After anti-ICE agitators invaded a church in the middle of a service, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison suggested that they were protected by the First Amendment and did not violate the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, commonly known as the FACE Act.

“People have a right to lift up their voices and make their peace, and none of us are immune from the voice of the public,” Ellison told former CNN host Don Lemon when asked about the church invasion in an interview Monday. Lemon was present during the disruption and filmed the agitators in action.

Ellison, the top law enforcement official in the state, went on to claim that it would be a “stretch” to prosecute the anti-ICE agitators under the FACE Act or the Ku Klux Klan Act.

“Chanting cannot be a crime; it’s freedom of expression,” Ellison stated.

“So the KKK Act is when people will use the threat of force or violence to deny you your human rights, your civil rights, under the color of law,” the attorney general said. “It’s a wild stretch and inappropriate” to use it in this case, he added.

“The FACE Act, by the way, is designed to protect the rights of people seeking their reproductive rights to be protected, and so that people for a religious reason cannot just use religion to break into women’s reproductive health centers,” Ellison added. “So how they are stretching either of these laws to apply to people who protested in a church over the behavior or the perceived behavior of a religious leader is beyond me.”

On the contrary, the agitators may have violated both the KKK Act and the FACE Act, and it is far from a stretch to say so.

The Church Invasion

Ellison’s comments came after agitators walked directly into the middle of the sanctuary in Cities Church, a non-denominational Christian church in St. Paul, and shouted “Justice for Renee Good!” as they surrounded various members of the congregation mid-service.

An ICE agent fatally shot Good on Jan. 7 while she was driving her car, right after her car appeared to make contact with him. She had been using the car for hours to obstruct traffic and frustrate ICE’s law enforcement efforts.

The agitators on Sunday targeted the church because one of the pastors, David Easterwood, also works with ICE.

An agitator who goes by the name “DaWokeFarmer” posted videos of the action.

DOJ Investigating Church Invasion

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is investigating the incident for potential violations of the FACE Act, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced Sunday.

She also mentioned potential prosecutions under the Ku Klux Klan Act.

The FACE Act Protects Churches

Contrary to Ellison’s claim, the FACE Act, which President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994 after Republicans joined Democrats to pass it in Congress, explicitly protects houses of worship.

While the law aimed to secure women’s rights to enter an abortion clinic without molestation, it also explicitly protects religious freedom.

The statute imposes criminal penalties on anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a place of religious worship.”

The Ku Klux Klan Act

Dhillon also explained how the Justice Department could bring charges against the agitators under the Ku Klux Klan Act.

President Ulysses S. Grant signed the Ku Klux Klan Act in 1871, aiming to combat the racial terror tactics of America’s most notorious hate group. Dhillon mentioned charging the church invaders under 18 U.S. Code Section 241, which bars “conspiracy against rights.”

This provision imposes fines and/or prison time if “two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same.”

Depriving someone of the right to free exercise of religion falls under the plain text of the statute.

It seems Keith Ellison either doesn’t know the plain text of the FACE Act or he is deliberately misleading the public about its applicability to defending churches.

Ellison claims that the Justice Department is muddying the law–but the argument for prosecuting the church invaders is crystal clear.

If anyone should know that, it’s Minnesota’s top law enforcement official.

Instead of admitting the truth, he’s carrying water for people who invaded a church just to demonize federal law enforcement. Just how “soft on crime” can you get?

The post FACT CHECK: Does the FACE Act Protect Churches? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Greenland has been a national security concern of the United States since the 19th century. President Donald Trump is the most recent in a long line of American presidents expressing an interest in either acquiring Greenland or expanding the U.S. military footprint in Greenland in cooperation with Denmark.

Given Greenland’s strategic location, Trump’s interest is eminently rational—but the United States should address the valid security concerns raised by Trump without risking a breach with NATO.

American interest in Greenland goes back more than a century and a half. Secretary of State William Seward expressed interest in Greenland as early as the 1860s. American interest in purchasing territory from Denmark has a historical precedent as the U.S. purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. The American military presence in Greenland dates to the 1940s, and President Truman expressed an interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark after World War II.

The strategic rationale for a U.S. military presence became especially clear with the beginning of the Cold War. With the advent of strategic bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles, flying over Greenland became the shortest path between the Soviet Union’s main bases and the United States.

In 1951, the United States and Denmark signed a broad and comprehensive treaty that expanded upon a 1941 agreement, allowing the U.S. to establish and operate bases and troops in Greenland. Pituffik Space Base sits near the top of Greenland today, supporting missile warning, missile defense, and space surveillance missions.

The present public conversation around Greenland ignores some key points that explain the Trump administration’s increased interest in rethinking the American relationship to the island.

There is already a legal mechanism for Greenland to declare independence if it so chooses, as Greenland’s 2009 self-rule law “establishes basically a road map for independence.”

In 2023, a constitutional commission composed of members of the Greenlandic parliament presented a draft constitution for a post-independence Greenland.

Additionally, an opinion poll from last year showed that 56% of Greenlanders are in favor of independence.

The Danish government has long said that Greenland’s status is a question for Greenlanders to decide. The government may well also conclude that saving hundreds of millions of dollars a year currently spent supporting the Greenlandic government is a good deal for both Denmark and Greenland.

As Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said “the self-rule law clearly stipulates that the future of Greenland is to be defined by Greenland and Greenlanders.”

If Greenland were to declare independence, however, it would lose the generous subsidy provided by Denmark each year (representing roughly half of the Greenlandic government’s budget), raising concerns that some other country could step in to fill the funding gap.

American conservatives took note of the potential emergence of a newly independent Arctic state with an uncertain source of income that could be potentially untethered from either Denmark or NATO. They are correct in fearing that China or Russia could potentially fill the funding gap and build a presence in the Arctic that would be unacceptable to both American and European interests.

Denmark is a longtime American ally and has proven itself one of America’s most steadfast friends within NATO. Indeed, during the long war in Afghanistan, Danish troops consistently engaged in combat operations and were killed in action fighting the Taliban at a higher rate per capita than any other NATO ally.

U.S.-Danish security cooperation is strong, with Denmark already operating U.S.-built F-35 fighter aircraft, discussing the purchase of P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, and demonstrating a clear commitment to defense spending within NATO.

It is clear that should the United States acquire Greenland over the objections of Denmark and other European countries, it could create real fissures within the NATO alliance. Such fissures could ultimately result in the breakup in NATO.

What then could the United States do in coordination with Denmark and Greenland?

The U.S. has a few options it could pursue in the event the Greenlandic government decides on independence from Denmark.

The United States could offer a territorial status, akin to that of Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands, in which Greenland is self-governing and not a state, but is a part of the United States.

Alternatively, the United States could offer an arrangement similar to the compact of free association (COFA) agreements we currently have in place with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau, under which these countries are independent and self-governing, but the U.S. has sole access and responsibility for security matters in exchange for a generous American subsidy.

Given Greenland’s small population of less than 60,000 people and an economy of only $3 billion, it would both struggle to arm a military that could adequately defend its sovereignty and to meet its financial obligations in general.

Alternatively, the United States could work with Denmark and other European nations to station an increased number of forces in Greenland to better secure the island and the arctic from Chinese or Russian influence.

At the same time, American and European governments can work together to access critical resources in Greenland—while at the same time providing well-paying jobs to Greenlanders.

Indeed, the best near-term option is for the United States to sign an updated defense agreement with Denmark, one that updates the legal logic presented in the 1941 and 1951 agreements which justified the stationing of forces on the island as part of a continental defense architecture during a time of systemic threats.

The updated agreement should formalize and expand U.S. access to Greenland’s territory for military, space, maritime, and infrastructure purposes while reaffirming Greenland’s status as a self-governing territory that is part of Danish sovereignty. Such an agreement would pave the way for the United States to reopen shuttered military bases which would expand the U.S.’ ability to detect Russian or Chinese maritime or air and missile threats to the homeland coming over the arctic pole.

The governments of the United States, Denmark, and Greenland now have the opportunity now to craft a future that works to the advantage of all three countries, securing the interests of the American, Danish, and Greenlandic peoples alike. In acquiring Greenland, the U.S. would keep this crucial part of the Arctic free from adversarial influence, while not causing ruptures in NATO.

The post The Conservative Case for Acquiring Greenland appeared first on The Daily Signal.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., addressed the United Kingdom Parliament Tuesday morning as President Donald Trump challenges Britain’s policies toward Greenland and the Chagos Islands.

“I spoke to President Trump at length yesterday,” Johnson began. “I told the president that I felt that my mission here today was to encourage our friends and help to calm the waters, so to speak, and I hope to do so.” Johnson was invited to deliver a speech to Parliament celebrating America’s 250th birthday.

Johnson is the first speaker of the House to address Parliament in this capacity.  

The speaker shared that he is “confident that we can and will maintain and strengthen our special relationship between these two nations.”  

This relationship continues to “send a message of unity and resolve to our allies around the world, and remind our adversaries and the terrorists and tyrants everywhere that our nations that are dedicated to freedom and justice and order and human dignity are stronger and more resolved now than ever before,” Johnson continued. 

The special relationship between America and Britain has had its flash points as of late.

Trump announced over the weekend that he would impose a 10% tariff on any country opposing a deal allowing the U.S. to acquire Greenland, including the U.K.

Trump also criticized Britain’s decision to cede the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. He called the deal an “act of great stupidity” in a Truth Social post early Tuesday morning.

“Shockingly, our ‘brilliant’ NATO Ally, the United Kingdom, is currently planning to give away the Island of Diego Garcia, the site of a vital U.S. Military Base, to Mauritius, and to do so FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER,” the president added. “There is no doubt that China and Russia have noticed this act of total weakness.”

For his part, Johnson also addressed the challenges China and Russia pose to American and British interests.

“We see China, Russia, and Iran grow more aggressive and emboldened as they intensify their efforts to exert economic, political, and military influence around the world,” Johnson said. “We see a callous disregard for basic human rights, new provocations, and even the theft of intellectual property on a scale like we have never seen before.”

Johnson also made an oblique reference to the current controversy surrounding Greenland. “Clearly, President Trump is taking seriously the modern and dynamic threats that China and Russia pose to our global security, especially in focus the last few days, as it relates to the Arctic,” Johnson said.

“Thankfully, our special relationship has always proven much more powerful and enduring than the enemies we face. Together, we represent a common history and heritage and the greatest, most free, most prosperous, most successful and benevolent civilization the world has ever known. And it will endure only as long as we reject, decline, and recommit to our foundations,” Johnson concluded. 

The post Johnson Looks to ‘Calm the Waters’ in UK as Tensions in Transatlantic Alliance Rise appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday over Hawaii’s ban on carrying a handgun in public accommodations–such as stores, restaurants, and gas stations–without the property owner’s permission.

Alan Beck, lawyer for the plaintiffs, said that entering such spaces is an “implied right,” unless the property owner opposes. He said Hawaii’s law flips that presumption and requires the property owner’s prior consent. 

Neal Katyal, attorney for Hawaii and former acting U.S. solicitor general, argued the state law protects private property rights, and asserted, “it’s pretty clear an invitation to shop is not an invitation to bring your Glock.”

The ruling in the case of Wolford v. Lopez, expected this summer, will apply to any state that seeks to regulate guns. At least four other states have laws similar to Hawaii’s restrictions.

During Tuesday’s oral arguments, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, “Is there a constitutional right to enter private property with a gun, without an owner’s express or implicit consent?”

Beck answered, “No. You can’t enter an owner’s property without their consent, correct? Express or implicit. Correct, because that would be a trespass your honor.”

Beck argued the question, instead, was “carrying on private property that’s open to the public.” He added that Hawaii’s law preemptively bans possession of a gun in privately-owned spaces that are open to the public, rather than leaving it up to the owner to prohibit entry with a firearm.

“Every private property owner has the right to affirmatively put up a sign or otherwise not give permission for people to enter a property with a firearm,” Beck said.

“The crux of our argument is that clients flip that historical default from them having to affirmatively say ‘guns are not allowed here’ to the current law.”

Hawaii’s Act 52 enacted the policy after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling struck down New York’s law requiring concealed carry holders to demonstrate a need for self-defense.

Hawaii’s Act 52 states that someone with the license to carry a handgun may not “enter or remain on private property of another person while carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm … unless the person has been given express authority.” The law applies regardless of whether the property is open to the public. 

Four other states have similar laws: California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey, according to SCOTUSblog.

The high court is hearing the case because of a circuit split. The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the New York law. The U.S. 3rd Circuit struck down New Jersey’s law. However, the U.S. 9th Circuit upheld Hawaii’s law. 

Hawaii points to a 1771 New Jersey law and an 1865 Louisiana law as precedent of states requiring the prior consent of a property owner for someone to enter the property with a gun.

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that Louisiana law was part of the “black codes” aimed at discriminating against the rights of freed slaves to defend themselves against violence in the post-Civil War era.

“You rely very heavily on an 1865 black code law in Louisiana. You say it’s a dead ringer, and a reason alone to affirm the judgment,” Gorsuch said. “I want to understand how you think black codes should inform this court’s decision making.”

Katyal stressed that black codes were a shameful part of American history, but argued that this particular law was race neutral. He noted that that the Republican Congress admitted Louisiana back into the union with this law intact.

“The United States Congress, the same Congress that ratified the 14th Amendment, implicitly blessed [the law] by admitting Louisiana back in,” Katyal said. 

When Gorsuch earlier asked plaintiffs’ lawyer Beck about the Louisiana law. Beck said that Hawaii’s law is not comparable since the Louisiana law was intended to discriminate.

Justice Samuel Alito told Katyal, “You’re just relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.” He presented a First Amendment hypothetical.

“If someone owns a store, or let’s say it’s a little restaurant, and this person has very strong political opinions, and does not want anybody in that restaurant who is wearing attire that is expressing approval of a particular political candidate, the owner of that restaurant has the right to say, you can’t come in, right?”

Katyal answered, “Yes.”

Alito followed, “Could Hawaii enact a statute that says that if you were wearing the attire expressing approval of a particular political candidate, you cannot come in unless you get express consent from the owner of the restaurant?

Katyal conceded that it would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, but added that the Second Amendment does not have “the same components” as the First Amendment. 

The post Justices Hear Arguments on Concealed Carry In Stores appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Global central bankers issued a statement last Tuesday defending U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell following the launch of a criminal investigation into the central bank chief. Powell is being investigated over the $2.5 billion he spent renovating the Fed building and potentially lying to Congress about the project.

The headline tells you everything you need to know about the moment we are in.

I believe in an independent Federal Reserve. America has always benefited from a central bank insulated from day-to-day political swings. A nation this large and complex needs a steady hand on monetary policy.

But independence does not mean antagonism. It does not mean operating as a parallel power center in opposition to a duly elected president. And it certainly does not mean taking cues from European technocrats who have no vote in our elections and no stake in our sovereignty.

What we are seeing now is not neutral independence. It is institutional resistance. Not objectivity, but obsession. The Federal Reserve under Powell has developed Trump Derangement Syndrome, and it is distorting decisions that affect every American household.

When central bankers from Europe and around the world rush to Powell’s defense, we are told this is about protecting “independence.” In reality, it looks like elite solidarity. A global technocratic class is circling the wagons around one of its own against a president they never accepted.

With all due respect, European bank heads should mind their own business.

This is the United States of America. Our economic policy is set by Americans, for Americans. We are America First. We do not bow to Davos. We do not outsource our monetary philosophy to Brussels, Frankfurt, or London. The Federal Reserve is not a subsidiary of the European Central Bank, and its chairman does not answer to a transatlantic club of unelected elites.

Independence is not immunity from accountability. The Federal Reserve’s mandate is clear: maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. Nowhere does it say the Fed should function as a hedge against populism or a brake on a president it dislikes.

Yet that is exactly how Powell and the financial establishment appear to see their role.

Look at the record. When inflation exploded under President Joe Biden, the Fed was “caught off guard.” When tightening threatened the Biden economy, Powell moved cautiously. But when Donald Trump was president, the Fed hiked rates aggressively, nine times between 2017 and 2018, even as inflation was tame and working-class wages were finally rising.

That is not neutral independence. That is institutional bias.

Supporting Fed independence does not mean endorsing a Fed that works against the elected president. An independent Fed should be professionally detached from partisan politics, but it should still operate in good faith with the administration chosen by the American people. It should not view a president as a threat to be contained, nor look overseas for validation when challenged.

Trump never sought to turn the Fed into a political arm. He asked for accountability. He demanded transparency. He argued that interest rates should reflect the real economy, not the anxieties of Washington insiders and European technocrats. That is not radical. That is responsive governance.

Under Trump, the economy boomed. Wages rose. Energy was affordable. Small businesses thrived. A Fed that respected both its independence and the president’s economic vision could have amplified that success. Instead, Powell tightened into growth and then stood flat-footed as Biden ushered in an inflationary storm.

Now Americans are paying the price. Groceries cost more. Homeownership is out of reach. Credit card debt is exploding. And Powell signals that relief will wait.

We do need an independent Fed. But we need one that is independent from political bias, not hostile to the president and deferential to Europe. Independence should mean professionalism, not resistance. It should mean data-driven decisions that complement national economic leadership, not quietly undermine it.

Powell and his colleagues are not elected. They do not set national strategy. They do not decide elections. Their job is to provide stability, not steer outcomes. If they have forgotten that, Congress has every right to remind them through oversight and accountability.

Trump Derangement Syndrome has infected too many institutions. If it captures the Federal Reserve, the damage will be profound. Interest rates should not be a weapon. Central banking should not become partisan warfare. And independence should never be an excuse to oppose the will of the American people or defer to foreign elites.

Mr. Powell, your job is not to stop Trump. It is to serve the American economy. Respect the office, respect the voters, and check your politics at the door.

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

The post We Want an Independent Fed, Not One With Trump Derangement Syndrome or Foreign Influence appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Bipartisan funding negotiators in Congress say they have a deal on a trillion-dollar package to cover major priorities such as deportations, health, transportation, and the military.

The deal between Republican and Democrat appropriators comes after speculation about whether Democrats would allow funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to advance.

The $1.2 trillion funding deal combines four spending bills into one product of almost 800 pages and will come to a vote on the House floor this week. 

The package’s passage would be the final step in passing all 12 standard appropriations bills out of the House for 2026.

Notably, Republicans have managed to get Democrat buy-in for the homeland security bill, which covers immigration and border enforcement funding.

Top Democrat House appropriator Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said of the deal that she understands “many of [her] Democratic colleagues may be dissatisfied with any bill that funds ICE.”

She added, “I share their frustration with the out-of-control agency. I encourage my colleagues to review the bill and determine what is best for their constituents and communities.”

Democrats had stressed their desire for policy riders exercising congressional control over Immigration Customs Enforcement officers’ operations in the wake of Renee Good’s death in an ICE-involved shooting in Minnesota.

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat appropriator in the Senate, also signaled her support for the package Tuesday—a promising sign for efforts to keep the government open after Jan 30.

“ICE must be reined in, and unfortunately, neither a [continuing resolution] nor a shutdown would do anything to restrain it, because, thanks to Republicans, ICE is now sitting on a massive slush fund it can tap whether or not we pass a funding bill,” Murray said in a statement which appeared to anticipate backlash from the Democrat base to the deal.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has previously acknowledged the difficulty of attracting Democrat support for the homeland security bill, as well as the possibility of having to pass a clean funding extension for homeland security if a deal fell through.

In a statement, Murray additionally urged fellow Democrats to “take [their] fight to the ballot box” to counter ICE’s activities.

The homeland security bill “provides a total discretionary allocation of $64.4 billion,” per a Republican appropriations release. This includes immigration enforcement-specific funding, such as $10 billion for ICE.

However, Democrats are boasting of what they are wins in their effort to rein in ICE, with a Murray press release highlighting that the bill’s text prevents “any growth to ICE’s annual budget” and “rejects President Trump’s request for a $840 million increase in funding for ICE.”

Beyond Homeland security, the bill funds three other areas: defense; labor, health, and education; as well as transportation and housing.

The defense bill would allocate almost $840 billion, with Republican appropriators highlighting funding for new ships, as well as pay raises for troops and the elimination of diversity programs.

The labor, health, and education bill provides $221 billion, and Republican appropriators say it assists “Trump’s efforts to safeguard taxpayer dollars, eliminate out-of-touch progressive policies, and end the weaponization of government.”

The Republicans on the appropriations committee also say in a press release that the $100 billion transportation and housing bill “prioritizes transportation safety … while maintaining essential housing assistance for our nation’s most vulnerable.”

The post Congress Reaches Deal on ICE Funding With Spending Package appeared first on The Daily Signal.

What a difference a year makes.

For the first time in half a century, the United States experienced net negative migration, according to a recent report by the Brookings Institute. The reason, the report concluded, was President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration policies.

“The report attributed the shift to a combination of the large drop in entries and an increase in enforcement activity leading to removals and voluntary departures,” ABC reported.

This is an important milestone as we reach the end of Trump’s first year in office. The reckless immigration policies of President Joe Biden turned the American people decidedly against immigration, both illegal and legal. Those policies would have almost certainly continued if Vice President Kamala Harris has won in 2024.

We’ve really seen an incredible turnaround. Just a few years ago, border towns were completely overrun by illegal aliens. The only defense border states had was to ship the newcomers off to norther sanctuary cities that also became entirely overwhelmed.

That’s halted entirely. The New York Times ran a story Sunday about how migrant shelter in McAllen, Texas—which had been packed to the gills under Biden was now practically vacant.

“We have not seen a single migrant in months,” Sister Norma Pimentel, who runs the facility, said to the Times in December. “We are completely empty.”

That’s an incredible change.

Even after their decisive defeat, Democrats have shown no loss of zeal for their open border policies as they do everything in their power to impede enforcement of the law in states and localities they control.

Nevertheless, the past year proves—that under the right leadership—America’s immigration laws can be enforced. It’s not impossible. We didn’t need additional legislation that did little more than put a Band-Aid on the problem and give cover to open-borders politicians. We just needed new leadership at the top.

This isn’t to say that Trump succeeded in other areas. As I and others have written, his administration has effectively run a counterrevolution against the deep state bureaucracy and the DEI ideology that’s infected practically every corner of American society.

It can legitimately be said that no Republican president has done more to curtail the bureaucracy and its surrounding web of parasitic, woke NGO’s than Trump in his second term.

But it’s on the border and immigration in which Trump 2.0 has had the most astounding success.

Sure, many Trump supporters are disappointed that deportations haven’t happened fast enough. Some Republicans now lament that the ICE raids in blue states are getting too “messy,” and will surely turn the public against the administration.

However, given the challenge Trump faced when he returned to office after four years of President Joe Biden, it’s impossible to imagine the 47th president handling the situation without any major complications.

In the four years under Biden, Customs and Border Patrol recorded 11 million encounters at the border. Millions of illegal immigrants were simply allowed into the country under bogus asylum claims or were given notices of court appearances years in the future.

And as we’ve seen, some of those courts were willing to play fast and loose with the law to ensure that deportations wouldn’t take place.

That’s in part what the Trump administration is attempting to untangle, with Democrat-run “sanctuary states” doing everything in their power (and a fair bit outside their official power) to impede that effort.

Here’s a brief review of Trump’s impressive record on the border one year into his second term.

Early Actions to Undo Biden’s Manufactured Border Crisis

When Trump returned to office the first thing he did was to sign an executive order declaring the southern border situation a national emergency, allowing him to deploy additional resources to stem the Biden tide.

He also reinstituted the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which forces asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they await a decision in their case. The “catch and release” policies of Biden were abandoned.

The administration funded detention facilities to house illegal aliens on the way to deportation, including “Alligator Alcatraz,” a massive facility built in the Florida Everglades.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, signed into law on July 4, allocated $170 billion for immigration enforcement. It provided funding for a surge in Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and ensured that deportations would continue to be fully funded for the remainder of Trump’s presidency.

With these moves, the Trump administration showed that it wasn’t just going to halt Biden’s immigration policies, it intended to reverse them.

The Way is Shut

The effect of Trump’s pivot was immediate.

In June of 2024, Border Patrol agents apprehended 83,536 illegal aliens at the southern border. That was the lowest of the entire Biden presidency. Most months, that number was well over 100,000, and reached over 250,000 at its peak in 2023.

Under Trump, that number has fallen to a trickle. Center Square reported on the astounding difference in the two presidencies. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2026, which began in October, Border Patrol “recorded the lowest illegal border crosser encounter/apprehension totals ever reported” at the start of a fiscal year.

 “A total of 91,603 encounters/apprehensions were reported nationwide—lower than any prior fiscal year to date, according to the latest CBP data,” wrote Center Square’s Bethany Blankley. “By comparison, record highs were reported under the Biden administration of 392,196 in Q1 of fiscal 2025; 988,512 in Q1 of fiscal 2024; and 865,333 in Q1 fiscal 2023, according to the data.”

Noem celebrated this accomplishment on X.

Even more importantly, and this is almost certainly why those numbers fell so dramatically, the Trump administration just recorded its eighth straight month of allowing zero parole releases into the country.

The bogus asylum seekers have melted away because they know that they are wasting their time. They can’t just show up at the border and expect to melt away into the U.S. population as they once did.

ICE Raids and the Future

The Left didn’t sit still while Trump undid one of their foundational policies. Democrat-run sanctuary states have done their best to put up as many roadblocks to deportation as possible. This has created a challenging situation for the Department of Homeland Security.

DHS noted in early January that ICE agents “now face a more than 1,300% increase in assaults, a 3,200% increase in vehicular attacks against them, and an 8,000% increase in death threats.”

ICE now must conduct frequent raids in blue states rather than pick up illegal immigrants detained by local authorities if it wants to enforce federal law. This has put ICE agents in more danger as leftwing activists and dangerous illegal immigrants have often attempted to impede their operations.

This is in part how the tragedy that led to an ICE agent shooting a woman in Minnesota took place.

Will this deter the administration?

Trump suggested that he may invoke the Insurrection Act in response to local Democrat officials, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacon Frey, continuing to openly defy the federal government.

Trump seems to be serious about carrying out his election promise despite whatever resistance Democrats throw at him. Is there more work to be done? Yes. Still, it’s not hard to imagine how different things would have been had Walz and Harris had won. It would have been four more years of Biden’s unimpeded border madness.

The post In Trump’s First Year He’s Delivering on His Signature Promise appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump has delivered a sharp policy reversal from the Obama-Biden era during his first year back in office, solving problems from border security to the economy to foreign conflicts, The Daily Signal’s Rob Bluey said on Fox Business Network.

“It sure is a different time in America,” Bluey told host Liz MacDonald on “The Evening Edit.” “We could probably extend or double or triple that list for all of the problems that Donald Trump has helped solve, and he was left a mess, as you indicated, from Barack Obama and Joe Biden.”

Bluey pointed to improvements across multiple policy areas. He’s not alone in noting the stark difference from his Democrat predecessors. Axios’ Mike Allen called Trump the “Eraser-in-Chief” for undoing the policies of former President Joe Biden.

“As Trump approaches this one-year anniversary on Jan. 20, I think the United States is much better off with him as the leader,” Bluey said. “Our country—certainly both from a domestic standpoint and foreign standpoint—is in a much better spot today than it was when Joe Biden left office.”

Border Crisis: Fixed

When MacDonald raised the contrast between the “far-left madness” of the Biden years and the relative stability under Trump, Bluey focused on border security as a prime example of policy sabotage.

“Joe Biden had the tools at his disposal to close the U.S.-Mexico border,” Bluey said, noting that federal law gave the president the authority Trump had successfully used in his first term. “On Day One, Biden wiped away all of those policies and left us with the situation we’re in now.”

Bluey also criticized Democrat governors for refusing to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

“If you want to talk about anybody who’s responsible for the chaos in our country, it’s people like [Gov.] Tim Walz in Minnesota, who, if they just cooperated with Donald Trump and enforced the law, maybe we wouldn’t have these out-of-control protests happening in Minneapolis,” he said.

Anti-Trump Media Bias

MacDonald asked Bluey about the media’s role in downplaying Trump’s achievements.

“They share a ton of blame, because Donald Trump doesn’t get the credit that he deserves,” Bluey responded, pointing to consistently negative headlines despite policy successes.

Today, Trump marks the one-year anniversary of his return to the White House on Jan. 20, 2025, the first president since Grover Cleveland to serve two nonconsecutive terms as president. Cleveland, the first Democrat elected after the Civil War, served from 1885 to 1889 and again from 1893 to 1897.

The post How Trump Solved the Mess Obama and Biden Left Behind appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk appeared to support a targeted immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota that made international news.

“It is pure evil for people to stop the arrest of child predators,” Musk wrote on X, responding to reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested a U.S. citizen who wouldn’t cooperate with agents during an operation seeking two convicted sex offenders.

The Department of Homeland Security said the U.S. citizen, later released, resided at the address of the two offenders and would not identify himself to the ICE agents.

Musk and President Donald Trump had a public falling out last summer after he headed the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency initiative.

Musk’s comments on the immigration operation come after a viral Reuters photo of the agents arresting a man wearing shorts and Crocs with a blanket thrown over his shoulders on a snowy day in St. Paul.

“Marching half-naked elderly people out into the snow, your tax dollars at work,” author and columnist Jill Filipovic wrote on X above a post sharing the photo.

According to the DHS account of the incident, federal agents on Sunday went to the address of the two convicted sex offenders. Their convictions include sex with a minor, sexual assault, domestic violence, sex assault with penetration in the first degree, and violating a protective order.

“Both also have convictions for failure to register as sex offenders. They both have final orders of removal from an immigration judge,” according to DHS.

Upon arriving at the home, agents found ChongLy Thao, 56, inside, according to Reuters. But Thao refused to identify himself or be fingerprinted, according to DHS, so he was taken into custody to determine his identity. He was later released.

“He matched the description of the targets,” DHS said in a statement on X. “As with any law enforcement agency, it is standard protocol to hold all individuals in a house of an operation for safety of the public and law enforcement.”

The two convicted sex offenders remain “at large in St. Paul,” according to DHS. The department has pledged to provide “the public with photos and descriptors to help us locate and apprehend these public safety threats.”

Thao is a naturalized U.S. citizen who was born in Laos, according to Reuters. His family later published a statement calling the ordeal “unnecessary, degrading, and deeply traumatizing,” and a relative of the family told Reuters that one of the two convicts ICE had targeted had previously lived at the residence but had moved out.

The incident comes less than two weeks after an ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis left 37-year-old Renee Good dead, leading to widespread anti-ICE protests in the Twin Cities. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have demanded federal immigration officials leave the community.

Despite opposition in the Twin Cities, the Trump administration has deployed hundreds more immigration enforcement agents to the area.

In the past six weeks, federal immigration officials have “arrested 3,000 criminal illegal aliens including vicious murderers, rapists, child pedophiles, and incredibly dangerous individuals,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced Monday.

A total of 10,000 criminal illegal aliens have been arrested in Minneapolis over the past 12 months, according to Noem, who calls the operation a “victory for public safety.”

The post Elon Musk Weighs in on Minnesota ICE Operation appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On the anniversary of President Donald Trump’s second term inauguration, here are four ways he has dismantled the deep state in Washington.

1. Reinstating ‘Schedule F’

On his first day in office, Trump signed an executive order to reinstate Schedule F, which makes it easier for the president to fire bureaucrats.

This reclassified about 50,000 career civil servants in “policy-influencing” roles as at-will employees.

The executive order said that accountability was lacking in the federal bureaucracy.

“In recent years, however, there have been numerous and well-documented cases of career Federal employees resisting and undermining the policies and directives of their executive leadership,” the order said. 

“Principles of good administration, therefore, necessitate action to restore accountability to the career civil service, beginning with positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.”

2. DOGE

The Department of Government Efficiency reportedly reduced federal employment by about 271,000 jobs.

DOGE also provided a list of 9,474 contracts and vehicles that have been terminated by the department.

In the spirit of DOGE, the Trump administration cut off the funding streams for immigration groups that moved illegal aliens across the country. The Environmental Protection Agency clawed back extravagant grants to climate alarmist groups. The State Department shuttered the U.S. Agency for International Development. Congress finally cut off funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

3. Shutdown Cuts

During the recent government shutdown, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought cut $8 billion of blue state energy projects.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled,” Vought said.

In addition, the Department of Transportation sent letters to the Chicago Transit Authority informing it that two projects receiving a total of $2.1 billion in federal funding were under administrative review, for race and sex-based contracting practices that potentially violated the Constitution.

4. Investigating ‘Deep State’ Abuses

In July, a CIA report found that John Brennan, the agency’s director in the Obama administration, overrode internal concerns to claim that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

The agency’s current director John Ratcliffe ordered the review. It found that evidence used by Brennan to show that Russian President Vladimir Putin was aiding Trump in the 2016 election was rushed, restricted in its access, and disseminated too widely for a highly classified report. 

“Central to the judgment that Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win was one highly classified CIA report,” the report said. “Brennan had tightly restricted access to this information within CIA; it had been collected in July but not disseminated in CIA serialized reporting until the week of 19 December.”

The review notes that “media leaks” indicated intelligence agencies “had already reached definitive conclusions risked creating an anchoring bias” before “work on the assessment even began.”

The post Four Ways Trump Has Dismantled the ‘Deep State’ Since Inauguration appeared first on The Daily Signal.

California’s biggest union is once again up to no good. Dissatisfied with the piles of cash they’ve already stolen from California high-earning taxpayers, who are subject to a 14.4% income tax rate (the nation’s highest), double digit sales taxes, and the second-highest tax burden in the country, the SEIU is now clamoring for a “one-time” 5% tax on the net worth of “billionaires” to fund health care for illegal immigrants. 

Yes, you read that right. Tax the rich even more to pay for ballooning costs of failing, state-run health care.

The initiative that voters will likely decide upon in November is the pinnacle of progressive envy. It’s not enough that the top 1% of taxpayers already fund half of the state budget. They’re greedy for more, and the initiative’s new authority to tax net worth is a harbinger of unprecedented government intrusion into our lives.

We can first look to the retroactivity clause, which ensures that any taxpayer who did not have the foresight to flee the state by Jan. 1, 2026, will be subject to the tax if voters approve it in November. Progressives are well aware of the millions of people, trillions of dollars, and multiple congressional districts that have already left California for the freer shores of Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and other zero-income tax states. This time around, the victims of their tax hikes won’t have the chance to vote with their feet.

The initiative also singles out the most successful entrepreneurs who built their companies from nothing into unimaginable success. For many founders, the tax could be well over 5%.

Take Larry Page of Google. He and his co-founder, Sergey Brin, own 11.3% of the parent company, Alphabet. But these shares are not publicly tradable; they are “supervoting” shares that give the founders 52.3% of voting rights on the board.  Under the initiative’s language, it is highly likely they would be taxed on 52.3% of the value of Alphabet ($4 trillion), leaving them with a $200 billion tax bill. That’s nearly half of their net worth, not 5%.

Page and Brin would likely have no choice but to convert their supervoting shares to typical Class A, publicly traded stocks just to afford their tax bill, and in doing so relinquish control of the company they single-handedly built, hungry and penniless, in a rented garage.

This is the result of deep philosophical corrosion that has infected Sacramento and the Democratic party for decades. The progressives behind this initiative genuinely hate the rich, not for being rich, but for their achievements—for their productivity, for their independence, for building productive companies that change the world for the better—despite the enormous personal and social benefit of products like Instagram or ChatGPT, or the millions of employees whose jobs wouldn’t exist without the single-minded determination of successful founders.

But even as Silicon Valley entrepreneurs at the forefront of the AI revolution suffer immediately, the ultimate consequences of this initiative will be felt by the middle class.

For the first time in the history of the world, a government entity could gain the authority to peer behind the veil into your net worth—to audit the total value of every asset you own, every bit of your personal property, tangible and intangible, realized and unrealized. Every couch, car, appliance, home, pet, piece of art and renovated bathroom.

The dangers of granting such omniscience and power to the tax collector cannot be understated.

The United States could force billionaires to liquidate every asset they have, force them into homelessness, and give every penny to the government, and they still couldn’t fund the federal government for more than a single year. The real money—$170 trillion of it—is locked up in the middle class. Once the billionaires are penniless, who do you think the czars of the welfare state will go after next?

Be forewarned: the progressive Left is targeting the billionaires—first. Then they’ll come for you.

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

The post California’s ‘Billionaire Tax’ is a Trojan Horse appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE CENTER SQUARE—The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case over whether states can prevent concealed carry holders on private property that is open to the public.

Wolford v. Lopez challenges a Hawaii law that prevents concealed carry permit holders from bringing handguns to beaches, bars, restaurants that serve alcohol and gas stations without the owners permission.

The Hawaii law stems from the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where justices struck down a New York law requiring concealed carry holders to display the need to defend themselves.

“The Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court’s 2022 decision.

Thomas further elaborated that gun restrictions should only be upheld if they are consistent with the “historical tradition” of the United States.

In 2023, Hawaii implemented a law making it a misdemeanor for concealed carry holders to bring a gun on private property. The misdemeanor carries a sentence of up to a year in prison.

Hawaii residents with concealed-carry permits challenged the state’s law. The residents, alongside a gun-rights group, argued that the government has no imperative to prohibit citizens from carrying concealed weapons in public spaces.

“There is no comparable historical—or even modern-day—tradition of allowing the government to create a no-carry default rule for private property open to the public,” lawyers for the residents wrote to the Supreme Court.

Lawyers for the gun-rights group also pointed to the disproportionate effect Hawaii’s law will have on rural areas with parks and beaches.

“These bans are applicable to hundreds of thousands of acres of public land throughout Hawaii, even though the State allows hunting with firearms in many areas of these parks and forests,” lawyers wrote in a petition to the court.

In a brief to the Supreme Court, Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez said the state instituted its law to protect citizens from hosting armed individuals on private property. Lopez points to a longstanding history of limiting the right of Hawaiian citizens to carry weapons in public spaces.

“Property owners in Hawai’i could assume that—unless they made express arrangements to the contrary—firearms would not be carried onto their property, even if it was open to the public,” Lopez wrote in a brief to the nation’s highest court.

Lawyers for Hawaii also argue that the Second Amendment, at the time of the nation’s founding, did not include the right to enter private property with a weapon.

“The Founders recognized a property owner’s right to exclude,” the lawyers wrote. “Accordingly, at the Founding, a person had no right to enter private property with a gun unless he had the owner’s express consent or an implied license based on local law or custom.”

In lower court litigation, Hawaii pointed to a 1771 New Jersey law and an 1865 Louisiana law that explicitly required consent before entering a private property of any kind with a gun. Lower courts upheld Hawaii’s arguments on the basis of these laws.

“The overall purpose of all the laws was plainly to protect a property owner’s right to exclude firearms,” lawyers for Hawaii wrote. “Variation in the specific reasons why owners might wish to preclude guns—from preventing unwanted hunting to promoting safety, comfort or self-defense—does not undermine the basic fact that laws that vindicate the fundamental right to exclude are well within the tradition of American firearm regulation.”

Lawyers for the concealed-carry holders argued Hawaii relied on faulty evidence to assert other laws were similar to the state’s ban. They argued certain public spaces, like beaches and public parks, would not be considered in the original bans, which fundamentally alters the state’s argument.

“Under that approach, ‘the original understanding of the Second Amendment,’” the lawyers wrote, referencing a lower court judge’s opinion, “‘Would not apply to any new types of public spaces that would develop in the future.’”

Gun rights and gun control advocates will be watching as the justices hear arguments in one of the court’s most consequential Second Amendment cases of the year, with a decision expected by July.

Originally published by The Center Square.

The post US Supreme Court to Hear Second Amendment Case Tuesday appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Democrat Left wants Americans to believe that excessively armed ICE agents in Minneapolis and elsewhere are kidnapping law-abiding immigrants en route to church or heading home from work.

New Jersey congressional candidate Analilia Mejia moaned that “grandmothers and gardeners are being targeted by federal enforcement agencies with no accountability.”

Attorney General Keith Ellison, D-Minn., called the people his ilk are shielding, “the most vulnerable neighbors in our community.”

“They haven’t been able to produce any evidence that they are finding people who are undocumented who have committed crimes,” Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., told MS NOW’s evening anchor Chris Hayes. “It is unleashing complete terror on the residents of Minnesota.”

A fresh serving of facts swiftly refuted these Leftist lies.

Fox News’ intrepid, industrious Bill Melugin secured details from ICE on just 19 of its recent arrestees in Minnesota. These are not merely people of color “who want better lives,” as the cliche goes. (So what? Who doesn’t want a better life?)

“It’s the most disturbing list I’ve ever seen,” Melugin wrote via X, “including numerous convicted child rapists/sodomizers & ten convicted killers, most with deportation orders going back many years.” 

Let’s meet a dozen of these “vulnerable neighbors.”

Hernan Cortes-Valencia: This Mexican illegal alien was convicted (Not accused. Not indicted. Convicted) of four DUIs, sexually assaulting a child, and carnal abuse. He was in America despite receiving a deportation order on December 1, 2016.

Ge Yang: This Laotian illegal alien was convicted of strongarm rape (coercive sex via brute force, but no weapon), strongarm aggravated assault against a family member, aggravated assault with a weapon, and domestic violence involving strangulation. Deportation order: October 16, 2012.

Sriudorn Phaivan: This Laotian illegal alien ran a one-stop shop for crime. He was convicted of strongarm sodomy of a boy, strongarm sodomy of a girl, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, receiving stolen property, possessing stolen property, burglary, and check forgery. Deportation order: March 8, 2018.

Tou Vang: This Laotian illegal alien was convicted of sexual assault, sodomy of a girl under age 13, and procuring a child for prostitution. Deportation order: October 31, 2006.

Kou Lor: This Laotian illegal alien was convicted of sexual assault, rape, statutory rape, rape with a weapon, and shoplifting. Deportation order: August 16, 1996—nearly 30 years ago!

These rodents don’t just rape. They kill, too.

Aler Gomez Lucas: This Guatemalan illegal alien was convicted of DUI and negligent homicide with a vehicle. Deportation order: May 24, 2022.

Abdirashid Adosh Elmi: This Somali illegal alien was convicted of homicide.

Galuak Michael Rotgai: This Sudanese illegal alien was convicted of assault and homicide.

Aldrin Guerrero Munoz: This Mexican illegal alien was convicted of assault and homicide. Deportation order: December 17, 2015.

Gabriel Figueroa Gama: This Mexican illegal alien was convicted of amphetamine possession, battery, assault, and homicide. He was deported in 2002, eventually re-invaded America, and subsequently perpetrated these crimes.

Mariama Sia Kanu: This illegal alien from Sierra Leone was convicted of burglary, three counts of larceny, four DUIs, and two counts of homicide. Deportation order: July 5, 2022.

Gilberto Salguero Landaverde: This Salvadoran illegal alien was convicted of three counts of homicide. Deportation order: June 25, 2025.

“ICE says all of these criminal aliens were roaming freely in the sanctuary state of Minnesota prior to arrest,” Melugin reported, “and that these are the type of people that politicians and activists are referring to as their ‘neighbors’ as they attempt to interfere with ICE.”

From gas-pedal-stomping Minneapolis moms to cherry-bomb-hurling ANTIFA rioters, ICE’s enemies are making life look like Easy Street for these scumbags.

Thankfully, ICE remains undeterred. Its director, Todd M. Lyons, promised: “Regardless of staged political theatrics, ICE is going to continue to arrest the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens in Minnesota and elsewhere.” 

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

The post Dem/Left Shields Worst of Worst Illegal-Alien Rapists, Killers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Thursday night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act 2026. The bill provides the foreign aid industry $50 billion in taxpayer funding, $20 billion over the president’s budget request. The foreign aid industry praised it “as a long-awaited break for a beleaguered development community.”

Heritage Action criticized the aid bill for “falling short of responding to American outrage over systemic waste, fraud, and abuse,” and “throws a lifeline to a corrupt, leftwing foreign aid establishment … that keeps open the door for the return of the progressive multi-billion-dollar aid industry” after President Donald Trump leaves office.

On day one in office, Trump froze all foreign aid funding, denouncing the aid industry as “run by radical lunatics.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused the U.S. Agency for International Development of “rank insubordination.”

Congressional hearings exposed the ideological rot in our aid programs from “funding transgenderism in Muslim Bangladesh, atheism in Hindu India, illegal abortions in traditional Mozambique and distributing condoms in Taliban-run Afghanistan.”

Last September, a government report stated that 60% of the $10 billion per year global health funding was spent on “various forms of overhead” incurred by U.N. agencies, international NGOs and for-profit contractors.

Last month, the State Department ceased funding humanitarian aid to Afghanistan and Yemen where billions in taxpayer money have been diverted to terrorists.

The administration dismantled USAID, dismissed thousands of aid officials, defunded billions in woke programs, and reset foreign aid as a tool of national security in line with American values. Foreign aid has been transformed from a global platform to promote progressive radicalism to generating global wealth by promoting America’s economic interests.

The strategy of the decimated foreign aid industry is to financially survive these next three years until Trump leaves office, expect a progressive to replace him as president, and reboot foreign aid spending to levels of the Biden administration.

Meanwhile, a powerful coalition of aid lobbyists, spearheaded by millions of dollars from Bill Gates, have been actively working to falsely equate aid cuts with “millions of deaths.”  

It worked. The bill overfunds the administration by $20 billion. Whereas the State Department wants to cut the global health budget by half (the US taxpayer has provided over $200 billion of health-related aid since 2001, double any other donor), this bill makes a cut of only 6%.

Worse, the bill fully funds the left-wing National Endowment for Democracy whose board is openly anti-Trump. In comparison, the bill provides only $40 million for persecuted religious minorities despite the president taking military action against terrorists killing Nigerians Christians and although global persecution of Christians is at an all-time high.

Conservatives in Congress were stunned by the bill’s massive funding of the National Endowment for Democracy. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, decried the organization for supporting “leftwing, anti-American NGOs.”

A 2024 Heritage report details how the endowment became captured by anti-conservative progressives to attack conservatives at home and abroad with board members interfering in U.S. elections, denouncing Trump as “Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini.”

H.R. 3625, introduced by Eli Crane, R-Ariz., and which sought to prohibit new funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, lost but did win a majority of House Republican votes, a reputational stain on the organization.  

The bill also includes a $100 million payment per year for ten years for a new similar foundation for international conservation to co-finance the leftwing global conservation industry, such as the World Wildlife Fund and Bezos Earth Fund.

With congressional elections set for next year and the prospect of progressives retaking power, this bill provides the bridge financing the aid industry hoped for. If so, post-Trump America will again face the prospect of billions of its tax dollars funding radicalism at home and abroad.

Congress still has another shot to align this harmful foreign aid appropriations with the administration’s reforms as the U.S. Senate considers it later this month. Don’t count on it though.

The post Foreign Aid Bill: Bridge Financing for the Radical Left? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Minnesota? Somalis? Nine billion dollars in alleged welfare fraud?

To understand what’s going on from a distance, it helps to understand basic culture. Minnesota was settled largely by people of Scandinavian and German ancestry.

In survey after survey, Minnesota has ranked No. 1 or No. 2 among states, often just behind neighboring and much smaller North Dakota, in social connectedness, civic participation, workforce participation and voter turnout. It has traditionally led the nation in levels of trust and conscientiousness.

This has been coupled with political behavior that resembles Scandinavian patterns. Minnesota, like North Dakota and fellow neighbor Wisconsin, had lively socialist-leaning third parties in the 1930s. It’s still the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, the result of a fusion engineered by future Vice President Hubert Humphrey in 1944.

As you might expect, Minnesotans have built a high-tax, high-spending state government. Like Scandinavians, they have trusted the state to provide services and have trusted individuals not to cheat in claiming benefits. Public support for these programs, as in Scandinavia, has traditionally been founded on confidence that aid goes only to the genuinely deserving.

The Somalis who have been the most visible and politically active migrants to Minnesota over the past generation provide a vivid contrast. “The Somali,” the conservative writer Helen Andrews quotes a British official, “is convinced that he is entirely different from and vastly superior to any East African.” Somalia has been a land of chaos, a home base of pirates.

Their home country has become a kind of no-man’s land, an example of what the political scientist Edward Banfield called amoral familism, where people are loyal only to fellow clan members and have no sense of obligations to the mores of the larger society.

That’s in vivid contrast, it turns out, to the rampant, possibly billion-dollar-plus frauds perpetrated by Somalis who arrived in Minnesota as refugees and their offspring. Federal prosecutions began in 2022, when Biden administration Attorney General Merrick Garland authorized prosecutions of the Feeding Our Future program to feed hungry children during the COVID-19 lockdown period.

As described in The New York Times last November, “State agencies reimbursed the group and its partners for invoices claiming to have fed tens of thousands of children. In reality, federal prosecutors said, most of the meals were nonexistent, and business owners spent the funds on luxury cars, houses and even real estate projects abroad.”

In other words, this was a well-organized scam that required the cooperation or acquiescence of large numbers of people, including members of the Somali community as well as non-enforcement and non-auditing public officials.

Were they simply naive Minnesotans, accustomed to an almost entirely conscientious population? Or were they deterred by the charges of racism that would inevitably be launched at anyone questioning a Somali-run operation? Most likely some of both.

Any doubts that Feeding Our Future was a one-off exception have vanished with the exposure of other state-aided programs, which seemed to have no operations and no clients. Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph Thompson, who resigned this week for reasons unrelated to fraud cases, has estimated that Somali-run frauds have swindled $9 billion of public money, and it’s undisputed that the total take is at least in the hundreds of millions.

It’s an obvious reason that DFL Gov. Tim Walz, the national party’s 2024 nominee for vice president, announced last week that he wouldn’t seek a third term.

Minnesota liberals like to argue that Somalis have contributed much to Minnesota, but aside from their contribution to racial diversity statistics, they find it hard to come up with specifics. Actual data are not encouraging, showing that even after 10 years in Minnesota, three-quarters of Somali households receive Medicaid, half receive food stamps, and one-quarter receive government cash. Only about half are proficient in English.

These numbers compare unfavorably with those of Hmong refugees who started arriving in Minnesota after the Vietnam War. After five decades, Hmong Minnesotans match state average incomes and home ownership rates, nearly match average high school graduation rates, and have no known involvement in massive welfare fraud.

Somalis, after three decades in Minnesota, have made little progress on those dimensions. A low-trust, low-conscientiousness culture has proved to be stubbornly persistent, and, unlike the Minnesota liberals who helped the Hmong fit in, the last generation of Minnesota liberals has done little to move Somalis away from a dysfunctional culture that they brought from their embattled and unproductive homeland and from an adversarial attitude to the larger American society.

The social connectedness of Minnesota liberals themselves has not disappeared. On the contrary, the network of volunteers monitoring and attempting to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportation efforts, described vividly in The Wall Street Journal, is a prime example — and, as the death of Renee Good on Jan. 7 showed, a tragic one.

It can be seen as an example of organized civil disobedience, only its participants seem to lack any sense that, by trying to obstruct federal law enforcement, they are doing anything morally questionable or potentially felonious. As Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have made it clear, they refuse to enforce federal immigration law and want to prevent the federal government from doing so.

The state and city lawsuits seeking to block federal enforcement, in open defiance of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, stand out among the many absurd legal theories advanced by both the Trump administration’s opponents and, at times, the administration itself. This posture is not merely wrongheaded but reckless. It places Walz and Frey in the moral tradition of segregationist governors such as George Wallace (D-Ala.) and Ross Barnett (D-Miss.), urging resistance to lawful federal authority, a kind of incitement that, as recent events have shown, can turn deadly for participants and bystanders alike.

Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. His new book, “Mental Maps of the Founders: How Geographic Imagination Guided America’s Revolutionary Leaders,” is now available.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

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

The post What’s the Matter With Minnesota? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Writing at Axios, energy writer Amy Harder says, “The climate agenda’s fall from grace over the past year has been stunning—in speed, scale and scope.” Harder quotes oil historian and S&P Global vice-chairman Dan Yergin as saying, “There’s no handwaving about how ‘We want to cooperate on climate.’ It’s, ‘We’re slamming the door on that issue.’ We’ve gone from over-indexing it to zero-indexing it.”

Polling has never shown climate change as being an issue of primary concern to American voters. Americans have consistently been more worried about issues that impact their daily lives today than about warnings from modern-day P.T. Barnums like U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres about some nebulous “highway to hell” and “the age of global boiling.

The issue had been slowly losing its effectiveness during the Biden years even as that administration tried to memorialize the movement’s objectives in policy.

Even Democrat politicians have quit talking about the so-called “climate emergency” which used to be a central plank in their talking points list. When was the last time you heard New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, co-author with Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of the “Green New Deal” introduced in 2019, talk about the supposed need to force ordinary citizens to give up their cars, flying, and vacations and spend trillions on a nationwide network of high-speed rails to save the planet?

When was the last time you heard any Democrat utter the phrase “Green New Deal,” for that matter? It simply doesn’t happen anymore.

One of the motivators for the political abandonment of the climate scam by Democrats came from a pre-election analysis from the center-left Searchlight Institute last November. That memo advised Democrat candidates to avoid using the term “climate change” entirely, and to focus on the supposed cost savings to be obtained by switching to green energy solutions.

Never mind that such cost savings are a myth: The truth doesn’t matter. What matters is the ability to influence voters with the message.

Therein lies the central existential threat to the movement’s survival in the coming years.

For decades, liberal politicians and climate advocates were able to advance the climate alarm agenda by creating, well, alarm among the public that the world is going to end if we don’t stop putting too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Always the messaging had a deadline claiming, “We only have X number of years to stop burning fossil fuels before it’s too late!” Over the past 40 years, that deadline to act has given the term “moving the goalposts” a new green meaning.

AOC claimed the drop-dead date was only 12 years in the future as she rolled out her ambition to control everyone’s daily lives in the name of climate alarm in 2019. But the very next year, in 2020, child activist Greta Thunberg moved the goalposts to a mere five years.

But wait: Just a year later, Joe Biden read a script from his teleprompter that set the deadline at 10 years. It’s all so darn confusing.

No doubt, these politicians and activists wish they could erase their past claims from everyone’s memory. Their trouble is, the Internet is forever.

Advocates were even successful in convincing Barack Obama’s EPA to dummy up an Endangerment Finding declaring that carbon dioxide is in fact a “pollutant” that must be regulated under the Clean Air Act in order to save the planet. Never mind that CO2, otherwise known as plant food, the foundational basis for all life on Planet Earth: The truth doesn’t matter.

Now, it appears that the movement is inheriting the wages of decades of deception with a sudden and stunning fall from grace. It could not happen to a more deserving bunch of people.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation.

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

The post Is the Climate Scare Narrative Headed for Bankruptcy? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

State laws protecting women’s sports in half the country could stand to be affected depending on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules in two cases that the justices heard this week. Ohio is among them, with the state having passed such a law in January 2024.

At a Jan. 15 press conference, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost spoke with The Daily Signal on how the Supreme Court decision could impact the Buckeye State.

“Depending on how the Supreme Court decides and what the rationale is, it could have an impact,” Yost confirmed when it comes to the impact on state law here in Ohio, specifically H.B. 68, which includes the Save Women’s Sports Act and the SAFE Act.

The attorney general further explained how state law has been met with federal and state challenges, including at the Ohio State Supreme Court. Yost has been defending the legislation at the state level.

The Save Women’s Sports Act, is still “the law of the land” and is “operational,” Yost reminded, as it has been allowed to remain in effect during court challenges.

Yost also said that “with the posture of these cases, I don’t think it would knock out our case here in the state,” though he stressed we don’t have an outcome yet.

Such decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court may not come until late June or even early July.

As the justices heard Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J., Yost was in Washington, DC to speak out on the issue, joining several other Republican attorneys general to do so.

The attorney general was able to hear the Supreme Court arguments, which he called “fascinating.”

The justices were “very interested in the intellectual questions” surrounding the case, Yost claimed.

“I think these state laws will probably be upheld by the Supreme Court,” Yost offered when it comes to his prediction. “The question is by what margin and how broad is the rationale.”

Others also believe that the justices will uphold such state laws.

Do No Harm, a group which describes itself as “a national association of medical professionals combating the attack on our healthcare system from woke activists,” also spoke to the potential ramifications of such a case as well as what’s at stake.

Dr. Kurt Miceli, the chief medical director of Do No Harm told The Daily Signal that, “a win for Idaho and West Virginia at the Supreme Court will pave the way for other states across the country to pass and enforce protections for girls and force lower courts to acknowledge the binary nature of sex.”

“Contrary to activists’ misinformation, blood testosterone levels alone do not fully capture the male physical advantage. Scientific evidence proves that, even before puberty, boys have a physical advantage in strength and speed over girls of the same age,” said Miceli. “We are optimistic the court will ensure biological reality is upheld and common-sense protections are reinstated.”

Yost also shared a similar sentiment with The Daily Signal when it comes to what states like Ohio are aiming for with such laws:

The whole reason Title IX exists is because we wanted girls and women to have exactly the same opportunities that men did, to learn teamwork and leadership and resilience, and how do you deal with a loss and how are you magnanimous in victory, and all the things that come from sports. If you say that we’re going to just let biological boys or men into girls’ and women’s sports, you’ve taken away that equality and erased 50 years of progress.

The Save Women’s Sports Act, along with The SAFE Act, was part of H.B. 68, which Republican Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed in late December 2023. An override of that veto ultimately took place.

State Rep. Gary Click, the Republican who introduced the SAFE Act, also shared his thoughts with The Daily Signal about how he thought oral arguments went, taking particular aim at one the liberal justices.

“Apparently, Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson is still uncertain of what a woman is,” Click shared referring to when the now associate justice went viral during her committee hearing in 2022 as well as during Tuesday’s oral arguments. “But the rest of us have the basic competence to know the difference and to believe that women’s spaces must be protected from being invaded by men.”

“I am confident that the competent majority will agree,” Click added. The court currently includes a 6-3 majority makeup of conservatives.

The Daily Signal also reached out to the Ohio chapter of the Americans Civil Liberties Union, which has come down on the side of biological men and boys being able to compete against women and girls but did not receive a response.

The post Ohio AG Explains How Major Women’s Sports SCOTUS Case Could Impact Ohio appeared first on The Daily Signal.

On Sunday, anti-ICE agitators invaded a church sanctuary in the middle of service, a shocking escalation arguably inspired by the Left’s extreme rhetoric against immigration enforcement.

“Justice for Renee Good!” shouted agitators as they walked directly into the middle of the sanctuary, surrounding worshippers in Cities Church, a non-denominational Christian church in St. Paul, Minnesota. (An ICE agent fatally shot Good while she was driving her car, right after her car hit him. She had been using the car for hours to frustrate ICE’s law enforcement efforts.)

The agitators targeted the church because one of the pastors, David Easterwood, also works with ICE.

An agitator who goes by the name “DaWokeFarmer” posted videos of the action.

DOJ Investigating Church Invasion

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division is investigating the incident for potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced Sunday. While the Justice Department under former President Joe Biden used the FACE Act to target pro-life protesters who demonstrated outside abortion clinics, the law also protects houses of worship.

After the Biden DOJ weaponized the FACE Act to target pro-lifers, Dhillon seems ready to use the FACE Act for its intended purpose—to protect civil rights.

Former CNN host Don Lemon traveled with the agitators, and claims to have merely been reporting on the incident. Yet he clearly coordinated with Nakima Armstrong, the group’s leader who previously led Minneapolis’ NAACP chapter, ahead of the church invasion.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Don Lemon (@donlemonofficial)

Whatever Lemon’s involvement, the agitators who desecrated a house of God deserve to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Innocent Victims

These agitators didn’t just confront a church that also employs an ICE employee. They harassed innocent men, women, and children for the crime of worshipping God. Little children do not deserve to have their songs of praise interrupted by aggressive chanting.

Of course, this church invasion does not represent the first time anti-ICE agitators have harassed innocent bystanders.

Agitators have also accosted a man for the crime of driving a Chevy Suburban, the same kind of vehicle ICE officers use.

In a separate incident anti-ICE agitators harassed tech workers at a deli, mistaking them for ICE agents.

While Lemon may cloak himself in the free speech rights of a journalist, these agitators showed no compassion for journalist Nick Sortor when he came by, asking questions. Agitators surrounded his vehicle, smashed his windows, stole his camera, and seem to have threatened his life.

Make no mistake: We have roving bands of Red Guards who make it their mission to oppose law enforcement and to terrorize ICE. They’re not afraid of harassing innocents to further their agenda.

Where Does This Come From?

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Earlier this month, Minnesota Democrat Gov. Tim Walz—who has yet to condemn the desecration of the church—suggested that President Donald Trump was at war with him and threatened to call the National Guard to oppose ICE agents in Minneapolis.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, also a Democrat, said ICE should “get the f— out of Minneapolis.”

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., called ICE an “occupying force.”

This rhetoric comes amid the Left’s push for “sanctuary” policies that hamstring the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law and deport illegal aliens.

Democrat governors openly say that immigration law should not be enforced in their jurisdictions. On her very first day in office, Virginia’s new Democrat governor—Abigail Spanberger—rescinded the order directing law enforcement to cooperate with ICE.

Democrats have even whittled away at America’s sovereignty by making my birth state of Colorado a “sanctuary state.”

President Donald Trump returned to office in part because the Left had gone off the deep end on immigration. While former President Barack Obama enforced immigration law, the Left demonized immigration law under Trump, and Biden effectively opened the border, allowing millions of illegal aliens to pour into the country.

A vast network of left-leaning nonprofits has demonized immigration law in the name of compassion. The Center for American Progress and the American Civil Liberties Union urged Biden to open the border. Now that Trump has closed the border and sought to deport illegal aliens, the ACLU is hard at work challenging nearly every move in the courts.

Another network of nonprofits reaped rich benefits from federal grants in exchange for transporting immigrants across the country. Naturally, these groups complained to high heaven and sought to sue when Trump started clawing this money back.

Now, the Left’s dark money network is funding the groups organizing anti-ICE agitators—whose aggressive tactics Renee Nicole Good employed. While Good’s death was tragic, the ICE agent who shot her arguably fired in self-defense. The Left has seized on her death as some sort of gross miscarriage of justice, taking any opportunity to demonize Trump’s attempt to bring back law and order.

Trump has surged ICE officers to Minneapolis in part because local law enforcement will not work with ICE to enforce the law.

Whatever you think of Trump finally enforcing immigration law in Minneapolis, I hope you will stand with me in condemning the desecration of a church.

These agitators will consider no space sacred enough to trample on in their demonization of law enforcement. Americans across the country should pay close attention.

The post Thanks to the Left’s Extreme Rhetoric, Anti-ICE Agitators Are Now Invading Church Services appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When the Senate returns from a weeklong recess, it will have just days to avoid a partial government shutdown.

The funding deal that ended the last government shutdown, the longest shutdown in American history, is set to expire on Jan. 30. The Senate has passed six of the 12 spending bills to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year. The six that remain include Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, Transportation-HUD, Financial Services, National Security-State, and Homeland Security.

Senate leadership predicts that funding for Homeland Security will be the most difficult to pass because of Democrat opposition to ICE operations.

Senate Makes Progress

Before the Senate left Washington on Thursday afternoon, the upper chamber passed a three-bill spending package.

The Senate voted 82-15 on the package that combined the Commerce-Justice-Science, Interior-Environment, and Energy-Water funding bills. The price tag for the three-bill package, which is now heading to President Donald Trump’s desk, is $180 billion.

As part of the deal to end the 2025 government shutdown and reopen the government, the Senate previously passed three of the appropriations bills, Agriculture, Military Construction-VA, and Legislative Branch, with funding through the end of the fiscal year.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., congratulated the members and the appropriations committee on the Senate floor on Thursday for their success so far. He noted that in 2025 the Senate was able to pass three single government funding bills before August, “through regular order, a process that gives all senators the opportunity to make their voices–and the voices of their constituents–heard,” said Thune.

Homeland is The Hardest

Since the ICE-involved shooting of Renee Good in Minnesota, Democrats are trying to leave out funding for the immigration agents from the DHS funding bill.

ICE increased operations in Minnesota after large-scale fraud was exposed at government-funded childcare centers.

“Homeland is obviously the hardest one,” Thune said. He suggested that a continuing resolution is a possible outcome if the parties can’t negotiate.

“We should not be limiting funding for homeland security in a dangerous time,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told Fox News. “We need officials to allow law enforcement to do their job,” Johnson continued.

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has demanded “common sense measures” to be taken to assure immigration agents will conduct themselves, “in a manner that is at least consistent with every other law enforcement agency in the United States of America.”

Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which boasts almost 100 members, has taken a more aggressive stance.

“Our caucus will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement in any appropriations bills until meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices,” Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said during a press conference.

Some Republicans have been open to negotiations suggesting more training to be required for agents.

“The more training they could have, the better it’ll be, because they’re dealing with some strange stuff going on that’s coming at them in a lot of different directions,” said Sen. Jim Justice, R-W.Va.

The post Can the Senate Keep the Government Open and Fund ICE? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Katie Pavlich became a household name for conservatives during her 16 years at Townhall and past decade appearing on Fox News.

Monday night, she anchors her own primetime show on NewsNation, “Katie Pavlich Tonight.”

Tuesday night, she’ll broadcast her exclusive one-on-one interview with President Donald Trump—one year after his second inauguration.

As her friend, I’m beyond thrilled for Pavlich. She’s a fantastic journalist and well suited to host a primetime show of her own. “Katie Pavlich Tonight” makes its premiere at 10 p.m. on NewsNation.

Front-Row Seat

“I am humbled and excited for the opportunity to host a new show every night from Washington, D.C., a place that belongs to all Americans,” Pavlich told The Daily Signal. “It’s an exciting, fast-paced front-row seat to history. I look forward to providing honest news and perspective on the events, policies, and decisions that impact our great country.”

Pavlich has said you can expect to hear her familiar conservative commentary on NewsNation, which made her a popular contributor across multiple Fox News shows.

But she also promised to host guests with diverse points of view.

“I’m not going to sit there and say that I’m a moderate or that I have different kinds of political perspectives,” she told The Wrap. “But I’m very excited to have different perspectives on the show and to discuss these things with people who maybe disagree with me, maybe can change my mind, and I hope that we can do that also on the other end, where I can maybe convince some people about a certain story or issue.”

As a newer entrant in the TV news market, NewsNation is available on cable and streaming platforms like YouTube TV, Hulu, Fubo, Sling, and DirecTV. The channel is part of Nexstar Media Group, which owns and operates over 200 stations in local markets across America.

In addition to Pavlich, NewsNation’s primetime lineup includes hosts Chris Cuomo, Leland Vittert, and Jesse Weber. It airs a Sunday talk show with Chris Stirewalt and a daytime news program with Connell McShane.

Shaping the News

Pavlich teased her interview with Trump in recent days, soliciting questions from her large social media following. With more than 1 million followers on X, she’s built a massive audience.

Now, with a show of her own, Pavlich will have an opportunity to shape the news even more.

Over the past year, we’ve witnessed a massive disruption in the media landscape. Gone are the days of an adversarial press dictating the narrative to the American people.

Fox News Channel continues to dominate cable TV ratings—and increasingly competes against its broadcast rivals.

New and emboldened media outlets, social media influencers, and just about anyone with a smartphone and internet connection have joined the mix to cover the news. It’s a beautiful thing to watch, and a hopeful sign that after years of playing defense, conservatives are now on offense—and winning.

Conservatives on the Rise

I spoke about the rise of conservatives in media at National Conservatism Conference in September and again at the Leadership Institute in November.

Pavlich will now have an opportunity to shine in the spotlight at 10 o’clock every evening.

“If you’re running and you’re looking to the side too often, you end up slowing down,” she told the Washington Examiner. “There are a lot of successful shows, both on the internet and on broadcast and in cable, but my goal is to have a really great team where every single night, we’re putting on an amazing show for NewsNation, with unique guests, with unique perspectives, covering the biggest stories of the day.”

Pavlich’s show on NewsNation represents more than just a career milestone. It’s another sign that conservatives are expanding our reach into new territory. With her credibility, work ethic, and willingness to engage opposing viewpoints, Pavlich is positioned to build something significant.

Congratulations, Katie. Make us proud.

The post Conservative Star Katie Pavlich Gets Her Own Primetime Show on NewsNation appeared first on The Daily Signal.