A 24-year-old Venezuelan illegal immigrant has been sentenced to 24 months in prison, followed by a three years supervised release, after pleading guilty to a shocking crime last September in Perrysburg, Ohio.

The 24 year old, Anthony Emmanuel Labrador-Sierra, pled guilty to possession of a firearm by an alien unlawfully in the United States, making false statements during the purchase of a firearm and making or using false writings or documents.

Part of the falsified records include Labrador-Sierra posing as a 16-year-old high school student fleeing human trafficking. For over a year, Labrador-Sierra attended Perrysburg High School, where he enrolled under false pretenses. While enrolled, the 24-year-old participated on the school’s swimming and soccer teams.

The sentence was shared in a press release by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Northern Ohio on Monday.

“Labrador-Sierra is subject to a detainer from the United States Border Patrol and will be taken into administrative immigration custody following the completion of his sentence,” the press release mentioned.

“The defendant submitted a false date of birth to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on federal applications for Temporary Protective Status and Employment Authorization documents in 2024 and 2025,” the release added.

Dr. Kadee Anstadt, the superintendent for Perrysburg Schools, told The Daily Signal in a statement that, “Perrysburg Schools is encouraged to see this case continuing to move forward through the courts.”

“We will continue to cooperate with authorities and remain focused on the safety and well being of our students and staff members. Because legal proceedings are ongoing, we have no further comment at this time,” Anstadt added.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office press release also referenced President Donald Trump’s focus on immigration.

“This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and protect communities from the perpetrators of violent crime,” the press release concluded.

The Trump administration is putting an end to TPS for those from many countries, including Venezuela.

The post Venezuelan Illegal Sentenced for Shocking Crime appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Republican Rep. Mike Lawler is breaking from the Trump administration on its deportation push, calling for leniency for some illegal immigrants in an essay for The New York Times.

“The deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis this month were tragic and preventable,” Lawler, R-N.Y., writes in an essay published Tuesday. “No matter where you stand on immigration enforcement, the shootings show that what the country has been doing is not working.”

Lawler, who represents a district in New York’s Hudson Valley that favored Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris over now-President Donald Trump, argues in the essay that Congress must codify new immigration law.

“Along with building on Mr. Trump’s border policies, a realistic plan would provide a path to legal status—not citizenship—for long-term illegal immigrants without criminal records,” Lawler writes. 

“This path would be rigorous and fair, and it would aim to keep families together. Fair means those who benefit would face mandatory work requirements, forgo public assistance and pay fines and any back taxes they might owe.”

Lawler additionally criticizes sanctuary city policies and calls for administration officials to investigate the deaths of Good and Pretti and testify before Congress.

Lawler is a co-sponsor of the “dignity act,” which would put a temporary pause on the removal of some migrants working in the United States.

The swing district congressman recently bucked the party line by voting to resurrect COVID-era Obamacare premium tax credit levels that expired at the end of 2025.

The essay received mixed reception in some conservative circles.

“Been saying watch out for the amnesty push,” wrote Mike Howell, president of The Oversight Project, in response to the essay. “I imagine the legislation will be some modest sanctuary city reform + gigantic amnesty.”

Byron York, a long-time conservative journalist, wrote in response that “this kind of talk has been going on for decades” and that history indicates “Congress will not legislate Trump-level deportation numbers.”

Department of Homeland Security officials did not immediately reply to The Daily Signal with response to Lawler’s essay.

The post Republican Rep. Backs Leniency For Some Illegal Immigrants appeared first on The Daily Signal.

One individual is in critical condition following a Border Patrol-involved shooting in Pima County, Arizona on Tuesday morning.  

The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was called into the federal investigation on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the department told The Daily Signal. 

“The FBI office out of Phoenix gave us a call to do our own parallel investigation into an officer’s use of force,” the spokesperson added.  

Local NBC News affiliate News 4 Tucson reports that the same individual who was wounded was also in custody, and received immediate medical attention before being transferred to a local hospital.  

This is a developing story and may be updated.  

The post One Person in Critical Condition Following Border Patrol-Involved Shooting in Arizona  appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Following the ICE-involved fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday, some Republicans are questioning the Trump administration’s methods to follow through on President Donald Trump’s chief campaign promise of mass deportations.

The break in party ranks comes ahead of the Senate’s Friday deadline to fund the government. The funding contains appropriations for DHS and ICE. With renewed Democrat opposition to the funding package and a small Republican majority, Senate Republicans will need every Republican vote they can get to avoid a partial government shutdown. 

A ‘Jailbreak of RINOs’?

“It’s a jailbreak of RINOs out of the America First tent right now on the issue of mass deportation,” Mike Howell, Director of the Oversight Project, told The Daily Signal.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, called the tragic death a “killing.” At the same time, she called for an investigation.  

“A comprehensive, independent investigation of the shooting must be conducted,” Murkowski said in a statement on X. “In order to rebuild trust and Congressional committees need to hold hearings and do their oversight work. ICE agents do not have carte blanche in carrying out their duties,” she continued.  

Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., also called for an investigation.

“There must be a thorough and impartial investigation into yesterday’s Minneapolis shooting,” Tillis said, “which is the basic standard that law enforcement and the American people expect following any officer-involved shooting.”

“This specific incident requires cooperation and transparency between federal, state, and local law enforcement. Any administration official who rushes to judgment and tries to shut down an investigation before it begins are doing an incredible disservice to the nation and to President Trump’s legacy,” Tillis added.

Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, called on the heads of ICE, CBP, and USCIS to come and testify to the Senate.  

On X, Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at the Article III Project and vice president of external affairs, at the Edmund Burke Foundation, called on Senate Majority Leader John Thune to remove Paul as the lead Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee after the 2026 midterms.

The heads of ICE, CBP and USCIS will testify before the House Homeland Security Committee on Feb. 10 and Paul’s committee on Feb. 12.

Howell also told The Daily Signal that “It’s politically timed to have the most destructive impact to President Trump’s agenda. They’re going to push for amnesty and limitations on ICE enforcement operations and tell you it’s a win because there are some small-ball reforms on sanctuary city policy.”

Local Minnesota state Sen. Julia Coleman, R-Carver, is also taking heat for breaking ranks.   

“Minnesota deserves better than a Trump vs. Walz standoff,” she said on X Sunday afternoon. “ After tragic shootings and rising tensions, I’m calling on all sides to de-escalate: pause targeted operations, honor ICE detainers for criminals, negotiate, and prioritize peace,” she concluded.   

Monday morning President Trump shared that Gov. Tim Walz called him with a request to “work together.” He is also sending his “boarder czar” Tom Homan to Minnesota to help agents. Homan will report directly to Trump instead of Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.

House Republicans Urge Holding the Line

Many Republicans in the House, however, are pointing the finger at Democrats and demanding that Republicans hold the line by standing with the Trump administration’s deportation efforts.

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, said, “Democrats set the stage for violence, and when it happens, weaponize it to stop immigration enforcement.”

“Republicans cannot respond with weak-kneed capitulation or cowardice. We were elected with a mandate to deport illegal aliens, end sanctuary city policies, and secure our border. And we should keep going,” Gill concluded. 

“Unlike my Democrat colleagues, I’m going to let law enforcement conduct their investigation and not jump to asinine conclusions. We are grateful no Border Patrol officers were harmed,” Majority Whip Tom Emmer, of Minnesota, said in a statement via X. 

Another Government Shutdown?

Republicans calling for the investigation have not made their vote on the upcoming funding package public yet, but it appears the Senate is headed for a contentious vote.

Republicans have at least one Democrat vote for now: Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa. 

In an X post he said, “Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti should still be alive. My family grieves for theirs.” 

“The operation in Minneapolis should stand down and immediately end,” he continued. “It has become an ungovernable and dangerous urban theatre for civilians and law enforcement that is incompatible with the American spirit,” he continued.  

Nevertheless, Fetterman added that he “will NEVER vote to shut our government down.”

“I reject calls to defund or abolish ICE,” the Pennsylvania senator added.

The post While Conservatives Call on Congress to Hold The Line, Some Senate Republicans Are Questioning ICE Tactics appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A new report alleges that the streaming giant Netflix has worked closely with federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies in ways that amount to government-assisted propaganda.

The report released Tuesday by the Oversight Project, a government watchdog group, contends that the FBI, CIA, and the Defense Department (now the War Department) exercised influence over film and television productions — particularly those distributed by Netflix. 

“Based on all publicly available evidence and analysis, Netflix appears to have an outsized role in socially engineering millions of Americans into a predisposition to accept preferred left-wing ideological dogma,” the Oversight Project report states.

“Netflix did so with the help of the federal government, especially the FBI, and intelligence community. In fact, the FBI plays an outsized active role in content moderation for projects it is involved in.”

The report frames modern entertainment as similar to Cold War-era propaganda programs. The difference, according to the report, is that current propaganda aims to advance a domestic left-leaning political agenda.

“The intended purpose is no longer to combat a foreign enemy or communist ideology,” the report contends. “To the contrary, the purpose is social engineering to advance extremist ideology and the preferred narratives of the FBI and intelligence community.” 

The watchdog group says documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show “concrete evidence of the FBI’s systematic involvement in entertainment production, including Netflix content.” It adds, “These documents reveal formalized, contractual arrangements granting FBI editorial control.”

“Far left ideologues and partisans are on the cusp of expanding and cementing control of the biggest political messaging tool in history: Fedflix,” Oversight Project President Mike Howell told The Daily Signal. “More Americans should know the consequences of this, which is why we are excited to release this report.”

Both the FBI and Netflix acknowledged email inquiries from The Daily Signal to comment on the story, but neither immediately replied for comment.

The report compares what is currently happening to a domestic version of Operation Mockingbird, a covert CIA effort to influence domestic media. The Church Committee, a Senate select committee that investigated covert federal actions, exposed aspects of that program in the 1970s.

The Oversight Project argues that the underlying infrastructure of the operation never disappeared.

“Congress never fully exposed Operation Mockingbird in its entirety,” the report says. “The infrastructure and relationships between the government and the entertainment industry that were established during this era never truly disappeared. Instead, analysis of all available evidence indicates they evolved to operate out of the public’s view and adapted to new media landscapes like we see today.”

The report also notes, “Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard publicly confirmed in July 2025 that Operation Mockingbird-type activities never ended.”

The Oversight Project report focuses heavily on the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs, particularly a unit known as the “Long Form Team,” which it describes as the bureau’s “propaganda office.” 

“Within the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs, the Long Form Team reviews scripts, suggesting and even requiring changes at times, and maintains ongoing relationships with writers, producers, studios and streaming platforms,” the report says. 

The report asserts the FBI, “Maintains ongoing relationships with Netflix and other studios and production houses,” and “Uses American taxpayer dollars to fund their programs.”

In some cases, the report says, the FBI required advanced approval of interview clips and script elements. One agreement for an “Untitled 9/11 Project” airing on Netflix required FBI approval of certain aspects of the production, according to the report.

Beyond government collaboration, the report argues that Netflix’s content library reflects a bias against President Donald Trump, and a “left-wing ideological orientation,” based on an artificial intelligence-powered survey of Netflix’s catalogue.

“While not comprehensive, the survey results make clear that the volume of content favoring left-wing and progressive trends dominates content that is conservative or critical of progressive trends,” the report says. “Content that discusses Trump-era politics skews 11:1 against President Trump.”

Listing personnel, the report described co-CEO Ted Sarandos and co-founder Reid Hastings as each being a “major Democratic donor.” Also, President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser Susan Rice is on the Netflix board.

As remedies, the Oversight Project calls for congressional investigations, new legislation restricting government-media collaboration, and an antitrust review of Netflix. It also urges lawmakers to defund public affairs offices at federal agencies that work with Hollywood.

“Formally end funding for Office of Public Affairs coordination with Hollywood at FBI, CIA, and DOD,” the report recommends.

“Government is unaccountable when it has the ability to stream propaganda at the public on whose legitimacy representative government is based,” the report says. “When government and media merge to shape narratives, manipulate public opinion, and engineer social change, the foundations of free society crumble.”

The post Watchdog Alleges Netflix Coordinated With FBI to Promote Leftwing Narratives appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Constitution is more than just parchment; it sets clear guidelines to limit the power of government so that citizens will be treated equally under law, regardless of their political or religious beliefs. 

When the government violates the Constitution, every citizen who values life and liberty should be very alarmed, not just conservatives.

That is why Jack Smith and his special counsel investigations deserve sober, rigorous scrutiny.

According to publicly reported court filings, House and Senate documents and hearings, and media accounts, Smith and his prosecutors sought sweeping access to private communications and financial records of Americans who did not commit and were never charged with crimes, including Republican elected officials. Smith may try to defend his actions as legal, but even if they were, legality alone does not confer legitimacy.

For example, Smith issued subpoenas to telecommunications providers (e.g., AT&T and Verizon) for phone and toll records of Republican senators and congressmen and, to prevent anyone from finding out, falsely asserted to the court that they were flight risks in order to gag the providers.

Smith did the same to many other innocent Americans and even sought their communications with media companies and senior White House advisers in the first administration of President Donald Trump. Smith also sought fundraising and financial data for hundreds of conservatives and conservative groups simply because of their political leanings; they had done nothing wrong.

Smith massively overreached and at minimum deserves a full public airing. Americans must never silently accept that government prosecutors can secretly collect, without notice or opportunity to challenge, their metadata, call logs, communications, financial data, and other private information. When government secretly amasses information and power, liberty and accountability retreat.

Smith’s actions happened under the U.S. Department of Justice’s authority during the President Joe Biden’s administration, which already had undermined public trust in government and institutional neutrality, thus undermining the rule of law. Moreover, Smith’s actions give at least the appearance that Biden’s DOJ exercised prosecutorial discretion against its political opponents in a biased manner.

The same dynamic is evident in another troubling Biden administration trend: political debanking. That is, lawful organizations and individuals reported losing access to basic financial services not because of fraud or misconduct, but because of their political identity.

For example, on May 30, 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association, stating that the New York State Department of Financial Services unconstitutionally advised and even pressured banks and insurance companies to deny services to them.

Others have echoed these concerns.

For example, Trump and his family members have spoken about suddenly losing long-time banking and financial relationships.

Financial institutions named in public reporting and congressional inquiries include, among others, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, and platforms such as PayPal.

In December 2025 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a report that found from 2020 to 2023, several major banks debanked individuals and entire industries, such as oil, gas, coal, firearms, and tobacco, with no explanation or transparency, based on their political disfavor with the Biden administration and its allied state regulators.

Taken together, these developments suggest a dangerous pattern: surveillance without notice and predicated on lies, punishment without due process, and selective rather than fair and evenhanded enforcement.

Accountability matters because the Constitution forbids punishing persons based on their political or religious beliefs. The DOJ must conduct a thorough, principled review of how Jack Smith (mis)used his government powers. If he or other officials exceeded their authority and/or allowed politics to guide them, they must be held accountable—not to satisfy partisanship, but to restore constitutional balance and public trust in the rule of law.

Accountability is not payback. It is fidelity—to the law, to equal justice, to the enduring promise of American liberty, and to the Constitution. Without it, the rule of law becomes a slogan rather than a safeguard.

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

The post Selective Justice Is Not Rule of Law appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan has urged Minnesotans to take trainings to monitor Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and to support groups that organize opposition to ICE on the ground.

Her support came after the death of Renee Good at the hands of ICE while she appeared to have been using her car to interfere with ICE operations. It came before anti-ICE agitators invaded Cities Church in St. Paul in the middle of a service, and before a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot and killed Alex Pretti, who—like Good—had reportedly joined an “ICE Watch” group.

Activists claim to be training “legal observers” merely to observe ICE activities and to alert the neighborhood to the presence of agents. However, some of the anti-ICE groups have also trained to directly oppose ICE operations, either by using their cars to block arrests or by using their bodies to prevent ICE from arresting illegal aliens.

Flanagan’s Comments

“Everyone is less safe because ICE is on our streets,” Flanagan, a Democrat, said in a Jan. 14 Instagram video from her personal account. In addition to serving as the state’s lieutenant governor, she is running for U.S. Senate in the November elections.

“On the local level, I’m asking you to sign up for a legal observer training, so that you can protect your neighbors when they need it,” she adds. “Our phones and our ability to document unconstitutional behavior is one of the most powerful tools that we have in this fight.”

“The Immigrant Defense Network and Monarca both offer trainings for folks to learn more about their rights and how to become legal observers,” Flanagan explains. “I’ve taken the training and I hope that you’ll join me. And for folks that are watching outside of state, please contribute to these organizations who are doing the important work here in Minnesota.”

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Peggy Flanagan (@peggyflanagan)

Monarca and Unidos

Monarca, whose training Flanagan endorsed, describes itself as a “coalition of thousands” that has “trained over 20,000 everyday Minnesotans as neighborhood observers to help protect people’s rights where it matters most—on the ground, in our communities.”

The project hosts a “rapid response line” for people to report ICE sightings, along with trainings on the First Amendment (the rights to observe ICE) and Fourth Amendment (the right to keep ICE out of your home without a warrant).

The 501(c)(3) nonprofit Unidos MN appears to have launched Monarca as a project.

Unidos MN has helped organize sit-ins at Target locations and listed a set of demands: that the company distance itself from ICE; post placards warning ICE not to enter franchise locations without a warrant; and prevent ICE from using Target parking lots as staging areas.

Flanagan’s necklace in the Instagram video resembles the butterfly logo of Monarca.

The Immigrant Defense Network

Flanaga also endorsed the training of the Immigrant Defense Network, which describes itself as “a network of over 90 immigrant, labor, legal, faith, and community organizations” working as “a community resource hub, immigration policy watchdog, and engine for rapid response to violations of immigrant rights & due process.”

Its “rapid response strategy includes maintaining helpline infrastructure, deploying observers, and organizing public demonstrations.”

The group’s website explains that “Immigrant Defense Network is a project of COPAL Education Fund,” so donations go to the Comunidades Organizando el Poder y la Accíon Latina. The Bush Foundation (no relation to the former presidents) gave COPAL a $995,000 24-month grant last year to set up the network.

COPAL hosts a hotline for people to call when spotting ICE. The New York Times described COPAL as being “on the front lines of anti-ICE operations.”

The Daily Signal reached out to Flanagan’s U.S. Senate campaign, the office of Gov. Tim Walz, Unidos and COPAL for comment.

The post Minnesota Lt. Gov. Urges Donations to Groups Training ‘Legal Observers’ to Oppose ICE appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Zohran Mamdani’s policy and funding proposals could precipitate an economic and political crisis in New York City reminiscent of the movements that led to Communist China, the Soviet Union, or Socialist Venezuela.  

To finance this red vision, New York’s mayor proposes an additional 2% income tax to New York City’s non-corporate businesses and residents making over $1 million annually.  

He claims that this revenue will address residents’ affordability concerns by allowing the government to provide discounted or free services. These socialist policies range from rent freezes, affordable housing, city-owned grocery stores, free buses, no-cost childcare, and mandating a $30 minimum wage.  

For a city that consistently issues municipal bonds to attempt to escape its debt, piling on more anti-growth taxes will only exacerbate these problems.   

There is a catch to Mamdani’s policies that his campaign ads never mentioned: The city requires state approval to raise its local income tax rate. 

Mamdani has campaigned on promises he can’t keep. Neither the mayor nor City Hall can “flip a switch” because an income tax hike is subject to Albany’s budget process.  

Even assuming his plan is hypothetically supported, it would impose an additional 2% penalty tax on millionaires’ incomes—which includes small businesses that file individual income taxes. For example, someone making $1 million will pay the top local marginal tax rate of 3.9% on top of an additional $20,000 in penalty tax. 

Notably, New Yorkers already pay exorbitant taxes at all three levels of government, making it the most burdensome in the country. Federal income taxes range from 10 to 37%, New York state income taxes range from 4 to 10.9%, and New York local income taxes range from 3.1 to 3.9%.

While the lowest earners pay 0% in taxes by using standard deductions and exemptions, highest earners can see combined income tax burdens up to 52%. 

Mamdani claims that “new millionaires are minted every year,” as if that justifies levying additional taxes on New Yorkers. The mayor ignores the innumerable benefits that high-income individuals, often entrepreneurs and business owners, have on society and the economy.  

These entrepreneurs and innovators are significant drivers of investment and broad-based economic growth. Their businesses contribute to employment, and their wealth contributes millions of dollars in tax revenue for local, state, and federal governments.  

The primary ethical justification thrown out by Mamdani for raising taxes is that the “rich don’t pay their fair share.” But according to IRS filings, the top 1% of earners pay 40.4% of all income taxes and the top 10% pay a 72% share. 

According to the Citizens Budget Commission, New York millionaires are less than 1% of resident filers, yet they already pay about 40% of New York City’s and 44% of New York state’s personal income tax.  

When the city relies this much on heavily taxing so very few households, changes in their income or residency have outsized budget effects. There is no doubt that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes. 

If high earners relocate to states or suburbs with lower rates, they take with them their purchasing power, taxable income, and businesses which create jobs. 

By imposing disproportional income taxes and ignoring the realities of modern hybrid work, Mamdani will imperil municipal budgets as both capital and the wealthy mobile population flee from socialist policies. Consequently, this will undermine funding for the very social services Mamdani has promised.   

New York doesn’t have to adopt Florida’s budgeting acumen overnight, but it does need to keep the people and businesses who pay the bills. Implementing a new 2% penalty tax on high earners and their businesses, on top of the current marginal rates, is a gamble with the city’s budget and economic ecosystem that will detrimentally impact residents. 

The post Mamdani’s Millionaire Tax Would Zap NYC’s Dynamism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order initiating the United States withdrawal from the World Health Organization, the United Nation’s agency charged with supporting global health. Last week, he finalized that action, ending all funding, personnel support, and formal engagements.  

Trump’s action is hardly precipitous. In fact, when he indicated his desire to disengage from the WHO in 2020, he noted that his decision was largely driven by the organization’s profoundly poor performance in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its subsequent refusals to reform itself.

Based on the record, the president is making the right decision.  

Amidst the deadly Covid-19 pandemic, WHO failed in its crucial mission. Following a comprehensive two-year investigation into the government’s response to the pandemic, including sworn testimony, the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic concluded:

While WHO is supposed to support the entire world, during COVID-19 pandemic, it appeared to protect its relationship with the CCP (the Chinese Communist Party). The WHO was misinformed, denied access to China, and was used as cover for CCP’s reckless actions. At a time when the globe was turning to the WHO for leadership and advice, the WHO’s actions showed that it did not support all its members equally. What was seen was an organization that, rather than serving all humankind, became beholden to and entrapped in politics.

The Record. Look at the record. On Jan. 14, 2020, for example, WHO told the world that COVID-19 was “not transmissible” from human to human. WHO’s communication of this false information was based on what Communist Chinese officials were telling them, and they naively trusted them. In fact, one of the outstanding features of this deadly pathogen was its impressive contagiousness. The novel coronavirus had been circulating and infecting persons in China and elsewhere, as early as the Fall of 2019. It had been spreading rapidly, and COVID-19 antibodies even showed up in blood samples in Veneto, Italy, as early as September 3, 2019!

On Dec. 31, 2019, as the subcommittee reported, WHO ignored warnings from Taiwan about strange “pneumonia” cases showing up in Wuhan Province, China. Meanwhile, the Chinese Communists were underreporting cases and deaths, crushing internal dissent, and threatening Chinese medical professionals and journalists who deviated from the official line on the novel coronavirus. The Communist regime, however, insisted on maintaining normal air travel from China to other parts of the world, including the United States.

The Human Cost. In the face of a global health threat, the WHO is supposed to issue a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern” (PHEIC). Such a declaration is the equivalent of a “red alert,” putting nations on notice and enabling them to prepare individually and collectively to take measures to control the spread of a dangerous disease.

Our Central Intelligence Agency and German intelligence both found that the Chinese Communists threatened WHO officials if they declared a global emergency, saying that they would end China’s role in any international effort to combat the novel coronavirus. So, as the subcommittee further reported, WHO delayed and did not declare a global emergency until Jan. 30, 2020: “By the time the WHO declared COVID-19 a PHIEC on January 30, 2020, the disease infected almost 10,000 and killed almost 1000 people in 19 different countries. It was reported that the delay in PHEIC declaration was a result of intense pressure from the CCP.”    

Even so, WHO, while praising Communist China’s efforts to combat the coronavirus at home, opposed travel restrictions to contain the contagion. Congressional investigators noted that between Dec. 31, 2019, and Jan. 31, 2020 , there were 430,000 passengers who flew from China to the United States.

On Jan. 31, 2020, Trump imposed a travel ban on China. While Dr. Anthony Fauci told Congress that Trump’s decisive action undoubtedly saved American lives, Trump’s critics, of course, accused him of “racism”.  

A Joke. It got worse. In January 2021, WHO assembled a team of 17 international experts to visit Wuhan, China, and inquire into the then mysterious origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Chinese Communists denied participation of any American scientists, except Dr. Peter Daszak, a friendly collaborator with the Wuhan Institute Virology on risky coronavirus research funded by American taxpayers.

China’s scientists, incidentally, comprised roughly half of the team of international investigators. A “balanced” approach.    

The team was denied access to the raw data, interviews with personnel were limited, and so was access to lab facilities. As the subcommittee also reported: “A significant restriction was the CCP’s complete control over every single aspect of the investigation team’s itinerary and access to information. Upon arriving in Wuhan, the WHO team quarantined for two weeks in hotel rooms and were further restricted to certain areas of the hotel after quarantining. The investigators were restricted from dining with their Chinese counterparts, a seemingly insignificant detail, yet denied the WHO team the opportunity to engage in informal, human-to-human, conversation that can provide invaluable information.”

This entire process was a joke. While the WHO report entertained various scenarios as to the origin of the deadly coronavirus- transmission from animal to human, through an unidentified intermediate animal host or food products–the hypothesis of a laboratory origin was dismissed as “extremely unlikely”. In short, the WHO report mirrored the official, pre-determined Chinese Communist Party line.  

Compared to the United States China’s financial contribution to the WHO is a mere pittance. Among member nation states, the U.S. has been the most generous funder of the WHO, with annual American taxpayer subsidies running between $110 to $123 million over the period 2014 to 2023. But the organization is also funded by voluntary contributions, from, for example, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  

Global elites are, of course, a dependable source of “moral” support.

WHO officials are doubtless overjoyed that the State of California will join the agency’s international health network, following  America’s departure. California Gov. Gavin Newsom made the announcement while attending the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.   

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, according to the president’s order, is tasked with identifying responsible international partners to join in a cooperative effort to protect global health.

Given the WHO’s multiple failures during the COVID-19 crisis, the time is ripe for a new international effort to respond to pandemics more effectively. In the United Kingdom, for example, British conservatives have already launched “Action on World Health,” an agenda to reform or replace the WHO.

Our friends and allies overseas know, from bitter experience, that together we can and must do better.   

The post Trump Is Making the Right Call in Leaving the WHO appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan met with Minneapolis Gov. Tim Walz Tuesday, just one day after Walz accused federal immigration agents of carrying out an “assault on our state.”  

Despite his criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations, Walz spoke with Homan on Tuesday after Trump deployed the border czar to Minneapolis to take over the federal enforcement operation there.  

“Governor Walz met with Tom Homan this morning and reiterated Minnesota’s priorities: impartial investigations into the Minneapolis shootings involving federal agents, a swift, significant reduction in the number of federal forces in Minnesota, and an end to the campaign of retribution against Minnesota,” Walz’s office said in a statement.  

Walz and Homan have “agreed on the need for an ongoing dialogue and will continue working toward those goals,” Walz’s office added, noting that governor found similar agreement with Trump during their call Monday.  

“The Governor tasked the Minnesota Department of Public Safety as the primary liaison to Homan to ensure these goals are met,” the office added.  

Minneapolis has become a flashpoint for the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations following the Immigration and Customs Enforcement-involved shooting in Minneapolis on Jan. 7 that killed 37-year-old Renee Good, and the Border Patrol-involved shooting Saturday that killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti.  

In his Monday announcement that Homan was coming to Minnesota, Trump noted that Homan would “report directly” to him. That followed reports that Border Patrol chief Greg Bovino would be departing Minnesota. 

Homan served as acting director of ICE during Trump’s first term.

Homan’s border security career began in the 1980s, when he joined Border Patrol before going on to serve in ICE. At Trump’s request, Homan returned to Washington in 2025 to serve as Trump’s border czar.  

This is a developing story and will be updated.  

The post Border Czar Tom Homan Meets With Democrats in Minnesota    appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s, R-S.C., announcement on Saturday that he “fully” expects to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2027 swiftly triggered debate among conservatives.

“I fully expect to be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2027 after Republicans retain control of the U.S. Senate,” Graham wrote. “As Chairman, my top priority will be to pass legislation that once and for all ends sanctuary city policies that lead to massive rip-offs of the taxpayer and much worse.”

But conservatives are questioning Graham’s previous voting record and his stance on President Donald Trump’s priorities.

‘Any Other Republican Would Be Better’

A Republican Senate staffer familiar with Graham’s voting record told The Daily Signal that the senator’s recent shift on policy could qualify him to serve as the committee’s chairman once more; however, it might still be insufficient to secure enough support to lead the committee.

“Senator Graham has broken with conservatives in the past on domestic spying and illegal immigration issues, although political winds seem to have brought him to a harder line on the latter in recent years. I would imagine they take a ‘trust but verify’ approach to his possible chairmanship of the Judiciary committee.”

Other conservatives familiar with Graham’s voting record, such as Oversight Project President Mike Howell, told The Daily Signal that Graham, “is the most left-wing Republican on the entire committee, maybe tied with Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., but he is retiring.”

“Any other Republican would be better,” Howell said.

Separately, organizations such as Heritage Action, which provides members of Congress with a score based on how well their voting record aligns with the organization’s voting suggestions, awarded Graham a 56% lifetime rating, 12% lower than the average rating the organization gives to Republicans.

The League of Conservative Voters has also awarded Graham a 14% lifetime score on his voting record.

In the past, President Donald Trump has even referred to Graham as a “RINO” for calling the potential pardon of the January 6 protesters “inappropriate.”

Controversial Voting Record

Graham, who has served in the Senate since 2003, was one of five Republicans to confirm President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Justice Elena Kagan, in 2010.

In 2011, Graham voted to confirm Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia James Boasberg. Boasberg has famously ordered the return of the foreign drug gang members that were deported to the El CECOT prison in El Salvador last spring. Some conservatives in Congress have since called for Boasberg’s impeachment. The DOJ also filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg in summer of 2025.

In 2021, Graham voted to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to the D.C. Circuit Court, which some claim facilitated her confirmation to the Supreme Court a year later in 2022. Graham did not vote for Jackson’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Illegal Immigration Flip-Flop?

In his announcement, Graham pledged to put an end to “sanctuary cities” and policies that supply illegal immigrants with taxpayer-funded shelter while providing them with amnesty from federal immigration enforcement.

However, some conservatives note that Graham’s aggressive stance on illegal immigration seems to be a shift from his previous legislative efforts.

Graham, according to Howell, is a “left-wing proponent of amnesty.”

For instance, in 2021, Graham introduced the Dream Act, which would have offered a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants who arrived in the United States as children.

Graham’s First Run as Judiciary Chair

Graham chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2019 to 2021. Critics claim that under his leadership, the committee failed to act on the “RussiaGate” controversy, the 2020 election, and the politically charged COVID-19 pandemic.

“You failed the American people last time as Chair of Judiciary, refusing to take action on RussiaGate, because of your central role in the hoax,” Graham’s primary opponent, Paul Dans, wrote on X on Sunday.

Graham did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

The post Conservatives Question If Graham Should Lead Judiciary Committee appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The office of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has not responded to condemnations of his comparing illegal alien children to Holocaust victim Anne Frank.

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum on Monday issued a statement rebuking “leaders” for using Frank’s tragic story for “political purposes,” but did not mention Walz by name.

Walz had made the reference at a press conference Sunday in Minnesota, following the shooting of 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti involving Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis.  

Walz paid respects to Pretti’s family before criticizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in his state.  

“We have got children in Minnesota hiding in their houses, afraid to go outside,” Walz said. “Many of us grew up reading that story of Anne Frank. Somebody’s going to write that children’s story about Minnesota.”  

On Monday, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum issued a statement on X seemingly in response to Walz.  

“Anne Frank was targeted and murdered solely because she was Jewish. Leaders making false equivalencies to her experience for political purposes is never acceptable,” the museum’s account stated.

“Despite tensions in Minneapolis, exploiting the Holocaust is deeply offensive, especially as antisemitism surges,” the museum wrote.  

The Daily Signal made multiple attempts to contact Walz’s office to learn if the governor plans to issue an statement or apologize, but received no reply.  

Anne Frank was born in Germany in 1929, just four years before Adolf Hitler rose to power, and moved with her family to Amsterdam after the Nazis took power in Germany.

When the Nazis took control of the Netherlands, they began arresting Jews and sending them to concentration camps. Frank and her family went into hiding in Amsterdam for about two years until they were discovered in 1944. Frank died in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945.  

Her diary she kept while in hiding became one of the most widely-read works of nonfiction in the world after her death, according to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, U.S. special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, was critical of Walz for making the Anne Frank comparison.

“Ignorance like this cheapens the horror of the Holocaust,” Kaploun wrote on X. “Anne Frank was in Amsterdam legally and abided by Dutch law. She was hauled off to a death camp because of her race and religion. Her story has nothing to do with the illegal immigration, fraud, and lawlessness plaguing Minnesota today,” Kaploun stated. 

“Our brave law enforcement should be commended, not tarred with this historically illiterate and antisemitic comparison,” Kaploun added.  

The Trump administration had launched a large immigration enforcement operation in the Twin Cities in December that has since been expanded to the rest of the state. 

Anti-immigration enforcement protests began when federal agents arrived in the city, but increased following the ICE-involved shooting in Minneapolis on Jan. 7 that killed 37-year-old Renee Good. 

Following Pretti’s death on Saturday, President Donald Trump sent border czar Tom Homan to Minneapolis to take over the operation. Homan is scheduled to meet with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey on Tuesday.  

The post Walz Silent After Condemnations of His Comparing ICE Operations to Holocaust appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As Congress battles over homeland security funding ahead of a potential government shutdown, Pennsylvania Democrat Sen. John Fetterman is calling to keep the government open while demanding an end to an immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota.

On Monday, Fetterman called for the expanded immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis to “immediately end,” echoing the calls of his Democrat colleagues.

However, Fetterman has set himself apart from Democrat colleagues in refusing to trigger a government shutdown by voting against a six-bill funding package that includes funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“I will never vote to shut our government down, especially our Defense Department,” Fetterman wrote in his statement.

Throughout the latest government shutdown, Fetterman consistently voted for a continuing resolution to maintain funding for the government and was one of eight Democrat caucus senators to cross the aisle and vote to reopen the government in November.

The federal government’s spending authority expires Jan. 30, and several Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., are demanding a separate vote on homeland security funding.

Currently, funding for several federal agencies is bundled together in the spending package.

The Department of Homeland Security encompasses not only immigration law enforcement, but also services such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Coast Guard.

Failure to pass the six-bill minibus would also dry up funding for the State Department and financial regulators, as well as other agencies, including war, education, labor, health, and housing.

Fetterman argued that, regardless of the bill’s passage, ICE will still receive funding from the July 2025 budget reconciliation bill. He rejected “calls to defund or abolish ICE.”

He called for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to be removed over the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal immigration enforcement officers in Minnesota.

“I make a direct appeal to immediately fire [Secretary Noem],” Fetterman said in a post directed at President Donald Trump Tuesday. 

“Americans have died,” Fetterman continued. “She is betraying DHS’s core mission and trashing your border security legacy. DO NOT make the mistake President [Joe] Biden made for not firing a grossly incompetent DHS Secretary.”

The Pennsylvania senator’s remarks on Noem and Biden’s homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, are noteworthy, given that Fetterman voted to confirm Noem as DHS secretary in 2025 and voted to dismiss articles of impeachment against Mayorkas in 2024.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for a response to Fetterman’s remarks.

The post ‘Fire’ and ‘ICE’: Fetterman Sets Own Path on Immigration Issue appeared first on The Daily Signal.

America is finally having to reckon with the issues of transgenderism in athletics and schools. From classrooms to locker rooms to athletic fields, the radical transgender agenda has collided head-on with common sense, fairness, and the safety of our children.  

The Supreme Court has now heard the oral arguments for two different cases that involve biological male athletes competing in female sports. These cases hold high importance, and we are hopeful that the court will rule in favor of protecting women and girls. But as critical as athletics are, this battle represents only one front in a much larger cultural and constitutional war.  

It must be said, this issue extends far past athletics and commonly finds its way into the locker rooms and bathrooms of our young children. Whether it be our fight against Letitia James and the New York State Education Department where school board members can be removed for even allowing a parent to speak about the need for privacy in bathrooms, or going up against President Joe Biden’s Department of Education, Southeastern Legal Foundation has long been arguing to protect the rights and privacy of young men and women who are faced with having to share a locker room with someone of their opposite sex. Children should not be forced to surrender their privacy because adults refuse to acknowledge biological reality.  

These incidents are not hypothetical. They are happening in states all across the country. This could happen to any family, in any school district, and make no mistake about it: they affect every child. It doesn’t matter if your daughter is in band or on the athletic field, all children use the bathroom at school. And no girl should have to use the bathroom in the presence of a biological boy. It is an outrage that parents are being told to just accept this.  

Children already face enough challenges growing up. They should not be burdened with navigating radical gender ideology. The root of the problem is that we live in a society that can no longer agree on what “sex” is.  

During the recent oral arguments on trans athletes, American Civil Liberties Attorney Joshua Block suggested that the term “sex” should not even be defined legally. Additionally, public officials and medical professionals increasingly refuse to acknowledge biological facts, such as when OB-GYN Dr. Nisha Verma refused to admit that a man cannot get pregnant when confronted with the question by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.   

If we cannot agree on that basic truth, then no ruling no matter how favorable, will be enough to top what comes next.  

This is why these cases cannot simply be the end of the discussion. If we cannot get on the same page on men not being able to get pregnant, sex meaning the biological sex that you were born with, I can ensure that this floodgate will not close.  

It is in the best interest of all parents and students that the courts confront this reality without delay. Children already face enough challenges growing up; they should not be burdened with navigating radical gender ideology imposed on them by adults. 

While I am hopeful the Supreme Court will resolve the issue of transgender athletes in a way that protects fairness in women’s sports, the deeper problem remains: Truth itself must be acknowledged. Without a shared understanding of biological sex, no ruling will be sufficient. 

As a mom of two young children, I am proud to stand with Southeastern Legal Foundation’s brave clients all across the country whose children are being harmed by these destructive policies. Whether it’s a student being forced to share a locker room with a member of the opposite sex or a female athlete being stripped of a fair competition, SLF will be there to support those who stand up against this radical agenda.   

We should not accept a future where these injustices are normalized. That future only changes when the courts recognize, and enforce, the truth. 

And that reckoning must happen now. 

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

The post Why the Supreme Court Must Clearly Define Biological Sex or the Battle in the Courts Will Never End appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The acting head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons has been orded to appear in court after a federal judge said the agency has failed to comply with dozens of court orders.

The chief judge of Minnesota’s federal court, Patrick Schiltz, threatened Lyons with contempt after his agency missed a deadline to provide a detainee with a bond hearing.

“This court has been extremely patient with respondents, even though respondents decided to send thousands of agents to Minnesota to detain aliens without making any provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result,” Schiltz wrote.

“The court’s patience is at an end.”

ICE did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment. Schiltz said he will cancel Friday’s hearing if the detainee is released.

Schiltz admitted that his order for Lyons to defend himself is “an extraordinary step.”

He added that it was necessary because “the extent of ICE’s violation of court orders is likewise extraordinary, and lesser measures have been tried and failed.”

“The practical consequence of respondents’ failure to comply has almost always been significant hardship to aliens (many of whom have lawfully lived and worked in the United States for years and done absolutely nothing wrong),” the filing reads.

“The detention of an alien is extended, or an alien who should remain in Minnesota is flown to Texas, or an alien who has been flown to Texas is released there and told to figure out a way to get home.”

The post ICE Chief Ordered to Appear in Federal Court appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Some school choice critics argue that allowing taxpayer dollars to follow students to private schools or homeschooling will inevitably lead to more state control over independent education. They claim that “with government shekels come government shackles.”  

But such fearmongering ignores reality—there are states where families get the shekels without the shackles, and others where families get the shackles without the shekels.  

State governments nationwide are now ramping up regulations on private and homeschool education in places that lack any school choice programs. Far from inviting more oversight, school choice builds a bulwark against authoritarian overreach by creating a larger coalition to fight back. 

In states hostile to educational freedom, school choice opponents are introducing proposals to clamp down on homeschooling families without a dime of taxpayer funding involved. Take Senate Bill 6261 in Washington state. The proposal would force parents to notify the state that they’re homeschooling as soon as their child turns six—two full years before compulsory education laws even apply.  

Families failing to comply could face criminal penalties. The bill is a way to track and control families who just want to raise their own kids at home without government interference. 

Over in New Jersey,  state Rep. Sterley Stanley, a Democrat, introduced Assembly Bill 5825 in 2025 , which would mandate that homeschool curricula align with the New Jersey Student Learning Standards. Those standards have been infused with divisive DEI requirements across subjects from history to health class.  

Under the bill, homeschoolers would be compelled to teach state-approved content, stripping away the very essence of independent education.  

The attacks don’t stop there. New Jersey Assembly Bill 5796 would mandate that all homeschool families meet with a government school official each year for a “general health and wellness check.” 

Illinois isn’t far behind. House Bill 2827, also from 2025, requires families to file annual “homeschool declaration forms,” submit portfolios of their children’s work, and endure fines or even jail time for noncompliance. The crackdown comes on the heels of left-leaning lawmakers’ successful efforts to kill the state’s modest school choice program in 2023.  

It’s no coincidence. The same forces dismantling school choice are now targeting homeschoolers to eliminate competition. 

In California, the state assembly passed AB 84 along strict party lines before the bill stalled in the Senate. But it could be revived at any moment. The legislation would impose burdensome reporting and oversight on homeschool families – all without any school choice mechanism in place. 

The politicians and special interests fighting tooth and nail against school choice are the same ones pushing to erode homeschool freedoms. They’re not waiting for “shekels” to impose shackles. They’re forging them now in states devoid of private school choice. 

According to the new ALEC Education Freedom Index released this month, these states targeting homeschoolers rank abysmally low.  

Illinois clocks in at 44th, New Jersey at 42nd, Washington at 39th, and California at 31st. New York, just about dead last at 49th, has no private school choice and arguably the nation’s most oppressive homeschool laws, requiring detailed quarterly reports and standardized testing. None of these states have meaningful private school choice programs, yet they’re leading the charge against family autonomy. 

On the flip side, states embracing school choice are enhancing homeschool freedoms, not curtailing them.  

Wyoming passed universal school choice recently and, in the same legislative session, rolled back unnecessary homeschool reporting requirements. Ohio enacted universal school choice in 2023 and expanded homeschool freedoms in the same bill, reducing bureaucratic hurdles. In Missouri, lawmakers meaningfully expanded school choice in 2024 while slashing homeschool regulations—ending the practice where school districts could weaponize local sheriffs against their homeschooling competitors. 

In 1923, Oregon outlawed private education entirely. The bigoted law was aimed at Catholic schools, pushed by authoritarians desperate to monopolize children’s minds. The U.S. Supreme Court rightly struck it down in the landmark decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which affirmed that “the child is not the mere creature of the State.” That ruling protected educational pluralism without any taxpayer funding involved. 

Those fearmongering about school choice are making the perfect the enemy of the good. We don’t live in a libertarian utopia where government stays out of education entirely.  

In our imperfect world, we must seize incremental victories. School choice isn’t flawless, but it’s a vital step toward liberty. It’s always voluntary. Families and schools weigh the costs and benefits annually, and no one is forced to participate. 

Moreover, school choice diminishes the risk of future regulations by forging a broader alliance of freedom fighters. When more families escape government schools, they join the ranks pushing back against socialist overreach.  

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—there will always be politicians scheming to strip our rights. But we’re stronger, with a bigger team. 

School choice provides an escape valve from indoctrinating district schools that breed support for big government. Without it, more kids remain trapped in systems that churn out voters eager to regulate private and home education. 

Look at New York City, where a socialist won the mayor’s race. That’s no accident. Generations of brainwashing at district schools have normalized expansive government control. School choice breaks that cycle, fostering independent thinkers who value freedom. 

In the end, the status quo of monopoly education poses the real threat. By expanding school choice, we empower families, weaken authoritarians, and safeguard liberties for the long haul.  

Let’s not let baseless fears derail real progress.

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

The post School Choice Breaks Government’s Grip on Education appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The COVID-19 pandemic is over, but the vaccine controversy is not. Concerning the jab, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ignited a firestorm with his vaccine policy, with critics condemning his changes as “irresponsible” and worse. 

Kennedy’s team has reversed the Biden administration’s failing policy of promoting universal COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters. Instead, they are focusing on booster shots for older Americans and those at risk for severe illness, hospitalization, and death.

In August 2025, the Food and Drug Administration approved the COVID-19 vaccine for all Americans aged 65 and older, and for any person between age 5 and 64 with an underlying medical condition.

Team Kennedy is now no longer recommending routine COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant women and healthy children. Last May, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary also announced new randomized clinical trials to determine the need for annual boosters for healthy individuals aged six months old to 64 years of age. Critics may complain, but there is nothing inappropriate about collecting and rigorously analyzing more data; science is not a static enterprise. 

Here’s a curious fact: Many of our leading European friends and allies have adopted broadly similar policies. The “universalist” approach to COVID-19 vaccination, previously championed by the Biden administration, has made the United States a stark outlier among the economically advanced nations of the world. 

While Kennedy is realigning American COVID-19 vaccine policy with that of our European friends and allies, his critics’ tacit assumption seems to be that top medical scientists in some of the world’s most advanced public health systems are “anti-vax” or somehow “irresponsible.” 

In fact, prevalent European policies reflect a shared scientific consensus that continued immunization against COVID-19 should be targeted to the elderly and immuno-compromised. For example, in 2025, the United Kingdom’s Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization recommended that, rather than a universal booster campaign, the COVID-19 vaccine should be focused on high-risk groups. 

Thus, the British have determined that those eligible for continued COVID-19 vaccination include adults aged 75 years or older, or immunocompromised individuals and residents in care homes for older adults. Denmark has adopted similar COVID-19 vaccination guidelines. So have Sweden and Italy.

In France, COVID-19 vaccination is universally available and optional. But boosters are “most recommended” for people over 80 years of age, nursing home residents, and anyone who is “immunocompromised” because of an underlying medical condition. In Germany, the Federal Ministry of Health recommends boosters for all persons over the age of 60, nursing home residents, and anyone with an underlying medical condition. 

Significantly, German health authorities’ do not recommend COVID-19 vaccination for babies, children, or adolescents without an underlying medical condition. Notably, the World Health Organization recognized that continued COVID-19 vaccination efforts are most beneficial for high-risk populations. 

Perhaps Congressional investigators could invite our European public health counterparts to explain why they–citing their own scientific evidence–have shifted to more targeted COVID-19 vaccine policies. The American people would benefit from such televised testimony, bringing much-needed clarity to our bitter COVID-19 vaccine debates. 

Meanwhile, children, especially vulnerable infants, have become a flashpoint in the latest COVID-19 vaccine debate. The reason: A leaked “internal memo” authored by Dr. Vinay Prasad, the director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation at the FDA. According to the memo, FDA career analysts (not political appointees) sifting through the massive Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System data base, concluded that over the period 2021 to 2024, at least 10 children out of 96 recorded deaths died from the COVID-19 jab. 

Prasad’s memo created a firestorm, and critics rolled out the big guns. Writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, a dozen former FDA Commissioners attacked Prasad’s memo for, among other things, undermining medical innovation and public health security. Meanwhile, insisting that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe for children, Prasad’s many other critics argued that the VAERS data base is devoid of crucial clinical information, and assigning childhood mortality to the vaccine is thus irresponsible. 

Concerning the weakness of the VAERS database, Prasad’s critics are right. As the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic determined, VAERS is an inadequate and unreliable data source. The reason: anyone can self-report an adverse event; none of these reports are scientifically verified; and reporting any such event does not, itself, prove a causal relationship between an injection and the event. 

All true. 

Nonetheless, as congressional investigators have also noted, over the period 2020 to 2024, the VAERS system recorded a huge number (over 1.8 million) of adverse events–including over 38,068 deaths–attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines. Given that sheer number, plus continuing adverse reaction reports from other sources, FDA should find out as much as possible about those ten dead kids. Even The Atlantic, a venue of elite liberal opinion, does not dismiss the possibility of children’s deaths from an adverse vaccine reaction. 

The American people need clarity. After all, they’ve been battered for years by federal officials’ illegal attempts to impose COVID-19 vaccine mandates, mixed messaging, and false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines’ effectiveness, and the failure to warn of serious myocarditis (heart inflammation) risks among the young.

Curiously, many of those who then defended Biden’s policies and practices, or turned a blind eye to the evidence, are today among Kennedy’s strongest critics. They, not Kennedy, are the ones who undermined public trust. Don’t forget that. 

The post COVID-19 Vaccines: RFK Jr. and the International Policy Consensus appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Adversaries of the U.S. could launch a nuclear weapon at America, or they can achieve the same goal by flooding the nation with fentanyl, says a congressman who has introduced a bill cracking down on fentanyl imports.  

“If you’re one of our adversaries, you have the option: you can either launch a nuclear weapon that would kill half a million people, and then you have a war that we’re obviously going to get into because you nuked us, or you can do this,” Rep. Addison McDowell, R-N.C., said, referring to the trafficking of fentanyl into the U.S.

Over the past decade, roughly 500,000 U.S. lives have been lost to synthetic opioid overdoses, mainly fentanyl, according to the National Institutes of Health. 

“As the, the Biden administration just let all of these criminals and drugs into our country and they weren’t doing anything about it, I wanted to do something about it,” McDowell told The Daily Signal.  

“Our adversaries don’t just use the southern border, and we’re naive to think that that’s the case.”

Since President Donald Trump returned to office and took action to secure the U.S. border with Mexico, Customs and Border Protection reported a dramatic decline in the amount of fentanyl entering the U.S. The agency seized nearly half the amount of fentanyl in fiscal year 2025 as it had the previous year.

In December, Trump declared fentanyl a weapon of mass destruction.

McDowell has now served as a member of Congress for just over a year, and says he would not have run for office if not for his brother Luke who died 12 years ago from fentanyl poisoning at the age of 20.  

“I decided that I wanted his legacy to continue to live on through me and through the service that I provide,” he told The Daily Signal. 

Every time McDowell walks out of his office to the U.S. Capitol to cast a vote, he passes a photo of his brother Luke as a reminder of why he chose to serve in Congress.  

McDowell on Wednesday introduced a bill aimed at blocking drug traffickers from bringing a tool called a pill press into the U.S.  

The process of fentanyl entering the U.S. is “coordinated,” McDowell explains.

China, for example, “will ship a pill presser” to a drug dealer in the U.S. to cut “pure fentanyl,” he said, which results in “something that looks like a pill.”

McDowell’s bill, the Preventing Rogue Equipment for Synthetic Substances, or PRESS, Act, criminalizes the “intentional importation of unlisted precursor chemicals and related equipment, including tableting machines, encapsulating machines, press punches, die systems, and gelatin capsules, that will be used to manufacture controlled substances,” according to the congressman’s office.  

If, through his work in Congress, McDowell says he can save even one family from the heartache his own family has endured through Luke’s death, it will all be “worth it.”  

The post Nuclear Weapon or Fentanyl–Both Accomplish Same Goal, Congressman Warns   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Donald J. Trump is the most powerful man on Earth. World powers bow down before him. But the one thing that he cannot do is make his Democrat-Left critics happy.

If Trump wakes up tomorrow at 6:00 a.m., they will complain that he is hyperactive and endangers his own health by not getting enough sleep. If he heeds their advice and rises the following day at 7:00 a.m., they will moan that he is a lazy slacker who is lying in bed when he should be in the Oval Office.

Trump cannot satisfy these people.

For the latest example of this phenomenon, just recall his opponents’ furious howls at his policy of “family separation,” whereby Trump monstrously arrested illegal aliens and kept their children safe elsewhere. Never mind that families get separated every single time that police arrest a father or mother and keep them from their kids. Seven days a week, judges put criminal suspects in jail or sentence convicts to prison, thus pulling families apart.

Trump did not pioneer this practice. American dads and moms have been tossed behind bars while their children wept outside since July 4, 1776.

Nonetheless, remember how hard Trump’s critics hammered him on this point in 2018.

•That June 30, then-Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., blasted Trump’s “cruel and unnecessary family separation and family incarceration policies.”

•“The President’s zero-tolerance immigration policy cruelly tore children from their parents,” Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, lamented on Nov. 30.

•That Dec. 22, Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., denounced “the barbaric family separation policy that tore thousands of children from their parents this summer.”

Now, Trump’s enemies are pounding his head in because Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not separate a family. 

On Jan. 20, ICE agents in Minneapolis arrested Ecuadoran illegal alien Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias. He and his son—Liam Conejo Ramos, age 5—are being held jointly at a federal facility in Dilley, Texas, just as the father requested. The Trump administration’s failure to separate these two and its decision to keep them together threw these very same people into an uncontrolled rage.

•“This is f— up and it doesn’t make anyone safer,” now-Sen. Gallego bellowed.

•“I am aware of reports that five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos may be in San Antonio,” Castro declared via X. “My staff and I are doing everything we can to locate him, check on his safety and demand his release.” Of course, this would trigger the very family separation that Castro previously excoriated.

• Gomez roared: “Trump, ICE and CBP don’t see these families as people, and that’s exactly how they’re treating them.”

Beyond Democrats’ Olympic-grade talent for self-contradiction, there also seems to be far less to this story than the Trump-hating Left wants Americans to believe.

As the Department of Homeland Security explained Thursday via X, when ICE agents tried to arrest the father as he sat in his car, he “fled on foot—abandoning his child.” ICE officers then tried to deliver the son to his mother. “She refused to accept custody of the child,” DHS continued. “The father told officers he wanted the child to remain with him.”

DHS added: “Following the mother’s abandonment of the child, officers abided by the father’s wishes to keep the child with him.” DHS then arranged a father and child reunion. The elder and younger Conejos are together in the Dilley Detention Center, near San Antonio, Texas.

Despite these largely exculpatory details, the Washington Post’s Philip Kennicott on Thursday pummeled Trump while pondering a photograph of the son after his father’s arrest—“staring at the back of a truck” while looking “bewildered and terrified” and enduring “the brutal treatment of adults.” The Post’s summary of the 1,868 comments that followed Kennicott’s histrionic essay equates this picture with “historical images that have evoked public empathy and action, such as those from Nazi Germany and the Vietnam War.”

Yet another week, yet another “Trump = Hitler” reference.

Yaaaaawn.

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

The post Dems Slam Trump for Family Separation … and Family Preservation appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Amid escalating tensions in Minnesota, Immigration and Customs Enforcement scored a court win on Monday in staving off agitators. 

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals put a stay on a lower court ruling that restricted ICE agents from arresting, detaining, or pepper-spraying agitators without probable cause, Fox News reported. 

“We accessed and viewed the same videos the district court did,” the appeals court ruling said.

“What they show is observers and protesters engaging in a wide range of conduct, some of it peaceful but much of it not. They also show federal agents responding in various ways.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X, this was a “WIN AGAINST JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN MINNESOTA.”

“The DOJ went to court. We got a temporary stay,” Bondi said in the post. “NOW, the 8th Circuit has fully agreed that this reckless attempt to undermine law enforcement cannot stand.”

The federal complaint against the Department of Homeland Security and ICE alleged federal law enforcement violated the civil rights of six protesters.

On Jan. 16, U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and imposed a preliminary injunction to stop tactics used by ICE toward protesters who were demonstrating against immigration enforcement. 

Menendez said plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their challenge that federal agents violated protesters’ First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights as part of Operation Metro Surge in the Twin Cities.

The post Appeals Court Sides With Trump, ICE in Minnesota Civil Rights Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.