President Donald Trump slammed Pope Leo XIV for being “WEAK on crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy,” drawing backlash from conservative Catholics.

Trump’s comments followed the pope’s criticism of the war in Iran. “I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Sunday evening. “He gets it, and Leo doesn’t!” Pope Leo’s brother, Louis Prevost, has previously supported the president in social media posts.

Leo responded Monday that he is not afraid of Trump and will continue his calls for peace.

“I have no fear of the Trump administration, or speaking out loudly of the message of the gospel, which is what I believe I am here to do, what the Church is here to do,” he told reporters. “I don’t want to get into a debate with [Trump].”

Bishop Robert Barron of the Catholic Diocese of Winona-Rochester called Trump’s comments “entirely inappropriate and disrespectful,” and urged the president to apologize.

“They don’t contribute at all to a constructive conversation,” Barron said. ”It is the Pope’s prerogative to articulate Catholic doctrine and the principles that govern the moral life.”

Trump said he doesn’t want a pope who disagrees with a variety of his foreign policy positions.

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon,” he said. “I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country.

“And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History,” he continued.

Trump suggested that Pope Leo was chosen because he was an American, and the Catholic Church wanted to curry favor with the president.

“If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican,” he said. “Unfortunately, Leo’s Weak on Crime, Weak on Nuclear Weapons, does not sit well with me, nor does the fact that he meets with Obama Sympathizers like David Axelrod, a LOSER from the Left, who is one of those who wanted churchgoers and clerics to be arrested.”

Trump demanded that Leo “get his act together,” and “use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician.”

“It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!” he said.

Shortly after his post about Leo, Trump posted an artificial intelligence-generated image portraying himself as Jesus healing a man in a bed, leading to more backlash from the religious right.

“Why? Seriously, I cannot understand why he’d post this,” conservative sports influencer Riley Gaines posted in response. “Is he looking for a response? Does he actually think this?”

“Either way, two things are true. 1) a little humility would serve him well 2) God shall not be mocked,” she added.

Cultural commentator and Daily Wire reporter Megan Basham called the photo “OUTRAGEOUS blasphemy.”

“I don’t know if the President thought he was being funny or if he is under the influence of some substance or what possible explanation he could have for this OUTRAGEOUS blasphemy,” she wrote on X. “But he needs to take this down immediately and ask for forgiveness from the American people and then from God.”

The post ‘WEAK’: Trump Escalates Criticism of Pope appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE CENTER SQUARE—In the last year of the Biden administration, millions of dollars flowed from the city of Atlanta to nonprofits so they could aid migrants pouring through U.S. borders. A quarter-million dollars went to a Chicago-based Islamic activist organization that was raising money for Gaza at the time.

The Center Square wanted to know what, specifically, that group and others spent their grant money on. But for months, requests to the office of Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens, filed under the Georgia Open Records Act, have been answered with hefty price quotes ranging from hundreds to more than a thousand dollars.

The city wanted almost $1,400 to view records on a list of nonprofits that collectively received at least $5.7 million. The mayor’s office said pulling receipts, invoices and other backup records would require nine days of labor.

An open borders critic called the fee demands by Dickens’s office “obstruction.”

“It sounds like the city of Atlanta has not been doing much oversight of its own, if it has to spend so much time tracking down the records that you’re requesting,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. “It also sounds like they do not welcome the scrutiny.”

The city says it’s not hiding anything. Michael Smith, a spokesman for the mayor, said what’s so time-consuming is that all records have to be reviewed to remove any personal or confidential information. Georgia law allows governments to charge for “the search, retrieval, redaction, and production or copying costs” at the hourly rate of the lowest-paid full-time employee capable of compiling the requested records.

That means taxpayers not only paid for staff to generate the migrant assistance records in the first place, but someone has to pay again to check how well the city and its contractors managed the money.

Across the country, high fees for producing records have become a common deterrent to prying eyes, according to a new report by the University of Florida journalism school’s Collier Prize for State Government Accountability, which examined today’s precarious media climate.

“I think that’s something that governments in many cases choose to do, to jack up the costs,” said Rick Hirsch, Collier Prize director and a former Miami Herald managing editor, speaking generally and not specifically about Atlanta.

Hirsch said if journalists who must file dozens of public records requests in order to watchdog government spending can be shut down by high costs, then so can regular taxpayers.

“Five-hundred dollars is a lot if you’re somebody who’s trying to find out why a zoning change is happening at your corner, and you’re just a lay citizen,” Hirsch said. “I think it’s a little bit of spin to say, ‘Oh, it’s whining from news organizations, they should spend the money.’ That’s forgetting the ultimate purpose of why records are public, and also what the role of the media is. The role of the media is to be an advocate for the public.”

Where the Funds Came From

The money Atlanta paid to non-governmental organizations came from Federal Emergency Management Agency grants at a time when Washington was still doling out hundreds of millions of dollars to shelter, feed, clothe, transport, and provide other services for incoming migrants.

Before President Donald Trump took office and drastically changed course, taxpayers shelled out $1.72 billion, with the money distributed to nonprofits and local governments throughout the country. That included $715 million from a humanitarian subset of FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program, which morphed into the Shelter and Services Program and racked up more than $1 billion.

In an investigation published in January, The Center Square raised questions about Atlanta’s payments to a nonprofit called the Inner-City Muslim Action Network, or IMAN. Payment records available through the city’s online Open Checkbook show the group received five installments from August 2024 to January 2025 totaling $250,000.

The Center Square also reported that, while the city was paying the Muslim group, it staged a “Benefit Concert for Gaza” held in Chicago that raised money for another nonprofit that has been accused by Israeli watchdogs of aiding Hamas. The other nonprofit, Anera, strongly denies any links to the terrorist organization responsible for the Oct. 7 massacres.

IMAN’s Chicago and Atlanta offices did not respond to multiple calls and emails from The Center Square seeking interviews and information, nor to a message left in person at the group’s Atlanta branch on Martin Luther King Jr. Drive.

Since January, The Center Square has sought access to the receipts, invoices, vouchers, payment requests or other records turned in by the Inner-City Muslim Action Network and other NGOs. Other Atlanta recipients included Hispanic Alliance ($2 million), Inspiritus ($1.9 million), International Rescue Committee ($838,000), Latin American Association ($283,500) and Migrant Equity Southeast ($245,500), according to Open Checkbook records.

After the mayor’s office put a $1,368 price on backup records of seven nonprofits, The Center Square narrowed the request, but estimates for far fewer records still came back at hundreds of dollars.

For backup records on just two of the nonprofits, IMAN and Hispanic Alliance, Dickens’s office wanted $456.

Just to view receipts on the Inner-City Muslim Action Network alone, and obtain an accounting of how much money in federal grants Atlanta received and how it distributed the funds, Dickens’s office said the price would be $760. That was later revised down to $380 after The Center Square questioned the cost.

The price includes reviewing the records for any exempt information and making redactions. However it’s unclear if there are any redactions to make because the records haven’t been pored over yet by the mayor’s office, so the actual cost could end up being far less. The records are held by the Mayor’s Office of International and Immigrant Affairs.

“It’s hard to imagine what any privacy considerations would be,” Vaughan, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said. “This is public money, and the public has a right to know how it was spent. Particularly if there are questions about support of terrorists or terror-linked organizations, like Hamas.”

In the Collier Prize for State Government Accountability’s survey of 80 investigative reporters, 67% said lack of access is the greatest challenge to accountability journalism, and 44% reported delays, denials or excessive costs have been common hurdles to obtaining records.

“That’s not a new story,” Hirsch said, “but I think the trend is that it’s just gotten worse.”

Originally published by The Center Square.

The post Transparency Watch: Atlanta Puts a Hefty Price Tag on Muslim Activists’ Pay Records appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Drip, drip, drip. Three years after the COVID-19 pandemic, more details are being revealed concerning the failure of federal public health officials to come clean about lingering safety issues with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Senate investigators have conclusively proved, for example, that Biden administration officials downplayed the risk of vaccine-induced myocarditis (heart inflammation) and failed to warn the public. Widespread and dangerous loss of trust in public health authorities is thus hardly unsurprising.  

Consider the latest. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., the indefatigable chairman of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, recently notified Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, that records show that Biden officials failed to notify the public about “significant safety signals for ischemic stroke” (a blockage of blood to the brain) among patients aged 65 and older who had received the Pfizer Corporation’s COVID-19 bivalent booster.

Safety Concerns. After reviewing about 2,000 pages of records, Senate investigators revealed that officials from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were aware of safety concerns regarding the booster but did not share this information with the public.

In the fall of 2022, as Johnson’s letter to Kennedy makes clear, CDC officials had become aware of a “statistically significant safety signal” for ischemic stroke for persons aged 65 and older. Between November 2022 and March 2023, seven separate analyses of the incoming data detected the stroke signal (an early warning) for the older population.

As Johnson told Kennedy: “HHS records show that as early as October 2022, federal health officials identified a potential connection between the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 bivalent booster and ischemic stroke for individuals over the age of 65. However, after identifying the safety signal, federal health officials did not issue any formal warnings, such as a Health Alert Network(“HAN”) message, about their findings, nor did they pause or modify their recommendations for the affected population.”

Citing CDC communications, Johnson reports that between August 2022 and February 2023, there were 226 stroke cases. In 2023 and 2024, more stroke cases continued to surface. CDC officials, knowing the weaknesses of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS), clearly understood that the cases obviously required more detailed analyses, and thus, in February 2023, HHS hired Lukos LLC, a private firm, to undertake “The Stroke Project” and do a deeper dive into the data.

As Johnson observes, “Taken together the records … reflect an extended period in which federal health officials continued to evaluate a statistically significant ischemic stroke safety signal while leaving booster recommendations for adults aged 65 years and older wholly unchanged. From the initial detection of the safety signal in late 2022, through the contractor-led case review, VAERS data mining analyses, and follow-up VSD (Vaccine Safety Datalink) studies references in MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) publications through at least September 2024, health officials continued to say the vaccine was safe while simultaneously searching for evidence to support that assertion.”

Federal officials developed a “communications plan” addressing vaccine-related strokes, including a section on “Tough Questions and Answers” for President Joe Biden and his White House team. Curiously, the final edits to the draft changed the original language to say that the safety signal for stroke was “moderately elevated” to “slightly elevated.” The obvious point was to downplay the risks. As Johnson notes, “It is unclear who provided this edit.”

Flawed Process. In fact, as House investigators reported in 2024, Team Biden rushed the process; a lesson in how not to move ahead with a universal vaccine booster program. On Aug. 18, 2021, Biden announced that the government would offer booster shots to “all” Americans, even before the FDA’s final evaluation and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ recommendations to the CDC.

In fact, as House investigators also noted, two senior FDA officials—Marion Gruber and Philip Krause—resigned because they felt that a booster program should be limited to the most vulnerable and that there was insufficient data at the time to recommend boosters for the entire population. That is why the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic concluded: “The Biden administration arbitrarily and without scientific support announced COVID-19 vaccine boosters would be available to all Americans.” 

Failing to reveal the full story—the potential costs as well as the true benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines—has done enormous damage to trust in federal public health agencies. Today, less than half of all Americans have confidence in the CDC and the FDA to execute their core tasks without special-interest group or political influence.

Johnson has asked Kennedy to deliver all remaining department communications concerning decisions to inform the public about the risks of ischemic stroke; all records relating to the Lukos LLC “Stroke Project” report; and all remaining CDC and FDA records, especially those relating to deep-dive data analyses of vaccine safety signals for stroke.

Kennedy has made commonsense changes in COVID-19 vaccine policy, aligning U.S. practice with the broad international consensus on COVID-19 booster shots among our European friends and allies. In sharp contrast to the previous administration, Kennedy is committed to “radical transparency” in his dealings with Congress. So, there is little doubt he will deliver on this most recent congressional request.

Nonetheless, the crucial restoration in federal public health is going to take time and effort; this is a necessary task well before the onset of the next pandemic.

The post Biden Officials Knew About COVID-19 Vaccine Stroke Risk appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A tight primary race between the three Democrat candidates for Michigan’s Senate seat is showcasing the different extremes of the Democratic Party.

According to polls, voters are currently divided among a center-left congresswoman who is backed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, a physician who appears to be sympathetic towards Islamic radicals, and a current state senator who has been accused by her colleague of “grooming” children while adopting popular Democratic stances.

Downplaying Islamic Terrorism?

Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive candidate backed by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has recently attracted attention for his public statements linking the recent string of terrorist attacks perpetrated by alleged Islamic radicals to Israel’s war campaign.

After Lebanese-born Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, who became a naturalized a U.S. Citizen in 2016, drove his car into Temple Israel Synagogue on March 12, El-Sayed released a statement condemning the violence while also claiming the attacker possibly acted in retaliation to Israel’s military campaign.

“A week earlier, an airstrike killed his niece and nephew. Imagine if that had never happened. Imagine there was no war in Iran. Imagine if there were no airstrikes in Lebanon. Imagine if his family had never died,” El-Sayed said. “We can and must condemn the attack on Temple Israel, and we can and must condemn the violence 6,000 miles away.”

Days after El-Sayed released the statement, the candidate told his staff that the statement he put out condemning the attack was a “risk.”

His spokesperson, Roxie Richner, claimed that the “nuanced statement” was met with “bad-faith critiques,” but the candidate has sought to double down on his controversial rhetoric.

A week after his video statement condemning the assailant, who federal agents confirmed was motivated by Hezbollah, a leaked audio of a call between El-Sayed and his campaign team appeared to show him refusing to make a statement on the death of Iranian Ayatollah Ali Khamenei because “a lot of people in Dearborn are sad.”

“I also want to remind you guys that there are a lot of people in Dearborn who are sad today,” El-Sayed told his campaign team. “So, like, I just don’t want to comment on Khamenei at all. Like, I don’t think it’s worth even touching that.”

An Emerson poll found that El-Sayed has 16% of the Democratic voters’ support, while 38% remain undecided, and a combined 39% of Democratic voters are split between his two primary opponents.

Could Stevens’ AIPAC Affiliation Cost Her the Race?

Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., has also entered the primary to replace outgoing Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.

Stevens, who has allegedly received millions of dollars from AIPAC in the past, has recently been the subject of protests from left-wing social justice organizations such as CODEPINK over her ties to the lobbying group.

“We tried to go up to Haley Stevens’ office to talk to her about the genocide and our objection to her receiving $5 million from AIPAC since 2019,” the Detroit local coordinator for CODEPINK said in November of 2025.

AIPAC has recently come under scrutiny by Democratic voters and candidates. Data suggests that since Oct. 7, sympathy for Israel among the Democratic Party’s voters has dropped to 12%.

Stevens currently leads El-Sayed by 1% in the polls. But both El-Sayed and Stevens trail Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow.

Accused of ‘Grooming’ Children and Genocide Flip Flop?

McMorrow, who was first elected to public office in 2018, is a rising star in Democrat politics. She was provided a prominent speaking slot at the 2024 Democrat National Convention.

McMorrow first gained national acclaim in 2022 when she delivered a five-minute speech in which she defended herself against a Republican colleague’s accusations that she was a “liberal social media troll” who wanted to “groom and sexualize kindergartners.” The speech went viral and gained over 10 million views online.

“[I am a] straight, white, Christian, married, suburban mom,” McMorrow said during her speech, before slamming state Sen. Lana Theis’ accusations as a “hateful scheme.”

The candidate raised over $1 million shortly after her speech.

Additionally, McMorrow, the author of “Hate Won’t Win: Find Your Power and Leave This Place Better Than You Found It,” was caught on video telling supporters in December that she “would not be able to control herself” if she ever met Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

“I’m a Notre Dame grad and [U.S. Supreme Court Justice] Amy Coney Barrett coming out of my university makes me furious on a personal level,” McMorrow said. “I talked to somebody yesterday who said they saw her with [U.S. Supreme Court Justice] Brett Kavanaugh at a tailgate last weekend. I was like I would not be able to control myself. There would be beers thrown in people’s faces.”

McMorrow leads Stevens by 5%, and El-Sayed by 6%.

The post Michigan Democrat Senate Primary Highlights the Left’s Extremes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

THE WASHINGTON STAND—In the wake of President Donald Trump’s historic pledge to carry out a mass deportation program, a coalition of Republicans is promoting a bill to grant widespread amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, prompting fierce backlash from fellow congressional Republicans and the GOP base.

Rep. María Elvira Salazar, R-Fla., led 19 other Republicans in the House of Representatives in introducing H.R. 4393, the “Dignity for Immigrants while Guarding our Nation to Ignite and Deliver the American Dream Act of 2025” or DIGNIDAD (Spanish for “Dignity”) Act, in July.

Late last month, Salazar and her cohorts launched the “Dignity Coalition” in an effort to gain support for the legislation. The renewed interest in the updated legislation, which Salazar touts as “the only serious, bipartisan solution to fix America’s broken immigration system,” has drawn scrutiny and criticism from fellow Republicans and immigration experts, who have declared the bill to be a thinly-veiled bid at widespread amnesty.

The DIGNIDAD Act

The legislation starts by introducing border security provisions, including the construction of barriers at the southern border, but quickly moves on to establish mass amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“Division B — Dignity and American Dream” of the DIGNIDAD Act instructs the Homeland Security Secretary and Attorney General to “adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence … an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States, is subject to a grant of Deferred Enforced Departure, has temporary protected status … or is the son or daughter of an alien admitted as a nonimmigrant” if that “alien has been continuously physically present in the United States since January 1, 2021,” and meets a handful of other requirements, including either having been accepted to an institute of higher education or holding a high school diploma.

The legislation provides immediate work authorization for illegal immigrants, establishes unlimited access to permanent legal residency (commonly called holding a green card) and allows illegal immigrants who obtain green cards to apply for U.S. citizenship, and introduces a criminal waiver. The bill allows the Homeland Security Secretary to “waive the grounds of inadmissibility … for humanitarian purposes, for family unity, or because the waiver is otherwise in the public interest.”

Illegal immigrants who commit most violent crimes or are determined a national security threat are ineligible for the waiver, but crimes including domestic violence and traffic violations are eligible to be waived under the bill. These provisions would be available to an estimated two to three million illegal immigrants.

The DIGNIDAD Act also establishes what its authors call the “Dignity Program,” which allows anywhere from 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. access to renewable seven-year work authorization permits and travel authorization. The program would also provide for “deferred action” for those eligible, effectively halting deportations.

“An alien who appears to be prima facie eligible for status under this subtitle during the 24-month period following the date of enactment of this Act may not be removed or fined based on their immigration status,” the bill states. The “prima facie” eligibility effectively halts deportations for all illegal immigrants who apply for the “Dignity Program,” even those who have been issued final orders of removal by immigration courts.

Other provisions in the bill reduce visa caps, create and expand “humanitarian parole” programs, and reduce asylum and visa application backlogs by rapidly approving most applications. One provision even establishes student “loan forgiveness” for law school graduates who have “completed not less than four years of full-time employment as an attorney providing legal services” for illegal immigrants.

The provision orders the federal government to use taxpayer dollars to “forgive 75 percent of the eligible student loan obligation of a borrower … that is outstanding after the completion of the fourth year of employment described in such paragraph.”

Yet another provision actually allows for illegal immigrants already deported to apply for and receive authorization to return and participate in the “Dignity Program.” In other words, the illegal immigrants that the first Trump administration managed to deport will be invited back and offered a chance to achieve legal permanent residency in most cases.

Understanding the Problem

George Fishman, senior legal fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and former Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under Trump’s first term, explained that the DIGNIDAD Act would grant “first-tier amnesty” to as many as three million illegal immigrants and “second-tier amnesty” to as many as 12 million, and “will increase legal immigration levels by 55 percent — over five million persons over the next decade. This is not what the American people were hoping for in electing Donald Trump as president.”

CIS Resident Fellow in Law and Policy Andrew R. Arthur, a former immigration judge and lawyer responsible for drafting federal immigration legislation, referred to the DIGNIDAD Act as “rage bait.” He explained, “This bill was designed to go nowhere, but its filing shows a failure to read the room of voters who brought Donald Trump back to the White House in November 2024.”

“The first clue that H.R. 4393 wasn’t written to pass lies in its name,” Arthur observed. “Respectfully, naming your bill the ‘DIGNIDAD Act’ and then providing subtitles is the ‘press one for English’ of legislative drafting,” he added, noting that foreigners who seek permanent residence in the U.S. have an obligation to respect and assimilate to American culture, including the use of American English.

Relying on his own experience working with federal legislators, Arthur also pointed out that the DIGNIDAD Act has been referred to seven different House committees. “If the primary sponsor is on a committee with clear jurisdiction over an issue and has a good relationship with the chair and the other members, the smart play is to write the bill in such a way that it is referred to only that committee and no other,” he observed. “Otherwise, it will usually be sent to more than one committee, for serial consideration and mark-up, and if any of the chairs of those other committees refuses to even consider the bill, it will stall and die.”

Arthur added, “Unless the legislation is a clear response to an imminent and existential threat to the Republic … more than three referrals generally always spells failure.”

“Simply put, the DIGNIDAD Act wasn’t written to pass; it’s a ‘messaging bill’ intended to make a point,” Arthur opined. “There are, admittedly, good-faith arguments for why some aliens who came illegally or overstayed their periods of nonimmigrant admission should be allowed to remain, but most amnesties have failed or, worse, simply encouraged more illegal immigration because would-be illegal migrants don’t read the fine print and smugglers have worse ethics (but better sales pitches) than telephone extended-warranty peddlers,” he continued. “Consequently, selling any amnesty is a heavy lift even for the savviest of politicos, and the DIGNIDAD Act has more poison pills than Dr. Kevorkian’s pharmacopeia.”

Arthur observed that the DIGNIDAD Act not only grants explicit amnesties for millions of illegal immigrants but also contains “amnesties in the amnesties.” He noted the provision establishing “prima facie” eligibility for illegal immigrants applying to the “Dignity Program,” commenting, “Government databases aren’t the best or most up-to-date, and this provision would create a logistical nightmare for ICE officers trying to determine whether to investigate, let alone arrest, an alien with a final removal order.”

He added, “Moreover, why would ICE bother arresting any aliens, given that they will all immediately turn around and seek amnesty?”

The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) explicitly bars Article III courts from reviewing most administrative immigration court decisions. (Immigration courts are a component of the federal executive branch, governed by Article II of the Constitution, while federal district courts and their appellate divisions, all the way up to the Supreme Court, are established and governed by Article III, which created the federal judiciary system.)

The DIGNIDAD Act, however, attempts to skirt this provision by allowing “for judicial review of denials starting at the federal district court level and going up from there.” Arthur stated that, in the INA, Congress intentionally “cut district court judges out of reviews of most administrative immigration decisions because those courts were where immigration cases went to die.”

Additionally, there are fewer than 700 federal district court judges “on the bench right now, and if you were to add the hundreds of thousands of amnesty reviews (at a minimum) this bill could create to their dockets, you’d grind every other federal case to a halt,” Arthur pointed out. “As a taxpayer with April 15 coming up, if the DIGNIDAD Act were to pass, I’d beg DHS to rubber-stamp every amnesty application to save the massive litigation costs and prevent judicial-branch calamity.”

“Nothing about this bill suggests it’s a serious effort. In fact, it is to lawmaking what graffiti is to art, a near-meta effort to call the very concept of legislating into question,” Arthur concluded.

The only goal the DIGNIDAD Act achieves, he suggested, is reminding “the public why amnesty is a bad idea: It’s unfair to those who have followed the costly and laborious process of coming legally; it’s a give-away bordering on pandering to special interests; it’s complicated and thus easily exploited; it’s a veritable ‘lawyers’ relief act’; and it would throw enforcement into chaos.”

The legislation has drawn the ire of numerous Republicans and immigration hardliners, allowing many to articulate the dangers of amnesty and reiterate the necessity of stringent immigration enforcement and reform. “Simply put,” Arthur commented, “the DIGNIDAD Act would be Swiftian-level satire if the sponsors’ intent was to rage-bait the Right into demanding more ICE arrests and deportations, and an even-tighter border. That plainly wasn’t the sponsors’ goal, but regardless, it’s the reason why so many on the Right are right now discussing a bill that was built to fail.”

‘No Amnesty’

One of the DIGNIDAD Act’s co-sponsors, Rep. Mike Lawler, D-N.Y., took to the airwaves this week to promote the legislation. The bill, he said, has “broad bipartisan support,” noting the Republicans and Democrats who have signed on as co-sponsors in recent months. “I think folks do recognize that we have a problem,” he said. “If you’ve been here more than five years—so not the people who came under Joe Biden’s disastrous administration, but the people who have been in this country five, 10, 15, 20 years, whose children and grandchildren may in fact be American citizens—they would qualify if they haven’t committed a crime, they paid back taxes, they pay a fine, they have a job, and they do not collect government benefits,” Lawler claimed.

“They would qualify for legal status, not citizenship; they would be precluded from citizenship,” he added, referring to the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants who would be eligible to participate in the “Dignity Program,” not the roughly three million who would be classified as “dreamers” and would easily be able to attain U.S. citizenship. The DIGNIDAD Act, the congressman said, would “get people out of the shadows.”

Lawler’s fellow Republicans were less enthusiastic. “No amnesty. No amnesty-lite. No ‘path to citizenship.’ No ‘Dignity Act.’ This is a red line,” said Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, noting that the legislation would grant amnesty to over 10 million illegal immigrants. “It’s rank amnesty and everybody knows it. I want dignity for Americans—the people whose interests we represent—not illegal aliens. That means doing what we said we’d do: mass deportations,” he added, in a separate social media post. “The ‘DIGNIDAD’ amnesty bill is two massive middle fingers to the voters who gave President Trump a popular vote victory and handed Republicans a trifecta, all on a platform of mass deportations.”

“Amnesty doesn’t fix a broken system,” said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, “it rewards the very lawbreaking that caused it. We should be restoring the rule of law and pausing immigration, not incentivizing more illegal behavior.” In an interview, Roy asserted, “The so-called Dignity Act isn’t about dignity — it’s about eroding accountability.”

He continued, “It rewards illegal immigration with sweeping amnesty for millions of lawbreakers while pushing aside the basic duty to put Americans first. A nation that won’t enforce its own laws isn’t compassionate, it’s neglecting its responsibility to its own citizens.” Roy and other members of the House Freedom Caucus have vowed to oppose the legislation in Congress. Roy charged that the bill “belongs in the trash bin of failed ideas.”

Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., shared a video compilation depicting Americans who have been murdered by illegal immigrants, with the caption, “They deserved dignity.” He added, “Stop rewarding illegal aliens who reject our culture, values, and laws with citizenship. If dignity matters so much, give some to the American people who elites have ripped off for decades. The ‘Dignity Act’ is just amnesty. Throw it in the garbage.”

Other Republicans who have signaled their opposition to the legislation include Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Eric Burlison (Mo.), Mark Harris (N.C.), Keith Self (Texas), Tom Tiffany (Wis.), and Senators Mike Lee (Utah) and Eric Schmitt (Mo.).

A number of conservative activists and organizations have also called for the DIGNIDAD Act to be halted. “Perhaps some on the Right missed the memo. The mandate was for mass deportations, NOT mass amnesty,” the Heritage Foundation posted on social media, adding, “The only pathway we need for illegal aliens is a pathway back to where they came from.”

Conservative commentator and documentary filmmaker Matt Walsh said that the DIGNIDAD Act is “even worse than you think. If this bill became law it would destroy the country. It would be the most disastrous piece of legislation in decades.” He added, “Every Republican who supports it should be run out of town.”

Recent polling published by the Immigration Accountability Project found that nearly 60% of likely voters would oppose amnesty and still support the deportation of all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. and that Republican voters would be encouraged to vote in November’s crucial midterm elections by an increase in immigration enforcement and discouraged from voting by a failure to follow through on the mass deportation program promised by Trump in 2024. A Cygnal survey from late January also concluded that 61% of voters support the deportation of all illegal immigrants, 73% consider entering the U.S. illegally to be a criminal act, and 54% support the conduct of ICE in arresting and deporting illegal immigrants.

Originally published by The Washington Stand.

The post Republicans Indicate Bipartisan Amnesty Bill Dead on Arrival appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Barely any of Rep. Eric Swalwell’s fellow elected California Democrats have called for him to resign his Congressional seat—though some said he should drop out of the state’s gubernatorial race—after multiple women accused him of sexual assault Friday.

A former Swalwell staffer alleged he sexually assaulted her twice when she was intoxicated and could not give consent, the San Francisco Chronicle first reported Friday afternoon. Three other women, including Democratic content creator Ally Sammarco, also came forward, claiming the frontrunner to become the Golden State’s next governor committed sexual misconduct against them, CNN first reported later that day.

The now-embattled Democrat lawmaker has vehemently denied the allegations, stating in a short video posted to X late Friday that they are “flat false.”

“They did not happen, they have never happened and I will fight them with everything that I have,” he added, before suggesting the allegations surfaced weeks before California’s June 2 gubernatorial primary to derail his frontrunner status in the race.

However, many of Swalwell’s House colleagues and other Democratic California elected officials—including some who had endorsed his bid for governor—do not appear to be buying his claims of innocence.

The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) has subsequently compiled a list of where California Democrats, as of Saturday afternoon, stand on the allegations against the man who seemed just days earlier poised to lead the country’s most populous state.

Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has not endorsed a candidate in the race to succeed him, has thus far only issued a one-sentence statement on the allegations, “As we continue to learn more, these allegations from multiple sources are deeply troubling and must be taken seriously.” The DCNF reached out to Newsom’s office for further comment but did not immediately receive a response.

On the other hand, both of California’s senators, Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, have called for Swalwell to exit the gubernatorial race while stopping short of explicitly calling him to resign his House seat, to which he is not seeking reelection.

Schiff, who had endorsed Swalwell in the primary, announced he was retracting that expression of support. Padilla wrote Friday on X that Swalwell “should step aside to ensure a full, transparent investigation free from undue influence,” but did not explain if his call to “step aside” included resignation or merely withdrawing from the June 2 primary.

Spokespersons for Padilla and Schiff did not respond to the DCNF’s question of whether each believed Swalwell should resign.

Of the 42 California Democrats who serve in the House alongside Swalwell, just three—Reps. Jared Huffman, Sam Liccardo and Mike Levin, who are both attorneys—said he should resign. Only a handful have called for him to drop out of the race; over a dozen others have, at the time of writing, apparently remained silent.

Additionally, none of the Democrats responded to the DCNF’s separate question of whether each would support Republican Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s planned motion to expel Swalwell from the House.

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who is not seeking reelection to a 21st term in November, issued a statement late Friday calling the allegations against Swalwell an “extremely sensitive matter” which must be “appropriately investigated.”

“As I discussed with Congressman Swalwell, it is clear that is best done outside of a gubernatorial campaign,” Pelosi wrote, suggesting she supports him dropping out of the race. Pelosi’s office referred the DCNF back to the former speaker’s statement when asked for clarification of her stance.

Democratic House Caucus Chair Pete Aguilar, the No. 3 Democrat in Congress, in an X post, called for Swalwell to “immediately end his campaign to be California’s Governor. [sic]”

“The incredibly serious and disturbing allegations against him must be investigated fully,” he wrote.

However, Aguilar, like House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, has apparently not called for Swalwell to resign his House seat, nor did his office respond to the DCNF’s question on the matter.

Aguilar’s vice caucus chair, Rep. Ted Lieu, wrote Friday in a one-sentence X post he was withdrawing his endorsement of Swalwell in light of the allegations. A spokesperson for the No. 4 House Democrat did not respond to the DCNF’s questions of whether he believes Swalwell should drop out of the race or resign.

Rep. Jared Huffman had yet to make a public statement on the situation and did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment at the time of the story’s publication. However, later on Saturday, he wrote in an X post that Swalwell “must now drop out of the Governor’s race and resign from Congress.”

The Northern California lawmaker also appeared to become the first Golden State Democrat to express openness to voting to expel Swalwell from Congress.

“I’ve seen enough. With his nuanced statement aimed at defending likely criminal charges, Swalwell all but admits a per se abuse of power under House ethics rules: sex with a subordinate,” Huffman wrote in his X post. “[Republican Texas] Rep. Tony Gonzales, who admitted to the same violation, should also resign. If they don’t, I will support voting to expel both of them.”

Rep. Mike Thompson, who endorsed Swalwell, issued a statement late Friday that he is withdrawing his support of the Democrat’s gubernatorial bid. The DCNF reached out to Thompson’s office to ask if he believes Swalwell should drop out of the race and resign his seat, but did not receive any response.

Like Thompson, Reps. Ami Bera and Doris Matsui also pulled their endorsements of Swalwell, but both have yet to indicate whether either believes the Bay Area Democrat should drop out or resign. The DCNF reached out to both of the Sacramento-area lawmakers’ offices regarding the matter but has yet to receive any response.

Rep. John Garamendi has apparently not publicly weighed in on the Swalwell allegations. The DCNF reached out to the 81-year-old congressman’s office but has yet to receive a response.

Rep. Josh Harder, who represents a seat President Donald Trump narrowly won in 2024, has thus far also seemingly remained silent. Harder’s office did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

The Democrat representing a district neighboring Swalwell’s, Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, also has not publicly commented on the situation. DeSaulnier’s office did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Another Bay-area Democrat, Rep. Lateefah Simon, has also appeared to have not yet released a response. Her office did not respond to the DCNF’s inquiry.

Rep. Adam Gray, meanwhile, called the allegations against Swalwell “serious” and, while announcing on X his withdrawal of his endorsement of Swalwell, said he “should end his campaign immediately.” The DCNF reached out to Gray’s office to ask if he believes Swalwell should resign from Congress but did not immediately receive a response.

Rep. Kevin Mullin similarly wrote on X, “I am withdrawing my endorsement of his [Swalwell’s] campaign for governor and believe he should end his campaign.” Mullin’s office did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s question about whether he believes his colleague should resign in light of the allegations Mullin said “deeply disturbed” him.

Rep. Sam Liccardo, an attorney with experience prosecuting sexual assault, was one of the few California Democrats to publicly say he would support Swalwell resigning from Congress, albeit if the allegations against him are substantiated.

“As a former prosecutor of sexual assault, I take these allegations very seriously. Survivors courageous enough to come forward deserve to be heard fully, without being smeared in the media by pundits or political hacks,” Liccardo wrote in an X post Friday. “Credible claims require a full investigation. If these allegations are substantiated, Congressman Swalwell should resign, and the consequences must follow the facts.”

Liccardo endorsed Swalwell’s primary opponent, and his successor as San Jose mayor, Matt Mahan, for governor. Mahan was one of the first California Democrats to publicly call for Swalwell to end his gubernatorial bid.

Rep. Ro Khanna wrote Friday on X there “must be the appropriate law enforcement investigations and House ethics investigations” into Swalwell, who he said “must be held accountable.”

“Meeting with Epstein survivors has taught me how much trauma survivors endure and how much courage it takes for them to speak up,” wrote Khanna, who in late 2025 successfully co-led an effort to force the House to vote to release the Jeffrey Epstein files. “No one in a position of power should be allowed to act above the law or with impunity. It doesn’t matter what office you hold, how wealthy you are, or which political party you align with.”

“The same rules must apply to Eric Swalwell,” he noted. “There cannot be two tiers of justice in this nation.”

The DCNF reached out to Khanna’s office to ask him if he believes Swalwell should drop out of the race or resign his seat from Congress, but did not immediately receive a response. Months earlier, Khanna — who is known for his anti-billionaire rhetoric—endorsed Swalwell’s primary opponent, billionaire Tom Steyer, for governor.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren wrote in a statement posted to social media she was withdrawing her endorsement “of Congressman Swalwell’s campaign for Governor [sic],” adding she hopes “he will withdraw from the race.” The DCNF asked Lofgren’s office if she thinks Swalwell should resign from office but did not receive a response.

Rep. Jimmy Panetta, who had backed Swalwell’s candidacy, rescinded his endorsement nearly a full day after the allegations broke as “evidence continues to be discovered and facts are determined.” His statement did not call for Swalwell to drop out of the race or resign. The DCNF reached out to the congressman’s office for further comment but did not receive a response.

Reps. Jim Costa, Salud Carbajal, and George Whitesides also do not appear to have made comments about their colleague’s allegations, nor did any respond to the DCNF’s request for comment. However, Whitesides, a former NASA employee, still took time to make several X posts about the Artemis II mission since the Chronicle first reported the sexual assault allegations against Swalwell.

Rep. Julia Brownley told the DCNF she was withdrawing her week-old endorsement of Swalwell’s gubernatorial bid and calling for him to exit the race over the “serious and deeply disturbing” allegations. She did not answer the DCNF’s question of whether she would call for Swalwell to resign his seat in Congress.

“It takes extraordinary courage for women to come forward, and they deserve to be heard, respected, and protected from retaliation,” she wrote. “Under these circumstances, I cannot continue to support Eric. I am withdrawing my endorsement and calling on him to end his campaign for governor.”

Rep. Raul Ruiz withdrew his endorsement of Swalwell but did not call for him to exit the race or resign his House seat. The congressman’s office did not respond to the DNCF’s questions.

Los Angeles-area Reps. Judy Chu, Luz Rivas, and Brad Sherman do not appear to have commented on the situation concerning Swalwell, nor did any of their offices respond to the DNCF’s request for comment.

Rep. Laura Friedman called for Swalwell to end his gubernatorial campaign and for an investigation into his allegations. Her office did not respond when asked if she believes Swalwell should resign from Congress.

Rep. Gil Cisneros, in a 15-word X post, wrote he was withdrawing his endorsement of Swalwell in “light of recent events,” without going into detail. Cisneros’s office did not respond to the DNCF when asked if he supports Swalwell dropping out of his race or resigning.

Rep. Norma Torres told the DCNF in a statement the allegations “are deeply serious and disturbing,” and said Swalwell should drop out of the gubernatorial race. Her office, however, did not answer the DCNF’s question of whether she thinks her colleague should resign his House seat.

“I believe that given the gravity of these accusations, he should suspend his campaign and focus on clearing his name,” added the congresswoman, who has not publicly endorsed a candidate for governor. “Survivors must always be taken seriously, and the public deserves full transparency and accountability.”

Rep. Jimmy Gomez resigned from his position as co-chair of Swalwell’s campaign and called for his colleague to drop out of the gubernatorial race shortly after the Chronicle published its bombshell story. However, he has yet to called for Swalwell to resign his House seat over the allegations he called “shocking,” and his office did not respond to the DCNF’s question on the topic.

Rep. Sydney Kamlager-Dove, who endorsed Swalwell, withdrew her support via a Friday statement noting it is in the “best interest of Californians he leave the race.” Her office did not respond to the DCNF’s question about whether she would support Swalwell resigning.

Rep. Linda Sanchez also withdrew her endorsement of Swalwell, adding in an X post the allegations “horrified” her. Still, she has yet to call for the congressman to resign and her office did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Although he was able to make an X post supporting mail-in voting, Rep. Mark Takano appears to not have commented on Swalwell’s allegations, nor did his spokesperson respond to the DCNF’s questions about where he stands.

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, called on X for Swalwell to “leave the Governor’s [sic] race immediately.”

“There is no place in our country or the Democratic Party for those who abuse women and girls,” he continued. The DCNF asked Garcia if he would also call for Swalwell to resign, but his office did not respond.

Rep. Maxine Waters, who has served in Congress since 1991, has not yet publicly commented on Swalwell’s situation. The 87-year-old’s office did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s questions.

Reps. Nanette Barragan and Lou Correa announced they were withdrawing their respective endorsements of Swalwell, with the latter implying the Bay-area Democrat was a “sexual predator.” Neither, however, responded to the DCNF’s question of whether each believed he should drop out of the race and resign his House seat.

Reps. Derek Tran and Dave Min, who both endorsed Swalwell’s primary opponent, former Rep. Katie Porter, in the gubernatorial race, apparently have not yet publicly commented on the allegations. Neither of their offices responded to the DCNF’s requests for comment.

Rep. Mike Levin wrote in a late Friday post to X that he believes Swalwell “should suspend his gubernatorial campaign immediately.”

“Should the facts bear out what has been alleged, resignation from Congress is the only appropriate outcome. The consequences here must be proportionate to the truth, wherever it leads,” the Southern California congressman, as well as an attorney, wrote.

Rep. Scott Peters announced he was withdrawing his endorsement of Swalwell and called for him to exit the race in a statement sent to the DCNF.

“The allegations of wrongdoing against Eric Swalwell are shocking and extremely serious, and my heart goes out to anyone who was harmed. It is in everyone’s interest to ensure that justice is done,” he wrote. “There is no way that Eric can wage a viable campaign for Governor.  I am withdrawing my support for him and asking him to do the right thing and cease his campaign.”

Peters’s office did not answer the DCNF’s question of whether he believes Swalwell should resign his seat in Congress.

Rep. Sara Jacobs, meanwhile, called the allegations against Swalwell “horrific” and said “it is clear” he should immediately drop out of the gubernatorial race.

“We need justice for survivors and accountability for abusers—no matter how powerful they are, what political party they belong to, or the political circumstances involved,” Jacobs wrote. She did, however, discuss her position on Swalwell resigning from Congress. Her office did not respond to the DCNF’s question on the matter.

Jacobs’s fellow San Diegan, Rep. Juan Vargas, does not appear to have publicly commented on Swalwell’s allegations. His office did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass wrote on X late Saturday that Swalwell “should end his campaign and resign from Congress immediately,” noting the lawmaker’s “conduct is incompatible with elected office.”

“The women who came forward deserve to be heard and deserve justice,” added Bass, who served alongside Swalwell in Congress from 2013 to 2022.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office has opened an investigation into the allegations regarding Swalwell, The New York Times reported Saturday.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect Rep. Huffman’s statement in favor of Swalwell’s resignation, which he made after publication.

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Here’s Where California Democrats Stands on the Explosive Eric Swalwell Allegations appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Artemis II crew is home safely after sending humans farther from Earth than ever before. The mission’s success was a critical step in NASA’s plans to one day have a lunar base and send humans to Mars. But for those of us still stranded on this pale blue dot, the Artemis II success has only led to more anticipation for the next moon landing.

After the successful splashdown of the Orion spacecraft and its crew, NASA can move to the next phase of the Artemis mission.

Artemis III was originally going to land humans on the Moon for the first time in more than 50 years. The mission, however, was recently changed to a “rendezvous and docking in low Earth orbit.”

Artemis III

The Orion spacecraft will launch a crew atop NASA’s Space Launch System into low Earth orbit in 2027.

While in orbit, the crew will transfer to a commercial spacecraft.

The mission’s goal is to test the integration between the Orion spacecraft and private commercial landing companies.

NASA is still deciding whether SpaceX or Blue Origin will design the commecrial craft.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman updated the mission to more extensively prepare for the lunar landing.

“Just like Apollo 9, Artemis III will test next-generation hardware and integrated operations in 2027 before Artemis IV lands on the lunar surface in 2028,” Isaacman wrote in a post on X.

The Commercial Space Companies in Question

Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos, is developing two reusable rockets called New Shepard and New Glenn. It has completed more than 35 missions, including crewed flights.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX, meanwhile, is preparing to go public as it competes for the NASA partnership.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the company had successfully filed confidential IPO paperwork, putting it on track to be one of the largest public offerings of all time. Musk hopes to have public shares available by July, before Artemis III launches.

Isaacman shared on Face the Nation that during Artemis II, NASA gathered data about “the life support system on the Orion spacecraft,” to be used in Artemis III.

“That’s where we’re going to test the same spacecraft with our [commercial] lunar landers,” he continued. “Followed up in 2028 by Artemis IV, where we’re going to use this spacecraft, transfer crew to the landers, and put American astronauts back on the surface of the Moon.”

Artemis IV

The fourth Artemis mission, Artemis IV, will be a crewed surface landing launching in early 2028. This is when the crew will put everything they learned from Artemis III to the test.

Instead of staying in low Earth orbit, the crew will land on the south pole of the Moon, using commercial landing systems in conjunction with the Orion spacecraft.

NASA says this will be “humanity’s return to the lunar surface.”

Artemis V

The final Artemis mission, for now, will begin the construction of a lunar base.

This final mission was added with the update to Artemis III. While this is the last mission in the Artemis program, it will mark something even greater: the start of a permanent human presence on the moon.

The post Artemis II Is Home Safe, But When Are We Landing on the Moon? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Shockwaves continue to shake south Florida in the wake of Coral Springs Vice-Mayor Nancy Metayer Bowen’s murder.

After the vice mayor was found dead in her residence on April 1, her husband, Stephen Bowen, was apprehended by local police in the nearby Florida city of Plantation.

Bowen was charged with murder after Metayer Bowen’s friend asked the police to conduct a wellness check on her because her husband “sounded suspicious” over the phone, Coral Springs Police Chief Brad Mock said.

Once in custody, Bowen confessed to the murder.

“Domestic violence can affect anyone,” Police Chief of the City of Homestead Mario Knapp told The Daily Signal. “Though it occurs behind closed doors, its impact is felt across entire communities, as it has in this case.

Knapp expressed his “condolences to the family of Coral Springs Vice Mayor Metayer Bowen.”

The friend requested a wellness check because Metayer Bowen was not responding to her friends’ phone calls. After the police found the councilwoman’s body wrapped in plastic bags in her home, they put out a call for Bowen’s arrest. License plate readers caught his vehicle driving north bound of the crime scene.

Vice Mayor of the Florida City of West Miami, Ivan Chavez Jr., described the situation to The Daily Signal as a “really sad moment.”

Florida Democrats were shocked by the news and believed Metayer Bowen had a bright future in politics.

“I’m in shock,” Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., wrote on X on Wednesday. “I was just with her on Saturday. She just buried her brother. This is terrible.”

Her colleague, Coral Springs Commissioner Joshua Simmons, added that his “soul is heavy” and his “heart is broken.”

“She had such a good heart,” he continued. “She truly cared about people.”

In his statement, Moskowitz said that she planned on running for Congress in the near future.

“She was about to announce she was running for Congress,” he continued. “Nancy was one of the nicest people I worked with. Always fighting for her community, always pushing to help.”

“She had such a future,” he said.

Brown was first elected to the Coral Springs City Commission in 2020 and re-elected shortly after.

The congressional hopeful had previously interned for former U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and former President Barack Obama, while a master’s student at Johns Hopkins University.

Prior to her political internships, Metayer Brown worked as a legal and outreach intern at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In 2024, Metayer Brown, who is of Haitian descent, was first tapped by former President Joe Biden and later by former Vice President Kamala Harris to serve as the Florida Caribbean Vote Director for their presidential campaigns.

She then served as Vice Chair of Haitian American Voter Engagement for the Florida Democratic Party.

Republicans also expressed their condolences.

Miguel Granda, President of the Miami Young Republicans, echoed the public official’s remarks.

“Vice Mayor Metayer Bowen dedicated her life to serving her community, and it is a tragedy that her life was cut short by domestic violence,” Granda told The Daily Signal. “When we lose a public servant to such senseless violence, it is felt by an entire community.”

“Our condolences go out to the family of Coral Springs Vice Mayor Metayer Bowen,” Granda continued.

The Coral Springs Police Department did not reply to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

The post Fallout From Husband Confessing Murder of Democrat Congressional Hopeful Continues in Florida appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“Tax the rich!” shout progressives.

Why not?

America’s richest people are ridiculously rich.

“Five bucks to you is like $6 million to billionaire Jeff Bezos!” shrieks Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

Taking more from billionaires and millionaires just seems fair.

That’s why Washington state passed a new “millionaire’s tax,” California will soon vote on a “billionaire’s tax,” and my mayor in NYC shouts, “increase taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers!”

Don’t these politicians realize that in America, people can move?

The same day Washington’s House passed its millionaire’s tax, Starbucks billionaire Howard Schultz announced that he’s leaving Washington for Florida.

Billionaires Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, Steven Spielberg, Peter Thiel, and now Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have left California.

For 170 years, California brought in more people than any other state. It’s clear why—the weather is awesome. There were growing opportunities and jobs.

But now regulation and taxes have changed that.

“Remarkably, for the first time since California came into the union, they’re having out migration!” says Forbes magazine’s Steve Forbes in my new video.

Some California activists think that’s OK.

“The benefit from this tax is going to outweigh … a couple people moving out,” said a Healthcare Workers union boss.

But “it’s not just people,” warns Forbes. “It’s capital.”

Tesla, Chevron, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, SpaceX, Charles Schwab, and other companies have left.

“When people are not well treated, they’re going to go elsewhere,” says Forbes.

I push back, citing California’s planned tax on the very rich: “It’s just 5%. You’re a rich guy, why not pay 5%?”

“You think it’s just taking 5% out of your checking account? No!” says Forbes.

America’s wealth doesn’t sit in a vault. It’s invested in things that create products and jobs.

Taxing that gives us less of both.

“This also allows government to become more intrusive,” explains Forbes. “‘What’s that asset you might have in your cellar? We have to send inspectors in to find out where you’re hiding the art or the jewelry.'”

In NYC, my new socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, is eager to be intrusive. He says, “I don’t have a hesitation in asking those who make … the most profits in the city to pay a little bit more.”

But it’s not just a “little bit” that he wants, and it’s not just from those with the “most” profits. Mamdani wants to change the estate tax so that if you possess more than $750,000, he gets a cut.

“Own a house? Mamdani’s after you,” says Forbes. “Instead of a 16% rate, which is outrageous, he wants to raise it to as high as 50%. You create something, he wants to take it.”

What’s most absurd is high taxes on the rich have already been tried. They failed.

Maryland expected to make money but instead lost $257 million.

“Nobody should be surprised,” said former Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich. “They’re out of here. These people aren’t stupid.”

Europe tried wealth taxes but gave them up because so many rich people left.

“You’re just a rich guy who wants to protect his stuff,” I say to Forbes.

“I may have done well in life. I got a good start in life. But what I want is a world in which … all people have a chance to improve their lot in life.”

“How does raising your taxes impede this?” I ask.

“Because taxes are a price and burden,” says Forbes. “The tax you pay on your income is the price you pay for working … for being successful. And when you have a high price on that, guess what happens? You get less of it.”

Next week is April 15, the horrible income tax day. Americans are reminded just how big that tax burden is.

Years ago, Forbes ran for president pushing a “flat tax.”

The idea went nowhere. I thought it would appeal to people because the current tax code is so complex.

“The code today has over 10 million words,” says Forbes. “Nobody really knows what’s in it. It’s immoral. … We spend now over $500 billion a year in cash and time with this corrupt, incomprehensible tax code. Imagine if we’d taken those trillions of dollars, tens of billions of hours and used it for something productive, like making new products, new services, medical devices, cures for diseases. [We’d be] much better off. Huge opportunity wasted.”

Politicians destroy opportunity all the time.

America does need some taxes to fund limited government that the Founders had in mind.

Sadly, our politicians today go way beyond that.

COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

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

The post Tax the Rich? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

At The Heritage Foundation, policy experts recently exposed how China is murdering innocents for organ harvesting.

The April 7 event, titled “Organ Harvesting: Communist China’s Hideous Shop of Horrors,” featured Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., a panel of senior research fellows, and Jan Jekielek, senior editor of The Epoch Times and the host of “American Thought Leaders.” 

The speakers discussed reports of forced organ harvesting in China and the implications for human rights. Among the horrors discussed is how the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) profits from murdering healthy 28-year-old Uyghurs to sell their organs to the rich.

“It is industrial-sized, and tens of thousands of young people, average age 28, are having their fellow non-practitioners, Uyghurs, others of faith (targeted),” Rep. Smith said. “In two weeks, you can get a heart, you can get anything you possibly want.” 

In China, a wealthy CCP member can order a heart, kidney, liver, or other organ needed to survive. The organs come from young adults who are executed against their will.

Ethan Gutmann, a China studies expert at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, explained that the target age is always 28 because that’s “when your organs have reached maturity and yet you haven’t started to deteriorate.”

An estimated 25,000 to 50,000 Uyghurs are murdered annually for their organs, and organ harvesting has grown into a billion-dollar industry in recent years.

Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic group in northwest China. The CCP keeps them in concentration camps to await interrogation–and eventually execution–for their organs.

Gutmann said he visited Kazakhstan, a country in Central Asia bordering northwestern China, and interviewed Kazakh refugees who had witnessed victims of the organ harvest firsthand.

Refugees “didn’t accept that people were being harvested, but they did describe disappearances, always at age 28,” he said.

Gutmann described one case in Almaty, Kazakhstan, where a nomadic Kazakh woman slept with another woman to keep warm at night. Until the woman disappeared.

“It was terribly cold in these places, and she only noticed that the woman was gone because the bed had gone cold,” Gutmann said.

Unlike China, the United States has extensive requirements for organ donors.

The process, which is based on voluntary donors, involves a referral, being matched with an organ, and receiving the organ transplant. The process typically takes years, not weeks.

Last year, Smith introduced the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act of 2025 to combat organ harvesting. The legislation includes policies to promote voluntary organ donation systems and to hold accountable anyone involved in forced organ harvesting. 

The House of Representatives approved the bill in a 406-1 vote. The bill now awaits approval from the Senate.

The post Heritage Panel: CCP is Murdering Citizens for Organs and Profiting by the Billions appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As we mark the end of another Women’s History Month, it’s worth asking the question: Is the current generation of women better off than previous generations?

In many ways, the answer is yes. Women are certainly better off today. Women are CEOs, politicians, professional athletes. We have the right to vote and the right to defend our country.

By all appearances, women are thriving. But as a Gen Z woman concerned about her generation and the next, I’m not so convinced this rings true. 

If women are truly better off today, then why is it that nearly 80% of Gen Z reported feeling lonely in the past year? We have more ways to connect than any generation in history, and yet somewhere along the way, something essential has been lost. 

For women especially, this loss of connection runs deep. Historically, women were the designers of community. It was women who organized the community bake sale and the neighborhood dance; the ones who ran the voluntary associations that stitched towns together; who held the extended kinship networks that guided young women toward love, family, and vocation.  

But beyond the organizing, women have always brought something harder to name and more essential: an instinct for noticing. Noticing who is on the margins of a room, who has not spoken, who is grieving quietly.

Women have historically been the ones to follow up, to remember, to show up with food, to ask the second question. They create the conditions where people feel safe enough to be known. This is not supplementary to community. It is the foundation of it. 

That distinctly feminine genius did not disappear. But the culture that gave it room to prosper largely has. Women are particularly disadvantaged because they have lost one of the primary ways they have historically understood themselves: pillars of community. 

The “third spaces” where community once operated—coffee shops, libraries, dance halls, civic squares—still exist, but we move through them like strangers in a waiting room, each of us absorbed in a private world of our own making.  

The statistics reflect this: The rate of loneliness among young adults has increased every year between 1976 and 2019, and only 17% under 30 say they feel deeply connected to a community.

This decline has real consequences; loneliness and social isolation increase mortality risk by 26% and 29%, respectively. 

What we’ve forgotten is that connection requires friction: Asking someone out, introducing yourself, joining a new social group; these are acts of courage because they make us vulnerable to rejection.  

The pandemic made this even harder, stripping away the unremarkable moments that quietly teach young people how to create lasting connection. And the current culture hasn’t helped us recover. Instead, it has reframed distance as wisdom.

“You do you,” “protect your peace,” and other contemporary maxims sell radical individualism as liberation. But look at how we define ourselves through our relationships: “I am a sister,” “I have a great mentor,” “My friend taught me.” 

Unfortunately, the practice of building and cultivating those relationships has become a lost art. Hyper-individualism harms women because it cuts against the feminine instinct to tend, to gather, to bind people together. In this culture, that instinct has been belittled and made to feel naive. 

And yet, we crave community. We always have. And women, perhaps more than anyone, have historically known how to build it. To find it again, we must move beyond ourselves. 

As a Gen Z woman entering the professional world, I look to the most transformative women in history, such as Jane Addams, Dorothy Day, and Mother Teresa, all of whom understood that human dignity flourishes in relationship. They remind us that connection is intentional, cultivated, and courageous. 

Reversing the loneliness epidemic, especially among young women, will not come from another app or algorithm. It will come from something simpler and, honestly, far more difficult. 

Building connection is not always convenient, and it often requires courage. Introducing yourself. Inviting someone to coffee. Looking someone in the eye and really listening. Asking someone how they are and being curious about the answer. 

Humanity is beautiful: There is so much artistry; inspiration; ingenuity; entrepreneurship; passion; and deep, bountiful love to be shared and enjoyed. Let’s get back to that. 

I challenge my fellow Gen Z women to lead the way in taking these risks. By next Women’s History Month, I hope to see women truly better off. I hope to see a generation more willing to take these small, courageous steps, to rebuild the habits of connection, to risk discomfort, to embrace vulnerability, and to create genuine communities.  

While technology can connect us in ways our grandparents never imagined, it cannot replace the timeless bravery it takes to truly see and be seen by the world around us. 

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

The post The Courage to Connect: How Gen Z Women Can Make History and Rebuild Community  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD, April 12 (Reuters) — President Donald Trump said on Sunday the U.S. Navy would immediately start blockading the Strait of Hormuz, raising the stakes after marathon talks with Iran failed to reach a deal to end the war, jeopardizing a fragile two-week ceasefire.

Trump also said in a post on Truth Social that the U.S. would interdict every vessel in international waters that had paid a toll to Iran, and begin destroying mines that he said the Iranians had dropped in the strait, a choke point for about 20% of global energy supplies that Iran has blocked.

“Effective immediately, the United States Navy, the Finest in the World, will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

“I have also instructed our Navy to seek and interdict every vessel in International Waters that has paid a toll to Iran. No one who pays an illegal toll will have safe passage on the high seas,” Trump added.

“Any Iranian who fires at us, or at peaceful vessels, will be BLOWN TO HELL!” he added.

Each side had earlier blamed the other for the failure of talks to end six weeks of fighting that has killed thousands, roiled the global economy and sent oil prices soaring.

“The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement, and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,” Vice President JD Vance, the head of the U.S. delegation at the weekend talks, said earlier.

“We’ve made very clear what our red lines are,” Vance added.

Iran Cites Lack of Trust 

Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, who led his country’s delegation along with Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, blamed the U.S. for not winning Tehran’s trust despite his team offering “forward-looking initiatives.”

“The U.S. has understood Iran’s logic and principles and it’s time for them to decide whether they can earn our trust or not,” Qalibaf said on X.

The talks, after a ceasefire earlier in the week, were the first direct U.S.-Iranian meeting in more than a decade and the highest-level discussions since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. 

Vance said Iran had chosen not to accept American terms, including not to build nuclear weapons.

“I could go into great detail, and talk about much that has been gotten but, there is only one thing that matters — IRAN IS UNWILLING TO GIVE UP ITS NUCLEAR AMBITIONS!” Trump said later.

Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency said “excessive” U.S. demands had hindered reaching a deal. Other Iranian media said there was agreement on a number of issues, but the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s nuclear programme were the main points of difference.

‘Imperative’ to Maintain Ceasefire

Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said it was “imperative” to preserve the ceasefire that was agreed last Tuesday as the sides attempt to wind down a war that began on February 28 with air strikes by the U.S. and Israel on Iran.

Israeli security cabinet minister Zeev Elkin told Army Radio that more talks were still an option, but added: “The Iranians are playing with fire.”

In a brief press conference, Vance did not mention reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Even as the talks took place, U.S. ally Israel continued bombing Tehran-backed Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, insisting that that conflict was not part of the Iran-U.S. ceasefire. Iran says the fighting in Lebanon must stop.

The Israeli military said it struck Hezbollah rocket launchers overnight into Sunday and black smoke could be seen rising in the southern suburbs of the Lebanese capital Beirut on Sunday. In Israeli villages near the border, air raid sirens sounded, warning of incoming rocket fire from Lebanon. 

Iranian Demands

Tehran is demanding control of the Strait of Hormuz, payment of war reparations and a ceasefire across the region, including in Lebanon, according to Iranian state TV and officials, as well as the release of its frozen assets abroad. 

Tehran also wants to collect transit fees in the Strait of Hormuz.

Despite the differences in Islamabad, three supertankers fully laden with oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz on Saturday, shipping data showed, in what appeared to be the first vessels to exit the Gulf since the ceasefire deal.

Hundreds of tankers are still stuck in the Gulf, waiting to exit during the two-week ceasefire period.  

Trump’s stated goals have shifted, but as a minimum he wants free passage for global shipping through the strait and the crippling of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program to ensure it cannot produce an atomic bomb.

(Reporting by Reuters bureaus worldwide, Writing by Idrees Ali, Lisa Shumaker, Raju Gopalakrishnan and Matthias Williams; Editing by William Mallard, Gareth Jones and Alexander Smith)

The post Trump Vows to Blockade Strait of Hormuz After Iran Peace Talks Stumble appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A conservative advocacy group asserts big tech firms still haven’t run any of their ads for a documentary on alleged corruption by the Biden family, a week after it raised concerns about potential censorship to leaders in Congress.

Empower Oversight’s documentary, “Shielded by Power: The Whistleblowers vs. The Big Guy,” covers how, in 2020, social media companies censored the story first reported by the New York Post about Hunter Biden’s laptop that had negative information about then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.

The group has recorded interviews with members of Congress, journalists, and other investigators who helped uncover the stories on the Biden family.

It is crowdfunding to cover the cost of production and seeks to direct people to the website through ads on Google, Facebook, Instagram, and X.

Empower Oversight President Tristan Leavitt said the companies have most recently asked him to wait. He said he was surprised about X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, a culprit in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020.

In 2022, the “Twitter Files” were released, showing the measures taken inside the company to suppress the New York Post story.

“With X it’s the same thing, and they haven’t outright said why,” Leavitt told The Daily Signal. “I don’t have reason to believe Elon Musk wants to censor this. But none of these platforms will identify the reasons the ads haven’t run.”

Empower Oversight’s near-term goal is to raise $50,000 for production, and the long-term goal is to raise $300,000, Leavitt said. The ad is meant to direct people to the Indiegogo crowdfunding page, which shows it has raised more than $7,000.

While the motives were clear in 2020 for blocking a news story critical of Joe Biden, Leavitt said the platforms have little reason to avoid running ads now.

“This is not about any current candidates,” Leavitt said. “These are historic events. No Biden is on the ballot.”

Leavitt wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and three House committee chairmen seeking an investigation into why the companies aren’t running the ads and whether viewpoint discrimination is involved.

“After thorough questioning, one customer service specialist at Meta did say the platform doesn’t ‘support the scope of this content,’” Leavitt said in the April 1 letter that also went to House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.; and House Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.

“But not only is this reminiscent of prior instances of viewpoint discrimination—it constitutes suppression of the story of Facebook’s very own past actions on this exact same topic,” the letter continues.

The letter adds that Meta and Google suspended their advertising accounts.

Google spokesman Nate Funkhouser denies that’s the case.

“We have found no evidence to support these claims,” Funkhouser told The Daily Signal. “The advertiser account linked to this organization is active and able to run ads.”

All ads and advertisers on Google must abide by Google ad policies. Enforcement of this can include removal of individual ads or account suspensions, Funkhouser said. But he said he’s not aware that either happened with Empower Oversight.

Empower Oversight provided screenshots of both an April 2 denial and a notice sent Friday that said the ad was blocked because it pertained to an election.

Funkhouser did not respond when The Daily Signal asked him about these images.

Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, and X did not reply to inquiries for this story on Thursday and Friday.

Empower Oversight is the watchdog group that represented two Internal Revenue Service whistleblowers—Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler—who testified before Congress about how federal authorities investigating Hunter Biden seemed to show special treatment.

“Gary Shapley and Joe Ziegler are honest and skilled investigators who did a patriotic thing by blowing the whistle. They’ve suffered shameful smears and retaliation, but in the end the truth always wins,” Grassley told The Daily Signal in a statement for this story.

The two IRS agents also revealed Hunter Biden’s laptop had been accessed via a signed search warrant, had been in FBI possession since fall 2019, and had been authenticated months before the New York Post published its story.

Hunter Biden was convicted on federal gun possession and tax charges in 2024, but his father pardoned him. The 46th president has consistently said he has never profited from the business activities of Hunter Biden or other family members.

The post Whistleblower Group Says Big Tech Blocking Ads for Documentary Alleging Biden Corruption appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Vice President JD Vance told reporters early Sunday morning that talks between the United States and Iran failed to reach an agreement for a permanent cease-fire.

President Donald Trump announced a two-week pause in military strikes Tuesday hours before an 8 p.m. deadline for Iran to agree to a series of terms expired. Vance led the delegation for the talks days after a two-day visit to Hungary, joined by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner—the president’s son-in-law who helped negotiate the Abraham Accords.

“Let me say a couple of notes of appreciation, first of all, to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and to Field Marshal [Asim] Munir, who were both incredible hosts and whatever shortcomings of the negotiation, it wasn’t because of the Pakistanis who did an amazing job and really tried to help us and the Iranians bridge the gap and get to a deal,” Vance told reporters. “We have been at it now for 21 hours and we’ve had a number of substantive discussions with the Iranians. That’s the good news.”

“The bad news is that we have not reached an agreement—and I think that’s bad news for Iran much more than it’s bad news for the United States of America,” Vance continued.

Since a March 21 Truth Social post, Trump made multiple threats to target Iranian power plants if the theocratic regime did not halt efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, but he has granted reprieves based on the progress of negotiations.

“I don’t want to negotiate in public after we negotiated for 21 hours in private, but the simple fact is that we need to see an affirmative commitment that they [Iran] will not seek a nuclear weapon and they will not seek the tools that would enable them to quickly achieve a nuclear weapon,” Vance told a reporter who asked why the talks ultimately failed. “That is the core goal of the President of the United States and that’s what we’ve tried to achieve through these negotiations.”

“Again, their nuclear programs, such as it is, the enrichment facilities that they had before, they’ve been destroyed,” Vance continued. “But the simple question is, do we see a fundamental commitment of will for the Iranians not to develop a nuclear weapon, not just now, not just two years from now, but for the long term? We haven’t seen that yet. We hope that we will.”

The United States struck facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan related to Iran’s effort to develop nuclear weapons in June, using GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators dropped by B-2A Spirit stealth bombers.

Witkoff told Fox News host Sean Hannity during a March 2 interview that Iranian diplomats declared their intent to continue enriching uranium and claimed that they already had enough material to construct 11 dirty bombs in negotiations that took place before Operation Epic Fury began on Feb. 28.

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post JD Vance: No Deal With Iran After 21-Hour Negotiation appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the contemporary U.S., Easter Sunday is only celebrated on one day of the year. That celebration brings families together for a joyous occasion. However, in the Christian tradition, Easter lasts much longer than just a single day.

The Catholic Church celebrates the season of Easter for 50 days (until Pentecost), as do the Orthodox churches. This tradition is ancient, being rooted in Scripture, and we can truly learn something from following it and continuing the commemoration of Easter beyond the solitary Sunday.

First, Easter can motivate us to move past the core sins that tend to control us. The Christian belief is that Jesus’ cross and resurrection beat the powers of sin, evil, and death. These realities still occur, but, through the gift of Jesus’ life within us, we can move past them and tame them.

Sin is an offense against God, others, and reason. It is when I choose myself over following God or respecting others.

If we are truly honest with ourselves, sin is powerful. The temptations to pride, envy, anger, lust, and countless other vices can appear insurmountable. The empty tomb ought to empower us to move past these by leaning on God for assistance.

The suffering and cross of Jesus revealed just how ugly sin is. His willingness to suffer for our sake gave man the power to move beyond sin by clinging to him. As Easter Sunday drifts further into the past, we must never tire of being reminded that we ought to be moving past sin as well.

Second, Easter brings an everlasting hope. So many Americans today are struggling. We are challenged by the weight of tensions across the globe, providing for our families, illness, loss, and much more. The challenges of daily life can be immense. Easter seeks to shout that every trial and tribulation is redeemable.

The empty tomb reminds us that there is no darkness that God cannot restore. Often in our lives, there is a cycle of suffering, challenge, and loss of hope. But the truth of Easter is that God always seeks to restore. This is the ultimate promise and truth of the Christian message. Light always beats darkness. Even when it seems like all is lost and there is no way a circumstance can be healed: God will be victorious. As Easter moves forward, we must remain rooted in this fact and remember it, even when our direct situation does not seem to be changing for the better.

Next, Easter is about joy. The resurrection of Jesus brought incalculable exultation. He was hailed during his ministry as the prophesied Messiah. Even though most of his best friends betrayed and deserted him, the crowds turned on him, and the soldiers killed him—Jesus defeated death. The appearances of Christ to his followers and the crowds following Easter Sunday brought such joy because it was his definitive way of proclaiming his divine identity.

We ought to rejoice and carry on as the beacons of hope to the world because our God loved us so much that he became one of us, suffered in our place and rose from the dead to assure us that no evil can conquer those who cling to him.

“Joy is the gigantic secret of the Christian,” G.K. Chesterton wrote in “Orthodoxy.” Nothing should bring us despair because Jesus beat death. The challenge in living this out is to be a people of joy in the midst of a broken world that is often distant from God. We must be joyful so that others will see Christ in us.

Finally, Easter can live on in us even beyond the day if we pray for our loved ones who have died with a deeper sense of intentionality and intensity. If the resurrection is true (which it is), then there is hope for every single person who has ever lived to live forever in Heaven with Christ. This is why so many visit the cemetery plots of their loved ones even after their death. There is a deep and instinctive knowledge in the human heart that death is not the end.

As Easter moves on, we can make the commitment to pray for our loved ones who have died and ask them to guide us on our earthly journey. Because we truly believe that if we live in the faith, hope, and love of God, we will be united with Christ and our loved ones when we die. Then, and only then, will we experience the Easter realities for ourselves—and live in them, not just on one day, but for all eternity.

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

The post It’s Still Easter. Keep Celebrating! appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The U.S. must be growing and prosperous at home and strong and secure in the face of the many security threats facing us abroad.

The former can only be achieved with free markets and limited government domestically and the latter through a robust defense budget.

On both fronts, Democrats would take the country in the exact opposite direction needed.

Voters seem to understand this. RealClearPolitics reports Democratic Party favorability at -20.0 unfavorable and Republicans at -15.4 unfavorable.

Nevertheless, in polling on the overall congressional election for 2026, RealClearPolitics shows Democrats up +6.0.

Two things may explain this disconnect.

One, although voters show generically more favorability to Republicans, Republicans are still underwater in overall favorability.

Second, when voters are overall not happy with how things are going, they vote against the party in power.

Per the RealClearPolitics consensus, only 34.3% feel the country is going in the right direction.

Regarding the climate that will define the upcoming election season, one big variable will be the outcome in the current hostilities in Iran.

My prediction is that President Donald Trump and the Republican Party will emerge the clear big winner here.

Those who have opposed this war will be inducted into the national hall of shame. And here we are talking overwhelmingly about Democrat leadership.

The readiness of Trump to identify the clear and present danger to our country of the maniacal regime in Iran, both regarding their acquisition of nuclear weapons and development of a massive arsenal of long-range ballistic missiles, will secure Trump’s place in history as a great leader.

American action in Iran has also brought forth with clarity where the rest of the world stands.

We now better understand the lack of principles of our so-called European allies and the squishiness of NATO. We now better understand the evil and threat lurking in Russia, China, and North Korea.

And particularly interesting is the potential realignment that will emerge in the Persian Gulf, as suddenly the Arab nations in the Gulf have found themselves attacked by the Iranian maniacs. We may see a great solidifying of U.S. relations with those oil-rich Gulf nations, and we may see an historic solidifying of their relationship with Israel.

It all has made the security picture even clearer to Trump, who is requesting in the 2027 budget a 50% increase in defense spending, from around $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion.

The current war has made abundantly clear the inadequacy of our defense spending, now hovering at an historic low of 3% of gross domestic product. We live in a dangerous world. The motto “peace through strength” has never been clearer.

But how do we add $500 billion to our defense budget when we are running multitrillion dollar deficits at home and we’re carrying national debt greater than 100% of GDP?

There is one answer. We must step up finally and revamp and reform the massive waste in our federal spending—now approaching 25% of our GDP.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported last year that the federal government loses $233 to $521 billion in fraud. It also reported improper federal payments since 2003 totaling at least $2.8 trillion.

In 2024 alone, the Government Accountability Office notes improper payments in Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP (food stamps) of $95.5 billion.

When Republicans moved to reform Medicaid in the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Democrats went crazy and took us to a government shutdown.

Democrats are out front complaining about the spike in gasoline prices.

The best way to manage gasoline prices is to increase supplies of oil and gas. Democrats are forever obstacles to this, making discredited claims about climate. Recently, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, once a climate change enthusiast, has repudiated “the doomsday view” of climate change, saying it “is wrong.”

We may well see in the midterms that voters indeed see Democrats as the clear and present danger to the nation.

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 Democrats Are Clear and Present Danger to the Nation appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sometimes, transgender advocates‘ own words form the best argument against them.

A Democrat’s recent argument for a bill combating “conversion therapy” actually made a strong case against his measure, which would effectively prevent counseling to help young people come to terms with their biology. This counseling may be the only real solution for gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent condition of identifying with the gender opposite one’s sex).

Scott Wiener, a Democrat in the California Senate, testified Tuesday in favor of SB-934, a bill to extend the statute of limitations for people to sue for damages if they claim to have been subjected to sexual orientation or gender identity change efforts.

Wiener explained his bill this way: “Let’s say a parent has a 15-year-old who was born identified as a girl and now identifies as a boy, and if the parent says ‘I’m going to send you to this camp where a ‘therapist’ is going to convert you to being a girl through therapy.’ That would be subjected to this bill.”

Let’s not get distracted by transgender gaslighting. A person who was “born identified as a girl and now identifies as a boy” is, in fact, a girl. No use of pronouns, injection of cross-sex hormones, or surgeries to remove her healthy body parts to experimentally make her appear male will change the basic fact of her nature.

Yet, according to Scott Wiener, therapy to help her come to terms with her nature involves “converting” her to “being a girl.”

In the Orwellian upside-down world of transgender topsy-turvydom, it isn’t considered a form of “conversion” to subject a person to experimental drugs and surgeries to force their body to resemble something it’s not, but it is a form of “conversion” to help someone come to terms with her sex.

‘Conversion Therapy’

Wiener attempts to maintain this utterly fatuous idea by using the term “conversion therapy.” The term historically refers to efforts to suppress same-sex attraction through controversial methods like electroshock therapy.

Mainstream therapy has rejected such methods in favor of patient-directed talk therapy—and the Supreme Court recently upheld the free speech rights of a therapist to address same-sex attraction and gender identity through talk therapy with patients when a Colorado law banned this.

“When a child’s like, ‘I’m gay, I’m trans,’ and the parent says, ‘I’m gonna make you not gay or trans,’ by sending you to that person who’s going to inflict severe harm,” Wiener explained.

Yet the case that patient-directed talk therapy to resolve a gender mismatch inflicts “severe harm” is rather hard to prove. Such therapy does not leave any physical sign. By contrast, the scars of “gender-affirming care” are much more concrete.

Wiener himself witnessed evidence of this in the same hearing, when the brave detransitioner Jonni Skinner got up to share his story.

“When I was young, I was a feminine child and I discovered trans influencers online,” he recalled. “They said, ‘Change your body and your life gets better. Don’t, and it gets worse.’ Or, as my doctors told my mom, I would commit suicide.”

“The medical and mental health providers didn’t bother to ask why I felt the way I did,” Skinner added. “They poisoned my body with blockers and hormones, arresting my puberty and messing with my development. The result? I’m a 23-year-old gay man who’s never had an orgasm and may never experience one.”

“I was rendered inorgasmic because once you say you could be trans, that’s it, full stop,” he added. “No exploration as to why is allowed, even if you are a struggling kid.”

Science Exposes Transgender Lies

A recently published study found that young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria in Finland were more likely to receive specialist-level psychiatric care—both before and after diagnosis. “Gender-affirming care” made them far more likely to seek specialist-level care more than two years afterward.

This study suggests two things: that those who identify as transgender are more likely to have psychological problems and that “gender-affirming care” makes those problems worse.

Wiener is fighting a losing battle.

The Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is little evidence for positive impacts from transgender medical interventions on minors, but it found many documented harms.

A jury awarded a detransitioner $2 million, finding that the medical professionals who carried out sex-rejecting procedures on her were liable for medical malpractice.

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons released a statement recommending against transgender surgery for minors under 19, leading other medical associations to follow suit.

Americans really are waking up to the destructive harms of transgender ideology, but activists like Wiener are unlikely to throw in the towel.

Those of us who really want to help people struggling with gender dysphoria should champion patient-directed talk therapy that helps patients resolve their gender mismatch, not medical experiments that enflame it. Unfortunately, we first have to make the case against Democrats like Wiener, who want to make such therapy radioactive, and therefore unavailable.

That’s the true ugliness of transgender ideology: people like Wiener are seeking to remove the one potential solution that might actually resolve gender dysphoria. Rather than resolving underlying psychological issues, they want to trap gender dysphoric people in the gender mutilation pipeline, where they will subject their bodies to medical experiments and become perpetually reliant on Big Pharma.

The post Democrat Unwittingly Reveals the Ugly Truth of Transgender Ideology appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is struggling to explain how her popularity has collapsed just months into her administration.

At a press briefing designed to look like a happenstance meeting with reporters on the sidewalk outside of the governor’s mansion in Richmond, Spanberger addressed a Washington Post/Schar poll that showed her losing 11% of her approval since November’s election, when her approval rating was 57.4% to 46%.

Her answer was more cringe than an impromptu chat with Kamala Harris: “If everybody hated me, why is everybody putting my face on their mailers for the referendum?” Spanberger said.

Excuse us, madame governor, but that wasn’t the question.

Two folks I have recently spoken to could shed some light on the issue for the governor if she were to reach out to them. Rather than waiting for her Cheshire grin to vanish, let’s lay it out.

First, I spoke with former state Sen. Chap Petersen, a Democrat from Fairfax County, and asked him if diving headfirst into the redistricting vote contributed to the decline in her support.

“I think it was a mistake—I felt like it was really a bad mistake for her to start her administration that way on such an openly partisan issue.” Petersen said.

“You know, I think when she got started, she ran successfully as a moderate Democrat, someone that was going to work with both sides, work across the aisle,” he added. “She got elected with a very large majority, which I think reflected that, and she got dragged into this redistricting issue, which she had not run on. [Redistricting] had not been part of her platform, and I think that was a mistake.”

Other partisan issues Spanberger downplayed on the campaign seem to be the crux of Spanberger’s flailing popularity. Twenty gun ownership-restricting bills have already passed the Virginia General Assembly during Spanberger’s term. Democrats also proposed a massive expansion of items open to sales tax, which didn’t make it through, but it’s the thought that seems to count with Virginia’s voters. And while Democrats propose new taxes, little progress has been made on the affordability issue.

Even more problematic for Democrats, in Richmond and in Washington, is polling that suggests “no” will carry the day for Virginia’s April 21 redistricting referendum.

Redistricting failure would be yet another sign that Virginia’s Democrats seemed to have awakened the sleeping elephant that sat out the 2025 gubernatorial election. Coupled with the tattered coattails of the governor, it does not bode well for Virginia playing a major role in flipping the U.S. House of Representatives for Democrats.

And things seem poised to get worse for the governor’s affordability agenda.

Stephen Haner is a policy analyst for the Thomas Jefferson Institute, and after a lifetime spent on both sides of the lobby, he correctly predicted that if Spanberger rejoined the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), Virginians would be paying more for their electricity.

“It’s going to be a big number” he said, “And it’s going to be far more than it was when we were paying it three years ago—on a typical bill it was $3 or $4. So, we were paying about $15 or $16 a ton at the end three years ago. It is now $25 or $26 a ton, and it’s going to keep going up because in 2027 they’re reshuffling all the rules. They’re eliminating a lot of the allowances.”

The proposed budget creates a new category for “large consumers” of energy (namely, data centers). Nevertheless, the rates on consumers are going up anyway.

I asked Haner if data centers are really making the average Virginian pay more for their electricity. “Nobody really sort of put RGGI and the data centers together either, but again, their raw material is electricity,” he replied. “So RGGI raises the price of their electricity and their raw materials as well. That [means] they’re going to be paying a huge amount of this money when the time comes.”

Just like all of us.

On April 6, the Virginia Mercury reported that state officials “expect the commonwealth to participate in the program’s September (RGGI) auction once regulations to reestablish the CO2 budget trading program are finalized. Dominion Energy plans to petition the State Corporation Commission in June to add the cost of those credit auctions back onto ratepayer’s bills.”

Later that day, the Virginia Public Access Project exposed that the governor, who said on the campaign trail she does not take donations from corporate entities, accepted a $100,000 contribution from Dominion Energy for her inaugural fund.

Perhaps the party that ran on affordability has forgotten that believability may be their bigger problem.

The post Spanberger’s Problem Isn’t Affordability. It’s Believability appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For more than a decade, American politics has undergone a decisive shift thanks to President Donald Trump. This shift places the economic interests of middle- and working-class families squarely at the center of national policy.

Early in his tenure, Trump issued an executive order directing the federal government to eliminate regulations that deny consumers the benefits of a competitive marketplace. The proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern railroad merger stands in stark contrast to this effort, so it should come as no surprise that there is growing concern from around the country.

Seven state attorneys general in Republican states, led by Montana’s Austin Knudsen, are asking the U.S. Department of Justice to provide greater scrutiny of the merger. This follows letters from nine Republican state attorneys general led by Jonathan Skrmetti of Tennessee, Brenna Bird of Iowa, and Kris Kobach of Kansas. Additionally, more than 50 Republican state legislative leaders from across the country have expressed serious reservations about this $85 billion consolidation.  

Vice President JD Vance captured the essence of this thinking during his comments to a conservative audience with his statement warning about the dangers of monopolies, arguing “it’s bad for liberty, and it’s bad for prosperity.”

This is a return to foundational conservative principles about dispersed power, genuine competition, and economic opportunity for working-class Americans. Real conservative jurisprudence, from the trustbusting of Theodore Roosevelt to the consumer welfare standard articulated by Robert Bork, has always recognized that protecting competition at times requires challenging consolidation.

Consider who gets hurt when railroad monopolies are allowed to tighten their grip. It’s the farmer in Iowa who can’t negotiate better rates to ship grain. It’s the factory worker in Ohio whose plant closes because shipping costs make U.S. manufacturing uncompetitive with foreign countries. It’s the small business owner in rural America who faces take-it-or-leave-it pricing from the only railroad serving his region. These are the Americans who helped put Trump and Vance in office, and Republicans are right to fight for them.

The attorneys general correctly warned that concentrating “too much power in too few hands” risks squeezing out American manufacturers, farmers, and consumers. When four railroad companies already control 90% of freight traffic, adding more consolidation doesn’t enhance competition. Far from it. It only fuels market distortions and monopolies that harm the overall economy. 

This unprecedented and costly railroad merger would be particularly devastating for workers and producers here at home. The deal would favor intermodal container shipments that can pivot to trucking, benefiting foreign-made goods while U.S. manufacturers moving chemicals, grain, steel, and bulk commodities would be locked into paying increased rates to one railroad with nowhere else to turn. Foreign competitors would get flexibility while American workers get higher costs and worse service. That’s not “America First.” 

Free markets thrive on competition, and increasing monopoly power in any form is the first step toward losing both liberty and prosperity. In line with this broader movement toward enhancing competition, the Surface Transportation Board has advanced important reforms aimed at dismantling the entrenched barriers that have long stifled competition in the freight rail industry.

The proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger represents exactly the kind of consolidation that Republicans should oppose. Vance is right: We must defend the working Americans who depend on competitive markets to earn their livelihoods. The fact that Republican state leaders and the conservative legal movement recognize this truth once again proves that the Republicans are focused on delivering for the working class.

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

The post Conservative Leaders Are Right: The UP-NS Rail Merger Is a Bad Idea appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This year’s midterm elections aren’t just about who wins in November; they’re about who wins fights over gerrymandering taking place right now.

Nowhere is the battle fiercer than in Virginia, a state where voters just six years ago approved a constitutional amendment to take partisanship out of congressional redistricting.

Now Democrats want to make an exception to the rule Virginia voters approved by a nearly two-thirds majority in 2020: They want this year’s congressional map to be drawn up by their own state legislators, erasing the districts set up by the bipartisan board established by the amendment just a few years back.

It’s no surprise when a state like Texas or California that leans overwhelmingly toward one party indulges in partisan gerrymandering.

But Virginia is a purple state, and its congressional representation—six Democrats, five Republicans—currently reflects that.

Yet, if Democrats get their way on April 21, they’ll be able to seize 10 of Virginia’s 11 congressional seats for themselves, in the most brazenly unjust reapportionment seen anywhere in decades.

This isn’t about making a blue state bluer or a red state redder; this one’s an effort to manufacture a virtual monopoly for one party, depriving millions of the other party’s voters of their representation.

One thing the sheer audacity of this move suggests is that Democrats nationwide aren’t quite as confident as they pretend to be about winning the midterms fair and square.

If they expect voters coast to coast to repudiate President Donald Trump’s GOP in a landslide, why resort to such extreme measures in a place like Virginia?

Either Democrats are more worried than they let on, or they want to do more than just win—they want to annihilate their competition.

They’re proving far more ruthless than Republicans, who balked at the opportunity last year to redraw Indiana’s congressional map from a 7-2 partisan split to a nine-seat GOP sweep.

What Democrats are attempting in Virginia is tantamount to legalized election theft, if voters are unwise enough to approve the amendment they’re pushing.

There’s a political cost for this attack on small-d democracy: Gov. Abigail Spanberger, for one, is paying a price in her polling.

She was elected by a whopping 15-point margin last year and was soon touted as the Democrats’ new face of moderation, which is why she was the party’s choice to respond to Trump’s State of the Union address this year.

Yet her approval ratings are already poor, with a Washington Post survey at the end of March finding 47% of those polled gave her a passing grade, while 46% disapproved of her performance in office so far.

The numbers are similar to polling on the amendment to give Virginia’s Democrat-controlled legislature the power to draw the congressional districts for the midterms: 50% say they approve, 47% disapprove.

The amendment can pass with a simple majority, but if the polls are right, Democrats have no margin to spare, and early voting reports so far indicate there’s particularly strong turnout in Republican areas of the state.

The early vote is outpacing early voting in last year’s gubernatorial election, too.

Arguably, the amendment shouldn’t be on the ballot at all: it’s faced several legal challenges, with the state Supreme Court ultimately deciding the April 21 election can proceed even while doubts about its legality remain to be settled later.

The very wording of the amendment is illegal, Republicans contend, since state law specifies the text accompanying the measure “shall be limited to a neutral explanation,” while the amendment itself is tendentiously worded as an attempt to “restore fairness.”

Who wouldn’t vote to restore fairness?

The campaign for the amendment has been a master class in deceit and manipulation, with even news outlets in the deep-blue D.C. suburbs of Northern Virginia noting the copious use of “pink slime” techniques by the “Yes” side.

Those techniques involve propaganda disguised to look impartial—like a made-to-purpose publication branded as The Virginia Independent, which the Arlington-based news site ARLNow.com describes as “a partisan newspaper advancing Democrats’ arguments.”

That slime has been flooding into voters’ mailboxes, including mine.

Maybe my blue suburb hasn’t been a target of whatever efforts the Republicans are making—though the other possibility is that the GOP just isn’t trying as hard.

Texas kicked off the latest wave of redistricting ahead of the midterms, as Republicans there looked to widen their advantage over the Democrats.

Yet as the divergent examples of Indiana and Virginia show, it’s the Democrats who are more hellbent on winning, even if they have to turn state constitutions into confetti to do it.

Politics is a test of wills, and if Republicans fail this one, they’ll almost certainly fail in November, too.

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 Virginia: A New Extreme in Gerrymandering appeared first on The Daily Signal.