Hannah Schlacter, a 2024 University of California at Berkeley graduate with an MBA, has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education, alleging that the university violated federal law by failing to properly report anti-Jewish hate incidents during the fall 2023 semester.

The complaint, detailed in documents reviewed by The Daily Signal, follows Schlacter’s February 2024 congressional testimony about the university’s alleged failure to adequately protect Jewish students. It coincides with a Department of Education investigation, announced Feb. 3, into UC Berkeley’s alleged failure to protect Jewish students’ civil rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Schlacter, a founding board member of the Cal Alumni Association Jewish Alumni Network, claims the university and its police department (UCPD) miscategorized anti-Jewish hate crimes to skirt federal reporting mandates under the federal Clery Act.

The Clery Act requires U.S. colleges receiving federal funds to disclose accurate campus crime statistics. Noncompliance distorts perceptions of campus safety and has historically led to tragedy. Jeanne Clery, for whom the law is named, was murdered at Lehigh University after it concealed prior violent crimes. Like Northwestern University, which The Daily Signal previously reported for underreporting antisemitic incidents, UC Berkeley appears to have downplayed crimes against Jewish students, potentially violating the Act.

Schlacter’s complaint highlights three incidents from fall 2023 that she alleges were misclassified. On Oct. 16 of that year, a Jewish student leader wearing a yarmulke and holding an Israeli flag was allegedly assaulted on campus, shortly after Jewish students received an email from the school warning them to avoid drawing attention to themselves.

The email followed an Instagram post by Bears for Palestine, a student group, honoring Hamas fighters—a U.S.-designated terrorist organization—for “working on the ground” in Gaza, promising “victory or martyrdom.” 

Despite video evidence and witness accounts, the UCPD categorized the attack as a general crime, not a hate crime.

On Oct. 25, 2023, at Sproul Plaza, a Jewish student holding an Israeli flag was swarmed by protesters. An assailant tried to steal the flag, then struck the student on the head with a water bottle. Video and witness testimony supported the incident’s bias-driven nature, yet the UCPD did not classify it as a hate crime. University administrators, including Assistant Vice Chancellor Bahar Navab and then-Chancellor Dania Matos, received the evidence, but took no apparent action to rectify UCPD’s response, according to Schlacter.

On Dec. 7, 2023, a Jewish graduate student found his apartment burglarized, with thousands of dollars in property stolen and a note reading “F–k Jews” left behind. Despite the overt anti-Jewish message, the UCPD did not label this a hate crime in public reports. 

These incidents, Schlacter argues, reflect a pattern of underreporting that violates the Clery Act.

The university’s handling of these cases suggests a misunderstanding of federal law. 

On Jan. 30, the UCPD told Schlacter the incidents weren’t hate crimes, citing the California Penal Code, rather than Clery Act standards. In a Feb. 5 phone call, a UCPD officer claimed the department couldn’t classify the acts as anti-Jewish hate without knowing the perpetrator’s motivation—despite evidence suggesting bias, Schlacter says.

The school’s Clery compliance director, Abigail Ogden, later contradicted the UCPD in an email, stating federal law governs the reporting, not state or university policies, and urged further reports to the UCPD. Yet no corrective steps have been taken. UC Berkeley did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request to confirm or deny the authenticity of the email.

Experts, including the Anti-Defamation League, warn that UC Berkeley’s underreporting jeopardizes student safety and risks legal and financial penalties. According to the ADL, the university’s actions could breach Title VI and Clery Act requirements, potentially costing federal funding.

Schlacter, in an interview, noted the issue persisted into the fall of 2024: “I’ve spoken with current students, and UCPD continues to underreport hate against Jews. It’s part of a broader double-standard—whether it’s Jewish students facing exclusion at the Multi-Cultural Center or the Gender & Women’s Studies department denying Hamas’s mass rapes, Jews still don’t feel they belong at Cal.”

UC Berkeley’s assistant vice chancellor of communications, Dan Mogulof, declined to comment on the Office for Civil Rights complaints, instead touting the university’s “unwavering commitment to confronting antisemitism.” He omitted mention of a pro-Hamas encampment last spring, which broke university rules, racially harassed students, and damaged property, yet was tolerated by administrators for weeks.

The incidents Schlacter cites—attacks, vandalism, and threats—were reported to UCPD with evidence of bias, yet consistently misclassified. This raises serious questions about UC Berkeley’s commitment to Jewish student safety and its compliance with federal law.

As the Department of Education investigates, the university’s response—or lack thereof—could have lasting consequences.

The post UC Berkeley Faces Scrutiny Over Failure to Report Anti-Jewish Hate Crimes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Senate Democrats voted late Monday afternoon to block a bill that would have prevented biological males from participating in women’s sports from reaching the floor.

The vote failed along party lines, with 51 Republicans in favor of ending debate and bringing it to the floor, and 43 Democrats and two nominal independents who caucus with them voting against. Two Democrats and two Republicans didn’t vote. The bill fell short of the threshold of 60 needed to end debate by nine votes.

The bill proceeded roughly along party lines as it went through Congress, as only two Democrats had voted to pass the bill in the House, introduced by Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. It would have codified into law President Donald Trump’s Feb. 5 executive order denying federal funding to schools that allow transgender-identifying male athletes to compete against females.

The American public broadly supports such measures, as evidenced by a Jan. 19 New York Times poll, which found that 79% of respondents said biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in girls and women’s sports. That includes 67% of Democrats polled.

The bill would have amended Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to recognize that “sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

The bill would have cut off federal funding to institutions that “permit a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.”

According to the website SheWon.org, which tracks this issue, to date 791 female athletes have been deprived of 1,121 awards in 545 competitions across 43 different sports by transgender competitors.

Tuberville, himself a former college football coach, urged Senate Democrats to support the bill on X the day of the vote.

“Nearly 80% of America agrees: Men don’t belong in women’s sports, locker rooms, or showers,” he wrote.

“Today, the Senate has the opportunity to stand up for women’s sports and PERMANENTLY restore Title IX protections. I hope my [Senate Democratic] colleagues will join me this evening.”

But Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., denounced the law in debate Monday, calling it a violation of privacy and arguing that there are too few transgender college athletes to justify it.

“This infringes on the privacy of girls and women. It is a dangerous use of the powers of government to target children and their families,” Durbin said. “Put yourself in the shoes of these families for just a moment. Imagine being the parent of a trans kid and telling your child they are not even allowed to play on the same sports team as their friends at school because a politician said they couldn’t.”

The Riley Gaines Act, which is a similar law, passed in Georgia in February, signaling an increased movement to prohibit transgender male athletes from participating in female sports. 

Elizabeth Mitchell and Peter Parisi contributed to this report.

The post Bill to Ban Biological Males From Women’s Sports Blocked by Democrats appeared first on The Daily Signal.

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

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. On Friday, recently, on the 28th of February, we saw one of the most extraordinary things I think we’ve ever seen in American diplomatic history.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was in the White House and they were arranged in front of the White House fireplace for a photo-op: the vice president, JD Vance; Donald Trump, the president; Mr. Zelenskyy. And as they started to talk, it became heated. HEATED. And it was kind of tragic.

I think Mr. Zelenskyy, in some ways, is a sympathetic character. He needs American weapons, but he kept arguing and arguing, and interrupting the president of the United States, who kept trying to remind him that without American weapons—and the number is disputed because it includes weaponry, economic assistance, and other types of U.S. aid. And it’s somewhere between $180 billion or, as Trump feels, $300 billion.

But the point is that Trump was the good cop and Vance was the bad cop. And Vance kept saying to him, “You don’t have the destiny in Ukraine.”

And what he was trying to say is, “Mr. Zelenskyy, we’re not the Biden administration. And our system of government policy changes. You, essentially, got a blank check from former President Joe Biden, who didn’t intervene. That’s not going to happen now. We have $35-$36 trillion in debt. We’re putting Americans out of work to save money. We don’t want to keep funding this Stalingrad war. We have to have a ceasefire. But you keep telling us what we should do, your patron.”

Zelenskyy says, “No, I’m not. But we have to have something that’s fair.” But the point that Zelenskyy didn’t appreciate was twofold. Whether it’s tragic or not, he’s in a subordinate position. Without the United States, he would be nowhere. Europe talks a great game. All of Europe together, all 28, 29 nations of the EU, 32 nations of NATO have given less than the United States alone. And they will not come to his aid.

And, more importantly, the only reason that he was able to create a standoff, a tie, some kind of impasse with this enormous Russian juggernaut was due to the bravery of the Ukrainian soldiers, but also United States weapons, but also the United States nuclear deterrent.

Every time that a general or a media personality in Russia threatened to use nuclear weapons, the United States politely, through diplomatic channels, said, “Don’t do this. Don’t do this.” And we have nuclear superiority over Russia. But we’re also risking the capitals of our country without a say in the conduct of the war.

The other subtext of this amazing public spat was, I don’t think Mr. Zelenskyy realizes that, whether it’s fair or not, he has sided with the American Left. He feels that the left wing and Europe and the left-wing United States are his sponsors. And that means that he is overtly political.

One example, he flew into the swing state of Pennsylvania right at the heat of the September campaigning season in 2024. He went to iconic Scranton, on the invitation of Joe Biden, who was trying to help [then-Vice President] Kamala Harris.

He was flown in on a U.S. military jet. He met Democratic politicians. He met union workers in a munitions factory and basically said to them, “These jobs are essential to us.” Subtext: “You wouldn’t want to lose your jobs by voting for Donald Trump, who might cut off aid.” That was a terrible mistake. And he has said some things since then.

He’s very sensitive to the idea that Donald Trump has called him a dictator. That might’ve been unseemly, but all he has to do is to have some—if we had an election during COVID, then he can have an election even with the stalemate in Ukraine. Remember, we had elections during Korea, Vietnam, World War I, World War II. The United States has never canceled an election during a war, even during the Civil War. And so, that falls on unsympathetic ears.

Let me just sum up by suggesting there must be some realization on the part of Mr. Zelenskyy that, unlike Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he does not have a wartime cabinet. Unlike Mr. Netanyahu, he will not be pressured into a ceasefire, which we pressured Israel, to their disadvantage. And unlike Mr. Netanyahu, he’s not getting lectures about collateral damage.

He’s been given a pretty free hand. He’s been interfering in American politics. And that has a long history with Ukrainians. The Ukrainian ambassador to the United States in 2016 attacked Donald Trump in an op-ed. No need to get into [Alexander] Vindman and his role as a dual citizen in the first impeachment of Donald Trump. And no need to go back and talk about all the things Mr. Zelenskyy said.

So, the bottom line was, this was a very strange, bizarre, open diplomatic spat. At one point, Donald Trump said this was good for the American people to see. And I think what he was saying is, “I’m in a very strange position where a subordinate nation is engaged in a war with a nuclear power and we are its patron and supplying it. And we are taking the risk of an escalation to DEFCON, who knows what? Three? And he doesn’t seem to get that. He just talks about his needs, his needs. And I need to apprise him, before the American people, of our needs.”

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

The post Zelenskyy Bites the Hand That Feeds Him Billions of Dollars appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The White House has unveiled the theme of President Donald Trump’s Tuesday night address to a joint session of Congress.

In his speech focused on “The Renewal of the American Dream,” Trump will highlight accomplishments from his second term so far, what he has done for the economy, the push for additional border security funding, and plans for global peace, Fox News Digital first reported.

“President Trump has accomplished more in one month than any president in four years—and the renewal of the American dream is well underway,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News Digital. “In his Joint Address to Congress, President Trump will celebrate his extraordinarily successful first month in office while outlining his bold, ambitious, and common sense vision for the future.” 

Though the speech functions like a State of the Union address, it’s called a joint address to Congress because Trump has not yet been in office for a full year of his second term.

In addresses like the one at 9 p.m. EST Tuesday, the president often highlights the stories of those positively impacted by his administration’s actions and policies.

In his first six weeks in office, Trump has signed more than 75 executive orders aimed at securing the border; cutting wasteful spending; eliminating radical gender ideology; establishing an “America First” foreign policy approach; challenging discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion practices; and much more.

“Tomorrow night will be big,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday morning. “I will tell it like it is!” 

The post White House Announces Themes of Trump’s Address to Congress appeared first on The Daily Signal.

After a congressional report alleged that Jan. 6 Committee members deleted documents and tampered with a witness, outgoing President Joe Biden pardoned every member. But that pardon could help the House GOP get closer to the truth.  

Legal experts point to Supreme Court precedent dating back to 1896 that would likely mean the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination wouldn’t extend to someone already pardoned of a potential crime in question. 

That would mean that those who have been pardoned could still be required to answer questions from a congressional panel and that they couldn’t claim the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions.

“The pardons of the committee members raise more questions,” Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., told The Daily Signal. He added, “They can’t plead the Fifth, but they can be charged with contempt for failure to appear. I would prefer to get the information without calling them in.”

Biden pardoned every member of the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol, known as the Jan. 6 Committee, which probed the massive protest against Congress certifying Biden’s 2020 win. The committee consisted of seven Democrats and two anti-Donald Trump Republican members. House GOP members have probed whether the committee destroyed critical records from the investigation, including those that may have weakened its case against Trump.  

It’s unusual for members of Congress to be compelled to testify in a congressional hearing, but four of the members of the committee are no longer in the House. 

In December, the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight—led by Loudermilk—released an interim report alleging the Jan. 6 subcommittee “destroyed or deleted” records from its investigation. 

The report also called for an investigation into the select committee vice chair, former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., for possible witness tampering. It further alleged failures by the Defense Department, FBI, and Capitol Police to prevent the problems on Jan. 6, 2021. 

Biden also pardoned the staffers for members of the Democrat-run Jan. 6 Committee, as well as the U.S. Capitol and Washington, D.C., Metropolitan police officers who testified to the panel. 

The House is still in transition from the prior session of Congress but will continue the investigation, Loudermilk said, adding, “The White House is fully supportive.” 

“There were serious failures from multiple agencies and a serious cover-up by the select committee,” he said. 

Loudermilk said key to continuing the investigation will be obtaining the inspector general findings on how the Department of Homeland Security had prepared to respond on Jan. 6, 2021, and on Secret Service preparation for responding that day. Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas blocked the release of the inspector general’s report, Loudermilk added. 

“The DHS inspector general report was never released. Mayorkas is holding it back,” he said. “We hope to get the inspector general report going forward.” 

A DHS spokesperson did not reply to an inquiry from The Daily Signal by publication time. 

The December interim report from Loudermilk’s subcommittee accused Cheney—defeated for reelection in 2022—of working with committee witness Cassidy Hutchinson, a former Trump White House aide, on her testimony without the knowledge of Hutchinson’s lawyer.

For her part, Cheney said the interim report “intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence, and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did.”

The offices of five Democrat members of the select committee still in Congress and the the office of first-term Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., (who was a House member at the time) did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal by publication time.

The post Biden-Pardoned Jan. 6 Committee Members Can’t Likely Invoke Fifth Amendment appeared first on The Daily Signal.

For decades, women fought for the equal rights that men in this country had enjoyed from its inception. Yet recently, and under Democrat rule, these hard-fought freedoms have been thrown into jeopardy from the Left demanding that women share their sports and private spaces with men pretending to be the opposite sex.

Female athletes have been thrust into this danger head on. With sports leagues and schools allowing men to compete in women’s and girls sports, females are forced into a biological disadvantage that has jeopardized their safety and scholarship opportunities both on and off the field.

Decades of advocacy led to the creation of Title IX in 1972, the crucial law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education and sports programs funded by federal tax dollars and allows women to have their own sports teams.

Title IX allowed me the opportunity to compete in sports like volleyball, basketball, track and field, and cross country. The personal development and leadership skills I learned through those sports team opportunities transferred to other areas of my life and have absolutely propelled me in life and my career, as is the case for many female athletes.

However, the Department of Education under the Biden administration proposed an interpretation of Title IX to expand the prohibition against discrimination based on sex to include a prohibition based on “sex stereotypes, sex-related characteristics (including intersex traits), pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”

This egregious overhaul of Title IX not only goes against the biological realities of male and female, but it flips Title IX on its head and ends up doing the very thing it was created to stop: It discriminates against women. Allowing men to “identify” as women in order to benefit from special protections afforded to women unilaterally displaces women and girls and puts them in harm’s way.

Prospective female student-athletes have been forced to compete with males for an extremely limited pool of scholarships and roster spots. These men possess natural physical advantages that strip women of opportunities to play collegiate sports.

According to a 2020 study from the British Journal of Sports Medicine, male athletes who have “transitioned”—whether surgically or chemically—to try to take on the persona of a woman retain a competitive edge against women even after two years of taking estrogen.

Fortunately, when I was in high school, my former teammates and I never had to worry about males undermining our opportunities, titles, scholarships, or putting our well-being at risk on the court or field. In my senior year, I qualified for the last spot to compete in a relay at the coveted Iowa Girls High School Track and Field State Meet. However, if I were competing today, almost any male could have bumped me from that spot.

Sex-denying activists insisting men should participate in women’s sports threaten these opportunities for future generations of female athletes, and Americans know it’s not right. 

President Donald Trump heard the battle cry from Americans, and within days of being sworn into office, signed an executive order defending women’s sports and restoring the original Title IX protections. This was the first major step to securing our safety, but Congress now must codify Trump’s executive order into law so the freedom of our daughters, sisters, and nieces can flourish just like it did for so many women before them.

Thanks to the extensive work of grassroots Americans, fighting radical gender ideology at the state and federal level has become a major priority for lawmakers. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., has been leading the charge for the past two legislative sessions in Congress by introducing the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act (S. 9).

The critical piece of legislation will be debated on the Senate floor this week.

As a former coach, Tuberville knows firsthand the importance of safeguarding athletic opportunities for women and girls. The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act strongly pushes back on gender ideology’s attack on female athletes and returns the dignity and opportunities our mothers and grandmothers fought so hard for.

It is a landmark bill that answers the call from millions of Americans to defend the aspirations and safety of female athletes by prohibiting grade schools and colleges from receiving federal funds if they operate, sponsor, or facilitate athletic programs that allow males to compete in athletic programs designated for women or girls. It would successfully codify Trump’s executive order, and senators who care about fulfilling the mandate the American people gave him should support it.

Thankfully, the House has already done its part and passed with bipartisan support the companion legislation to the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act sponsored by Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla. Senate Republicans have a duty to join the House in rejecting radical gender ideology and ensuring female athletes have athletic opportunities available to them without fearing for their safety or losing their scholarships to men.

The American people demand accountability from Democrats for putting their daughters in harm’s way. As demonstrated by the results of the 2024 election, the Democratic Party’s embrace and ardent refusal to abandon radical gender ideology had consequences and will be its downfall in the 2026 midterm elections if they continue on this course.

Americans have made our rejection of radical gender ideology clear time and time again. By passing the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, the Senate can do its part to preserve opportunities for our daughters and future generations.

The post Senators, It’s Time to Defend Female Athletes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Republican members of Congress are becoming increasingly hostile toward NATO amid European solidarity with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after his Oval Office shouting match Friday with President Donald Trump.

The American effort to broker Russia-Ukraine peace talks has encountered headwinds recently, with European leaders expressing support for Zelenskyy, and the British prime minister attempting to take a leading role in the negotiations.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, has in recent days repeatedly called for the United States to exit the defense treaty it signed in 1949.

Lee’s criticisms come after the United Kingdom agreed to sign a new multibillion-dollar loan to support Ukraine after a London summit Zelenskyy attended Sunday, where multiple European premiers pledged continued support for the country—while not ruling out peace negotiations.

“If NATO’S moving on without the U.S. … We should move on without NATO … Time to leave,” Lee wrote on X in response to European leaders standing beside Zelenskyy in London.

The Utah senator also blasted European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who, at the summit, spoke of rearming Europe and making Ukraine a “steel porcupine that is indigestible for potential invaders.”

“Good luck, Ursula,” wrote Lee. “Don’t count on another cent from us.”

In a written statement to The Daily Signal, Lee reiterated his threat of disinvestment.

“The United States should reconsider its membership in NATO. This organization was originally created to contain Soviet aggression in Europe, but has become a means for other nations to exploit the American security umbrella without taking their own national defense seriously,” he said, adding:

It is a foreign entanglement through which smaller nations could drag the United States into a major war against our national interests.

He added, “If European heads of state continue to support endless war in Ukraine in defiance of President Trump’s push for a ceasefire and negotiated peace, they should be allowed to do so—on their own.”

Lee was not the only Republican to call for American disinvestment from the military pact.

“The U.S. should not send one more dollar to these orgs & countries. NATO is pushing to drag the U.S. into WW3, but they’re not even paying their fair share!” Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., wrote on X on Monday.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Elon Musk have also joined in on the calls for an American withdrawal.

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., likewise criticized NATO-affiliated United Kingdom Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who at the London summit called for a “just and enduring peace,” backed by European military assurances.

“The U.K. is prepared to back this, with boots on the ground and planes in the air. Together with others, Europe must do the heavy lifting. But to support peace on the Continent and to succeed, this effort must have strong U.S. backing,” said Starmer in a clip posted by Burchett.

Burchett wrote in response, “Old men make decisions, and young men die. The war pimps love a war. It is good for their portfolio.”

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Burchett said that he sympathized with fellow Republicans calling for an American withdrawal from NATO.

“I think that’s a viable option,” he said. “I think we need to weigh our fiscal security, our defense of our own country, and all that, but I think that’s a viable option, and I would support it.”

One irony of the Republican backlash to European’s tough-on-defense rhetoric is that Trump has long called for just that—an increased investment from European leaders in their own defense.

Burchett acknowledged that the moves might play into Trump’s hand.

“One hundred percent. That’s what they need to do,” said Burchett of the talks of increased European defense spending. “It’s a European war, and we’ve been carrying the fiscal ball on this.”

But increased Republican skepticism of defense partnerships with European countries is not just confined to Make America Great Again hard-liners such as Lee, Luna, and Burchett.

After the highly contentious Oval Office meeting with Zelenskyy, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has long advocated for funding the defense of Ukraine, shamed Zelenskyy for his behavior and suggested he consider resignation.

Those remarks were echoed by Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., and national security adviser Mike Waltz.

Burchett said of Graham’s rapid evolution on the issue: “I think it’s a realization of what people like Trump and the American people have been saying all along. This is, first of all, not our war. Second of all, we can’t afford to borrow any more money to prolong this war, and that we need to get an exit strategy.”

The post ‘TIME TO LEAVE’ NATO?: Some in GOP Sour on Defense Pact After Europe’s Bow to Zelenskyy appeared first on The Daily Signal.

I’ve had enough. This really needs to be said. History abuse must stop.

If you’ve paid attention to the news recently, it’s been hard not to notice that analogies to World War II have become increasingly ridiculous, especially regarding the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine and President Donald Trump’s negotiations to end it.

Western media and political elites (I’m looking at you, New York Times) appear to have little framework by which to analyze current events through historical analogy other than through the most distorted, movie-like version of the Second World War that has little connection to reality.

Every single political event and leader is, like a broken record, compared to some bad Marvel comic version of its World War II self. Trump is Hitler. Trump is Neville Chamberlain. Russian President Vladimir Putin is Hitler. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is Winston Churchill. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer is Winston Churchill and the leader of the free world.

Stop!

For a time when millennials were coming of political age, the Harry Potter comparisons were repeated ad nauseum. The eventual response to Harry Potter analogies eventually just became, “read another book” and eventually the comparisons died down.

And that’s what I’m saying now. Pick another event in history besides World War II, please.

It isn’t always Munich in 1938. Not every politician you don’t like is Hitler. Not every aggressive foreign power is the Third Reich. And not every attempt at peace is Neville Chamberlain-like “appeasement.”

And if you are going to go with a World War II history analogy, at least get the facts straight.

I’d like to make this point about Churchill based on actual history because there has been quite a bit of digital ink spilled in claiming that Zelenskyy is like Churchill and that criticizing him is like the U.S. suddenly stabbing Churchill in the back while he was fighting Nazis.

Frankly, Zelenskyy’s public eruption with Trump was very un-Churchill-like. Churchill was a wise and clever statesman who knew exactly the position that the U.K. was in during the war. He knew that, as he said at the Tehran Conference in 1943 with FDR and Josef Stalin, between the American buffalo on one side and the Russian bear on the other, England was no more than a sad little donkey.

So he flattered and gently cajoled FDR and Stalin both publicly and privately. He did everything he could to put on a happy face that the partnership was working out well and that the U.K. was grateful for aid. Privately, he cursed Stalin, a butcher and an evil communist dictator who he was on to long before his American allies understood the threat of “Uncle Joe.”

On FDR, one gets the feeling that Churchill simply flattered and affirmed the American president, certainly in public, even though it was clear that plenty of Roosevelt’s top advisers hated the British Empire and were keen on breaking it up as soon as the war was over.

Churchill didn’t do this because he was such a nice guy or lacked the honor to tell bullies like Stalin how things really are. (Once or twice, he would confront Stalin to his face, albeit privately.) He played the consummate diplomat for his country, which had little hope of survival in a showdown with Germany without American industry and Russian manpower.

In foreign relations, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. Churchill played a weak hand as best he could given the circumstances he was handed. Churchill put on a smile and ate garbage for England, and for that there should always be a statue of him outside Parliament and a bust of him in the White House.

But Churchill’s allies didn’t lift him up to sainthood or provide aid without taking their cut from a desperate British Empire—far from it.

I keep seeing this sentiment on social media that the United States should give Ukraine whatever it wants and take nothing in return as reward for their heroism against the Russians. Somehow this is supposed to be comparable to our relationship with Churchill in World War II, which was one of perpetual self-sacrifice.

Wrong.

Certainly, we often fought and died together. But the United States didn’t help the U.K. simply out of charity and kindness. It was a natural alliance of need and common interest, but we also took the Brits for all they had.

The loans the U.S. extended to them—the war material we gave them—came at a great cost. The U.K. only finally paid back the loans from the U.S. in 2006, and it had to do so with interest.

Rightly or wrongly, American leaders were ruthless with an ally of far more consequence and power than modern Ukraine.

We didn’t go running to fight World War II, we were pushed into a deeply unpopular war by world events. And the details of the war and its outcome were far more complicated than the simplistic and sometimes fantastical tales being spun by the legacy media about President Donald Trump’s negotiations with Russia.

So please give the shallow history lesson a rest for a bit and let the president meet with Putin jaw-to-jaw before we rush to war.  

The post Stop Abusing World War II History to Bash Trump appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This is the fourth in an eight-article series on “Restoring Trust in Public Health: Lessons from COVID-19.” Four years of the Biden-Harris administration has left Americans rightly skeptical of public health institutions. This series highlights key findings from several congressional oversight reports, including the final report of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, and offers lessons for Congress and the new administration on ways to restore trust in public health.

The Biden-Harris administration often issued recommendations related to the COVID-19 pandemic that turned out to be confusing, false, misleading, or unsupported by scientific evidence. One of the most troubling examples was regarding the COVID-19 vaccines.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released its final report in December detailing the numerous federal failures, including misinformation concerning COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness.

In 2021, the administration persisted in claiming erroneously that the COVID-19 vaccines would prevent viral transmission. In March 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed COVID-19 vaccines were highly effective against infection and transmission, and that vaccinated persons could safely gather without wearing masks or practicing social distancing. Yet, this initial claim went far beyond the terms of the Food and Drug Administration’s December 2020 Emergency Use Authorization for the vaccines that explicitly denied that there was any evidence that they prevented person-to-person transmission.

On Dec.11, 2020, when the Emergency Use Authorization was issued, the FDA explicitly stated that it could not affirm that the vaccines could prevent COVID-19 transmission: “At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person.”

Nonetheless, on March 8, 2021, the CDC advised the public that fully vaccinated individuals could safely gather indoors with others who were fully vaccinated, without masks or social distancing. The CDC also stated that vaccinated individuals exposed to COVID-19 did not need to isolate or get tested unless they exhibited symptoms.

In July 2021, the administration had to revise its messaging and concede that vaccination in fact did not always prevent infection or transmission.

On Aug. 18, 2021, after President Joe Biden announced booster shots would be released for all adults, top FDA scientists Dr. Marion Gruber and Dr. Philip Krause resigned because they believed that there was insufficient data to recommend all adults getting a booster shot eight months after the second shot.

Following witness testimony under oath, the Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic reported, “Evidence further indicates that the FDA may have allowed politics to interfere with what should have been a dispassionate and scientifically driven regulatory process. Dr. Gruber and Dr. Krause expressed legitimate concerns about the hyper-acceleration of the review of COVID-19 vaccines and booster shots and were ignored.”

Then, going from bad to worse, in September 2021, without scientific evidence that the vaccines would prevent viral transmission, Biden announced the imposition of unprecedented federal vaccine mandates by falsely claiming that the COVID-19 pandemic was a “pandemic of the unvaccinated.”

Childhood Vaccination

Despite evidence that the threat of serious COVID-19 illness, hospitalization, or death was infinitesimal for healthy young children, the administration also persisted in promoting vaccinations and boosters for children.

On Jan. 3, 2022, the FDA expanded its Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine to include single booster doses for adolescents aged 12-15 years. Days after, on Jan. 5, 2022, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted to extend eligibility for additional vaccination for this age group despite the lack of concrete evidence that boosters would provide meaningful protection against the virus. In fact, the meeting slides acknowledged the uncertainty over the “Impact of booster dose on neutralizing antibody or VE [vaccine effectiveness].”

On May 17, 2022, the FDA extended booster eligibility to children aged 5-11 years. Soon after, on June 18, 2022, CDC recommended COVID-19 vaccines for children as young as 6 months to 5 years.

Remarkably, these policies were being undertaken seemingly insulated from the public health assessments and the more sober policies of America’s European allies. In fact, as the Select Subcommittee notes, Team Biden’s approach rendered the United States a global outlier in pushing COVID-19 vaccines and boosters for children and adolescents.

Ignoring Natural Immunity

The record also shows that federal officials downplayed or ignored natural immunity from a previously acquired COVID-19 infection. In fact, the Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic reported that when the Biden vaccine mandates were being implemented, 91 million Americans had already been infected with COVID-19.

This dogma among our top federal public health officials was not in keeping with the traditional understanding of the strength of previous infection as a protection against illness, nor was it compatible with emerging data on the power of natural immunity.

Global research, including major studies published in Italy, Israel and Britain, as well as American studies published by the La Jolla Institute for Immunology and the New England Journal of Medicine proved the strength and durability of natural immunity.

In February 2023, for example, The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, published a major study showing that infection-acquired immunity cut the risk of re-infection by 78% after 40 weeks.

Nonetheless, top federal officials apparently ignored its relevance and attempted to suppress dissenting scientists who held otherwise. Meanwhile, Team Biden continued its persistent pursuit of a vaccine mandate.

Playing It Straight on Vaccine Effectiveness

Based on his remarks at his confirmation hearings, the new Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. understands the crucial need for fully transparent and rigorous adherence to science. There is a great opportunity to restore public trust by not only requiring rigorous standards of scientific evidence in authorizing the availability and use of vaccines, but also in embracing full transparency in communicating clearly the scientific benefits, limits, and the risks to the public or certain cohorts of the public.

Ana Sofia Santiago-Russe, a member of the Heritage Young Leaders Program, contributed research for this article.

The post Restoring Trust in Public Health: Play It Straight on Vaccines Effectiveness appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz says “the gates of hell will open” against Hamas if the remaining hostages still in Gaza are not released soon.  

“We will return to fighting and [Hamas] will face the [Israel Defense Forces] with strength and methods that it has not known, until [Hamas] is totally defeated,” Katz said while speaking at an event in Jerusalem on Monday, according to The Times of Israel. 

“We will not allow Hamas to rule in Gaza,” he added.  

Katz’s comments come after the initial six-week ceasefire between Israel and Hamas came to an end over the weekend. Despite some challenges along the way, phase one of the ceasefire went largely as planned and included the release of more than 30 hostages from Gaza, including Israeli American citizens Keith Siegel, 65, and Sagui Dekel-Chen, 36.  

Hamas and Israel have not reached an agreement on the details of phase two of the ceasefire, but Israel has presented Hamas with a deal to extend the first phase of the ceasefire through the end of Ramadan on March 29, and Passover, which ends April 19.  

U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff provided Israel with the framework for the deal to extend the current ceasefire, according to the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  

The extension would include the release of about half the hostages remaining in Gaza upon Hamas’ agreeing to the plan. The remaining hostages would be released when the agreement concludes, providing a permanent ceasefire has been reached, The Times of Israel reported.  

There are 59 hostages still in Gaza, at least 35 of whom are dead, according to the IDF.  

Hamas has not yet agreed to extend the ceasefire and release the remaining hostages, and until it does so, Israel has stopped the delivery of all humanitarian aid into Gaza.  

“Israel will not allow a ceasefire without a release of our hostages,” Netanyahu’s office said in a statement Sunday. “If Hamas persists in its refusal, there will be additional consequences.” 

Just one day after the initial first phase of the ceasefire ended, a stabbing attack took one life and left four others wounded in Haifa, Israel. Hamas praised the attack, but did not claim responsibility.  

Katz’s threat to open “the gates of hell” against Hamas if the hostages are not soon released echoes President Donald Trump’s repeated warning that there will be “hell to pay” in the Middle East if the hostages are not set free.  

The Trump administration has taken multiple actions to demonstrate its clear support for Israel, including on Saturday when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced he had “signed a declaration to use emergency authorities to expedite the delivery of approximately $4 billion in military assistance to Israel.”

Rubio’s announcement is a sea change from the partial arms embargo on Israel set in place under the Biden administration. 

The Biden administration embargo “wrongly withheld a number of weapons and ammunition from Israel,” Rubio said, adding that “Israel has no greater ally in the White House than President Trump.”  

The post Israel Warns ‘Gates of Hell Will Open’ Against Hamas If Hostages Aren’t Released appeared first on The Daily Signal.

OXON HILL, Md.—A Hungarian conservative leader warned that while President Donald Trump has made great progress, the global “woke machine” remains an abiding threat, propped up by Hungarian American billionaire George Soros.

Miklós Szánthó, who convenes conservatives for the Conservative Political Action Conference in Hungary, praised Trump for rooting out the U.S. government’s funding for leftist causes like gender ideology and open borders but warned that Soros and his allies uphold a globalist infrastructure that will continue to advocate these issues. He noted that Trump has paused international funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development but the Soros-founded Open Society Foundations will continue to fund similar projects.

“Although, thanks to God, USAID is canceled, the Open Society Network still operates,” Szánthó told The Daily Signal in an interview at CPAC last month. “So the fight against the woke machine, against this big geopolitical manipulation machine, is not over.”

Szánthó cited research from the Center for Fundamental Rights in Hungary—which organizes CPAC Hungary and is where he serves as president—that found that the Open Society Foundations has spent $1.4 billion in Europe in the past 10 years. He claimed that USAID and Open Society funneled “at least $20 million” to “Hungarian leftist media organizations, [nongovernmental organizations], think tanks, under projects like ‘human rights,’ ‘rule of law,’ ‘democracy,’ ‘climate change.’”

The Trump administration has halted most foreign aid, but the White House has highlighted how funds directed through USAID and other federal agencies propped up gender ideology, climate alarmism, and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs overseas.

USAID has many ties to the Left’s dark money network and to the activist groups that staffed and advised the Biden administration. My book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government,” lays out this vast influence campaign, much of which enjoys funding from Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

“Even with USAID canceled, this woke hydra has four or five additional heads,” Szánthó warned. “This whole woke machine is so deep.”

The Hungarian conservative contrasted Soros’ globalism with patriotism in Hungary and the United States.

“George Soros is a very typical ‘anywhere guy,’” Szánthó explained. He dismissed the idea that Soros, who grew up in Hungary, at all represents the Hungarian people. “There are localists, sovereignists—‘somewhere’ guys—and there are ‘anywhere guys’—the globalists.”

He argued that Soros and his son, Alex Soros (who now runs the Open Society Foundations), are “typical ‘anywhere’ globalists, and although they speak about those ‘democratic values,’ what they really mean is liberal, progressive democratic values: open borders, gender policies, gender propaganda, weakening the family.”

“I wouldn’t say that George Soros would be Hungarian or American,” Szánthó said. “He’s a globalist.”

He emphasized that the current political dividing line “is not between the Left and the Right or progressives versus conservatives, but it’s between sovereignists and globalists.” He noted that former Vice President Kamala Harris represented the globalist campaign in the U.S., while Trump represented the sovereignist, patriotic side.

Szánthó warned that some of the same bureaucrats and leaders who held positions of power under Soviet influence went on to become the leftist elites now backed up by Soros’ network.

“Leaders, influencers, journalists who already worked 20, 30, 40 years ago—even before the Iron Curtain fell—now they are promoting, you know, ‘democratic values,’ ‘human rights,’ etc., but it’s the same people,” he said.

“The very same people” are pushing “the very same content” with “the very same goal: to undermine normality, to undermine common sense, to undermine God, homeland, and family. But now, they found new brands, new slogans.”

Szánthó also emphasized a “revolving door” between European Union bureaucrats and the nonprofits propped up by the Open Society Foundations—one similar to the Woketopus.

“This Open Society network also finances several Europe-wide entities, NGOs [nongovernmental organizations], human rights groups, and their staff—their researchers, their experts. Now they work for a Soros NGO,” he explained. “Previously, they worked for the European Commission. Before that, they worked for the European Court. Before that, they worked for the European Parliament. Now, they are civil activists. But the next year, they will go back to the European deep state.”

Szánthó described Hungary as “the island of freedom or island of difference” in the “liberal/progressive ocean that is Europe.”

He urged conservatives to “combine forces” across national boundaries—with Trump in the U.S., President Javier Milei in Argentina, and Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary—to launch “a revival of the patriots.”

The post GLOBAL WOKE MACHINE: Leader of CPAC Hungary Raises the Alarm About Soros appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Pro-lifers continue to urge the Department of Government Efficiency to defund Planned Parenthood, but they aren’t putting all their eggs in Elon Musk’s basket.

As pro-life groups fight for a provision in the budget reconciliation package to remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood, conservatives warn against allowing pro-abortion misinformation to derail efforts to defund the abortion giant.

Pro-abortion activists are citing a 2015 report from the Congressional Budget Office estimating that defunding Planned Parenthood would increase direct spending by $130 million during the 2016-2025 period.

Advancing American Freedom, a conservative think tank founded by former Vice President Mike Pence, is calling on pro-life members of Congress not to fall for that narrative.

“With pro-life majorities in Congress and DOGE sniffing around for waste, fraud, and abuse, the Washington Swamp is circling the wagons to protect Planned Parenthood’s taxpayer funding,” the memo first shared with The Daily Signal says. “Their leading argument is Malthusian nonsense: that defunding Planned Parenthood would ‘cost money!’ Conservatives must not fall for this long-debunked pro-abortion argument.”

The economic cost of aborting 630,000 babies in 2019 was at least $6.9 trillion, according to a June 2022 report from Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and the Joint Economic Committee, cited by Advancing American Freedom.

Abortion “shrinks the labor force, stunts innovation, and limits economic growth,” the report says.

Planned Parenthood received about $75 billion in federal funding from 2019 to 2021. That includes $22 billion in Department of Health and Human Services grants and $53 billion from public health programs.

While the strongest arguments against abortion is the moral one, pro-lifers should recognize that the economic argument holds water as well.

“If one must resort to an economic argument not to kill babies, the math is simple,” the memo says. “More babies equals more future taxpayers equals more revenue. The idea that we must kill babies to
‘save money’ is sick. Once you do the math, taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood costs taxpayers more money!”

Pro-life organizations, including Advancing American Freedom, are encouraging the three branches of government, all of which are controlled by conservatives, to use their authority to bring Planned Parenthood’s funding down.

DOGE can investigate Planned Parenthood for “waste, fraud, and abuse,” according to Advancing American Freedom.

On Nov. 20, Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal saying that DOGE “would help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended,” including “nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood.”

Ramaswamy has since resigned from DOGE leadership to run for Ohio governor.

Congress can defund Planned Parenthood using the March 14 government funding deadline and the budget reconciliation package.

The Supreme Court will soon hear Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which could decide whether pro-life states can direct Medicaid funds away from abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood.

“Ultimately, pro-life members of Congress must disregard CBO’s backwards scoring and stand up for the unborn by defunding Planned Parenthood once and for all,” Advancing American Freedom’s memo said.

The post EXCLUSIVE: Conservative Watchdog Debunks Argument Defunding Planned Parenthood Hurts Taxpayers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A new poll about the Israel-Hamas war found a 29 percentage point divide between older and younger Americans on support for Israel.

Recent polling for the Napolitan News Service of 1,000 registered voters comes as President Donald Trump hopes to end that war in the Middle East. Trump last month hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, where they talked about Arab countries taking Palestinian refugees and the future of Gaza. 

Sixty-six percent of senior citizens polled consider Israel an ally, whereas only 37% of younger voters do. While no senior citizens surveyed viewed Israel as America’s enemy, 16% of younger voters (under 35) regarded that country as an enemy.

The poll also found that 40% of respondents expressed support for the state of Israel in the conflict, and overall, 52% of voters polled consider Israel an ally, whereas only 5% see it as an enemy.

Voters were also divided by age regarding Palestinian groups. Among senior citizens, only 3% supported the Palestinians as allies, whereas 42% saw them as enemies. Younger voters were more closely divided: 26% saw the groups as allies, whereas 20% viewed them as enemies. 

Supporters of Israel have been sounding the alarm about the bias of social media algorithms in favor of anti-Israel positions for some time now. There is even evidence that the Chinese government has directed TikTok to amplify anti-Israel content on the app to sow dissent in the United States. 

There has also been a shift in Americans’ perceptions of the two major political parties on where they stand on the issue of support for Israel. Thirty-seven percent of voters surveyed now think Republicans are more supportive of Jewish Americans than Democrats. Twenty-six percent think that Democrats are more supportive. That is a significant shift in opinion, compared with this past September, when respondents were almost evenly divided. Thirty-one percent of voters thought Republicans were more supportive, while 33% said Democrats were more supportive. 

Republicans have taken the initiative to confront antisemitism on college campuses, most notably with Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., questioning the presidents of major universities at a congressional hearing. And Republican-aligned organizations, such as the Conservative Political Action Committee, have attempted to dissociate from any antisemitic influencers.

The Daily Signal reached out to William Jacobson, a professor of law at Cornell Law School who has spoken out against the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions” movement against Israel on college campuses. 

“There clearly is a gap in support for Israel between younger groups and most other age groups, but the data is not consistent or conclusive. Younger voters tend to be more left-leaning, and the question always is whether and how they will change as they age,” Jacobson told The Daily Signal.

“That said, it is clear that the gross demonization and dehumanization of Israel by faculty, the media, the entertainment industry, and particularly on social media are having an impact. Israel is the object of hate, but the hate really is for our own society, for capitalism, and for Western civilization,” Jacobson told The Daily Signal.

“The combination of the Left and Islamists (the ‘red-green alliance’) is not new, but has gained momentum as the education system from kindergarten through professional schools has been captured by ideologies such as intersectionality, critical race theory, and decolonization,” he said.

A spokesman for American Israel Public Affairs Committee told The Daily Signal, “Americans overwhelmingly stand with our democratic ally, Israel, as it shares our strategic interests and moral values. Israel’s enemies are America’s enemies, and that is why our country strongly supports providing the Jewish state the necessary resources to defend against Iran and its terrorist proxies.”

The Daily Signal asked Jacobson what he thought was the best way supporters of Israel could change Americans minds on the issue.

“The way to best defend Israel is to defend our own values, and our own society, against these attempts to tear us down,” Jacobson said. 

The post Americans Sharply Divided by Age Over Support for Israel, Poll Finds appeared first on The Daily Signal.

While President Donald Trump has been tackling LGBTQ+ activism at the federal level, Iowa has become the first state to pass a bill that removes gender identity from the state’s civil rights law.

On Friday, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, signed SF418, which made its way to her desk with a 33-15 vote in the Senate and a 60-36 vote in the House.

The legislation eliminates “gender identity” as a protected class under the Iowa Civil Rights Act. It also defines sex as “the state of being either male or female as observed or clinically verified at birth.” The text goes on to define other terms such as “male” and “female,” and it states that the term “gender” will be regarded as a “synonym for sex.”

The legislation does not allow changes to birth certificates after an individual undergoes “gender-affirming care,” and it ensures that Iowa’s school curriculum does not promote “gender theory or sexual orientation to students in kindergarten through grade six.”

The bill also explains that any “person born with a medically verifiable diagnosis of disorder or difference of sex development shall be provided the legal protections and accommodations afforded under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and applicable state law.”

In a statement, Reynolds said this bill “safeguards the rights of women and girls.” She also emphasized that “it is common sense to acknowledge the obvious biological differences between men and women.” Yet, “unfortunately, these commonsense protections were at risk because, before I signed this bill, the Civil Rights Code blurred the biological line between the sexes.”

Reynolds continued, “That is unacceptable to me, and it is unacceptable to most Iowans. … We are all children of God, and no law changes that. What this bill does accomplish is to strengthen protections for women and girls, and I believe that is the right thing to do.”

However, while SF418 garnered immense support from conservatives, Democratic opposition was in full force. The day before the bill was signed, over 2,500 protesters flooded the statehouse in Des Moines, holding LGBTQ+ Pride flags and signs that expressed their opposition. The mob chanted “No hate in our state!” and “Who’s next?” as others booed.

State Rep. Steven Holt, a Republican, who introduced the measure, addressed both sides of the coin—the resistance and the celebration—on Friday’s “Washington Watch” with guest host Jody Hice.

“I’ve been working on this bill for about eight months,” Holt stated. Ultimately, the legislation acknowledges that “gender identity is a feeling,” and that “the Civil Rights Code is normally about immutable characteristics based on truth.” As such, “these two things cannot coexist. … We can’t have [protecting women] in code and also have gender identity as a protected class.”

Holt explained that Democrats and Republicans in Iowa have been duking it out on this matter for years. “We knew it was going to be a very difficult and challenging situation,” he said. And yet, after years of “playing whack-a-mole,” it’s officially been passed and signed.

“That is awesome news,” Hice agreed. But considering how “common sense” it is, Hice asked, “[Why] would anyone be opposed to this bill? What would be any chief concerns among those who oppose it?” According to Holt, people are opposed to it “because it … restores that everyone is treated equally in the law.”

“[U]nfortunately,” he continued, “members of the transgender community believe it is their right, if they are a biological male [identifying] as female … to go into female restrooms, female changing facilities, female sports.”

We’ve seen cases of this happening all over the country, he went on to explain, and it has damaged and harmed the women and girls directly affected. But when it comes to those who identify as transgender, “They demand that their rights be elevated above the rights of everyone else. It’s that simple.” However, Holt emphasized, “that is no longer the case.”

“Women will not be erased,” Holt concluded. “It’s amazing to me that Democrats, who once supported women’s rights, are now supporting erasing women. It’s just unbelievable.”

Originally published by The Washington Stand

The post Iowa Becomes First State to Remove ‘Gender Identity’ as a Protected Class appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Trump administration is doubling down on deregulation: Where the previous Trump administration removed five regulations for every new one, the target is now 10.

Our research shows that cutting regulations will increase gross domestic product, expand investment, and cut inflation without raising taxes. We used RegData 5.0, a text-based database that tracks regulatory intensity in the Federal Register, to analyze the relationship between regulation and key economic indicators.

Simply freezing new regulations for a decade would increase GDP by 1.8%—comparable to the economic gains from a major tax cut. Inflation would also ease, with the GDP deflator—a key measure of price levels—falling by 5.7% over the same period. That translates into a reduction in annual inflation of 0.6 percentage points, which would help the Fed get rid of stubbornly high inflation.

A Hidden Tax

These results shouldn’t come as a surprise. Regulations function as a hidden tax, siphoning resources away from productive use. Businesses must redirect capital toward compliance instead of expanding current operations and researching new technological breakthroughs.

The burden of regulation that weighs on businesses is growing. Our measure of regulation shows that it grew 15% in the last decade and has nearly doubled since 1980. As regulations pile up over time, they force businesses to spend more on legal and bureaucratic overhead than making products for consumers.

This regulatory drag shows up in two ways: higher costs and lower growth. Compliance expenses drive up production costs, which are passed on to consumers. Meanwhile, firms invest less in workers and innovation, reducing productivity and wage growth.

However, when businesses spend less time complying with government mandates, they spend more time expanding, hiring, and investing. Our findings suggest that deregulation’s impact on economic output mirrors that of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, passed in 2017 during Donald Trump’s first term, which boosted growth by lowering barriers to investment.

Freezing Regulations

Our estimates from our research are in line with this basic economic intuition. Our model forecasts that freezing new regulations for 10 years would:

• Increase investment by 7.8%. When compliance costs drop, businesses are more willing to deploy capital.

• Increase hours worked by 1.4%. More job opportunities mean greater workforce participation.

• Increase consumption by 1.7%. Households benefit from lower prices and stronger labor markets.

These results suggest that unshackling the private sector provides supply-side stimulus that can drive growth just as effectively as tax cuts. The economic gains from deregulation are real, and Washington should take note. Policymakers looking to maximize pro-growth policy should consider pairing Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extensions with aggressive regulatory reform.

Excessive debt and elevated inflation remain the primary economic challenges facing the United States today. The two go hand-in-hand, as the recent burst of inflation followed profligate spending from Congress enabled with loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve.

Current efforts to tackle debt and inflation have significant drawbacks. The Federal Reserve has relied on interest rate hikes to rein in inflation, which slows investment and growth. Supply-side tax cuts could raise growth but could make inflation worse if they’re financed by adding to the deficit.

A Pro-Growth Alternative

Deregulation offers a pro-growth alternative. Stripping away regulatory barriers increases the economy’s productive capacity, which dampens inflationary pressures without the need for aggressive monetary tightening.

Lawmakers debating the extension of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act should consider a two-pronged approach: make the pro-growth tax cuts permanent and slash regulatory red tape. Congress can affirm the Trump administration’s deregulatory efforts and specify which regulatory burdens to remove.

The combination of tax cuts and deregulation would supercharge growth and keep inflation at bay. If Congress wants stronger growth and lower inflation, there’s a simple answer: Cut the red tape.

Originally published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

The post The One Way to Improve the Economy Without Raising Inflation or Debt appeared first on The Daily Signal.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—President Donald Trump’s White House is calling on Senate Democrats to represent the vast majority of Americans by voting Monday night to bar males from girls and women’s sports.

“Given America’s overwhelming support to protect women’s sports, Senate Democrats should put aside their left-wing agenda and vote to pass this nonpartisan, commonsense policy,” Harrison Fields, principal deputy press secretary for the Trump administration, told The Daily Signal.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s bill, the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, would codify Trump’s Feb. 5 executive order denying federal funding to schools that allow transgender-identifying males to compete against females.

A New York Times poll published Jan. 19 found that 79% of respondents said biological males who identify as women should not be allowed to participate in women’s sports. That includes 67% of Democrats.

Despite widespread constituent support, sources within the Capitol say getting the necessary votes from Democrats is unlikely. For the bill to pass, it would need the support of every Senate Republican and at least seven Senate Democrats.

In the hours leading up to the vote, Tuberville, a former Auburn football coach, is calling on Democrats to vote in line with the will of their constituencies. In the neighboring state of Georgia, 73% of voters don’t want men playing in women’s sports.

Almost 70% of Arizonans don’t want men in girls and women’s sports, and in Pennsylvania, the number rises to nearly 75%. In Michigan, nearly 78% of voters want women’s sports to be female only. Both senators from Arizona and from Michigan are Democrats.

Because the executive orders could be overturned by the next Democratic administration, Tuberville has tirelessly advocated for a vote on his bill.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., agreed to file cloture on the bill on Thursday, setting up the first procedural vote on Monday.

Since the president signed the executive order barring males from female sports, some blue states have failed to comply. California and Minnesota are under federal investigation for refusing to implement Trump’s recent executive order.

The post White House Urges Senate Democrats to Join Americans in Supporting Common Sense Measure appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Pentagon is surging about 3,000 active-duty troops and other resources to the U.S. southern border as aggressive efforts continue to stop the flow of illegal immigration.  

The Department of Defense announced Saturday that it’s sending a Stryker Brigade Combat Team and a General Support Aviation Battalion to the U.S. border with Mexico. The troops will arrive in the coming weeks, according to a statement from Sean Parnell, Pentagon press secretary. 

The additional Defense Department resources affirm the Pentagon’s “unwavering dedication to working alongside the Department of Homeland Security to secure our southern border and maintain the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security of the United States under President Trump’s leadership,” Parnell said.  

The Stryker Brigade Combat Team includes the Stryker vehicle, an armored vehicle with eight wheels, according to the Pentagon.  

The General Support Aviation Battalion “brings aviation muscle,” according to the Pentagon, with Black Hawk helicopters and military transport aircraft.  

“The Stryker’s design—lighter than tanks, yet more robust than light infantry—makes it ideal for the border’s vast terrain, while the aviation battalion’s air-traffic control and lift capacity ensure seamless coordination,” according to the Pentagon.  

Since assuming the position as defense secretary in the Trump administration, Pete Hegseth has pledged to provide whatever resources are necessary to fulfill President Donald Trump’s pledge to secure the border.  

Hegseth responded to the announcement of the additional border resources in a post on X on Saturday, writing, “100% operational control will be had at the southern border.”  

The deployment of this latest groups of troops follows the Trump administration’s initial deployments of 1,600 Marines and soldiers to the border in January, who joined 2,500 reservists, according to the DOD.  

Trump campaigned on the promise of closing the border, and Customs and Border Protection reports a significant decline in the number of encounters with illegal aliens at the southern border since Trump took office.  

On Monday morning, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a photo from Fox News comparing February border encounter numbers over the past four years. In February, there were 8,326 illegal alien encounters at the southern border, compared with the same month in previous years: 189,913 in 2024; 156,630 in 2023; and 166,010 in 2022, according to CBP.  

Trump is expected to discuss his actions regarding the border Tuesday night during his State of the Union-style speech to a joint session of Congress. The speech is set to begin at 9 p.m. EST, and Trump has pledged to use the speech to “tell it like it is.”  

The post Pentagon Surging More Troops, Black Hawk Helicopters to Southern Border appeared first on The Daily Signal.

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—A diversity training that taught police officers to apologize for misgendering “transgender” people, avoid using “unacceptable terms” such as “Tranny,” “Shim,” and “Shemale,” and urged agents to attend pride events “in uniform” to build relationships has been removed from the Department of Justice website.

Under the Biden administration, the United States Department of Justice Community Relations Service offered an in-person and web-based training program for law enforcement officers titled “Engaging and Building Relationships with Transgender Communities,” which aimed to “help officers develop relationships and improve their interactions with transgender communities and individuals.” The internet archive shows the training, which included two 90-minute sessions, was available online as late as Jan. 14 and was removed from the CRS website by Feb. 1, after President Donald Trump took office.

Course materials obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation through a public records request show police officers were instructed on how to implement gender ideology, the false belief that a person can change their sex, into their everyday police work. The training explained how gender-confused individuals attempt to change their sex through legal, social, and medical interventions, including gender surgery and cross-sex hormone therapy.

The curriculum provided a list of “unacceptable terms” that police officers should not use when engaged with the community, including “Shim,” “Tranny,” “Transvestite,” “He-She,” and “Shemale.” “Transgender’” and “trans” were listed as acceptable terms for non-transgender police officers to use when addressing gender-confused people. Police officers were also told to ask community members for their preferred pronouns and apologize if they “misgendered” an individual.

“If you happen to misgender an individual, apologize and do not repeat the same mistake,” states the training materials.

Law enforcement was also instructed to “be careful” when interacting with a “transgender teen” who may not have shared their new identity with family and friends.

“It is important for law enforcement to be careful when engaging with what could be a transgender teen, as the may not have shared their current transition with family, friends, or other community members.”

Gender ideology activists believe adults working in social government institutions, such as schools, should conceal information about a children’s gender confusion from their parents if the child has not agreed to share this information.

The stated goals of the trainings include helping participants understand the difference between the terms “transgender” and “gender non-conforming” and identifying misconceptions about “transgender” people. However, the curriculum specifies it is trying to help participants “understand transgender individuals better,” not change their values.

“This training does not try to change your values,” the training materials state. “The purpose is to expand your powers of listening and observation to see, hear, and understand transgender individuals better.”

The DOJ first piloted the web-based version of the program in July 2022, according to a CRS news release. The CRS has trained police officers to embrace gender ideology in their police work since 2016, according to a tweet.

The training provides police officers with ideas on how to engage the transgender community such as attending pride events in uniform, teaching citizens how to fill out hate crime reports, and focusing on diversity hiring practices, noting diverse groups of people “produce better results.”

“Research proves that diverse working groups operate more effectively and produce better results than groups composed largely of the same types of people,” states the training.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

The post Diversity Training Teaching Police Officers Not to Say ‘Shemale’ and ‘Tranny’ No Longer on Website appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the annals of trailblazing Republican women, few have more claims to fame than Margaret Heckler.

The only woman in her law school class, Heckler became the first woman from Massachusetts to get elected to Congress without succeeding her husband. She also convinced Ronald Reagan to promise that he would name the first woman to the U.S. Supreme Court—a promise he kept with his first Supreme Court nomination.

What follows is a selection of readings from the book “A Woman of Firsts: Margaret Heckler, Political Trailblazer,” written by Kimberly Heckler, Margaret’s daughter-in-law.

Running for Congress

Heckler entered Congress after running against Rep. Joseph W. Martin, R-Mass., in the 1966 primary. Martin, then 82, has twice served as speaker of the House. Here are three selections from Chapter 7: Giant Killer and Chapter 8: A Woman’s Place Is In the House:

Despite his age, Martin’s likability and longstanding status in the House made him a formidable rival for Margaret. The political risk of challenging an incumbent from your own party was bold, but to challenge a forty-two-year incumbent and two-time Speaker of the House would seem like political suicide. Nonetheless, Margaret was undeterred. (62)

With few women running for elected positions in the 1960s, Margaret was an easy target for the press. … Media pundits posed incisive questions about whether it was appropriate for a woman to be a politician, and they speculated about whether Margaret was neglecting her family responsibilities. Reporters continually asked Margaret why she was not at home taking care of her children. Margaret responded that her children were well cared for by herself, the family, and a beloved Norwegian nanny, Oiget.

Early in her race, an editor at the West Roxbury Transcript advised Margaret, “You need to get in a man’s world. You need to dress like them.” Heeding this prudent political advice, Margaret most often chose to wear a gray women’s suit. She found that wearing gray pinstripes neutralized the public’s response to a female candidate. When she wore a gray suit, questions about her being a wife and mother diminished. (68-69)

The Congressional Quarterly recorded that the lone victorious nonincumbent woman in the Ninetieth Congress was Margaret Heckler. (76)

Securing the Right to Credit

Although women received the right to vote in 1920, banks would not lend to women, so they remained dependent on their husbands and fathers in terms of finance. Heckler changed that, with the help of Rep. Bella Abzug, D-N.Y. Her chief of staff, Edmund Rice, helped record her work on the issue. What follows are four selections from Chapter 10: Women Finally Get Credit.

Women’s suffrage was achieved by the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920; however, the right to vote was only part of the women’s rights movement. It also required the power of the purse, which needed to be achieved by legislation giving women the right to credit. The early 1970s were a perfect storm for women’s rights and Margaret was in the right place at the right time and in a position to make a difference. 

Her memories of being denied a mortgage in the 1950s—as a practicing female attorney in Boston—were seared into her mind. Margaret had joined the Committee on Banking and Currency (commonly known as the House Banking Committee) during her first term in Congress, determined to ensure women were granted economic justice and fair treatment under the law. She was one of only two women to serve on that male-dominated committee in 1968, and the House Banking Committee was where any legislation regarding women’s credit would need to be discussed.

According to U.S. law, women were simply not equal to men in areas of finance, and were unable to be granted credit in their own name. Quite simply, women were 100 percent dependent upon their husbands or fathers when it came to securing loans or credit, with no consideration given to their own earning power.

In a Good Housekeeping interview, Margaret noted, “I feel it is important for every woman to have at least her own economic identity established through a personal credit rating.”

Well into the 1970s, banks were consistently denying women access to credit in their own names. Without credit reform, women’s economic freedom was severely limited. Women could not open a credit account in their own name or take out a loan or qualify for a home mortgage without their husband’s or father’s signature.

Although women were obtaining college degrees and now made up a growing share of the American workforce, they were barred from securing their own financial futures. The credit discrimination era was quickly forgotten in American collective memory. (105-106)

“If it was just Abzug, no Republicans would have supported the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. It took a bipartisan effort. It took Mrs. Heckler to get it through the House,” emphasized [Heckler’s chief of staff, Edmund] Rice. (107)

According to Rice, “The work in the Banking Committee, the work in the House, the work to find the allies—all of this Margaret Heckler had the lead on; others were there rhetorically. But all the hard work was Margaret Heckler.” (108)

In 1975, with the implementation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Americans could not have predicted the ubiquitous use of credit in an increasingly cashless world. Credit cards and phone apps have replaced cash for nearly everything—parking meters, restaurant bills, and virtually every other purchase or transaction.

Today, when women are flooded by credit card offers, they can remember Margaret Heckler, who served as the catalyst to provide credit worthiness to American women in their own names. (115)

The First Female Supreme Court Justice

President Reagan made history by nominating Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. He pledged to nominate the first female Supreme Court justice rather than support the Equal Rights Amendment. Kimberly Heckler reveals her mother-in-law’s role in his historic first in these two selections from Chapter 15: Mission Accomplished.

By June 1980, Reagan won the Republican nomination. The convention was to be held in Detroit, Michigan. Margaret was tapped for the Republican National Convention Platform Committee because she was a ranking Republican congresswoman. (157)

Heckler demanded a meeting with Reagan, which was scheduled just before his acceptance speech. Margaret planned to ask him about the ERA, then, knowing his support was unlikely, she’d follow up with a counteroffer: his commitment to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. As Linda explained, it was a “very, very deliberate discussion … she had spent a lot of time researching the fact that there were many women who were judges, and it would not be difficult for him to find someone qualified.”

Margaret believed that having a woman on the Supreme Court would be highly symbolic of a commitment to women’s equality under the law. It would also add a woman’s viewpoint into high court jurisprudence. Her purpose for meeting with Reagan was to test this idea.

As a senior congresswoman, Margaret had some sway in getting a private meeting with Reagan. He saw that she was politically savvy enough to maintain a Republican seat in a state trending Democratic, and that she was keenly aware of women’s voting inclinations.

For Margaret’s forty-five-minute meeting with Reagan, her press secretary sat right outside the door. The ERA was the first issue to come up. Reagan had withdrawn his support for the ERA in the Republican platform and openly expressed his concerns to Margaret:

Reagan: “I’m worried that this conservative approach may lose the women’s vote.”

Margaret: “Many women won’t take you seriously as an advocate for them.”

Reagan: “Now what would you suggest I do?”

Margaret: “Now—you appoint a woman to the Supreme Court.”

As the meeting continued, Margaret implored the Republican nominee, “Mr. Reagan, you must appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. Will you commit to it?”

Regan replied, “I’ll think about it, but it’s a very good idea.”

The advice was bold, but well received. By the end of Margaret’s meeting with Reagan, she had won a concession that he would name a woman to the Supreme Court.

When they were finished, Margaret left the room and confidently told Linda Bilmes, “Mission accomplished!” (160)

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

The post The Trailblazing Republican Congresswoman You May Have Never Heard Of appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Under the Trump administration, the media landscape seems to be changing for the better. While some legacy media journalists continue to push a biased narrative, their audiences are shriveling and influence is shrinking. Meanwhile, the White House pressroom is welcoming free-thinking, nontraditional media in droves.

But those of us who care about truth-seeking journalism should not get complacent. The country’s media environment could easily slide backwards. And let’s not kid ourselves. Left-wing reporters who put political correctness above all else don’t have a monopoly on sidelining the truth or holding water for the government.

I’ve experienced firsthand what can happen if the press is wholly captured by the state. Growing up in China, I lived through Mao Zedong’s reign of terror and the government’s tight grip on newspapers, radio, literature, and art. For me, the Great Leap Forward, Great Famine, and Cultural Revolution are more than time periods discussed in high school history classes.

I can still feel the rumbling in my stomach as I suffered from hunger as a child. I can remember the ghastly smells of rotting corpses, men and women whose bodies went uncollected after they died of starvation. And I recall the acres upon acres of splintered tree stumps left behind after deforestation.

Why did all of this happen? Because of government lies that were parroted by a press corps that took orders from the Chinese Communist Party.

State-owned newspapers printed ridiculous stories that exaggerated grain yields—claiming that existing land could produce 30 times the amount of food it was currently producing. Fake photos were even published to add an extra layer of believability to these claims. Meanwhile, honest journalists and experts who dared speak the truth were attacked and labeled as enemies of the state.

As a result of these exaggerations, farmers attempted to switch from food production to industrial manufacturing. People mindlessly and fanatically responded to Mao’s call to destroy forests, believing they could become steelmakers overnight. But there was one glaring problem: rural farmers simply didn’t have the technology, equipment, or know-how to make it happen.

The outcome was sadly predictable. Farmers had no time to harvest the grain, so they let it rot in the fields, and then subsequently failed to plant for the next season. All this eventually led to the outbreak of the Great Famine. Tens of millions of people starved to death as a result of the government’s lies and an obedient media that agreed to amplify the deception.

This set the stage for the Cultural Revolution, a period where Mao attempted to revive communist ideals and eliminate political opponents. When I was in the fifth grade, I witnessed mass unrest where “class mobs” turned violent against one another. People were killed, beheaded, and then gutted in the name of a political ideology.

It’s easy to dismiss these events as old news. But history often repeats itself. And as an eyewitness to the atrocities—fueled by a submissive press—that unfolded in China, I think the United States is dangerously close to going down a similar path.

While a growing skepticism of media under the Trump administration is giving voice to more truth-tellers in the arena of public debate, the policing of free speech in the press during the COVID-19 era is not that far in the rearview mirror. And during the 2024 election, much of the media concerningly organized in lockstep to put their thumbs on the scale in favor of Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign.

That’s why I established the Dao Prize with the National Journalism Center in 2023. The annual award recognizes excellence in investigative journalism and rewards journalists who seek the truth no matter the narrative being pushed by the powerful. It’s this type of politically blind reporting that will keep this country on track.

Credible journalism is experiencing a renaissance under the Trump administration. The legacy media that refuses to offer balanced reporting is facing brisk economic headwinds while objective reporters seeking the truth have a bigger voice than ever in the national conversation. But Americans must remain vigilant. As I witnessed in China, the dominoes can fall quickly.

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

The post My Suffering in Communist China Taught Me the Importance of a Free Press in America appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In his remarks at the March for Life in January, Vice President JD Vance declared his support for children and families.

“I want more babies in the United States of America,” he 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.”

Vance also touted President Donald Trump as being “the most pro-family, most pro-life American president of our lifetimes.”

The most pro-life and pro-child institution that exists is marriage. Healthy marriage is the bedrock of healthy families and children. Declining marriage rates drive down birth rates. Married women are far less likely to have an abortion. And children raised by their married parents have on average the best outcomes on a host of factors: physical and emotional health, educational achievement, and poverty risk.

Fewer and fewer Americans are marrying, though, particularly those from lower-income and working-class communities, meaning that more Americans are deprived of the benefits marriage provides.  

 A pro-life, pro-family administration is one that is pro-marriage. Here are a few immediate steps the new administration can take to support and strengthen marriage:  

1. Continue to Speak About the Importance of Marriage

Most unmarried Americans desire to marry, yet marriage has become increasingly uncommon. Roughly one-third of Gen Zers are expected to never marry by age 45, or to never marry at all. As marriage has dwindled, the social infrastructure to help people form and maintain healthy marriages has declined, with much of the drop occurring in communities with fewer economic resources.

Vance’s own upbringing in a Rust Belt state gives him a unique position to talk about the importance of healthy marriages with communities where marriage has seen substantial decay.

2. Continue to Support Healthy Marriage Initiatives

Helping people develop the knowledge and skills to build and maintain their own marriages is also crucial, particularly in communities with fewer examples of healthy marriages.

The federal Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Initiative provides funding for healthy marriage and relationship education. The Trump administration should keep the next round of grants, set for this year, on schedule. Going forward, the administration should work to enhance  the program by opening opportunities for grantees to implement innovative approaches for delivering marriage education, for example.

3. Work With Congress and States to Support Marriage

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program provides a fixed funding stream to states for the purpose of reducing poverty through promoting work and encouraging stronger families. Three of the four stated goals of TANF include promoting marriage and increasing family stability for children. But states use very little money for these purposes.  

A few states have been exemplary in encouraging healthy marriage though, using a mix of TANF and Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education funding, as well as state funding. Even small amounts of funding can create successful programs. The Trump administration should work with Congress and the states to build and expand healthy marriage initiatives.

The breakdown of marriage is one of the most pressing problems of our time, connected to so many other social problems. This issue receives far too little attention, however. The Trump administration has a fresh opportunity to lead by addressing marital and family breakdown, thereby helping to restore America’s most vital institution.

The post How the Trump Administration Can Support Healthy Marriage appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Daily Signal is relaunching its popular “Top News in 10” daily news program, featuring a new host and the introduction of a video format for the first time in the show’s history. Beginning today, the program also moves to a morning release schedule, providing you with essential news updates to start your day.

Tony Kinnett, host of “The Tony Kinnett Cast,” is taking the helm as the show’s new anchor. Kinnett brings broadcasting experience to the role, having launched his hourlong radio/TV show and podcast in November 2023. His nightly broadcast currently airs across 12 states on 14 stations and can be viewed live weeknights at 7 p.m.

“We’re excited to bring a fresh perspective and expanded format to our ‘Top News in 10’ program,” said Katrina Trinko, editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal. “Tony’s unique background and engaging presentation style make him the perfect fit to lead this next chapter of the show.”

The Daily Signal will release its “Top News in 10” show at 5 a.m. each weekday on YouTube, X, and other social media platforms, along with an audio-only version on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. If you’re not already subscribed to our YouTube channel, click on the “Subscribe” button to receive notifications when we post new videos.

The addition of a video version of “Top News in 10” offers The Daily Signal’s growing YouTube audience an opportunity to watch the day’s news. Trinko attributed the rapid growth—from 370,000 subscribers in January to more than 650,000 today—to the popularity of Daily Signal senior contributor Victor Davis Hanson’s daily five-minute videos.

“With the popularity of Victor Davis Hanson’s videos, we realized it was time to try a new format for our daily top news show,” Trinko said. “We will continue to respect our audience’s busy schedule—now with the option to get news updates on video as well as the audio podcast.”

The video format of “Top News in 10” will offer viewers a more dynamic way to consume The Daily Signal’s concise, information-packed news summary while maintaining the program’s commitment to delivering the day’s top stories in just 10 minutes.

“The Daily Signal Podcast” originally launched in 2017, offering a daily rundown of the day’s news and a newsmaker interview. The show will continue to air its weekend deep-dive interview edition featuring “Problematic Women” co-host Virginia Allen and other Daily Signal journalists.

Kinnett, meanwhile, will continue to provide his analysis nightly on “The Tony Kinnett Cast.” He said the popularity of the show’s daily news roundup reveals the audience’s desire to quickly consume the news.

“I really found that the most popular segment of our radio, TV, podcast, livestream—this amalgamation of new media—was the quick news roundup,” Kinnett said. “We’re now going to package that in our ‘Top News in 10’ show to deliver our audience day’s headlines at the crack of dawn before they’re even at work. It’s a really great way to say thank you to our subscribers, listeners, and supporters of The Daily Signal and make sure that we are giving them the most consistent and up-to-date headlines before they go into their day.”

As an award-winning, former public-school teacher and administrator in Indiana, Kinnett brings a unique perspective to the news. In his time with The Daily Signal, he published investigative pieces that have exposed radical teachings and policies in public schools.

Then in November 2023, he embarked on a different path when WIBC in Indianapolis offered him an on-air spot.

Before joining The Daily Signal in 2022, Kinnett co-founded Chalkboard Review to give teachers and parents a platform that wasn’t available in other education-focused outlets. He also wrote for Fox News, Daily Wire, National Review, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Washington Examiner.

Kinnett launched the successful X parody account “Ministry of Truth” (@USMiniTru). You can follow on him on X @TheTonus.

Kinnett earned two master’s degrees in education technology and curriculum development at Ball State University as well as a bachelor’s in science education at Maranatha Baptist University. He lives in Indiana with his wife and children.

The post The Daily Signal Announces New Host and Video Format for ‘Top News in 10’ Show appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Socialism is popular!

A Pew study reports that more than a third of American adults view it positively.  

How is this possible?

Little has brought more misery—first in the Soviet Union, then in China, Cuba, Nicaragua, now Venezuela …

One reason young people support socialism is because their social media feeds show videos made by popular but economically illiterate people.

TikTok star Madeline Pendleton has 1.6 million subscribers. My new video shows her telling them: “Socialism is working better than capitalism 93% of the time!”

Where does she get 93%?

From a study published in 1986 by self-described Marxists in the Journal of Health Services.

The authors conveniently ignore the United States and other wealthy countries and compare socialist economies to “capitalist” countries like Uganda, Rwanda, and Somalia, some of which were at war.

It’s so stupid. But based on that, Pendleton tells her followers, “We have all the data showing that socialism does work.”

She also celebrates communism because of its “increased life expectancy.”

That’s nonsense, too. People live longest in capitalist countries like Japan (85 years) and South Korea (84 years). Even in the United States (79 years), where more of us die young because we drive more (car accidents), eat more, shoot each other more often, and try more dangerous drugs, we still live longer than people in China (78 years).

Socialism is also superior, says Pendleton, because of “the 90-100% home-ownership rates.”

“One hundred percent,” of course, is just dumb, but China (if you believe the party’s statistics) does have 90% homeownership.

But not under socialism! They achieved that only after privatizing urban housing. Before 1998, when Chinese housing was still socialist, just 20% of Chinese people owned homes.

Several social media stars rave about China. “Socialism worked in China!” says TikToker Dante Munoz. “They lifted over 800 million people from poverty.”

Again, it’s true that in the last 50 years, China’s GDP went from $156 per capita to more than $12,000. But that only happened after China gave up on real socialism and started embracing markets. Hong Kong, which adopted actual capitalism, raised per capita GDP to $50,000.

Before China reformed, millions of people died of starvation.

Another silly social media star, JT Chapman, tells his almost 2 million YouTube subscribers: “The central idea that unites all socialists is maximizing freedom … democratization of power.”

Democratization? In most socialist countries, there’s only one political party.

A popular TikToker calling himself Rathbone tells his hundred thousand subscribers: “capitalism … prioritizes profits over people … [but] socialism … prioritizes people over profits.”

Likewise, Chapman says socialism offers the “guaranteed right to … health care, food, and shelter.”

Well, of course socialism promises those things and claims to prioritize people over profits, but what people actually get is different.

As Cuban doctors put it in this video, “The Cuban health care system is destroyed … People are dying in the hallways.”

Yet Chapman claims, “Innovation can flourish even when people are not motivated by profit. The USSR gave the world the anthrax vaccine, artificial satellites, and one of the earliest mobile phones.”

That is true. But no one uses those phones today. Capitalism just creates much more.

Finally, Chapman says, “Ownership should be collective.”

Collective ownership does feel good. “We’ll share everything!”

But every attempt at collective ownership has failed.

One famous American example: 200 years ago, New Harmony, Indiana, abolished private property, promising a “community of equality.”

The result was famine.

When people realized they could receive just as much barely working as they could working hard, many, naturally, worked less. Within a year, the commune experiment failed and property was returned to private hands.

What do these popular social media stars say when I confront them with these inconvenient truths? Sadly, I don’t know. Not one would appear on Stossel TV to debate.  

The bottom line: Incentives matter. No one washes a rental car. Few people care much about what belongs to everyone. It’s just human nature.

Capitalism isn’t perfect, but if we want a better future, and freedom, capitalism is the only thing that works.

COPYRIGHT 2025 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

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

The post Dumb Things Socialists Promise appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Big Tech’s unchecked influence over public discourse has long been a cause for concern, especially for those of us in the pro-life movement.

For years, we’ve watched as social media giants and search engines subtly—and, sometimes, blatantly—silenced our message. Pregnancy help centers have had their ads rejected. Pro-life news stories have been buried by algorithms.

Google has restricted key-word research for abortion-related terms, making it harder for organizations to reach women in crisis, and platforms such as Facebook and TikTok have suppressed content that challenges the abortion industry’s narratives, creating silos of one-sided information.

This isn’t speculation. Rather, it’s a pattern—one that has tilted the digital landscape in favor of abortion advocates while making it harder for pro-life voices to be heard.

But now, change could be on the horizon.

With platforms like Facebook hinting at a course correction, we must seize this moment to demand real reform.

The Trump administration has a unique opportunity to push for policies that ensure Big Tech operates fairly—not as gatekeepers of acceptable thought, but as neutral platforms that respect the voices of all Americans.

Anything less allows the status quo of suppression and censorship to continue.

The Trump administration must act to ensure Big Tech can no longer suppress the pro-life movement. The days of hidden censorship, biased algorithms, and purposely skewed content moderation must end.

Here are five reform priorities:

1. Data Transparency: Big Tech’s content moderation decisions have long operated in a black box, making it impossible to gauge whether certain viewpoints are disproportionately targeted.

By requiring companies to release anonymized data on content removal, account suspensions, and flagging patterns, we can expose any systemic bias against pro-life content.

Publicly available reports would allow Americans to see whether these policies are being enforced fairly—or weaponized against certain groups.

2. A Fair Appeals Process: When a pro-life organization’s account is suspended or a pregnancy help center’s ad is rejected, there’s little recourse.

The appeals process needs to be transparent, accessible, and reviewed by an independent body—one that includes ethicists, legal experts, and representatives from across the ideological spectrum.

Ensuring due process would be a major step toward restoring trust in these platforms.

3. Critical Thinking Over Censorship: Misinformation policies are often wielded as a tool to suppress pro-life viewpoints, while allowing pro-abortion misinformation to go unchecked.

The failures of political fact-checkers have been well-documented, especially as their blatant bias has been exposed over the past four years. Rather than positioning themselves as arbiters of truth, platforms should empower users to critically evaluate information for themselves.

This could include voluntary fact-checking tools, transparency labels, and educational content that encourages independent assessment of sources—rather than unquestioning acceptance of Big Tech’s narrative.

4. User-Defined Content Filters: Social media algorithms already tailor content to user preferences, yet pro-life voices remain artificially suppressed.

TikTok’s precision in curating content demonstrates that users can have greater control over what they see, proving that customization is possible.

If one platform can refine content so effectively, there’s no reason others can’t follow suit. Big Tech should adopt user-defined filters that let individuals prioritize content aligned with their beliefs and interests—rather than allowing hidden algorithms to impose ideological biases and pervasive influences.

5. Google’s Double Standard on Abortion Content: Google claims to be a neutral information provider, yet it continues to restrict pro-life content while amplifying abortion-related messaging.

A key example is the suppression of key word research data in Google Ads. Pro-life organizations can no longer access search volume and cost-per-click data for relevant terms—an issue that emerged postelection.

While Google cites its “sensitive topics” policy, the lack of transparency leaves advertisers speculating: Was this an intentional shift or a broader restriction affecting all users of Google’s tools?

Google is known for quietly making adjustments without notifying advertisers, often blaming “social issues” as justification. But if it is truly committed to neutrality, it should publish clear content-moderation guidelines and ensure pro-life advocacy isn’t wrongfully categorized as “harmful” or “misleading.”

Pro-life perspectives should be visible beyond search ads, appearing in recommended content, news aggregators, and YouTube’s algorithm—just as abortion providers are.

The Path Forward: The Trump administration has a critical opportunity to hold Big Tech accountable and put an end to the suppression of pro-life voices.

This isn’t about special treatment, however. It’s about restoring fairness and ensuring that every American has equal access to information without manipulation or censorship. The power to shape public discourse should not rest in the hands of a few Silicon Valley elites.

If Big Tech is truly committed to neutrality, it must prove it—not with empty promises, but with concrete action.

Transparency, fairness, and free speech must take precedence over hidden algorithms and ideological gatekeeping.

The future of open discourse depends on it, and the integrity of our nation demands it.

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

The post Big Tech’s Reckoning: 5 Ways Trump Admin Can Level Playing Field for Pro-Life Movement appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The number of human beings living in freezers in the United States now outnumbers the population of Dallas, Texas.

“Estimates place the number of frozen embryos at greater than 1.5 million,” reported the March 2022 edition of Fertility and Sterility, a journal published by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

According to the latest Census Bureau estimate, Dallas had a population of 1,302,868 in 2023.

How did all these human beings—conceived in the United States of America—end up locked in freezers?

The ASRM has published a booklet explaining in vitro fertilization and why it results in human beings being frozen.

“IVF is a method of assisted reproduction in which a man’s sperm and a woman’s eggs are combined outside of the body in a laboratory dish,” says the ASRM booklet.

“One or more fertilized eggs (embryos) may be transferred into the women’s uterus, where they may implant in the uterine lining and develop,” it says.

“Excess embryos may be cryopreserved (frozen) for future use.”

These embryos created outside the womb for implantation in a mother—or for freezing—can undergo genetic testing before their fate is determined.

“Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is a form of prenatal diagnosis that is performed on early embryos created by in vitro fertilization,” explains an article published in 2014 by the Journal of Clinical Medicine.

This procedure can be used for eugenic purposes.

“It is solely a diagnostic procedure that can identify whether a specific embryo carries a single gene disorder for which the couple is at-risk or a chromosome abnormality that could lead to either failed implantation, subsequent miscarriage, or the birth of a child with physical and/or developmental disability,” the journal article says.

“This information is used by the couple and their physicians to make decisions on which embryo(s) should be transferred to the uterus and will with high likelihood result in a normal pregnancy,” it says.

“The greater the number of embryos created, the greater the chance that genetically normal embryos can be identified,” says the journal article. “The level of selection is that of choosing which embryos can be transferred in a fresh IVF cycle or cryopreserved for future use, versus those predicted to be affected with an abnormality.”

The procedure can also be used to select the sex of the human being who is allowed to move forward in life rather than move to a freezer.

“PGD can be used to select the sex of an embryo, either to avoid a genetic disease in males caused by a mutation on the X chromosome (X-linked disease) or simply to satisfy the gender preference of the future parents,” explains the article in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.

“When PGD for sex selection is done in the absence of medical indications, it is often referred to as ‘non-medical sex selection’ or ‘social sexing,’” says the journal. “According to the survey, 42% of IVF clinics have provided PGD for non-medical sex selection.”

The Daily Mail reported in 2012 that in Great Britain, as of that year, “[m]ore than 1.7 million embryos prepared with the aim of helping women become pregnant have been thrown away since records began 21 years ago.”

It is not science fiction to assume that medical science will someday—and, perhaps, in the not-too-distant future—develop the technology to not only conceive a child in a laboratory dish but then gestate those who are deemed genetically desirable all the way to viability in an artificial womb. In a nation that ignores the natural law, the procreation of children could be completely divorced from the traditional family.

On Feb. 18, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to promote IVF. “[I]t is the policy of my Administration to ensure reliable access to IVF treatment, including by easing unnecessary statutory or regulatory burdens to make IVF treatment drastically more affordable,” he said in this order.

“Within 90 days of the date of this order,” he said, “the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy shall submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.”

This executive order said nothing about preventing IVF from being used for sex selection or eugenics. Nor did it say anything about preventing human embryos from being discarded or stored away in freezers.

The Declaration of Independence said that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” IVF, which does not treat human lives equally and does not respect every human being’s right to life, violates this principle.

Trump’s policy to promote IVF is wrong.

COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM

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

The post Babies Must Not Be Sex-Selected, Frozen, or Discarded appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There have been several polls in recent years all pointing to a decline in Christianity among U.S. adults. Research released in April of 2023 from the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University found millennials, in particular, seemed to wrestle with purpose as those who had religious affiliations steadily dropped. A few months later, the Pew Research Center shared their findings, which included a decline of Christianity that they linked to a “collapse in marriage and fatherhood.”

However, Pew data released this week reflect a different trend. Rather than a decline, Christianity among U.S. adults seems to have plateaued.

Pew researchers put it this way: “After many years of steady decline, the share of Americans who identify as Christians shows signs of leveling off—at least temporarily—at slightly above six-in-10, according to a massive new Pew Research Center survey of 36,908 U.S. adults.” These findings come from the Religious Landscape Study, which is “the largest single survey the Center conducts.” Only three such surveys have been conducted over the last 17 years.

According to the newly released data, 62% of American adults identify as Christian. This is down from the 78% recorded in 2007, as well as the 71% in 2014’s Religious Landscape Study. However, these recent numbers are “in line with totals seen in the Center’s National Public Opinion Reference Survey that have been conducted since 2020.” Additionally, “Americans who say they pray daily has consistently held between 44% and 46% since 2021.” And the percentage of those who attend religious services monthly have stayed in the low 30s.

Of those who identify as Christian, 40% are Protestant, 19% are Catholic, and 3% include those who identify as Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As Pew pointed out, “Both Protestant and Catholic numbers are down significantly since 2007, though the Protestant share of the population has remained fairly level since 2019 and the Catholic share has been stable since 2014.” The number of surveyed American adults who identify as Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu are all under 2%.

In addition to the stability among those who consider themselves Christian is the notable decline of those who consider themselves as “religiously unaffiliated.” After “a long period of sustained growth,” this recent polling found that the religious “nones” have “plateaued in recent years.”

Pew’s research also found that the youngest of those surveyed, between 18 and 24, were the most likely to be less religious. As The Post Millennial highlighted, “there was around a 20-point difference between the youngest and oldest survey takers in whether they were raised religious, with 94% of those 74 and older saying they were raised religious, while 75% of the youngest survey takers responded as such.” And yet, roughly half of all respondents claimed religion “was very important to their family when growing up.” Notably, 50% still find religion important, while 32% grew up to value it less with age.

“As someone who has followed America’s religious demographics for some time,” said Family Research Council’s David Closson, “I am encouraged by Pew Research finding that the percentage of Americans who identify as Christian has seem to have leveled off after years of precipitous decline.”

Closson, who serves as Family Research Council’s director of the Center for Biblical Worldview, explained to The Washington Stand that, for Christians, “the results of this study present a mixed bag. Although it is encouraging that it appears those who identify as Christian has stabilized, it is also true that younger Americans are much less likely to associate with Christianity” and religion as a whole. This means “the younger someone is the less likely they pray, read the Bible, or attend church,” Closson stated.

“However,” he added, “there are still some interesting trends in the data that show that America’s youngest adult generation is not completely disconnected from religion.” For instance, “among those belonging to Generation Z, 82% stated that they believe that people have a soul or spirit in addition to their physical body. Seventy-one percent of Gen Z also stated their belief that there is something spiritual beyond the natural world.” According to Closson, “although there are some aspects of this survey that are discouraging, religious identity continues to persist in America.”

“Even among the youngest demographic,” he concluded, “faith in Christianity and religious affiliation still outpaces other nations that have seen even more precipitous declines.”

Originally published by The Washington Stand.

The post Poll Finds Pause in the Decline of Christianity among US Adults appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Everyone agrees that those in certain positions, from teachers to doctors, should report instances of child abuse and neglect. Democrat lawmakers in Washington state, however, are advancing legislation that would require clergy members to report, even in circumstances that would violate the Sacrament of Confession, a central tenet of the Catholic faith.  

Washington legislators have attempted to pass similar legislation—with an exemption for Confession—in each of the last three legislative sessions to no avail. The current bill, with no such exemption, has been approved by House and Senate committees and seems destined for the governor’s desk.

The bill applies to any “ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect.”

While it does not single out Catholic priests, it would have a particularly harsh impact on that faith because of the Catholic Church’s clear teaching regarding Confession. The Church has long taught that priests must hold all confessed sins with utmost secrecy; in fact, priests face the immediate penalty of excommunication for violating the seal of the confessional.

Catholic bishops such as St. Basil and St. Ambrose began developing the concept of penitential secrecy as early as the fourth century and the Seal of Confession became codified into Canon Law in the 1215 Lateran Council. For more than 1,000 years thereafter, the church has adhered to the same prescription, reaffirming in the 1992 Catechism, that “what the penitent has made known to the priest remains sealed by the sacrament.”

Washington lawmakers, therefore, are poised to impose a requirement that has a much more serious impact on the religious practice of some than others.

Thankfully, our nation’s founders who escaped religious tyranny sought to enshrine the inalienable right to practice religion in our Constitution’s First Amendment which declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” After the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court “incorporated” that provision so that it also applies to the states. 

For decades, the Supreme Court recognized that laws can violate the First Amendment because of their impact on religious practice, even when appearing to be generally applicable. Even after the court narrowed the free exercise clause’s application in Employment Division v. Smith, it still utilized the traditional rigorous standards for laws that appear to target particular religious practices. 

In Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a city ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifice, an important practice in the Santeria religion. While the ordinance did not explicitly mention Santeria, an Afro-Caribbean religion, its negative impact on religious practice was limited exclusively to them. To be consistent with the Free Exercise Clause, the Supreme Court has said, laws must not only be facially neutral, but also generally applicable. The ordinance in that case passed the first hurdle, but not the second. 

The parallel to the Washington legislation is obvious. It may be facially neutral by applying to clergy of all religious traditions but, as the Supreme Court held in Lukumi, the Free Exercise Clause forbids not only “facial discrimination” but also “subtle departures from neutrality” and “covert suppression of particular religious beliefs.”

In this case, the departure from the neutrality required by the First Amendment is not subtle at all. Some Washington lawmakers criticized previous versions of this legislation, that included an exemption for the Seal of Confession, as not going far enough. Now, state senators Amy Walen and Noel Frame not only reject any suggestion of compromise, but have stated that bishops should simply “change their doctrine and their rules.”

Forcing religious believers to change centuries old doctrines in order to comply with the edicts of a state is exactly what the First Amendment was written to protect Americans against.

This is not about the importance of reporting child abuse and neglect, which everyone recognizes, or even about requiring those in certain positions to do so as completely as they can. That laudable objective, however, does not require directly attacking a central tenet of one religious faith. The free exercise of religion is not simply a good idea or one of many available policy options. It is a natural and inalienable right of the most fundamental kind.

James Madison explained that the right to religious practice taps into man’s “duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.” Practicing the religion of one’s choosing must precede any civil law because “before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.” 

Madison’s defense of religious freedom was pivotal to how that fundamental right has been understood in America. That understanding is today under attack on multiple fronts. Washington state’s proposed uncompromising reporting law unnecessarily turns its back on this important principle and is at odds with America’s history and legal tradition.

The post Washington State Is Attacking Religious Freedom. And It Won’t Stop There. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

About 25 years ago, James Whitford and his wife founded a ministry to the poor and homeless in Missouri. Not long after starting the ministry, Whitford felt led by the Lord to see for himself what it was like to be homeless. 

After several conversations with his wife, the couple agreed that Whitford would take a short period of time to live on the streets, and Whitford left his home with nothing but the clothes on his back. 

Whitford found himself sitting on a street corner next to a young homeless man in his 30s named Ralph. Whitford had known Ralph for some time and had ministered to him many times, but now, the two were homeless together. It was well into the day and Whitford was hungry. Ralph pulled out a sandwich and offered Whitford half. 

“And if you put yourself in that position of a homeless person offering his food to you, how do you respond? I didn’t say it,” Whitford recalled, “but I remember feeling or thinking, well, ‘No, I’m not going to take your sandwich, Ralph. I’m not going to do that. I can go somewhere if I need to, and you’re the ministry, and I’m the minister.’” 

At that moment, Whitford says, he realized he had been “treating Ralph and thousands of other people as objects of my good intentions … rather than subjects who have autonomy, capacity, and agency.” The experience changed Whitford’s perspective on serving the poor, and permanently affected the way he led his ministry, moving from a “handout model to a hand-up model.”

“If we’re not engaging people in reciprocity in our charity, we are failing them horribly, doing them a disservice and not really upholding the inherent human dignity that is in every person,” he said. 

Unfortunately, Whitford says many of the government’s programs intended to help the poor, and many charity programs, don’t engage the recipients’ dignity and have instead created significant harm through creating dependence on programs instead of empowerment. 

Whitford, co-founder and CEO of True Charity, joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss his recently published book, “The Crisis of Dependency: How Our Efforts to Solve Poverty Are Trapping People in It and What We Can Do to Foster Freedom Instead.”

Listen to the podcast below: 

The post When Good Intentions Go Wrong: America’s ‘Crisis of Dependency’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

This column was lightly edited and reprinted with permission from Victor Davis Hanson’s X account.

1) Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy does not grasp—or deliberately ignores—the bitter truth: Those with whom he feels most affinity (Western globalists, the American Left, the Europeans) have little power in 2025 to help him. And those with whom he obviously does not like or seeks to embarrass (cf. his Scranton, Pa., campaign-like visit in September 2024) alone have the power to save him. For his own sake, I hope he is not being “briefed” by the Obama-Clinton-Biden gang to confront President Donald Trump, given their interests are not really Ukraine’s as they feign.

2) Zelenskyy acts as if his agendas and ours are identical. So, he keeps insisting that he is fighting for us despite our two-ocean distance that he mocks. We do have many shared interests with Ukraine, but not all by any means: Trump wants to “reset” with Russia and triangulate it against China. He seeks to avoid a 1962 DEFCON 2-like crisis over a proxy showdown in proximity to a nuclear rival. And he sincerely wants to end the deadlocked Stalingrad slaughterhouse for everyone’s sake.

3) The Europeans (and Canada) are now talking loudly of a new muscular antithesis, independent of the United States. Promises, promises—given that would require Europeans to prune back their social welfare state, frack, use nuclear, stop the green obsessions, and spend 3% to 5% of their GDP on defense. The U.S. does not just pay 16% of NATO’s budget but also puts up with asymmetrical tariffs that result in a European Union trade surplus of $160 billion, plays the world cop patrolling sea-lanes and deterring terrorists and rogues states that otherwise might interrupt Europe’s commercial networks abroad, as well as de facto including Europe under a nuclear umbrella of 6,500 nukes.

4) Zelenskyy must know that all of the once deal-stopping issues to peace have been de facto settled: Ukraine is now better armed than most NATO nations, but will not be in NATO; and no president has or will ever supply Ukraine with the armed wherewithal to take back the Donbas and Crimea. So, the only two issues are: How far will Putin be willing to withdraw to his 2022 borders? How will he be deterred? The first is answered by a commercial sector/tripwire, joint Ukrainian-U.S.-Europe resource development corridor in Eastern Ukraine, coupled with a Korea-like DMZ; the second by the fact that Putin, unlike his 2008 and 2014 invasions, has now lost a million dead and wounded to a Ukraine that will remain thusly armed.

5) What are Zelenskyy’s alternatives without much U.S. help: Wait for a return of the Democrats to the White House in four years? Hope for a rearmed Europe? Pray for a Democrat House and a third Alexander Vindman-like engineered Trump impeachment? Or swallow his pride, return to the White House, sign the rare-earth minerals deal, invite in the Euros (Are they seriously willing to patrol a DMZ?), and hope Trump can warn Putin, as he did successfully between 2017-21, not to dare try it again?

6) If there is a ceasefire, a commercial deal, a Euro ground presence, and influx of Western companies into Ukraine, would there be elections? And if so, would Zelenskyy and his party win? And if not, would there be a successor transparent government that would reveal exactly where all the Western financial aid money went?

7) Zelenskyy might see a model in Netanyahu. The Biden administration was far harder on him than Trump is on Ukraine: suspending arms shipments, demanding cease-fires, prodding for a wartime, bipartisan cabinet, hammering Israel on collateral damage—none of which Westerners have demanded of Zelenskyy. Yet Netanyahu managed a hostile President Joe Biden, kept Israel close to its patron, and when visiting was gracious to his host. Netanyahu certainly would never before the global media have interrupted, and berated a host and patron president in the White House.

8) If Ukraine has alienated the U.S., what then is its strategic victory plan? Wait around for more Euros? Hold off an increasingly invigorated Russian military? Cede more territory? What, then, exactly are Zelenskyy’s cards he seems to think are a winning hand?

9) If one views carefully all the Oval Office tape, most of it was going quite well—until Zelenskyy started correcting Vice President JD Vance firstly, and Trump secondly. By Ukraine-splaining to his hosts, and by his gestures, tone, and interruptions, he made it clear that he assumed that Trump was just more of the same compliant, clueless moneybags Biden waxen effigy. And that was naïve for such a supposedly worldly leader.

10) March 2025 is not March 2022, after the heroic saving of Kyiv—but three years and 1.5 million dead and wounded later. Zelenskyy is no longer the international heartthrob with the glamorous entourage. He has postponed elections, outlawed opposition media and parties, suspended habeas corpus and walked out of negotiations when he had an even hand in spring 2022 and apparently even now when he does not in spring 2025.

Quo vadis, Volodymyr?

The post 10 Takeaways From the Zelenskyy Blowup appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When we think about rural communities, we tend to conjure up images of faith, large families, friendly neighbors, and conservative values—the exact opposite of the trends that mark our nation’s urban centers these days.

Unfortunately, as Bob Dylan once famously sang, “The times they are a-changin … ” And just as the times changed in urban America several decades ago regarding marriage and family, they have changed in rural communities, as well.

Over the past three decades, marriage rates have actually fallen further among rural women between the ages of 15 and 44 than among urban women of the same age—from 55% in 1998 to 33% in 2018, according to two sociology professors writing for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

While there was also a decline among urban women, as many of us would expect, the marriage drop among rural women was even lower.

So, what has caused the precipitous drop in rural marriages? According to Shelley Clark, a sociology professor at Canada’s McGill University, and Matthew M. Brooks, a sociology professor at Florida State University, the answer is simple: increased cohabitation.

Many rural women are choosing to cohabit rather than marry, with 19% of rural women involved in a cohabitating, non-married relationship compared to 14% of urban women (who often choose to remain single or if they get married, do so at an older age).

Rural women still have more children than urban women, though the number has decreased, overall. Increasing percentages of rural children are born out of wedlock (54% for rural children compared to 34% for urban children).

Clark and Brooks focus on the economic consequences for rural communities, and advocate for government investment in rural transportation. Yet the implications of their research for rural America and our society go beyond dollars and cents, and no amount of government dollars or infrastructure investment can change human behavior. Instead, it often subsidizes the continuation of bad decisions.

In our book, “American Restoration: How Faith, Family, and Personal Sacrifice Can Heal Our Nation,” my co-author Craig Osten and I write about the devastating consequences that have now affected generations of children in rural communities as marriage and families decline.

Family disintegration often leads to social regression such as drug dependance – with much of it occurring in rural communities.

One tragic example is the number of babies born with drug dependencies because their mothers were addicted to drugs. In 2016, The New York Times reported that 15 out of every 100 babies in poorer areas, such as the Appalachians, are born addicted to opioids.

Most tellingly, the two states where the opioid crisis has been the most acute—Kentucky and West Virginia—have seen the sharpest declines in marriage rates decline over the past four decades.

Drug addictions rarely lead to good decisions in life.

The generational poverty of opioid addiction will likely create a caste system, as Robert Rector of The Heritage Foundation predicted in 2010. Children born in cohabitating homes—or even worse, drug-dependent homes—are more likely to engage in substance abuse than those in stable, two-parent, married (mother and father) homes.

When these children grow up, they continue the cycle. They do not marry, as they have little idea of what marriage is, and they bring their drug dependency with them, creating another generation of children trapped in the cycle of family dysfunction—a cycle that Clark and Brooks have documented.

The result, as Craig and I write, is a chasm between those who are born healthy and are nurtured in a two-parent home, and those who emerge from the womb with three strikes against them: drug-addicted, trapped in poverty, and lacking an essential parent. The cycle just gets worse as time goes on.

Thus, while rural America may be more conservative (as voting trends indicate), it is a conservatism not based on faith and family but driven more by despair and desperation because of the decline of marriage and the family and the resulting devastation.

That is the downward spiral that Clark and Brooks have seen but unfortunately do not offer a solution for. While there may be no quick and easy solution to solve a problem that has been decades in the making, a start would be reemphasizing the values traditionally associated with rural America that I mentioned at the beginning.

The start of such a change will come from rewarding good decisions instead of subsidizing bad ones. Only by providing the right incentives can we spare succeeding rural generations from the cycle of cohabitation, poverty, and drug dependency. As marriage rates begin to climb once again in rural America, it is my belief that social pathologies will decrease as a result.

The post Cohabitation Is Not Just an Urban Problem Anymore appeared first on The Daily Signal.