Agatha Christie never spun a mystery as perplexing as that of white liberal women going all in on protecting criminal illegal immigrants. Screaming, screeching, blowing whistles, cursing like sailors with Tourette’s who just hit their thumb with a hot hammer.

The other day a poor ICE agent tried to explain to horn-honking protesters, “We’re here to arrest a child sex offender. … That’s who you guys are protecting.” He may as well have been speaking Sanskrit.

“Insane,” he said, as he drove away.

Insanity? If not, close enough to be its doppelganger.

Theories abound. Perhaps it’s the middle-age equivalent of dating the “bad boy” in high school. Except, we’re not seeing any indication the women blocking ICE from its noble work have any interest in transforming the killers, rapists and traffickers they’re protecting.

Perhaps it is, as some have speculated, a generation of women who have been taught to discount the value of motherhood, and their hardwired instinct for nurturing and protecting has been short-circuited in the service of the criminals. Think of Renee Good leaving her own child behind before trying to turn an ICE agent into a speedbump.

Except mothers are bring their children to the protests, sincerely believing it’s good for their budding Zohrans to witness Mommy standing up to the Gestapo.

Perhaps noted feminist Naomi Wolf hit the mark with her theory that the lashing out stems from sexual frustration, that the aggression toward ICE officers is a physical release. Yes, it’s clear from their unhinged antics why most of those women wouldn’t be getting any action. Hunter Biden would turn down those women even if they were wearing parkas packed with cocaine.

Ultimately, we could be seeing what we’re seeing because men didn’t see the signs of the coming white liberal women apocalypse and try to nip it in the bud … be it through love, or prayer, or galloping through the countryside warning, “The women are coming! The women are coming!”

I’ll be the first to apologize.

Around 2020, a strange thing happened. In short order, three women who’d been important in my life—three wonderful, intelligent, women—got uncharacteristically, disproportionately, perplexingly irate at me over politics.

My college girlfriend, who I’ve known since I was 12, never got mad at me back when I deserved it. If temperament were a city, she’d be San Diego. But one day, she snapped at me like a starving crocodile for defending Rush Limbaugh’s Presidential Medal of Freedom. Shocking? Like Ilhan Omar applying for membership to Mar-a-Lago.

Then there’s my former colleague, partner, and office mate. We worked side-by-side for years, with a closeness, chemistry, and intimacy that had people assuming we were hitched. Never an argument. Twenty years later, we reconnected on Twitter. Within 10 minutes she was going full Joy Reid on me over politics. (Okay, maybe not full Joy Reid. Never go full Joy Reid.)

Strangest of all, a woman I briefly dated in the mid-nineties, and had not had any contact with since, tracked me down after coming across an article I’d written. Not to say, “Hi, how’s it going?” But: “Is this the same Al Perrotta who used to live in Southern California? You used to be so tolerant!”

“I hope it’s me,” I replied. “I’m using his driver’s license.”

Helpful Guy Hint: When you’re getting chopped down by childhood friends, smacked around by professional soulmates, and harassed out of the blue by sensitive, gracious clairvoyant poets, it’s wise to ask, “What gives?”

But I missed it, males missed it, and conservatives missed it. The anger festered during the Biden years, turned into rage with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. And the re-election of Donald Trump, King of the Alphas? Like hitting the nucleus of Uranium-235 with a neuron.

And Ground Zero, at the moment, is Minneapolis.

It’s fair to ask how these women would react if Trump had embraced the criminal illegal immigrants, the rapists, and sex traffickers. If he’d been the one sipping margaritas with Kilmar Abrego Garcia. One suspects they’d be screaming just as loud at Trump for increasing their peril because of his “hatred of women.”

So perhaps it’s not about ICE agents and illegals, after all. Or Venezuela. Or DOGE. Or whatever will be on the pre-printed signs next week.

Then what is this about?

Perhaps at its core the women are suffering PTSD. The psychic injury from the Sexual Revolution indoctrination, the radical mutation of the women’s rights movement, the desecration of motherhood at the altar of “abortion rights,” even the transgender usurpation of what it means to be a woman.
White, liberal women have been told “You’ve come a long way, baby.”

“Yeah,” they replied. Looked around, and asked, “But where am I?”

I think I’d be lashing out too.

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

The post White, Liberal Women on the Warpath: Guys, We Missed the Warning Signs appeared first on The Daily Signal.

As global corporations and governments increasingly shed ideologically driven policies that raise energy prices and undermine supply, governors in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic cling to counterproductive agendas of contradiction and equivocation. 

Programs that prioritize dubious environmental goals over economic growth and basic human needs have been losing support. In the U.S., the Trump administration promotes fossil fuels and nuclear power over so-called “green” energy, suspending leases for? five offshore wind projects?Christmas week while offering loan guarantees to nuclear operators and promoting coal as a?“clean” stocking stuffer. 

Half a globe away, Japan has ended its financial support for large-scale?solar projects. Meanwhile, the island nation plans to restart the world’s?largest nuclear power plant, which was shuttered a decade ago as an overreaction to a tsunami-induced disaster at another plant. 

Private enterprises that had invested billions of dollars into green energy initiatives are returning their focus to core businesses. 

ExxonMobil reduced?“low-carbon” investments?by $10 billion even as it announced that?oil and gas production?would fuel $25 billion in earnings growth over the next few years.? 

Shell, Aker BP, and Enbridge—companies based in the UK, Norway, and Canada, respectively—have withdrawn from the?Science Based Targets initiative, which was supposed to address the purported threat of climate change. 

“The trend toward a carbon-neutral society appears to be slowing,”?says?Tomohide Miyata, the CEO of Eneos. The Japanese refiner abandoned plans to produce hydrogen (an overhyped “alternative” energy source?that still relies on fossil fuels) to expand its liquefied natural gas business. 

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s Democrat Gov. Josh Shapiro is unaware—or unconcerned—that his confused policies stymie the development of affordable energy in the most densely populated region of the United States. 

The Pennsylvania governor’s record has been, at best, mercurial. 

Shapiro recently surprised many when he agreed to withdraw Pennsylvania from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the multistate compact that imposes carbon taxes on member states. But just months earlier, Shapiro sued to?stay?in RGGI. The reversal drew positive reactions from Republican lawmakers and labor union leaders, who predicted increased investments in the state’s natural gas and coal industries with the abandonment of RGGI’s tax on fossil fuels. 

“?The war’s over,” said?Shawn Steffee?of Pittsburgh Boilermakers Local 154, who had been among those blaming RGGI for discouraging fossil fuel projects in Pennsylvania since the commonwealth flirted with joining in 2019. “It is time to … rebuild right here in Pennsylvania.” 

However, within weeks, the?Environmental Quality Board?(EQB) of Shapiro’s Department of Environmental Protection recommended increasing setbacks for natural gas wells by as much as tenfold. The restrictions—up to a mile in distance—would shut down gas drilling and increase energy prices, according to industry sources. 

Jim Welty, president of the?Marcellus Shale Coalition, calls the setbacks “a ban on future natural gas development” that “is extremely concerning, especially considering that [the Shapiro administration] claims they’re doing everything possible to protect Pennsylvania consumers from rising electricity prices.” 

Exceeding its “legal authority,” the EQB sent “a chilling message to consumers, landowners, and economic investors by threatening access to Pennsylvania’s reliable and affordable energy resources,” said Welty. 

In addition to the EQB recommendation, Pennsylvania’s Democrat-controlled?House of Representatives?is considering its own setback restrictions. “Make no mistake, this proposal is a de facto ban on natural gas development in Pennsylvania,” said Stephanie Catarino Wissman of the American Petroleum Institute (API). Numerous regulations already govern the industry, notes API. 

So, Pennsylvania has at least two propositions to kill natural gas development, in addition to ?Shapiro’s own proposals?to reduce fossil fuel generation and increase wind and solar energy use. The governor’s programs would?double?household electricity bills, but Shapiro blames the power grid’s market policies for already elevated costs. 

However, Republican state?Sen. Gene Yaw?disputes the blame shifting, saying grid operators do not drive energy costs. “The real reason electricity prices are rising is because we’re not producing enough of it,” says Yaw. “Over the past decade, aggressive renewable mandates have forced the premature retirement of dependable baseload generation without replacing it with sufficient new baseload generation capacity. … That’s a policy failure.” 

Other governors in the region exhibit Shapiro’s pattern of awkwardly balancing between championing low energy costs and backing more costly policies. 

In Gov. Kathy Hochul’s New York,?regulators?approved a pipeline to move Pennsylvania natural gas to New York City and Long Island. But they also refused to approve another to serve New England, even though?Connecticut’s Democrat governor?and?New Hampshire’s Republican governor?supported it. 

Seeking reelection this year, Hochul has become concerned about “the need to govern in reality,”? as she continues a ban on natural gas drilling that keeps billions of dollars from upstate New York. The state’s drilling ban “has unjustly denied New York landowners their property rights and lucrative natural gas royalties and has been for purely political reasons,” says the?Institute for Energy Research. 

Both Hochul’s and Shapiro’s lapses into commonsense have drawn the ire of the environmental Left, which may explain the caution of 2025 gubernatorial candidates. 

In New Jersey and Virginia, incoming governors campaigned for lower energy prices while remaining loyal to costly green policies. The?Garden State’s membership in RGGI?is included in the energy policy of Democrat Gov. Mikie Sherrill. In?Virginia, Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger will reverse Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s withdrawal from RGGI. 

Although supporters of largely Democrat environmental policies claim that their favored green technologies lower energy prices, the evidence says otherwise. An?Institute for Energy Research?study reports that “86% of states with electricity prices above the national average in the continental U.S. are reliably blue.” Those states include New England and most of the Mid-Atlantic, including New York, New Jersey, and “purple” Pennsylvania. 

Vijay Jayaraj, a science and research associate who regularly comments on Asia’s growing use of coal to reverse generational poverty, sees a global split emerging between the practical and the ideological. 

“Very likely, there will be a bifurcation,” he writes. “On the one hand, western bureaucracies, particularly in Europe, continuing an economic decline under mandates and taxes, and on the other, pragmatic governments, many of them in Asia, pursuing prosperity with fuels and technologies that work.” 

But this divide appears to be happening even within the United States, with blue states on one side and red states on the other. And considering the rising cost of electricity, states like Pennsylvania and its neighbors may want to prioritize energy affordability and reliability—free of ideological baggage. 

The post Democrat Governors Ignore Global Realities, Cling to ‘Green’ Policies appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., likes to argue that the “whole point” of protesting is to make people “uncomfortable.”

Debate. Dissent. Running highly misleading political ads on TV. These are all part of our great tradition of political discourse.

In this, as in so much else, the Democrat darling is incorrect. Taking to the streets to disrupt the lives of average citizens is a leftist ideal, not an American one. It’s antithetical to the highest virtue of republicanism, namely, minding your own business.

But decades ago, American leftists began conflating “activism” with patriotism, and millions of young people were convinced that protesting was an expression of good citizenry. These days, caring is often given more reverence than wisdom, knowledge, or achievement, let alone patriotic activities like working, getting married, and raising kids.

An equally intolerable and parallel notion has also sprung up: It says the rest of us have a patriotic duty to admire anyone who’s “making a difference” or engaged in “participatory democracy,” no matter how insufferable or wrong they are. And protesters are almost always insufferable and wrong.

Every loudmouth ignoramus with an opinion has a First Amendment right. You’re not special.

Yet modern left-wing protesters believe their passion and anger imbue them with moral license to demand things and speak over their fellow citizens.

Just watch the video of those self-righteous “activists” disrupting church services in St. Paul the other day, or global warming cultists shutting down traffic in major cities, or college students using their heckler’s veto to disrupt speeches and debates.

Then again, most of these efforts aren’t organic or spontaneous expressions of political anger anymore. They are well-funded and well-managed by organizations that see political benefit in creating chaos and turning our country into a revolutionary battleground. From Lenin to Alinsky, forced confrontation has been a tactic of Marxist activism.

Every bully, of course, sees themselves as the embodiment of Martin Luther King Jr., though most of them lack dignity and a worthy cause. It’s amusing hearing these self-aggrandizing activists treat protests as great acts of bravery. But wake up: You’re not actually living in a fascist state.

Those marching against the clerics in Iran risk their lives. As did those who marched in Tiananmen Square in 1989, who rose up against the communists during the Prague Spring of 1968 or engaged in civil disobedience against the Stamp Act in 1765.

You can be as passionate as you like here in these United States, but our laws governing the border and immigration, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement itself, were all democratically instituted.

You’re free to vote in the next election.

Failing to get your preferred legislation passed isn’t repression, and you’re not Gandhi.

Though it’s heartening for the rest of us to know that most protests are merely performative acts with little political consequence.

Demonstrations are rarely a barometer of public sentiment.

In the Left’s hagiographic rendering of the 1960s, peace-loving demonstrators took to the streets and ended the Vietnam War.

In the real world, Richard Nixon, who won a historic landslide victory in 1972 against peacenik George McGovern, ended the conflict. Anti-war protesters couldn’t stop the Iraq War, either. Or any American war, for that matter. Tea Partiers couldn’t stop Obamacare. “Occupy Wall Street” was unable to overturn the laws governing basic economics.

P—- hat marchers embarrassed themselves, but they didn’t stop Donald Trump from occupying the White House—any more than Jan. 6 marchers and rioters did Joe Biden. And the anti-ICE nuts disrupting church services who accuse parishioners of being “white supremacists” will likely have similar luck.

That’s good news.

The “right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” is our inheritance. It guarantees anyone can march without worrying about punishment or reprisals from the state.

Though it shouldn’t escape our attention that many of the same progressives who treat public demonstration as the purest form of “democracy” advocate for censoring views they find dangerous and regularly conflate speech with “violence.”

Democratic socialists nearly always shed the adjective as soon as they gain power.

Let’s face it, though, most unhinged activists you see ranting and raving act like children. And children have trouble comprehending the distinction between things you can do and things you should do.

You can cosplay Islamic revolutionaries on campus. What you should do is read some books about the Middle East.

But nothing in a free country compels the rest of us to celebrate spoiled adults making a spectacle of themselves—or to treat them as anything but nuisances.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

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

The post Protest Culture Is Annoying and Un-American appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Vice President JD Vance is putting his own spin on MAGA—Make America Grow Again.

Vance and second lady Usha Vance recently announced that she is pregnant. Their fourth child, a boy, is due in June. Usha isn’t the only woman connected to the White House who is expecting. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt and Katie Miller, wife of deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, are both pregnant, too.

Talk about leading by example. This baby boom fits perfectly with the vision JD Vance articulated at last year’s March for Life.

“I want more babies in the United States of America,” Vance said. “I want more happy children in our country, and I want beautiful young men and women who are eager to welcome them into the world and eager to raise them.”

Sadly, an increasing number of people aren’t interested. A recent New York Times poll found that among childless 18- to 29-year-olds, just 57% said they would like children in the future.

Among all childless women, the rate was 32%, while among men it was 43%. There’s a stark partisan divide here, too. Just 25% of former Vice President Kamala Harris voters said they wanted kids.

Among President Donald Trump voters, it was 43%. These percentages are lower because the sample includes those aged 45 and older.

It’s unsurprising then that America’s fertility rate hit a record low in 2024. The fertility rate has been below replacement level for more than 15 years. This baby bust will have significant negative consequences in the future.

The problem is worse in other countries, especially in Asia. Last year, China had the same number of births as in around 1738, Reuters reported. Its population is now shrinking. South Korea’s anemic fertility rate is on pace to cut the country’s population in half within 60 years.

Governments around the world have tried in vain to reverse this trend. Their main strategy has been throwing money at it, which hasn’t worked.

That’s because raising a child requires far more work and commitment than a full-time job. Even payments worth thousands of dollars do little to change that calculus.

Think of the irony. Modern society put a man on the moon but can’t reproduce itself as well as civilizations that used stone tools. Here are some reasons why.

First, the sexual revolution disconnected sex from marriage and reproduction. Young men have always wanted to have sex. Throughout human history, societies steered that desire toward marriage, a foundational pillar of civilization. This benefitted societies by channeling the strength and competitiveness of young men into something productive—providing for their families.

It also led to more babies.

Today, teenagers can readily view pornography on their phones. Sex isn’t saved for marriage, but treated as a recreational activity. If that leads to pregnancy, the next step isn’t for a man to marry his girlfriend, but to drive her to an abortion clinic.

America slaughters one million preborn babies annually. Experts then wonder why the birth rate is so low.

Next, modern feminism told women to find fulfillment in climbing the corporate ladder, not motherhood. That’s the path to misery. As the Institute for Family Studies has detailed, marriage and children bring parents greater connection and happiness.

Finally, popular culture doesn’t promote marriage and motherhood. Social media glamorizes vacation selfies, not comforting a crying baby three times in one night. Mothers, especially moms of large families, should be treated like societal rock stars.

What’s needed isn’t just better laws, but a change in personal priorities. People need to believe the truth.

For a married couple, having kids is one of the most meaningful and rewarding things anyone could ever do. The Vance family is living proof of that.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CREATORS.COM

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

The post Can the Vances Make It Cool to Have Kids? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Texas has accounted for 25% of all ICE arrests since enforcement ramped up. The state has processed thousands upon thousands of deportations. No riots. No mob violence against federal officers. No churches stormed during worship services.

Minnesota represents less than 1% of ICE arrests. And Minneapolis is on fire.

How do you explain that gap?

The answer has nothing to do with immigration policy and everything to do with where Americans get their information.

What the Polling Actually Shows

At Cygnal, we recently surveyed voters on whether the Trump administration’s deportation efforts have gone too far, are about right, or haven’t gone far enough.

The results: 50% said too far, 48% said about right or not far enough. That’s a statistical tie. A country split down the middle.

But if you only consumed legacy media coverage, you’d assume 80% of Americans are horrified by what’s happening. You’d think the deportation efforts represent some unprecedented crisis of conscience for the nation.

They don’t.

Nearly half the country supports the policy or wants it to go further. You just wouldn’t know that from watching the evening news.

The real divide isn’t about what Americans believe. It’s about where they get the information that shapes those beliefs.

Inside the Information Bubbles

The data gets interesting when you cross-reference policy views with media consumption patterns.

Among voters who believe deportation efforts have gone “too far,” 51% get their news primarily from national broadcast television: NBC, ABC, CBS. Compare that to 36% of all voters and just 14% of those who think enforcement hasn’t gone far enough.

The “too far” crowd also over-indexes on newspaper consumption compared to the general voter population. These are the legacy media institutions, the ones that dominated American information for decades.

On the flip side, voters who believe deportation efforts haven’t gone far enough slightly over-index on cable news (45% vs. 40% overall) and dramatically over-index on X, formerly Twitter (16% vs. 9% overall).

The “about right” middle? They’re slightly more likely to get news from cable and Facebook than the average voter. No real drastic differences outside the fact they they also don’t get as much of their news from legacy media.

What emerges is a clear pattern: liberals cluster heavily around broadcast television and print newspapers, while conservatives spread across cable, social media, and newer digital platforms.

These groups are consuming different facts, different story selections, different framings of what matters … and what doesn’t.

The Amplification Machine

As said at the beginning, Minnesota represents less than 1% of ICE enforcement activity, but it’s receiving wall-to-wall national coverage. Every confrontation, every protest, every dramatic standoff gets the full treatment—helicopter shots, breathless correspondents, the works.

Texas is processing 25 times the enforcement activity with minimal national attention. Why? Because compliance doesn’t generate clicks. Orderly deportations don’t drive ratings. A state that implements federal policy without mass unrest isn’t a story anyone wants to tell.

More importantly, it doesn’t make Trump look bad in their minds like Minneapolis does.

The editorial choice to focus on Minnesota is about feeding an existing narrative to an audience that wants that narrative confirmed, not informing the public.

And the consequences are tangible. When broadcast networks run continuous coverage of “resistance” to immigration enforcement, they’re sending a signal to activists in other cities: this is how you get attention. This is how you become part of the story. This is how you “fight Trump.”

The coverage doesn’t just reflect the violence. It incentivizes it.

The Death of Shared Reality

For most of American history, we argued about policy while agreeing on basic facts. Democrats and Republicans watched the same evening news, read the same wire service reports, saw the same footage. They disagreed about what to do, not about what was happening.

That’s over.

And I wrote about in “America’s Emotional Divide,” we’ve entered an era where Americans increasingly inhabit separate factual universes. The “too far” voter and the “not far enough” voter are watching different incidents, hearing different statistics, encountering different human-interest stories designed to trigger different emotional responses.

When I conduct focus groups, I see this constantly. Voters will cite “facts” that are genuinely news to voters on the other side—not because anyone is lying, but because their individual media ecosystems simply never surfaced that information.

This is what called tribal epistemology. Your tribe determines not just your values but your evidence. What counts as a credible source, a significant event, a representative example—all of it filters through group identity before it reaches individual judgment.

What’s Actually at Stake

The Minneapolis situation illustrates the real danger. You have a city tearing itself apart over enforcement activity that represents a statistical rounding error nationally. You have activists storming churches, attacking federal officers, setting fires. And the coverage of that chaos generates more chaos elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the state handling a quarter of all enforcement activity does so with minimal drama. But nobody’s running prime-time specials on “How Texas Implemented Immigration Policy without Burning Down.”

The question for us is straightforward: Are you going to let your media diet determine your reality? Or are you going to actively seek out primary data, diverse sources, and information that challenges your existing beliefs?

Democracy requires a shared factual foundation. When half the country thinks we’re in a humanitarian crisis and half thinks we’re finally enforcing laws that went ignored for decades—and both sides can cite “evidence” for their position—we have a collective epistemological breakdown.

The information bubble doesn’t just distorting immigration. Everything is distorted. And the only people who can pop it are the ones willing to step outside their comfortable media habits and ask what they might be missing.

The post You’re Not Crazy: Why the Media’s Immigration Coverage Feels Like Propaganda appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Noncitizens demonstrating against the United States and Israel at U.S. campuses scored a legal victory over the Trump administration last week, as a Massachusetts federal judge halted the deportation of international students and faculty.

The case of American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, naming Secretary of State Marco Rubio as the lead plaintiff, concerns a State Department policy that allowed for the deportation of international students and academic faculty involved in pro-Palestinian demonstrations that often involved anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment. 

U.S. District Judge William G. Young held Thursday that a change in immigration status, or arrest, could not be based on viewpoints.

He determined that the administration implemented its orders against the students in “‘a viewpoint-discriminatory way to chill protected speech’ that ‘violated the First Amendment.'”

The lawsuit also named several other top administration officials, as well as President Donald Trump. The Middle East Studies Association was among the plaintiffs.

This marks Young’s second ruling in the case that undermines two Trump executive orders.

In January 2025 Trump directed federal agencies to enhance immigration vetting procedures to prevent the entry of individuals who may pose a national security threat.

That same month, he issued a separate order directing authorities to combat antisemitism on college campuses, amid an outpouring of demonstrations against Israel that intimidated Jewish students. 

The plaintiffs in the case sued over the orders, asserting that enforcement amounted to viewpoint discrimination and violated the First Amendment. 

The Trump administration argued that noncitizens do not have the same First Amendment rights as American citizens.

But in a separate September ruling in the case, Young held that international students and faculty have the same First Amendment rights as citizens. 

Young is an appointee of President Ronald Reagan. 

Last year, Young ruled against the Trump administration on National Institutes of Health funding for research related to racial minorities and Americans identifying as LGBTQ. Young called the funding cuts “appalling” discrimination.

One of Young’s most high-profile cases was that of Richard Reid, the convicted “shoe bomber” who boarded a passenger plane with a bomb in his shoe. After the 2003 conviction, Young sentenced Reid to life in prison.

The post Pro-Palestianian Agitators Score Win Against Trump in Court appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL–The Department of Homeland Security in the past year has arrested multiple illegal aliens it says have known ties to terrorist organizations including ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

According to the agency, the illegal aliens include members of Al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Islamic Republic Guard Corps of Iran, and MS-13, which Trump designated a foreign terrorist organization when he returned to office.  

“Just a year ago, under [President] Joe Biden, our border was wide-open and criminals, gang members, and terrorists were released into our communities,” Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary, stated.  

Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have “unleashed” Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents “to target the worst of the worst, including national security threats,” McLaughlin said, adding that the Trump administration is “delivering on the American people’s mandate to make America safe again, and we’re just getting started.” 

One of the detainees is Chasib Hafedh Saadoon Al Fawadi, identified as a member of the Iraqi Shia militant group Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.  

The first Trump administration designated Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq a foreign terrorist organization in 2020. Then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refered to the group as “violent proxies of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”  

Al Fawadi, an illegal alien from Iraq, has a criminal history that includes charges for rape and criminal obstruction of breathing or blood circulation. He has been convicted on federal charges of making false statements on an immigration application about his membership in Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq. 

He was given a deportation order in 2022, but ICE arrested him in the U.S. in November 2025.  

Chasib Hafedh Saadoon Al Fawadi. (DHS)

Mahmoud Amin Mohamed Elhassan, originally from Sudan, was convicted on federal charges of attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization. ICE arrested him in June.  

Mahmoud Amin Mohamed Elhassan. (DHS)

Fares Abdo Al Eyani, a criminal alien from Yemen, was previously convicted “for conspiracy to unlawfully export defense articles in violation of the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations,” DHS reports.  

Jordanian Ashraf Farhan Husny Sulaiman, has a record that includes conviction for conspiracy to defraud the U.S.  

Majid Ghorbani served in the Iranian military and was “charged with acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government and convicted for violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and petty theft.”  

Illegal aliens Fares Abdo Al Eyani, Ashraf Farhan Husny Sulaiman, and Majid Ghorbani. (DHS)

Additionally, DHS reported arrests of MS-13 gang members Gaulner Uliel Pineda Castillo, a Guatemalan who was previously arrested for a kidnapping plot, and Leonel Alexander Velasquez-Hernandez, an illegal alien from El Salvador with a criminal history that “includes arrests for murder, assault, dangerous weapons with intent to injure, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy assault, and stalking.”  

Illegal aliens Leonel Alexander Velasquez-Hernandez and Gaulner Uliel Pineda Castillo. (DHS)

The Department of Homeland Security faces criticism and backlash following a Border Patrol-involved shooting in Minneapolis on Saturday that left 37-year-old Alex Pretti dead.  

Two and a half weeks before that, an ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis.  

Both shootings took place amid anti-immigration enforcement operation protests in Minneapolis and are currently under investigation.  

The post EXCLUSIVE: DHS Arrested Aliens With Alleged Foreign Terrorist Connections appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Former New York Rep. Chris Collins, who pleaded guilty to insider trading in 2019, will now face off against former North Carolina Rep. Madison Cawthorn in the GOP primary to replace Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.

Donalds’ gubernatorial run has left the safe GOP seat of Florida’s 19th Congressional District open, and two former members of Congress turned Florida transplants are looking to return to Washington.

Collins, who moved to Florida before being pardoned by President Donald Trump in 2020, announced his candidacy in a video statement on Friday.

Cawthorn, meanwhile, served one term in Congress. He lost the GOP primary for North Carolina’s 11th District in 2023 after a series of controversies and scandals. After losing, the House Ethics Committee found that Cawthorn violated conflict of interest rules regarding a cryptocurrency promotion

“We need to take our country back,” Collins said. “We need to make America great again.”

A Crowded Primary

Aside from Cawthorn and Collins, seven other candidates are looking to fill the vacancy left by Donalds.

Lee County Sheriff Carmine Marceno, former South Florida congressional candidate Johnny Fratto, and “populist Republican candidate” Dylan Modarelli have also announced their candidacy.

Former Illinois state Sen. Jim Oberweis, president of a local news station Jim Schwartzel, former Illinois congressional candidate Catalina Lauf, and veteran Mike Pedersen have also announced their candidacy.

President Donald Trump and Donalds have not issued endorsements as of yet.

Cawthorn declined to comment, and Collins did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request.

“Enter Broke, Leave a Millionaire”

Collin’s bid comes as a bi-partisan group in Congress have introduced efforts to ban members of Congress from stock trading.

Congress continues to fall under scrutiny after its members, like Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reportedly hold stock portfolios that have outperformed major Wall Street hedge funds by creating national policy that influences private markets and use insider information as an investment strategy.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., one of the most vocal opponents of trading by members of Congress, has described it as an “enter broke, leave a millionaire” scheme. In December, she introduced a discharge petition that would force a vote on a trading ban for members of Congress.

Weeks later, Rep. Bryan Steil, R-Wisc., introduced the Stop Insider Trading Act to ban members of Congress from using insider information or altering policy to benefit their private investments.

“Members of Congress should not be enriching themselves with insider knowledge,” Luna wrote in a press release. “Both Republican Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries have acknowledged that insider trading in Congress is a serious problem and must be stopped.”

Luna added that on the issue of insider trading, “the people are more united than Washington is.”

Steil and Luna did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

The post The Race to Replace Byron Donalds Could Be the Craziest Election This Year appeared first on The Daily Signal.

With Democrats pushing a number of progressive policies now that they are in control of Virginia, a Virginia state Democrat is working to ban immigration agents from operating near polling places.

Democrat Virginia Delegate Alfonso H. Lopez introduced the bill, which has been described as a “safeguard.” The bill, HB 1442, would amend The Code of Virginia to prohibit law enforcement from “any act for the purpose or in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws” within 40 feet of a polling place.

The move has left Republicans wondering why would a Democrat move to prevent immigration law enforcement at polling places if Democrats believe illegal immigrants are not voting in Virginia elections?

“My Republican colleagues and I were shocked at the brazenness of this bill,” Virginia Delegate Anne Ferrell Tata told The Daily Signal.  

“First, states can’t restrict the actions of the Federal government. But more importantly, what’s the purpose behind this bill? Democrats tell us illegal aliens aren’t voting. It’s quite a coincidence,” Tata continued.

This is not the only election integrity bill Virginia Democrats have pushed since taking majority this month.  

Democrat Virginia Delegate Marcia S. Price introduced HB 968 to ban hand counting paper ballots, and Democrat Virginia Sen. Barbara Favola introduced SB 58 to extends the deadline for accepting absentee ballots.  

“I think they owe the people an explanation of the logic behind these bills,” said Dave Brat, a former Virginia congressman and Virginia state delegate. He spoke with the Daily Signal about his frustration with this bill and the many more that would impact voter and election integrity.  

“I don’t think anybody ran on these things. I have never heard anything about that,” Brat continued.

“Virginians have to look at the whole package. There’s five or six [introduced bills] and all have to do with making voting less transparent and more problematic,” Brat said. 

“All these bills are a march to the left, and all you have to do is take a look at the left states and their performance,” Brat continued. “Minneapolis right now is rioting all across the streets because local law enforcement won’t cooperate with the federal. Everywhere where the local does cooperate with the federal there’s peace and quiet and harmony,” Brat added.

Lopez did not provide a comment to The Daily Signal.

The post If Illegal Aliens Don’t Vote in Virginia Elections, Then Why Are Democrats Trying to Ban ICE From Polling Places? appeared first on The Daily Signal.