The Supreme Court issued one of its most clarifying rulings in years on Tuesday, directly challenging the cancellation efforts of modern progressivism, and the reaction from the progressive Left revealed everything you need to know about who actually believes in freedom and who doesn’t.
In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/03/supreme-court-sides-with-therapist-in-challenge-to-colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy/">Chiles v. Salazar</a>, the Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” — specifically, talk therapy that helps minors explore whether their gender dysphoria might resolve in alignment with their biological sex — violates the First Amendment rights of licensed counselor Kaley Chiles. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, put it <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-539_fd9g.pdf">poetically</a>: laws that “suppress speech based on viewpoint represent an egregious assault” on First Amendment commitments. The ruling wasn’t close. It was a near-unanimous recognition that the government cannot dictate which therapeutic conversations are permissible and which are forbidden based on the ideological conclusion it prefers. Tuesday’s ruling should send a chill down the spine of other states that have taken similar action.
Enter Governor Andy Beshear (D-KY).
<a href="https://x.com/AndyBeshearKY/status/2039018698451677322?s=20">Beshear</a> decried the ruling, saying that “conversion therapy is torture,” and invoked his progressive Christian faith to say that “my faith teaches me that all children are children of God and practices that endanger or harm them are wrong.”
Beshear is welcome to espouse his convictions of faith in public life, including as a sitting governor (even if they depart from biblical teaching). He is not welcome to abuse it in the service of a philosophical position that he and other progressives fail to reason through with consistency.
Here is the question he, along with all other leftists, cannot or refuse to answer: If you affirm a minor’s right to pursue medical intervention — puberty blockers, hormones, surgeries — to align their body with their perceived gender identity, on what principled basis do you deny another minor the right to pursue talk therapy exploring whether their dysphoria might resolve without drastic intervention? Both involve a young person, a clinical professional, and a question about identity. The only difference is the direction of the therapeutic goal. And those goals are set against what progressivism thinks sufficiently aligned with its own aims. Beshear supports state-sponsored medical intervention when the conclusion is sufficiently progressive and lines up with what he bills as compassionate; he abandons the language of compassion when it runs contrary to leftist goals for using the government to advance transgender ideology.
The compassionate appeal to “children of God” is theologically sound as far as it goes — every Christian affirms it. But it proves too much and too little simultaneously. It proves too much because it could be deployed to ban any therapy a state deems harmful. It proves too little because it says nothing about which therapeutic goals are legitimate, which is the actual question before us. That’s an anthropological question, one that liberals do not like to answer because modern progressive anthropology lies on flimsy, irrational grounds, unable to determine what a man or woman even is. What Beshear wants is for his theological sentiments to do the intellectual work that his empty platitudes cannot. But a magistrate charged with upholding the common good owes citizens more than sentiment (Rom. 13:1-7). He owes them a coherent account of what a man and woman are, and which identity claims warrant medical affirmation and which warrant further reflection — and why. He has not given one. He cannot give one, because the moment he tries, the internal contradictions of progressive gender ideology become impossible to ignore.
Consider the logical structure on display in the leftist outcries to Tuesday’s decision:
Progressives opposed the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-skrmetti/">Skrmetti</a> decision, the Tennessee law banning puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors, on the grounds that the state should not prevent individuals from pursuing medical interventions aligned with their gender identity. The watchword was choice. Bodily autonomy. Access to care.
Now those same leftists cheer when states ban a licensed counselor from having a conversation with a minor who voluntarily seeks to explore whether their dysphoria might be addressed without medical transition. The watchword is now “protection.” Safety. Science.
The contradiction is absurd. When a teenager wants hormones, progressivism demands the state get out of the way. When a teenager wants to talk to a therapist about living in accordance with biological reality, progressivism demands the state intervene. This is the enforcement of ideological conformity through the selective and weaponized deployment of the language of compassion.
Progressivism is not, at root, about expanding choices. It is about ratifying the correct choices — the ones that affirm the progressive account of identity, selfhood, and liberation. Every other choice, including the choice to embrace one’s given sex, is categorized as harm, trauma, or abuse.
Kaley Chiles was not torturing anyone. She was a Christian counselor who believed — correctly, as it happens — that talk therapy aimed at helping a young person live at peace with biological reality is a legitimate therapeutic goal. Eight justices agreed that Colorado (which now has a long track record of punishing people of faith and losing, thanks to Alliance Defending Freedom) had no business shutting her up.
All children are indeed children of God. That is precisely why they deserve honest counsel and the opportunity to hear the truth about their design.
***
Andrew T. Walker is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Managing Editor of WORLD Opinions. He is a Fellow at The Ethics and Public Policy Center.

US-NEWS-KYGOV-TRANSGENDER-HEALTHCARE-LX

Someone Ask Andy Beshear A Hard Question

Conversion Therapy

Courts

First Amendment

gender ideology

A pro-life group challenged a Detroit ordinance creating a speech buffer zone around abortion facilities, arguing that the city’s policy violates the First Amendment.
The group Sidewalk Advocates for Life sued Detroit in federal court on Wednesday over an ordinance it passed instituting a 15 foot buffer zone around all abortion facilities where pro-life advocates cannot enter. The ordinance also creates an eight foot floating buffer within 100 feet of an abortion facility for any client.
“The Ordinance, which is enforceable through criminal penalties, violates the Free Speech, Free Exercise, and Freedom of Assembly Clauses of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as the Michigan Constitution,” said the <a href="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/63d954d4e4ad424df7819d46/69bb229374c5d96c3dd7e4c6_DE%201-Complaint_SAFL%20v%20City%20of%20Detroit.pdf">lawsuit</a>, which was filed by the Thomas More Society.
Kevin Hammer, a member of Sidewalk Advocates, said that the ordinance bans him from handing out pro-life literature while holding a sign reading “Ask Me About Free Ultrasounds and Pregnancy Tests” outside of the Scotsdale Women’s Center in Detroit, Michigan.
“Our Sidewalk Advocates stand on public sidewalks offering a gentle word and information to women who are willing to receive it—that is what this ordinance criminalizes,” said Lauren Muzyka, the president and CEO of Sidewalk Advocates for Life.
The suit points out that a recent <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/brown-v-city-pittsburgh/">decision</a> from the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a similar ordinance implemented by Pittsburgh. The court said that the buffer zone ordinance was overly burdensome on free speech.
Detroit’s ordinance was passed in 2024 and <a href="https://mcclibraryfunctions.azurewebsites.us/api/ordinanceDownload/10649/1365639/pdf">says</a> that “no person, within a 100-foot radius of any entrance door to a healthcare facility, shall knowingly approach within eight feet of another person for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education or counseling with such other person in the public right-of-way unless such other person consents.”
The suit says that this stipulation substantially burdens speech and does not serve a compelling government interest.
“This ordinance does not protect anyone,” said Thomas More Society head of litigation Peter Breen. “It makes it a crime to stand on a public sidewalk and offer a woman a choice. The government cannot wall off the public square so that women never hear they have alternatives to abortion.”

Supreme Court Issues Last Rulings Of Its Term

The Fight Over Free Speech Heats Up. Women In Crisis Could Pay The Price.

Abortion

Detroit

Michigan

Pro-Life Movement

U.S.

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

Censorship

European Union

Free Speech

House Judiciary Committee

Jim Jordan

Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) is refusing to comply with a Justice Department investigation into a video she helped organize that urged U.S. service members to resist what she described as “illegal orders,” escalating a standoff with federal prosecutors.
Slotkin said this week she will not sit for a voluntary interview with investigators, saying in a <a href="https://x.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/2019474013307715592">statement</a> on X Thursday, “I’m not gonna be sitting for this inquiry. I’m not gonna legitimize their actions,” even as her legal team prepares for what it says could become litigation against the Justice Department.
Slotkin’s attorney informed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro that the senator would decline a voluntary interview and requested that the office preserve documents for “anticipated litigation,” in letters first obtained by the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/slotkin-illegal-orders-video-justice-department-interview-06b6c041b158b2ed5911c52a16868764">Associated Press</a>. A separate letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi urged her to immediately terminate the inquiry and reject an FBI interview request.
The investigation stems from a video Slotkin released last year alongside five other Democratic lawmakers, all with prior military or intelligence experience, urging active-duty service members to refuse orders they believe to be unlawful. Republicans criticized the video as reckless and potentially encouraging insubordination, while President Donald Trump publicly accused the lawmakers of sedition.
Slotkin has sought to reframe the video as a civics lesson rather than a call to disobedience, insisting it was meant only to remind troops of their duty to reject illegal commands. But she has simultaneously accused federal authorities of attempting to silence her through intimidation.
“They are purposely using physical and legal intimidation to get me to shut up,” Slotkin said. “But more importantly, they’re using that intimidation to deter others from speaking out against their administration.”
Slotkin further warned officials at the Justice Department that while recent Supreme Court rulings have expanded presidential immunity, those protections do not extend to officials enforcing the law on the president’s behalf.
 “The Supreme Court may have given the president near-immunity on most matters,” she said, “but they’ve given no such immunity to those doing his bidding.”
The Justice Department’s requests have so far been voluntary, placing the burden on prosecutors to decide whether to escalate the inquiry by issuing subpoenas to sitting members of Congress. Asked whether she would comply if subpoenaed, Slotkin paused before responding, saying only that she would “take a hard look at it.”
Slotkin has portrayed the investigation as part of a broader campaign of intimidation, citing threats against her family and property following renewed attention to the video. “If they can do this to a sitting senator,” she said, “just imagine what they could do to a community leader, a business leader, or a mom who goes viral on the internet.”
The dispute has also raised questions about accountability for lawmakers who invoke military authority in partisan messaging, even as Slotkin positions herself as a victim of political overreach. The Pentagon has separately investigated Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), another participant in the video, while Kelly has sued over efforts to discipline him.
Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and three-term House member before winning her Senate seat in 2024, has increasingly leaned into confrontation with the Trump administration. She has publicly urged Democrats to abandon restraint, “I&#8216;m from the Midwest and for us, leaders like our coaches are just — they have got some alpha energy to them,” Slotkin said when asked how she’d fix Democratic messaging in 2025. 
Her push to bring “alpha energy” back to the party has coincided with a divisive start to her Senate tenure. “I did this to go on offense,” Slotkin said of her refusal to cooperate. “To put them in a position where they have to own their choices.”
Whether that strategy forces the Justice Department to retreat now rests with federal prosecutors weighing how far to press an investigation into members of Congress who are openly daring them to act.

Elissa Slotkin

Dem Senator Thumbs Her Nose At DOJ, Rejects Call To Answer For ‘Illegal Orders’ Video

Dem Senator Refuses To Comply With DOJ Investigation On 'Illegal Orders' Video

Jeanine Pirro

Mark Kelly

Ousted CNN anchor Don Lemon embarked on a post-arrest press tour of sorts, joining late night host Jimmy Kimmel to complain about President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration and the arrest he claimed was proof of a campaign of &#8220;intimidation.&#8221;
Lemon joined Kimmel on Monday evening, and the ABC host outdid himself in his efforts to help Lemon paint himself as the victim in a grand scheme — orchestrated by President Trump&#8217;s Justice Department, of course — designed to &#8220;intimidate&#8221; Lemon and others like him into silence.
Kimmel opened the segment by first skipping over the video that appears to show Lemon discussing plans with protest organizers prior to entering the church and then repeatedly referring to Lemon as a &#8220;journalist&#8221; who just happened to be there to record whatever transpired.
Lemon repeated the same as if to reassure the audience that he was, in fact, acting solely as a journalist. &#8220;I&#8217;m not a protester,&#8221; he insisted.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Jimmy Kimmel tries justifying Don Lemon storming a church because he&#8217;s a &#8220;journalist&#8221; and not a protester.
Barging into a church and disrupting service isn&#8217;t journalism, Jimmy. It&#8217;s a blatant violation of federal law.<a href="https://t.co/uUKkUKXGNJ">pic.twitter.com/uUKkUKXGNJ</a>
— MRC NewsBusters (@newsbusters) <a href="https://twitter.com/newsbusters/status/2018557195189702734?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The pair followed that by suggesting that the Justice Department had essentially crowd-sourced the decision to arrest Lemon, taking their cues from right-leaning social media accounts rather than the evidence — and complained that Lemon had been arrested without being offered the chance to quietly surrender himself to law enforcement.
They immediately shifted focus to the judges who&#8217;d <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/appeals-court-finds-probable-cause-to-charge-don-lemon-but-rejects-dojs-bid-to-force-arrest-warrant">declined to sign off</a> on a warrant to arrest Lemon, but ignored the fact that a grand jury had found probable cause to indict him, and at least one of the judges had agreed with their assessment.
Lemon went on to muddy the waters around the grand jury indictment by suggesting that prosecutors could write &#8220;whatever they want&#8221; in an indictment and would never face repercussions if it was not true.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH: Jimmy Kimmel and Don Lemon mischaracterize both the appellate process and the grand jury. Not once do you hear an acknowledgement that the grand jury found probable cause. <a href="https://t.co/z5uvDEiCWN">pic.twitter.com/z5uvDEiCWN</a>
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) <a href="https://twitter.com/BonillaJL/status/2018554887399788839?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 3, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/don-lemon-claims-trump-will-go-around-a-judge-to-prosecute-him">Lemon said</a> in the days leading up to his arrest, he believed the Trump administration would &#8220;go around&#8221; a judge or possibly even &#8220;retrofit&#8221; laws in an effort to get him, declaring afterward that he was not concerned with the possibility that he could land behind bars, and saying that he planned to be even more outspoken in the days to come.
President Donald Trump, who was asked about the situation while aboard Air Force One over the weekend, made it clear that he did not like Lemon, but said that he was unaware of plans to have him arrested before they were carried out.

DON LEMON, JIMMY KIMMEL

Don Lemon Kicks Off Post-Arrest Press Tour With Jimmy Kimmel Interview

Don Lemon

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

Jimmy Kimmel

Media

Politics

A Christian evangelist&#8217;s battle with a Mississippi city over street preaching took center stage at the Supreme Court on Wednesday as the justices heard arguments that could have far-reaching consequences for Americans who want to defend their constitutional rights in federal court. 
The case <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/24-00993qp.pdf">revolves</a> around whether 33-year-old Gabriel Olivier can challenge an ordinance from Brandon, Mississippi, that restricted street preaching in a public park outside of a local amphitheater. Olivier, who was convicted in 2021 of street preaching outside of the designated area, is now attempting to overturn the ordinance on First Amendment grounds. 
“This is a really important case,  for Christians specifically, because I noticed that all around the country, there&#8217;s always an exercise of free speech [that] does not seem to be cracked down on the way that Christians&#8217; free speech is nowadays,” Olivier told The Daily Wire in an interview. 
The city of Brandon argues that Olivier cannot challenge the ordinance in federal court because he has previously been convicted of violating it. Olivier says that he doesn’t want to revisit the 2021 conviction, for which he paid a fine, but wants to protect his right to share his faith in the future. 
During oral arguments on Wednesday, the justices seemed sympathetic to Olivier’s arguments that he should be able to seek relief in federal court despite his previous conviction. Nate Kellum, a lawyer with First Liberty Institute representing Olivier, told The Daily Wire that he was encouraged by the questions he heard from the justices. 
Kellum said that all he wants is for Olivier to have his day in court to argue against the ordinance and make an appeal for his First Amendment rights. 
“Everybody, regardless of their ideology and their belief, deserves their day in court,” Olivier said. “We&#8217;re just asking that people would continue to pray for us.”
The Trump administration is <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1414041/dl">supporting</a> Olivier’s petition, as are a number of other conservative organizations. 
The ordinance implemented by Brandon, a suburb east of Jackson, restricts protest activity in the park surrounding the city&#8217;s amphitheater to a designated area when events are being held. 
“What the ordinance does is it puts him in a place where no one can hear him,” Kellum told The Daily Wire. “You can&#8217;t have a conversation.  You can&#8217;t hand out literature. If he preaches, he cannot be heard, and if he held up a sign, no one could read it. And so that seemed to be the whole idea, is that the city wanted to pass a law that separated him from his would-be audience.”
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
The city and some legacy outlets have attempted to suggest that Olivier shouted rude or inappropriate things during his previous outings at the park. 
“It&#8217;s patently false. And it seems to be an attempt to try to malign Gabe, malign his character,” Kellum said. “But if Gabe or really anyone else would say anything that would amount to fighting words or could be something that could lead to an altercation, there&#8217;s disorderly conduct ordinances.”
Olivier first went to the park in 2019, where he had productive conversations about his faith with others. But when he returned in 2021, the city had passed an ordinance against such evangelism. His passion for street evangelism comes from his own conversion ten years ago when he encountered a street preacher. 
“I see it very clearly as a command in scripture,” he said. “And so I choose to do that and exercise the rights that we have enjoyed here in America. And we would like for an opportunity to continue to fight for those rights to be upheld.”
Todd Butler, the attorney representing Brandon, said in a statement to The Daily Wire: &#8220;The City of Brandon was excited to present its position to the Court. The case before the Supreme Court is not about the constitutionality of the ordinance or religious expression. It is about whether a person who has been found guilty in criminal court may undermine his conviction through a civil tort lawsuit. The importance of this case cannot be overstated as it will impact cities across the country.&#8221;

MixCollage-04-Dec-2025-02-39-PM-4809

Supreme Court To Weigh In On Christian Evangelist’s Street Preaching Battle With City

Street Preaching Heads To Court: Evangelist’s Battle With City Heard By Supreme Court

Christianity

Mississippi

Supreme Court

A coalition of pro-life crisis pregnancy centers won a big victory on Monday against New York Attorney General Letitia James over her targeting of organizations that promote a protocol that can help a mother save her child if she regrets taking an abortion pill.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit <a href="https://adflegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/nifla-v-james-2025-12-01-appellate-opinion.pdf">affirmed</a> that the coalition has a First Amendment right to speak about the abortion pill reversal protocol, a process that is meant for women who want to counter the effects of taking an abortion-inducing drug. In 2024, James <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2024/attorney-general-james-sues-anti-abortion-group-and-11-new-york-crisis-pregnancy">sued</a> 11 faith-based pregnancy centers for their promotion of the protocol, claiming they were spreading false and misleading information.
“Many women regret their abortions, and some change their minds after taking the first abortion drug and want to try to save their unborn babies’ lives. They should be allowed to hear about this option and make that choice,” said Caroline Lindsay, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom who represented the coalition in court.
The protocol is a method <a href="https://lozierinstitute.org/abortion-pill-reversal-a-record-of-safety-and-efficacy/">backed</a> by a coalition of pro-life organizations and involves a woman taking a prescribed dose of bioidentical progesterone to potentially reverse the effects of Mifepristone and save an unborn child if she changes her mind at the last minute about going through with the abortion.
The coalition was composed of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Gianna’s House, and Options Care Center. While James did not sue them over the abortion pill reversal protocol, they argued in court that her actions could infringe on their free speech rights. A district court agreed, granting the coalition an injunction against James. The appeals court on Monday upheld that decision.
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
“The district court correctly determined that the speech at issue is noncommercial because, based on the uncontroverted evidence in the current record, the speech is religiously and morally motivated, the [National Institute of Family and Life Advocates] plaintiﬀs receive no remuneration or other financial benefit for engaging in it, and, as the NIFLA plaintiﬀs do not provide [Abortion Pill Reversal] themselves, the speech serves only to provide the public with information about [Abortion Pill Reversal] and access to third-party providers that can oﬀer [Abortion Pill Reversal],” the judges wrote.
In May 2024, James <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-york-crisis-pregnancy-centers-pick-up-legal-victory-against-letitia-james">announced</a> a suit against Heartbeat International and 11 pregnancy center organizations for promoting the abortion pill reversal protocol. James claimed that the organization was “spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising &#8216;abortion reversals&#8217; without any medical and scientific proof.”
Heartbeat International says that the lives of over 7,000 babies have been saved through the abortion pill reversal protocol. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether a Christian pregnancy center can challenge New Jersey over a wide-ranging subpoena it issued related to the protocol.

NYC Early Voting Surges Ahead Of Nov. 4 Mayoral Election

Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers Pick Up Big Win Against New York AG Letitia James

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Letitia James

New York

pregnancy centers

For all the hysterical claims that President Donald Trump is some sort of First Amendment supervillain, the reality is precisely the opposite. Trump has done more to defend constitutionally protected speech and to dismantle the most coordinated censorship regime in modern American history than any president in living memory.
But don’t tell that to the New York Times, NPR, or the ladies at The View. According to them, Trump is basically moments away from burning the Bill of Rights on live TV.
Why the disconnect? The modern Left has confused breaking norms with breaking laws, and those are two very different things.
Norms are unwritten rules, handshake agreements shaped by cultural institutions. Over decades, those institutions shifted left and rewrote the norms to ensure that public policy always bends in their direction. One glaring example is the “norm” that government spending must increase every year at rates higher than inflation, substantially higher.
Laws, by contrast, are enforceable with financial penalties or jail time.
Trump breaks norms. The Left breaks laws and then screams “authoritarian!” when someone tries to enforce those laws. That, in a nutshell, is the dynamic between Trump and the Democrat Party today.
To understand the elitist media’s role in all this, start with the epic collapse of journalism. The press still loves calling itself the “Fourth Estate,” bravely speaking truth to power. That may have been true once, back when reporters described reality instead of trying to socially engineer it. But over time, journalism mutated, first through ideologically uniform J-schools, then through newsroom monocultures, into something far more partisan.
Post-Watergate hero fantasies turned reporters into crusaders. Conservative viewpoints disappeared. Elitists replaced objectivity with “moral clarity” — their euphemism for political activism.
This has led to the death of journalism. The vapors emanating from its stinking corpse have made it nearly impossible for so-called “reporters” to understand basic constitutional law. So let’s clarify.
The First Amendment protects a broad range of speech, but not all speech. Speech in service of a crime? Not protected. Offer a bribe and try claiming “free speech.” See how that goes. Defamation? Also not protected. And when you take a government handout, whether as a defense contractor or a publicly funded media broadcaster, you accept the regulatory conditions that come with it.
NPR and PBS assumed otherwise. They took billions from taxpayers while repeatedly violating the law that required them to “ensure strict adherence to objectivity and balance.” They assumed the norm, that they’d always get our money through Congressional earmarks, even while breaking the law.
Trump did what no other president has ever done: he broke that norm and enforced the law. His Federal Communications Commission Chairman, Brendan Carr, has done something similar with broadcasters. That’s not censorship. That’s accountability.
The same principle applies to universities. For years, the norm was that campuses would tolerate and even encourage criminal behavior under the guise of “social activism.” Blocking highways, occupying buildings, vandalizing property, and assaulting students was perfectly fine, as long as the rioters chanted the right slogans. But the First Amendment doesn’t magically convert crime into protected speech. Trump ended that law-breaking norm, too.
None of this alone makes Trump the “greatest defender of free speech.” His words and his deeds earn him that gold model.
Just before taking the oath of office for the second time, Trump laid down the truth long forgotten by the left: “If we don’t have free speech, then we just don’t have a free country. … If this most fundamental right is allowed to perish, then the rest of our rights and liberties will topple, just like dominoes.” 
Trump’s actions followed suit. He and his administration have eviscerated the sprawling censorship apparatus built by President Joe Biden.
MRC Free Speech America has shown how the Biden administration operated the <a href="https://mrcfreespeechamerica.org/biden-censorship-initiatives-tracker">most expansive government-driven censorship system in U.S. history</a>. Not metaphorically. Literally.
A few &#8220;lowlights” from the Biden censorship regime include: federal agencies pressuring social media platforms to suppress lawful political speech; agencies partnering with private entities to provide “plausible deniability” while carrying out government censorship goals, and government “switchboards” funneling thousands of takedown demands, creating lists of posts to hide, throttle, or erase.
Biden’s objective wasn’t about fighting “misinformation,” as he has claimed. It was about controlling and shaping narratives before an election. This was speech policing.
This was government censorship.
This was illegal.
Trump tore it apart.
Through executive orders, personnel changes, and directives barring government censorship, Trump dismantled Biden’s censorship machine. Platforms can no longer hide behind federal pressure, and bureaucrats can no longer run secret speech-surveillance pipelines.
That is what defending the First Amendment looks like. Not symbolic gestures. Not pretty rhetoric. Real action. Real results. Restoring the foundational principle that in America, the government does not decide which opinions are allowed.
No other president has done more to defend the First Amendment. Trump truly has made free speech great again.
* * *
Dan Schneider is Vice President for Free Speech at 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.
* * *
<h4>Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are fifty percent off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.</h4>

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-TRUMP

By Dismantling Biden’s Censorship Machine, Trump Made Free Speech Great Again

Biden Administration

Donald Trump

Journalism

Media Research Center

Opinion

President Trump

Social Media Bias

Social Media Censorship

A bipartisan coalition of former Federal Communications Commission officials is <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/fcc-chair-trump-kimmel-60-minutes-policy-abc-disney-distortion-cbs-rcna243495">demanding</a> that the agency scrap a long‑standing rule they say has become a political weapon — the FCC’s so‑called “news distortion” policy.
The petition, submitted by the liberal activist group Protect Democracy, is signed by seven former commissioners — five Republicans and two Democrats — and multiple senior staffers, all warning that the agency has crossed into dangerous territory by threatening broadcasters over editorial decisions. The policy, dating back decades, authorizes the FCC to penalize stations that “deliberately distort” factual news reports. For years, it was mostly dormant — until Trump‑appointed FCC Chair Brendan Carr began citing it in fights with television networks.
In February, Carr <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/fcc-chairman-brendan-carr-continues-013226663.html">invoked</a> the rule when his agency investigated CBS’ “60 Minutes” for allegedly misleading viewers in an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris — a flap that coincided with Trump’s separate $20 billion lawsuit against CBS’ parent company, Paramount, which later settled for $16 million.
Then came the Jimmy Kimmel episode. After the comedian mocked conservatives for supposedly politicizing the murder of activist Charlie Kirk, Carr suggested that ABC affiliates airing “Jimmy Kimmel Live” could face fines or license revocation under the distortion policy. ABC later suspended Kimmel, only to reinstate him a week later after blowback ensued.
In the petition, former FCC heads — including Obama‑era Democrat Tom Wheeler and Reagan‑era Republican Mark Fowler — warn that the agency has “no legitimate interest” in policing speech and is courting lawfare by meddling in content. Gigi Sohn, a longtime media reform advocate who advised Wheeler, argued the rule has morphed from a safeguard against fabrication into “a cudgel,” and that the FCC already possesses other mechanisms to address intentional deception.
Carr insists critics are distorting his words, saying he issued no threat and that stations acted on “business decisions.” Democratic commissioner Anna Gomez claims that Carr’s comments amount to intimidation designed to chill speech before any court challenge.
At stake is whether the FCC, an agency barred from censoring content under the First Amendment, should retain a discretionary rule.

Brendan Carr

Ex-FCC Officials Claim Carr’s ‘News Distortion’ Crackdown Threatens Free Speech

General

Two months after the assassination of Charlie Kirk on a college campus in Utah, a Turning Point USA event at the University of California, Berkeley, erupted in violence. <a href="https://calmatters.org/education/2025/11/uc-berkeley-turning-point-fights-arrests/">Over the course of several hours</a>, protesters tried to shut down the event, launched projectiles at attendees, engaged in physical altercations, and sent one attendee to the hospital. While this rightfully prompted an investigation by the Department of Justice’s <a href="https://x.com/AAGDhillon/status/1988272046741111268">Civil Rights Division</a>, the Berkeley riot, and indeed, Kirk’s assassination itself, point to a broader problem: the utter failure of American universities to foster intellectual diversity and a culture of free speech on their campuses.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We saw all of this at Berkeley back in 2017. <a href="https://twitter.com/UCBerkeley?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@UCBerkeley</a> was sued, and settled the case.
The <a href="https://twitter.com/CivilRights?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@CivilRights</a> will investigate what happened here, and I see several issues of serious concern regarding campus and local security and Antifa’s ability to operate with impunity in CA. <a href="https://t.co/aN7JzouXwl">https://t.co/aN7JzouXwl</a>
— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) <a href="https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/1988272046741111268?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 11, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
One reason Turning Point USA events and other events featuring conservative speakers turn violent is that college students are accustomed to living in ideological echo chambers. A <a href="https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/12/Faculty-Report-2024-Final.pdf">2024 report</a> by the nonpartisan Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) demonstrates with raw numbers just how bad the problem is. 55% of conservative faculty (compared to just 17% of liberal faculty) hide their political views to protect their jobs. Just 20% of respondents indicated that a conservative individual would be a somewhat or very positive fit in their department, compared to 71% agreeing that a liberal individual would be a positive addition. 47% of conservative faculty feel they cannot express their opinion on a subject because of how other faculty, students, or administrators would respond. While conservative students may be attending and even teaching classes, often unbeknownst to others, a Turning Point USA event may be the first time many students are exposed to the ideas they have learned to perceive as unacceptable or even evil.
Allowing Turning Point USA to hold events — only after imposing exorbitant security fees and forcing organizers through a Byzantine permitting process — is nowhere near enough. The First Amendment requires as much. Universities have an obligation to their students, and indeed, to the country, to expose students to a broad range of ideas. Rather than let racial diversity drive hiring decisions, universities should strive to ensure that conservative views are represented in social studies and humanities departments. Students should be exposed to the ideas of conservative philosophers, economists, and historians, just as they will invariably be exposed to those of liberal (and even Marxist) thinkers. Universities should cultivate debating societies where participants must advocate positions that differ from their own, and audiences are exposed to competing ideas. And when organizations like Turning Point USA host events, university leaders need not endorse the viewpoints their speakers express, but they should make clear that the speaker is welcome on campus. While a university president attending a Turning Point USA event would likely inflame controversy in the short term, it would send a strong signal that the university’s commitment to intellectual diversity is real.
Fostering open dialogue and the free exchange of ideas is only half the battle. University administrators should adopt zero-tolerance policies for efforts to interfere with others’ speech and learning on college campuses, violent and non-violent alike. Students who engage in violence must be disciplined, up to and including expulsion. Too many universities give students a free pass when their violence relates to a conservative speaker rather than some interpersonal squabble. But engaging in violence to shut down speech makes the conduct worse, not better, as it is inimical to the purpose of a university. Administrators should craft course evaluations that assess whether the instructor fostered a free exchange of ideas and take it seriously when instructors flunk this critical test. Professors who shut down speech or foster self-censorship should adapt to the new norms or find a different profession.
Charlie Kirk’s assassination should have served as a wake-up call to American universities. While the suspect was not a Utah Valley University student, the shooting nonetheless spoke to a broader failure in American higher education. Too many students see conservative viewpoints as tantamount to violence, and those viewpoints are thus seldom expressed. And when they are, such as at Turning Point USA’s recent event in Berkeley, a violent response is all too common. Universities must take action to reverse this erosion of free speech by prioritizing the robust exchange of opposing views and disciplining, rather than coddling, those who exercise a heckler’s veto against conservative speech.
* * *
Jesse Franklin-Murdock is the Miles Visiting Fellow at the Center for American Liberty and a counsel at Dhillon Law Group Inc., where his practice areas include political law and civil rights.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Turning Point USA Tour Event Held At University Of California, Berkeley

The Violence At Berkeley Exposes A Broader Failure In Higher Education

Berkeley, California

California

Charlie Kirk

Leftists

Political Violence

Rob Schneider

Turning Point USA

University of California Berkeley

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

Matt Walsh

Minneapolis

NYC Mayoral Race

Omar Fateh

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

Menu