After some Trump supporters rioted at the Capitol in 2021, the national media aggressively reported on people who showed disrespect for the Capitol Police and for the rule of law itself. They touted groups like “Sedition Hunters” who aided President Joe Biden’s Justice Department in prosecuting Trump backers inside the Capitol, the violent and the nonviolent.

But now, with the parties in power switched, suddenly it’s the media who favor “sedition,” in disrespecting law enforcement and the rule of law itself, especially on mass deportation. Exhibit A is National “Public” Radio and Odette Yousef, NPR’s so-called Domestic Extremism Correspondent.

In January 2022, Yousef touted the “Sedition Hunters” for seven minutes, never once classifying them as on the Left. They were “independent researchers” and “online sleuths.” Some of these hunter heroes weren’t even Americans. Yousef gushed about the Dutch: “Mary has been working with a group called Capitol Terrorists Exposers from her home in The Hague.” But you couldn’t use her last name, because heroes face villains.

These days, it’s somehow not “domestic extremism” when radical leftists seek to undermine attempts to enforce immigration laws and capture illegal immigrants, both the violent and the nonviolent. Instead, Yousef and NPR championed the “ICE Resistance” in two days of reports lasting 15 minutes on the badly named show “All Things Considered.”

On Nov. 19, the headline online was “Grassroots resistance swells in the wake of the immigration crackdown in Chicago.” Anchor Juana Summers began by noting the deportation effort has “touched the lives of citizens and non-citizens deeply,” leading to “a swell of grassroots resistance.”

Yousef chronicled a group called Protect Rogers Park, a “community defense network,” and went riding around with “community organizer” Gabe Gonzalez. They banded together against “an expected onslaught of federal immigration enforcement.” Their goal? “To make the work of immigration enforcement as inefficient as possible.” To rage against the machine, in leftist parlance. But no one was identified as the Left.

NPR also interviewed activist Jill Garvey and described her take: Their project is opposing “an authoritarian strategy that, unchecked, could ultimately eat away at the freedom and rights of everyone in this country.” Garvey claimed President Donald Trump is forming a “national police force” to “occupy” and “terrorize” cities. None of this is pernicious conspiracy theorizing or “domestic extremism.”

On the night of Nov. 20, Yousef leaked out one label about Protect Rogers Park: “It’s known for its international diversity and as kind of a hotbed for lefty activism.” This makes them a pile of NPR listeners, for sure. Anchor Ailsa Chang described it as “hyperlocal grassroots work to counter enforcement activities.” Yousef said the group’s goal was “getting people to the scene of an ICE arrest to make it annoying—you know, loud, slow, and ultimately expensive.”

In this second report, Gonzalez claimed Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s goal is “kidnapping people.” Yousef allowed a brief rebuttal from the Department of Homeland Security: “Illegal aliens are not kidnapped. They are arrested for breaking the law.” But the leftists performed “continuous proactive patrolling” to foil “aggressive immigration raids.”

NPR wrapped up with Garvey touting their work to “protect vulnerable people” with “a little bit of contagious courage.” Chang repeated: “A little bit of contagious courage.”

This is not how NPR would describe right-wingers blocking an entrance to an abortion clinic. You could describe that activism as “protecting vulnerable people” with “contagious courage.” It’s designed to be loud and make abortion clinics “as inefficient as possible.” But that’s not heroic at NPR. Performing the abortions is heroic.

This is why conservative taxpayers are happy that NPR was defunded. They’ve never “considered all things.”

COPYRIGHT 2025 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 Journalists Can Promote ‘Sedition’ When It’s ‘ICE Resistance’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In this episode of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Victor Davis Hanson and Jack Fowler explore the troubling phenomenon of immigrants attacking the cultures they chose to join, including attacks on Christmas markets in Europe.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to VDH’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. 

Jack Fowler: Victor, let me get right to this story. All over Europe, Muslims are desecrating churches and holy places and disrupting seasonal Christmas markets. So, last night—we’re recording on Sunday the 30th. So, this was Saturday, Nov. 29. I’m reading from an X post in Brussels:

“In a terrifying sight, Muslims stormed the opening night of the Christmas market in Brussels, waving Palestinian flags, setting off smoke bombs and scaring families. Coming to your town if Islam is not exiled from the West.”

Victor, I’ve seen numerous other videos. Germany, particularly, has these Christmas seasonal things in their plazas, and now many places they’re surrounded by these massive concrete blocks to prevent any car bombings, etc. I don’t know that German citizens are going to be car bombing their Christmas seasonal markets. It’s all because of the growing and intensifying local Muslim outrage at these kind of institutions. Also, we see many signs of church masses being disrupted, priests being smacked, urinating at St. Peter’s, etc. This is getting more prevalent. Your thoughts? 

Victor Davis Hanson: Well, I’ll just enumerate them. There are many. No. 1, there’s no reciprocity. Thank God. I mean, do you really believe that if you were a Christian, and there’s a few left in the West Bank, but if you were in the West Bank and you decided to go to the feast of Ramadan, go desecrate a mosque, I don’t think you’d be alive.

No. 2, what is the reaction of the authorities to this, the government? Well, the reaction of the government is, we are left-wing secularists, maybe agnostics or even atheists. So, we look at our Christians as deviant people. So, if you want to go torment them, we’re not going to get involved. In fact, DEI postulates that we should favor the non-white, non-European, non-Christian movement over its antithesis here in Europe or the United States. 

So, these people who desecrate Christmas ornaments, festivities, shrines do so on the prompt basically, implicit though it is, that they can get away with it because the authorities either are so guilt-ridden and ashamed of their own culture and civilization and inheritance or, as secular leftists, they feel that they despise Christians too. And then, when you confront them, like Greta Thunberg, she was on a ship with a bunch of radical Islamists, and they were not very sympathetic to the trans movement or the gay movement. So, there’s all these contradictions between the Left and radical Islam, but compared to their mutual antipathy toward Christians, it’s not much.

Then there’s the question, not just of reciprocity and the inaction of authorities, but what is the purpose of it, Jack? Why do people come from the failed states of the Middle East or Turkey and come over here, here in the West, I’m speaking broadly of the United States and Europe, and then no sooner they get here, they create a chauvinist, rah-rah superiority of Islamic countries and Arab countries over their homeland in Europe. Is it, we’re going to take over and that Europe belongs to us and our demographics are 3.5 to 4.0 children per family in Europe’s 1.4? So, they’re vanishing at 20 million a year and we’re increasing by 5 million and we’re going catch them.

Is that the plan or is it just a complex of inferiority? Well, I came over here and everything works and it’s so much nicer. Who do these people think they are? There must be something they did to us in Syria or Iraq or Egypt or Jordan or the West Bank. It’s not like this. Maybe it was the Crusades. I don’t know. But it’s a very strange mentality for them to come to United States or to Europe and then so boldly to attack an icon of the civilization that you wanted to join.

I don’t mean you have to go to church. I don’t mean you have to know anything about the Bible. I’m just saying just don’t desecrate it. But they think they can and will be rewarded in some ways by the exemptions they’re given. It’s going to get worse because the demographics are on their side and the immigration policies are on their side. And there’s going to be one great pushback. 

And we’ll see what happens. Whether it will be centrist, organized and political, or it will be violent and hard, hardcore right wing. But there will be a pushback. And all of those governments in Western Europe are threatened. The Macron government has no popular support. [British Prime Minister Keir] Starmer is the least popular prime minister in the last … 12% [approval], I think. The Dutch government is a coalition of conservative governments. [Italian Prime Minister Giorgia] Meloni is still solid. She’s conservative.

The Spanish socialist government, we’ll see how long that lasts. But there is a pushback in Europe against it. And it’ll be the last hurrah because demographically this will be about the last chance, really, if the immigration policies proceed that you’ll see an organized effective saying, “No more, not here. We’re not going to do it anymore. I’m sorry.” 

Fowler: What if there are more mosques than operating cathedrals in Europe? 

Hanson: See, it’s very different than here in the United States because we do have a melting pot. Until recently, it worked. When I talk to, let’s say, Mexican American couples or families that are 45, and I’m in the local supermarket, and the person ahead of me cannot speak a word of English and basically speaks an indigenous language from Chiapas or Michoacan and has four or five different EBT cards, and the person who is the clerk and the person ahead of me in line are Mexican American citizens and they’re very patriotic and proud. They look at that in the same way I would look at it if a bunch of Swedish illegal aliens came over and abused the system, and I had a member of my family depended on dialysis or something and couldn’t get service.

Because we acculturate people, at least we used to when they came in diverse numbers and they were manageable and we believed in our civilization. They don’t have that tradition of the melting pot. They were pretty much like the Japanese. They were uniformly French. The decolonization started it. Enoch Powell, “Rivers of Blood” and all that. They were aware of what was going on in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, but not like now. 

And they have no mechanism to acculturate. 

Fowler: Can you imagine, though, in 75 years, if the demographics proved the destiny of Europe, what Europe would be like? Germany is now essentially Jordan and in all its ways and operation and economy. 

Hanson: I think it would be historically sort of like around 900 BC, when you were in the Greek Dark Ages and you walked around and you looked at these Mycenaean palaces that were crumbling and what was that Lion’s Gate? Hmm. My brother fell into a Tholos tomb. Who built these? They were gods. Somebody did it. Or maybe the sixth century in Western Europe in the beginnings of the Dark Ages and you’d go by and say, wow, the Roman Forum. 

What’s beneath all that brush? All that overgrowth. What was this harbor at Ostia that now is all clogged? Who were these people who built this stuff? We use this aqueduct, but we don’t know how to fix it. Who built it? Wow, there’s a sewer here in Lyon. I don’t know how it came here. So, that’s going to be the attitude. They’re going to come in there, and they’re going to be living in an infrastructure that somebody built, but they have no interest in knowing who that was. And we get in the news of the violence they have no interest in assimilating into the body politic and enhancing European culture in the sense of its economy, military, politics. 

Fowler: Right. There’s no Protestant work ethic in the Syrian refugees. 

Hanson: No. So, they’re just going to be bizarre. Who was Leonardo da Vinci? What was the Duomo? Who did this? Perseus? Saulini? I don’t know what this statue is. Who did this? I could care less. The bridge still works. I’ll use it till it collapses. That’s the attitude. 

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

The post Victor Davis Hanson: Targeting Christians at Christmas, Attacking the Culture They Chose to Join appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Texas Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson introduced a bill Wednesday which, if signed into law, would move the headquarters of the United Nations out of New York City.

“This bill sends a clear message: America is done propping up a city that rejects our values while claiming to represent our nation on the world stage,” Jackson said in a statement to The Daily Signal. “Under President [Donald] Trump, strength and security are back, and when the U.N. gathers in America, they should see a city that reflects that strength, not the chaos and weakness we see in New York today.”

In November, New York City elected self-identified Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as its mayor.

The bill would direct the Secretary of State to formulate a plan to move the United Nation’s headquarters from New York City, where it has resided since construction was completed in 1952.

Specifically, the secretary would seek to negotiate a new headquarters with the United Nations and submit a list of relocation options to the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.

Jackson, a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, has represented the Texas panhandle area since 2021.

The post Texas Rep. Jackson Introduces Bill to Move UN HQ Out of New York appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Ukraine is in the news again. There’s been some peace proposals submitted by U.S. President Donald Trump to the international community, apparently. A lot of hysteria, a lot of controversy, whether they were too lax, too strong, too punitive, not punitive enough vis-a-vis Russia.

But I thought it would be wise just to review some basic questions, maybe offer a few answers, how we got in this mess in the first place.

So, why did Russian President Vladimir Putin invade? Why did he invade Ukraine? Well, he invaded Ukraine because of two reasons. One, there was no deterrence. He had invaded Ossetia in 2008 during the weakened lame-duck Bush administration and Georgia. In 2014, he felt that President Barack Obama, especially after the hot mic exchange in Seoul, South Korea, in 2012, wouldn’t do anything. And he was right. So, he took Crimea and he took the Donbas.

And then in 2022, on Feb. 24, he invaded again. Why? Because there was still that lack of deterrence. President Joe Biden said his reaction would depend on whether it was a major or minor invasion. He’d been very weak on hacking. He said, if you’re gonna hack, do not hack particular humanitarian sites. So, Putin, again, correctly thought that the United States and the West in general would not attack.

Next question: Why does he keep fighting?

This has been going on for four years. We don’t know what the dead, wounded, and missing—that is, the total casualties—are. It could be over 1.5 million. Russia may have lost a million dead and wounded alone.

So, why is he doing this? He’s doing this because he feels that there is a magical DMZ line somewhere where the battlefront is today that he has to get beyond. Because if he doesn’t—and every dictator doesn’t have sole power, he has to report to certain constituencies, public opinion. But in Putin’s case, the Russian military and the Russian oligarchic class.

And if he says to them, “I lost 1.2, 1.3 million Russians, wounded or dead. I destroyed the reputation of the Russian military, and I crashed the Russian economy. And all I got was 60 or 70 miles westward of where we were before Feb. 24, 2022,” that’s not enough. So, he’s trying to push westward.

Most of the peace negotiations and the outlines are clear. We all know what they are. Putin can tell the Russians, his constituencies, “I institutionalized my theft of Crimea and Donbas. I moved westward somewhat. I ensured that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians would not be in NATO.”

And Zelenskyy is going to say, “I’m a hero. He wanted the whole country. He only got 10% more than he did when he invaded in 2022. We stopped him, and we’re gonna be in the EU. We may not be in NATO, but we stopped him, and he suffered four times the amount of casualties that we did.”

So, they each think they can win.

And what is the dispute left about?

Ukraine’s not gonna be in NATO. Putin knows that. All it is, where is the DMZ? Does Putin get to push areas westward that Ukraine, Ukrainians are currently in and fighting successfully and he can’t dislodge, or not? So, that’s what the dispute is over, and the security guarantees.

If Ukraine is not in NATO, how can it defend the next invasion from Russia? Well, it’s the greatest military in Europe right now. It’s battle-hardened. It’s got a huge army. It’s well supplied. Will that continue? Will the EU or NATO continue to arm it? Will the United States back them up in extremis?

That’s all. That’s the only two issues: security guarantees and where we draw the DMZ line.

Why does NATO or the West not supply Ukraine to win the war? “I mean, give them Tomahawk missiles,” we’re told. “Give them F-16s. Russia’s on the ropes.” And the reason is that Putin engages in nuclear blusters.

He has 6,000 nuclear weapons. So, from time to time, a Russian oligarch, a Russian media host, Putin’s inner circle say, “We’re gonna use a nuclear weapon if you do this or that.” And we recoil. No Tomahawks are willing to use a nuclear weapon. Ninety-eight percent of that is bluff. Two percent may not be a nuclear poker. You can’t take those odds.

So, that is one reason why we have restricted. The other is the MAGA brand.

I mean, there’s a base of Donald Trump’s support that says, “We don’t want forever wars. Don’t get involved. We don’t want advisers. We don’t want anything. We’ve given $170 billion. That’s enough.”

There’s realists who say, “We have to think of the geostrategic consequences. We want to play Russia off against China. We don’t want them to join. We want to go back to history, Henry Kissinger’s paradigm. No better friend are we to Russia than we are to China and vice versa.”

There’s a lot of people in the United States that may be pro-Putin. They feel, “Wow, you know, he’s Christian, he’s fighting for the West, no DEI, no trans. He’s no more corrupt than Zelenskyy is.”

So, I don’t know if that is—there is a more sizable constituency, which says that the borders always change over there. This was all part of the Soviet Union. Ukraine was created in 1939, when Josef Stalin ganged up against the West with Adolf Hitler and got what is now Western Ukraine, which used to be, for a thousand years, Christian, Polish-speaking Poland. And it was ethnically cleansed during World War II, and the Soviets never gave it up, and the postwar agreements gave Poland parts of Pomerania and East Prussia in compensation.

As far as the Donbas area, that was an anti-Soviet jurisdictional matter. We’ll let Ukraine be semi-autonomous on this border, so they don’t have a national liberationist front or something. Crimea—it’s been Russian since 1783.

So, a lot of Americans say, “We don’t want countries coming in here and discussing our changing borders with Mexico. So, we don’t want to get involved at all.” I think that’s why NATO hasn’t used its full powers to defeat Russia, which it could vis-a-vis this proxy.

Why do we support Ukraine? A lot of people say we should support Russia. Well, Ukraine was invaded. Russia wasn’t invaded. Russia was the aggressor. We like to support the underdog and Europe. Ukraine is quasi-European. It’s corrupt, but it’s quasi-European and quasi-Western. Putin is not. Ukraine, if it wins the war, it doesn’t want any more territory. If Putin wins the war, he wants to continue going.

And Ukraine also is a very capable ally. We don’t have any friends in the world that are militarily competent—maybe Israel, maybe Ukraine—outside of some NATO country. So, when we see a country that’s defending itself and fighting heroically against enormous odds, like Israel, we tend to feel we should continue to support it.

Another question, isn’t this amoral, feeding Verdun, feeding Stalingrad? There’s, you know, are we gonna go all the way to 2 million? The only politician who says it is is Donald Trump. He’s complained that it’s amoral. He’s talked about it in human terms. It is.

So, one side has to win and one side has to lose to stop the carnage, if you can’t have a peace. So, what will stop the war? The war will stop if Putin, if we pull out or NATO pulls support from Ukraine, Putin will bury Ukraine and take it all, or it’ll take a large swath. That would end the war.

Or, if we continue to give aid to Ukraine and Putin, at some magical point, feels he can’t win, and he’s removed from office or his autocratic successor feels that they can’t win, they might have a negotiation.

Or, as I said at the beginning, if Putin feels that he gets a little bit more westward than the current battle line, and they agree on the other terms, which we reviewed, then he’ll probably say, “For now, I got a lot for Russia and we’re beyond where the fighting is now. We’re westward of that.”

All in all, it’s a mess, and it’s a reminder that when you lose deterrence, wars follow. If you want peace, the Romans said, prepare for war.

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

The post What Will Finally End the Russia-Ukraine War? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

China is outpacing other advanced economies in the addition of renewable energy systems, and is “winning the clean energy race,” according to Axios, but the reality of the situation is more complex, climate experts explain.  

“What race? The notion of ‘a race’ is a rhetorical tool used to evoke emotion and feelings of competition when no such race actually exists,” Jack Spencer, a senior research fellow for energy and environmental policy at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.  

“The real issue, and the only one that U.S. policymakers should care about, is whether American families and businesses have access to affordable, reliable energy,” Spencer said, adding that the U.S. is “failing,” in this regard.  

“But we are failing not because we haven’t built enough wind and solar, but because politicians and special interests have forced us to spend scarce resources on so-called green energy when we should have been investing in reliable energy like natural gas, coal, and nuclear.” 

Citing data from the McKinsey Global Institute, Axios reports that while the U.S., EU, and other “advanced economies” have slowed their share of “global solar and wind generation capacity additions” in the past several years, China has grown its significantly. 

From 2022 to 2025, China increased its share of wind and solar generation capacity by about 30%, while the U.S. and nations with robust economies saw a decline.  

“China is one of the few countries on the planet that can add significant renewable energy systems to its grid without compromising the grid integrity or incurring brownouts and blackouts,” Gregory Wrightstone, executive director of Co2 Coalition, told The Daily Signal. The reason China is capabile of this, according to Wrightstone, “is because their additions of electricity power generation from fossil fuel powered plants (coal and natural gas) are outpacing the renewable additions.” In other words, while China is expanding wind and solar energy system, it is also increasing use of fossil fuels.  

In February, Reuters reported that China began construction on over 94 gigawatts of coal-fired power in 2024, making it the largest year for such new construction projects in China since 2015.  

China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gasses in the world and has pledged to control its emissions, but power shortage concerns have spurred new construction of coal-fired power.  

“These thermal energy sources supply reliable abundant electricity that back up the intermittent energy from wind and solar that only produce energy when the wind blows and the sun shines,” Wrightstone said.  

“The Western world has been decreasing its reliance on dependable coal and natural gas and turning more toward the renewables, and the result has been skyrocketing electricity prices and grid instability,” he added. “Every gigawatt of renewables needs to be backed up by a similar amount of reliable thermal power generation.”  

Electricity costs have increased across all sectors over the past decade, according to the Energy Information Administration, rising from $10.41 in 2015 to $13.66 today. 

If the U.S. wants to gain ground in energy production in comparison to China, it should focus on nuclear power, according to Spencer.  

“There are around 60 power reactors being built today, and China is building half of them. They are building them faster and cheaper than any Western nation,” the Heritage expert said.  

“If the U.S. doesn’t get its act together,” Spencer warns “China and Russia will be the global suppliers of commercial nuclear energy, and this will undoubtedly result in geopolitical advantage for those nations.”  

The post Fact Check: Report Claims China Is ‘Winning the Clean Energy Race’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

GOP strategists are weighing in on what Republican candidate Matt Van Epps’s victory in yesterday’s special congressional election in Tennessee means for Republican chances in the upcoming midterm elections.

Epps, a former combat veteran and West Point graduate, defeated his Democrat opponent Aftyn Behn last night by a margin of nearly nine points in a race that drew extensive national media attention after Democrats secured electoral victories in several states last November. Epps will represent Tennessee’s 7th congressional district in the House succeeding Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., who resigned from Congress to pursue a private sector job.

The Daily Signal spoke with Chapin Fay, the founder and CEO of Lighthouse Public Affairs, about his key takeaways from the Tennessee race. Fay emphasized the Republican victory in spite of the adverse conditions affecting Republican turnout yesterday.

“This was an off-cycle, December special election heading into the midterms, which are historically difficult for the party in power. Despite the national Democrat machine and the media, this Democrat candidate did not even come close,” Fay explained.

“This is not to say there weren’t mistakes made, so I think the Republicans will modify their strategy,” Fay noted, adding “I absolutely think Republicans will take lessons from this.” 

“If Democrats are overconfident and run more far left candidates, the midterms won’t be the bloodbath they think it will be,” Fay concluded. As for what more Republicans can do, Fay pointed out that “President [Donald] Trump and his agenda needs to be paying dividends next year.”

He contended that the president’s priorities of “fewer wars, protecting Americans from the scourge of drugs” are “all good things.” Fay also spotlighted the importance of candidate selection.

“Running a far-left candidate will work in places like NYC, but not Tennessee and certainly not the swing states Trump won. My advice is to run candidates that align with the politics and issues of the district,” he said.

“The desire is to nationalize all these races when members of Congress are local elected officials. Run good candidates that align with the district and the issues but also have a positive policy agenda and clearly articulate it. Have your three points and run with it,” Fay continued.

Matthew Bartlett, a co-founder of Darby Field Advisors and a Trump administration official during the president’s first term, told The Daily Signal that “Just like in New Jersey, Virginia, New York, it’s no surprise which party won, but it’s the margins that count because the margins lead to money and momentum.”

“It is not an unmitigated disaster because the Republican candidate didn’t lose, but a nine-point win in an R-22 district a few months back should absolutely raise eyebrows,” Bartlett continued, referencing Trump’s victory over Kamala Harris in the district in the 2024 presidential election.

Bartlett contended that it was affordability issues that had brought the GOP to power.

“You need to recognize just how tough it is for people in America and demonstrate every day that you are fighting on their behalf,” Bartlett said.

Matt Terrill, the managing partner of Firehouse Strategies, a public affairs firm in Washington, also emphasized affordability in comments to The Daily Signal.

“Democrats want to take your money and spend your money, and the only thing you get for it is higher prices,” Terrill explained as a potential line of messaging when asked about what advice he would give to Republicans regarding a winning message.

“Every campaign is about ‘the now.’ What are you doing for me now,” Terrill noted.

The public affairs expert expressed that GOP elections without Trump on the ballot would be different than when the president was also running.

“President Trump is able to perform quite well with younger voters and traditionally Democrat voters. But in the 2024 election they were turning out for him,” Terrill said.

“Looking at the playbook in 2024, Republicans won on safety and security and on affordability,” Terrill concluded.

The post Republican Strategists React to Tennessee Special Election Results appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In recent days, in the South China Sea, the USS Nimitz carrier strike group has been conducting operations and bilateral exercises with the Philippines, to include anti-submarine warfare drills. This comes as tensions have increased between China and Japan, on top of a simmering confrontation at the flashpoint of Scarborough Shoal with the Philippines.

For decades, China has been conducting illegal maritime encroachments into its neighbors’ waters and is now trying to mask its malign activities with a new tactic—environmentalism. This is particularly hypocritical given China has destroyed many pristine coral reefs under an archipelago of man-made island military bases. China now plans to establish a maritime nature reserve that will consist of two parts: A “core zone” that will include the damaged reef within the Scarborough Shoal that will prohibit any human activity, and the “experimental zone” which will cover 400-800 yards of water on either side of the reef where research, the breeding of fish, and tourism may take place.

Scarborough Shoal is not just a grouping of rocks and coral; it is a rich fishing ground. Fishermen from the Philippines, Vietnam, and Taiwan have been active in the area for generations. That changed drastically in 2012, when China reneged on a negotiated deal brokered by the U.S. and forcibly seized control of it from the Philippines. Today China has effective control of the shoal and is limiting access and increasing intimidation of non-Chinese fishing vessels.  

In recent years, China’s increased presence around the shoal is up from an average of 48 ships a month near the end of 2024, to 95 ships a month during the first half of 2025. Countries with vested economic interests in the region are not happy about China’s actions, especially the Philippines, which stands staunchly opposed to China’s increasingly brazen dominance in their water. Scarborough Shoal is within the Philippine’s 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, making China’s plans particularly problematic given its proximity to the capital of Manila and strategic port of Subic Bay.

One potential protection against China’s activities is the U.S.-Philippine Mutual Defense Treaty, which states: “If one nation’s ’metropolitan’ territory, military, aircraft, islands, or public vessels are attacked, the other must respond in accordance with their ’constitutional processes.’” The United States has affirmed commitment to protecting the Philippine’s sovereignty under the Biden administration which released a joint statement with the Philippines president saying “An armed attack on Philippine armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific, including in the South China Sea, would invoke United States mutual defense commitments under Article IV of the 1951 U.S.-Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty.”

With all this in mind, it is critical the U.S. act quickly with the Philippines to deter Beijing from moving forward with its plan to establish a marine preserve at Scarborough Shoal. This should be done through both diplomatic pressure and increased military presence like the current U.S. carrier strike group in the region.

In response to Chinese duplicity, in 2013, the Philippines filed an arbitration case against China and won. That case concluded with the international tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ruling in 2016 that China’s Nine-Dash Line violated the U.N.’s conventions and that fishermen from the Philippines and China have traditional fishing rights within the shoal.

China does not recognize the Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling and continues to claim sovereignty over the territory using the same disproven historical arguments.

China may want to appear as if it’s protecting the damaged reefs within Scarborough Shoal, but China has shown it does not care about the environmental impact of its activities in the region. Chinese fishing vessels have participated in damaging practices when harvesting clams, and within the South China Sea, China is thought to have caused the destruction of around 4,600 acres of reef. Why does China suddenly care about this reef, and why build a nature reserve now?

Satellite images released on Oct. 8 depict the placement of a barricade at the mouth of the Scarborough Shoal, which has been confirmed by the Philippine Navy. This is not the first time a barricade has been placed at the shoal, but paired with the plans for a nature reserve, it demonstrates China’s goal of gaining full control. As of Oct. 17, China was operating fighter jets and patrol aircraft in the skies overhead, as well as maritime security vessels nearby, and placed new buoys within and around the shoal to assert dominance over the disputed feature. On Nov. 16, China moved eight maritime ships and coast guard vessels that had previously been stationed at the shoal to Subi Reef, near Thitu Island which is claimed by China but is occupied by Philippine troops.

Besides resources, China may be able to further strengthen its de facto administrative control of nearby waters, further restricting activities by the Philippines and other nations in the Scarborough Shoal. If China moves forward with its plan for a nature reserve, it is highly likely that there will be heightened law enforcement activity and presence near the shoal further burnishing its control of the shoal and surrounding waters. This was indeed suspect back in 2016, with China to turn Scarborough Shoal into a man-made island garrison, as it has done with several features under its control in the Spratly Islands.

If this were to happen, it would threaten United States operations and exercises with the Philippines, along with access to the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement. The bases open to U.S. forces under this agreement include Fort Magsaysay, Basa Air Base, Antonio Bautista Air Base, Mactan-Benito Ebuen Air Base, and Lumbia Air Base. If China succeeds in constructing this nature reserve, we should expect increased Chinese military presence, maritime coercion by paramilitary forces, and further encroachment. With rising tensions in the region and the recent deadly collision between a Chinese destroyer and a Philippine Coast Guard cutter, China will likely not back down lightly. The United States has strategic interest in this region. A little demonstration of resolve today could go a long way toward preventing a more intractable long-term problem at the Scarborough Shoal from getting worse.

The post China’s Development of the Scarborough Shoal appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Justices didn’t seem to break along predictable lines Wednesday, when they presented critical questions to both sides in a case regarding a Christian pastor’s free speech challenge to a Mississippi city ordinance. 

In Olivier v. City of Brandon, the U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether someone convicted under a law has standing to challenge the constitutionality of the law to prevent its future enforcement without nullifying a prior conviction for violating that law.

Brandon, Mississippi, adopted a city ordinance regulating protests around the city’s amphitheater. Pastor Gabriel Olivier preached outside a designated “protest zone” even after police warned him not to do so. He pleaded no contest to violating the ordinance but now wants to prevent future enforcement. 

“I am grateful to have had my case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court—an opportunity few others in my situation have ever had,” Olivier said in a statement released by First Liberty, the religious freedom law firm that represents him, after the oral arguments concluded. “I pray this case results in a decision that allows others to be able to fight for their First Amendment rights in court.”

Doors Olivier ‘Chose Not to Enter’

During his opening arguments, G. Todd Butler, representing Brandon, said Olivier had multiple opportunities to challenge the law and his conviction in state courts. Butler scoffed at the argument that “courthouse doors are closed” to Olivier. 

“That argument ignores the countless doors the petitioner chose not to enter,” Butler told justices. “What this case is about is the petitioner’s preferred door, one that offers a favored venue, and an opportunity for attorneys fees.”

Olivier shared his Christian faith near the amphitheater in May 2021. Police told him he was required to speak only in the designated “protest zone.” 

Olivier first did as requested, but later argued the designated area was too isolated. So, he returned to his original location and was arrested for violating the city’s ordinance. 

Had he challenged his arrest, it would have been less murky legal territory, since he would clearly have standing as someone harmed or affected by the law. However, in June 2021, Olivier made a no-contest plea, which is not admitting guilt but not disputing charges. He received a fine and a suspended 10-day sentence. 

Olivier wanted to return to preach at the amphitheater area again, so to avoid another arrest, he challenged the constitutionality of the city’s ordinance in federal court. 

Supreme Court Arguments

During arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch asked about “collateral consequences” of challenging the law but not the conviction, and how that could affect the enforcement of the terms of future convictions that might be challenged in a similar manner.

Allyson Ho, volunteering pro bono with First Liberty to represent Olivier, replied that past court rulings determined it “would not automatically, or even permissibly preclude the state” from enforcing the conditions of the conviction. 

Along those same lines, Chief Justice Roberts asked, “What about a requirement that the individual show up for probation meetings?”

Absolutely, your honor, because, again, the only effect that the federal judgment has is forward looking,” Ho replied. “It is a prospective relief. It prohibits the enforcement of the ordinance against him on a forward-looking basis. It does not reach back.”

The district court and the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals determined Olivier could not challenge the Brandon ordinance even if its future enforcement would violate his constitutional rights. It based the dismissal on the Supreme Court case Heck v. Humphrey (1994). The high court ruled in Heck that a person can’t bring a civil rights lawsuit if success in the lawsuit would imply the conviction is invalid—unless that conviction has already been reversed through appeal or clemency. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the plaintiffs’ call for only looking forward without challenging the previous conviction was unusual. 

“By definition, a win by you, or win by a third party, would call the prior convictions into question,” Sotomayor said. “It will be used by you and others to try to go back in other proceedings and get those expunged or otherwise set aside. You may or may not win. But it will call it into question.”

Ho disagreed, and said the high court has used only “two buckets” in applying the Heck precedent. Neither, she said, would apply to Olivier, since he was never incarcerated.

“The first bucket are claims where the federal relief would result in immediate or faster release from confinement,” Ho said. “The second bucket is damages resulting from past confinement.” 

Questions for Butler

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pressed Butler, the city’s attorney, “about your initial litany of doors” for Oliver.

“Were they all state forums, all state remedies, that you discussed? Is there any other federal remedy?” Jackson asked. “If we agree with you, this person ends up with no federal remedy, and that just seems odd.”

Butler replied, “My laundry list of things were state court remedies.” But he said the Heck precedent was in part about steering plaintiffs to resort to state litigation. 

Roberts pressed the city’s attorney about whether this meant an automatic arrest and jail time if Olivier preaches again at the amphitheater outside the protest zone. 

“When you commit a crime, a particular one, and you’re convicted, you undertake not to commit further violations of that provision,” Roberts said. “Now, if he does, is he subject to reincarceration? Certainly, that’s a big part of the probation in this particular case.”

Butler suggested Olivier may go to jail if he violates the ordinance again.

“If he violated the ordinance, he would immediately not pass go and go straight to jail for 10 days, because he was under the suspended sentence,” Butler said. “And that constitutes custody under this court’s jurisprudence.”

The city passed the ordinance in question in 2019, in response to what it considered a hardship for local police to control protesters that showed up in the area. 

The Trump administration is siding with Olivier, as U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, and Assistant Solicitor General Ashley Robertson gave a brief argument to justices, as well. 

The post Supreme Court Justices Hear Street Preacher Who Challenged Speech Restriction After Pleading No Contest to Breaking It appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said Tuesday that the Trump administration’s strikes on alleged drug boats is bringing the United States closer to war with Venezuela.

Paul, a leading critic of foreign intervention, has sharply criticized Trump’s continued strikes on alleged drug traffickers and warned the president against pursuing regime change. Trump declared Venezuelan air space to be closed over the weekend, ratcheting up his pressure campaign against dictator Nicolás Maduro, whom the White House views as an illegitimate leader.

“I think most of this is a prelude to war with Venezuela. All of this is a lead up,” Paul told reporters in the Capitol.

“I hope it’s not a prelude to war, but I feel like they’re building up towards war,” the senator continued. “Hopefully this second bombing of survivors … which is clearly illegal, hopefully there’ll be enough of an uproar over this, that will slow down the drumbeats.”

His comments on Tuesday came in response to Sept. 2 strikes on an alleged drug vessel in the Caribbean Sea, which sparked outrage over concerns that a follow-up strike on two survivors violated the laws of war.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that Admiral Frank Bradley ordered the strikes, but acted within his authority to eliminate the alleged drug traffickers.

The White House referred the Daily Caller News Foundation to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s comments during a Tuesday afternoon cabinet meeting.

“We’ve only just begun striking narco boats and putting narcoterrorists at the bottom of the ocean because they’ve been poisoning the American people,” Hegseth said. “And [former President] Joe Biden tried to approach it with kid gloves.”

Paul has faulted the administration for failing to show proof the vessels are trafficking drugs.

The boat strikes remain politically popular, according to recent polling. A Nov. 23 CBS News/YouGov poll found that 53% of American adults support military strikes against alleged drug boats. However, the same poll found that seven-in-10 American adults oppose potential U.S. military action Maduro’s regime.

Though the Pentagon has limited its strikes against drug traffickers to the Caribbean Sea, Trump has repeatedly floated expanding the military operation to land.

“That was what people liked about Donald Trump, was that he wasn’t for these offensive wars of choice,” Paul said. “He wasn’t for regime change.”

Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis joined Paul in criticizing the Sept. 2 strikes, pressing for congressional oversight and accountability in the incident.

“Somebody made a horrible decision—somebody needs to be held accountable,” Tillis told the DCNF on Tuesday. “You don’t have to have served in the military to understand that that was a violation of ethical, moral, and legal code. And so if the facts play out the way they’re currently being reported, then somebody needs to get the hell out of Washington.”

Both the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee have launched inquiries into the lethal double-strike.

Republican Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt defended the Secretary of War, calling the Washington Post story that first reported on the Sept. 2 strikes “totally debunked.”

“This nonsense about it being a war crime is total bulls—. It’s all they have,” Schmitt told reporters on Tuesday. “And the desire then to treat [Hegseth] as a war criminal, to treat servicemen as war criminals, is beyond just a normal political debate.”

Democrat lawmakers have largely denounced the deadly strike and called for Hegseth’s resignation despite the White House saying Hegseth did not make an order to kill the survivors.

“This is beyond the pale, and we would not accept it, and we never have accepted it, from any other administration in my lifetime,” Democrat Nevada Sen. Jacky Rosen told the DCNF. “And so we cannot normalize this. Laws are not suggestions. The rules of engagement are not suggestions at someone’s whim.”

“[Hegseth] likes to tout his position as a secretary: He’s the one in charge. Everything stops with him. The buck stops at his desk for everything that happens … He needs to take responsibility. He needs to resign,” Rosen continued.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

The post Rand Paul Says Trump Boat Strikes ‘Prelude to War’ With Venezuela appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Trump administration is pushing pause on immigration applications from 19 countries and reviewing approved applications from those same nations. Multiple reports indicate the list of nations could be expanded.  

For now, the immigration application pause applies to foreigners from: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Burundi, Chad, Cuba, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela, and Yemen.  

The 19 counties were already considered “high-risk,” and in June President Donald Trump announced full or partial restrictions on entry of individuals from these nations into the U.S. 

Additionally, the U.S. government will conduct a re-review of any foreigner from one of the 19 counties who entered the U.S. since the start of the Biden administration and was granted asylum or withholding of removal.  

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “has determined the operational necessity to ensure that all asylum applicants and aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States do not pose a threat to national security or public safety,” USCIS wrote in a Tuesday memo.  

The re-evaluation of approved immigration applications is expected to slow the process for those waiting for approval, but “USCIS has determined the operational necessity to ensure that all asylum applicants and aliens from high-risk countries of concern who entered the United States do not pose a threat to national security or public safety,” according to the agency.  

The action is being taken following a shooting in the District of Columbia last week that left one National Guard member dead, and another seriously injured. The suspected shooter is an Afghan national who worked with U.S. troops in Afghanistan but came to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul in 2021. The alleged shooter yelled “Allahu akbar,” translated “God is most great,” during the attack, according to documents filed in court on Tuesday and reported by the Washington Post.  

The Trump administration has also paused the progressing of all visas for Afghan nationals.  

The post 19 Countries Blocked From Immigrating to US appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The State Department has announced new restrictions on visas for anyone who is seen to be supporting or conducting violations of religious freedom. 

“The United States is taking decisive action in response to the atrocities and violence against Christians in Nigeria and around the world,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Wednesday.  

The department “will restrict U.S. visas for those who knowingly direct, authorize, fund, support, or carry out violations of religious freedom,” Rubio said in a statement. The policy will also, in some cases, restrict visas of family members who are known to have carried out violations of religious freedom.  

The policy is in response “to the mass killings and violence against Christians by radical Islamic terrorists, Fulani ethnic militias, and other violent actors in Nigeria and beyond,” according to the State Department. While Nigeria is the only nation the new policy specifically names, it will also apply to “other governments or individuals engaged in violations of religious freedom.”  

President Donald Trump designated Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” in October in response to persecution of Christians in the African nation. Trump has also tasked Rep. Riley Moore, R-W.Va., Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., and the House Appropriations Committee to look further into the issue of the persecution of Christians in Nigeria and report their findings.  

Moore and a group of lawmakers held a roundtable in the District of Columbia on Tuesday aimed at discussing the further investigation of the persecution of Christinas in Nigeria.  

The U.S. “cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening in Nigeria, and numerous other countries,” Trump said.  

It is estimated that more than 50,000 Christians have been killed in Nigeria since 2009, and about 7,000 in the first half of 2025 alone, most at the hands of either Boko Haram or Muslim Fulani militants.   

The persecution of Christians in Nigeria has not only gained the attention of lawmakers in Washington, but also celebrity rapper and songwriter Nicki Minaj.  

Minaj has been vocal in her support of Trump’s actions to address the situation in Nigeria and has called for action “to defend Christians in Nigeria, to combat extremism and to bring a stop to violence against those who simply want to exercise their natural right to freedom of religion or belief.” 

The post Rubio Announces Visa Restrictions on Anyone Carrying Out ‘Violations of Religious Freedom’  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, a firebrand House progressive, appears to be eyeing a Senate run in the Lone Star state and may announce her candidacy as soon as Monday.

Crockett has scheduled a “special announcement” in Dallas on Monday at 4:30 PM—the day of the filing deadline to run for the United States Senate. In a recent interview with MS NOW, Crockett said, “the data says that I can win” and “I am closer to ‘yes’ than I am ‘no’” when it comes to running for Senate.

Crockett’s remarks to MS NOW was in response to a question about a September poll from the University of Houston and Texas Southern University that had the progressive firebrand leading a list of potential Democrat primary candidates with 31% support.

In the Democrat primary, state Rep. James Talarico and former United States Rep. Collin Allred have already entered the race.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, an incumbent of over two decades, is up for reelection in 2026 and is facing primary challenges from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt, R-Texas.

Crockett, 44, is originally from Missouri, and later moved to Texas, where she practiced law. She has served in the House of Representatives since 2021, building a reputation as a firebrand after a viral verbal spat with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga.

The Texas Congresswoman has also made a name for her controversial statements.

In 2024, for example, she delivered an impassioned response to Republicans’ opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices in a House oversight committee hearing, telling them, “There has been no oppression for the White man in this country. You tell me which White men were dragged out of their homes.”

Crockett added, “Don’t let it escape you that it is white men on this side of the aisle telling us, people of color on this side of the aisle that y’all are the ones being oppressed, that y’all are the ones that are being harmed. That’s not the definition of oppression.”

In 2025, she referred to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, who is wheelchair-bound, as “Governor Hot Wheels.”

The Daily Signal reached out to Crockett’s office but did not receive a comment.

The 2026 Texas Senate primaries for both parties will take place on March 3, 2026—in roughly three months. If no candidate receives over 50% of the vote in either of the primaries, a runoff election will be triggered on May 26, in which the top two candidates in a primary would face off.

The post Jasmine Crockett Stares Down a Texas Senate Run appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump is pardoning Democrat Rep. Henry Cuellar of Texas after the Biden administration charged him and his wife with bribery.

Trump announced on Truth Social a “full and unconditional PARDON of beloved Texas Congressman Henry Cuellar, and Imelda.”

“Henry, I don’t know you,” the president wrote, “but you can sleep well tonight—Your nightmare is finally over.”

Former President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice brought charges against Cuellar and his wife, Imelda, in May 2024 for bribery, money laundering, working on behalf of a foreign government, and conspiracy.

Cueller was one of the biggest Democrat critics of the Biden border crisis, which he described as “just letting everybody in.”

“For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them,” Trump wrote in his post announcing the pardon. “One of the clearest examples of this was when Crooked Joe used the FBI and DOJ to ‘take out’ a member of his own Party after Highly Respected Congressman Henry Cuellar bravely spoke out against Open Borders, and the Biden Border ‘Catastrophe.’

“Sleepy Joe went after the Congressman, and even the Congressman’s wonderful wife, Imelda, simply for speaking the TRUTH,” Trump continued. “It is unAmerican and, as I previously stated, the Radical Left Democrats are a complete and total threat to Democracy! They will attack, rob, lie, cheat, destroy, and decimate anyone who dares to oppose their Far Left Agenda, an Agenda that, if left unchecked, will obliterate our magnificent Country.”

The post BREAKING: Trump Pardons Democrat Rep Indicted Under Biden appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Democrats have spent the better part of two decades branding themselves as protectors of working Americans. But when you examine their actual policy choices rather than their press releases, a consistent pattern emerges: Their interventions routinely raise costs, distort markets, and ultimately hurt the very people they claim to champion. Their latest foray into student lending and consumer credit is a case study in that contradiction.

A chorus of congressional progressives—led, predictably, by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—is now demanding that President Donald Trump halt his administration’s effort to sell off portions of the federal student loan portfolio. Their reasoning is as political as it is transparent: They want to keep these loans on the government’s books so they can one day engineer a mass “forgiveness” program. Lost in this rhetoric is the structural reality that Washington’s heavy-handed role in student lending is one of the primary drivers of soaring tuition. When the federal government guarantees easy credit, institutions raise prices accordingly. The Warren-Sanders model—limitless federal lending paired with periodic political promises of forgiveness—gives colleges every incentive to hike tuition further, secure in the knowledge that taxpayers will absorb the fallout.

Trump’s policy moves in the opposite direction. Transferring significant portions of the loan portfolio to private entities reduces federal exposure, reins in a program plagued by delinquency, and returns loan management to organizations equipped to handle it. For decades, Democrats warned about runaway deficits; yet when confronted with an opportunity to reduce a structurally unsound federal liability, these same voices insist taxpayers should shoulder even more risk.

The inconsistency is striking—but it’s also revealing.

Because even as they fight to prevent a modest correction in the Student Loan Program, Democrats are simultaneously pushing for a national 10% cap on credit card interest rates. As economist Stephen Moore has shown in his analysis of credit markets, such a cap would instantly make millions of at-risk borrowers unprofitable to serve, drying up access to mainstream credit almost overnight. The data is clear: Unsecured lending only functions when lenders can price for risk. Eliminate that price signal and lenders retreat.

That retreat hits hardest among the populations Democrats claim to champion. Higher-risk borrowers—young adults, gig workers, families with limited savings, individuals recovering from financial setbacks—rely on access to revolving credit to manage unexpected expenses, smooth income volatility, or simply build a credit history. If Washington dictates that lenders may not charge more than 10% interest on unsecured credit, banks will respond exactly as any rational actor would: They will stop offering credit to borrowers whose risk profile exceeds the artificial ceiling.

And here is the deeper irony. In higher education policy, Warren and Sanders insist on maintaining federally subsidized lending structures that inflate tuition and embed perverse incentives throughout the system. Colleges raise prices because Washington promises unlimited credit and then flirts with broad forgiveness. In consumer credit policy, those same lawmakers champion restrictions that will make legal credit scarce precisely when vulnerable households most need it. The result is a double blow: escalating education costs on the front end and shrinking credit availability on the back end.

This creates a perverse policy loop. Federal interventions make college more expensive. Families borrow more to keep up. Tuition continues to rise. Then, when those same families need access to credit to manage expenses, progressive policymakers seek to cap rates at levels that make offering that credit impossible. What starts as misguided paternalism ends as a direct assault on household financial stability.

A responsible government would reverse both trends. It would acknowledge that federal overreach in student lending has driven tuition inflation for years and welcome efforts to reduce taxpayer risk. And it would recognize that capping interest rates on unsecured credit below market-clearing levels doesn’t protect consumers—it excludes them.

Yet Democrats want it both ways: unlimited government risk when it fuels their preferred political narratives, and heavy-handed restrictions on private credit markets when it yields a populist talking point. Trump’s approach—restoring fiscal discipline in student lending while letting market forces allocate credit—is the only one grounded in economic reality. More importantly, it is the only approach that actually protects working Americans from the long-term consequences of distorted credit markets and runaway tuition.

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

The post Democrats Want It Both Ways on Debt—and Working Americans Will Pay the Price appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., has introduced a bill to ensure homeschoolers aren’t discriminated against in college admissions.

“No student should ever face discrimination or disadvantage during the college admissions process simply because they were homeschooled,” Harris said. “Yet, many universities still treat homeschoolers as second-class applicants by requiring excessive documentation and additional testing.”

The Higher Education Act currently defines an “institution of higher education” as one that admits students with a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent. However, the law refers to homeschoolers as “Students Who Are Not High School Graduates.”

This has caused some colleges and universities to require homeschoolers to take the GED despite having legally graduated.

Harris’ bill, called The Home School Graduation Recognition Act, replaces the heading “Students Who Are Not High School Graduates” with the title “Students From Non-Traditional Settings.” Harris says this creates a clear, uniform federal definition affirming homeschool graduates as high school graduates.

“With nearly three million homeschooled students across America, it’s long past time to end this discrimination and guarantee every student a fair shot at higher education,” Harris said.

The House Education and Workforce Committee, of which Harris is a member, supports the bill.

The Home School Legal Defense Association also endorses Harris’ effort.

“The Home School Graduation Recognition Act will eliminate ambiguity, prevent ongoing misinterpretation, and ensure equal treatment for homeschool graduates by clarifying that homeschool graduates meet the definition of high school graduates for federal student aid purposes,” HSLDA president James R. Mason said.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Harris Introduces Bill to Stop Discrimination Against Homeschoolers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If the races were reversed, Bethany MaGee would be as well-known as George Floyd.

MaGee, 26, was recently riding on the L train in Chicago. As she was sitting there, police believe Lawrence Reed, 50, came up behind her and dumped gasoline on her. Despite her attempt to flee, Reed set her on fire. She rolled on the ground in a vain attempt to put out the flames. When the train arrived at the station, she left the car while still being burned alive. Two good Samaritans came to her aid, putting out the fire. She survived but suffered severe burns. She faces a long and daunting recovery.

Somehow, this crime gets even more outrageous. Reed had already been arrested 72 times. Yes, you read that correctly. Since 2016, he has been arrested more than 20 times. He previously pleaded guilty to nine felonies.

Just three months before this attack, Reed was in custody. At an August hearing, Assistant State’s Attorney Jerrilyn Gumila urged Cook County Judge Teresa Molina-Gonzalez to keep Reed behind bars. Gumila laid out how, three days before the hearing, Reed had knocked a social worker unconscious.

Electronic monitoring “could not protect the victim or the community from another vicious, random, and spontaneous attack,” the prosecutor said.

“I understand your position, but I can’t keep everybody in jail because the State’s Attorney wants me to,” Molina-Gonzalez said.

She released Reed with electronic monitoring. It didn’t stop him from allegedly setting MaGee on fire.

This should be a major national story for at least three reasons. First, the details of the crime are shocking and appalling. The victim is even an attractive young woman, which the propaganda press usually craves. Second, there’s a major scandal here. Police had a career criminal in custody. A judge let him go, despite a prosecutor’s warning that he was a danger. Third, President Donald Trump has been sparring with Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson over the city’s safety. In October, Trump even sent the National Guard to Chicago.

A search of The New York Times website for “Bethany MaGee,” however, yielded zero results, as of this writing. The Washington Post didn’t have any either. Days after it occurred, NBC Nightly News finally mentioned it, but used the attack to take a swipe at Trump.

They’re silent because this crime doesn’t fit the Left’s narrative. It wants you to believe that the criminal justice system is systemically racist against African Americans. What matters is someone’s group identity, not individual actions. White Americans have special privilege.

This one case shows how laughable those claims are. Reed wasn’t jailed for being black. He was coddled by the justice system despite dozens of arrests.

Critical race theory proponents lump people into groups based on their skin tone. They claim that black people are the victims, while white people are the oppressors. Yes, their worldview requires believing that the woman who was set on fire was the oppressor. It’s easier to ignore this story than explain that absurdity.

MaGee’s skin color didn’t give her any special advantages on that train car. It didn’t protect Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska when Decarlos Brown Jr. allegedly stabbed her, either. She didn’t have much privilege when most of her fellow passengers ignored her as she bled to death.

America’s criminal justice system has a systemic problem, but it isn’t white supremacy. It’s the judges and prosecutors who protect criminals, instead of the public.

COPYRIGHT 2025 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 When a Crime Burns Up the Narrative appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Hamas has a history of infiltrating nongovernmental organizations working in Gaza, according to a new report.  

Documents removed from Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces and obtained by NGO Monitor reveal “the terrorist group’s systemic control of foreign NGOs operating in Gaza.”  

The 48-page report from NGO Monitor, a research and oversight organization based in Israel, details strategies Hamas has used to hold sway over organizations conducting humanitarian work in Gaza.  

The report describes the way Hamas has monitored NGOs and even sought to manipulate them, but the “most invasive and egregious mechanism” of influence, according to NGO Monitor, is the “guarantor” system. 

Through what NGO Monitor calls the “guarantor system,” a document from 2022 reveals that Hamas required “formal liaisons between its internal security apparatus and the international NGOs.”  

“Hamas views ‘guarantors’ as potential high-value intelligence assets to gain access to the NGOs’ internal information and operations,” according to the report released Wednesday. 

A 35-page document dated Dec. 14, 2022, from the State of Palestine Ministry of Interior and National Security Interior Security names more than 40 foreign NGOs operating in Gaza and details the “guarantor” Hamas has identified in each organization. 

Since 2007, Hamas has controlled internal security in Gaza under the Ministry of Interior. Following two years of war with Israel, Hamas has been significantly weakened but not destroyed. Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire in October that is based on President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan. It remains unclear who will take over leadership of Gaza once a formal end to the war is agreed upon.

Some of the “guarantors” listed in the Ministry of the Interior document are noted to have direct ties to Hamas.  

The document, which NGO Monitor translated, begins by explaining that the list of “guarantors” have been identified as individuals who are allowed to submit requests for a foreign visitor.  

“These [guarantors] can be exploited for security purposes, in order to infiltrate foreign associations, their foreign senior staff and their movements on the field inside the Gaza Strip,” the formal document retrieved from Gaza states.  

The list of named “guarantors” is the “linking element between the association and the Ministry of Interior,” according to the document.  

NGO Monitor redacted the specific names of “guarantors” for security and privacy, but NGOs working in Gaza in 2022, in which Hamas had identified a “guarantor,” are named, along with specific notes about each individual and the level of cooperation with the “Internal Security Mechanism,” or Hamas.  

For example, Medical Aid for Palestinians—U.K. is listed as “neutral” in cooperation. Bullet points under the name of the group’s “guarantor” identify him as a director of the association and state that he is “affiliated with the Hamas movement and has allegiance [to its rule].” It is also noted that his “circle of friends is from the Hamas movement.” 

Several pages down, Islamic Relief UK is identified as “cooperating” with the Ministry of Interior. The “guarantor” for the group is identified as a director and his travel and financial habits are also described.  

Rahma Worldwide, a humanitarian organization headquartered in Michigan with operations around the globe, is listed as “cooperating.” The “guarantor” is identified as having “formerly affiliated with the Salafi movement, and is now affiliated with the Hamas movement.” His occupation, travel and financial habits, and “low” religious observance are also noted.  

Save the Children, a large charity organization operating around the world, is labeled as “not cooperating” with Hamas. The “guarantor” is recorded to have a “very limited” circle of friends and be from a “religiously observant and committed family.”  

Doctors Without Borders Spain is listed as being “neutral” in cooperation with ruling authorities in Gaza, but Doctors Without Borders Belgium and France are recorded as “not cooperating.”  

The aid group Catholic Relief Services is labeled as “not cooperating,” and the “guarantor” is noted as being “affiliated with the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine],” a group the U.S. designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997.  

The Daily Signal has contacted the humanitarian organizations specifically named in this report and is awaiting responses.  

“The evidence confirms that NGOs in Gaza do not operate independently or neutrally,” according to NGO Monitor. “Rather, they are embedded in an institutionalized framework of coercion, intimidation, and surveillance that serves Hamas’ terror objectives.”  

The post UNCOVERED: Hamas Strategy to Infiltrate, Control NGOs in Gaza appeared first on The Daily Signal.

What will it take to get crime under control in our subways and public transit systems?

On Monday, news broke of another passenger set on fire in New York City’s subway—though this story wasn’t all it seemed.

The homeless man who at first said he was the victim of an attack turned tight-lipped when police pressed him about what happened.

Had he set his own clothes ablaze to attract attention?

In the wild environment our subways have become, a malicious attack or a madman’s self-inflicted injury are both all too believable.

Most trips on the New York subway or Washington, D.C.’s metro system don’t resemble a clip from “Mad Max,” but sooner or later, anyone who rides the rails of our cities regularly encounters insanity, aggression, and the prospect of violence—or actual violence, including the murderous kind.

The life-changing and very nearly life-ending attack on Bethany MaGee, the woman set aflame on a Chicago Blue Line train last month, was no hoax.

Nor was the assault that killed Iryna Zarutska on a commuter train in Charlotte, North Carolina, this summer.

Nor was the burning alive of Debrina Kawam on the New York subway last December.

None of those women had any reason to fear for her life, yet a commute turned into unspeakable terror.

And it was predictable—not because these victims had anything special to fear but because everyone knows what’s allowed to happen in the tunnels and on the trains.

If a thug with 72 arrests to his name, like the man who tried to immolate the 26-year-old MaGee in Chicago—or with “just” 14 arrests, like Iryna’s murderer—decides this is the day to take an unsuspecting victim, what chance does she have?

Her fate was already decided by judges who chose not to lock up men who were a demonstrated threat to the public.

The killers and would-be killers are only half the problem.

The other half are the judges and lawmakers who put them on the streets in the first place, leaving them free to ambush unsuspecting victims on train cars, where they can’t escape.

(MaGee did try running, but her attacker caught up and torched her.)

Legislators in North Carolina, at least, are trying to stop this murderous chain of events before it begins, by putting men with criminal records like those of Iryna’s killer in prison or mental institutions as soon as they start breaking the law.

“Iryna’s Law” restricts cashless bail, requires judges to order more mental evaluations, and makes it easier to involuntarily commit offenders found to be disturbed.

It also attempts to restore the death penalty in North Carolina, which has been blocked for nearly 20 years by legal challenges.

The law is a good start, and other states need similar reforms to incarcerate and institutionalize more of the people who commit horrors like the subway attacks of recent months.

There’s a federal role in this, too, including rigorous enforcement of immigration law:

Sebastian Zapeta-Calil, the man charged with burning Kawam to death, is an illegal immigrant who should never have been in this country to begin with.

Yet more is needed: Not only zero tolerance toward violent and repeat offenders but zero tolerance in the political process for judges who go easy on them.

Some states elect judges, and voters in those places can make known just how they feel about judges’ culpability for crimes committed by the lawbreakers they set loose.

And states have provisions for impeaching judges, just as the federal government does.

Where judges egregiously endanger the public with their leniency toward criminals, they should be impeached and removed from office.

It wouldn’t take many examples before soft-on-crime judges got the message.

Of course, judges themselves, where they aren’t elected by the public, are appointed by politicians who have to answer to voters—and those pols should feel the heat, too.

Five years ago, progressives were pushing, in all seriousness, to “defund the police” and “abolish bail,” meaning, in the latter instance, simply releasing a wider array of arrestees.

In most of the country, those slogans were not political winners, but advocates for these policies count more on elite sympathy, especially within the legal profession, than they do on ballot-box victories.

Their gamble is that most Americans pay no mind to the inner workings of state courts and legislatures, so what loses in an election can still win where laws and legal precedents are actually made.

This populist moment in national politics arises from the distrust our leaders have engendered among the public.

But leaders in states and cities have betrayed Americans’ trust, too, and their betrayal turns public transportation into scenes of public execution for innocents like Iryna Zarutska.

COPYRIGHT 2025 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 ‘Iryna’s Law’ and the Bad Judges Who Make It Necessary appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Republican Matt Van Epps triumphed in Tuesday’s House special election in Tennessee, stifling talk of a possible Democrat upset in a reliably red district.

As of Tuesday evening, the Associated Press projexted Van Epps as the winner, defeating his Democrat opponent, Tennessee state Rep. Aftyn Behn.

Epps will fill the seat of former Rep. Mark Green, a Republican who resigned from Congress in July to work in the private sector.

With 95% of the vote counted, Van Epps was beating Behn by about 9 percentage points, 53.9% to 45%. In 2024, President Donald Trump won the district by 22 percentage points.

Going into the election, there were signs that the race in a solidly red district could produce an uncomfortably close outcome for Republicans with an election year right around the corner.

A recent survey from Emerson College Polling and The Hill showed the race could be close, with Van Epps leading at 48% support against Behn’s 46%.

The GOP Push for Van Epps

Van Epps got a boost from Trump, who stepped in to encourage Republican turnout.

“To the Great People of Tennessee’s 7th District, who gave me Record Setting Wins in each of three Elections, I am asking you to get out and VOTE FOR MATT VAN EPPS,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Sunday.

Trump also heaped scorn on Behn, the Democrat Tennessee state representative seeking an upset in a district where Republicans have won comfortably in the past.

“Matt is fighting against a woman who hates Christianity, will take away your guns, wants Open Borders, Transgender for everybody, men in women’s sports, and openly disdains Country music,” Trump wrote.

House leadership and prominent Tennessee Republicans also stepped in to rally Republicans behind Van Epps.

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., joined Van Epps at rallies in the leadup to the election, at one of which he had Trump via a speaker phone call say, “Matt Van Epps is a winner and will be great…The Democrats are spending a fortune, and we don’t want people that want to raise your taxes. [Behn] wants to raise your taxes on top of everything else.”

Tennessee Republican Reps. Tim Burchett and Andy Ogles, as well as Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty, rallied for Van Epps as well.

Behn Attacked for Previous Comments About Nashville

In the run up to the election, Republicans highlighted Behn’s online footprint, including a podcast appearance in which she said of Nashville, “I hate this city, I hate the bachelorettes, I hate the pedal taverns, I hate country music.”

“I hate all of the things that make Nashville, apparently, an ‘it’ city to the rest of the country, but I hate it,” Behn said.

“Number one, she hates Christianity. Number two, she hates country music. How the hell can you elect a person like that?” Trump said, calling into a Van Epps rally that featured the speaker.

Nashville is the largest city in the district Behn hoped to represent.

In response to the resurfaced audio, Behn said on CNN, that she “was a private citizen.”

“Nashville’s my home,” Behn added. “Do I roll my eyes at the bachelorette parties and the pedal taverns that are blocking my access to my house? Yeah. Every Nashvillian does, but this race has always been about something bigger.”

In 2020, Behn expressed support on social media for calls to defund the police, in addition to writing, “Good morning, especially to the 54% of Americans that believe burning down a police station is justified.”

Pressed for clarification on those remarks, Behn said on MS NOW, formerly MSNBC, “I don’t remember these tweets” and “I’m here to talk about my race, which is in literally nine days.

On Monday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., presented the surprisingly positive polls for Democrats in Tennessee as a bad sign for Republicans nationwide.

“Republicans have already lost,” Jeffries said. “The fact that they are spending millions of dollars to hold a seat that Donald Trump just won by 22 points is extraordinary.”

The post Republican Triumphs in Tennessee Special House Election appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos.

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. The November 2026 elections will be determined, fairly or not, largely on the status of the economy. The Left knows that.

They know two things. One, the enormous, projected gain in oil and natural gas production. Two, the deregulation and tax cuts involved in the “Big, Beautiful Bill” that will kick in in full in 2026 and some $10 trillion in foreign investment, even if that’s maybe only half of what’s promised, but that’s an enormous amount, seven or eight times more than President Joe Biden received in his last year of office.

You add all of that up: An economy right now that is doing well, and Black Friday, following Thanksgiving, had almost $11 billion in online sales. That was a record, not just better than last year at this time under the Biden administration, but better than in any time in history.

So, the economy is already strong, and you can imagine that these catalysts and this stimuli that are coming—deregulation, tax reduction, massive foreign investment, expelling 2 million people from the United States per year who were probably on social assistance, involved in many cases of crime. You can see what’s going to happen. The economy is going to boom in 2026, and the Left knows that.

So, what is their strategy?

Don’t talk about the Trump economy.

And we’ve seen what? Go after Tesla. Firebomb Tesla dealerships. Drive Tesla automobiles off the road because Elon Musk was the prince of darkness, and he was involved in the Department of Government Efficiency. Demonize DOGE.

Go after Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Have street theater. Have riots. Call them Gestapo. Say they’re worse than Hitler.

Go after the National Guard that has cleaned up Washington, D.C. Encourage massive resistance. Call it illegal.

Shut down the government. Shut down the government for longer than any period in history—40 days. Shut it down for no purpose. It gained nothing. Supposedly, it gained nothing. Shut it down.

Have major senators on the Democratic side and representatives cut a video. Have them tell the American soldiers, all 1.3 million active-duty strong, you don’t have to obey an order. If, in your legal wisdom, your vast knowledge of jurisprudence, if you’re a private and he says, “Go over that hill,” I don’t have to do it. It’s illegal.

Create disruption.

And the piece of resistance, the Epstein files.

You had the Epstein files for four years under Joe Biden, Democrats. You knew that President Donald Trump expelled him from his circle of friends before he was convicted of anything.

But there are about 80% or 90% of people in the so-called Epstein files—these are emails. These are text messages. These are transcripts from court proceedings. These may be IRS files. But 80% to 90% are Democrats. That’s why it was not released during the Democratic administration.

But no matter, just say, “Epstein files, Epstein files, Epstein files, Epstein files.” And so, Donald Trump finally says, “OK, they’re released.” And what do we hear? Crickets. Maybe a little bit about Larry Summers, Democrat, but silence.

Why doesn’t the Left demand that every single name be released? Because they have more Democratic donors than Trump has Republican donors that are mentioned in it.

So, the Epstein files, like the shutdown, like the street theater, like all the videos, like all the smuddy language, they were designed for one point, one reason, one goal: Keep your mind off the economy. Create a word called “affordability.” The real message is: We Democrats raised prices by 21% when we were in power, 5.2% per year. We had enormous budget deficits. We ran the debt up by $8 trillion. We had a $1.1 trillion deficit. Don’t talk about that. Just say that Donald Trump, in 10 months, has a 3% inflation rate, the same as when he entered office, and therefore, he’s responsible for the 21% that we ran up, and we’ll call it affordability.

My message to the Trump administration and all of you listening is: Tune out all of the street theater, all the pornography, all the smuddy language, all the insurrectionary activity, and just focus on the economy and talk two points. Two points: how much better it is already than the average of the four years prior, but more importantly, demonstrate why it’s going to be booming in 2026 and why the Democrats don’t want you to think about that.

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

The post Democrats Want to Distract You From This Before Midterms appeared first on The Daily Signal.