The Department of Homeland Security on Monday shot back at criticism of immigration enforcement from celebrity artists at the 2026 Grammy Awards.  

“It’s gross Hollywood would choose to demonize our law enforcement as they are putting their lives on the line to arrest murderers, pedophiles, rapists, kidnappers, and robbers from our communities,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told The Daily Signal.  

The 68th annual Grammy Awards ceremony took on a political tone Sunday night as celebrities like Justin Bieber and Kehlani protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement by sporting “ICE Out” pins on the red carpet. Rapper Bad Bunny repeated the sentiment on stage.  

“Before I say thanks to God, I’m going to say, ICE out,” Bad Bunny, who’s real name is Benito Antonio Martínez Ocasio, said while accepting the award for Best Música Urbana Album. “We’re not savages, we’re not animals, we’re not aliens, we are humans, and we are Americans,” the Grammy winner, who is from Puerto Rico, added to a loud applause.  

Bad Bunny also won Album of the Year at the awards ceremony in Los Angeles, and is scheduled to headline the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show on Feb. 8.  

Singer-songwriter Billie Eilish won Song of the Year and also used her acceptance speech to speak out against immigration enforcement.  

“Nobody is illegal on stolen land,” Eilish said, adding, “f— ICE.”  

In response, McLaughlin said, “This type of garbage is contributing to our officers facing a 3,200% increase in vehicle attacks, 1,300% increase in assaults against them, and an 8000% increase in death threats.”

The criticism comes after a Border Patrol agent shot and killed Alex Pretti, 37, on Jan. 24, and an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good, also 37, on Jan. 7 amid anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis. Both incidents are under investigation.  

Despite opposition, DHS continued its operation in Minneapolis over the weekend.  

“While Hollywood celebrities embarrassed themselves trying to drum up hatred of ICE officers from the Grammys, DHS law enforcement was hard at work arresting sex offenders, child abusers, and criminals convicted of assault in Minnesota,” McLaughlin said.  

Recent ICE arrests in Minneapolis include Vong Som, Houa Xiong, Ze Ger Vue, Lor Thor, and Fong Vang – all illegal aliens from Laos with criminal convictions that include terror threats, sexual assault, obstructing police, weapons possession, and receiving stolen property. 

ICE also arrested Charanjit Singh, who is from India and has been convicted of cruelty toward a child, drug possession, and flight to avoid prosecution. 

Guatemalan Baltazar Camposeco-Ros has a criminal record that includes domestic assault and a domestic abuse–violation.  

Minh Tien Quach is from Vietnam and has been convicted of robbery, possession of a firearm and drug trafficking. Ernesto Alexander Dominguez-Cruz is from El Salvador and has been convicted of multiple crimes, including assault.  

“We need Minnesota sanctuary politicians to let us into their jails to arrest these vicious criminals instead of releasing them and allowing them to create more victims,” McLaughlin said, adding that DHS has filed over 1,360 detailers for “criminals in Minnesota jails.”  

“We are once again calling on Minnesota’s sanctuary politicians to commit to turning these criminals over to ICE,” she continued.  

Minnesota is a sanctuary state, according to the Department of Justice, meaning state and local law enforcement are restricted in the extent they can cooperate with federal immigration officials.  

The Minnesota state prison system does honor ICE detainers, according to Homan.  

Homan met with Minneapolis Attorney General Keith Ellison last week and Ellison, according to Homan, says county jails are allowed to “notify ICE of the release dates of criminal public safety risks, so ICE can take custody of them upon the release from the jail.” 

Homan says a reduction of federal immigration officials in Minneapolis is dependent upon state and local officials cooperating with ICE.

The post EXCLUSIVE: DHS Slams Hollywood Over ‘Gross’ ICE Rhetoric at Grammys  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a significant legal win for the Trump administration and the pro-life movement, Planned Parenthood dropped its court case to restore federal funding through Medicaid.

Last year, President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill that, among other things, defunded the nation’s largest abortion provider for a full year.

The defunding, though temporary, itself was a long-sought achievement for pro-life lawmakers.

In September, the U.S. First Circuit of Appeals ruled to allow the Trump administration to withhold Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood while the appeals proceed.

On Friday, the plaintiffs—Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and state affiliates in Massachusetts and Utah—dismissed their complaint.

“Planned Parenthood and others have spent months running to court to claw back more than half a billion dollars and subvert the will of the taxpayers, who strongly oppose being forced to fund the destruction of human lives,” Katie Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told The Daily Signal.

“Abortion businesses are not entitled by the Constitution to taxpayer dollars, and their efforts will not succeed.” 

While a win for pro-life supporters, there are separate ongoing court cases involving Democrat-run states defending funding state Planned Parenthood clinics.

Further, unless Congress acts in an additional reconciliation bill, federal funding of Planned Parenthood will resume in July, noted Melanie Israel, visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

“It’s a win for women, girls, and unborn babies when Planned Parenthood gives up its quest to force taxpayers to foot the bill for Big Abortion – over half a billion dollars per year, to be precise,” Israel told The Daily Signal. “We’ve known all along that nothing in the Constitution entitles Planned Parenthood to the American people’s hard-earned tax dollars.”

Pro-life groups have pushed for a full 10-year defunding provision before Planned Parenthood funding returns in July, she said.

“Denying big abortion its big payday doesn’t mean cutting funding for women’s healthcare generally,” Israel added. “Funding can still go toward real healthcare providers, including the thousands of Federally Qualified Health Centers and pregnancy resource centers that vastly outnumber Planned Parenthood clinics.”

Last year, the abortion group’s annual report covering the years 2023 through 2024 found it had more than $2.5 billion in net assets, with $792.2 million in government funding. During that time period, the group conducted 402,230 abortions, an increase from the previous annual report that showed 392,715 abortions.

Planned Parenthood has argued that federal dollars do not go to abortions at affiliate clinics, but rather to other women’s health care services. Critics have long noted that the money is fungible.

Planned Parenthood leaders have vowed to fight for funding on other fronts.

“President Trump and his allies in Congress have weaponized the federal government to target Planned Parenthood at the expense of patients —  stripping people of the care they rely on,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a public statement.

“Through every attack, Planned Parenthood has never lost sight of its focus: ensuring patients can get the care they need from the provider they trust.”

The post Defunded and Defeated: Trump Scores Win as Planned Parenthood Drops Lawsuit for Tax Dollars appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Institutions sometimes outgrow their names not because they erred, but because they succeeded. The Heritage Foundation’s Capital Markets Initiative has reached that point, prompting its transition to the Free Enterprise Initiative, a change that is candid rather than cosmetic. Our work expanded beyond its original remit, so its label must follow that reality.

American prosperity does not depend solely on capital markets. It rests on whether the broader ecosystem is allowed to function: property rights, entrepreneurial freedom unencumbered by bureaucratic permission slips, competition judged by merit rather than political pull, and the elementary principle that one may harvest what one plants.

The former Capital Markets Initiative proved its effectiveness quickly. In 2024, we filed four shareholder resolutions. In 2025, we filed 26 across companies ranging from Salesforce to Meta, a more than fivefold increase in direct engagement with corporate leadership.

Heritage has, to date, withdrawn eight of these proposals after corporations adopted our recommendations or demonstrated that they had already discontinued the objectionable practices we targeted. The eighteen that remain guarantee Heritage’s continued influence in boardrooms well into 2026. This is how leverage works when it’s applied deliberately.

We have not lingered in the idle realm of aspiration: our record in corporate governance marks real triumphs of probity and accountability, the sort of victories that speak for themselves. Yet capital markets, indispensable though they are for allocating resources and bankrolling innovation, represent but one chamber in a far more capacious edifice.

Free enterprise is broader in scope, neither slogan nor abstraction. It’s the shopkeeper hanging out his shingle, the inventor laboring in her garage, the farmer cultivating his acreage, the employee seeking greener pastures. In short: economic life conducted without bureaucratic sufferance from regulators who will never meet a payroll.

Whereas capital markets concern themselves with financial instruments, corporate governance, and investor machinations, free enterprise poses more elemental questions: Can Americans build without petitioning Washington? Are rewards distributed by value creation or partisan fluency? Are we cultivating ownership or dependency?

Such concerns animate Heritage’s Four Cornerstones for preserving the Republic, among them “The Dignity of Work and the Future of Free Enterprise.”

The truth is plain: people thrive when they are free to work, build, and provide for their families without ideological supervision or supplication. Such flourishing presupposes respect for private property, entrepreneurial autonomy, and economic arrangements that fortify rather than corrode family stability.

Free enterprise depends on moral and institutional foundations: enforceable contracts, sound money, and competition governed by neutral rules, not by regulatory favoritism or rent-seeking alliances between corporate power and the state.

Ownership must mean ownership. Exchange must be voluntary. Success must follow service, not proximity to power.

Ultimately, it comes down to people: their resourcefulness, ingenuity, and accountability. The system establishes conditions in which diligence produces upward mobility, family enterprises persist across generations, and labor furnishes not merely remuneration but also dignity and meaning.

Wall Street allocates capital. Main Street allocates lives. The latter deserves at least equal solicitude.

The rechristening from Capital Markets Initiative to Free Enterprise Initiative acknowledges what our work has already become: a comprehensive defense of economic freedom that underpins American strength, family cohesion, and national greatness.

As consolidation menaces competition, regulation suffocates innovation, and the nexus between effort and reward frays beyond recognition, defending free enterprise will prove indispensable to what America most urgently requires: renewal. Not merely GDP expansion—though growth matters—but restoration of an economic order that honors human dignity and rewards virtue.

The Free Enterprise Initiative will pursue this agenda with characteristic analytical rigor, now unencumbered by nomenclature too confining for its actual scale. The task is simple to state yet formidable to execute: to preserve the conditions under which all Americans, we the people, remain free to accomplish extraordinary things.

We’re ready for the challenges this moment presents.

The post From Capital Markets to Free Enterprise appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Notes In Absentia

I want again to thank everyone for the wonderful expressions of concern and reassurance that I have received from listeners and readers.

In response to inquiries, and some quite detailed questions and advice, here is a brief update concerning my current temporary absence.

As I wrote, the removal of a cancerous lung mucinous adenoma carcinoma along with the lower right lung lobe roughly a month ago was successful.

But a post-op aneurism /bleed soon developed. That required a quick second reentry operation into the lung to stop the hemorrhaging—adding considerable time under anesthesia and requiring about five blood transfusions.

As a result, over the last 30 days, I developed low red blood counts, fatigue, and bouts of arterial fibrillation. All that has sort of slowed my recovery.

This type of nonsmoker’s lung cancer has a rare genetic/mutation profile. And it seems to recur about 40 percent of the time in the general lung area—even when as in my case the removed and biopsied lymph nodes, along with adjacent vascular/pleural samples, were all negative.

And the pre-op PET scan show no signs of malignancy outside the lower right lung lobe.

Chemotherapy and immunotherapy are said to be not particularly effective against this rare sort of tumor mutation. But they can offer a 5-10% edge in stopping recurrence.

So I’ll do a cost-benefit analysis, depending on how quickly I regain energy, to determine whether to start the preventative drug regimens.

The bottom line is that I’m hoping to come back as soon as possible. But I don’t know exactly when I’ll be back to near normal.

In the meantime, I hope to post things now and then on days when I feel better.

Sincerely—and again thanks to everyone!

Victor Davis Hanson

The post ‘I Hope to Post Things Now and Again’: Victor Davis Hanson Offers New Health Update appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is in the hot seat this week, as he attempts to rally his majority around a Senate-modified spending package and avert a protracted government shutdown.

Since Saturday, the federal government’s discretionary spending authority has expired for key agencies. 

Senate Democrats and Republicans crafted a deal on Friday to fund the State Department and financial regulators, as well as agencies overseeing war, education, labor, health, and housing. 

However, the House and the president have to approve the package in order to fund the government.

The Senate package satisfied Democrat demands for separate consideration of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding by approving a two-week funding extension for the agency, in an attempt to buy time for a congressional debate over immigration law enforcement.

Now, Johnson, R-La., has to quickly rally the House behind the Senate’s package to prevent federal agencies from shutting down operations.

Normally, the Speaker could rush the package onto the floor under “suspension of the rules,” a process by which bill amendments and debate time are restricted in order to pass a non-controversial bill quickly.

This fast-track setup requires two-thirds majority approval, though, and Democrats have so far refused to provide the votes necessary to advance the package despite it passing the Senate by an overwhelming 71-29 margin.

“We need a full and complete debate, and what I’ve made clear to House Republicans is that they cannot simply move forward with legislation taking a ‘my way or the highway’ approach,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Saturday.

Without Democrat backing, Johnson now has to send the bill through the House rules committee—a leadership-controlled panel that determines the conditions for debate—before it can come to vote on the House floor.

This will likely push the potentially shutdown-ending vote to Tuesday, where Johnson would have to muster a simple majority for passage. However, with such a slim majority, he can only afford to lose two Republican votes if Democrats unite in opposition.

The question now is whether House Democrats are willing back funding for the homeland security agency for two weeks amid uproar over recent fatal shootings of protesters in Minnesota by immigration enforcement agents.

Seven House Democrats joined Republicans to vote for a DHS funding bill in January, but one of them, Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., later released a statement expressing regret for his vote.

Some Republicans may also seek to exert leverage at this critical moment, which could create more headaches for Speaker Johnson.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., for example, has said that if the House rules committee does not attach legislation to the spending package requiring voter ID in federal elections, “these appropriations bills will FAIL.”

Any alteration to the Senate’s bill text could complicate efforts to keep the government open, since both chambers must pass an identical bill.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a Monday statement that adding this legislation, the SAVE Act, to the appropriations process would lead to a shutdown.

“It is a poison pill that will kill any legislation that it is attached to,” Schumer said. “If House Republicans add the SAVE Act to the bipartisan appropriations package it will lead to another prolonged government shutdown.”

The post Speaker Tries to Lead Government Out of Shutdown appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has responded after a federal judge’s ruling claimed the department is “traumatizing children.”

Federal Judge Fred Biery for the Western District of Texas, appointed by President Bill Clinton, on Saturday ordered the release of a five-year-old Ecuadorian boy and his father from immigration detention.

Biery asserted the case of the child and his father “has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children.”

Reports of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents taking a 5-year-old into custody in Minneapolis became national news about 10 days ago, when an image of ICE agents with a little boy in a blue hat and a Spiderman backpack went viral.

ICE agents sought to arrest the boy’s father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, when the man fled from agents on foot, “abandoning his child,” DHS said in a statement on Jan. 22.

ICE agents, according to the agency, stayed with the child, Liam Conejo Ramos, while his father was apprehended.

Federal authorities attempted to reunite the boy with his mother, but the mother refused to take custody of her child, even after officers “assured her that they would NOT take her into custody,” DHS reports.

Officers then abided by the father’s wishes for the boy to remain with him in immigration detention custody. The administration says Arias entered the U.S. illegally in December 2024.

However, the lawyer for Arias and his son says they entered the country legally as asylum applicants, Reuters reported. 

The lawyer claimed that Arias did not abandon his son, and that the mother would not accept custody of Liam out of fear of being apprehended, Reuters reported.

“Let me be clear: these families always get the opportunity to stay together,” Noem said Sunday on Fox News. “This child has been with his father, which was the father’s choice.”

Noem also denied Biery’s claim that DHS imposes “daily deportation quotas” on immigration agents.

Speaking of the father and his son, Noem said DHS “offered them the opportunity to go home, to send them back to their home country, if they would like to. The father chose to stay, and therefore, we’re following the legal process.”

Biery ruled that the detention of Arias and his son was unconstitional, in his order responding to Arias’ petition for habeas corpus.

“The Court finds that the Constitution of these United States trumps this administration’s detention of petitioner Adrian Conejo Arias and his minor son,” the judge wrote, ordering the man and his son be released and allowed to return to Minneapolis.

“Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency,” the judge wrote in his order, adding, “[a]nd the rule of law be damned.”

The judge ended the order, writing: “With a judicial finger in the constitutional dike, It is so ORDERED,” before incorrectly dating it, “this 31st day of February, 2026.”

Biery did not address the immigration aspect of the case, acknowledging that Arias may still choose to self-deport or may be forced to leave the U.S. “involuntarily.”

DHS will pay illegal aliens $2,600 to self-deport through the CBP Home mobile application.

Over 2 million illegal immigrants have chosen to self-deport since January 2025, according to Noem.

The post DHS Secretary Noem Responds to Ruling Over Detention of 5-Year-Old   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Department of Health and Human Services announced new resources to make drug abuse treatment more affordable and accessible for families at risk of entering the foster care system.

HHS’ Administration for Children and Families will announce that three Food and Drug Administration-approved medications for Opioid Use Disorder meet eligibility criteria for Title IV-E, a federal funding program supporting families involved with the child welfare system.

The agency says expanding access to the medications will help parents get treatment for opioid abuse so families can stay together, limiting foster care placements and the trauma children experience when they’re separated from their families.

“When we deny parents access to affordable, effective treatment for opioid addiction, we tear families apart,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr said in a statement obtained by The Daily Signal.

“Using Title IV-E funding to provide life-saving medications keeps families together and moves our system toward recovery and prevention.”

States and tribes can now receive a 50% federal match to provide buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone to parents whose children are at imminent risk of entering foster care but can safely remain with their families due to access to the medications.

Parental substance use disorder is one of the leading causes of foster care placement. More than 400,000 children are currently in foster care, many not because of abuse, but because a parent is struggling with addiction.

The program allows states to include these medicines in their Title IV-E Prevention Program and claim federal reimbursement upon approval.

The expansion is in line with President Donald Trump’s Jan. 29 executive order, “Addressing Addiction Through the Great American Recovery Initiative.”

The move is also part of ACF’s “A Home for Every Child” initiative, which aims to achieve a foster home-to-child ratio greater than 1:1 in every state.

Preventing children from being separated from their families is a key to achieving this goal, according to ACF.

“At the Administration for Children and Families, we are cutting through the red tape that has kept effective opioid use disorder treatment out of reach for too many families,” Assistant Secretary for Family Support Alex J. Adams said.

“By fast-tracking these proven treatments, we are investing in effective prevention to give states powerful new tools to help keep families safely together.”

The post EXCLUSIVE: Trump Announces New Resources for Combatting Drug Abuse appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Federal authorities arrested two more suspects in the Minnesota church invasion, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Monday.

“If you riot in a place of worship, we WILL find you,” Bondi wrote on X.

“We have made two more arrests in connection with the coordinated attack on Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota: Ian Davis Austin and Jerome Deangelo Richardson,” she added.

Both Austin and Richardson appear in the indictment that a federal grand jury handed down Thursday.

Minnesota Public Radio reported that authorities arrested Austin on Friday.

The group of anti-ICE agitators interrupted a Sunday service last month at Cities Church, a non-denominational Christian church in St. Paul. 

According to the indictment, Austin and Richardson met with Nekima Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen before invading the church.

Former CNN host and independent journalist Don Lemon told Richardson, “Don’t give anything away” while speaking to his online audience as he livestreamed the invasion.

Both defendants allegedly joined Levy-Armstrong, Allen, and Lemon in the church and the group engaged in “menacing and threatening behavior” toward those in the church service, such as “physically obstructing them attempted to exit and/or move about within the church.”

Austin allegedly “stood with other agitators in and around the main aisles in the church to intimidate the church members and obstruct and interfere with their freedom of movement, approached the pastor and congregants in a menacing manner, and, near the end of the operation, loudly berated the pastor with questions about Christian nationalism and Christians wanting to have their faith be the law of the land.”

Richardson allegedly joined Lemon and independent journalist Georgia Fort as they “surrounded” the pastor.

On Friday, Bondi announced the arrests of Lemon, Fort, Trahern Crews, and Jamael Lundy.

The week before, law enforcement arrested Levy-Armstrong, Allen, and William Kelly, the man who posted videos of the incident online under the handle “DaWoke Farmer.”

The grand jury indicted the nine defendants for allegedly violating the Ku Klux Klan Act and the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act earlier this month when they entered Cities Church in St. Paul amid an invasion of the service.

The Klan Act criminalizes the deprivation of rights, and the Justice Department has claimed the church invaders deprived worshippers of their First Amendment right to religious exercise. The FACE Act protects access to houses of worship.

The Church Invasion

Between 30 and 40 anti-ICE agitators interrupted the Jan. 18 service at Cities Church. They shouted, “Justice for Renee Good!” as they surrounded members of the congregation. 

Videos of the incident show the pastor and others repeatedly asking the agitators to leave, and the agitators chanting, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!”

According to the charging document, a member of the congregation said worshippers were “terrorized, our children were weeping.” One woman broke her arm. Agitators blocked about 50 members of the congregation from exiting, making it “nearly impossible for parishioners to get out and leave.”

The document also mentions that agitators prevented congregants from getting to their children, and one of the agitators reportedly told young children, “Do you know your parents are Nazis, they’re going to burn in hell?”

Levy-Armstrong, leader of the Racial Justice Network and a former president of the Minneapolis chapter of the NAACP, told Democracy Now that she does not regret helping to lead the protest.

The post BREAKING: 2 More Arrested in Minnesota Church Invasion appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Biden administration’s Justice Department interacted with Democrat state attorney general’s offices that prosecuted or considered prosecuting 2020 alternate electors, according to public record responses. 

These contingent electors were in place to back Donald Trump if any of his election challenges were sustained in states that Joe Biden won. 

In November, Trump pardoned the alternate electors among more than 70 people involved in challenging the 2020 election. However, Democrat state attorneys general from Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, and Wisconsin vowed to continue their state prosecutions of the electors. 

Presidential pardons are generally for federal charges. However, defendants have argued the federal government effectively outsourced the prosecution regarding a federal election. Charges in each state against alternate electors involve forgery, impersonating a public official, and attempting to file false documents.

In December, former special counsel Jack Smith, who charged Trump with conspiracy in the election case, told the House Judiciary Committee in a closed-door deposition that he didn’t talk to state attorneys general, but his staff may have. 

What Documents Show

Documents obtained by The Daily Signal through public records requests show interaction between the federal and state prosecutors on these cases. 

On Jan. 7, 2022, Tim O’Shea of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin assured Wisconsin Deputy Attorney General Eric J. Wilson that federal prosecutors did not plan to pursue a case against the contingent Trump electors in Wisconsin. 

“The attorney I spoke with confirmed with his supervisor that no federal investigation existed into the persons who held themselves out as Wisconsin electors as described in the attached complaint,” O’Shea wrote Wilson in what appears to be a response to a question. 

The Wisconsin Department of Justice did not provide the attached complaint referenced in the email. A department spokesperson did not respond to inquiries for comment last week or early Monday.

Jim Troupis, a former state judge and Republican lawyer in Wisconsin who was charged for advising the alternate electors, said it’s “utterly inconceivable” that the state and federal government did not collaborate on the case.

“Jack Smith’s report shows his team came into Milwaukee and interviewed dozens of people and collected evidence,” Troupis told The Daily Signal. 

Troupis said his defense has sought multiple documents from both Democrat Attorney General Josh Kaul’s office and Gov. Tony Evers’ office regarding the state’s coordination with the federal government. 

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez ultimately decided against bringing charges against contingent electors in his state.

However, Gregory Buhl, a special agent for the Special Investigations Division in the Office of the New Mexico Attorney General, wrote a letter to Smith on Sep. 7, 2023, seeking details.

“Our office requests certified copies of all documentation and evidence related to possible criminal acts committed in the state of New Mexico in regard to the attempt to overturn the Presidential Election conducted in 2020,” the Buhl letter to Smith said. 

A Torrez spokesperson did not respond to inquiries for this story last week or this week.

The office of Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford acknowledged the existence of the documents but declined to release the records.

The Daily Signal asked for, “correspondence to and from the Nevada Office of Attorney General and the U.S. Department of Justice and/or the office of Special Counsel Jack Smith” regarding the Nevada alternate electors.

“The OAG has identified records that may not be released because the requested records are part of an ongoing criminal proceeding,” the response said.

“Under these circumstances, the OAG must balance the interests of all affected individuals. Because the records are directly relevant to the anticipated criminal proceeding and many will be introduced as evidence, the OAG has concluded that release, at this time, will undermine the constitutional guarantees of a fair trial.”

A Ford spokesperson did not respond to inquiries for this story last week or early Monday.

Cleta Mitchell, chair of the Election Integrity Network, said the Trump Justice Department should file a statement of interest in the state cases against the Trump electors and “insist that the pardons be effectuated for the reason that they were brought in the first place at the behest of the Biden Department of Justice.”

“Obviously, the ‘state’ prosecutions were mere proxies for the Biden Department of Justice as part of the massive strategy to prosecute President Trump, his supporters, attorneys, and electors,” Mitchell told The Daily Signal in an email statement.

Jack Smith: ‘Can’t Say That Didn’t Happen’

During Smith’s Dec. 17 deposition, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told Smith, “There’s an allegation made that your office was coordinating with state attorney general’s offices to have prosecutions go on … in the states. Would you say that that did not happen and that would be false if somebody made that allegation?”

“We were not trying to coordinate prosecutions with other offices, no,” Smith replied, according to the transcript. 

Jordan followed, “And you were not trying to encourage prosecutions at the state level? 

Smith replied, “I don’t recall anything like that.”

Upon further questioning about the Wisconsin attorney general, Smith said, “We may have got inquiries from their office, and it could be by phone or by a letter. I can’t say that didn’t happen.”

Smith later added in answers, “I don’t recall us sharing information,” and added, “the number of times an office may have reached out to us and how we replied to that, I really don’t have a recollection of those sort of subjects.”

The post EXCLUSIVE: Documents Show Biden Admin Interaction With Trump Elector Probes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A new report by the Congressional Budget Office shows that, absent immigration, America’s population will begin to shrink by 2030. As we approach the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, this projection underscores a hard truth: the collapse of marriage and family life represents the gravest threat to our great nation’s future.

That is why The Heritage Foundation has released the first in a series of special reports on “Saving America by Saving the Family.” The central argument is straightforward. Our country cannot afford to continue ignoring our declining marriage and birth rates, as lawmakers on both the left and the right have done for decades.

The discussion ranges from eliminating all marriage penalties embedded in welfare programs to new tax credits for married families, to offering public honors to couples for every decade they remain married.

These proposals reflect a blend of longstanding conservative priorities and new ideas, all animated by a shared belief: that strong American families were at the heart of the nation in 1776 and remain essential to its future. They are not offered as a final word, but as the beginning of a long-overdue national conversation about how to halt America’s demographic and social collapse.

Unfortunately, there are those—on both the radical Left and the libertarian right—who are rigidly and ideologically opposed to our key ideas for supporting married families.

Critics on the left argue that opposition to abortion and support for married parents who prefer to provide home childcare (usually through the mother) amount to a patriarchal assault on women’s “autonomy” and “reproductive freedom.”

Meanwhile, critics on the libertarian Right contend that government has no business trying to incentivize decisions related to family structure.

Few dispute that marriage rates are falling, that traditional families are weakening, or that the nation stands on a demographic precipice. What is striking is how our critics echo each other in saying the government should not be doing anything proactively about it.

The problem is that if traditional families continue to disappear, we will eventually lose America itself.

America is a nation rooted in its people, culture, laws and customs, as well as its ideals—and it cannot be sustained if Americans themselves do not marry, form families, and raise children.

And yes, we do believe it is legitimate for the government to encourage ways of life that allow its people to endure and flourish, and the social science is crystal-clear—traditional married families outpace the alternatives in a host of wealth, education, health, and happiness measures.

We make no apology for wanting to persuade more young Americans to marry, own homes, raise the next generation, and find deep fulfillment in family life.

We also do not believe the solution lies in mass immigration when we can’t even assimilate the immigrants that are already here. Nor do we believe that modern technology can substitute for the home, the neighborhood, and the family.

The quintessential American dream of a family with a house and a white picket fence remains as important as ever to the American imagination, and our task is to convert that dream into a reality.

We want to make sure young Americans can realistically achieve these goals by, at a minimum, removing obstacles that stand in the way, and by assuring our policies actually privilege, prefer and support married family formation.

That is a winning message conservatives would do well to embrace in 2026. And the good news is that President Donald Trump is already leading the way. He recently announced his intention to tackle the unaffordability of single-family homes and abuses in the credit-card industry, and Heritage looks forward to contributing our thoughts and recommendations to that discussion and those to come.

More broadly, we will continue to answer those—on the left and on the libertarian right—who either see no problem or see no solution. They are wrong on both counts.

A society that refuses to defend marriage and child-rearing is not neutral; it is choosing between accelerated or managed decline. And a movement that shrugs its shoulders in the face of that decline offers nothing but surrender.

If our critics have new ideas, they should by all means present them. But we are done watching our kids fall further behind, our families struggle and our societal pillars crumble, and we are calling for action that meets the moment.

Heritage will be proud to work on ushering in a new American Golden Age, centered on the family, and the next phase in reaching that goal begins now.

Originally published at FoxNews.com

The post No Marriage. No Babies. No Future. Will America Reverse Its Downward Trend? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

About a month late, presumably due to last fall’s government shutdown, the Census Bureau has released its estimates of the populations of the 50 states and the District of Columbia for July 1, 2025.

It provides an interesting picture of what the country is, and is becoming, halfway through the decade of the 2020s and one-quarter of the way through (have we really gotten this far?) the 21st century. It also provides some political dynamite, all the more explosive because of Census Bureau statisticians’ deserved reputation for apolitical rigor and willingness to admit mistakes, as it did on the COVID-19-plagued 2020 census.

The headline story is the sharp rise and sharp fall in immigration. The notion that immigration exploded sharply during the Biden administration and contracted sharply during the second Trump administration is not political propaganda.

After the expiration of most COVID-19 restrictions, immigration rose to 1.8 million in 2021-22, 2.6 million in 2022-23, and 3.2 million in 2023-24.

The snapback to 1.9 million in 2024-25 reflects changes in both outgoing and incoming administrations. With the election looming, the Biden administration in early 2024 discovered that current legislation let it restrict immigration in ways it had claimed it didn’t before, and under the same legislation, the Trump administration immediately stopped almost all illegal border crossings. Government policy can make a difference.

Taking that into account, the Census Bureau estimates immigration will fall well below 500,000 in 2025-26. That’s comparable to the sharp falloff of immigration during the financial and economic crises of 2007-08.

That means the nation’s total population increase is sharply down, especially in the states centered on the nation’s four largest metropolitan areas, which either grew just barely (New York and Illinois) or lost population (California). Meanwhile, every state in the Midwest gained population, and five states grew above the national rate.

Even more striking, 44% of the nation’s population gains in 2020-25 came in just the two states of Texas and Florida. When you add in North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, South Carolina—with the nation’s higher percentage growth in 2024-25—and Tennessee, you have 70% of the total national popular gain, all in states carried by Donald Trump in 2024.

Projecting 2020-25 or 2024-25 patterns ahead of the 2030 census and the reapportionment of U.S. House seats among the states that automatically follows results in a sharp change of political balance. Two different projections have California losing four House seats and Texas gaining four, leaving California with 48, only marginally larger than Texas’ 42.

One has Florida gaining four and New York and Illinois losing two each, while the other has Florida gaining two and New York and Florida losing one each, with the same net partisan effect. There is agreement that five more or less Republican states will gain one seat each (Georgia, North Carolina, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho) and that five more or less Democrat states will lose one each—Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Oregon.

Apply either set of projections to the 2024 presidential election totals, and Trump gains either nine or 11 electoral votes—and wins even if he loses his three closest states, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The blue wall has become a purple flowerbed.

That doesn’t mean Democrats will be frozen out of the White House. Changes in opinion of a magnitude often experienced can render the 2024 numbers obsolete. But one can see difficulties, even in 2028, if Democrats nominate one of the two California politicians, Gov. Gavin Newsom or former Vice President Kamala Harris, who top their polls. Will the nation be well served by policies that have prompted more people to leave than to head to a state with California’s beautiful scenery and comfortable climate?

It’s harder to be sure whether the 2030 census will give Republicans a boost in Congress. The current ructions over mid-decade redistricting make prediction perilous. An intermediate court has blocked Virginia Democrats from gerrymandering, and a trial judge has ruled that the Voting Rights Act requires linking a Staten Island-dominated district to Manhattan rather than Brooklyn.

But almost certainly any political redistricting would rather be a Republican adding multiple districts in Texas and Florida than a Democrat required to eliminate some of his party’s incumbents in California, New York, or Illinois. And heavily Democrat central cities will no longer be entitled to as much representation from masses of illegal immigrants protected from deportation but counted by census takers.

A final caveat. Issues aren’t static, politicians aren’t around forever (even if Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers fear that), and voters move around amid changes in the political landscape. The Trump era has been full of surprises—who thought he’d win in 2024 because of increased Latino support?—and the 2030s, when Trump won’t be president nor be running for president, will have its surprises for us too.

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

The post Big Surprises in the 2030 Census Estimates appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“Nobody elected him to be [President Franklin Roosevelt], they elected him to be normal and stop the chaos,” then-Rep. Abigail Spanberger harshly said of then-President Joe Biden in 2021, after her Democratic Party lost the governorship of Virginia. Her point was that Biden had followed a radical agenda that betrayed how he had run and how the media had presented him: as a centrist.

Biden’s sudden radicalism in his first year in office, she seemed to be saying, lost her party the election.

What a difference four years make. Now that she has been sworn in as governor of the Old Dominion herself, after running as a “centrist” and being portrayed by the media as such, Spanberger is pulling a Biden on everything from abortion to anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.

Her far-leftist playbook has conservatives shaking their heads and saying, “Told ya so,” or that old mainstay, “Elections have consequences.” People could be excused for disparaging her now with the claim, “Nobody elected her to be Joe Biden.”

Why did Virginians elect Spanberger? Many reasons, including a weak GOP candidate. But it’s impossible to ignore that 320,000 federal workers live in the commonwealth.

Sure, that is only about 5% of the 5,971,190 registered voters. But turnout was just over 50%—and that was high in an off-off-year election. So, the federal workforce was closer to 10% of the electorate, and it was very motivated to vote.

They were so mad at President Donald Trump’s cuts and overall antipathy to the bureaucracy that they didn’t just elect Spanberger, but also Jay Jones, an attorney general so depraved that he was caught saying he wanted to kill little children to achieve his political ends.

Federal workers feel entitled not just to their jobs, but to run government as they see fit, with no political accountability. Then they ran into the buzzsaws brandished by Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. They had to exact revenge.

It also assuaged their feelings that Spanberger, along with the candidate who won New Jersey’s governorship, Democrat Mikie Sherrill, were sold as centrists, the rational part of the Democratic Party, and its answer to socialists such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and her squad.

“Ms. Spanberger and Ms. Sherrill are moderate women,” The New York Times said. The Washington Post echoed these sentiments: “The two congresswomen, both moderates, have shared a Capitol Hill apartment for the past four years.”

Spanberger herself fed the narrative. “We need to not ever use the words ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ ever again. Because while people think it doesn’t matter, it does matter,” she was overheard saying in 2020.

Well, now we know that the operative phrase there was “use.” You won’t catch Spanberger prattling on about replacing “the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism,” a phrase Mamdani actually used in his inaugural speech, either to scare people or simply to troll them—or both.

But, taking another page from Biden, Spanberger used her first hours in office to sign executive orders that undid much of what her predecessor, Glenn Youngkin, had accomplished in his four years, and what Trump had called for in public universities that receive taxpayer money through the federal government, especially in the areas of race, education, and immigration.

One of these first-day executive orders was on the topic that Democrats apparently believe will carry them to electoral victory later this year, opposing ICE’s enforcement of immigration laws that Republicans and Democrats voted on in Congress. She therefore rescinded a Youngkin executive order that had improved the commonwealth’s collaboration with ICE.

And no sooner was the anti-ICE executive order signed than her Democrat allies in the Virginia House of Delegates introduced a bill that forbids the enforcement of immigration laws within 40 feet of a polling place. Why that exact location was singled out, given that noncitizens such as illegal immigrants can’t vote, was not explained.

Another executive order, on higher education, was meant to undo Youngkin’s attempt to cooperate with the reforms that Trump was elected to carry out to make universities less woke.

“Under the current federal administration, Virginia colleges and universities have faced unprecedented challenges from shifts in federal policy to attacks on institutional autonomy and mission,” Spanberger’s executive order reads. “These pressures underscore the urgent need for the commonwealth to reevaluate how governing boards are appointed, ensuring they are composed of individuals dedicated to upholding the quality, independence, and reputation of our institutions.”

The education executive order calls for her education secretary to “prepare a report and recommendations on changes to the Board of Visitors appointment process for the Commonwealth’s public institutions of higher education as well as the process used by the Virginia Commission on Higher Education Board Appointments to evaluate potential appointees.”

Essentially, the boards running Virginia’s top public universities, which include some of the best in the country—the University of Virginia, William and Mary, and George Mason University, among others—are less likely in the future to run the universities.

“Strong governance is essential not just for protecting academic excellence, but for ensuring that our colleges and universities continue to prepare students to thrive in an increasingly complex and competitive world,” the executive order reads.

Power will go back to a professoriate that has been totally captured by the Left, and which will soon go back to running diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that run afoul not just of many Trump executive orders, but of the Constitution itself.

Indeed, immediately after taking office, Spanberger was able to nominate 27 candidates to college boards, with 12 going to George Mason, 10 to UVA, and five to the Virginia Military Institute. The reason she will be able to take control of these boards so swiftly is that her allies in the Virginia legislature had cleared the field for her by rejecting 22 Youngkin nominations purely on political grounds, because of alignment with Trump’s anti-DEI policies, a decision that the Virginia Supreme Court let stand.

The rejection by the Virginia Senate’s Privileges and Elections Committee especially saved George Mason President Gregory Washington, who was facing federal investigations for illegally maintaining DEI policies and a board that took these matters seriously. Unless the federal government decides to intervene, Washington will likely now beat the rap.

Regarding the Virginia Military Institute, a venerable institution founded in 1839 and the oldest public senior military college in the United States, Spanberger allies in the House of Delegates introduced a resolution to investigate it over possible DEI policies.

“Less than a month in office as governor of Virginia, Abigail Spanberger has shown a commitment to turning the commonwealth into California,” Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, quipped to Fox News Digital. “The Left’s renewed focus on VMI is not intended to benefit our military.”

But the Spanberger revolution doesn’t just stop at ICE and DEI. On abortion, a constitutional amendment backed by the new governor would turn Virginia into the only state in the South to allow abortion on demand until birth, or perhaps even soon after, as one of her predecessors, Democrat Ralph Northam, once suggested.

“Abortion is already legal in Virginia until the 27th week, but that’s not enough for these ‘moderates,’” Ben Domenech wrote in the New York Post.

And then there’s taxes. Spanberger may have run as a centrist, Jonathan Turley wrote, but “once in control of the Governor’s mansion and the legislature, however, Virginia Democrats have moved quickly to fulfill the worst stereotype of a tax-hungry, economy-crushing party. The Democrats introduced an array of new taxes on every aspect of life.”

These tax bills, some version of which Spanberger will sign into law, include House Bill 378, which “imposes a 3.8% net investment income tax on individuals, trusts, and estates beginning in taxable year 2027.” This action would raise Virginia’s top marginal income tax rate on portfolio and passive income to 9.55%, on top of federal taxes.

Many may think that this tax will only hit “the rich,” but most Americans are now invested in the stock market. But all classes are to be hit with the new taxes. Another bill, HB 900, for example, imposes a new tax on retail delivery that will hit consumers of Uber Eats, Amazon, FedEx, UPS, etc.

Other taxes will hit those who purchase guns and ammunition, which will especially hit the rest of the state where Republicans hunt and vote, though less so the effete parts of Northern Virginia where the bureaucrats live.

Just as Fallon did, Turley raised the comparison with the Golden State. “Virginia Democrats appear to be replicating California’s disastrous tax policies that have chased high earners and companies from the state.”

A year after Youngkin’s come-from-behind win in November 2021, Republicans took control of the House of Representatives, and then two years later, Trump won the presidency back. To some of us who follow these matters, this was all part of a national rejection of the Left’s attempt to take over the country culturally in 2020. We will see soon how Spanberger’s DEI, ICE, abortion, and tax policies play out.

Originally published by the Washington Examiner

The post Virginia’s New ‘Centrist’ Governor Goes Full California on Day One appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says a recent state court ruling blocking Democrats’ attempt to advance a gerrymandered redistricting plan is firmly rooted in Virginia law and could ultimately be upheld on appeal.

Following the inauguration of Gov. Abigail Spanberger this month, Democrats are now firmly in control of Virginia government and seeking to add four Democrat seats ahead of this year’s midterm elections. 

Speaking with The Daily Signal’s Joe Thomas, Cuccinelli said the judge found the amendment process violated Virginia law on three independent grounds: notice requirements, election timing, and constitutional limits on special legislative sessions.

“The judge ruled on three separate, independent bases that the way the Democrats have gone about advancing their redistricting constitutional amendment violates Virginia law,” Cuccinelli said.

Early Voting Complicates Case

One of the central issues, he explained, was timing. Virginia law requires that constitutional amendments be approved before an intervening election. Lawmakers, however, approved the redistricting amendment in late October—after early voting had already begun.

“That election could not count as an intervening election because a million people had already voted,” Cuccinelli said. “The passage in late October was in the middle of an election, not prior to an intervening election.”

Cuccinelli also criticized the General Assembly’s use of a special legislative session, which he said was convened for budgetary purposes—not constitutional amendments. Allowing lawmakers to expand the scope of a special session without a two-thirds vote, he warned, would erode an important procedural safeguard.

“The majority could trick the minority into coming into session and then pass whatever they want by majority,” he said.

When Is an Election Over?

Addressing claims that an election occurs only on Election Day, Cuccinelli rejected that interpretation as inconsistent with long-standing federal precedent.

“The U.S. Supreme Court said, ‘No—an election is the whole process of the election. It isn’t just the last day,’” he said. “We don’t have an Election Day in Virginia anymore. We have an election season.”

Cuccinelli noted what he called an irony in the case: expanded early voting, enacted when Democrats controlled state government, now complicates their legal position.

“Now it’s going to come back and haunt them a bit,” he said.

The case now heads to the Virginia Supreme Court as redistricting disputes continue to unfold nationwide, with courts to weigh in on challenges involving election law and constitutional authority.

The post A Million Votes Too Late: Ken Cuccinelli Dissects Virginia Redistricting Ruling appeared first on The Daily Signal.

LIGONIER, Pennsylvania—All that remained of Ruthie’s Diner on Jan. 21 was charred, ice-encased rubble—the aftermath of firefighters’ desperate efforts to extinguish the blaze that ultimately consumed the modest eatery, which for more than 70 years had served locals and the travelers, anglers, and hunters heading east along the Lincoln Highway.

Several locals pulled into the parking lot and simply stared, at a loss for words as they watched a community mainstay reduced to charred ruins, thin smoke still rising from the ashes.

Ruthie’s was the kind of place where everyone felt familiar, whether you’d been in last week, last month, or only when hunting and fishing season came around.

It was where my parents took me, and where I later took my children and grandchildren. For anyone who walked through those doors, it felt like home: comforting, unpretentious, and powerful in its simplicity.

It was the kind of place that served chicken-fried steak smothered in gravy, their version of peas and carrots succotash, and a pile of french fries unlike any other. Outside of the mile-high pies, it was the french fries that everyone loved.

Originally known as Burnsy’s Diner in the 1950s and ’60s, it was so rooted in the community that it even sponsored its own bowling team in the Ligonier Valley league and was famous for staying open 24 hours a day.

Every time I went, I met not just locals but hunters and anglers on their way to cabins, Pittsburgh families headed for the Flight 93 National Memorial or Idlewild, and neighbors gathering after Sunday services at one of the many churches that dot this Westmoreland County village.

Now Ruthie’s joins that painful category of “used to be” places that linger in the memory long after they’re gone. And this wasn’t the familiar story of neglect or empty tables slowly choking the life out of a business, which does not make the loss hurt any less.

In bigger, more transient places, a loss like this barely registers. But here, the loss of Ruthie’s lands like a gut punch, largely because the people who filled its booths weren’t passing through; they were planted.

Most Americans, for example, still live close to where they grew up. A U.S. Census Bureau study found that by age 26, nearly 60% live within 10 miles of their childhood home, and 80% within 100 miles.

That kind of rootedness rarely shows up in the way news is framed, which too often reflects the worldview of the rootless, the people who dominate the power structures of legacy media. They tend to live in the “super ZIP codes” of Washington, D.C., and New York, the centers of wealth and power, and their assumptions end up shaping the national story the rest of us are handed.

Why does that matter when it comes to Ruthie’s? Because people who live unrooted lives, not always, but often, are less able to grasp what’s really lost when a place like this disappears.

This wasn’t just the closing of a diner. It was the loss of a room that held whole chapters of life, dinners with grandparents who are gone now, late-night meals with high school friends, the familiar booth you could still return to instead of relegating all of it to memory.

Those attachments aren’t sentimental clutter. They’re part of emotional well-being. There’s real power in being able to revisit the places that shaped you—and in being able to bring your children and grandchildren into them, so the story becomes something shared, not just remembered.

Ruthie’s wasn’t just stitched into the social fabric of this area; it was part of American roadside culture. It opened long before the Pennsylvania Turnpike existed, back when the Lincoln Highway carried travelers from one end of the state to the other, and sometimes from one end of the country to the other.

And it endured. It survived the turnpike siphoning away business as cars sped past the exit. It resisted the pull of homogenized chain-restaurant menus, and the even worse temptation of food fads, holding fast instead to the same personal touch through every shift in America’s driving and dining habits.

The social cohesion that Ruthie’s gave everyone who passed through her doors has left a void, one that tells the story of all of us, and serves as a reminder to hold on to, frequent and cherish the Ruthie’s in your city or town.

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 The End of the Road for the Little Diner That Could appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Capitalism versus socialism has become a topic of intense debate in senior political and business circles. The recent election of socialist-leaning candidates in major U.S. cities highlights the contemporary relevance of this topic.

A recent Gallup poll finds that Americans view capitalism more positively than socialism; the 54% viewing capitalism favorably is down from 60% in 2021. Americans view socialism more negatively (57%) than positively (39%), with little movement in these attitudes over time.

How have the people of a country fared that have adopted socialism? Not so well—the evidence below indicates.

How have the people of a socialist country that have adopted capitalism fared? Very well—again, the evidence below indicates.

The primary differences between the capitalist and socialist economic systems are the ownership of the means of production, right to private property, and the incentives to work and innovate. In a capitalist system, private individuals and for-profit corporations are the major owners of the means of production. In a socialist system, the state is the major owner of the means of production.

The right to private property is a cornerstone of capitalism; this right is protected and encouraged by the state. Individuals have very limited private property rights in a socialist economy.

The capitalist system provides individuals with powerful economic incentives to work and innovate; this contributes to and stimulates their economy. One of the major flaws of the socialist system is its complete disregard for human incentives—resulting in an ongoing and significant negative impact on their economy, and more importantly, on the lives of their citizens.

We highlight the differences in the economic well-being of citizens of socialist and capitalist economies. We consider the change in economic well-being of four countries that transitioned from socialism to a more capitalist economy, to wit, Poland, Bulgaria, India, and China. Also, we consider the change in economic well-being of Cuba and Venezuela that transitioned from capitalism to socialism.

In Exhibits 1 through 4 below, the red vertical line represents the approximate time when the country started its transition from a socialist economy to a more capitalist economy. The gross domestic product per capita for the respective countries (and for the years noted) are obtained from the Maddison Project Database 2020 at the University of Groningen (Netherlands). We standardize this measure by considering the percentile rank of the respective country among all the countries in the world for the particular year. The percentile rank of 100 would be associated with the country with the highest GDP per capita in the world (in that particular year).

Exhibit 1         

                                                           Exhibit 2

Exhibit 1 highlights the sharp decline in Poland’s percentile GDP per capita prior to 1990. As Poland moved to a more capitalist economy, starting in 1990 and after the collapse of the Soviet regime, its economy improved dramatically. Exhibit 2 highlights the stagnation in Romania’s percentile GDP per capita prior to 1990.

Similar to Poland, as Romania moved to a more capitalist economy, after the collapse of the Soviet regime, its economy improved significantly. The remarkable increase in Poland’s and Romania’s percentile GDP per capita after 1990 should be interpreted as a significant improvement in the economic well-being of tens of millions of citizens of these Eastern European countries once they instituted capitalist economy-friendly reforms.

In the early 1990s, India liberalized its international trade and deregulated its industries and businesses. In the early 1980s, the Chinese Communist Party instituted extensive adoption of free market policies. Exhibits 3 and 4 document a significant improvement in India’s and China’s percentile GDP per capita after their transition to a more capitalist economy.

A more relevant way of interpreting the data in Exhibits 3 and 4: After transitioning to a more capitalist economy, several hundred million Indians went from abject poverty to a quasi-middle-class standard of living, and almost a billion Chinese people went from subsistence living to a quasi-middle-class standard of living. Such a remarkable improvement in the lives of so many people in such a short period is unprecedented in the entire human history going back to the past three millennia.

Exhibit 3

                                                                    Exhibit 4

Prior to 2000, Venezuela was a very prosperous country (Exhibit 5). Subsequently, their leaders instituted socialist reforms—Hugo Chavez and his successor Nicolas Maduro nationalized major industries, and significantly increased government spending. As market forces and private incentives were pushed aside in favor of bureaucratic control over the economy, Venezuelans experienced a significant drop in their economic well-being.

Indeed, Venezuela’s embrace of socialism shattered the lives of tens of millions of Venezuelans and their families.

After a violent revolution, Cuba instituted socialist reforms circa 1960. Similar to the experience of Venezuelans, Cuba’s embrace of socialism shattered the lives of millions of Cubans and their families (Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 5             

                                                       Exhibit 6

***

During the latter part of the last century, senior global policy makers raised the issue that the focus should be on human development and human wellbeing, rather than on just economic development. Partly in response to this—since 1990 the United Nations has annually published the Human Development Report.

The most salient feature of this report is the annual Human Development Index for the 180-plus countries in the world. The Human Development Index of a country provides a composite measure of human health, education, and standard of living in that country.

Health is assessed by life expectancy at birth, education by years of schooling for adults (and expected years of schooling for children), and standard of living is measured by gross national income per capita.  

The average HDI of all the countries has seen a secular increase during 1990-2023. During 2010-2023, the average annual HDI growth for the 180-plus countries in the world was 0.52%.

In this same period, the Eastern European countries (that had a socialist economic system prior to 1990) had average annual HDI growth of 0.21% (Romania), and 0.47% (Poland); see Exhibit 7.

During this same 2010-2023 period, the average annual HDI growth in China was 0.89%, and in India it was 1.16%. This is evidence that after a country reforms its economic system and moves from a socialist economy to a more-capitalist system, the well-being of its citizens improves at a regular pace; well-being in terms of health, education, and income.

The two avowedly socialist countries today, namely, Venezuela and Cuba, had negative annual HDI growth in 2010-2023 (Venezuela had -0.57%, Cuba had -0.21% HDI growth). This is strong evidence that citizens of socialist economies are consistently (on a year-by-year basis) made worse off in terms of their health, education, and income.

Earlier this year, Venezuela has had a change in its political leadership; it is likely this leadership change may lead the country to a more capitalist system and greater economic prosperity for its citizens.

Exhibit 7

The above evidence is consistent with the argument that capitalism improves human lives, and socialism does the opposite. Socialism has been a failure everywhere it has been tried; it has been a failure for the human lives it has governed. Socialism’s legacy is the misery, tears, and suffering it has brought upon the hundreds of millions of human beings across the planet in the past century.

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

The post Capitalism Improves Human Lives, Socialism Does the Opposite appeared first on The Daily Signal.

My father started building homes nearly 40 years ago, and I’ve spent my life watching families achieve the American dream through homeownership. As a 36-year-old, I belong to the generation less likely to buy a home than our parents were at the same age. For the security of America’s future, that must change.

The National Association of Realtors’ 2025 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers reports that the median age of first-time homebuyers has reached a historic high of 40 years old, up significantly from around 30 in earlier decades (and as low as 28 in 1992 in some historical comparisons). This delay isn’t just an interesting statistic. It’s a devastating barrier to wealth-building. It is a financial long-term blow to the American economy.

Homeownership has long been the primary way Americans accumulate equity and financial security. When families wait an extra decade to buy, they miss out on substantial gains.

Consider the lost equity from delaying purchase by 10 years. Historical home price appreciation averages about 3%-5% annually nationwide. For a typical starter home purchased at $250,000 (a rough benchmark for past decades), 10 years of 4% average appreciation could increase its value to around $370,000 or more. That means roughly $120,000 to $150,000 in potential equity growth vanishes for those locked out of the market longer. Older homeowners build wealth while younger families rent indefinitely, often paying more without ownership benefits.

I don’t have enough fingers to count the friends who assumed they’d be homeowners by now. Anecdotal as it may seem, the data backs it up—85% of Americans believe it’s harder for young people to buy homes today than for previous generations.

As the nation debates housing affordability and scarcity, it is clear that scarcity didn’t happen by accident. It stems from bad policy, and it can be fixed with better policy. 

Commonsense reforms must be rewarded. And obvious failures must be called out. Overregulation is an obvious failure. Nearly a quarter of a new home’s cost comes from government fees, regulations, and mandates, not superior materials or craftsmanship. On average, that is around $94,000.

This figure is unacceptable. We should all be outraged that bureaucratic hurdles inflate prices, pricing out young families. Nearly $100,000 is budget dust to a keyboard-wielding bureaucrat, but it is a legacy of financial security for most American families.

President Donald Trump, a builder himself, intuitively grasps this. Increasing housing stock is essential without eroding value for current homeowners who’ve invested years in their properties. It must be a win-win for everyone. Older owners must be able to sell and downsize fairly, while making starter homes accessible again. 

I’m proud to partner with the America First Policy Institute’s Dr. Ben Carson and influencer Benny Johnson on these issues. We firmly believe the government should make it easier for families to build wealth, start households, and have babies—not more difficult through overregulation and scarcity.

The American dream isn’t dead, but it’s delayed for too many. By cutting red tape, incentivizing construction, and prioritizing affordability, we can restore homeownership as a realistic milestone for the next generation. It’s time to make housing great again, and we do that through deregulation and policies that make it more affordable.

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

The post Making Housing Great for America’s Younger Generations by Eliminating Nonsense Bureaucratic Hurdles appeared first on The Daily Signal.

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan entered the crowded race to succeed term-limited Gov. Gavin Newsom, pitching himself as a results-driven Democrat focused on public safety, homelessness, and affordability.

Mahan, 43, was elected mayor in 2022 after a career as a tech entrepreneur. He says California Democrats have been too consumed with opposing President Donald Trump and have failed to address the state’s most pressing problems.

His campaign centers on what he describes as a “back-to-basics” approach on crime, homelessness, housing costs, and government accountability.

Mahan’s entrance has drawn mixed reactions from voters and political leaders. Supporters, including former San Jose mayor and U.S. Rep. Sam Liccardo, credit him with pushing city officials to focus on measurable outcomes.

Critics, however, question whether his political ambitions given and unfinished work as mayor on issues like homelessness. Some residents argue he hasn’t finished the work he started in San Jose and have faulted his handling of housing and public safety challenges.

Crowded Democrat Field

The 2026 governor’s race remains wide open, with no clear frontrunner emerging in California’s top-two primary system.

Democrat contenders include former U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra; former Rep. Katie Porter, who ran unsuccessfully for U.S. Senate in 2024; Rep. Eric Swalwell; and former Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon. Other Democrats in the race include Tom Steyer, Antonio Villaraigosa, Betty Yee, and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

On the Republican and independent side, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and political commentator Steve Hilton have also announced campaigns.

The race could produce a general-election matchup between two candidates from the same party rather than a traditional Democrat vs. Republican contest.

Mixed Reaction to Mahan

Mahan’s challenge underscores growing tensions within California’s Democrat coalition, particularly over crime and homelessness.

His willingness to criticize Newsom’s policies on homelessness and crime distinguish him from other candidates in a field that includes establishment figures and progressive favorites. Mahan’s detractors argue his ambitions are premature and that his city-level record as mayor does not yet translate to statewide leadership.

As the June primary nears, the gubernatorial campaign is shaping up to be a test of whether California voters prioritize ideological alignment or pragmatic governance—with Mahan now among the growing field of candidates.

The post San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan Enters California Governor’s Race appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has unleashed yet another seismic purge in the People’s Liberation Army, removing two of its highest-ranking commanders: Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission Gen. Zhang Youxia and CMC member Gen. Liu Zhenli. Announced in late January 2026, this move has reduced the once seven-member CMC—China’s supreme military authority—to just two: Xi himself as chairman and the remaining vice chairman, Gen. Zhang Shengmin.

Since seizing power in 2012, Xi has justified wave after wave of dismissals under the banner of “anti-corruption.” Early purges were widely seen as tools to eliminate rivals and consolidate control. After abolishing presidential term limits in 2018, many assumed the storm had passed. Instead, it has intensified, now targeting those Xi himself elevated—especially in the military.

Mao Zedong’s famous dictum that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” underscores the PLA’s centrality to Chinese Communist Party rule. The CMC oversees all branches of the armed forces, and the party’s general secretary has always doubled as its chairman to guarantee loyalty. For generals, the vice chairmanship represents the pinnacle of a career.

Unlike Mao or Deng Xiaoping, who fought the revolutionary war, Xi has no military combat experience. This outsider status has fueled persistent insecurity, particularly the fear of a coup. Between March 2023 and now, Xi has dismissed more than 20 senior generals, including two former defense ministers and multiple CMC vice chairmen—all on corruption charges.

Zhang Youxia’s recent fall is especially striking. A “princeling” like Xi (son of a revolutionary general), he enjoyed decades of close ties and was long considered untouchable. As the PLA’s highest-ranking uniformed officer and a key Xi ally, Zhang helped enforce loyalty and suppress dissent. Zhang’s purge, alongside Liu’s, signals that no one is safe—not even the most trusted.

The PLA Daily, the military’s official outlet, accused that Zhang and Liu had “seriously betrayed the trust and expectations of the party central committee and the CMC,” and had “fostered political and corruption problems that undermined the party’s leadership.”

But the official announcement hasn’t prevented numerous rumors and speculations surrounding Zhang’s downfall, and even the Wall Street Journal has entered the fray, alleging Zhang leaked information about China’s nuclear weapons to the U.S. and accepted bribes for personnel decisions. However, I find the WSJ’s claims dubious at best. As the highest-ranking general, Zhang already possesses significant wealth and stands at the apex of a power structure. Why would he jeopardize everything he has for a bit more money?

Another prevailing rumor suggests that Zhang was against invading Taiwan, leading Xi to replace him with a general more inclined toward aggression. However, those who spread such narratives fail to grasp a fundamental truth: In a system where the party commands the gun, no general can defy an order to attack Taiwan—disobedience would mean instant destruction.

Only Xi knows the actual reason for Zhang’s downfall. Speculating or spreading baseless rumors is unproductive. Nevertheless, without delving into Xi’s motivations, two clear implications arise from this latest incident.

First, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is highly unlikely before summer 2026—and possibly well beyond. The PLA is in profound disarray. Officers who rose under Zhang now face uncertainty; self-preservation trumps operational boldness. Replacing leaders is one thing, but rebuilding trust and cohesion across ranks takes time. Soldiers won’t risk their lives for commanders who could vanish tomorrow. Xi, ever calculating, must recognize that launching a complex amphibious assault amid internal fear and distrust would court disaster.

Taiwan thus gains precious breathing room. Yet it lives on borrowed time. Xi has repeatedly vowed “reunification” in his lifetime, and the PLA’s centennial on Aug. 1, 2027, looms as a symbolic deadline for decisive action—whether through blockade, coercion, or war. Only a dramatic external shift (e.g., regime change in a key energy supplier like Iran via U.S. action) might force delay.

Second, Xi’s relentless purges reveal a stark truth: Despite ruling over 1.4 billion people, he may be the loneliest figure in Zhongnanhai (a compound where the most senior CCP leaders live). Absolute power breeds absolute isolation. The more he amasses control, the deeper his paranoia grows, eroding trust in everyone around him.

Those who are close to Xi may come to a troubling realization: a dictator will abandon all human connections—love and friendship included—in the ruthless pursuit of absolute power. In such an environment, flattery and obedience become essential for survival. Honest advice on military readiness, economic challenges, or strategic mistakes has become too risky. No one dares to challenge him, even as he moves toward potential disaster. They will not pull him back from the edge; in fact, they may quietly hope that he stumbles.

History offers a chilling parallel in the death of Josef Stalin. On the night of Feb. 28, 1953, Stalin collapsed from a stroke but lay unattended for hours. His guards, terrified after years of purges, hesitated to check on him. When they finally entered his room the following evening, he was on the floor, soaked in urine, paralyzed yet alive.

Many of Russia’s best doctors had been executed or exiled due to Stalin’s purges. Stalin’s inner circle, including the notorious secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria, reportedly stalled in calling for medical help, terrified of being the next victims of a purge if Stalin survived. Ultimately, after five days of agony, Stalin succumbed on March 5, a grim testament to the toxic fear he instilled in everyone around him.

Nature’s justice is merciless: The tyrant who trusts no one and is willing to attack everyone else will eventually be abandoned by all when he needs them most.

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

The post The Loneliest Man in Zhongnanhai: Xi Jinping’s Purges and the Price of Absolute Power appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The widespread fraud from Minnesota’s Feeding Our Future children’s lunch assistance program, coupled with the fraudulent health care centers exposed by Nick Shirley in December, has captured the full attention of congressional Republicans in recent weeks.

“I understand the outrage taxpayers r feeling about massive fraud in gov programs in Minnesota and other states, while honest hardworking families are struggling to buy groceries or pay for childcare,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote on X.

Since the fraud first surfaced last year, senators ranging from Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., as well as House members like Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., have unveiled efforts to identify and reform fraudulent welfare assistance programs.

These measures, as stated by Rachel Sheffield, a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, in an interview with The Daily Signal, “could help ensure that the U.S. welfare system is safeguarded against fraud,” and provide “greater federal oversight” over the programs.

“We’ve known for some time that programs defrauded in Minnesota were lacking proper scrutiny,” Sheffield added. “What happened in Minnesota unfortunately proved that in a massive way.”

‘Americans Are Being Robbed’

Angered by the Feeding Our Future scandal, Fine and Paul introduced legislation that would stop the allocation of tax dollars to noncitizens enrolled in welfare programs.

“Americans are being robbed,” Fine claimed.

Fine’s recently introduced bill, the No Welfare for Non-Citizens Act, would “prohibit aliens from receiving federal public benefits.”

Fine also noted that the bill could curb the Congressional Budget Office’s projection that $177 billion will be administered to noncitizens from 2024 to 2034.

“[Lawful noncitizens and illegal immigrants are] getting free handouts at the expense of American taxpayers,” which he called “insane” and “immoral.”

In the Senate, Paul introduced the End Welfare For Non-Citizens Act, which would “end the appropriation of taxpayer-funded benefits” by cutting off and reforming programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and other federal benefits, subsidies, or services to refugees, asylees, or immigrants present in the United States without legal status.

“Washington shouldn’t run the welfare state on autopilot while the national debt soars past $38T,” Paul wrote on X on Friday.

“If we want a sustainable safety net and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars, this bill is a must-pass,” he added in a previous statement.

Fine and Paul did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Emergency Taskforce

As chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Cassidy announced on Monday that he will spearhead a task force alongside Sens. Ashley Moody, R-Fla.; Jon Husted, R-Ohio; Roger Marshall, R-Kan.; Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla.; Tim Scott, R-S.C.; and Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., to hold those who abuse federal assistance accountable.

The task force will comprise three subgroups, which will identify fraud in health, education, or labor and pensions assistance programs.

“Our tax dollars are supposed to help American families, not line the pockets of fraudsters,” Cassidy told Fox News Digital. “[We] are committed to rooting out this fraud and ensuring Americans’ tax dollars are used responsibly.”

The members of the task force did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

$5.16 Billion in Refugee Assistance

On Tuesday, Paul introduced an amendment to a “minibus” funding bill that would prevent $5 billion from being administered to the existing refugee welfare system.

“Billions were ripped off from taxpayers through the refugee system. Washington’s response is to quietly send more money,” Paul wrote on X on Wednesday. “My amendment says no. Investigate the fraud, fix the abuse, then talk about funding.”

The amendment, however, failed in the Senate on Friday.

The post Congress Places Minnesota’s Rampant Fraud Center Stage appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Before Minneapolis became a national flashpoint, before the protests and the nightly footage of chaos, something far more consequential was already underway: a sweeping fraud scandal involving billions of taxpayer dollars. 

Federal investigators were digging into large-scale abuse of public programs, raising serious questions about who allowed it, how long it went on, and where the money went. These were not isolated mistakes or paperwork errors. They were allegations of systemic fraud involving federal funds and activity that crossed jurisdictions, the kind of case that requires federal investigation. 

Because the alleged misconduct involved federal dollars and potential criminal networks operating across state lines, federal law enforcement had a responsibility to step in. That work was already in motion when events on the ground began to escalate. 

Two people lost their lives during confrontations with federal officers. Those deaths were tragic, and ongoing investigations will determine exactly what occurred in those moments. But they do not erase the larger reality: Minnesota remains in the middle of a massive fraud investigation that has not been resolved and should not be abandoned.  

What has been lost in the aftermath is focus. Chaos—much of which is highly organized, paid for, and planned—has clouded the fraud and corruption. 

Recent polling shows Americans clearly reject chaos—blocked streets, threats, and disorder—and support the rule of law. The chaos in Minneapolis has clouded rather than clarified the truth. 

And the havoc began because of billions in fraud. The scale of that fraud matters.  

About 65% of Minnesotans say government fraud is “somewhat” or “very” widespread, according to polling conducted in July 2025, months before explosive allegations blew up on social media and all over the news in January.  

Billions are still unaccounted for. Multiple federal investigations are ongoing. Serious questions about oversight, accountability, and failures of state systems have yet to be fully answered.  

Federal law enforcement officers—sworn professionals tasked with enforcing laws passed by Congress—stepped in. Their mission does not change because it becomes uncomfortable or politically inconvenient. 

“America First” policies are most effective when federal and local authorities are allowed to work together. We must expand lawful cooperation mechanisms like the 287(g) Program, which allows trained state and local officers to work directly with federal authorities on immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security has massively expanded 287(g) agreements in President Donald Trump’s second term, but unfortunately, many state sanctuary policies prevent more agreements from being signed. 

The consequences of those sanctuary policies couldn’t be clearer. Compare Minnesota mayhem to the Florida framework. In Florida, a 287(g) partnership and joint federal and local operation led to more than 10,000 arrests in just eight months, the largest joint immigration enforcement operation in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s history. 

When state and local governments choose not to cooperate with federal authorities, investigations become harder, risks increase, and outcomes worsen for everyone involved, as we have witnessed in Minneapolis. Federal officers are forced to operate with less support, less information, and fewer options, conditions that increase volatility rather than reduce it. But when local and federal law enforcement coordinate together, they can operate more efficiently and communities stay safer—by reducing disorder and by focusing on illegal immigrants involved in crimes. 

Minnesota can and must handle two realities at once: restoring order in the streets and continuing to pursue accountability in one of the largest fraud scandals in the state’s history. The latter cannot be allowed to fade into the background simply because the moment has grown more volatile. 

The fraud did not disappear. The questions did not go away. Accountability is still owed to Minnesotans. 

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

The post Minnesota’s Fraud Crisis Didn’t Go Away. It Just Got Harder to See.   appeared first on The Daily Signal.