages 12 and up. 

Pomona Unified School District in Pomona, California, signed a memorandum of understanding for the 2024-2025 school year for a “mentoring program” with Pomona Valley Pride. 

Under the memorandum obtained by The Daily Signal, the pride center was to provide “academic support, mentoring, and tutoring services to all students in middle and high school who identify themselves LGBTQ+ and their families to address their unique needs and challenges.”

“Students participating in the program will be provided social-emotional support, health and wellness activities, events, and engaging programs with a youth engagement specialist,” the document continued. 

The Center for American Liberty, a conservative California think tank, uncovered the partnership through a California Public Records Act request. While the school district provided some documents to the Center for American Liberty, it allegedly left the records request partially unfulfilled, so the think tank filed a lawsuit last spring.

Mark Trammell, CEO of the Center for American Liberty, said California parents would be “horrified” to see what the organization uncovered.

“In Pomona Unified School District, officials handed $300,000 in taxpayer money to Pomona Pride Center, Inc. to push LGBTQ programming on children and families,” he told The Daily Signal. “At the same time, schools are using ‘gender support plans’ that treat parents as obstacles, including sections specifically targeting so-called ‘unsupportive parents.’ These plans direct schools to funnel children into secret counseling services that California politicians require schools to hide from parents once a child turns 12 and the minor does not consent.”

“This isn’t education — it’s ideological indoctrination funded by taxpayers and carried out behind parents’ backs,” he said. “California schools have become laboratories for progressive social activism, and they’re counting on parents never seeing the documents.”

“The Center for American Liberty is dragging these records into the light because parents deserve to know exactly what activists embedded in public schools are teaching their children,” he added.

The Pomona Valley Pride Center’s website features events for minors such as “Beyond the Binary,” a “social group for gender-expansive folks centering joy, identity and collective care”; “Gaymer Night, a “queer and trans centered game night”; and “Youth Advocacy Lavender Leadership,” which involves “empowering youth ages 12-17 with leadership, networking, and skills to grow as future leaders and activists.” 

The center also offers minors free counseling and access to the “Gender Neutral Closet,” which is “completely free and helps you affirm your gender.” 

“Our gender neutral closet aims to provide garments that every child can enjoy regardless of their gender, and rejects the idea that pink is for females and blue is for male,” a description on the website reads. “From hoodies to jeans to everyday accessories, these stylish and comfortable gender-neutral clothes fit into everyone’s wardrobe regardless of their gender.” 

Neither Pomona Unified School District nor Pomona Valley Pride Center responded to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment.

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.   

Recently at the U.S.-China Summit in Beijing, Premier Xi [Jinping] mentioned that he hoped that both parties, the United States and China, could avoid the Thucydides Trap.  

What did that mean? It refers to a book and an article by the well-known political scientist Graham Allison. 

In it, he presented a paradigm of international relations. Briefly, it was this: If you have an established power, like ancient Sparta, and it gets worried that there is an ascending power, a rising new neighborhood bully or something, the older power, the established power, will attack it, and there will be a war. 

He gave some examples from history. He called it the Thucydides Trap because the historian Thucydides, who was born about 460 BC and died somewhere around 400 or 395 BC, wrote a history of the Peloponnesian War.  

At two key places in his first book or chapter, he said that there were various reasons to go to war, but probably the most likely, in his opinion—and he said this in two different places—was that Sparta was afraid of the dominance that was growing throughout the Greek world, and so it staged a preventive war by invading Attica, the country around Athens, in 431. 

He used this term that he created called a Thucydides Trap, and then he applied it to some incidents in history. Most importantly, Xi was referencing [Allison’s] book because in the book it said that the United States might do something rash or might prevent.  

With all due respect to Graham Allison, who is a very distinguished scholar, this is false. 

First of all, if you read Thucydides, Athens did not become ascendant in 431. It was responsible for the victory at Salamis. Athens and Sparta had partnered with each other. They fell out. They had another war called the First Peloponnesian War from 460 to 446, 30 years before the Peloponnesian War. 

Second, Thucydides has a tendency to give all sorts of different interpretations that are sometimes mutually incompatible. They are antithetical to each other.  

Why is that? Because he broke off his history in 411, whether because he died or did not finish it, we do not know. 

It was never revised or rewritten to discover discrepancies or to get a uniform narrative. What I am getting at is that he said elsewhere in the book that there were fundamental existential differences. Sparta was an oligarchy. Athens was a democracy. 

Sparta was a land power with a superb infantry. Athens was a maritime empire with a great navy. Athens was cosmopolitan. Sparta was insular and parochial. Tribally or ethnically, the Athenian Greeks were Ionian. The Spartans were Dorian. The Athenians had a model of chattel slavery. The Spartans used indentured serfs, or helots. 

I could go on, but there were so many differences that Thucydides accentuated throughout the history. It was bound, maybe, that they would have problems, as they did in the First Peloponnesian War and as they did after the Persian War, well before this. 

Does this apply to us at all with China? No. I do not think that we are a stodgy, worried establishment power and China is the new ascendant worry and that we are going to preempt. 

Why do I think that is not going to happen? In all the major criteria that denote whether a superpower is strong or in decline, we are ascending. China is the one that has the problem. 

Fertility: 1.7 for us. China: 1.0, shrinking and getting older. Oil production—fuel, the stuff that empires are made of—we are the largest producer of gas and oil in the history of civilization. China has to import 70% of its oil.  

Food: We are the biggest exporter in the world, and the value of our agricultural products is unmatched. 

China, as it gets more affluent, has tastes that have diverged, and it is importing 30% of its food.  

Nuclear power: We are the greatest civilian user of nuclear power, and we are ahead in fusion nuclear power. For military purposes, I do not want to get into that, but we have 6,000 to 7,000 nuclear weapons. China has 600 to 700. 

Nuclear aircraft carriers and carrier groups: We invented them 100 years ago. We have had 100 years of expertise. China has about 15 years. China is trying to get a third carrier group. We have 11. 

Combat aircraft: Ours are better and more numerous. We could go on and on, but in every barometer of cultural, social, military, and political power, we overshadow China. 

We are a free society. Our Constitution is older and more stable. Eight of the top 10 companies in the world by market capitalization are American, not Chinese. One American produces 40% more GDP than four of his Chinese counterparts. 

So that model—that we are worried because we are losing influence or power to this upstart—does not really hold. 

More importantly, when the upstart and the establishment power have a confrontation, it is not the establishment power that always preempts. It is usually the upstart. 

Germany was flattened after World War I. It recovered, wanted to challenge the British Empire, did so, and lost World War II. Imperial Japan attacked the United States in 1941—a much more industrial and powerful country—and it lost. 

In the Cold War, the Soviet Union was wrecked during World War II and wanted to challenge us, the global hegemon. We won the Cold War. 

More importantly, when you have these antitheses between a rising power, supposedly, and an establishment power, it does not always lead to war. Not just that the rising power loses, but look what happened when the United States, somewhere around 1870 to 1920, challenged the primacy of the British Empire and the British Navy. There was no war when we took the place of Britain as the world’s policeman. 

After World War II, Germany had been defeated. France and Britain were the powerhouses of Europe. What happened? There was a German miracle, and West Germany alone by 1970 was running Europe. There was no war between these two nations, these two blocs. 

War is not inevitable. And if it is inevitable, it is not the establishment power that starts it. Usually it is the upstart, and the upstart usually loses. 

So what does this mean for the Chinese-American relationship? There is no Thucydides Trap, ancient or modern. We are not Athens, and they are not Sparta. We are not going to start a preventive war to stop China’s rise. 

If anything, China is starting to have fundamental existential problems with fertility, finance, debt, energy, and food that make it unstable. But we both are nuclear powers. We deter each other. 

So how will these fundamental differences be resolved? Taiwan is a sore spot, but mostly it will be resolved because both sides have nuclear weapons and do not want Armageddon. There will be a balance of power. 

One side will try to be friendly with Russia. The other side will try to be friendly with Russia. There will be a Kissinger triangulation: no better friend, no worse enemy, each one to one another in a triangle. 

We have alliances. China has North Korea and what is left of Iran. Sometimes it cozies up to Russia. We have NATO. We have the Western Hemisphere. We have Japan, Australia, the Philippines, and South Korea. 

So we have a balance of power, alliances, and military deterrence. There is no Thucydides Trap. If there were, it would not apply to us. If it did apply to us, we would not start a war. And if we did start a war, we would be foolish—but we would probably win a conventional war. 

The entire notion that Premier Xi suggested is bankrupt, but it should be expected from the Chinese to adopt the idea that they are the rising power and that we are on the way out.  

That is untrue. 

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

“I know nothing” was what Virginia Senate President Pro Tempore Louise Lucas told the Virginian-Pilot over the weekend regarding the raid of her businesses. However, a man facing federal indictment for allegedly collecting $100,000 in COVID relief money fraudulently, tells a different story.

Carlton Upton Jr., a man who reportedly has business ties to Lucas, told the press on Friday that he was “just a pawn” in an alleged scheme to apply for and collect money meant to protect Virginians whose employers were closed due to the fears of the Coronavirus.

According to the report by the Virginian-Pilot, Upton Jr. reportedly has connections to VA Freedom Life, a company for which Lucas is listed as owner and CEO. Along with the COVID claim, he allegedly gave false information about his criminal record and business income, according to the federal indictment.

Upton Jr. must be hearing a bus revving its engine—you know, the one he might be getting thrown under. Thus, his willingness to use a more polite version of the “Mayor Marion Barry defense.” Meanwhile, the only statement Lucas has made attributes the raid to retribution from the Trump administration, for her leadership in the now defunct redistricting.

What is interesting is the silence from many of Virginia’s leading Democrats. For example, Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine rarely miss an opportunity to issue rebukes about President Trump, yet here we are two weeks later and nothing from either of them.

The day of the raid, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s office issued this statement: “The Governor is aware of today’s law enforcement operation in Portsmouth. In the absence of additional details, the Governor will not be commenting on a federal investigation at this time.” Really? Is this the same party that was holding “No More Kings” marches because there is a new Air Force One and Trump is building a ballroom at the White House?

Sometimes the silence is deafening.

Not that Lucas would be alone. According to the Department of Justice, as of early this year, 3,500 people were charged with COVID relief fraud and over 2,500 were convicted. The Small Business Administration has referred 562,000 other cases of suspected fraudulent loans to the FBI totaling $22 billion. Watchdog groups say that the actual number could be as high as $1 trillion lost due to fraud or misspending.

In other words, make a cookie jar that big, and you can’t be surprised by how many kids will get caught with their hands in it.

Economists point to COVID aid money being the chief driver of why inflation has hit Americans so hard. Each dollar printed and inserted into the economy diluted the value of the ones already out there.

Maybe the governor can make a statement on what that has done to her “affordability agenda.”

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

Two teenage gunman opened fire on Monday at the Islamic Center of San Diego in California, killing three men outside the mosque, one of them a security guard, before the two suspects were found dead, apparently from self-inflicted gunshot wounds, police said.

All of the children who were attending a day school that is part of the mosque complex – the largest in San Diego county – were accounted for and safe after the shooting, which erupted shortly before 12 noon PDT, according to San Diego Police Chief Scott Wahl.

Wahl said the FBI was called in to assist in the investigation of the incident, which the police chief said authorities were treating as a hate crime.

Scores of law enforcement officers called to the Islamic Center encountered the bodies of three men shot dead outside the building, including a security guard who Wahl credited with likely having helped prevent further bloodshed.

A short time later, police discovered the bodies of two teenage males, aged 17 and 19, in a vehicle in the middle of a street, dead from apparently self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the chief said at an afternoon news conference.

He said investigators were still piecing together details of what precipitated the shooting and how the violence transpired.

“This is every community’s worst nightmare,” Wahl stated at a Monday press conference following the shooting.

The Islamic Center in Clairemont is the largest mosque in San Diego County and houses the Bright Horizon Academy, a school providing Islamic education, according to its website.

FBI Director Kash Patel stated on X Monday that the bureau’s San Diego office “has responded to the scene of the shooting at the Islamic Center of San Diego this afternoon – all resources will be made available assisting local partners and we will update the public as we’re able.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

This story is developing and may be updated.

On Tuesday, Georgia voters will choose their parties’ nominees for statewide executive offices and federal posts, setting the stage for closely contested general elections.

While Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff has already secured his party’s nomination, the Republican primary for Senate—along with both parties’ gubernatorial primaries—remains underway.

Governor’s Race

Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, backed by President Donald Trump, is running for governor against billionaire Rick Jackson. Jones has pledged to advance the “America First” agenda, including ramping up deportation enforcement.

“If you enter our country illegally, you are breaking the law, period,” Jones said in a 2025 press release. “While President Donald Trump fights on the national level to secure our borders and keep illegal immigrants off the streets, we will do the same in Georgia. As part of our commitment to protect our citizens, we are taking a stand against sanctuary policies that violate the law and harbor criminals.”

During a gubernatorial debate, Jones accused Jackson—who owns landscaping companies—of previously employing illegal immigrants.

“You claim to be tough on deportation, but you’ve got illegals working in your backyard as we speak,” Jones said. “Who’s the real Rick Jackson?”

Jackson denied the allegation, saying he is not aware of his employees’ immigration status.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is also in the race. He has highlighted his record of “modernizing” the state’s election system, including implementing an auditable paper ballot system and expanding voter control over election security, according to his official website.

Raffensperger has also touted being the first secretary of state to require photo ID for all forms of voting and to expand polling locations while holding counties accountable.

A recent poll shows Jackson leading the Republican primary with 27%, followed by Jones at 25% and Raffensperger at 14%, with about 30% of voters undecided.

The GOP nominee will face the winner of a crowded Democratic primary that includes former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, former state Sen. Jason Esteves, and state Rep. Derrick Jackson.

Duncan, who served as lieutenant governor from 2019 to 2023 as a Republican, switched parties in 2025 and has not secured major national endorsements.

Bottoms, by contrast, has been endorsed by former President Joe Biden.

Polling from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution shows Bottoms leading the Democratic field with 39%, followed by Thurmond at 10%, Esteves at 8%, and Duncan at 7%, with roughly one-third of voters undecided.

An InsiderAdvantage poll conducted May 1 found Bottoms leading with 52% among Democrats, while Jackson led the Republican field with 28%. About 14% of Democrats and 12% of Republicans remain undecided.

Senate Race

For Republicans, the race to unseat Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff is underway. Ossoff flipped the seat in 2020, and GOP leaders see the contest as a key pickup opportunity.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, who has remained neutral in the gubernatorial primary, has weighed in on the Senate race.

“I want to win our Senate seat back,” Kemp told voters at a local bike and coffee shop just days ahead of Tuesday’s primary. “We haven’t done so well in U.S. Senate races here in the state of Georgia in the last several cycles, and we have one more opportunity to try to get one of our Senate seats back. And we’ve got to have the right person to do that.”

Kemp has endorsed Derek Dooley, the former head football coach at the University of Tennessee. Dooley is running against two Trump-aligned congressmen: Reps. Mike Collins and Buddy Carter.

At a recent campaign event, Kemp argued that Dooley’s status as a political outsider could give Republicans their best chance at reclaiming the seat.

“My goal here is to win our Senate seat back,” Kemp said. “We need a political outsider to do that.”

In campaign messaging, Dooley has emphasized his willingness to work with the president. “I’m going to work with President Trump—but for you,” he tells voters in one ad.

Trump has not endorsed a candidate in the race, but several Trump-aligned figures have backed Collins. Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., has supported Collins, citing his stance on illegal immigration, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has also endorsed him.

In 2024, after a Georgia nursing student was killed by an illegal immigrant while jogging in Athens, Collins introduced the Laken Riley Act, which was later signed into law and expanded immigration enforcement.

“I have proven that I can deliver for the state of Georgia,” Collins said. “I can even do it with bipartisan legislation. And I never compromise my conservative values.”

Carter has taken a similar approach on immigration. He supported Collins’ legislation and, in February, introduced the No Sanctuary Cities Act, aimed at requiring local officials to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

“So-called sanctuary cities protect criminal illegal immigrants at the expense of justice and American citizens’ safety,” Carter wrote in a press release. “The No Sanctuary Cities Act will force compliance with federal law enforcement, holding criminals to account and making our streets safe again.”

If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the top two finishers will advance to a June 16 runoff.

A recent poll shows Collins in the lead at 33%, with Dooley trailing Collins by 10% and Carter polling in at 14%.

A House panel that oversees government accounting and grants management is ramping up an investigation into whether Planned Parenthood affiliates are using federal tax dollars for abortions, or for “gender-affirming care” for minors.

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., the chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, and Oversight Committee member Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., wrote to 11 separate Planned Parenthood affiliates, asserting that the nation’s largest abortion provider for almost a year failed to fully respond to questions about its spending of federal dollars.

The subcommittee first sought documents from the Planned Parenthood affiliates in June 2025.

“As of now—nearly one year later—Planned Parenthood has yet to fully comply with the Subcommittee’s letter and provide the requested documents and communications,” the lawmakers wrote in the letters sent on Friday.

The letters note that in fiscal year 2023, about $800 million in federal funds went to Planned Parenthood. They further note concerns about “commingling federal funds and using them for unpermitted purposes.”

Under Title X of the Public Health Service Act, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, federal money cannot be used for abortion.

The “One Big, Beautiful Bill” that passed in July defunded Planned Parenthood for one year, but the funding is set to go back into place on July 4.

The letters from Burchett and Biggs were addressed to Planned Parenthood North Central States; Planned Parenthood of Michigan; Planned Parenthood of Illinois; Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio; Planned Parenthood of Greater New York; Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties; Planned Parenthood of Southern New England; and Planned Parenthood of Maryland.

The first inquiries, in June, were sent by then-subcommittee Chair Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who has since resigned from Congress. She only sent a letter requesting the information from Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Alexis McGill.

That June 2025 letter noted that Planned Parenthood’s own annual report shows that it performed more than 400,000 abortions, an increase of 23% over the last 10 years, and 63% fewer prenatal services and 38% fewer contraceptive services compared to a decade earlier.

Further, the initial letter notes that cross-sex hormones, puberty blockers, surgical referrals, and other forms of “gender-affirming care” were conducted with little or no medical or psychological evaluation.

The organization’s 2022–2023 annual report states that “Planned Parenthood affiliates offered gender-affirming hormone therapy in 2022.”

The 2024–2025 report doesn’t specify a number on gender-related services, but says it is studying the effects of laws restricting “gender” care and abortions.

Regarding the gender issue, in a post on Bluesky on Sunday, Planned Parenthood said, “On International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, we want to be clear: Your gender identity is not up for debate. You deserve the right to live freely and fully —– just as you are.”

Planned Parenthood Federation of America did not respond to phone and email inquiries for this story on Monday.

Planned Parenthood leaders have asserted in the past that federal funding is used for other health services, but not abortion.

A May 2025 Kaiser Family Foundation policy brief said, “According to Planned Parenthood’s 2022–2023 Annual Report, abortion services make up 4% of all the health services they provide, and federal funds rarely go toward abortion care (only in cases of rape, incest, and life-threatening situations).”

As the nation prepares to celebrate America’s 250th birthday this July 4, Republican leaders in Congress joined a rededication service on the National Mall on Sunday to redeclare the country as “one nation under God.”

While the Mall was full of prayer and worship, some online criticized the event, calling it Christian nationalism and a narrative pushed by the Trump administration.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson quickly responded to critics, calling it “wildly inappropriate.”

He explained this is “a recognition of the deeply embedded history and religious and moral tradition of the country,” on Fox News. “The people who are upset about it, oppose that. They want to erase the history of America and pretend as if we’re not a nation that was dedicated originally to God,” Johnson continued.

“People who are the naysayers and who have created this new term of Christian nationalism as a pejorative, a derogatory term, are trying to silence the influence and the voices of Christians,” Johnson said.

The Freedom 250 Rededication drew roughly 15,000 attendees from across the nation. Johnson was joined by Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., Dr. Ben Carson, and other GOP leaders and Christian believers who all took the stage to pray over America.

“We remember that your mighty hand has been upon our nation since the very beginning, since Christopher Columbus set sail in the New World,” Johnson said, leading the crowd in prayer. “When our forefathers took up the great cause of American independence, they turned to you in steadfast prayer.”

“Today, here, Lord, in this 250th year of American independence, we hereby rededicate the United States of America as one nation under God. Look upon us with favor upon your country as we celebrate this momentous anniversary,” he continued.

Scott joined the stage, declaring he is “living proof that the power of prayer changes lives.”

“There is no way to grasp the last 250 years of America without looking to the power of prayer. From the Civil War to World War II to the landing on the moon, Americans have looked to God for guidance, for peace, and for strength,” Scott continued.

“It’s this commitment to prayer that powered the civil rights movement. The journey for justice for all was rooted in the Black church, a body of believers who refused to let go of God,” Scott said.

The senator went on to remind attendees that historic Black figures in the civil rights movement heavily relied on prayer, including Rosa Parks, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Frederick Douglass.

“The heroes of the civil rights movement sang before they marched, they prayed before they protested, and they sought answers in the gospel before they sought answers before the law,” Scott said.

“Dr. King did not lead from merely a podium, he led from the pulpit. His dream was not a political speech, it was a sermon,” he continued.

“Echoing the words of Frederick Douglass in 1852, in the face of slavery, here’s what he said: The principles contained in the Declaration of Independence are saving principles,” Scott declared.

“Our rights don’t come from the government,” he reminded. “No, our rights come from God, the King of Kings.”

“Mainstream” Democrats are doing a good job right now of telegraphing to America what they plan to do with national power the second they get it back. They plan to make it permanently theirs, by any means necessary.

You can be sure that they will be even more maniacally committed to this agenda following the Supreme Court’s 9-0 striking down of Virginia’s absurdly biased redistricting plan that would have effectively locked the GOP entirely out of power despite it being a divided state.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and her new Democrat majority, who collectively campaigned on the idea of “affordability,” spent their first days in power pushing every loony leftist policy under the sun while doing their best to amass additional power for their party at the local and national levels.

They were suddenly impeded because as it turned out their redistricting scheme was so blatantly unconstitutional that it was not only rejected by the Virginia Supreme Court but by a unanimous decision at the Supreme Court of the U.S.

Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson couldn’t figure out how to finagle that one.

These defeats have only fueled the fire of the angry Democratic Party faithful who insist more must be done to rig the system in their favor.

And it’s hard to understate just how much the demand for raw, unrepentant power grabbing is becoming the norm on the left side of the political spectrum. At this point, even their dishonest but clever bait-and-switch strategy to seem moderate but rule like Mao is taking a back seat.

They just can’t restrain themselves from telling the whole country that their only real governing plan is to restore “democracy” by liquidating the Constitution, destroying the parts of the government they can’t control, and ensuring that elections—for whatever they’ll be worth after that—always go their way.

Here’s former Vice President Kamala Harris last week calling for a “no bad ideas brainstorm” that consisted of entirely bad ideas. She said Democrats need to think about abolishing the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court, and adding two new Democrat-dominated states to the union.

That’s quite a plan for America’s future.

Obliterate not one, but two of America’s longstanding political institutions that committed the crime of not giving them exactly what they want right now, then add a few more politically friendly states to pad their voting advantage.

Notice that these had nothing to do with the economy, or improving America’s standing in the world, or really anything that would even conceivably make our lives better. They aren’t even bothering to make that pitch.

This was just a list to describe a blatant power grab, nothing less.

Now, one can dismiss this as just Harris’ ham-handed attempt to seem edgy to appeal to Democrat base voters. But I think she did capture the mindset of what is entirely mainstream in her party right now.

Sure, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and a few other local leftist darlings are riding high on support for democratic socialism and all that. But a much broader base of Democrats is less concerned with specific redistributive policies and more concerned with power for the sake of power.

They want to recapture something that they had until very recently: total institutional, cultural, and political control.

The institutions are still mostly theirs, but those have taken a beating in this age of mistrust and decentralization. They were entirely convinced that at this point President Donald Trump would be in a jail cell, his supporters cowed and silenced.

It was supposed to be the Age of Obama forever, with the 2016 election being just a disturbing outlier produced by Russian collusion or something.

Then 2024 happened, and they saw that they’ve truly lost the ability to just rely on institutional inertia and legacy media to produce the political results they want. They’ve lost the plot, and that’s driving them insane.

The “No Kings” protesters are perhaps the best representative of this mindset. They are mostly aging, liberal Boomers used to getting their way in politics, used to being “IT,” but who are increasingly powerless and irrelevant. They don’t really care about “kings” or any of that nonsense.

What they are opposed to is a political system that allows their opponents to win and take the country in a different direction. This is what they are rebelling against.

Now their aim is to turn the whole nation into California. They want a one-party system where the assumption is that any real challenge to the Left’s dominance can simply be swept aside by last minute shenanigans, institutional deus ex machina.

That’s essentially what California Gov. Gavin Newsom said would happen in that state’s governor’s race if somehow two Republicans emerged victorious in the state’s open, jungle primary (which was meant to secure the power of incumbent Democrats, oops).

When they talk about restoring “democracy,” what they mean is that they want a political system that ensures Democrats simply can’t lose.

That the Left has become so open and brazen about its intent to grab power and pull up the drawbridge says a great deal about their respect for elections and “norms.”

The American people can’t say they weren’t warned.

With data centers increasingly in the news—and increasingly contentious— a bipartisan committee in Ohio has been created to study the impact of these large facilities, both the benefits they could bring to residents of the Buckeye State, as well as concerns.

The Ohio Joint Data Center Committee, consisting of six Republicans and two Democrats from the state House and Senate will begin holding meetings May 27, according to the State Newshouse.

State Sen. Brian Chavez, a Republican and co-chair, called the committee “a fact-finding effort.” State Rep. Adam Holmes, another co-chair and also a Republican, emphasized the idea to “build more informed opinions on data center development.”

There are currently 232 data centers built in Ohio, making it sixth in the nation, The Columbus Dispatch pointed out. Supporters say data centers are crucial to America’s technological and national security future, in addition to generating tax revenue, employment opportunities, and allowing municipalities to strengthen local infrastructure.

Patrick Hedger, director of policy at NetChoice, spoke to The Daily Signal, calling data centers “the backbone of the modern internet and the modern technology sector.”

Not only do data centers create construction jobs, but they also create permanent jobs ranging from positions for high school graduates to those making six-figure salaries, Hedger explained. He also argued that the presence of data centers sends a good message to the community as examples of “positive secondary effects.”

“It’s a good signal that it’s a business-friendly environment” and “signals that there’s a good workforce and that there is good infrastructure nearby as well,” which he said those centers contribute to paying for, as well as paying property taxes.

The President’s Podcast, a project of Ohio Senate Republicans, addressed data centers with a conversation between host John Fortney and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Jerry Cirino, a Republican, and also cited the cost benefits. Cirino said taxes from data centers “help ease the tax burden on homeowners.”

Critics cite environmental concerns with data centers, including land and water use, with residents concerned about higher utility costs. Legislation has been introduced by U.S. Rep. Greg Landsman, D-Ohio, designed to “protect residents and small businesses from rising electricity costs caused by artificial intelligence data centers.”

Holmes addressed concerns from those opposed to data centers. “We’re well aware of initiatives to limit Ohio data center development during this critical point in America’s history,” he said. “This public concern has become a priority issue for us. That could have dramatic impact on Ohio and America’s future.”

There’s an effort to ban data centers that use more than 25 megawatts monthly, with a preliminary total of 25,000 signatures collected by Ohio Residents for Responsible Development. The group needs 413,487 valid signatures in half of Ohio’s 88 counties by July 1 to make the ballot.

Hedger countered the opposition, noting data centers “absolutely” have to do with national security.

“There’s a lot of misinformation out there about what’s happening in electricity markets. Electricity markets are very heavily regulated. It’s the whole point of the utility model. And so it is already the law in all 50 states that public utility commissions cannot offload the cost of a large user onto the residential retail base,” Hedger said, pointing out that “data centers are paying their way.”

“It’s important that we’re not offshoring that infrastructure, especially when it’s powering some of the more critical applications, data processing, in our economy,” Hedger added. “We do see evidence of foreign disinformation, coming from Russia and China, trying to undermine America’s infrastructure.”

That national security concern centers on where data centers are located. “Do we want to have data centers and control of information flow in the United States, in Ohio, or do we want to have it someplace else in another country?” Cirino asked. He warned about the United States having previously depended on China.

The Daily Signal’s Tony Kinnett also addressed opposition to data centers, noting that it “is really starting to fall apart as a tool for the Left” because data centers actually take up less water than feared and are building plants that are putting more power into the community.

Foreign involvement in anti-data center campaigns was a major topic of conversation for Fortney, who described the effort as “international,” with funding tied to organizations involved in a gerrymandering 2024 ballot initiative from “leftwing foreign billionaire donors.”

Regardless of whether initiative makes its way onto the ballot, data centers could be an issue in statewide elections. During a Turning Point USA event last month at Ohio State University, Republican Vivek Ramaswamy said he doesn’t see the issue as “an either-or” when it comes to agricultural concerns involving data centers.

“We will do economic development in a way that brings high-paying jobs to the state,” Ramaswamy said, acknowledging that “we have to protect our farmland and keep our electric bills low by making sure we’re also producing more energy in the state.”

Dr. Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee, has a section on her website addressing her “Affordability Plan,” which involves “Tackling High Energy Bills,” and includes “Cost Guardrails for Data Centers.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is touting the arrest of an illegal alien in New York who allegedly set fire to several cars, an arrest they say was made possible by the cooperation of local authorities with federal immigration enforcement.

On May 10, the Nassau County Police, in cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested Elder Lopez-Avalos, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala who allegedly set fire to 10 cars, including in the vicinity of a daycare center.

On May 12, Lopez-Avalos was taken into ICE custody.

“Thanks to ICE and CBP law enforcement, this criminal illegal alien charged with arson was arrested by ICE on May 12,” DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said in a statement of the arrest.

 “This pyromaniac set fire to 11 cars and was a clear public safety threat. If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, we will arrest you and deport you,” she added.

Although DHS applauds Nassau County’s cooperation with ICE in the apprehension of Lopez-Avalos, they are harshly critical of some New York jurisdictions’ non-cooperation with ICE.

“Unfortunately, many New York jurisdictions do NOT cooperate with ICE. As of December 1, New York’s failure to honor ICE detainers has resulted in the release of 6,947 criminal illegal aliens since January 20,” the release states.

Related Posts

Virginia Prosecutor: ‘Sorry,’ but Immigration Law ‘Not Our Job’

A controversial Virginia prosecutor apologized to the mother of a daughter slain by an illegal immigrant but still defended his county’s sanctuary policy during a contentious House hearing Thursday. “I am deeply sorry for your loss, I say that not only as a prosecutor but as a parent of a daughter,” Fairfax County Commonwealth’s Attorney…

Iranian Pleads Guilty to Aiding Illegal Alien With Ties to Terrorism

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Iranian national Sharon Gohari pleaded guilty on Tuesday to unlawfully smuggling illegal immigrants into the United States—including one with ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—and intentionally receiving child pornography, The Daily Signal has learned. Gohari, a naturalized U.S. citizen who resided alternately in Iran and Nassau County, New York, asked…

Congressman Wants to Ban Illegal Aliens From Banking System Amid Possible Trump EO

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Citing concerns that access to financial services incentivizes illegal immigration and could aid terrorism, Rep. Keith Self, R‑Texas, introduced legislation Thursday that would bar illegal aliens from the U.S. banking system by requiring banks to collect customers’ citizenship or immigration status. “Access to America’s financial system is reserved for those who…

The defining feature of the American judicial system is that every litigant walks into the courtroom with the belief that they will have a fair shot to present their case. That foundational principle is under assault.

Several weeks ago, The Oversight Project published a report highlighting the threat to judicial independence posed by the left-wing climate plaintiffs’ bar. We highlighted how the Federal Judicial Center, the taxpayer-funded “think tank” for Article III federal judges, exploited its institutional credibility to predispose judges toward pro-plaintiff positions in climate litigation.

The Supreme Court held more than 30 years ago, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, that judges must act as gatekeepers for scientific expert testimony and assess whether proposed testimony reflects genuine scientific knowledge that will assist the trier of fact.

A December 2025 publication by the FJC puts the longstanding role of judicial gatekeeping at risk. In its role as the “research and education agency of the judicial branch of the U.S. government” the FJC recently published the fourth edition of its Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the foreword of the Reference Manual and praised the publication, noting that the “instruction that the manual offers in scientific principles and methods can improve the quality of judicial decision making.”

Our report focused on significant problems with the Manual’s Reference Guide on Climate Science, which presents the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change propaganda as settled scientific fact, and gives climate plaintiffs a roadmap for fulfilling the Daubert standard to have left-wing biased climate “science” entered into judicial proceedings.

The Reference Guide on Climate Science lists two Columbia University professors, Jessica Wentz and Radley Horton, as its authors. Wentz and Horton are climate change advocates who have published scholarship and participated in cases that called for the elimination of fossil fuels.

Wentz and Horton acknowledge the “insights and helpful feedback provided by” lawyer Michael Burger in drafting the Reference Guide on Climate Science. The Oversight Project’s investigation found, however, that Mr. Burger’s contributions went far beyond the suggested peripheral reviewing role contained in the acknowledgments.

We found that the Reference Guide on Climate Science repeatedly cites a 2020 law review article by Burger entitled, “The Law & Science of Climate Change Attribution.” We used a research integrity software to conduct an originality analysis and found that the Reference Guide on Climate Science contains a 23% similarity match and overall similarity index of 33% to Burger’s 2020 paper. Our report outlined instances where whole paragraphs—and nearly whole pages—of the Reference Guide on Climate Science were lifted verbatim from Burger’s 2020 law review article.

This level of overlap is not consistent with the acknowledgment of a reviewer who offered occasional comments. It is consistent with a contributor who supplied a significant portion of the chapter’s analytical framework and content. But what makes this overlap so significant is who Burger is outside of academia.

Burger is not a disinterested scholar. He is an active litigator on the plaintiff side of the very category of cases for which the Reference Guide on Climate Science purports to offer neutral judicial guidance.

Burger notably works at Sher Edling, the law firm that has positioned itself as the coordinating force behind the wave of municipal and state climate liability suits. With his Sher Edling hat on, Burger’s name is literally on the complaints for the plaintiffs with Honolulu, Delaware, and New York City in their lawsuits against energy producers.

In each of these cases, Burger’s clients seek to establish precisely the causal chain between fossil fuel production, global warming, and localized harm that the Reference Guide on Climate Science presents as scientifically settled. The scientific conclusions the chapter treats as settled fact are the live issues on which Burger’s clients depend to prevail in court.

The Reference Guide on Climate Science, in other words, imports the analytical conclusions of an active plaintiff-side litigator into a reference guide used by the federal judges before whom his cases may appear.

None of this is disclosed in the Reference Guide on Climate Science. A judge reading the manual would have no way of knowing that the scholar whose work substantially shaped its content is simultaneously litigating to establish the very propositions the chapter treats as settled science.

The FJC has received between $34 million and $35 million per year in federal tax dollars since at least 2023. While House and Senate committees have opened investigations into the FJC’s publication of the Reference Manual on Climate Science, more needs to be done.

Climate cases often turn on which side’s asserted facts prevail, and those questions hinge on evaluating expert testimony. By “working the referee” before ever setting foot in court, climate plaintiffs benefit from the massive head start given to them by the Reference Guide.

Our system appoints federal judges and gives them the responsibility to make the hard decisions of fact and law in the cases before them. The FJC’s decision to delete the Reference Guide on Climate Science months after publication is an inadequate half measure considering it was in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence for months and is easily accessible on the internet today.

Congress is right to investigate and should defund the FJC to return the hard work of judicial decision making back to judges, where it belongs.

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

Despite a lack of momentum in the Senate, President Donald Trump is not giving up on the SAVE America Act—a bill that would require proof of citizenship and photo identification in federal elections.

On Saturday, Trump demanded the bill be tacked on to separate bills dealing with housing and the extension of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act spy powers.

“THE SAVE AMERICA ACT MUST BE PASSED, NOW,” wrote Trump. “Use the Housing and FISA Bills to get it done! Maryland just had 500,000 Fake Mail-In Ballots revealed. We cannot, as a Country, put up with this any longer!!!”

Trump’s post came after the Maryland State Board of Elections acknowledged an “error by [their] mail-in ballot vendor resulting in some voters receiving the wrong party ballot for the Gubernatorial Primary Election.“

Per the board, more than 500,000 voters have requested mail-in ballots.

Jared DeMarinis, Maryland’s state administrator of elections, has pushed back on Trump’s characterization, telling CBS, “I want to assure the President, voters, and the public that NO Fake Mail-in ballots were distributed.” 

Trump continued in his post, “Voter I.D., and Proof of Citizenship, must be approved, NOW. Crooked Mail-In Voting must be stopped!!! PUT IT ALL IN THE HOUSING AND FISA BILLS.”

The SAVE America Act, as passed by the House of Representatives, does not include restrictions on mail-in ballots. However, Trump has pushed for this provision to be added to the bill.

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., has introduced an amendment to the bill in the Senate that would restrict most mail-in voting. The SAVE America Act has never come to a vote in the chamber.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has previously pledged to block any bill that includes the SAVE America Act, calling it “a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to.”

However, Trump’s post was welcomed by some.

“Thank you, President Trump, for continuing to push for the SAVE America Act,” wrote Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, a principal advocate of the bill, on X.

FISA and housing are both issues where Congress has struggled to find consensus.

The House and the Senate have already passed their own bills intended to expand the housing supply.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., has already placed an amended version of the Senate’s 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act on the House’s tentative schedule for the week of May 18.

With FISA, having failed to come to an agreement on a path forward, Congress has already voted twice in 2026 for short-term extensions of the federal government’s expiring authority to surveil the data of foreigners without warrants—a practice critics say is prone to abuse.

Related Posts

Republican House Should Staple SAVE America Act to Everything It Sends the GOP Senate

When Republicans and conservatives gather these days, one topic quickly and predictably arises: Why can’t the GOP Senate pass the SAVE America Act? This measure has been President Donald Trump’s chief domestic policy objective for 2026. He threatened not to sign any other bill until Congress placed this measure on the Resolute Desk. Trump had…

Senate Dems Claim Victory Over Thune on SAVE America Act

Senior Democrat senators told The Daily Signal that voter citizenship and identification legislation backed by President Donald Trump—the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act—has stalled amid unified Democrat opposition. “I haven’t heard officially that it is dead, but it shows no signs of life,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D‑Conn., told The Daily Signal. Democrats have repeatedly…

Can California Elections Be Saved? Voter ID Qualifies for the Ballot

Californians will get a chance to vote for more secure elections this November after a voter identification and citizenship verification initiative qualified for the ballot. Following a successful signature-gathering campaign led by Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, the ballot question, if approved, would require government-issued identification for in-person voting. Californians voting by mail would need…

The Justice Department has established an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” of nearly $1.8 billion that could pay people who were targets of “lawfare” or the weaponization of federal agencies.

The funding is the result of a settlement in the case of President Donald Trump v. Internal Revenue Service, where the president and members of his family sued the agency over the release of their tax returns.

“The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a public statement.

“As part of this settlement, we are setting up a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress,” Blanche added.

The Anti-Weaponization Fund will have the authority to issue formal apologies and monetary relief to individuals who bring a claim before a soon-to-be-created commission. The five-member commission will review claims to determine whether someone is entitled to an apology or monetary damages. The attorney general will appoint the members, one of whom will be appointed in consultation with congressional leaders.

The Justice Department’s announcement says: “Submission of a claim is voluntary. There are no partisan requirements to file a claim.”

The fund will receive $1.776 billion from the Judgment Fund, which allows the Justice Department to settle and pay cases.

In addition, the fund will send a quarterly report to the attorney general outlining who received relief. The fund shall cease processing claims no later than Dec. 15, 2028, according to the Justice Department. Any amount left over will revert to the federal government.

In Trump v. IRS, the president, his son Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization LLC sued the Treasury Department and the IRS in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida following the leak of their tax returns. As part of the settlement, the plaintiffs will receive a formal apology but no monetary payment or damages.

Also, as part of the settlement, the plaintiffs agreed to the establishment of the Anti-Weaponization Fund in exchange for dropping pending litigation regarding the 2022 FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home and the Justice Department’s investigation into a debunked conspiracy between Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Russian government.

The Justice Department says the fund is based in part on a legal precedent set by the Obama administration in the Keepseagle case. The Obama administration created a $760 million fund to redress various claims alleging racism against the federal government over a period of decades.

Think you own that new car you just bought? Not all of it.

As many Americans are learning, Automakers own their data, and they’re trying to dictate who can fix the vehicle when something breaks or even when it just needs regular maintenance. It’s a way to force car and truck owners into expensive dealerships for service.

Fortunately, though, a legal fix might be coming.

New vehicles today rely so much on electronics and software that many repairs, even relatively simple ones, require using a proprietary computer interface or software just to diagnose an issue. Some cars and trucks even need this rigmarole to determine the optimal schedule for routine maintenance.

The results have been devastating for independent repair shops that handle most of the post-warranty automotive work across America. Almost two-thirds of these small businesses have trouble making what were previously simple repairs because of inaccessible data or software.

Over the last five years, nearly 30% of these small businesses have reported a decline in the number of vehicles they’re able to service due to this issue. Two out of every five shops have more difficulty getting parts from dealers, while one out of every four has no access to the electronic tools needed to service customers’ vehicles.

Consequently, more than half of small automotive repair businesses say they’re forced to send a customer about once a week to a dealership. The customer loses by having to pay more for the same work, and the small business loses a sale.

Today, data is a tool all its own, and this move by automakers is just a high-tech version of an old game. For years, manufacturers have played tricks like inventing and patenting fasteners—which no one else could buy. If customers and repair shops couldn’t open a product, whether a washing machine or a smartphone, then the customer’s only option was to pay whatever the manufacturer charged.

While property rights, including intellectual property, are cornerstones of America’s dynamic and innovative economy, they shouldn’t be conflated with an artificially uneven playing field. Protecting proprietary engine management software is not the same as adding the equivalent of a password to a car’s diagnostic computer.

Some automakers have erected digital walls around the data in their customers’ vehicles, treating that information like a trade secret, even though it really belongs to the person who bought the car or truck.

There has been a bipartisan push in Congress this year to address the problem via the Right to Equitable and Professional Auto Industry Repair (REPAIR) Act. The legislation would essentially distinguish between protecting innovators’ intellectual property rights and automakers’ misuse of IP law to force customers into dealership repair facilities while crushing competition.

Some industry groups argue the REPAIR Act is unnecessary because relevant vehicle data is already available through existing agreements and portals. But then why are so many independent shops having to send cars to dealers each week because they can’t access vehicle data to even make a diagnosis?

This isn’t about preserving the quality of work being done either. Independent shops can be held liable for faulty repairs just like dealers. Many states even mandate minimum warranties on common repairs, regardless of who does the work.

Arguments over the right to repair aren’t about safety but about establishing monopoly pricing power and, in the case of the automotive industry, forcing out small businesses from a highly competitive market where, historically, independent shops complete 80% of out-of-warranty repairs because dealerships are about 36% more expensive for customers.

And the problem is getting worse as vehicles become less mechanical and increasingly electronic. By 2035, 155 million vehicle owners will likely be impacted by limited choices for auto repair, increasing their average annual repair bill by about $200. That’s well over $30 billion in aggregate higher bills for vehicle owners. Rural communities, with fewer options, are hit especially hard.

While dealerships will receive a windfall, independent shops will continue losing revenue and jobs, not to mention the 4 million manufacturing jobs at risk in the aftermarket car parts industry. By 2035, the 350,000 independent businesses in that industry—the largest segment of American manufacturing—are expected to see their combined share of automotive parts sales slip from 55% to just 35%.

Competition gives American families more choices, better service, and lower prices, but it requires a level playing field. In this case, that means reasonable access to repair information so that owners can decide for themselves where to have their vehicles serviced. This is about increasing competition, not concentration of power among special interests.

©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Rep. Thomas Massie’s, R-Ky., reelection bid on May 19 has become the most expensive Republican primary in history, with more than $32 million spent on advertising, as the congressman faces criticism over his remarks against the United States’ involvement in Israel.

“I’m the main event,” Massie told MS NOW at the U.S. Capitol last week. “I’m not the last stop or the closing act. I’m the main event.”

In an interview with ABC News, Massie attributed the unprecedented spending to outside influence. “This race has become the most expensive in the history of Congress for a primary because three billionaires from outside Kentucky have funneled millions of dollars in here,” he said. “They’re trying to buy a seat.”

Massie faces Navy SEAL veteran and Kentucky farmer Ed Gallrein, whom former President Donald Trump has endorsed even after he switched his voter registration from Republican to independent the year Trump was first elected.

The Kentucky congressman has drawn criticism from Trump and pro-Israel Republicans over efforts to require congressional approval before U.S. military action against foreign adversaries, including operations such as the one that captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro. Massie reintroduced similar legislation in 2026 amid rising tensions with Iran.

He has also been an outspoken critic of U.S. foreign aid to Israel. Last week, Massie introduced legislation seeking to register the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, aiming to curb what he described as outside influence in congressional elections.

Pro-Israel groups have spent heavily to defeat Massie. AIPAC and allied organizations have poured more than $9 million into the race, while a super PAC tied to Trump’s political operation has spent nearly $7 million. Overall ad spending has surpassed $32 million, making it the most expensive House primary on record, according to AdImpact.

“That’s where all the money comes from,” Massie said. “It will be a referendum on foreign policy—whether Israel gets to dictate that by bullying members of Congress. I’m the one they haven’t been able to bully, so they’re focusing their full force on me.”

Trump has repeatedly attacked Massie, calling him a “true hater of Israel,” while Massie has rejected accusations of antisemitism. “I’m not antisemitic, and I’m not against Israel,” he said Friday, cautioning against equating criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies with antisemitism.

Jewish leaders have pushed back. “For those of us who care about these issues, ousting Massie is critical,” Gabe Groisman, a former Republican Jewish Coalition board member, told Politico. “It’s super important to build and keep a wall, and let those voices remain outside, not on the House floor shaping policy.”

Massie has also faced criticism for joining Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., in 2025 to force a vote on releasing the files related to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, which Trump later signed into law in November.

Trump endorsed Gallrein in January, urging supporters on Truth Social to back him. “I am asking all MAGA warriors to rally behind Captain Ed Gallrein … best positioned to defeat Third Rate Congressman Thomas Massie,” Trump wrote.

Over the weekend, Trump renewed his attacks ahead of Tuesday’s primary. “The worst congressman in the long and storied history of the Republican Party is Thomas Massie,” he wrote. “Vote him out of office tomorrow. It will be a great day for America.”

Massie and Gallrein did not respond to the Daily Signal’s requests for comment.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Rep. Chip Roy introduced the Inhibiting Militant Adversarial Mullahs (IMAM) Act on Monday, which would bar radicalized leaders of certain religious denominations from being admitted into the United States.

“The United States should never roll out the red carpet for foreign clerics who preach anti-American hatred, celebrate terrorism, or serve as mouthpieces for radical regimes,” the Texas Republican told the Daily Signal in a statement.

If passed, the simple two-page bill would amend Section 101(a)(15)(R) of the immigration code to prevent nonimmigrant religious worker visas for “an alien with the title of Imam, Grand Imam, Shaykha, Mufti, Grand Mufti, Ayatollah or Grand Ayatollah from entering the United States.”

Roy, a co-founder of the congressional Sharia Free America Caucus, introduced the legislation following reports that some Muslim clerics have promoted hostility toward the United States.

“For years, adversarial religious figures have manipulated loopholes in our immigration laws to enter this country under so-called religious visas while spreading extremism,” Roy said. “The Inhibiting Militant Adversarial Mullahs (IMAM) Act sends a clear message. America will not import militant ideology disguised as ministry. If you promote the values of enemies of the West, you should not get a visa to come to the United States—period.”

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, there have been instances of Muslim religious leaders in the U.S. making statements critical of the West and calling for jihad.

For instance, in 2010, The New York Times reported that after 9/11, Anwar al-Awlaki—who was a 30-year-old imam at a mosque outside Washington, D.C., at the time of the attacks—later became a radical jihadist who declared war on the United States. Al-Awlaki had previously moved to the United States as a college student in 1990 to attend Colorado State University.

Two of the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks heard al-Awlaki’s sermons at his mosque in San Diego in the 1990s, before he moved to Virginia. The FBI investigated al-Awlaki in 2002 over his alleged connections to the 9/11 plot. Al-Awlaki, who was already making public statements critical of U.S. foreign policy, left the country later that year and eventually relocated to Yemen.

“America as a whole has turned into a nation of evil,” al-Awlaki said in a statement posted on extremist websites in 2010, according to The New York Times. Al-Awlaki added that he eventually concluded that jihad against America was an obligation for himself and other able Muslims.

Roy argues, however, that the incident was not isolated.

During a sermon in the early 2000s, Imam Siraj Wahhaj—a prominent Muslim leader in the United States—urged followers to engage in what he described as “gun-free jihad” and to “march through the city of New York,” according to a foreign intelligence assessment obtained by The New York Post, with a stated goal of sending arms for Muslims in Bosnia to defend themselves.

“I pray one day Allah will bless us to raise an army, and I’m serious about this,” Wahhaj said during the sermon, which was first reported by Islamist Watch and cited in the intelligence report.

“I’m asking for us to greet the duty for jihad here in America,” he continued. “How? By helping our Muslim brothers and sisters by sending money over there and bringing weapons to Bosnia to the Muslims by any means necessary.”

In 2025, Wahhaj appeared alongside New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani in a publicly shared photograph.

Other Western nations have faced similar challenges.

In England in 2005, four individuals inspired by jihadist ideology carried out coordinated attacks on London’s public transportation system, killing 54 people and injuring more than 770 others.

The bombers were “initially depicted as ‘ordinary’ British Muslims who had been ‘brainwashed’ by extremist Islamist preachers and radicalized by the war in Iraq,” according to the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

As concerns grow over the influence of extremist clerics, Roy said his legislation is meant to stop the spread of radical ideology before it reaches American communities.

The bill’s introduction also comes after the proposal of the East Plano Islamic Center, or EPIC City for short, outside of Dallas. The planned 400-acre community would include housing, a mosque, schools, and commercial businesses. Construction on the project has stalled after conservative officials, including Roy, Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, called for a halt and an investigation over fears of the city’s possible enforcement of Sharia law.

However, the leaders of EPIC City have denied allegations they plan to enforce Sharia law.

As noted by The Jerusalem Post, the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations has previously refuted the claim about the 402-acre compound, now rebranded as “The Meadow,” deeming the allegations against it “Islamophobic witch hunts and politically driven regulatory harassment.”

One of the development’s attorneys, Dan Cogdell, called claims of the community aiming to implement Sharia law “a lie,” asserting that the project has always been intended to follow state and national law.

However, Roy fears that religious compounds such as EPIC City may act as grounds for the cultivation of anti-Western terror.