You could fill a very large museum with exhibits about empires that collapsed because — as barbarians gathered outside the gates — their leaders were distracted by relatively unimportant internal conflicts. Certainly, you could set up rows and rows of bookshelves in the Louvre, with volume after volume going into detail about how various civilizations — from the Byzantines to the Ottomans to the Canadians — met their demise because they were unable or unwilling to address the very real, looming threats they were facing from the outside.
And then, of course, once you meticulously assembled all the books documenting these historical examples and placed them in the Louvre, those books would promptly be stolen by a handful of burglars armed with power tools. Put another way: It&#8217;s the highest luxury for wealthy and prosperous civilizations to fight amongst themselves, right up until the moment they realize that, in reality, the barbarians aren&#8217;t simply at the gates anymore. They&#8217;ve made their way inside — and no one&#8217;s even noticed. And by that point, it&#8217;s too late. The foreign conquest is plain for everyone to see.
If you don&#8217;t see where I&#8217;m going with this, then that&#8217;s probably a good sign, if I&#8217;m being honest. There&#8217;s no reason to recap any of the infighting that&#8217;s occurring right now among the conservative movement. If you&#8217;re not aware of the extraordinary degree of internal squabbling on the Right, then that&#8217;s a point in your favor. It&#8217;s an indication that you don&#8217;t spend much of your time online, paying attention to the endless bickering on social media. But, suffice it to say, many conservatives are at each other&#8217;s throats at the moment. They&#8217;re certainly at my throat, from every angle, even though none of them can really explain what it is I’ve done or said that they find so objectionable. I also haven&#8217;t changed my goal, which is advancing the interests of this country and the Americans who live here.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1684-a-foreign-invasion-is-underway-but-this-is-what-can-be-done-to-stop-it"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone wp-image-995295 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Walsh-Banner.avif" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Walsh-Banner.avif 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Walsh-Banner-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/11/Walsh-Banner-768x128.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
But here&#8217;s the important thing: No matter where you stand on these attacks and all of this drama — if you&#8217;re even aware of the drama at all — it really doesn&#8217;t matter. What matters is that, while conservatives are busy ripping each other to shreds, an Islamic socialist from Uganda is about to take over the biggest city in the country. And, at the same time, as if that&#8217;s not enough, a far-left Somali scam artist is about to take over one of the biggest cities in America&#8217;s heartland: Minneapolis.
This is the kind of threat that a serious country, and a serious political movement, would prioritize above any other. If foreigners who want to destroy the United States are able to seize control of our largest cities, then nothing else matters. Foreign policy doesn&#8217;t matter. Podcasts — even the most offensive and racist podcasts you can think of — don&#8217;t matter. The Constitution doesn&#8217;t matter. The Heritage Foundation doesn&#8217;t matter. Nothing matters at all because we&#8217;ve ceased to exist as a country. We have become Somalia or Uganda. We have lost everything, and we can never get it back.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
No one needs me to outline the case against Omar Fateh, who&#8217;s probably going to be the next mayor of Minneapolis. And no one needs me to outline the case against Zohran Mamdani, who&#8217;s probably going to be the next mayor of New York. Nor does anyone — at least among my followers — need me to make the case against mass migration more broadly, or Somali immigration in particular, or anything like that. We&#8217;ve beaten that drum many, many times before. And we’ll keep beating it. But really, especially if you live in places like New York or Minneapolis, or any of the thousands of American suburbs that have become unrecognizable in the past 20 years, you don&#8217;t need to watch any of those monologues. You&#8217;ve already seen, firsthand, exactly what the problem is — and how it&#8217;s about to get much, much worse, unless we actually take some meaningful action.
The good news — although it&#8217;s easy to forget it — is that meaningful action is indeed possible. The Republican Party currently has control of both houses of Congress, in addition to the White House. Conservatives have the power to prevent any more American cities from being taken over by foreign communists. So, in the interests of being constructive, instead of simply identifying the problem that we&#8217;ve all identified by now, I&#8217;m going to outline a few of my proposals that the Republican Congress should pass into law immediately.
But before I do so, I need to preempt the objections that are going to sound something like this: &#8220;Well, the courts might strike this down,&#8221; or &#8220;Well, the Democrats might filibuster it.&#8221; Yes, it&#8217;s true that courts might strike these proposals down — just like they&#8217;ve struck down every single policy that the Trump administration has attempted to implement. And yes, Democrats might filibuster this legislation. But that doesn&#8217;t mean we&#8217;re out of options. We can eliminate the filibuster. We can appeal rulings by lower court judges and, if necessary, ignore them.
I don&#8217;t think that will be necessary, though, because the proposals I&#8217;m about to outline are indeed both constitutional and obviously necessary.
For my first proposal, by way of background, take a look at these recent appearances by Omar Fateh, the scam artist running for mayor of Minneapolis, who&#8217;s become known as the &#8220;Mamdani of the Midwest.&#8221;
<h3>Watch:</h3>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
At a rally in Minneapolis, Omar Fateh waved a foreign flag, spoke in a foreign language, expressed loyalty to Somalia, and urged Somalians to vote for him.
Pray for Minneapolis. <a href="https://t.co/zUqkR660W8">pic.twitter.com/zUqkR660W8</a>
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) <a href="https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1983898278992261381?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 30, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @Breaking911/X.com
&nbsp;
and:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560">
Omar Fateh plans to alert illegals before any ICE raids occur in MN <a href="https://t.co/2og9wajZeL">pic.twitter.com/2og9wajZeL</a>
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1985099326088159714?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 2, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @EndWokeness/X.com
He&#8217;s waving the Somali flag. He&#8217;s speaking in a foreign language and pledging loyalty to Somalia. He&#8217;s talking about tipping off illegals in advance of ICE raids. He clearly understands that his constituency is Somalis like himself, not Americans. And he&#8217;s not ashamed of any of this because, as we&#8217;ve discussed before, Somalis are now a dominant voting bloc in Minneapolis, which is home to the largest Somali population in the entire country.
The solution is to ban politicians and candidates from holding rallies or creating advertisements in any language other than English. American voters should always know what their leaders are saying. This is fundamental. Any voter who can’t speak English shouldn’t be voting in the first place.
Right away, I can imagine the replies: &#8220;But that violates the First Amendment!&#8221; Well, actually, it doesn&#8217;t. It&#8217;s not a restriction on the content of anyone&#8217;s speech. Politicians can have whatever ideas they want. It&#8217;s a restriction on how that speech is delivered — and we have many, many restrictions like that. That&#8217;s why politicians can&#8217;t campaign within 50 feet of a polling place. It&#8217;s why politicians can&#8217;t blast their campaign advertisements at 2:00 AM with a bullhorn outside your house.
The principle is pretty clear: Speech becomes unlawful when — and only when — the government has a clear and unambiguous need to regulate that speech, in order for the country and its government to remain functional. And in the context of laws that require candidates to speak English, there&#8217;s precedent to back this up.
Consider the case of Alejandrina Cabrera, which you probably haven&#8217;t heard of. A little over a decade ago, she <a href="https://ideas.time.com/2012/02/13/do-elected-officials-have-to-speak-english/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ideas.time.com/2012/02/13/do-elected-officials-have-to-speak-english/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1762276656074000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2sGDxChmlTZmp4EOmirzk2">ran</a> for city council in San Luis, Arizona. But there was a problem with her candidacy. The law in Arizona requires that elected officials have the capacity to speak English coherently.
This is from <a href="https://ideas.time.com/2012/02/13/do-elected-officials-have-to-speak-english/">Time Magazine</a>:
<blockquote>The Arizona Supreme Court ruled last week that Cabrera did not meet the state’s requirement that elected officials must be proficient in English. &#8230; Cabrera’s candidacy became an issue when the mayor, a political rival of hers, filed a lawsuit claiming her lack of English proficiency made her ineligible. Cabrera — an American citizen who spent some of her childhood in Mexico — knows some English. When she was questioned at trial, she was able to state her name and place of birth. But she could not answer a question about which high school she attended. &#8230; In much of the country, Cabrera would not have a problem: candidates do not have to prove that they know English. But Arizona enacted a law in 2006 that bars people who do not speak, write and read English from holding state or local offices.</blockquote>
Here&#8217;s more coverage from <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/us/arizona-candidates-english-under-challenge.html">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>When Alejandrina Cabrera speaks English, her face takes on an expression somewhere between deep discomfort and outright despair. Her tongue, which darts around her mouth in her native Spanish, slows to a crawl. &#8230; In his report, which was detailed in a court hearing on Wednesday, William G. Eggington, a professor of English and linguistics at Brigham Young University in Utah, said that based on interviews and tests he conducted with Mrs. Cabrera, she had &#8220;basic survival level&#8221; English that fell well below that needed to participate in city business. &#8230; &#8220;This is the law,&#8221; [the city attorney] said, arguing that the 1910 act granting Arizona statehood required officeholders to perform their duties in English without the aid of a translator. “It’s been on the books since statehood.&#8221;</blockquote>
So she was tossed from the ballot. It&#8217;s as simple as that. If the state of Arizona can have a law like this, then the federal government can impose a similar restriction on every candidate in every office. We can require that candidates speak coherent English, instead of a foreign language, when they&#8217;re campaigning. There&#8217;s no First Amendment violation here. If anything, the First Amendment — and the Constitution — requires that we have a law like this. The country cannot exist for much longer without it.
While we&#8217;re at it, we should require an English language proficiency test for voters upon registration. Again, the principle is the same. If you can&#8217;t speak English, then you&#8217;re not an American. You&#8217;re not capable of interacting with Americans. You haven’t made even the slightest effort to assimilate into our country. If you&#8217;re allowed to vote, you&#8217;ll protect your own country&#8217;s interests, not America&#8217;s. And for that reason, there is a clear and compelling government interest in preventing you from voting — just like we prevent felons from voting.
Yes, in this country, it&#8217;s entirely possible for an American citizen to lose his right to vote by becoming a felon. Many states have laws like that on the books. But ask yourself this question: Who&#8217;s more dangerous in the voting booth? A Somali communist who can&#8217;t speak a word of English, who wants to drain every dollar from the U.S. treasury and send it back to Somalia, or a guy who hasn&#8217;t paid his taxes in 5 years? Who&#8217;s more dangerous in the voting booth? A Muslim socialist from Uganda who can&#8217;t speak a word of English, and who wants to dismantle the police force, or a guy who committed insurance fraud five years ago?
We all know the answers to these questions. If we&#8217;re going to ban felons from voting, then we should ban foreign-language speakers from voting, too. We should also require all politicians and candidates to renounce any dual citizenship they may hold, and publicly pledge their total and absolute loyalty to the United States to the absolute exclusion of all other nations.
From a First Amendment standpoint, this shouldn&#8217;t be controversial, either. As to the latter part, we already make elected officials take an oath of office. Many public servants in various fields have the same obligation. That&#8217;s because the Constitution explicitly states that officeholders &#8220;shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.&#8221; All I&#8217;m proposing is that we move the oath forward a bit, to the candidate stage. Yes, the candidates could lie. But at least this country would be spared the indignity of watching Somali politicians telling us, to our faces, for months on end, that they don&#8217;t actually care about representing Americans. They&#8217;d have to pretend to care about this country. And for some of them — particularly the inbred ones — that might be too difficult to fake.
Additionally, as to the second proposal I just made, dual citizens are already subjected to dramatically increased scrutiny when they&#8217;re trying to obtain, say, a top-secret security clearance. There&#8217;s no reason we shouldn&#8217;t impose even more scrutiny when a dual citizen tries to run for office, given the obvious conflict of interest involved. Again, the precedent is there. We don&#8217;t even need to make an argument. We just need to pass a law, immediately.
And here&#8217;s one more idea, while I&#8217;m at it: If over 10% of immigrants from a certain country are on welfare in this country, ban all immigration from that country for the next 10 years. We could set the threshold anywhere — 5%, 20%, doesn’t matter — but the point is that, if a significant number of immigrants from a country are coming here to leech off of our country rather than contribute to it, we need to shut off the spigot.
This is probably the &#8220;safest&#8221; proposal of all, from a constitutional perspective. Foreigners don&#8217;t have the right to enter this country. It&#8217;s a privilege. And we should obviously shut it down, immediately, if it&#8217;s turning into a burden for American taxpayers. Last week, we talked about how well over 50% of illegal aliens receive food stamps — many of them from countries like Somalia, Haiti, and Iraq. So, terminate all migration from these countries immediately. We&#8217;ll save a lot of money. And we won&#8217;t have Haitians winning the mayor&#8217;s race in Ohio any time soon. It&#8217;s a win-win.
It&#8217;s fine if you want to quibble with some of these proposals. Maybe you think some of them won&#8217;t work. These are just a few ideas, off the top of my head. The point is: This is the kind of thing we should be talking about every single day. These are the kind of proposals that conservatives — whether they&#8217;re posting on social media, or hosting a podcast, or working at a think tank, or anywhere else — should be spending their time on. These are proposals that advance conservatism and preserve the future of this country. It&#8217;s what we elected conservatives to do. So why aren&#8217;t they doing it?
Until anyone can explain that, it&#8217;s our responsibility to demand that Republicans answer this simple and fundamental question: What are you doing to ensure that some of the most important cities in this country are actually run by Americans, instead of foreign subversives like Zohran Mamdani and Omar Fateh? That&#8217;s the only question that matters. And before another conservative fires another volley at anyone else on the Right — before another major American city falls — someone in power needs to answer it, while our side still has power to wield.

Omar Fateh, Democratic Socialist, Minnesota legislator and Minneapolis mayoral candidate

A Foreign Invasion Is Underway, But This Is What Can Be Done To Stop It

First Amendment

Illegal Immigation

Matt Walsh

Minneapolis

NYC Mayoral Race

Omar Fateh

Opinion

Zohran Mamdani

Charlie Kirk was a tireless champion of the First Amendment and the sacred right to free speech it protects. He led the charge for every American to speak freely, believe openly, and challenge authority without fear. In standing up to a ruthless faction that despised those freedoms, Charlie paid the ultimate price. He became a martyr for the first protection in the Bill of Rights.
To honor his courage and his life’s work, the Media Research Center (MRC) is proud to award the annual MRC Free Speech Award exclusively to Charlie Kirk.
In 2024, the MRC recognized 35 individuals and groups for their defense of free expression. There are again many worthy champions this year. But Charlie’s leadership, clarity, and sacrifice deserve singular recognition.
The MRC presents this award during Free Speech Week, a national celebration that reminds Americans what separates us from every other nation on earth. Without the right to speak freely, there can be no democracy, no Republic, no America. Yet we now live in a time when many citizens no longer believe in that right. Some even view the First Amendment as a danger to the nation itself.
Charlie saw that storm coming. He warned that the Left’s growing intolerance would not stop at censorship, but would escalate into the criminalization of “wrongthink.” He said, “Leftists in the Western world want to criminalize wrongthink&#8230; This can only end badly if we don’t stop it first.” Those words were not rhetoric. They were prophecy.
Charlie understood the connection between speech and civilization. He knew that free expression is not a privilege granted by government but a moral necessity that allows truth to prevail over power. He also recognized that the modern threat did not come from a single politician or newsroom, but from a coordinated network of tech companies, bureaucrats, and cultural elites seeking to control the flow of information.
Through MRC’s Free Speech America division, we exposed 57 censorship programs operating across 93 federal agencies during the Biden years. Some of those programs targeted Charlie and Turning Point USA directly. He fought back not with anger, but with reason and courage. He saw that Big Tech platforms such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, and X were no longer neutral conduits but ideological gatekeepers. He demanded that these corporations be treated as the publishers they had become, accountable for their choices and stripped of the immunity that shields their censorship.
Charlie was not motivated by partisanship. He was motivated by principle. As a man of faith, he saw free speech as an extension of free will — the God-given ability to think, speak, and act according to conscience. He knew that once a society loses the right to express truth, it soon loses the capacity to recognize it.
There are many who have continued this fight. President Donald Trump deserves special credit for reversing the Biden administration’s censorship directives and appointing officials who are restoring the First Amendment within government. Members of Congress, judges, and state leaders are carrying that same torch. But this year, one name stands above them all.
Charlie’s example must inspire our next steps. Congress should define the limits of Section 230 and end Big Tech’s abuse of it. The Trump administration should complete the work of dismantling every remaining censorship initiative. And states should act to protect consumers and elections from the tyranny of information control.
Charlie’s voice may be gone, but his conviction endures. The cause he gave his life for remains the cornerstone of the American experiment. It will only end if we fail to defend it.
Let’s not disappoint him.
* * *
David Bozell is president of the Media Research Center.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.

Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Addresses Turning Point USA Summit

Why MRC’s Free Speech Award Belongs To Charlie Kirk Alone

Awards

Censorship

Charlie Kirk

Free Speech

Media Research Center

This week, more than 100 leading free speech experts <a href="https://adfinternational.org/campaign/open-letter-dsa">warned</a> that the Digital Services Act (DSA), a piece of European Union legislation, threatens to impose online censorship across the world. The letter was addressed to the European Commission, the architect of the censorial law.
The DSA gives the EU authority to enforce “content moderation” on platforms and search engines with over 45 million monthly users. It is one of the most dangerous censorship regimes of the digital age, enabling bureaucrats to control online speech at scale under the guise of online “safety” and “protecting democracy.”
This, however, is far from just a European issue. Restrictive speech rules made in Brussels are increasingly shaping the global internet, including on platforms used by Americans.
The letter follows the recently expressed concerns of the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, <a href="https://x.com/US2EU/status/1973100030249640355">Andrew Puzder</a>, that the DSA threatens to censor American citizens online. As the Ambassador stated, President Trump will not “tolerate a foreign government restricting the First Amendment fundamental free speech, free expression rights of American citizens.”
Ambassador Puzder’s statement came shortly after Google’s startling admission that Europe’s censorship laws target American companies and threaten American speech.
Signatories of this week’s letter to the European Commission, which was coordinated by ADF International, include a former U.S. Senator, a former VP of Yahoo Europe, cross-party members of the European Parliament, award-winning journalist and author Michael Shellenberger, former President of the American Civil Liberties Union Nadine Strossen, and academics, lawyers, and experts from around the globe.
The letter urges the Commission to consult with free speech experts and address their concerns as part of the Commission’s formal review of the DSA, which will occur by November 17.
But how could European legislation affect the First Amendment rights of Americans online?
The DSA and its codes of conduct require online platforms, such as X, YouTube, and Facebook, to address “hate speech” and “disinformation” online. These are vague and subjective terms that lack clear legal definitions and, in practice, are used to justify the censorship of disfavored views.
The definition of “illegal content,” which platforms must remove under the DSA, is any content that breaches EU or any EU member state law. This means the most restrictive anti-free speech laws in any individual EU country — of which there are unfortunately many across Europe — will now be applied across the bloc, introducing a lowest-common-denominator of censorship across the EU.
The shocking case of Finnish parliamentarian <a href="https://adfinternational.org/cases/paivi">Päivi Räsänen</a> gives an example of what this censorship could look like in practice. For nearly seven years, Päivi has been dragged through the courts in her country for alleged “hate speech”, for a Twitter post, in which she peacefully expressed her faith-based views and included a picture of Bible text.
With legal support from ADF International, on October 30, she faces her third trial at the Finnish Supreme Court, despite being unanimously acquitted in two previous trials. Under the DSA, draconian “hate speech” legislation, like that used to prosecute Päivi, could be applied across the EU.
<div id="attachment_981733" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-981733" class="size-large wp-image-981733" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg" alt="Chairwoman Päivi Räsänen of the Christian Democrats campaigns in Helsinki, Finland on April 18, 2015 ahead of the parliamentary elections to take place on Sunday, April 19, 2015. Finns go to the polls on Sunday in legislative elections widely expected to oust the country's left-right coalition amid growing discontent over a floundering economy undergoing a painful restructuring. AFP PHOTO / LEHTIKUVA / RONI REKOMAA *** FINLAND OUT *** (Photo credit should read" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/GettyImages-470183360.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Päivi Räsänen/ Credit: Roni Rekomaa,Roni Rekomaa/AFP via Getty Images.</div>
What has emerged from the DSA is a vast censorship infrastructure with coercive enforcement tools and an opaque network of EU-approved NGOs and “trusted flaggers,” which identify content for removal. If platforms fail to quickly remove flagged content, they face enormous fines — up to 6% of global revenue — and even EU-wide suspension. Individuals can also be suspended from platforms if they “persistently” post “illegal content.”
Although nominally restricted to the European Union, the DSA’s restrictive approach to online speech will be exported across the world, including to the United States. Keep in mind that GDPR exported EU data privacy standards worldwide, and the DSA could do just that for European speech controls. Platforms will be incentivized to adopt a single global content moderation policy, which could now be made to comply with the DSA’s restrictive approach.
French Member of the European Parliament Virginie Joron, a signatory of this week’s letter to the Commission, has added to these concerns of global censorship from the DSA, saying: “The French digital regulator ARCOM told me they believe the DSA allows them to censor any post anywhere in the world using the DSA. That means even an American citizen posting in Alabama could potentially have their online post taken down, even if the publication would be legal in the US”.
These threats put European legislation on a direct collision course with the First Amendment, in what is perhaps the greatest threat to American online free speech today.
Additionally, the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress has consistently warned that the DSA is coming for American speech. A July <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/foreign-censorship-threat-how-european-unions-digital-services-act-compels">report</a> detailed how the DSA is a censorship tool that requires the world’s largest social media platforms to engage in the censorship of core political discourse in Europe, the United States, and around the world.
If the DSA is left unchecked, Brussels could well become the world’s speech police. Let all concerned with the protection of free speech be on alert about the DSA. 
The European Commission must urgently engage with the free speech concerns outlined in this week’s letter and act now to ensure that the free speech rights of people across the world are respected on the internet.
* * *
Paul Coleman (@Paul_B_Coleman) is Executive Director of free speech legal advocacy organization ADF International.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a>

EU sets Out Its International Digital Strategy

EU’s Digital Services Act Is The Biggest Threat To Free Speech Yet, Experts Warn

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Apple

European Union

Google

Silicon Valley

Snapchat

Social Media Censorship

Wyoming Republicans are crying foul after a high school student said her school treats her Turning Point USA Club America chapter unfairly and blocks them from engaging in activities that similar clubs are allowed to do. 
Natrona County High School senior Kylie Wall told The Daily Wire that the Club America chapter she started has received a chilly reception from school administrators who have exercised a heavy hand over the group&#8217;s activities. This includes taking limited action after school staff ripped down posters for the club at the school, she said. 
State Senator Rachel Rodriguez Williams, the chair of the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, told The Daily Wire that school officials appeared to be chilling the free speech of conservative students. 
&#8220;At best, NCHS administrators are chilling the protected speech of students, which is unacceptable,” she told The Daily Wire. “At worst, they’re systematically silencing the speech and activities of students on and off campus, which is indefensible.”
The Wyoming Freedom Caucus filed a public records request on Sunday, demanding all communications to or from Natrona County High School Principal Aaron Wilson containing the terms “Club America” or “Turning Point USA.” Natrona County High School is located in Casper, Wyoming’s second most populous city. 
Wall told The Daily Wire on Thursday that she had serious concerns about equal treatment, free speech, and student rights under district policy and the federal Equal Access Act, which requires schools receiving federal funds to have equal opportunities. 
&#8220;As students, we simply want to be treated fairly, to have our voices respected, and to participate in the same opportunities afforded to other clubs,&#8221; she said. &#8220;We look forward to working toward a resolution that upholds district policy and students’ constitutional rights.&#8221;
Wall, who started a Club America chapter shortly after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, says that school officials have blocked them from participating in public meetings off campus and failed to take sufficient action after she saw school staff tearing down advertisements for the club. 
&#8220;Approved Club America flyers have been removed by staff, and some teachers have made disparaging remarks about our club and its members,&#8221; Wall told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Despite these reports, the administration has taken little action to address them, contributing to a hostile environment for students who hold different viewpoints.&#8221;
Natrona County School District noted that it recognized two Club America chapters, one at Natrona County High School and another at Kelly Walsh High School.
&#8220;These student-led clubs are open to high school students who are interested in learning about government, civic responsibility, and active citizenship. Like all student-led clubs, school-based meetings are student-driven and are not open to the public,&#8221; the county told The Daily Wire. &#8220;We continue to encourage students from all high schools to work together and collaborate in many different capacities.&#8221;
Rodriguez Williams said that the Wyoming Freedom Caucus “reminds all Wyoming school districts that students don’t shed their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse doors. We are disgusted that school staff would tear down posters advertising Club America, but are filled with hope for the future at the bravery and poise of these patriotic students.&#8221;
In addition to the posters being pulled down, school officials have reportedly blocked Wall’s chapter from meeting with another local Turning Point USA club, prohibited them from attending an off-campus banquet hosted by the Wyoming Family Alliance, and told Wall that she could not do an interview on the club without the principal’s presence. 
&#8220;Our club was prohibited from attending a community event hosted by the Wyoming Family Alliance, even though other student organizations — such as athletic teams and Key Club, and others — routinely attend similar off-campus events,&#8221; Wall said. &#8220;This restriction seems inconsistent with district practice and limits our club’s opportunities to participate equally in civic activities.&#8221;
Wyoming Family Alliance Executive Director Nathan Winters confirmed that Wilson told them to &#8220;exclusively&#8221; reach out to Club America through him and declined the invitation to the banquet. He added that they never received a response when they asked if there was a district policy blocking the students from engaging in community events.
“Wyoming Family Alliance will always stand with students who want to engage in civil public discourse and experience the true meaning of American citizenship,&#8221; Winters told The Daily Wire. &#8220;We are disappointed and deeply concerned when any school or administrator restricts those first steps toward civic participation. Students should be encouraged, not silenced, when they seek to learn, lead, and contribute to their communities.”
Wall added that she &#8220;was instructed not to speak to reporters about our chapter without direct administrative supervision, or even on my own time,&#8221; while students at other high schools were not restricted in the same way. 
Following the assassination of Kirk last month in Utah, Turning Point USA has reported a massive surge in requests to form new chapters on both high school and college campuses. The organization said last week that it has launched 1,500 new high school chapters nationwide, up from roughly 1,200 total before Kirk’s death.

US-POLITICS-TURNING POINT

Wyoming High School Is ‘Chilling Speech’ Of Turning Point USA Chapter, Republicans Warn

Education

Turning Point USA

Wyoming

President Donald Trump unloads on the United Nations, Google admits it caved to the Biden administration&#8217;s censorship demands, and Jimmy Kimmel returns to late-night after a short suspension.
It’s Wednesday, September 24, 2025, and this is the news you need to know to start your day.
Morning Wire is available on video! You can watch today’s episode here:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Trump Scolds U.N. &amp; Kimmel Returns" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/W2Zkk_aBDXo?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If you would rather listen to your news, 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/trump-scolds-u-n-kimmel-returns-9-24-25/id1576594336?i=1000728191428" 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 At United Nations: Leftist Ideas Driving Countries To Ruin</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-976157" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Trump-Scorches-U.N.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: In a scathing speech Tuesday, President Trump slammed world leaders at the United Nations, warning that their countries are “going to hell.”
What he said: Donald Trump spoke for about an hour and unloaded on the UN, calling it incompetent, inefficient, weak, and warning that mass migration, climate alarmism, and political correctness were laying siege to the organization’s founding principles.
“What is the purpose of the United Nations? The UN has such tremendous potential,” <a href="https://x.com/RapidResponse47/status/1970495659938652526">said</a> Trump. “For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a strongly worded letter, and then never follow that letter up. It&#8217;s empty words — and empty words do not solve war. The only thing that solves war &#8230; is action.”
On immigration: Trump devoted much of his speech to immigration, warning Western allies that their insistence on allowing unfettered mass migration was destroying their countries from within. 
“When your prisons are filled with so-called asylum seekers who repaid kindness with crime, it&#8217;s time to end the failed experiment of open borders,” <a href="https://x.com/cspan/status/1970501963264483514">said</a> Trump.
On energy: Trump took aim at the UN’s decades-long push to embrace far-left green energy initiatives, which he said have been ineffective, thereby increasing our reliance on China and other bad actors. 
On a Palestinian state: The topic of a Palestinian state arguably received more attention than any other issue at this week’s gathering, as influential member states have joined the call for Palestinian statehood. But President Trump remained adamant that such a move would only reward Hamas terrorists and incentivize more October 7th-style attacks. 
“The rewards would be too great for Hamas terrorists for their atrocities; this would be a reward for these horrible atrocities, including October 7th, even while they refuse to release the hostages or accept the ceasefire,” the president said.
Trump turns hard against Putin: After his address, Trump had a separate meeting with Volodmyr Zelensky and emerged with a much more supportive stance on Ukraine than in the past. Trump initially vowed to end the war on day one of his presidency, and then in recent months said Ukraine would need to accept a deal that resulted in handing over territory to Putin.
But on Tuesday, he said the Ukrainians can retake 20% of their land currently held by Russia. Writing on Truth Social, the president said that after getting to know and fully understand the situation, “I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option.”
Step back: This could be a leverage play to try to bring Putin back to the negotiating table, but regardless, this shift was music to the ears of NATO and many UN allies.
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Biden Behind Clampdown On Conservative Speech, Google Says</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-976155" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Google-Reverses-Bans.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: Google admitted Tuesday to caving to censorship pressure from the Biden administration – and is committing to allowing all creators who it kicked off YouTube over so-called political speech “violations” the chance to return. 
Morning Wire spoke with House Judiciary Committee chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), who has played a meaningful role in driving forward investigations into the “censorship industrial complex” targeting conservatives.
Jordan on Google’s letter: “They (Google and YouTube), in fact, were censoring Americans. They had kicked some people off the YouTube platform altogether – you, your channel, you&#8217;re gone. They&#8217;ve agreed to reinstate those individuals, which I think is good. They&#8217;ve said they will not use the fact-checkers, like other platforms have done – which was a big problem because fact-checkers are typically really biased against conservatives. I thought it was, again, a win for the First Amendment, a win for free expression.”
What’s next? Jordan can’t rest easy on the victory. He is concerned that the next threat to free expression has already begun to creep across the Atlantic in the form of European speech codes. The Google letter specifically mentioned two European speech codes: the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act.
Jordan said: “They talked about the danger that now exists from Europe and what they&#8217;re doing and how that could, in fact, happen to Americans. And I think that&#8217;s a key point as well, because that&#8217;s something we (the Judiciary Committee) are now beginning to look at.”
Jordan mentioned the case of Irish comedian Graham Linehan, who was arrested in Britain over X posts mocking transgender ideology.
“I think it&#8217;s just a matter of time before that happens to an American,” said Jordan. “We&#8217;re particularly concerned about that relative to YouTube. There&#8217;s still this issue, I think, that we&#8217;re trying to make sure we understand fully: how people are monetizing their content or being demonetized.”
<h2 style="text-align: center;">Kimmel Claims Martyrdom While Kirk’s Legacy Grows</h2>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-976153" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="169" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Jimmy-Kimmel-Returns.jpg 1920w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Topline: Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel is back on air, but with limited viewership, and Charlie Kirk’s legacy continues.
Kimmel’s short-lived suspension ended on Tuesday as ABC reinstated his show and he returned to the air. Kimmel was suspended for misleading comments on the assassination of Charlie Kirk, claiming that the conservative activist&#8217;s killer belonged to the &#8220;MAGA gang.&#8221; On his return, he played the martyr.
Kimmel: “The president of the United States made it very clear he wants to see me and the hundreds of people who work here fired from our jobs. Our leader celebrates Americans losing their livelihoods because he can&#8217;t take a joke. … We have to speak out against this. He&#8217;s not stopping, and it&#8217;s not just comedy. He&#8217;s gunning for our journalists.”
Step back: While his suspension was lifted by Disney, Kimmel didn’t have the reach he usually has. Some broadcast groups that own ABC affiliates refused to air “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/media/nexstar-to-preempt-abcs-jimmy-kimmel-live-despite-disney-ending-suspension">Nexstar</a>, which owns 32 ABC affiliates, said it stands by Disney’s original reasons for suspending the host and it will maintain that position until “all parties are committed to fostering an environment of respectful, constructive dialogue.”
Sinclair Broadcast Group, which operates <a href="https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/2025/09/23/these-abc-stations-in-pennsylvania-wont-air-jimmy-kimmel-tonight-sinclair-stations-in-pa-kimmel-time/86306589007/#:~:text=Where%20does%20Sinclair%20own%20ABC,and%20Exchange%20Commission%20in%20August.">40</a> ABC affiliates, isn’t airing Kimmel, either. The broadcaster said earlier this week that it is in “discussions with ABC” as it evaluates the show’s “potential return.”
For Charlie: Meanwhile, Kirk’s “American Comeback Tour” continues with volunteers from conservative media and the political world filling in to headline events.
Erika – Kirk’s widow, who’s now been elected Turning Point USA’s new CEO – vowed just days after her husband was fatally shot that his legacy would live on, this tour would continue, and that Turning Point is <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/erika-kirk-breaks-silence-after-husband-charlies-assassination-address-turning-point-usa-headquarters">adding</a> “even more tours in the years to come.” The tour has been rebranded in Kirk’s memory and is now called: “This Is the Turning Point Tour.”
&nbsp;

MRN 9.24.25 Thumbnail V2

Morning Brief: Trump Torches UN Elites, Google Admits Censorship & Kimmel Plays The Victim

Donald Trump

Jimmy Kimmel

Media

Morning Wire

Politics

Russia

Ukraine

United Nations

YouTube

Attorney General Pam Bondi received swift backlash from conservatives after she threatened to prosecute Americans for using “hate speech.”
The attorney general endorsed “hate speech” prosecutions during an appearance on &#8220;The Katie Miller Podcast,&#8221; which is hosted by the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. Bondi said that targeting purveyors of hate speech has become more important in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.
&#8220;There&#8217;s free speech, and then there&#8217;s hate speech. And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society,” <a href="https://x.com/theblaze/status/1967767257427386430">said</a> Bondi in a clip of the show released on Monday. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”
Conservatives bashed the attorney general over her tacit endorsement of the term “hate speech,” an amorphous category of language better determined by how it is received than by what is said.
“Get rid of her. Today. This is insane,” Daily Wire host Matt Walsh said in a <a href="https://x.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1967955017551478895">post</a> on X. Walsh was responding to an interview Bondi did with Fox News&#8217; Sean Hannity on Monday. During the interview, Bondi revealed that the Justice Department is considering charging Office Depot after an employee allegedly refused a request to print flyers with Kirk’s face on them.
“The employee who didn’t print the flyer was already fired by his employer. This stuff is being handled successfully through free speech and free markets. This is totally gratuitous and pointless. We need the AG focused on bringing down the left wing terror cells, not prosecuting Office Depot for God’s sake,” said Walsh.
On Tuesday, Bondi attempted to clarify her use of the term “hate speech” and her department’s role in pursuing “hate speech” cases.
“Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime. For far too long, we’ve watched the radical left normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over,” Bondi <a href="https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/1967913066554630181">wrote</a>.
While Bondi narrowed her department’s remit to tackle hate speech, her use of the term at all gives credence to the term’s use on the political Left.

Pam Bondi

Calls Ignite For Bondi’s Resignation After AG Bungles ‘Hate Speech’ Message

Department of Justice

Executive

Hate Speech

U.S.

Legacy media made another feeble attempt to malign Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the eve of the release of her new book. But contrary to the whispers of palace intrigue surrounding the Court’s Dobbs decision, her book, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1">Listening to the Law</a>,&#8221; is a window into the careful legal reasoning and conscientious commitment to the law that has defined her career. It reminds us that liberty depends on intellect, conscience, and the steady moral vision women of faith uniquely bring to public life. Barrett embodies these traits, and they are mirrored in women across the country who refuse to be cowed. 
Barrett’s convictions never wavered when she was maligned for her Catholic faith. During her Seventh Circuit confirmation, Senator Dianne Feinstein warned of the “dogma living loudly” in Barrett — a jab she met with intelligence, poise, and unflinching calm. Her Supreme Court confirmation displayed the same razor-sharp clarity. While many American women see in Barrett traits they recognize in themselves — dedication, moral clarity, and attention to conscience — there will only ever be one ACB. I recognized it in small, ordinary ways, too. A friend once gave me a coffee mug that read, “The Dogma Lives Loudly Within Me”—a playful badge of honor. Even when the mug was accidentally shattered by a child unloading the dishwasher, the sentiment remained intact, much like the enduring faith of women who live their convictions quietly but resolutely, holding conscience above convenience.
In &#8220;Listening to the Law,&#8221; Barrett reflects on family, faith, and the role of law in society. She recalls her great-grandmother, a widowed mother of thirteen during the Depression, noting that “No generation starts afresh; each is shaped by its predecessors.”
<div id="attachment_968825" style="width: 394px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-968825" class="size-large wp-image-968825" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-384x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Sentinel Books" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-scaled.jpg 1707w" sizes=" (max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" /></a>Credit: Sentinel Books</div>
She observes that “Law is but one piece of what it takes to make a healthy society, and it (like everything else in life) exists in the midst of relationships.” She underscores that the Constitution commits us to pluralism through protections like those guaranteed by the First Amendment, which “requires the government to tolerate all opinions and all religions.” To critics who “suggest that people of faith have a particularly difficult time following the law rather than their moral views,” Barrett reiterates her understanding that “the guiding principle in every case is what the law requires, not what aligns with the judge’s own concept of justice.” Such resolve, she shows, can be met exactly because of the humility that derives from faith. And her own grounding in a large, loving family shines through — the book is dedicated simply to “Jesse,” her husband — a tribute both understated and profound.
When it comes to safeguarding America’s first freedom, Barrett’s rigor is urgently needed. Sooner rather than later, the Supreme Court will revisit Employment Division v. Smith. Authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked, Smith held that sincerely held religious objections do not exempt people from complying with “neutral and generally applicable laws.”
In practice, Smith has often crushed religious liberty, particularly regarding anti-discrimination laws tied to sexual orientation and gender identity. Barrett’s careful attention to conscience — the “feminine genius” St. John Paul II celebrated—is precisely what the Court needs to craft a workable framework for protecting the free exercise rights of those whose beliefs are countercultural. The stakes are far from abstract: the religious convictions of real women hang in the judicial balance.
Consider Cathy Miller, a Christian baker from California, fined for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, who has asked the Court to hear her case this term. Or the Little Sisters of the Poor, who still refuse to include abortifacients or contraceptives in their health care plans despite the authoritarian demands of the Affordable Care Act’s “contraceptive mandate,” holding fast to Church teaching. Lori Smith, a Colorado website designer, refused to create speech she did not believe in — and won at the Supreme Court. Jessica Bates, a widowed Oregon mother, was blocked from fostering children because she would not embrace gender ideology — until the Ninth Circuit, of all places, vindicated her. These women were not seeking to impose beliefs on others, but to defend the right of all Americans to live out their faith without government coercion. They stand as sentinels between the state and the citizen’s conscience.
Backing them are brilliant women lawyers and scholars who turn principle into action. Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, has argued multiple Supreme Court cases. Lori Windham of the Becket Fund shields institutions and individuals from government overreach. Legal scholars like Mary Ann Glendon, Nicole Garnett, Helen Alvaré, and Stephanie Barclay provide indispensable intellectual firepower. Protecting religious liberty is neither abstract nor optional. It demands moral clarity, expert advocacy, and strategic rigor.
&#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1">Listening to the Law</a>&#8221; shows that defending liberty requires both intellect and conscience. Barrett’s reflections illuminate the careful reasoning and moral clarity she brings to public life. Just as the other women highlighted here confront cultural and legal pressures with courage and fidelity, Barrett’s reflections on the law remind us that protecting religious freedom — our First Freedom — depends on women of faith. Through courage, attention to conscience, and steadfast commitment to the common good and the rule of law, they ensure liberty endures for generations to come.
* * *
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of the <a href="https://conscience-project.org/">Conscience Project.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Correction: A previous version of this article stated Kristen Waggoner was the former president of Alliance Defending Freedom. She is, in fact, the current president of the ADF.

MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-28-PM-1170

The Dogma Still Lives Loudly: Amy Coney Barrett And The Witness Of Women Of Faith

Amy Coney Barrett

Books

Dobbs

Supreme Court

Women

President Trump suggested via executive order that burning the American flag could be punishable by law.
This is good.
But some people are critical of it because they are misreading the executive order.
What President Trump said publicly was a very simplified version of what the executive order actually stated. He said, “If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exits, no nothing. You get one year in jail. If you burn a flag, what it does is incite to riot. &#8230; You burn a flag, you get one year in jail, you don&#8217;t get ten years. You don&#8217;t get one month, you get one year in jail. And it goes on your record, and you will see flag-burning stopping immediately.&#8221;
People are saying that Trump’s order criminalizes all forms of flag burning. That is not true. The president does not have the authority via executive order to make anything criminal. You can&#8217;t make things criminal via executive order at the federal level. That requires a congressional act. The president can&#8217;t deem an act illegal and then it magically becomes so. He can enforce the current law by directing his DOJ to prosecute certain crimes that are already on the books.
So what exactly did the president sign? The executive order doesn’t say if you burn an American flag in a protest that you&#8217;re going to go to jail, because that would violate Texas v. Johnson.
What it does say is that if you do something that is likely to incite imminent lawless action that is not protected by the First Amendment — if I tell you, “Let&#8217;s go attack that courthouse” — you can be prosecuted.
Why? Because the action is likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Thus, this order doesn&#8217;t do what some critics think it does. It does not say that if you burn a flag under any circumstances, you are going to jail.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2267-trump-protects-the-american-flag-plus-we-break-a-major-story?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Two things can be true at the same time. First: According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution of the United States protects flag-burning as a form of expression, so long as it doesn&#8217;t violate other issues such as incitement to violence. Second: The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson is wrong and a bad decision. That 5-4 decision, which is held in high esteem by libertarians and members of the Left, violated centuries of American precedent. The First Amendment was not designed to protect flag-burning.
So why is the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson wrong?
By 1932, every single state in America had a flag desecration statute. Even though, according to the Supreme Court, the flag was a federal symbol, states could still criminalize desecration of the American flag. Typically, this was designed not only to prevent marking, mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling, or defying the flag; in many states, it was meant to ban the use of the American flag in advertisements — a ban that has been jettisoned over the course of time.
In 1943’s West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett, the Supreme Court started to assert that people could not be compelled to salute the flag because refusing to do so was freedom of speech.
You could say that was a fairly decent argument. Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, “If there&#8217;s any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”
That&#8217;s an arguable opinion. I think saying that you should like the country and like the flag is not a horrible prerequisite to being an American citizen. But you can see the counterargument, which is that freedom of speech exists at the federal level, not at the state level. The First Amendment to the Constitution applies to Congress, and Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. That does not apply to the states. In the early days of our Republic, states routinely made laws abridging freedom of speech.
But then we saw attempts by the Supreme Court to carve back much of the law surrounding the flag. In 1968, Congress passed a federal flag desecration law, which was meant to mirror many of the state laws. The federal law made it illegal to knowingly cast contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it.
Then there were a bunch of Supreme Court cases under the very liberal Warren Court that carved a lot of that back the other way, including in 1969 saying that you could curse the flag, in 1974 saying that you could sew the flag to your pants, or you could sit on it in a way to shame it.
That culminated in the Texas v. Johnson decision, which was written by Justice William Brennan, which found that flag burning was symbolic speech and that the Texas statute was content-based. Justice Scalia, the deciding vote in that case, said, “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy, bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king.”
But as Justice William Rehnquist wrote in dissent, “In holding this Texas statute unconstitutional, the court ignores Justice Holmes&#8217;s familiar aphorism that a page of history is worth a volume of logic. For more than 200 years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our nation; the uniqueness that justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way respondent Johnson did here.”
He pointed out that every single state except for Alaska and Wyoming had statutes at the time prohibiting the burning of the flag. He added that the “American flag, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party. It does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another idea or point of view, competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the act of Congress, and the laws in 48 of the 50 states which make criminal the public burning of the flag. The government may conscript men into the armed forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight?”
Rehnquist was right about that.
On the merits, President Trump is not wrong. Flag burning is bad. And the executive order does not prohibit flag burning per se, as Trump has no power to do that.
Another reason the order is good is that it is smart politics. You’re now going to see a bunch of lefties going out in the streets burning the American flag, which is precisely what Trump is tempting them to do. He’s baiting them.
President Trump is saying, “You believe that America is all about burning the American flag? That American citizenship is about &#8216;Dissent is patriotic?'&#8221;
Americans don’t like burning the American flag.
The American flag is special. I&#8217;ve backed a constitutional amendment that would criminalize flag burning for my entire political career. That’s because, as our institutions fall apart, we have less and less fealty to anything in common.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Fealty to the American flag remains, along with fealty to the Constitution of the United States, the basis for being a good American.
You should love the American flag. It&#8217;s the flag of your country. You should love the Constitution of the United States, the organizing founding document of our country.
If you are going to form an Americanism around ideas, loyalty, and love for the country, the American flag is a very good place to start.

President Trump Signs Executive Orders In The Oval Office Of The White House

Trump Protects The American Flag

American Flag

Antonin Scalia

Ben Shapiro

President Trump

The Trump administration rolled out new guidance on Monday that makes it clear that federal workers are allowed to invite their co-workers to church and share their religious beliefs with them. 
The <a href="https://www.chcoc.gov/content/reasonable-accommodations-religious-purposes">memo</a> issued by Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor seeks to ensure the protection of religious liberty for federal workers. It provides examples of permitted religious expression in the workplace and specifies that such conversations must remain respectful and not be disruptive. 
“Federal employees should never have to choose between their faith and their career,” Kupor said. “This guidance ensures the federal workplace is not just compliant with the law but welcoming to Americans of all faiths. Under President Trumpʼs leadership, we are restoring constitutional freedoms and making government a place where people of faith are respected, not sidelined.”
The guidance says that federal workers may “engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature.”
An example of this kind of religious expression would include one employee trying to persuade another to convert to their faith during a break. 
Federal employees are also free to direct their expressions of faith to members of the public at certain times. Examples given included “a park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer,” and “a doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery.”
“An employee’s fundamental rights, as a private citizen, of personal religious expression are not limited by the venue or hearer, or merely because the employee is a government employee, and therefore may not be suppressed due to the religious nature of the expression,” the memo said. “However, when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”
The guidance also says that federal employees can display personal religious items like Bibles, artwork, jewelry, mezuzahs, and crosses at their workspace.
The Monday memo followed <a href="https://www.chcoc.gov/content/reasonable-accommodations-religious-purposes">guidance</a> from July 16 that allows for telework at certain times for religious reasons. The memo said that workers should be allowed to request to work remotely for purposes like the Sabbath or religious holidays, scheduled prayers, fasting, or other religious obligations. 
In February, Trump <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02635/establishment-of-the-white-house-faith-office">signed</a> an executive order establishing the White House Faith Office to promote religious liberty throughout his administration.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-POLITICS-TRUMP

New Trump Guidance Allows Federal Employees To Debate Religion With Co-Workers

Office of Personnel Management

Religion

Religious Liberty

Trump Administration

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican challenge to campaign finance regulations that restricts political parties from coordinating campaign spending with political candidates.
The challenge from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that restricting the amount parties can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment by restricting speech. The court is expected to hear arguments on the case when its fall 2025 term begins.
&#8220;The government should not restrict a party committee&#8217;s support for its own candidates. These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court&#8217;s decision to hear our case,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/NRSC/status/1939735374395232752" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> NRSC Chair Tim Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson. &#8220;Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.&#8221;
The case was originally brought by the NRSC and now-Vice President J.D. Vance back in 2022 in a challenge to restrictions on coordinated spending introduced by the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act.
In September 2024, the restrictions were <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0212p-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">upheld</a> by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision, the appeals court said that the NRSC made “fair points” about speech restrictions; it could not side with them because of previous Supreme Court precedent.
The precedent in question was the 2001 FEC vs. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated spending do not violate the First Amendment.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
“The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as applied challenges,” the Sixth Circuit Court wrote in its September decision.
In its December 2024 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/333312/20241204134722325_NRSC%20v.%20FEC%20Cert%20Petition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> to the Supreme Court, the NRSC said that Congress &#8220;has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.”
“Should this Court decline to take this case, future litigants will interpret that decision as proof that, whatever the Court has said in more recent campaign-finance cases, it is content to leave the political parties as second-class holders of First Amendment rights,” they wrote.
The Trump administration has signaled support for the challenge, while the Supreme Court allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in support of the campaign finance restrictions.

Supreme Court Releases Decisions On Final Day Of Term

Supreme Court To Hear GOP Free Speech Challenge To Campaign Spending Restrictions

campaign donation

Courts

Republicans

Tim Scott

A lawyer who defended many of the peaceful pro-life protesters targeted by the Biden administration praised the House Judiciary Committee for voting to repeal the decades-old statute used to put them behind bars. 
Steve Crampton, a lawyer with the Thomas More Society, told The Daily Wire that it was “very encouraging” that the Judiciary Committee passed a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/589/all-actions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bill</a> on Tuesday from Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The FACE Act, first passed in 1994, is a law that makes obstructing access to an abortion facility a federal crime and ostensibly provides the same protections for churches and pregnancy centers.  
In reality, Crampton noted, the law has been used to go after peaceful pro-life demonstrators, while attacks on churches and crisis pregnancy centers are often ignored. Data obtained by Roy show that 97% of all FACE Act prosecutions since 1994 have been against pro-lifers.
“You have ample law under state law and elsewhere to prosecute truly violent undertakings,” Crampton told The Daily Wire. “All the FACE Act adds is the physical obstruction component, which is targeted at peaceful civil disobedience acts that have historically been really cherished and celebrated in our country, rather than singled out for harsh federal prosecutions.”
Throughout multiple federal trials, Crampton defended peaceful pro-life protesters, such as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kidnapped-at-gunpoint-pro-life-activist-testifies-about-harrowing-fbi-raid-of-home" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paul Vaughn</a> in Tennessee and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-life-activist-sentenced-to-over-four-years-in-prison-over-protest-at-d-c-abortion-facility" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lauren Handy</a> in Washington, D.C., who were convicted under both FACE and conspiracy against rights charges during the Biden administration. Both faced over a decade in prison. Handy was sentenced to over four years in prison, while Vaughn was sentenced to home detention. 
In January, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/they-should-not-have-been-prosecuted-trump-pardons-23-pro-lifers-targeted-by-biden-doj" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pardoned</a> the pro-life protesters, freeing Handy and others from federal prison. Trump’s Justice Department also issued a memo saying FACE would only be prosecuted in cases of extreme violence. 
Crampton said he was disappointed to see California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock voice opposition to repealing FACE during Tuesday’s hearing, as he argued that the law was neutral but abused by the Biden administration. Crampton said the law was inherently content-based, noting that you could only be charged under FACE if your intent was to prevent abortion and not just obstruction in general. He also said that the bias of the law &#8220;screams through the statistics&#8221; of the prosecutions. 
Vaughn, a Christian father of 11 whose Tennessee home was raided by armed FBI agents, told The Daily Wire he was happy to see the repeal advance. 
“The reality is it&#8217;s never done anything other than provide a federal hammer to be used against the pro-life community,” he said. “There&#8217;s not a law that it covers, that is not already a state law, or is not an infraction that it covers, it&#8217;s not covered under a state law.”
Vaughn says he would also like to see reforms brought to the conspiracy against rights provision from the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, which Biden’s Justice Department paired with FACE in their cases against the pro-lifer protesters. That meant that Vaughn and others — like 89-year-old communist concentration camp survivor Eva Edl — faced over 10 years in prison. 
Crampton agreed, noting that he would like to see the provision heavily revised to ensure First Amendment protections or even done away with altogether. He thinks that FACE should be dealt with first because state attorneys general still bring FACE prosecutions under the law even if the Trump administration is not active. 
FACE “remains a very, very powerful weapon in the hands of these left-wing attorneys general,” Crampton told The Daily Wire, adding that &#8220;protecting fundamental First Amendment rights ought to be of the highest priority in our national debate&#8221; and that pro-life advocates should &#8220;keep charging forward.&#8221; 
A full vote on the repeal has not yet been scheduled for the House, and the legislation would likely have an uphill battle in the Senate. Republican Senators such as Mike Lee of Utah and Josh Hawley of Missouri have been very outspoken about the weaponization of the FACE Act.

US-POLITICS-BIDEN

Lawyer Who Fought Biden’s FACE Act Weaponization Urges GOP To ‘Keep Charging Forward’ On Repeal

Biden Administration

Chip Roy

FACE Act

House Judiciary Committee

Pro-Life Movement

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic charity that sued Wisconsin after it was mandated to pay certain unemployment taxes while other religious organizations were exempted.
In its <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-154_2b82.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a>, the court struck down a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that said the Catholic Charities Bureau had to pay taxes on unemployment compensation. The court said that the interpretation of state tax law by Wisconsin&#8217;s Supreme Court violated the First Amendment.
&#8220;The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny,&#8221; Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority decision. &#8220;The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of [Wisconsin law] imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.&#8221;
Catholic Charities Bureau is an organization that provides services to poor people, the disabled, the elderly, and children with special needs as a ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior. According to its <a href="https://ccbsuperior.org/about-us/">website</a>, it provides around 50 programs to over 10,500 people.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, saying that in addition to violating the First Amendment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine, which means that a religious institution is not defined by any corporate entity it may form.
&#8220;I would reverse for an additional reason — that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine,&#8221; Thomas wrote. &#8220;However incorporated, Catholic Charities and its subentities are, from a religious perspective, a mere arm of the Diocese of Superior. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should have deferred to that understanding, and its failure to do so amounted to an unlawful attempt by the State to redefine the Diocese’s internal governance.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Thomas noted that the government could not use entities created by religious institutions as a backdoor means to regulate their internal governance.
&#8220;In short, the corporation is made for the church, not the church for the corporation. Both the basic principles of church autonomy and the history of religious corporations establish that religious institutions are more than the corporate entities that they form,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;It follows that the government may not use such entities as a means of regulating the internal governance of religious institutions.&#8221;
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also issued a separate concurring opinion.

Menu