People in Britain often say that the United States is much like the United Kingdom. Recent polling by Freshwater Strategy showed that the British public thinks that the U.K., as a country, would be the 7th richest U.S. state. The actual 7th richest state, North Dakota, boasts a GDP per capita of $102,000 compared to the U.K.’s $52,000.
Many Brits assume that in both economies most people are poor, while a small number of individuals accumulate vast wealth at the top. In this myth, the U.S. suffers from the same perceived problem as Britain of inequality without wider prosperity.
The uncomfortable reality, however, is that the average Brit is significantly poorer than most Americans.
By GDP per capita, parts of America that are routinely described as economically lagging outperform the British economy. Even Mississippi, often cited as the poorest state, has a GDP per capita of $54,000. That should be a sobering benchmark. This is not a story about inequality in Britain but about weak national wealth creation.
Britain retains the self-image of a rich country but its underlying performance tells a different story — one of high taxes, vast regulation, weak productivity growth, and poor incentives for entrepreneurs.
This reality has shaped the political climate. Between 2008 and the E.U. referendum in 2016, living standards stalled. The Brexit vote was, in part, a collective response to that stagnation and a demand for a different economic trajectory. Leaving the E.U. was never a growth strategy in itself but rather an opportunity to pursue one.
In this respect, Brexit was — and still is — a fork in the road. Britain has greater autonomy over its regulatory, tax, and trade policy. The question is whether that autonomy is used to drive growth or not. My forthcoming story of the Brexit referendum, <a href="https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/ten-years-on">Ten Years On</a>, chronicles the campaign and what has happened since.
<div id="attachment_1087613" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1087613" class="size-large wp-image-1087613" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760-864x576.jpg" alt="Pedestrians walk across the Millennium Bridge above the River Thames in central London on April 16, 2026. Britain's economy grew much stronger than expected in February, prior to the start of the Middle East war, official data showed on April 16 ahead of a likely hit from the US-Iran conflict. (Photo by Henry NICHOLLS / AFP via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-2271018760.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Henry NICHOLLS / AFP via Getty Images</div>
In some areas, Britain has benefited from its post-Brexit freedoms. Examples of this range from tech, where being outside the E.U.’s regulatory regime has allowed the U.K. to be more nimble, to healthcare, where we can now approve new drugs far faster. Overall, however, we have not made as much of these freedoms as we should have. 
Critics blame Brexit for Britain’s economic stagnation, but much of it stems from longer-term policies that have held back prosperity.
The preconditions for entrepreneurship are not new, nor are they particularly complicated. I recently co-authored a book with Dr. Arthur B. Laffer and others called <a href="https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prosperity-Through-Growth-Standards-Disinformation-ebook/dp/B0FP3WPW6Z/ref=sr_1_1?crid=RCU8GVEQ5895&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Qi7pfmaBWI3SOK7ThVB1F6kdMIM62-7Uwj6luPyjVkDKKI54VPK7IVlT1dVJfFQu.OQ-kNm7gXECxObiXcJrN6HqpotDFqUx2dulfB9kD06w&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=prosperity+through+growth">Prosperity Through Growth: Boosting Living Standards in an Age of Autocracy and AI.</a> We argue that growth requires low tax rates, low government spending, sound money, smart regulation, and free trade.
Ultimately, prosperity is generated not redistributed. The focus of economic policy should be incentivizing entrepreneurship rather than redistribution. Without economic growth, debates about inequality become zero-sum.
Britain’s problem isn’t that wealth is unevenly distributed. It is that the overall economic pie has grown too slowly for too long. And that pie is being cut into ever more pieces with the explosion of migration to the U.K.
This explains a paradox that defines modern Britain. All the fundamentals are there, but the incentives often discourage entrepreneurship. Inequality becomes more visible not because of a few too rich people but because the middle is comparatively squeezed.
Americans, on the other hand, enjoy higher median incomes. Take plumbers, for example, who earn $62,000 on average in America, compared to $43,000 in Britain. As President Kennedy once said, &#8220;A rising tide lifts all boats.&#8221;
The danger is that the debate remains focused on distribution rather than growth. Framing Britain as a country with a few very rich people and many struggling households risks misdiagnosing the problem.
A more accurate diagnosis is that Britain is an underperforming advanced economy. It has the capabilities to be significantly more prosperous than it currently is, but has failed to convert those capabilities into sustained growth.
The implication is straightforward. If Britain wants to meaningfully raise living standards, it must prioritize policies that incentivize growth.
The European Union referendum result reflected a demand for change. Whether that demand ultimately leads to greater prosperity depends not on the act of leaving the E.U., but on what we do with the freedoms that followed. Ironically, when critics of Brexit cite studies suggesting that the U.K. economy would be 8% bigger had it stayed in the E.U., those studies assume Britain would have grown at the same rate as the United States in the period since 2016. 
I look forward to seeing the British people enjoy the same pro-growth policies and prosperity that Americans enjoy.
* * *
Matthew Elliott is President of the Jobs Foundation and is a member of the House of Lords. He was also the Chief Executive of Vote Leave.

TOPSHOT-RACING-ENG-ASCOT

Britain Could Be Richer. It Keeps Choosing Not To Be.

Brexit

Economy

European Union

Great Britain

United Kingdom

If one were to believe that the survival of the West is at a crucial inflection point, it makes sense that America — the lone superpower, as an enfeebled Britain limps along self-righteously — would shore up allies in the Old Country. One way to do that is to send the most powerful man in the world’s Number Two to both extend the hand of goodwill and rapport, and to absorb the inevitable criticisms that have been hurled by the Continental class regarding the potential partnership.
It tracks then that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board <a href="https://archive.ph/5aOuP%23selection-569.0-572.0">cannot seem</a> to comprehend why Vice President JD Vance is currently touring Budapest. “The Orbán affinity seems to be a combination of Mr. Vance’s ideological conviction and domestic coalition maintenance,” the paper writes, adding that, “Mr. Vance is convinced Mr. Orbán is on the front line of the West’s culture wars.” Orbán is. And Vance’s Budapest visit is possibly one of his career&#8217;s most important tests.
Consider the VP’s own words. “Foreign influence is when other governments threaten, cajole, and try to use economic influence to tell you how to vote &#8230; That is fundamentally an assault on your sovereignty,” the VP said <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/2041875731559440607">in an interview</a>. Furthermore, he added, in a speech, “We were birthed from this continent,” reinforcing the civilizational ties. The WSJ is baffled at that. “Mr. Vance trotted out the word ‘sovereignty’ repeatedly during Tuesday’s appearance in Budapest to inveigh against putative EU meddling in Hungarian affairs.”
The Hungarian election this year is important for two different reasons. The fact that the VP is flying to Budapest for a high-profile visit and speeches in Europe, as well as to Islamabad, for the peace negotiations with Iran, demonstrates which side won the ideological debate within the White House and to which direction the grand strategy of this country might lead. But there is another important factor.
Beyond rhetorical symbolism about “civilizational ties,” the question is strategic. Within the European Union, Hungary remains one of the rare few states still considered neutral by both the U.S. and Russia, thereby positioning itself as a neutral ground for diplomacy.
Furthermore, Budapest has prioritized de-escalation in Ukraine since 2022 and continues to simultaneously condemn the Russian invasion while arguing for negotiation, a traditional detached realist outlook shaped by Hungarian geography: Hungary borders Ukraine, and is concerned about ethnic Hungarians in the Transcarpathia region, and has taken in over a million Ukrainian refugees.
Budapest is also a pivot point for U.S. trade rivalry with the EU. The <a href="https://www.theamericanconservative.com/hungarys-foreign-minister-trump-is-ukraines-only-hope-for-peace/">Hungarian leadership consistently argued</a> that EU sanctions on Russia have had unintended consequences, including energy shortages, inflation, and industrial strain in Europe, while Russia has continued to benefit from high global energy prices. Orbán has likewise warned against accelerating Ukraine’s membership in NATO, a position that has gained some reflection in recent U.S. strategic thinking.
The <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf">2025 U.S. National Security Strategy</a> clearly states that there must be a pause in NATO enlargement, there should be total “burden shifting” of conventional security to NATO, and that the EU shouldn’t fine American companies and trade through cynical legislation that also curtails free speech, such as the European <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act">Digital Services Act</a>. There is only one country that is aligned with the U.S. on all those interests.
Hungary faces its own challenges and contradictions. Eventually, it will have to either acquiesce to broader European oversight or follow Britain out of the EU. Orbán has sought to reform the EU from within rather than leave it, but that play won’t succeed without the U.S. decisively winning the trade and free-speech wars with the EU. His government faces ongoing pressure from Brussels through legal challenges and financial penalties, but being within the EU gives it veto power over European decisions that might harm U.S. financial interests.
Hungary is also a testing ground and a source of inspiration for similar socio-political tendencies in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, particularly in natalist policies, even if its model is difficult to replicate in larger and more diverse societies.
This is rooted in Hungary’s historical experience with external domination, against the Nazis and Soviets, which reinforces elite skepticism toward ceding total authority to Brussels. Continued electoral success for Orbán would sustain this fragile model but likely also intensify EU pressure and raise the risk of political and economic friction. A defeat, however, would probably lead to rapid alignment with mainstream EU trade and social policies, and would be detrimental to U.S. interests.
It cannot be expected of the WSJ Editorial Board to be historically minded, but during the presidency of Millard Fillmore, the Hungarian nationalist Lajos (Louis) Kossuth visited and gave a<a href="https://millercenter.org/president/fillmore/foreign-affairs"> joint address at the U.S. Congress</a>, the second such foreigner after Lafayette. He then proceeded to visit Ohio, then the largest Hungarian diaspora in the country, and gave a speech stating that the <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190414134246/https://ohiohistoryhost.org/ohiomemory/archives/3834">spirit of our age is democracy</a> opposed to imperialism. Whether he can pull the current Hungarian administration over the electoral line is a different question, but it is only fitting that a former senator of Ohio and the current vice president be visiting Europe and remind Europeans of that same sentiment, that sovereignty, free speech, and democracy are far more important than transnational imperialism.
***
Dr. Sumantra Maitra is a historian based in Virginia.

VP JD Vance And PM Viktor Orban Hold A Joint Rally In Budapest, 5 Days Before The Hungarian Election.

The WSJ Is Baffled By JD Vance’s U.S. Diplomacy In Hungary

Foreign Policy

Hungary

JD Vance

Victor Orban

A European politician has been found guilty by Finland’s top court of “hate speech” for sharing her Christian views on marriage in a 2004 church pamphlet. 
The Supreme Court of Finland voted 3-2 on Thursday to find Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen guilty of “making and keeping available to the public a text that insults a group.” The “text” she was charged over was a pamphlet explaining the Bible’s position on marriage and sexual ethics, written with Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola. 
“I am shocked and profoundly disappointed that the court has failed to recognize my basic human right to freedom of expression,” Räsänen said Thursday. “I stand by the teachings of my Christian faith, and will continue to defend my and every person’s right to share their convictions in the public square.”
Räsänen’s case has drawn the attention of United States lawmakers, who have said it demonstrates the perilous status of free speech in Europe. Lower courts previously unanimously acquitted her in 2022 and 2023, before prosecutors appealed to the Supreme Court. 
The court said that the pair “made available to the public and kept available to the public opinions that insult homosexuals as a group on the basis of their sexual orientation.” 
The court ordered Räsänen to remove 11 statements from the 25-page pamphlet, saying they should be removed from “public access” and “destroyed.” Pohjola was also convicted alongside Räsänen for his role in distributing the pamphlet. Räsänen will be fined around $2079, and Pohjola will be fined $1270. The foundation that published the marriage pamphlet will be fined $5775. 
The high court did acquit her of sharing a Bible verse from the book of Romans detailing the Christian understanding of sexuality. 
Räsänen was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom International and criminal defense lawyer Matti Sankamo. 
“By convicting me for expressing beliefs in a different context, the court has drawn an unclear, and I believe, dangerous line. This creates uncertainty, not only for me, but for every citizen who wishes to express their beliefs, or even more concerning for anyone who has expressed their opinions in the past,” Räsänen said during a press conference after the verdict attended by The Daily Wire. 
Räsänen, a member of the Lutheran church and Finland’s former Ministry of the Interior, said she was considering an appeal to the European Union. 
“I am taking legal advice on a possible appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. This is not about my free speech alone, but that of every person in Finland,” she said. “A positive ruling would help to prevent other innocent people from experiencing the same ordeal for simply sharing their beliefs.”
Paul Coleman, a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom International, said the case showed the danger of how “vaguely worded and highly subjective hate speech laws can be interpreted and misinterpreted by anyone who looks at them.”
Räsänen said Thursday she has received thousands of messages from people around the world through the ordeal, which began over seven years ago, and said that “the process has not been in vain” and has given her an opportunity to share her faith with others. 
“I believe that this process has been in God&#8217;s hands, and even though I&#8217;m disappointed and even shocked about this conviction that I got today,” she said. “I believe that this is also in God&#8217;s hands, what happened. There is some purpose also for this situation where we are now. I trust in God.”

MixCollage-26-Mar-2026-09-50-AM-3986

A Politician Shared Traditional Christian Values. Now She Stands Convicted Of ‘Hate Speech.’

Politician Convicted Of 'Hate Speech' In Shocking Case Over Basic Christian Beliefs

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Christianity

Finland

Free Speech

America&#8217;s allies are finally ready to step up to the plate after years of dithering on the Iranian threat.
Those allies are ready with all their combined strength: Germany, France, UK, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, and Japan. They are firing on all cylinders with urgency, resolve, and action.
Yes, that&#8217;s right. Our allies, who have been reliant on our largesse and mutual defense for decades, finally announced that they are going to help us, their patron state, the United States — with a very strongly-worded letter.
Our allies are doing what they do best. They are saying things.
At some point, the questions have to be asked: Who are our true allies? Who is actually stepping up to the plate? Who is merely judging from the sidelines?
In lieu of any real world support, our valiant allies have now issued a strongly worded letter.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2392-sub?elementPosition=1&amp;row=6&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Here&#8217;s what the letter says:
<blockquote>We condemn in the strongest terms, recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure, including oil and gas installations, and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iranian forces. We express our deep concern about the escalating conflict.
We call on Iran to cease immediately its threats, laying of mines and drone and missile attacks and other attempts to block the strait to commercial shipping and to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 28-17. We call for an immediate comprehensive moratorium on attacks on civilian infrastructure, including oil and gas installations. We call on all states to respect international law and uphold the fundamental principles of international prosperity and security.</blockquote>
Whoa, dude. Harsh stuff.
Iran must be quaking in its boots. Our allies are saying things.
The Europeans, Japan? They&#8217;re expressing “deep concern.” Not “regular” concern. “Deep” concern. They are calling on Iran to do things and to stop being so mean.
But wait, isn&#8217;t there some sort of commitment to action in the letter?
The statement does say this: “We express our readiness to contribute to appropriate efforts to ensure a safe passage through the Strait. We welcome the commitment of nations who are engaging in preparatory planning.”
That sounds good, right? But what does “appropriate efforts” mean? Who decides what is “appropriate?”
According to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2026/03/19/strait-hormuz-coalition-allies-statement-uk">Axios</a>, “On Thursday morning, NATO head Mark Rutte and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron and convinced him to lift his opposition to the political statement of support, while leaving the discussion on the practical steps for later.”
Now, to be fair to Rutte, there&#8217;s not much he can do. He&#8217;s the head of NATO, but he can&#8217;t simply deploy force. He certainly recognizes the Iranian threat, and he would like to avoid alienating the United States.
He said, “We all agree, as we always did, that it was crucial for Iran not to get its hands on a nuclear capability, a ballistic missile capability. And what the U.S. is doing at the moment is degrading that capability of Iran. And I think that&#8217;s very important. This is important for European security, for the Middle East. It is vital for Israel itself.”
 The Japanese are also paying lip service here; the Japanese prime minister told President Trump, “I firmly believe that it is only you, Donald, who can achieve peace across the world,” adding they would “reach out to many of the partners in the international community, to achieve our objective together.”
So what are our allies actually committing to?
Nothing. This sort of stupidity is nothing new for our allies, who are quite fond of empty verbiage as a substitute for credible threat of force.
Go all the way back to 1919, when the covenant of the League of Nations was integrated into the Treaty of Versailles. That attempt to form a family of nations — while it was not a success — led to 1928, when 15 countries came together to sign what was called the Kellogg-Briand Pact.
It outlawed war.
Did you know that? That war was outlawed in 1928? The signatories included France, the US, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Italy, and Japan. 47 more nations joined in as well.
And then, three years later, in 1931, Japan invaded Manchuria and nobody did anything. And by 1941, every single nation that had signed the treaty, with the exception of Ireland — which basically stayed out of the war and sided with Germany — was enmeshed in World War II.
Empty verbiage.
The same thing holds true today. For decades, our allies have pretended to oppose the Iranian terror regime while doing virtually nothing to hold them accountable. They&#8217;ve imposed some rather minor sanctions targeting specific officials, unless the United States has pushed them into broader sanctions.
We&#8217;ve had to do all the hard work, as per our usual arrangement.
So here&#8217;s the deal. If we&#8217;re going to do all the work and undertake all the sacrifice and spend the blood and treasure, then we ought to reap the benefit. 
There&#8217;s been a lot of talk about what the United States ought to do next with regard to Iran. The most obvious move, and one I&#8217;ve been advocating, is for the United States to seize Kharg Island. President Trump has been suggesting for a while that this may happen.
Nearly 90% of all Iranian oil passes through Kharg Island. The Iranians have already, in large part, shut the Strait of Hormuz. They&#8217;ve already upped the ante in terms of attacks on surrounding gas and oil facilities. So the United States doesn&#8217;t have tremendous downside here.
What&#8217;s Iran going to do, attack more oil facilities? We ought to seize control of the oil, and then we ought to let American companies keep pumping it, and then we ought to send it to its final destination, China. China would then know that we are in charge of the spigot; Iran&#8217;s terrorist government would be deprived of their monetary flow.
What about the Europeans?
If the price of oil rises, they can buy it from us, not the Iranians.
If they&#8217;re not going to join us as allies, they can pay our companies for the oil.

NATO Leaders Attend 2025 Summit In The Hague

Fake Allies And Backstabbers

Ben Shapiro

Donald Trump

Iran

Japan

Middle East

NATO

Opinion

Strait of Hormuz

When the European Union adopted the Digital Services Act (DSA), officials insisted that the sweeping regulation was necessary to tackle “illegal content,” “disinformation,” and other harmful online activity. The message was that responsible regulation would make the internet a safer place. The reality, however, is that the DSA grants the EU enormous <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-europe-plans-to-strangle-american-free-speech?author=Lorcan+Price&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=How+Europe+Plans+To+Strangle+American+Free+Speech">censorship powers</a> that endanger free speech in the digital public square, in Europe and across the world.
Now, for anyone wondering what kind of speech these powers might ultimately be used to suppress, the answer is becoming clearer. On March 5, the European Commission adopted its new <a href="https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/gender-equality/gender-equality-strategy_en">Gender Equality Strategy</a>. The document leaves no doubt about the EU’s highly ideological direction, which has positioned it to become the world’s online censor through the DSA.
In the strategy, the European Commission states plainly that the DSA “recognises gender-based violence as a systemic risk, which providers of very large online platforms… have to assess and mitigate”. But what exactly is “gender-based violence”? 
According to the Commission, “online violence” includes acts that cause “psychological” harm or “suffering to women”. What this means is that if the ideological NGOs tasked with patrolling online content under the DSA object to a social media post on the grounds that it is “likely” to cause “harm” to women, major online platforms like X and Meta would be pressured to remove it as “violence”.
The nebulous definition of “online violence” put forward by the new Gender Equality Strategy makes it little more than a vehicle for digital censorship. The strategy presents itself as a roadmap for advancing equality across Europe. Yet what it reveals is a metastatic, habitual tendency on the part of EU institutions to embed contested ideological positions into policy and then frame any dissent as a threat. 
One notable passage in the strategy frames opposition to gender ideology as dangerous, warning that “anti-gender narratives … threaten the EU’s democratic space”. The strategy explicitly identifies “<a href="https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/1f5fa936-9fba-4435-93f5-32fa220bac82_en?filename=gender-equality-strategy-2026-2030.pdf">LBTIQ+</a> women” as a protected group and links gender equality efforts with other EU initiatives focused on sexual orientation. It also adopts an “intersectional approach,” asserting that sex and gender intersect with multiple forms of discrimination and should therefore be addressed through overlapping identity-based policies.
The strategy explicitly supports so-called “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” referencing a recent pro-abortion European Citizens Initiative. This signals continued normalization and support for abortion access on the part of the EU, which it has no authority to promote.
In the strategy, the European Commission refers to the Neil Datta report <a href="https://www.epfweb.org/node/1144">&#8220;The Next Wave&#8221;</a> as a trustworthy study identifying “well-resourced global movements, and increasingly exploited through foreign information manipulation and interference”. But what this “report” does is identify <a href="https://www.epfweb.org/node/1152">pro-life NGOs</a> and research centers promoting biological reality as radical, anti-gender, conservative, and religious extremists.
It does not take much imagination to see how this framework could be deployed in the world of online censorship.
In place since February 2024, the DSA gives the European Commission unprecedented power over the world’s largest online platforms, requiring them to remove certain content and manage “systemic risks” on their services. When authorities view legitimate criticism of gender ideology as part of “anti-gender narratives” threatening democracy, the next evident step is censorship in the name of “content moderation”.
Consider the prosecution of Finnish Member of Parliament <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/free-speech-on-trial">Päivi Räsänen</a> under Finland’s national “hate speech” law. With the legal support of ADF International, Räsänen, a medical doctor, grandmother, and parliamentarian since 1995, has spent more than six years defending herself against criminal charges for posting a Bible verse on Twitter in 2019. She posted the verse to support her Christian beliefs about marriage and sexuality. Despite being acquitted twice by Finnish courts, the state prosecution has relentlessly pursued the case, which now awaits a decision from Finland’s Supreme Court. Under the DSA, we should expect to see more aggressive censorship for the simple expression of traditional Christian views like Räsänen&#8217;s.
Of course, the EU can, and should, advance authentic policies to promote equality between the sexes. But this is not that. There is no doubt that the Gender Equality Strategy strengthens the censorship regime created by the DSA. Democratic societies depend on open debate to promote true equality, not the suppression of views that challenge elite orthodoxy.
Platforms that fail to comply with DSA censorship directives face enormous fines, as evidenced by the €120 million fine levied against X, an American platform, last December. Although the penalty was formally tied to procedural violations, the platform was targeted for its pro-free speech stance, which it is now <a href="https://adfinternational.org/news/x-challenges-e120m-fine-under-eu-censorship-law">appealing</a> before the Court of Justice of the EU.
Both in Europe and across the world, including in the United States, the DSA creates powerful incentives for platforms to remove lawful content subjectively deemed problematic or suffer the consequences, which can range from crippling fines to suspension of services.
Europe has long presented itself as a defender of fundamental rights and democratic values. Yet the trajectory of its speech policies increasingly points in the opposite direction. Make no mistake about it: the EU is coming for your free speech, regardless of where you live, and it’s taking no pains to hide the kind of speech it’s after.
* * *
Dr. Adina Portaru is senior counsel, Europe, for legal advocacy organization ADF International, which is supporting X’s legal challenge before the General Court of the EU.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Symbol of transgender and female and male gender symbols

The EU’s Censorship Regime Has A New Gender Strategy And It Threatens Free Speech Everywhere

The EU's Censorship Regime Has A New Gender Strategy And It Threatens Free Speech Everywhere

Europe

Gender

gender ideology

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Union Commission, issued a blistering denunciation on Monday against the brutal, despotic Islamic regime in Iran.
<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_26_576">Speaking</a> at the EU Ambassadors’ Conference 2026 in Brussels, she stated, “I start with the Middle East — not only because of the gravity and speed of the conflict there, but also because of what it tells us about the world — and how Europe and its foreign policy fits into that.”
She defended the U.S.-led attack on Iran, stating, “You will hear different views about whether the conflict in Iran is a war of choice or a war of necessity. But I believe this debate partly misses the point. Because Europe must focus on the reality of the situation, to see the world as it actually is today.”
She then denounced the Iranian regime:
<blockquote>
I want to be clear: there should be no tears shed for the Iranian regime that has inflicted death and imposed repression on its own people. They slaughtered 17,000 of their own young people. And this regime has caused devastation and destabilization across the region through its proxies armed with missiles and drones. Many Iranians, inside the country and across Europe and the world, have celebrated Ayatollah Khamenei&#8217;s demise, as have many more people across the region. They hope that this moment can open a path towards a free Iran. The people of Iran deserve freedom, dignity, and the right to decide their own future — even if we know this will be fraught with danger and instability during and after the war.
</blockquote>
“British military bases have been targeted in Cyprus — who I want to reaffirm our full solidarity with,” she noted. “NATO troops have been called upon to shoot down a drone. Our citizens are caught in the crossfire. Our partners are being attacked — and I have been in touch with many of them across the region to express our solidarity and support.”
She called for a Europe more willing to assert itself in global conflicts:
<blockquote>
And the longer-term impact is already posing existential questions. On the future of our international rules-based system, or on how Europe finds unity in these situations. All of this shows how precarious the global situation is today, how diverse the threats are, and how Europe will always be affected by what happens around the world. So the idea that we can simply retrench and withdraw from this chaotic world is simply a fallacy. I believe it is vital that we understand this as we shape our foreign policy for the year ahead.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Thank you, Madam President. It was encouraging to hear <a href="https://twitter.com/vonderleyen?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@vonderleyen</a> President of the European Commission, speak with such clarity. For the first time since the strong words of <a href="https://twitter.com/EP_President?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@EP_President</a>, President of the European Parliament, we are now hearing Ursula von der Leyen, reminding… <a href="https://t.co/31euMycMz3">pic.twitter.com/31euMycMz3</a>
&mdash; Masih Alinejad 🏳️ (@AlinejadMasih) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/2031308185630326912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 10, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

EU-Switzerland sign âAgreement Packageâ in Brussels

READ IT: EU Chief Makes One Thing Clear About Iran’s Regime

The European Union has paused approval of a trade deal with the United States following warnings from President Donald Trump that countries should not “play games” in response to a Supreme Court ruling striking down many of his tariffs. 
Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, <a href="https://x.com/berndlange/status/2025945751197524466">announced</a> Monday that a trade agreement reached in July 2025, known as the Turnberry Deal, has been put “on hold until further notice!”
“Clarity &amp; legal certainty are needed before any further steps can be taken,” Lange wrote on social media. 
The announcement came as Trump warned that he could raise tariffs on countries that alter their course in response to the Supreme Court ruling. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/friendly-fire?utm_campaign=dwplus&amp;utm_content=20260224_sotu_aa_desktop&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=banner" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Watch the State of the Union with The Daily Wire! Live coverage from the nation&#8217;s capital begins at 7:45 ET.</a>
“Any Country that wants to ‘play games’ with the ridiculous supreme court (sic) decision, especially those that have ‘Ripped Off’ the U.S.A. for years, and even decades, will be met with a much higher Tariff, and worse, than that which they just recently agreed to,” Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116120439459742948">said</a> Monday on Truth Social. 
The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-secures-biggest-of-all-trade-deals-with-eu">trade deal</a> would have established a baseline 15% tariff on imports from the European Union, with higher rates for steel and aluminum. The bloc also agreed to purchase $750 billion in American energy, invest an additional $600 billion into the United States, and purchase American military equipment. 
After the Supreme Court ruled Friday, Trump announced a 10% global tariff on all imports into the United States. He later said he would raise it to 15%, though that increase has not yet taken effect. The 10% tariffs went into effect Tuesday morning, but a White House official <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-global-tariff-start-10-percent-despite-announcement-15-percent-rcna260369" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-sk="tooltip_parent">told</a> NBC News that they would be increased to 15% once the proper documentation was ready for the president to sign.
Lange <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/24/us-eu-trade-deal-eu-parliament-suspends-trade-deal-trump-tariffs-eu-retaliation-aci.html">claimed</a> that those actions violated the terms of the trade agreement. 
“We wanted to have really stability and predictability. And unfortunately, the government, the president of the United States, has really made a breach of this deal several times,” he told CNBC on Tuesday. “We need clarity, and this is also my clear request for the United States government — give us a certainty that for the next three years, we have no other irritations with new tariffs from the United States, and then we stick to the deal.”
In his dissent from the decision striking down Trump’s tariff, Justice Brett Kavanaugh <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kavanaugh-trump-has-other-legal-paths-to-keep-tariffs-in-place-despite-scotus-ruling">warned</a> that the ruling “could generate uncertainty” around trade agreements negotiated under the tariffs imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA).
Beyond adding confusion to existing trade agreements, the tariff decision has also prompted further litigation. On Monday, FedEx sued the Trump administration seeking a full refund of the tariffs it paid under IEEPA.

U.S. President Donald Trump Visits Scotland For Golfing Getaway

EU Pauses Trade Deal After Trump Warns Countries Not To ‘Play Games’

Executive

Global Politics

Politics

trade

X announced Friday that it is challenging a $140 million fine imposed by the European Commission under what critics call the bloc&#8217;s digital “censorship” law. 
The social media company was hit with a fine in December 2025 for alleged non-compliance with the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), a sweeping speech-regulation law that allows authorities to penalize companies for failing to remove so-called misinformation or other content deemed illegal. X filed an appeal on Monday in the E.U.&#8217;s General Court, arguing it was denied due process and faced a biased enforcement process. 
“This EU Decision resulted from an incomplete and superficial investigation, grave procedural errors, a tortured interpretation of the obligations under the DSA, and systematic breaches of rights of defence and basic due process requirements suggesting prosecutorial bias,” X’s Global Government Affairs team <a href="https://x.com/GlobalAffairs/status/2024803983093629298">said</a>. “X remains committed to user safety and transparency while defending our users&#8217; access to the only global town square.”
X&#8217;s move marks the first legal challenge to the Digital Services Act, which critics say enables political censorship and punishment of disfavored viewpoints. The law allows the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies it claims are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation.
The act relies on non-governmental organizations that advise regulators on whether online content may be deemed illegal for violating E.U. standards. It places significant reporting and compliance burdens on tech companies. In certain cases, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions. 
The legal challenge is being supported by Alliance Defending Freedom International, which has spoken out extensively against the Digital Services Act. 
“X is where millions of people go to freely express their views. This is a crackdown on X by authorities who view a free speech platform as a serious threat to their total control of online narratives,” said Adina Portaru, a senior European counsel for ADF International. “By targeting X, they are targeting the free speech of individuals across the world who simply want to share ideas online free from censorship.”
Portaru said the legal challenge confronts what she described as the enormous power the European Commission wields to define the content moderation rules, launch investigations, and levy fines.
“If the Commission’s concentration of power goes unchallenged, it will further cement a highly problematic standard for speech control across the EU and beyond,” she said. 
In October, ADF International led a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime">letter</a> signed by more than 100 free speech advocates urging the European Commission to reconsider the law. In a November review, the commission claimed that the act was content-neutral. 
X owner Elon Musk called the fine against his company “bullsh*t” and, one day after it was issued, <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1997279325876367719">said</a> the European Union should be &#8220;abolished.&#8221;
Both the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress have voiced opposition to the law.
“Look, Europe has to be very careful,” Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/europe-has-to-be-very-careful-trump-issues-stern-warning-after-eu-fines-elon-musks-x">said</a> while commenting on the fine back in December. “They’re doing a lot of things. … Europe is going in some bad directions. It’s very bad for the people.”
Last week, House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bill-would-give-american-victims-of-foreign-censorship-power-to-sue?author=Leif+Le+Mahieu&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Bill+Would+Give+American+Victims+Of+Foreign+Censorship+Power+To+Sue">said</a> lawmakers are exploring legislation to protect American companies from penalties under foreign laws that regulate speech. The committee has released documents it says show the European Union pressured tech companies to create guidelines defining acceptable speech on topics ranging from mass migration to men competing in women’s sports.

SWITZERLAND-POLITICS-ECONOMY-DIPLOMACY

Elon Musk Escalates Fight With Europe Over ‘Speech Controls’

Censorship

Courts

Elon Musk

World

What does European censorship look like, and why should Americans care? I answered that question before the <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/europes-threat-american-speech-and-innovation-part-ii">U.S. House Judiciary Committee</a> this week.
The last time I <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/committee-activity/hearings/europes-threat-american-speech-and-innovation">testified</a> before the Committee in September, I highlighted the censorship potential of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which at the time still seemed theoretical. My message then was that this EU law controlling online speech was poised to censor lawful expression beyond Europe, including in the United States.
Many were not convinced.
But now we have moved from theory to practice. There can be no doubt now that the DSA is the tip of a massive censorship industrial complex with global implications.
I testified yesterday before the Committee that the enormous fines recently levied on X by the European Commission prove beyond all doubt that the EU means to strangle free speech by a systematic assault on US companies. This is corroborated by the Committee’s incendiary new <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-report-exposes-european-commission-decade-long-campaign-censor-american" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>, which shows that American companies are already having to adopt EU content moderation policies.
The EU has a multi-pronged strategy to open a slew of investigations, to add more and more regulations, to impose crippling fines, and, ultimately, to either break up or ban companies such as X, which are pro-free-speech.
Free speech is such a threat to European elites that they intend to either cripple X with fines and investigations or force them to bend the knee at the altar of censorship. I hope X stands strong because we need free speech in Europe more than ever.
But it goes deeper; this censorship campaign is not just aimed at destroying free speech in Europe, it’s about imposing European Union speech laws globally.
Make no mistake, Europe’s draconian speech laws are being imposed across the world via global content moderation rules.
The EU’s obsession with eliminating free speech means that they are deploying a global campaign to ensure that all speech online bans “illegal content” and “prevents systemic risk” to the “discourse”.
And the costs are borne by real people, like my client Päivi Räsänen, a longtime Finnish parliamentarian, who has spent more than six years criminally prosecuted for peacefully expressing her Christian beliefs in a 2019 Bible verse tweet. Räsänen also testified alongside me before the Committee on her ordeal, as she awaits a verdict from Finland’s Supreme Court for “hate speech” charges under the national law for “war crimes and crimes against humanity”. Of course, “hate speech” has no meaning except speech that European elites hate.
This is what European censorship looks like in practice: the process itself becomes the punishment, designed to chill speech, exhaust dissenters, and warn others to stay silent. And if this is what happens to a sitting parliamentarian in a Western democracy, Americans should have no illusion that either American companies or their citizens will be spared if these censorship regimes are allowed to normalize globally.
* * *
Lorcán Price is an Irish barrister and legal counsel for ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Uncle Sam

How Europe Plans To Strangle American Free Speech

Social Media

Twitter

Republican lawmakers will consider legislation that would allow American citizens to sue foreign entities that censor and violate their First Amendment rights.
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan (R-OH) said Thursday that lawmakers were looking into proposals that would protect Americans from foreign censorship. The legislation would mirror proposals introduced in states like Wyoming that would protect Americans from being penalized for their opinions. 
“We are definitely looking at that,” Jordan responded when asked by journalist Michael Shellenberger if Congress would consider proposals similar to the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion (GRANITE) Act <a href="https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2026/HB0070">introduced</a> on February 5 in Wyoming. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: Congress is considering stripping sovereign immunity of EU censorship officials, prohibiting social media from enforcing censorship orders, and enabling private lawsuits against foreign entities, says <a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Jim_Jordan</a> echoing remarks made by <a href="https://twitter.com/UnderSecPD?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UnderSecPD</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/DarrellIssa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DarrellIssa</a> <a href="https://t.co/AKjfbBJql9">pic.twitter.com/AKjfbBJql9</a>
— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) <a href="https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/2019456842997338152?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Jordan added that lawmakers were trying to find a “remedy” for foreign censorship, saying that “we&#8217;re taking a good look at that and seeing if there&#8217;s something we can do” regarding the GRANITE Act. 
The GRANITE Act would create a cause of action against foreign states and international organizations that implement censorship laws that violate the free speech rights of Americans, according to a summary of the bill. It would also prevent the state from working with entities that implement foreign censorship. 
Both Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) have already suggested that the United States should take action to protect Americans from being prosecuted under foreign censorship laws. 
Jordan’s comments come after the House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/2018683758006665352">released</a> documents showing that tech companies were restricting the speech of Americans under Europe’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/for-thursday-exclusive-free-speech-advocates-challenge-eu-over-pan-european-censorship-regime">Digital Services Act</a> and other measures. 
The act empowers the European Commission to impose significant financial penalties on tech companies, which it says are not doing enough to combat so-called disinformation. In certain circumstances, American tech companies may be fined up to 6% of their global revenue if they violate specific conditions of the act.
According to the House Judiciary Committee, the European Union pressured tech companies to create guidelines on what was acceptable speech on topics from mass migration to men participating in women’s sports on the basis of their transgender identity. 
Americans&#8217; speech online has not just been censored by foreign bureaucrats, but also by the State Department. 
In February 2024, The Daily Wire, along with The Federalist and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/daily-wire-texas-ag-ask-court-to-block-state-departments-domestic-misinformation-efforts">sued the State Department</a> over its Global Engagement Center’s relationship with anti-“misinformation” outfits like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). The suit alleges that those outfits were focused on suppressing American conservative media, and the Global Engagement Center’s support of these groups violated the First Amendment.

Former US Special Counsel Jack Smith Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee

Bill Would Give American Victims Of Foreign Censorship Power To Sue

House May Empower Americans To Sue Foreign Entities That Censor Them

First Amendment

House Judiciary Committee

Jim Jordan

Belgian authorities have opened an investigation into the 2025 arrest of Lois McLatchie Miller and &#8220;Billboard&#8221; Chris Elston, one year after the activists were detained while conducting interviews on the street.
Miller, a British citizen, and Elston, a Canadian, were in Brussels interviewing passersby about radical gender ideology in June. Miller was holding a sign that read “Children are never born in the wrong body” and Elston — known for debating people on the streets while wearing sandwich boards — held one reading “Children cannot consent to puberty blockers.”
When a threatening crowd began to form, Miller called the police. Four police vans and fourteen officers arrived on the scene, only to arrest and strip-search Miller and Elston, who were held in custody for four hours.
“Opening up a criminal investigation into what happened is a major development,” Miller said. “It’s clear by any measure that our right to free speech was violated when we were put in jail cells for speaking about puberty blockers.&#8221;
Belgian authorities have not yet disclosed the scope of the criminal investigation, leaving open the key question of whether the inquiry is focused on potential misconduct by the police officers involved in the arrests or the conduct of the campaigners themselves. Miller and Elston have spent the past year petitioning the government to offer an apology and financial settlement for what they call an unlawful detention.
The scope of Brussels’s criminal investigation could signal a shift in Europe’s approach to free speech, which American officials warn is under attack on the continent.
“Free speech, I fear, is in retreat,” Vice President JD Vance said last year. “I look to Brussels, where EU Commission commissars warned citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest: the moment they spot what they’ve judged to be ‘hateful content’. Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of ‘combating misogyny’ on the internet.”
The vice president added that he believes Europe will rise to the occasion, and expressed his confidence that Europe’s democracies “are substantially less brittle than many people apparently fear.”
&#8220;We should be able to speak freely about one of the greatest medical scandals in modern history,” Elston said. “Children are being maimed, chemically castrated, and sterilized for an ideology which teaches they were born wrong.”
Elston is no stranger to brushing up against foreign speech codes and hostile crowds. In 2023, he was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/canadian-cops-watch-as-radical-trans-activists-assault-lone-man-defending-kids" target="_blank" rel="noopener">assaulted</a> during an event in Canada, an attack police did nothing to stop. The following year, he was put on trial in Australia <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/he-shared-a-link-on-x-now-hes-in-an-australian-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">simply</a> for sharing a link on X.
Months after his arrest in Belgium, Elston <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/billboard-chris-launches-global-nonprofit-to-fight-child-gender-exploitation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">launched</a> a nonprofit dedicated to fighting “medical malpractice of child transition” and defending free speech worldwide.
&#8220;We’re formalizing a grassroots movement to educate, activate, and equip people to protect children,&#8221; Elston told The Daily Wire in an exclusive interview after the organization&#8217;s launch.“We will always endeavor to follow the law, while at the same time challenge abuses of authority.”

Screenshot 2026-01-31 at 1.54.02 PM

Belgium Investigating Arrest And Detention Of ‘Billboard Chris’ And British Activist

Billboard

President Donald Trump touts his first-year economic wins as American allies make trade deals behind the scenes, the White House switches things up in Minnesota, and another government shutdown looms as Senate Dems hold up a funding bill.
It’s Wednesday, January 28, 2026, and this is the news you need to know to start your day. Today’s edition of the Morning Wire podcast can be heard below:
<iframe style="width: 100%; max-width: 660px; overflow: hidden; border-radius: 10px;" src="https://embed.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/trumps-economic-line-minnesota-tactic-shift-1-28-26/id1576594336?i=1000746991084" height="175" frameborder="0" sandbox="allow-forms allow-popups allow-same-origin allow-scripts allow-storage-access-by-user-activation allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Trump Sells Economy While Europe Turns To India</h2>
President Trump hit the campaign trail Tuesday to tout his economic agenda, as Europe finds a new trading partner, and sends a message to Washington. Trump has traveled the country in recent months, working to convince the American people that he has made progress on the economy. While he won’t be on the ballot, he is fighting to maintain control of the Senate. He delivered a speech on Tuesday in Iowa, where an open Senate seat is up for grabs. Meanwhile, Europe is pivoting away from the United States in trade, thanks in part to the president&#8217;s aggressive trade wars. On Tuesday, the European Union announced the framework of a massive trade deal with India, the world’s most populous nation. The agreement will eliminate or significantly reduce nearly all tariffs between the two sides, mainly on agricultural products, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals, and allow Europe to finally sell its cars on the Indian market. 
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Trump Changes Tack After Pretti Killing</h2>
President Trump is shuffling his personnel and changing his administration’s message after Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. But he remains committed to deporting illegals in Minnesota. As Trump looks to shift his strategy on mass deportations, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is facing criticism for labeling Pretti a domestic terrorist and claiming he showed up armed to massacre federal agents. Some Congressional Democrats, including Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), have called on Trump to oust Noem. Trump, however, appears to be standing his ground. Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, has begun settling in and meeting with state and local officials, including Democratic Governor Tim Walz. They agreed to an “ongoing dialogue” on continued federal immigration operations.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">DC Stares Down A Shutdown</h2>
In Washington, the government is inching closer to a partial shutdown on Friday as the Senate debates funding for Homeland Security. As funding runs out, the House is out of town this week, even though it already approved the funding bills. But since Border Patrol agents shot and killed Pretti, an ICU nurse, the tone on Capitol Hill has shifted, and Democrats want a shutdown over DHS funding because they want strings attached. It is unclear if there could be any deal that would avoid even a short shutdown. Democrats want DHS funding separated from other bills to prevent a broader shutdown. Many Democrats have called for “constraints” on ICE and Border Patrol, as Sen. Fetterman and House Democrats have called for Homeland Security Secretary Noem to be fired. Senate Republican Conference Chairman Tom Cotton of Arkansas has warned against a “mob veto.”

MRN_260128_V1

Morning Brief: Trump’s Midterm Pitch, Minnesota Tactic Shift, & Shutdown Showdown

Morning Brief: Trump’s Midterm Pitch, Deportation Shuffle, And DC Heads Toward A Shutdown

Menu