One of the biggest government attacks on free press occurred under a presidential administration and the legacy media have collectively shrugged.

Why?

Because it was carried out by a Democrat administration and not President Donald Trump. It’s that simple.

On Tuesday, former special counsel Jack Smith—who served under former President Joe Biden—testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the tapping of communications by Republican senators as part of his investigation into the 2020 election.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in his opening statement at the hearing that not only did Smith target Republican senators, but that he also improperly seized journalists’ communications too.

“What I can say today is that Smith also obtained communications from members of the media, to include: ’60 Minutes,’ Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Fox News, LA Times, Mark Levin Show, Media Research Center, NBC, NPR, NY Magazine, Reuters, The Federalist, The Washington Post, Washington Times, and The Wall Street Journal,” Grassley said.

That’s quite a list. And if these allegations are true, it’s an absolutely shameful example of mass media surveillance.

Some of those who were allegedly targeted were understandably infuriated by the revelation.

Mollie Hemingway, the editor-in-chief at The Federalist, wrote on X that she was “sickened” when she learned that Smith had seized her “journalistic communications.” She vowed that “no amount of censorship or spying will prevent [The Federalist] from continuing our fearless investigative journalism.”

Talk radio host Mark Levin, another target of Smith’s media shakedown, called it a “clear and massive 1st amendment breach by a federal prosecutor.”

This is a major scandal and should be treated as such. But you wouldn’t think that given the media coverage—really, the lack thereof—immediately following the hearing

You should expect the media to rally around the aggrieved and condemn this brazen attack on their profession and seeming violation of the First Amendment. It’s not like they’ve hesitated to criticize a presidential administration on these grounds before.

After all, we’ve just gone through an extensive media cycle in which most legacy press outlets blasted Trump for his decision to ban several outlets from the White House.

Just do a quick internet search on Trump’s “attack on the free press” and you will find an almost endless string of articles about how the president is practically ending the First Amendment in America by limiting CNN, Politico, and MS NOW’s access.

One can certainly question whether that was a prudent move by the administration. I tend to believe the president comes off pretty well in his exchanges with the hostile press and he should let that continue.

But restricting access to privileged White House news coverage is a far cry from unleashing a quasi-legal executive branch special counsel to outright seize the communications of journalists.

One would think that champions of free speech and free press would at least be similarly outraged by the allegations against Smith.

Nope. Instead, what we get is practically crickets, even from outlets that were allegedly targeted by government surveillance. Sure, there was some coverage of the Smith hearing in general, but the attack on the media was virtually ignored on the day it broke and received only minimal coverage the day after.

NewsBusters editor Curtis Houck noted that “CBS and NBC ignored the Jack Smith hearing on their Tuesday night newscasts.” And while they eventually covered the hearing on Wednesday they mostly “buried the substance” of it to cover the exchange between Smith and Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

John Solomon, founder of Just the News, wrote on X that after days of rage at CNN getting bounced from the White House, “The legacy media mostly yawned at Sen. Grassley’s revelations that Smith gathered information on news outlets.”

He gave a rundown of some top news headlines, which glided over the real scandal.

This is all quite reminiscent of what happened during the years of President Barack Obama. Obama was hardly a friend to the free press. His Justice Department secretly obtained telephone records belonging to The Associated Press, and his administration occasionally weaponized the government against journalists. The legacy media rarely uttered a peep about it other than a few sheepish declarations that this was kind of bad.

But they loved Obama just as they’ve hated Trump. And so, these assaults on the First Amendment were whisked away and quickly forgotten, even as Obama has reemerged as some kind of responsible champion of media independence.

Please. What a load of nonsense.

It appears that the legacy media will let this scandal pass by too with scarcely any interest in uncovering the depths of it or even scraping the surface.

It’s egregious, but not surprising.

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. 

Do you think it’s possible that we’re on the edge of a boom and we don’t even know it? And we’re not in a recession or a downturn or the doom and gloom the Left and the Democrats have told us about and assured us of four weeks before the midterm? 

I’m worried about that because, as I’d mentioned earlier, that happened in 1992. There had been a recession in 1990-91, partly due to the Gulf War that had disrupted oil supplies. That sounds familiar. And Saddam Hussein, remember, had torched the Kuwaiti oil fields. 

But by the time of the November election, that recession had been over for 20 months, and the George H.W. Bush economy was pretty good. They were still dealing with 7% unemployment, but inflation was below 3%. The stock market had gone up 8%. [Gross domestic product] was 3%. All the indicators were showing a robust recovery. In fact, that year, GDP would be higher than the next year when Clinton-Gore took over. 

So, what happened? 

Well, what happened is a couple of things. Of course, there was Ross Perot. That affected the Bush vote. He took 19% of the vote, as I had mentioned earlier. And then there was the death of Lee Atwater. He was a tough, no-prisoners-taken politico, and he had died of a brain tumor at 40. Had he been there, he would have stressed the Bush economic record and contrasted it with what Ronald Reagan had inherited earlier from Jimmy Carter. 

But he wasn’t there, and so the new team played by the Marquess of Queensberry rules. They would rather, I guess, lose nobly than win ugly. And so, the result was that they had this strong economy, but as they headed into the 1992 election, Al Gore said it was the worst recession since the Great Depression. Remember, the recession had been over for 20 months. Bill Clinton echoed that at every campaign stop. Carville said famously, “It’s the economy, stupid.” 

And they lost. The Bush ticket lost. It was an incumbent. It had a great record in foreign policy, even. They had won the Gulf War with very little cost. The Berlin Wall had fallen. He had managed the post-Cold War era very well. 

But he let the Left take hold of the narrative that everything was terrible, even when the economic indicators had shown that the war- and oil-induced recession was long gone. 

I’m afraid something has happened here. Democrats say affordability, everything’s terrible, we can’t afford anything. But when you actually look at what’s happened, it’s not true. 

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta said that in the third quarter, they think when they revise their statistics, the economy will have grown by the GDP. That’s astounding. Standard & Poor’s stock indices for the year are over 10%. So is the Dow Jones. We just had 160,000 new jobs. New jobs were created in the month of August. The unemployment rate is only 4.2%. 

And The Wall Street Journal just reported that, in terms of new business orders and service orders, each month keeps getting better. The month of August saw marked increases in new purchases of computers, communications equipment, metals, appliances, everything. 

There is no bad news except one issue. The Democrats have framed it as affordability. And if that were true, if that is really true, why did per capita income and per-family income reach an all-time historical high in 2025? And equally, why did the poverty rate go down to an unknown, never-seen-before level, about 10% of the population? Ninety percent of the population has much higher incomes and record incomes than the 10% who are poor. 

It’s an astounding business extravaganza, a renaissance, but we’re not hearing anything about it. And it’s a result of massive deregulation, 400,000 jobs cut in the bureaucracy, closing the border, deporting 2 million to 3 million people, encouraging jobs for Americans only, targeted tariffs, despite what everybody says, targeted tariffs, record oil and gas production that got us through the war without $200-a-barrel oil, and a sense that the world wants to invest in the United States, that there’s $10 trillion or $11 trillion of new investment. 

But why aren’t the Republicans addressing this affordability issue? That’s what the Democrats say is the problem. 

Well, to the degree that prices are expensive, it was because a year and a half ago Joe Biden finished his term with 21% aggregate inflation. And when you look at the things that people care most about, housing, vehicles, insurance, food, health care, prices in that mere four years went up 30%. 

Altogether, inflation averaged 5.1% during his tenure. So when the Trump administration came in, and by the way, during his first term, [President Donald] Trump’s yearly average was only 40% of Biden’s inflation, just 2%. 

And when he came in, his first years have been a little over 2%. Now, of course, the war and the oil crisis will raise that a little bit, but probably this year inflation will be below 3%. 

But why haven’t the Republicans just sat down with the American people and said, “We inherited 21% inflation and 30% on what you care most about. How do we stop that? We stop the rate of inflation. We slow it down so that you’re not paying 5.1% every year for generally everything, but especially 6% or 7% or 8% for what you care most about. And we’ve already cut that in half. And when this war is over and oil is glutting the market, we will do even better.” 

But the affordability issue that the Democrats are claiming is our fault, we inherited it. 

And more importantly, the only way to get back to where Donald Trump was in his first term would be to have a recession, a radical deflationary economy that rescinded all of the Biden inflation. But the economy couldn’t take a 20% to 30% cut in prices to make up for the inflation of the Biden years. 

All we can do is two things: cut the inflation rate radically, and they’re doing that, and increase wages. In the first year of the Trump term, wages rose higher than inflation. 

What’s happening, then, is the same thing that happened in 1992. There was no recession. The economy had come out of it almost two years earlier. There were strong indications that things would get better. And the Democrats are doing the same thing now that they did then, and the Republicans are doing the same thing now that the Bush team did then. 

They’re not replying and explaining the affordability issue, who is responsible for it, and then indicating all the good things that are happening, from business orders to service orders to poverty rates to income rates to GDP to inflation to the stock market, Standard & Poor’s, and the Dow Jones. 

It’s all pretty good. 

And more importantly, if they would do that, it would allow them to talk also about these foreign-policy successes. 

The administration has flipped all of Latin America from an anti-American pink tide to a pro-capitalist, pro-Western, pro-American Western Hemisphere, where only five of 32 countries are left that are communist, socialist, anti-American. 

The same thing is happening in the Middle East with the Gulf states and the moderate Arab regimes. If Iran’s regime falls within a year, it will be as tumultuous as the fall of the Berlin Wall. It will be the most significant foreign-policy achievement since 1989. 

Our main antagonist, Russia, has bled 1.5 million people. Its economy is in shambles. It has lost its proxies in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran. 

China has a GDP $10 trillion smaller than we do. It has a 1.0 fertility rate. Its economy is stagnant. Xi [Jinping] has, I don’t know what he did with them, but he got rid of about 80% of his top generals. It’s a society in crisis. 

The United States is poised once again to be the most powerful economic, military, social, and cultural force in the world. 

And yet here we are, four weeks before the midterms, and we hear affordability from the Democrats and Trump did it. 

It’s time to spend the money in the Republican war chest, all of it, get the message out, get people to get out and vote, and explain what happened under Biden and what the remedies are under Trump. 

And they can still win the midterms if they do that. 

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

A man who identifies as a woman sued Aetna for refusing to cover his transgender facial surgery, claiming discrimination, even though Aetna says it would not cover cosmetic procedures for a woman who suffers distress from not looking feminine enough.

A three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit heard oral arguments on the case Wednesday after a district court judge had blocked Aetna’s policy, finding that the healthcare company engages in unlawful discrimination. The judge ruled that Aetna violated Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, by discriminating against people over their gender identities.

Judge Matthew Schwartz, an appointee of President Donald Trump, asked a clarifying question.

“What about a woman who has a diagnosis that she’s distressed by the fact that she thinks she does not look feminine enough, and she wants to look more feminine?”

Charles McCloud, a partner at the firm Williams & Connolly who represented Aetna, said that the woman would “also be excluded” because her request would fall under Aetna’s policy for “cosmetic procedures.”

He noted that facial reconstruction surgery following a car accident “would be covered” because it might “restore function to the face,” but that surgery to alleviate distress over not looking feminine enough would not be covered for a woman or for a man who identifies as transgender.

“Anyone of any sex is able to get these procedures provided that they have a qualifying medical diagnosis,” McCloud said. “The only thing that this policy does is remove gender dysphoria from the list of qualifying diagnoses.”

Kelly Parry Johnson, senior counsel at the Advocates for Trans Equality who represented plaintiff Gennifer Herley, disagreed.

“What Aetna failed to mention is that it would—at least for the non-transgender woman—conduct an individualized medical review, whereas the transgender woman has the door shut in her face,” Johnson said. “They’ve created an additional barrier to transgender care that is not in place for non-transgender people seeking similar procedures.”

McCloud used part of his rebuttal to respond.

He said Aetna’s policy covering facial reconstructive surgery applies to anyone of any sex or gender identity “if you have a medical necessity because you’ve been in an accident” or if your face has been “impaired,” “even if the incidental result of that is you get sort of a glow-up.”

He said “a transgender man is eligible” and that “the dividing line is based on diagnosis.”

The case comes amid an ongoing legal debate over whether federal nondiscrimination laws require insurers to cover procedures sought as treatment for gender dysphoria. During the Biden administration, federal agencies generally interpreted Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act as protecting access to transgender medical interventions, while the Trump administration has taken a narrower view.

The issue has drawn increasing scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Skrmetti (2025), which upheld Tennessee’s ban on certain transgender medical interventions for minors.

McCloud rejected what he claimed was the fundamental accusation in the case.

“The premise of the argument is Aetna has invidious discriminatory motives against transgender people and believes that they should conform to their sex assigned at birth,” he said.

“Aetna provides a wide variety of benefits to transgender people, including hormone therapy, top surgery, bottom surgery,” McCloud noted. “There would be no reason for Aetna to give all of those benefits to transgender people if it believed they shouldn’t be transgender. It’s just not credible.”

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation will host its first-ever Anti-Communist Film Festival beginning Thursday, Oct. 1.  

Elizabeth Spalding, Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation chairman, said the selected movies are meant to appeal to a wide variety of audiences of all ages and genre preferences. 

The festival will open with “Pilecki’s Report,” a Polish movie based on the real life of Witold Pilecki, a soldier who volunteered to infiltrate Auschwitz and was the first to report on its atrocities, and his confrontation with and execution by the Soviet communists in control of post-WWII Poland. 

On Friday, attendees can screen the Oscar-winning, biographical drama, “The Killing Fields” which follows two journalists in 1976 Khmer Rouge-controlled Cambodia and their struggles to survive and document the atrocities of the regime that killed over 3 million natives. 

Saturday will feature three films in morning, afternoon, and evening showings: “Night Crossing,” “Red Dawn,” and “The Lives of Others.”  

Rated PG, the morning’s 1983 Disney selection is family-friendly and follows the true story of two families who escaped Soviet East Germany via a homemade hot-air balloon. 

The original 1984 “Red Dawn,” starring a young Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen, is set in a fictitious post-WWII America where Colorado high schoolers fight a guerilla campaign against a combined Soviet and Latin American communist force that has invaded the U.S.  

In celebration of its 20th anniversary, “The Lives of Others,” will close out Saturday’s programming. The 2007 Academy award winner for Best International Feature Film centers around an East German intelligence agent who becomes disillusioned with his government after being ordered to spy on a suspected Western sympathizer.  

The festival’s final showing, the Hollywood hit, 2016 satirical comedy “Hail, Caesar!” stars many prominent left-leaning actors like George Clooney and Scarlett Johansson in fictitious 1950s Hollywood where a professional fixer navigates a Communist plot among other actor-related drama.  

“I hope people take away an understanding that communism always represses freedom and is based on false promises,” Spalding said, “Yet—no matter where or when—ultimately cannot crush our human dignity and freedom.” 

Spalding cited recent polling that showed younger Americans have a favorable view toward socialism and communism as a reason the Victors of Communism Memorial Foundation decided to put on a film festival now. 

“In general, Americans know little to nothing about communism and its past and present crimes,” Spalding said. “And now, some—from Seattle to New York to Washington, D.C.—are voting for self-proclaimed Democratic Socialists.” 

The foundation’s stated aim is to educate younger generations about the historical atrocities committed by communist regimes. Its Washington, D.C. museum commemorates the more than 100 million victims of communism and the individuals who stood against it with exhibitions and special programs.  

Additional information and free tickets for the film festival can be found on the Victims of Communism website: Anti-Communist Film Festival | Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation  

It’s a midterm year with a Republican in the White House, and so, if history holds, Republicans face an uphill battle this November. A bad night for Republicans, including in Ohio, is possible, but is it likely? If you believe the polls, forecasts, and betting markets, Ohio Republicans could see losses ahead on Nov. 3.

A slew of polls were released this week focusing on the special election U.S. Senate race and the open governor’s race. Republican Sen. Jon Husted, appointed to fill Vice President JD Vance’s vacancy is facing former Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, who is looking for a comeback after losing to now-Sen. Bernie Moreno in 2024.

Brown has sought to tie Husted to data centers as a losing issue, while the Senate Leadership Fund is focusing on Brown’s support for transgender surgeries for minors.

RealClearPolling’s averages have Brown with a +3.7 spread over Husted, with Brown shown to be leading by anywhere from 1 point to 8 points in the various polls conducted this month. That 8-point lead of 51%-43% came from a Marist poll released this week involving 1,298 registered voters, rather than likely voters, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

Republican Vivek Ramaswamy will meanwhile face Democrat Amy Acton, who served as Gov. Mike DeWine’s director of health during COVID-19, a detail Ohio Republicans won’t let voters forget.

That same Marist poll has Acton ahead with almost as significant a lead, at 50%-44%. A USA Today/Suffolk poll showing Acton up by 9 points, 50%-41% among 500 likely voters, was also just released and is trending on X.

With those polls included, RCP averages have Acton with a lead of +3.0 over Ramaswamy, though there are fewer polls included than in special election U.S. Senate race.

It’s worth mentioning that Ohio is one of the more difficult states for reaching Republican voters, according to Echelon Insights.

These races once favored Republicans, which makes sense, given that Ohio is considered something of a red state. However, Ohio has become a state potentially favoring Democrats this cycle.

The U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races are considered “Toss-Ups,” but some have Brown and Acton favored to win, as is the case with VoteHub.

It’s possible that Brown, Acton, or both could run away with an Election Night victory just over a month away, especially since we’re in a midterm election year and if there’s a coattails effect. But it seems dubious that the spread could be as high as +8 or +6, midterm year or not.

These races seem to be true “Toss-Ups,” where neither result would be surprising, but it also seems more likely that the margin of victory would be one of 3 to 5 points.

Polymarket gives Brown a 60% chance of winning, as does Kalshi, as of Wednesday afternoon. VoteHub has him at a whopping 66% chance, though, and shifted the race from a “Tilt Democrat” race to a “Lean Democrat” race, something that feels like a bit of a stretch in what is arguably at best for Democrats a purple state.

VoteHub had also just put Acton in the “Tilt Democrat” category, as brought up during a recent podcast episode of “Midterm Report,” hosted by Rob Bluey, president and executive editor of the Daily Signal.

In a previous conversation with the Daily Signal, Republican strategist Matt Dole mentioned that Ohio “is redder in midterm elections than in presidential elections,” which he offered “helps Republicans this year,” where “Ohio tends to stay above that fray” of wave election years. He also pointed to 2006 being a victory for Ohio Democrats due to Republican scandals.

These forecasts of “Lean Democrat” with 66% chances and 8-point spreads seem too good to be true for Democrats and speak to what could end up being profound errors and misses for polls and forecasters, or a worse environment for Republicans than one might care to admit.

It also speaks to a deeper concern, as was mentioned by the Daily Signal during last weekend’s radio appearance with Ken Broo on 700WLW. Will these numbers depress voters who would end up casting a ballot for Husted, Ramaswamy, or both, but now might not bother?

President Donald Trump’s 2020 campaign raised concerns about voter suppression when Wisconsin polls showed Democratic nominee Joe Biden up by double digits. There were polls showing Biden up by +10, +11, or even +17, with a RCP average of +6.7 for Biden, who ultimately only won by +0.7.

That doesn’t mean the same thing will happen in Ohio, but it is a cautionary tale on polls.

There’s also how polls underestimate Republicans, as was the case for Moreno in 2024 and Trump in 2016, 2020, and 2024, all years which he won the Buckeye State. RCP averages had Moreno up ahead by +1.7, and he won by +3.6. Trump was only ahead by +2.2 in 2016 and won by +8.1. He was only ahead by +1.0 but won by +8.2 in 2020, and was ahead by +9.3 but won by +11.2 in 2024.

Dole also credited Trump and his coalition with making Ohio, once a purple state for presidential elections, “truly a red state.”

Even if Democrats do manage to sweep in Ohio, this could very well be an outlier for this red state given that it’s a midterm election year, and that does not necessarily mean it signals a shift in the state’s red or purple status in the years to come.

If the polls and forecasts are off for these midterms, especially by a considerable amount, it’s worth wondering how much longer their days of influence can last.

Legacy media outlets have been spinning tall tales about Texas ICE agents in recent months, trying to stoke backlash against immigration enforcement. But they’re not telling the full story.

Two shootings of illegal aliens in particular have garnered extensive coverage: Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, during July, and Wilber Rafael Garcés Pérez in Austin, during September. In both cases, mainstream media cast the men as innocent victims and questioned the agents’ use of force.

But the coverage failed to consider what actually led to the shootings in the first place.

To understand the full picture, we must ask what happened in the moments before officers fired their guns. ICE agents are facing a 3,200% increase in vehicular attacks and a 1,300% increase in assaults. But based on the media’s coverage, you’d never know it.

In the Houston incident, Salgado Araujo allegedly tried to evade arrest, rammed an ICE vehicle, refused multiple commands, and tried to run over an ICE officer in his van, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The agent reportedly fired in self defense, and the suspect died. The investigation is still ongoing.

In the Austin case, ICE agents found Garcés Pérez had a final order of removal, tried to stop him, and told him to exit his vehicle, according to prosecutors. He allegedly struck an officer with his vehicle’s side mirror and tried to flee, then tried to drive toward an ICE officer who shot him. Federal prosecutors charged Garcés Pérez with assaulting and resisting a federal officer.

These details are crucial to understanding why federal officers say they used force. But this was apparently inconvenient to legacy media outlets, who were committed to turning these incidents into stories about ICE targeting illegal aliens.

For instance, Time magazine published a fluff piece about the Houston suspect’s sons “fighting to protect immigrant families after a tragedy.” Local outlet KUT News profiled the Austin suspect’s “quiet life of ‘family, soccer, and work,’” while Texas Monthly emphasized that he was “delivering food for DoorDash when he was stopped, shot in the upper back, then taken to Dell Seton Medical Center.”

This is far from the whole story. But that didn’t matter to the legacy outlets that produced these stories and delivered this tightly wrapped narrative to their Democrat friends.

For example, Democrat state Rep. James Talarico, who is running against Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton for Senate in November, claimed that ICE simply shot Garcés Pérez in the back.

“ICE said they would go after criminals, but Wilber Perez came to this country legally,” Talarico said. “He has no criminal record, yet ICE agents shot him in the back while he was doing his job making food deliveries.”

Democrat U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro also jumped at the opportunity to smear ICE. “ICE has shot, they’ve killed people,” he said in a video. “He was apparently talking to his wife, I believe, when he was shot. And she heard him screaming and crying out.”

These stories stoked levels of hysteria unlike anything seen when illegal aliens attack law enforcement.

For instance, The Texas Tribune has published at least 45 articles mentioning Salgado Araujo, and eight covering Garcés Pérez. But the outlet does not have one story about illegal alien Jose Santiago Pantoja-Morales, who shot a Dallas ISD police officer in August.

When Pantoja-Morales flagged down Dallas ISD officer Justin Jones on the freeway, the officer offered him a ride. While in the patrol car, he began rummaging through the officer’s bags. A struggle ensued, then Pantoja-Morales allegedly grabbed Jones’ gun and shot him.

The Daily Signal reached out to The Texas Tribune for comment, but did not hear back in time for publication.

In January, ICE also arrested Robyn Argote Brooks in San Antonio after authorities said he refused commands during a targeted vehicle stop. He backed his vehicle toward an ICE officer, rammed one ICE vehicle, and then struck a second ICE vehicle, injuring an officer, according to DHS. The agency described the incident as part of a broader increase in vehicular attacks against federal officers.

Journalists should investigate allegations against federal agents, question the use of force, and demand evidence. But the same standard should apply when the person being arrested is accused of violently resisting officers or attacking them.

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

A bill to stop insider trading failed to advance in the Senate on Wednesday, with all Democrats voting against it and all Republicans voting for it.

The bill failed 53 to 47 along party lines. The bill, which originated in the House and was sponsored by Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wis., would prohibit members of Congress and their spouses and dependent children from purchasing stocks. The measure would also require public notice before these individuals could sell stocks.

In July, H.R. 7008 passed the House 232-198, with 218 Republicans and 13 Democrats voting “yes,” along with one independent. A total of 198 Democrats voted “no.” Rep. Frederica Wilson, D-Fla., did not cast a vote.

The act was bound to fail in the Senate due to its being combined with a nationwide voter ID mandate, which Democrats vehemently opposed. Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., described the voter ID provision as a “poison pill” during the House debate, arguing that it would suppress millions of voters by imposing unnecessary restrictions.

After the vote, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., wrote on X, “Senate Democrats blocked a bill to stop any sort of insider trading by government officials and to require legal ID to vote. North Dakotans overwhelmingly support both these measures, yet when it came time to vote, Democrats said no.”

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., also posted on X following the vote, saying, “EVERY Senate Democrat just joined EVERY House Democrat in voting AGAINST banning congressional stock trading. @RepBryanSteil’s Stop Insider Trading Act is the accountability the American people demand. But every Democrat blocked it from becoming law.”

Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., who is the lead Senate sponsor of the resolution, also wrote on X, “Senate Democrats just blocked my bill to ban congressional insider trading. The House passed this bill in a bipartisan manner. It’s discouraging that Senate Democrats failed to do the same.”

Friends of mine like to shrug off accusations of being “conspiracy theorists” by saying what they are engaged in is called“pattern recognition.”

Just over a week into Virginia’s 2026 midterm voting, a familiar pattern is emerging.

Based on the statistics carefully collected and curated by the Virginia Public Access Project (VPAP.org), we are seeing voter turnout more than double what it was during the midterms of 2022. As of this writing, it is 221,000 vs. 99,000.

Drilling into the state, you find that “conservative areas” like Campbell or Augusta County are turning out 3-to-1 over 2022 and in “liberal areas” like Charlottesville it is almost 3-to-1 (1,787-614).

The mainstream press, as it did in 2024, will report on the “high turnout in the conservative areas” and ask Democratic Party leaders if it concerns them, to which they will reply something trite like, “nothing will be decided until ALL the votes are counted.”

What we learned in 2024 and with the 2025 redistricting vote is that even in these “conservative areas” the high early turnout is from the left.

That’s not to imply anything unscrupulous, but it has been their concerted effort ever since the 45-day window was created. They vote early so that they can, take your pick:

• Volunteer for the party on Election Day
• Volunteer to get people to the polls
• Volunteer to make phone calls and texts
• Volunteer to go ballot harvesting

Wait, that last one doesn’t sound kosher, does it?

Well, it’s legal in Virginia. In October 2023, then-Attorney General Jason Miyares said in an advisory opinion, “third-party groups or individuals can return ballots on behalf of other people as long as they get voters’ approval to do so.”

I’ve always felt that conflicts with Virginia Code § 24.2-604, which prohibits “electioneering” within a building being used as a polling place and extends a 40-foot perimeter around the entrance to that building.

Here’s why: If the ballot is being “harvested” at someone’s front door, who is to know what “electioneering” is going on? There are no poll watchers or election officials there to make sure the ballot harvester isn’t wearing a candidate’s T-shirt or campaign pin, wink, wink, nudge, nudge …

The idea of our system of democratic government is to vote secretly in public. This way, the community can ensure that no matter what campaigning was done beforehand, when the citizen steps into the voting booth, he or she is free of coercion to vote however he or she wishes.

Can’t prove that with ballot harvesting and unfettered mail-in voting.

Back to the early numbers. The folks at VPAP also break down whether the votes were cast in person or by mail/drop-off ballot.

In Richmond, for example, as of this writing, one-third of the votes cast were not cast in person. Beyond that, of the 1,222 votes not cast in the presence of sworn officers of election, two-thirds came in on one day (Sept. 24, if you are wondering).

I’ve spoken to law enforcement over the years, and they clearly say that there is little that could be done to prove any misdeeds in these scenarios. However, that’s the issue, isn’t it? No one can prove that the voter wasn’t politicked, coerced, or simply had the ballot filled in for him or her, as has happened at senior living facilities when residents were not there to witness voting according to their own consciences.

Which is the American way. Right, ballot harvesters?

If you have not voted yet, go vote, then volunteer.

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

Jack Fowler: Victor, let’s talk about—you ever heard of Stanford University, Victor? 

Victor Davis Hanson: I have some recollection of it. 

Jack Fowler: Yeah. The controversy. Stanford, about using AI, race-swapping advertising. Here’s the story. Stanford Residential and Dining Enterprises recently used AI to change the races of students it included in its advertisement. AI was also used to notably slim down and alter students’ faces. 

On his journey to campus, Stanford student Billy Ramirez, 27, was sent an image he recalled a Stanford photographer taking. Upon closer examination, he noticed that he had been removed from the photo and replaced by an AI-generated Black woman. 

The Review spoke to Ramirez, who stated, quote, “I was driving to school from my hometown when my friend sent me the images comparing the banner to the original photos, and I was immediately baffled. At first, I found it hilarious that they had used AI to completely change our appearances, including my race and gender. But after looking at the comparison, I was also upset because I don’t agree with Stanford making those choices about how we are represented,” etc., etc. He goes on. It’s a longer quote. 

But anyway, Victor, imagine if—you can do the imagining.  

Victor Davis Hanson: I can tell you what it was. Some 51 years ago, I enrolled in Stanford as a graduate student in the Ph.D. program, and I can tell you, in 1975, it was mostly white, 90%. There were just starting to see a lot of Chinese immigrants, but not very many. And I can tell you—but when I say mostly, I would say 10% of the student body was Hispanic or black. 

What would have happened if they were appealing to some, you know, reactionary, crazy people that were big donors, and they had a picture of the Stanford students, and they had two black people and eight white people, and then they decided, well, let’s just get rid of those black people and turn them into white people? 

People would get very, very angry, and that’s what they’re doing. They are trying to create a racial hierarchy, and the racial hierarchy they feel is DEI, and by that they mean we are so racially obsessed in every aspect of Stanford University, race comes first. 

And what do I mean by that? If you wanna graduate, we’re gonna try to peg you. You go to the Chicano graduation, you go to the black—the Asian graduation, the gay—you go to one of those. Except, you know, you’re not gonna go to a European or white. That would be racist if you had a separate one. 

If you wanna go to your dorm, we’re gonna call it a theme house, not a racially segregated—just like we’re gonna call a graduation adjacent graduation ceremonies. And if you’re black, you go to a black dorm, Chicano, da, da, da. 

And what if you don’t feel safe on campus? You can go to a racially segregated safe space. At least you could, I suppose, until recently. 

And now we learn that even though they—I guess it wasn’t enough, Jack, after George Floyd to let in 9% of the incoming class, white males. That was about 190 people. Think about that. 190 out of about 2,000 entries were white males. 

And then you have—you’re right next to Silicon Valley with $14 trillion of market capitalization, where there’s about 500 white males that are the children of the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world, and they all wanna go to Stanford. 

And then you’ve got probably 500 administrators whose kids wanna go to Stanford, another 500 faculty [00:04:00] grandees that want their kids to go, and maybe 400 athletes. What you’re basically saying is there’s not going to be one working-class white kid who lives in Podunk or Selma, California, or Fresno who has a straight-A average and a perfect SAT, ’cause we’re not gonna—we don’t want that person. Just doesn’t—we don’t want him. 

We only want white people who can pay 10 million bucks or who are famous or can help our athletic program. And that’s what it’s become. 

And then the weirdest thing about it, you cloak the whole thing, all of this pre-civilizational tribalism, with diversity, equity, inclusion. We’re caring people. We’re inclusive people. We’re so inclusive that if we see that we don’t have the proper percentage, we’re gonna airbrush it away ’cause that’s what we  do. We’re Stanford and we’re nice people. 

And we’re inclusive. And if we have a free speech area, and we say you can—well, you have to be gone out at 24 hours, and if you wanna take over that free speech area, and you want to camp for four months and every single day basically call for the extermination of Jews in Israel from the river to the sea, we’re not gonna judge you. That’s part of the cultural richness of Stanford. 

And that’s what’s so scary about higher education today. It’s really bankrupt morally. 

Yeah. I didn’t think they would stoop to that, though. 

Jack Fowler: Hmm. 

Victor Davis Hanson: And this was not the school paper. This was not—this was the university that did this.  

Jack Fowler: And it’s interesting. It’s Billy Ramirez. It’s not Billy O’Reilly. I wonder what this also says about the perception of Hispanics. 

Victor Davis Hanson: Well, they have a big problem with that because most Hispanics on census, at least, don’t identify as Hispanic, they identify as white. And I can tell you that, you know, we have a lot of indigenous people that are coming up to California from Mexico, but the prior cycles of immigration were largely from northern Mexico. 

And I can tell you the people I grew up with, if I looked at my senior picture of 240 people, there were probably 30% white, and I said, that person is—we’re gonna call that person Italian, that person Greek, that person dark-haired—you wouldn’t know the difference. 

So Billy Ramirez might be mistaken as an Italian kid because they didn’t know his last name. It shows you what we’re dealing in. We’re talking about abject racism, that we are so obsessed, we’re afraid that Billy Ramirez didn’t make it on this intersectionality pecking order, so we have to— 

The other thing they did, this is very strange because we are told the Left, and it is Left, has a—what’s the word they use for overweight people, obese? Obesity rights, that it’s body shaming.  

Jack Fowler: Fat shaming. 

Because I think fat shaming is now a responsible term. 

Victor Davis Hanson: Yes. 

And they didn’t just AI out Billy Ramirez and turn him into an African American. They also took the two other politically correct people. I think one was Asian. 

Jack Fowler: It was an Asian, it was an Asian girl with a roundish face, not— 

Pre-AI, she had a roundish face, yeah. 

Victor Davis Hanson: Yeah. But what was really sick about it was she wasn’t that obese. She wasn’t that— 

Jack Fowler: No. 

Victor Davis Hanson: She was very attractive—nice girl, and they made her thinner. And that plays into every one of the Left’s criticisms of the right. Oh, they’re just interested in looks, and they’re—this idea of, you know, teenage girls throwing up and being forced to be thin, and they’re nervous, and all of this stuff is just pressures on this cheap, crass culture that has ideal weights. 

And then here Stanford University sees a girl who probably is maybe five pounds more than the recommended rate, and they have to, I don’t know, you have to transform her into somebody who’s thin and fits their idea, not mine, not your—their idea of what beauty is.  

And so, it’s pretty sickening. 

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

Even amidst tragic news that at least 18 Christians in Nigeria’s Middle Belt state of Plateau were killed by Fulani jihadists over the past week, there is reason for hope: The nation’s government has finally bowed to pressure and taken concrete action against the plague of anti-Christian violence.

Because of pressure started by President Donald Trump’s campaign to stop the persecution of Christians, the government of Nigeria finally responded with commensurate force to stop these latest attacks in the Middle Belt from turning into something much worse, likely saving hundreds of Christians’ lives.

In the middle of September, local reporters covering persecution in Nigeria—like Masara Kim with Truth Nigeria—began documenting a massive build-up of Fulani jihadists in central Plateau state, one of the epicenters of persecution against Christians in the country. This was not another routine gathering of dozens of attackers, but nearly a thousand armed fighters amassing in the area, coming from all different regions in Nigeria.

The rationale for this terrorist build-up is murky, but it could have been related to reports that a major Fulani militant leader had just been arrested by local forces, or to general attempts to destabilize the country during a presidential election season. Whatever the reason, it appeared that the largest attack on this community in years would be launched imminently.

For context, the last time a coordinated attack of such magnitude occurred was Christmas Eve 2023, when militias devastated 25 villages, leaving almost 200 Christians dead, with pastors beheaded and churches burned to the ground. Over the following months, more than a thousand were killed as the communities were left to fend for themselves, effectively defenseless.

The suspected attack seemingly being planned for September looked to be even bigger. Bigger also than the Yelewata Massacre of June 2025 in nearby Benue State that killed another 200 Christians.

As someone who has dedicated much of my work to combating persecution in Nigeria—and has visited and worshipped with these same communities—there were nights last week when I thought I would wake up to the news of hundreds of Christians killed.

But what happened instead could be a turning point in the fight against persecution.

The U.S. has been pushing for the Nigerian government to devote more resources to the Middle Belt for the last year. After becoming aware of the rapidly growing Fulani militant presence and recent sporadic firefights in Plateau, American officials began applying intense pressure to the government of Nigeria, which finally responded.

Last week, beginning the evening of Sept. 20, Nigerian forces surged into the Barkin Ladi area in a show of force unlike anything seen before in the Middle Belt, even using air support for the first time and establishing a local curfew. The additional forces were able to beat back the militants in most areas, and they deterred any large-scale attack from occurring.

The U.S. correctly commended Nigeria’s government for stepping up, responding to early warnings, and deploying security that could meet the scale of the attacks from the jihadists.

Not every attack was stopped. We mourn for every single one of those Christians killed last week. The lives lost stand as a testament to the ferocity of attacks that these communities face constantly. It is also terrible that so many of the attackers were able to get away. But still, for the first time, the government of Nigeria began to acknowledge and act to counter the true scale of the problem facing Christians in the Middle Belt.

None of this would have happened if not for President Trump’s attention to the persecution of Christians in Nigeria, particularly since he designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) nearly one year ago on Oct. 31, 2025.

Despite initial heavy resistance from the Nigerian government, the U.S. was able to bring Nigerian officials to the table in a Working Group that formed in January and was tasked with stopping the persecution. The initial focus of this engagement was on targeting Islamic State-affiliated groups in the Northeast and Northwest, but within months following successful strikes, the U.S.’s attention turned towards the Middle Belt, where most of the persecution against Christians in Nigeria takes place.

President Trump has a long history of personal concern over the persecution of Christians in Nigeria. He raised the issue directly with the former President of Nigeria in a White House meeting in 2018. He designated Nigeria a CPC in 2020, before President Joe Biden inexplicably removed the designation the following year.

And at the U.N. General Assembly this year, the president went off script to emphasize the point after condemning global governments who ignore the persecution of Christians: “Christians are being persecuted all over the world, it’s not even believable, I never thought I’d say it, but it’s been happening for a long time.”

The president and his administration have now saved hundreds of Christians’ lives in Nigeria in just the past two weeks.

But this fact should not encourage complacency. Without sustained U.S. pressure, Christians in Nigeria will once again be left on their own. And so far, the security force coordination seen in Plateau State has not been implemented elsewhere in the Middle Belt. Nigeria still has radical clerics wanting to dominate Christians, and it still enforces horrible laws that call for the death penalty for blasphemy against Islam.

But if U.S. pressure can continue, and if the government of Nigeria is willing to listen, the momentum from this past week, applied across the Middle Belt, will have real results. And one day, hopefully soon, we will have reports of thousands of Christians saved in Nigeria and able to live out their faith freely.

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

Bishop Michael Burbidge is asking Catholics to spend October fasting and praying to defeat two proposed amendments to the Virginia Constitution.

In a video posted Tuesday, Burbidge asked Catholics to observe two weekly disciplines during the month. On Fridays, he asked them to pray the Stations of the Cross and to fast—eating only one full meal and no meat. On Sundays, he asked for the Rosary and a fast from social media for at least a few hours, ideally before and after Mass.

Across the Diocese of Arlington in Northern Virginia, Catholic churches are displaying pop-up banners, distributing pamphlets, and saying prayers at the end of each Mass.

“Our Catholics Vote No campaign is rooted in prayer and fasting,” Burbidge said. He described the amendments as “two radically unjust ballot initiatives now before all Virginia voters.”

“It would be a powerful force if all in the Diocese of Arlington were united in these efforts,” Burbidge said. “We entrust them to the Lord’s amazing grace, so all that is just, right, and true will be done in this election.”

>>> BISHOP MAKES SPECIAL REQUEST OF CATHOLICS BEFORE ELECTION DAY

The appeal reaches a diocese of more than 433,000 Catholics across 70 parishes and 21 counties, and it arrives with ballots already being cast. Early voting in Virginia opened Sept. 18. Election Day is Nov. 3.

Campaign Keeps Growing

Burbidge isn’t alone in Virginia asking congregations to weigh in. On Aug. 21, he and Richmond Bishop Barry Knestout issued a joint letter to Catholics laying out their objections to the ballot questions. They called the abortion amendment “extreme, dangerous, radical and horrific.”

More than 200 Virginia pastors have also signed an open letter urging voters to reject the same two amendments.

“We believe these two amendments must be rejected for the Commonwealth of Virginia because they will harm our state as they are opposed to human flourishing and contrary to the Word of God,” the pastors wrote.

>>> MORE THAN 200 VIRGINIA PASTORS SIGN LETTER OPPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

An organizer of the pastors’ letter said many of the Protestant churches were planning to mobilize their congregations, similar to how Burbidge requested priests across the Diocese of Arlington read a letter from him at Mass the weekend of Sept. 12-13.

“We must vote no to those questions and say yes to truth,” Burbidge said in his homily at St. Leo the Great Catholic Church in Fairfax that weekend.

Burbidge asked parishioners to pledge to vote at CatholicsVoteNo.com, to vote early, and to talk with family, friends, and colleagues “with a focus on activating and turning out those most likely to vote to protect life and the truth about marriage.”

What’s on the Ballot

The amendments were approved by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly in two consecutive sessions, as Virginia law requires.

Question 1 would amend Virginia’s constitution to expand access to abortion.

Burbidge argued the amendment would create a legal right to “unregulated abortions, performed by unlicensed abortion practitioners at any time during pregnancy” and would allow abortions “targeting healthy babies all the way up to birth.” In his letter, he said the amendment would extend abortion rights to minors and remove parents from decisions affecting their daughters.

“Unfortunately, abortion is already legal in Virginia,” Burbidge noted, arguing the measure “would expand abortion beyond what most citizens recognize as reasonable limits.”

>>> A RARE MOVE BY A VIRGINIA BISHOP AHEAD OF ELECTION DAY

Question 2 would remove the constitution’s 2006 definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and replace it with language guaranteeing the right of two adults to marry regardless of sex, gender, or race.

Burbidge wrote that the amendment “would also enshrine gender ideology by falsely separating the reality of one’s sex and gender.”

That argument mirrors the case made by the Family Foundation of Virginia. President Victoria Cobb championed the 2006 effort that added the current marriage language to the constitution.

The organization has argued the amendment would enshrine gender ideology in the state constitution and threaten girls’ sports, privacy rights, and religious liberty.

Supporters of the amendments, meanwhile, argue they would protect abortion access and preserve legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Virginia.

While the American military action in Iran has been a source of many benefits to the U.S., a collateral negative effect has been the increase in world oil prices and the associated increase in gas prices at the pump for U.S. consumers. However, things may not be as dire as many would lead you to believe.

To understand the real state of things, examining U.S. gas prices over the past two decades provides invaluable insight—and it allows for a more informed and rational discussion of the pros and cons of this Iran conflict.

The table below documents the average gasoline prices during recent U.S. administrations before factoring in inflation. The average price of gas during Trump 1.0 was about 48 cents per gallon less than under Obama. Average gas prices during Trump 2.0 have been about 9 cents per gallon less than during the Biden administration.

The above are the prices paid at the pump, and, as I noted above, they do not take inflation into account. Due to inflation, a dollar in 2010 was worth more (in terms of goods and services that dollar could purchase) than a dollar was worth in 2020, which was worth more than a dollar today.

The table below documents the inflation-adjusted average gasoline prices during recent U.S. administrations. Inflation-adjusted average gas prices during Trump 1.0 were about $1.04 per gallon less than under Obama. Inflation-adjusted average gas prices during Trump 2.0 have been about 46 cents per gallon less than during the Biden administration.

Throughout recorded human history, military power has been a universal value regardless of civilization, culture, or epoch. All successful empires in the human history (the ancient Roman Empire, Genghis Khan’s empire, the British Empire, etc.) shared a common denominator: They were formidable military powers, and in their prime were the pre-eminent military power on the planet. Sadly, individual freedom and democracy have never been (and still are not) recognized as universal values.

The ongoing U.S. military successes in Iran have benefited the U.S. in multiple significant ways.

First, the almost complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear program has ended a substantial military threat to the U.S. and its allies. Iran’s nuclear threat had to be taken seriously given that Iran’s theocratic leadership has repeatedly, vehemently, and publicly called for the destruction of the U.S.

Second, the complete destruction of Iran’s air defenses (supplied by powers hostile to the U.S.), air force, and navy sends a very tough and credible message to U.S. adversaries and allies about the strength, lethality, and effectiveness of the U.S. military.

Third, the destruction of Iran’s terrorist proxies and military—and the realignment of alliances in the region—has provided an opportunity for peace in the region after centuries of bloodshed and strife.

Finally, this was a much needed and long overdue retribution for the U.S. soldiers injured or killed by Iran in the past 47 years. The global importance of military power as the only universal value necessitates this retribution, and it serves as credible deterrence to other military powers hostile to us.

But this might all feel somewhat abstract to working families trying to put gas in their cars. How are they faring?

While retail gas prices have increased during the past eight months, there are three important indicators that the economic lives of working class Americans have been improving during the second Trump administration.

First, a greater percentage of working-age Americans are currently working than at almost any other time during the past half-century. This change has occurred largely because (a) more jobs are available, and (b) these jobs are offering higher wages—making it more attractive for people to join the workforce. The graph below details the U.S. labor force participation rate of working-age (25-54 years old) Americans.

Besides the obvious wage benefits of working, there are other important benefits to society of people working, particularly related to when people transition from being welfare recipients to actively participating in the labor force.

Welfare payment systems have fueled a plethora of social problems. Unearned payments do not deliver the self-respect and purpose that productive labor provides. Immediate costs include the significant negative impact on the physical and mental health of unemployed workers. Long term, the absence of working role models for children growing up in households where no one is sufficiently employed threatens to embed a permanent class division in the U.S.

Second, the inflation-adjusted U.S. household annual income during the second Trump administration increased by more than five times the average annual increase during the Biden administration.

The table below documents the real (inflation-adjusted) U.S. household average annual income increase during the recent administrations; this table is based on data from a recent survey published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Economic policies (such as the overregulation of businesses and the discouragement of fossil fuels) and fiscal policies (such as excessive government spending) of an administration can have a significant impact on U.S. household income.

Third, a recent survey from the U.S. Census Bureau documents that the current poverty rate of 10.2% is the lowest it has ever been for as long as the Bureau has compiled such data (more than half-century). The benefits of a growing and prosperous economy in the second Trump administration are accruing to those on the lowest rungs of the income ladder.

The recent increase in gas prices is straining U.S. household budgets, especially for blue-collar workers. However, this gas price increase should be viewed in the context of the inflation-adjusted gas prices during recent administrations, the related significant improvement in our national security, and the significant increase in real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of U.S. households during the past year.

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

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—The Democrat nominee for governor in the state with the second-highest cancer incidence rate in the nation is being tied to part of the problem.

In a new campaign ad, Iowa Republican gubernatorial nominee Zach Lahn links his Democrat opponent, Rob Sand, to Iowa water pollution. The ad also criticizes Sand for benefitting from taxpayer funds and owing his family’s agriculture company after millions were given to his campaign.

“With Iowa Cancer rates skyrocketing, Rob Sand’s biggest donor got caught polluting your drinking water,” the ad from Lahn’s campaign opens, referencing Lauridsen Group Inc., a family-owned business connected to the candidate.

Iowa is experiencing a cancer crisis, and Iowa’s polluted water is directly correlated with it. The Iowa Cancer Registry’s 2026 Cancer in Iowa report projects 21,700 new cancer diagnoses and 6,400 cancer deaths in Iowa in 2026. The registry found that national cancer rates are decreasing while Iowa’s rate is rising.

Sand has received nearly $13 million in campaign contributions from his wife and members of her family. While it is common for candidates to self-fund their campaigns or receive support from family members, the Lauridsen family business, led by Sand’s wife, owns companies that produce pesticides and have been subject to enforcement actions by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

The ad claims that “they dumped E. coli, ammonia, and they never even reported it.”

In 2026, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources issued AMPC LLC, doing business as Essentia Protein Solutions, a company under the Lauridsen family business, an administrative consent order concerning violations documented in 2025. The department documented repeated violations, including the company’s failure to report wastewater escaping from its lagoon.

The department fined the company $8,000 for illegal discharges, including discharges associated with leaking storage silos and excessive levels of E. coli and ammonia reaching West Fork Camp Creek.

The ad claims Sand, as state auditor, should have investigated his family’s business for the department’s enforcement action and for receiving tax breaks after promising new jobs that were never created. According to the Iowa auditor’s website, there was never an audit of Lauridsen Group Inc. or its affiliated companies.

The ad claims that Lauridsen and its affiliated companies “pocketed millions of [Iowans’] tax dollars” by “promising new jobs that were never created.”

According to Iowa Economic Development Authority records, the group received $3.3 million in taxpayer-funded assistance and tax benefits from the state of Iowa and the city of Ankeny. Before Sand became state auditor, the company was awarded more than $500,000 for an expansion project in Ankeny that was expected to create 40 new jobs. However, the project created only 13 of the 40 promised jobs, according to the Iowa Economic Development Authority.

“They’ve given Sand $13 million, the most in Iowa history. What more do you think they expect in return?” the ad concludes.

Sand and the Lauridsen Group did not immediately respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Virginia is one of the first states to open its polls, and I cast my ballot the day early voting began.

There’s a lot at stake this election year in the commonwealth, particularly Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendments on abortion and marriage. But Virginia is hardly alone among the states that will shape the direction of the country.

That’s why I invited three members of the Daily Signal’s State News Network to join me on the latest episode of “Midterm Report” to talk about the election news they’re tracking in the states they cover.

I spoke with Joe Thomas in Virginia, Rebecca Downs in Ohio, and Emily Medeiros in Texas. Our state team is now active in five states, covering both the policy debates in state capitals and the candidates who will determine control of Congress next year.

What struck me most was how often the three of them came back to the same point: The issues animating voters this year are intensely local and quite personal, and the candidates who tap into them will have the advantage. From data centers to immigration to the cost of living, those concerns vary from state to state.

“All politics are local,” Thomas said. “These are all local issues that these national candidates have to tap into because that’s where the motivation is going to be.”

Virginia’s Ballot Measures: Read the Fine Print

On his morning radio show and in his Daily Signal coverage, Thomas has been tracking the constitutional amendments on Virginia’s ballot, which have drawn opposition from the commonwealth’s two Catholic bishops and more than 200 pastors. They’ve voiced concern about the implications for expanding abortion throughout pregnancy and redefining marriage.

Thomas warned voters to pay close attention to the wording of the ballot questions. The Democrat-controlled General Assembly wrote the language, and Republicans, lacking a majority in either chamber, had no say.

>>> MORE THAN 200 VIRGINIA PASTORS SIGN LETTER OPPOSING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

“It is incredibly deceptive,” Thomas told me.

He noted that abortion and same-sex marriage are already legal in Virginia. So why are Democrats putting the amendments on the ballot? Thomas said they are designed to punish people who object or fail to comply, such as a doctor who won’t perform a late-term abortion.

He also sees a strategic purpose to boost Democrats. The amendments, Thomas said, are intended to make conservatives uncomfortable enough to stay home rather than vote no.

>>> A RARE MOVE BY A VIRGINIA BISHOP AHEAD OF ELECTION DAY

“It’s very important to look into the nerdy details of these ballot referendums because there’s so much more going on here than meets the eye,” he said.

The money gap is significant. Thomas noted that $2.8 million has flowed to the pro-abortion side of just one amendment, compared with $444,000 for the “vote no” campaign.

Ohio: Two Toss-Ups in a Red State

Downs is following two marquee races in Ohio, and she considers both toss-ups.

In the Senate special election, Sen. Jon Husted, who was appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine to fill the seat vacated by Vice President JD Vance, faces former Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Brown lost to Sen. Bernie Moreno by about 3.6 points in 2024, a year President Donald Trump carried Ohio by roughly 11 points. In a midterm election year with a Republican in the White House, Brown has a chance to return to Washington.

The governor’s race pits former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy against Democrat Amy Acton, the former state health director who led Ohio’s COVID-19 response. Downs said that record has hurt Acton.

Downs said the issue generating the most attention is data centers. Brown has hammered Husted over his ties to the industry, with ads effective enough to prompt a warning memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee in August. Husted’s position is that decisions should be made locally. He’s also sponsoring legislation requiring data centers to pay their own way rather than pass costs to ratepayers.

>>> HOW WILL DATA CENTERS AFFECT OHIO’S ELECTIONS?

Downs is also tracking legislation from Husted and Moreno that would withhold federal funding from states that issue driver’s licenses to people who can’t prove legal status—a response to fatal crashes on Ohio roads.

In the weeks ahead, Downs will cover the contest between Democrat Rep. Marcy Kaptur and Republican Derek Merrin in Ohio’s 9th District, a recent federal appeals court ruling that lets Ohio require proof of citizenship from people registering to vote at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, and Ohio Issue 3 that would enshrine voter ID in the state constitution.

Texas: Talarico Under Scrutiny

Medeiros is closely tracking the Senate race between Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton and Democrat state Rep. James Talarico, which she described as neck and neck.

Most recent polling has Talarico up slightly, although Medeiros is skeptical of those numbers. She said polls tend to underrepresent rural conservatives and reminded me that many predicted Beto O’Rourke would beat Sen. Ted Cruz in 2018.

Talarico has faced persistent questions about his religious beliefs, and last week brought a new one: undercover video released by Blaze Media of a pastor Talarico has called a mentor. Medeiros said the controversies could ultimately help Paxton.

>>> HIDDEN CAMERA CAPTURES PASTOR ADMIRED BY TALARICO CRITICIZING EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS

She also questioned the Democrats’ claim that Texas isn’t a red state but a “non-voting” one. “It is very much still a red state,” she said. “I just think the Democrats are being extremely loud right now.”

Medeiros sees three issues motivating conservatives in Texas: H-1B visas, data centers, and the Islamification of parts of the state. She cited the roughly 50 mosques built in the Dallas-Fort Worth area over the past two years, and she’s covered a recall effort in McKinney that grew out of residents’ opposition to a mosque near a high school. Organizers say they’ve gathered about 6,500 signatures, exceeding the roughly 5,800 required. On data centers, she said water use is the top concern for rural Texans, particularly in Corpus Christi, which is nearing a water emergency.

She’ll also be watching South Texas congressional races reshaped by redistricting, including Rep. Henry Cuellar’s reelection bid.

The Daily Signal publishes a weekly state newsletter for each of our five states. Subscribe now to follow the work of our State News Network reporters.

Vice President JD Vance, head of the White House Fraud Task Force, called out congressional Democrats on Tuesday for consistently criticizing health care costs without ever addressing the fraud that his task force is targeting.

Vance’s task force has found hundreds of billions of dollars in fraud, with millions stemming from health care.

“I always find it a little ironic when congressional Democrats, who say that they care a lot about Medicare, Medicare, [and the] working people who benefit these programs, don’t do anything to try to cut down on the fraud,” the vice president told Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of Health and Human Services, during a fireside chat at the Make America Healthy Again Summit.

The all-day summit, held at the Waldorf Astoria in Washington, D.C., brought together hundreds of health professionals and MAHA supporters. Speakers included administration officials, health care CEOs, election candidates, and even representatives from artificial intelligence companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI.

The speakers covered topics ranging from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reform, longevity, democratizing health care, and the role of AI in the nation’s health.

Vance and Kennedy closed out the night as the keynote speakers.

“We have found close to $250 billion in fraud just since I’ve been leading the task force,” Vance said. “One of the things that is genuinely shocking to me about this work is how many programs we have, that are meant to be generous to our fellow Americans, have no real eligibility criteria.”

Vance called it “basic” and “common sense” that a person would “have to be an American citizen to benefit from a Medicare program.”

“We don’t want to give health care to literally everybody, including people who’ve been here in the country illegally,” he added. “And yet, because we don’t check eligibility sufficiently, we give it—billions and billions of dollars to people receiving benefits.”

Vance told Kennedy he believes public trust must be restored to these services and that it’s their job to ensure that trust.

“I don’t want Americans to think that when they pay their money to the IRS, they give it to a fraudster. I want them to know what purposes they pay their taxes for,” he said.

“Secondly, it is very important that we discourage people from taking advantage of stuff to begin with. And the only way to do that is to prosecute people, take back the money that they stole, and to make sure that if you defraud the American taxpayer, you go to prison.”

Twenty-eight individuals in 12 different states have been charged with election interference or illegal voting in federal elections in the past two weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice says.

The effort to root out illegal, noncitizen voting has come as part of a large-scale move by the Trump administration to ensure election integrity prior to this year’s midterm elections.

This effort has extended to different states across the nation. On Monday, DOJ announced charges against 12 individuals relating to election crimes committed in seven different states. This comes after the department on Sept. 18 announced charges against 16 individuals, including three in Georgia, for illegal voting.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security commented on the partnership with the DOJ to root out election fraud across the country.

“DHS and DOJ are laser focused on prosecuting and removing aliens who vote and preventing the dilution of the votes of U.S. citizens,” the DHS spokesperson told the Daily Signal. “Only Americans should elect American leaders.”

“Our message to aliens who vote in American elections is clear: We will find you, arrest you, and you will face the consequences—including criminal charges and deportation.”

While investigations continue to root out election fraud, officials at the DOJ say the 28 individuals come from various countries, including Trinidad and Tobago, Mexico, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and more.

Noncitizens across the nation have been charged with voting in elections, submitting voter registration applications, or election interference, DOJ says. Some even voted multiple times.

Three noncitizens from Antigua and Barbuda, Mexico, and Venezuela living in Georgia were charged with illegal voting in elections, the DOJ recently announced.

Pauline Lewis, 65, an alleged noncitizen from Antigua and Barbuda, was detained on grounds of voting as an illegal alien in a federal election.

Gabriel Covarrubias, a 44-year-old alleged noncitizen from Mexico, was suspected of voting in person using an incorrect name in the federal election of November 2024, while also making an untrue statement in an application for a U.S. passport.

Analiea Milliscent Eccles, a 44-year-old noncitizen from Venezuela and recipient of DACA, voted nearly 10 times from 2008 to 2024. Additionally, she made a false statement that she was a U.S. citizen to cast her ballot in an election.

The scope of this interference in Georgia cannot be ignored, as the DOJ said individuals residing in Florida, Texas, Utah, and nine other states have been charged with these crimes, including multiple guilty pleas.

While some of the individuals involved were illegal aliens and some were only suspected noncitizens, or even lawful permanent residents, these crimes have not only involved noncitizens voting but also have expanded to additional crimes—such as untrue statements on citizenship applications and the suspected removal of roughly 300 mail-in ballots by a former mail carrier.

In Georgia, this occurred following the subpoena that was issued by DHS to the secretary of state’s office this month, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.

Mike Hassinger, public information coordinator for Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, told the Daily Signal that he cannot “comment on any specific allegations made in ongoing investigations.”

However, he added, “Georgia was the first state in the nation to conduct citizenship verification of its voter rolls.”

In a statement sent to the Daily Signal, Raffensperger said, “These cases show exactly why citizenship verification matters. Georgia will continue to verify all voters, investigate potential violations, and work with law enforcement agencies to enforce the laws that keep Georgia elections secure.”

A Washington state computer science professor who won a First Amendment lawsuit against his university over its response to his mock land acknowledgement says the campus culture that fueled the controversy remains firmly entrenched.

“It’s kind of scary. They broke the law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the “9th Circuit said you broke the law, and they’re saying, ‘Well, we think we behaved appropriately,'” Stuart Reges, the professor, told the Daily Signal in an interview Monday.

Reges sued the University of Washington, claiming it discriminated against his viewpoint when he published the mock land acknowledgement in a syllabus. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in his favor, and the university agreed earlier this month to pay $600,000 to settle the case, without admitting wrongdoing.

Reges said the university’s response will only entrench a broader intellectual problem.

“I’ve been seeing this growing orthodoxy on campus that’s being imposed by progressive faculty, and particularly, staff,” he said. “I’ve been seeing this silencing of alternate viewpoints, even among liberals.”

“If a liberal faculty member says something that’s wrong, not sufficiently supportive of trans rights, for example, they’re attacked,” Reges argued. “I’ve been trying to push back against this imposed orthodoxy in whatever ways I can.”

“The settlement agreement states that there is no admission of any wrongdoing or liability,” Victor Balta, the university spokesman, told the Daily Signal in a statement Monday. “We effectively agree to disagree and determined that the most reasonable option was to settle rather than incur additional legal fees as we moved toward a damages trial on remand or leave it to the court to decide the final terms.”

The Land Acknowledgment Case

The University of Washington’s school of computer science recommended in 2019 that instructors include an “indigenous land acknowledgement” in their course syllabi, without dictating what the acknowledgment must say. The University of Washington’s official statement “acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land.”

In 2022, Reges added a statement to his syllabus: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

Reges told the Daily Signal he sees land acknowledgements as “a kind of useless performative statement,” and attacked the academic monoculture for saying “you’re only allowed to say a land acknowledgement that implies the progressive point of view that this is stolen land.”

“I just thought it was fun to be able to challenge that concept, and they just freaked out,” he recalled.

When students complained about his note, the university publicly declared that the leadership was “horrified.”

“They removed it from my syllabus,” he recalled. “They apologized to my students. They told my students, ‘Here’s three ways to report Professor Reges if he insults you again,’ and they created an alternate section of the course, so that students who were so deeply offended that they couldn’t learn Java programming from me could take it on videotape from a different instructor.”

“Those are adverse employment actions, that’s a violation of the First Amendment,” he said, explaining the 9th Circuit’s rationale.

He noted that the university encouraged land acknowledgments, allowed statements that toed the leftist line, but censored his.

“You can either forbid them all, you can allow them all, but what you can’t do is to allow the progressive ones and then deny the conservative one—that’s viewpoint discrimination,” he explained, citing law professor Eugene Volokh.

Other Universities Weigh In

Four other Washington universities—Washington State University, Western Washington University, Central Washington University, and Eastern Washington University—filed an amicus brief in February, asking the 9th Circuit to rehear the case after it ruled in Reges’ favor.

The universities argued that the 9th Circuit’s ruling “could inhibit administrators’ ability to effectively redress student and faculty complaints,” and claimed that the University of Washington should win the case to allow schools to “ensure safe learning environments.”

Reges claimed the filing amounted to a defense of the University of Washington’s handling of the controversy.

“They said that they need these kinds of rules to be able to create a safe learning environment,” Reges noted. “You want to have a campus where ideas that are considered harmful are not expressed. Expressing an idea is harming people?”

He expressed concern about the long-term future of the university.

“The most radical, the most progressive, are the young faculty,” Reges warned. “They’re the ones who are going to be in charge in 20 years.”

Conservative media outlets pushed back after revelations that former special counsel Jack Smith’s investigators obtained communications from nearly 50 journalists at more than a dozen media outlets on both the right and left.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, revealed the information Tuesday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee previously exposed that Smith and the Justice Department obtained the phone data of dozens of Republican lawmakers as part of the investigation into Donald Trump’s challenge to the outcome of the 2020 election.

“What I can say today is that Smith also obtained communications from members of the media, to include: 60 Minutes, Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Fox News, LA Times, Mark Levin Show, Media Research Center, NBC, NPR, NY Magazine, Reuters, The Federalist, The Washington Post, Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal,” Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said during his opening statement.

Grassley posed the question: “What will the partisan media say about this disgraceful government overreach? This wasn’t a normal prosecution by any means.”

Mark Levin, a TV and radio host and former chief of staff to Attorney General Ed Meese, raised First Amendment concerns about the probe.

“A clear and massive 1st amendment breach by a federal prosecutor, Jack Smith, in the Biden regime involving what appears to be my radio show and scores of media and groups,” Levin posted on X.

Sean Davis, CEO and co-founder of The Federalist, said in a statement, “Corrupt cop Jack Smith spied on The Federalist and accessed our communications during his lawless anti-Trump witch hunt.”

The National Archives produced the information for Smith from 87 White House phones, so the material was swept up in a broader subpoena.

The Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog group, posted on X: “Sen. Grassley says Jack Smith obtained communications from 18 media outlets, the Media Research Center among them. Everyone on that list should want answers. We do.”

Grassley also revealed a whistleblower disclosure that showed Smith’s team collected 4,782 personal checks from Americans nationwide who donated to Trump and Trump-aligned entities between September 2019 and August 2023.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, asked about both the media records and the donor information.

“Did your subpoenas demand communications with Fox News?” Cruz asked.

“The subpoenas we issued did relate to communications regarding ad buys because it was relevant to the false statements,” Smith said.

Cruz responded, “Advertising on a news agency, you believe it criminal.” He then asked Smith if he obtained fundraising data.

Smith said, “I would have to look at the subpoenas.”

“Are you testifying right now you don’t know if you obtained donor and fundraising data?” Cruz asked.

When Smith didn’t answer, Cruz said, “You can sigh all you like—it’s a very simple question.”

Smith answered, “I do not recall because I have not seen those subpoenas for a very long time.”

Smith stood firmly by his prosecution and his team and repeatedly denied any political bias. He also noted that members of Congress were not the targets of the probe.

“I am not a politician and I have no partisan loyalty,” Smith said. “I stand by my decision to bring charges against President Trump.”

Variations of this denial prompted Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., to ask during questioning, “Do you believe in the tooth fairy?”

Smith answered, “No.”

“How about the easter bunny?”

“Not any more,” Smith replied.

Kennedy wrapped up by telling Smith, “You make me want to throw up in my mouth.”

Newly elected Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., sister of the late Sen. Lindsey Graham, brought up that Smith’s team obtained data from her brother.

“Do you really believe that Lindsey was going to destroy evidence that was not even in his possession?” she asked.

“No. I believe your brother was a patriotic public servant. He was not a target of our investigation,” Smith replied. “In fact, he likely would have been a witness in our case. Your brother investigated the claims that Donald Trump was making. He found them to be false.”

She followed up, “Why does the gag order say that disclosure of the subpoena would result in destruction of or tampering with evidence?”

“Because disclosure of that evidence could result in Donald Trump trying to intimidate witnesses as he had before and after,” Smith replied.

She shot back, “It makes no sense that anyone would be able to destroy the evidence that you were seeking,” since the evidence in question was in the hands of Lindsey Graham and Verizon.

She added, “You should be ashamed of yourself. It’s also a damned shamed that you weaponied our legal system to do this, to go after a political opponent, and his allies, including Lindsey.”

Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., called Smith a “dirt bag.”

Schmitt pressed Smith on whether he visited Atlanta during his time as special counsel, when Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was prosecuting a case against Trump over the 2020 election dispute.

Schmitt said the committee had a text from Smith’s staff that said he went to an Atlanta Hawks game in February 2024. Smith later said he was at a women’s college basketball game in Maryland between the University of Maryland Terrapins and the University of Iowa Hawkeyes, not an Atlanta Hawks game.

Senate Democrats focused almost entirely on the Jan. 6, 2021, protest that led to a breach of the Capitol.

“What we’ve heard, and what we haven’t heard, from my colleagues across the aisle, they have attacked you repeatedly, aggressively, inapprorpiately, scandalously, but none of them have contested what happened on this day,” Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said. “None of them have said there was no attack on Jan. 6. None of them have tried to deny the assault on police officers. None of them have even suggested the president wasn’t involved.”

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for the Daily Signal. I am going to mention Canada again. I know we’re getting tired of this subject because, after all, Canada is our closest ally, closest friend, the country that is most like the United States, or so we’ve been told. But [Prime Minister] Mark Carney is doing things that we have never seen or heard before in Canada.

His latest is he tells a reporter that, yes, he has thought of preparing the Canadian military to prepare for an invasion by the United States. That is absolutely insane when the United States has protected, since World War II, the entire North American continent.

Canada has never had missiles launched into its airspace. It has never had its claims, extravagant though they are, in the Northwest Passage and the Arctic challenged by China or Russia or any hostile power due to the U.S. military.

The idea that the protector of Canada, the protector who allowed Canada to disarm, is preparing an invasion is absurd, and it’s an insult.

And Carney is doing this, once again, to jack up opinion in Canada for a new nationalism to avoid the great dissatisfaction in Alberta and Quebec, and especially to try to influence the midterms in the United States and to otherwise mask his unpopular socialist globalist agenda.

But when he said to the world that the United States, he thought, could invade Canada militarily, and when he reached out to Communist China and is basically seeing them as one of its two new trading partners, given its record in cheating on trade, its human rights violations, and the horrendous legacy of the Communist Party since Mao Zedong in China, and he’s preferring that now over the tradition of American friendship.

And then at the same time, as he warned the world that he was preparing or he could prepare for an American invasion, at the same time he’s reached out to the EU, the European Union. Canada has 75% of all of its trade and its exports with the United States. It has 5%—5%—with the EU, and yet he’s reaching out for a new trade partner as if he thinks the EU, which is one of the most protectionist entities in the world, is going to drop its tariffs and its barriers to benefit Canada’s 5% trade with the EU.

This is insane.

More importantly, he doesn’t quite understand that of all, in this dispute, it’s over 2%. The tariffs are over 2% of the trade, which everybody agrees was almost tariff-free.

All the United States was saying is that we’re tired of 250% tariffs once we get over a certain number of exports into Canada, and we don’t like, at the 11th hour, slapping 5% on our digital media companies so that we have to subsidize your acculturation in Canada or promote the French language or Indigenous people, and these are American companies.

We don’t do that to Canada, of course. And we did resent, at the last moment, telling us that you were going to allow cheap Chinese metals to come into your economy so that they can be reassembled and sent as finished vehicles into the United States and therefore allow China to avoid tariffs. We resented that, but it still only represented 2%, and yet that sent Carney wild.

He doesn’t realize, though, what he’s getting into, as I said. Not only do his children live there in the United States, not only did he go to school, as they did, in the United States, not only did his 91% investment portfolio reside in the United States, but Canada is the most favored nation of all the nations in the world as far as tariffs go with the United States.

Canada is the only country, as I’ve said before, where you can come into the United States without a visa and work immediately for six months, as 1 million Canadians do as I speak.

Canada doesn’t have to deal with 10,000 illegal immigrants coming from Latin America on their way into North America. It doesn’t have to deal with the dangerous cartels that kill 100,000 Americans in some years. It doesn’t have to deal with Chinese fentanyl going into Mexico to be repackaged as designer drugs to kill Americans.

It doesn’t have to deal with that because the United States is a barrier to Canada. It has the longest unenforced border with the United States. We don’t treat Canada the way Mexico treats us, or rather, we ensure that Mexico doesn’t treat Canada the way it treats us.

People in Canada are not sending back $65 billion out of their economy. All we’re saying is that year after year after year, Canada should try to reduce a $50 billion surplus.

It should try to at least match or exceed the NATO promise that it made to spend 2% of [gross domestic product] on defense, and it needs to discuss any other issues in a sober and judicious manner rather than walk out at the 11th hour and tell nobody.

And so, what’s gonna happen is we’re watching—when he said the latest, Carney said the latest about a veritable war, the American people’s ears perked up.

And you can talk all you want in Canada about elbows out and how chauvinistic you are and how you’re gonna cut off the tar sands oil to the United States and all the terrible things you’re gonna do, and you’re going to get China on your side and the EU.

They’re not going to do it.

The United States has a $30 trillion economy. It’s $10 trillion larger than the EU. It’s $10 trillion larger than China. There are no transportation costs for Canada just to walk across the border with 75% of its trade.

What Carney is basically saying is: I’m not gonna tell you what I said in these negotiations and why I walked out. I am going to misrepresent it. I won’t give you a transcript. I got my ministers to back me up. No discussion.

He’s saying this because he had ulterior political motives. But he sacrificed the viability, not just the economic viability, the viability of Canada, which was heavily reliant on the U.S. military, the goodwill of the American people, and the U.S. economy.

I’d just like to finish why he’s doing this and why the Canadians are reacting in such a Pavlovian manner to follow his prompt.

This is not the Canada that we used to know that was proud, confident, had a glorious record in World War II, a strong military, a strong economy, developed in a very sober and judicious manner its rich treasure house of natural—sir, not after Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney.

We in the United States did not cause this problem. We did not say to Canada, “You better let in 45% of your current population from foreign countries who were not born in Canada or their parents weren’t born, and they’re not gonna be assimilated and integrated in melting-pot fashion.”

We did not say, “Forego all of the rich fossil fuels in your country. Stop pipelines to other provinces from Alberta and stress green energy, solar power in frigid Canada, so to speak.”

We did not say to you, “Craft your economy so of all the 30-something industrial Western nations, you will have the least amount of per annum GDP growth.”

We did not do it, much less [President] Donald Trump. He did not say to Canada, “You can’t have the same familial GDP as we are. You have to be $30,000 to $40,000 poorer per person and per family than we are.”

We didn’t say to the Canadians, who are a strongly moral and ethical people, “You shall lead the world in assisted suicides, 5.1% of all your deaths, 19,000 people a year, ostensibly to save overwhelming health care costs for people who may be terminal because the economy doesn’t support that. The economy doesn’t support open borders and the amount of immigrants who are coming in. The economy doesn’t support fulfilling your defense needs. The economy doesn’t support fair trade with the United States that’s symmetric.” But we didn’t do that. Your leaders did.

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

President Donald Trump said he is thinking of forming a committee for policing artificial intelligence.

He spoke to reporters after eating lunch with top tech executives, administration officials, and House Speaker Mike Johnson.

“There’s going to be a tremendous self-policing aspect” with respect to AI, Trump said. “We’re also thinking about forming a committee of sorts where we put maybe 10 people on that committee. It could be from that group, so that we can, so the committee can watch over the whole enterprise.”

Trump has previously called for creating an “AI Force.” He said he is “very close” to a decision on an AI czar and will announce the candidate in the next three to four days.

​Johnson ​said that AI ​executives ​signed an “accord” on ​AI ​standards at the ‌meeting.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the goal is to “give the American people and our customers confidence that the technology works in the way that we intend.”

“Every company is building something that’s a little bit different,” he said. “But I think what we can all agree on is that the American public and our customers want to know that what we’re building is working in the way that we all intend.”

He said they had drafted a “set of principles and commitments around building robust internal controls and detecting if there are any issues with the technology, coupled with multiple layers of of auditing and controls, starting with internal risk review, external auditors and evaluators, and agreeing that we’re going to have all of our boards of directors independently review the reports that come from the auditors.”

Zuckerberg said this is just a start.

“The idea isn’t that this is the only thing that we will ever do,” he said. “It is that this is a start and an accord that the whole industry can come to. And I was very proud to have that discussion with a number of our colleagues who I think are running great companies.”

Director of National Intelligence Jay Clayton said the tech leaders agreed “being a leader in America in AI is the most important thing for national security.”