For many families, summer often means scoping out childcare options while parents continue to work. Some families in low-income neighborhoods turn to Head Start, a program whose very name suggests children should expect to finish their time at one of these centers better prepared for school. But today, after more than 60 years and over $240 billion in spending, the program has fallen well short of that goal.   

A new Heritage Foundation report reveals a harsh reality: Head Start centers are overregulated, unsafe, expensive, and fail to deliver lasting results for children.  

Head Start sits under a thick, strict set of rules. A recent analysis compared federal Head Start rules with state childcare rules. It found that nearly all Head Start settings are stricter than state settings. 

Moreover, the program is also burdened with bureaucratic red tape that does nothing to help children and families. The second Trump administration is trying to help. In May 2026, the Department of Health and Human Services released a notice of proposed rulemaking to scrap burdensome wage and benefit rules from the Biden administration.  

The Biden administration rule imposed sweeping wage and benefit mandates, adding an estimated $2.3 billion in costs. The Trump administration has since proposed rolling back those requirements, noting that the “requirements are beyond statutory authority, in addition to being overly prescriptive and costly.”  

On top of that, taxpayers spend more per child for Head Start than for many other childcare options. A recent report from HHS found that the median spending per child is $20,294 in Early Head Start and $14,532 in Head Start preschool, which serves children ages 3 to 5. These sums match or exceed the cost of many private centers.  

In some states, Head Start spending even tops K-12 public school spending per pupil. In Idaho, federal taxpayers spend $20,400 on the average Head Start slot, compared with approximately $13,300 in average public K-12 spending per child. In Utah, the average Head Start figure is more than $18,600, which is $4,500 more than the state’s average K-12 per-pupil. 

Given these costs, taxpayers and families should expect strong outcomes. But the most rigorous research shows otherwise.  

Congress mandated a large-scale evaluation of Head Start in 1998 using randomized controlled trials, the gold standard in social science. The results, released in 2010 and 2012, found that the program produced little to no lasting academic or behavioral benefits for participating children. More recent studies that have found positive outcomes used less rigorous research designs than the longitudinal study that began in 1998. 

Beyond effectiveness, Head Start has also faced serious concerns about oversight and child safety. In 2011, the HHS Office of Inspector General reviewed 24 grantees covering more than 175 centers in nine states. None fully met federal or state rules for protecting children from unsafe materials or equipment. Almost 90% failed to fully follow rules for criminal background checks or child abuse registry checks.  

Heritage research from 2020 highlighted media reports of abuse at Head Start centers in seven states, five of which were not included in the 2011 report. A 2022 OIG report found that roughly one in four grantees had instances in which children were abused, left alone, or sent home with the wrong adult.  

Policymakers should sunset Head Start and prioritize policy changes that give parents more choices and improve transparency. The Trump administration should continue to reduce regulations, including fewer degree and credit-hour requirements for teachers and changes to staff-to-child ratios and group-size limits. HHS officials should also consider regulatory reforms to lower program costs and improve accountability. The reforms in the White House’s fiscal year 2027 budget request and in the administration’s most recent notice of proposed rulemaking are a good start.  
 

Congress should end the program, but federal officials can improve options for children and families through deregulation in the meantime. 

The U.S. Navy said on Sunday it ⁠had suspended its search for a ​sailor who was reported missing on July 1.Here ⁠are some details:* The Navy's 5th Fleet said the Navy and Air Force searched for a sailor who was reported missing last ​week after an MH-60S Seahawk...

Glyphosate, PFAS, and Food Dyes.

RealClearWire—The U.S. Global Positioning System stands as America’s key part of its critical space infrastructure. It is foundational to a highly functioning society. It underpins everything from smartphones, navigation for commercial aviation, precision-guided weapons, and global financial networks.

Yet, despite its strategic importance, GPS modernization has too often been treated as a billpayer within defense budgeting, with funds redirected to other priorities whenever fiscal pressure emerges. That approach is shortsighted and increasingly dangerous.

GPS is the backbone of both American military power and vast sectors of critical societal and economic strength. In an era of daily Chinese and Russian attacks on GPS’ space, electromagnetic, and ground segments, the United States cannot afford delays, program instability, or another failed modernization effort. To prevent this, America must use what works, rather than the pursuit of the ambitious and perfect solution.

Architecture Evolution Plan Is the Way Forward for GPS Ground

For years, the troubled Operational Control Segment program symbolized everything wrong with overly ambitious defense acquisition. Delays, software integration problems, and cybersecurity challenges repeatedly pushed the ground segment architecture necessary for GPS III behind schedule and over budget.

Eventually, confidence in the program’s ability to deliver the required capability on an operationally relevant timeline eroded significantly. As a result, the government elected to pursue alternative approaches for future GPS ground modernization while continuing to assess how best to leverage capabilities already developed under OCX.

By contrast, the Architecture Evolution Plan has quietly demonstrated something more important than acquisition theory: operational viability. Rather than attempting a massive leap to a monolithic system, the Architecture Evolution Plan will modernize the GPS ground segment incrementally while continuing to support the recently completed GPS III constellation.

In today’s contested environment, that evolutionary approach may prove far more resilient, survivable, and cyber secure than another painful program restart as AEP provides 99.9% availability.

The United States should continue maturing this architecture while rigorously evaluating whether critical military capabilities such as M-Code and Regional Military Protection are being fielded on time and at operationally relevant levels.

M-Code and Regional Military Protection Are Key for Modern Warfare

Broadcast on GPS III satellites, M-Code uses advanced encryption and broadcasts at higher powers to slice through enemy jamming. Regional Military Protection allows GPS satellites to focus directional beams over smaller, concentrated areas (e.g., 1,200 km wide). It dramatically boosts signal strength to overcome jammers, enhancing assured PNT access in contested environments subject to spoofing and interference.

However, this technology is primarily tied to the newest GPS III Follow-On satellites and is still being rolled out across the active constellation.

As older satellites are replaced by GPS III and forthcoming GPS IIIF systems, the United States gains far more than incremental improvements. These satellites provide dramatically enhanced anti-jamming performance, improved anti-spoofing protection, and more resilient military navigation capabilities.

M-Code was specifically designed to ensure secure military access to positioning and timing information even in contested environments. Regional Military Protection further strengthens this advantage by allowing theater-specific signal enhancement to protect U.S. and allied operations against enemy disruption.

Russia’s extensive GPS jamming activities in Eastern Europe and China’s growing counterspace capabilities demonstrate that future conflicts will involve aggressive attacks on positioning, navigation, and timing systems even before the first kinetic strikes occur. America’s GPS architecture must therefore be able to function in denied and degraded environments where adversaries actively attempt to jam, spoof, or disrupt operations.

The United States needs sufficient on-orbit capacity to guarantee survivable global coverage, and current assessments indicate approximately 24 operational modernized satellites are required to fully sustain worldwide military effectiveness. Slowing deployment schedules or diverting modernization funding risks creating future capability gaps that cannot easily be repaired. GPS IIIF, AEP, and RMP funding must not be allowed to remain billpayers for unrelated programs.

Fortunately, America already has momentum. The completion of the GPS III series demonstrated that the industrial base can deliver advanced capability on schedule. Meanwhile, the AEP provides a realistic and adaptable ground segment path capable of evolving alongside future generations of satellites.

Proposed Way Ahead

GPS modernization is not simply another acquisition program competing for resources. It is the foundation upon which precision strike, global logistics, joint force synchronization, financial timing, and critical infrastructure depend. Delaying modernization creates risks that compound over decades due to constellation replenishment timelines, industrial base limitations, and workforce retention challenges.

Congress and the Department of War should therefore pursue four priorities simultaneously: continue maturing the AEP as the OCX replacement and operational backbone of GPS ground; verify that M-Code and RMP are being implemented on time; accelerate GPS IIIF deployment at a realistic but faster pace; and protect GPS modernization funding from repeated budget raids.

America does not need another overengineered acquisition failure. It needs operational capability delivered on time, secured against cyber and counterspace threats, and sustained through stable investment. The AEP and GPS IIIF together offer the most practical and achievable path toward that objective.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

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

Trump Marshals Americans, Historic Spirit Of Defiance In Speech Celebrating US's 250th Birthday

'Insult to every sailor'

As Americans try to make sense of the latest mess in British politics, one name keeps coming up as the likely next occupant of 10 Downing Street: Andy Burnham.

The former mayor of Greater Manchester, always camera-ready and quick with a soundbite, looks set to replace Keir Starmer as Labour leader and prime minister. If you’re not familiar with him, Burnham is a career politician—smooth, detached from reality, and firmly aligned with the progressive wing of his party.

Look at his voting record, and it’s hard to miss where he stands. As an MP, he consistently opposed limits on abortion and showed little patience for pro-life arguments. On LGBTQ+ issues, he’s been all in: supporting same-sex marriage, adoption by same-sex couples, and nearly every other “reform” that came along.

These positions have endeared him to urban progressives, but left many traditional Labour voters feeling increasingly alienated from their own party.

His approaches to security and Islam also raise red flags for many. As shadow home secretary, Burnham attacked the Prevent counterterrorism strategy, calling it “toxic” and likening it to internment. He often framed Muslims as victims of suspicion and labeled criticism of radical Islam as “Islamophobia.”

Britain faces real integration problems—grooming gangs in northern towns, parallel societies, and rising extremism—but Burnham’s approach has prioritized optics over enforcement, critics say, making honest discussion harder and discouraging authorities from confronting uncomfortable issues.

His handling of grooming gangs in Greater Manchester has drawn particularly sharp criticism from whistleblower and former Greater Manchester Police detective Maggie Oliver. While Burnham initially earned praise for commissioning independent reviews of historic cases such as Operation Augusta, Oliver accuses him of failing to follow through.

Oliver has said Burnham “ducked out” at the crucial assurance review stage, looking after his own political position and protecting Greater Manchester Police rather than fully exposing whether similar abuses were continuing. She described the process as a “paper exercise” and said Burnham “did not grasp the nettle,” ultimately “fell short,” and “turned away” from victims. Survivors and campaigners argue this left many without proper justice or meaningful systemic reform.

His take on English identity tells you a lot, too. He once ranked his own sense of self as British first, north-westerner second, Liverpudlian third—and English a distant fourth. Pride in traditional English heritage? Not really his thing.

Instead, he’s championed multicultural Manchester, directing resources toward diversity initiatives while English working-class communities in places like Oldham and Rochdale have voiced frustration over rapid Islamic immigration and strained public services. His worldview sees national identity as something to be diluted rather than celebrated.

Then there’s the faith question, which has a whiff of hypocrisy. Raised Catholic—he says he was even an altar boy—Burnham says he drifted away because the Church obsesses too much over sexuality. He’s “not particularly religious” these days. Yet he still sends his kids to Catholic schools for the “moral grounding.” It’s the classic “faith for thee but not for me” approach, one that lets him benefit from institutions he publicly undermines.

Economically, homeowners should pay attention. Burnham has long floated scrapping council tax (which is paid to local authorities to help fund essential community services) and stamp duty in favor of an annual property or land value tax based on current market values. We’re talking something like half a percent of your home’s full value every year. That turns the old idea of “an Englishman’s home is his castle” into an ongoing wealth tax that hits retirees and middle-class families hardest.

As mayor of Greater Manchester, he leaned hard into more state control over big-spending projects and issues such as public ownership of transport. He positions himself as the “King of the North” while constantly asking Westminster for more cash.

His tenure saw mixed results: some improvements in public transport but persistent crime, housing shortages, and dependency on central government funding.

With Starmer stepping down, nominations opening July 9, and big names like Wes Streeting already lining up behind him, Burnham could be installed as leader and prime minister by July 17. That would place the party firmly in the hands of its metropolitan, progressive wing.

For observers across the Atlantic, this doesn’t look like change—it’s more of the same, with a sharper cultural edge and bigger tax ambitions. Britain would be trading one left-wing leader for another, but with more intensity on identity, security, and ownership.

Burnham becoming prime minister would be leaping from the frying pan into the fire: a politician uneasy with his own Christian background, lukewarm on Englishness, soft on radical Islam, and eager to tax family homes like never before. His goals are clear: higher taxes, weaker cultural borders, and continued erosion of what once made the country distinct and Great.

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

At GunCon 2026, the Argentine gunmaker showed there’s a lot more to the company these days, including U.S.-made ARs, 1911s, double-stack pistols and a full line of Whispertech suppressors.

The post GunCon 2026: Bersa USA appeared first on The Truth About Guns.

The loss of local media has bigger impacts than most people realize.

The Left said Vice President JD Vance was weird when he was on the campaign trail. Now it’s obsessed with his wife’s pregnant belly. That’s weird.

Usha Vance appeared on the most recent episode of “Storytime with the Second Lady” wearing a slightly off-the-shoulder, fitted coral maternity dress, and the chief fashion critic of The New York Times wrote an article about her clothing choice.

The article blew up across the internet last week. 

It didn’t note the fact that Vance has continued attending international functions while in the most uncomfortable trimester of pregnancy. Nor did it note that she has done so in high heels.

It was an in-depth analysis of the politics behind why Vance wore a “stretchy” dress that “hugs her stomach.” 

Surely it wasn’t because when a woman is eight months pregnant, most dresses—even maternity dresses—fit her stomach snugly. 

No, the author, Vanessa Freidman, speculated that Vance, Karoline Leavitt, and Katie Miller have given “literal shape to the pronatalist movement” and that they are presenting an image of the administration’s support for family and fertility through their pregnancies.

Their vehicles for propaganda? Their own bodies. Allegedly, the “body-aware” dresses and photos of the three women posing with their hands on their bellies are part of the White House’s agenda to promote having children.

The article totally ignores the people and relationships involved in a pregnancy, as if the only reason why a woman would put a hand on her pregnant belly would be to direct people’s eyes to her stomach so that they too would jump on the baby bandwagon.

We cannot forget that public figures are also human. Even if you disagree politically with these women in the White House, it’s unjust to overlook the physical and relational factors influencing their lives and to treat them as mere propaganda machines embodying their husbands’ political ideals.  

Maybe, like any other woman, Vance likes wearing clothes that are flattering and don’t swallow her in yards of fabric. Maybe it’s because when you’re eight months pregnant and your waist is approximately 40 inches in circumference, it’s hard to hide your stomach or ignore that you have a basketball-sized belly.

Or maybe she put her hand atop her belly when deplaning in China because within her belly is her son. Physical touch is part of the mother-child relationship, just like it’s part of any other relationship.

In fact, putting a hand on her belly when she steps off the plane is not that different from walking into an event holding hands with the vice president. 

No one would say in that situation that the Vances are pushing a pro-marriage agenda. It’s normal for a husband and wife to hold hands, and everyone accepts that.

But it’s also normal for a mother to place a hand protectively on her pregnant belly, or to wear clothes that show she’s pregnant. So, why the press?

Perhaps it’s because although Vance is the second lady of the United States in a Republican administration, she’s treating pregnancy like it’s completely natural—which it is. It’s almost like she’s getting hate because she’s not “weird” about being pregnant.

There really is no particular standard for how the second lady should dress if she’s pregnant, because, as the New York Times noted, the last time a second lady was publicly pregnant was in 1870. And the most recent first lady who was pregnant in the White House was Jackie Kennedy in the 1960s.

So the only standard for the second lady to follow is current maternity style. 

Yet when she wears a dress that the fashion critic says, “mirrors much of modern style,” she receives attention for wearing typical 2026 maternity clothing and for not imitating the smock-style outfits that Kennedy wore. 

Then-presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kennedy says goodbye to his young daughter Caroline and pregnant wife Jackie before flying to Philadelphia. Jackie would give birth to John F. Kennedy Jr. just weeks after the election. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

It seems that the second lady’s maternity style is more with the times than the fashion critic expected. Vance is not mimicking Kennedy’s maternity dresses of six decades ago.

In fact, she’s wearing the attire of most pregnant women across America. Vance posted on X in response to the New York Times article that she bought her dress from Old Navy, the popular American retail store with over 1,000 locations in the United States. And with a mother’s eye for saving, she paid only $8.75 for the $50 dress that had gone on sale.

Plus, Vance is wearing dresses with similar styles to what she has worn throughout her time as second lady. Just because she’s pregnant doesn’t mean she’s going to stop dressing in attractive clothes that suit her taste.

And although she’s the second lady of the United States, she’s not going to hide her pregnancy like she’s ashamed of having a child. Sorry—it’s not the 1800s anymore. We don’t disguise pregnancies with confinement periods. 

This is why feminists originally fought: so that women could have the same rights and public engagement as men without giving up their feminine dignity.

That’s what Usha Vance is embodying.

There’s nothing weird about the second lady wearing a fitted maternity dress from a popular retail store while hosting a read-aloud of “Winnie the Pooh.” In fact, it’s completely normal.

And that seems to be why the Left is upset about it.

An investigative reporter told Congress this week he uncovered documents linking the Charles Manson murders to the CIA's MKUltra mind-control program, reviving questions about the agency's secret experiments.

An investigative reporter told Congress this week he discovered documents linking the Charles Manson murders to clandestine CIA mind-control experiments, reviving decades-old questions about the agency's notorious MKUltra program during a House hearing on declassifying...