Imagine tuning into a Sunday football game. Amid the flurry of touchdowns and tackles, the commercials are filled with familiar names — State Farm, Allstate, Liberty Mutual, and Farmers — vying for your dollars to cover your cars, homes, and personal liability. You have choices, and the competing advertisements are evidence of a robust marketplace where consumers benefit from price competition and innovation. But imagine if, alongside those ads, you could also shop for your health insurance — across state lines, no different than car or home coverage. Here lies a fundamental problem in American healthcare: you cannot buy most health insurance plans outside your own state. Unlike auto and home insurance, which have broad risk pools and interstate competition, health insurance markets remain balkanized, resulting in fewer choices and higher costs for consumers.
The roots of this uniquely American challenge date back to World War II, when the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration instituted wage and price controls to curb inflation. Employers, competing for talent but unable to boost salaries, <a href="https://www.aqpsearch.com/news/a-brief-history-of-employer-sponsored-healthcare">began offering health insurance as a fringe benefit</a> — a decision that intertwined employment and insurance in a way that persists today. At the time, it may have seemed like progress, but it has left countless Americans dependent on their employers for coverage. When jobs change, so does coverage, leaving those between jobs exposed and often without affordable options. Those ineligible for Medicaid — because their income is just above the cutoff — are especially at risk for being uninsured.
Decades later, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, commonly known as “Obamacare,&#8221; sought to address the coverage and affordability crisis — most acutely faced by people with preexisting conditions who previously found insurance unattainable unless provided through an employer. The ACA succeeded in expanding insurance coverage to millions, particularly through Medicaid expansion and the establishment of insurance marketplaces. However, for those who do not qualify for federal subsidies, premiums and deductibles have <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2025/10/14/how-obamacare-set-in-motion-todays-premium-crisis/">soared</a>. In many instances, families can face monthly premiums in the thousands, coupled with out-of-pocket costs so high that insurance feels more like catastrophic “coverage” than true protection. So while the ACA has done some good, it has not even come close to solving the affordability problem for which it is named.
The reasons for these persistent affordability issues are not mysterious. The underlying dynamics are straightforward, even as the system itself grows ever more complex. First, the ACA left state-level insurance monopolies untouched. Insurers still must navigate and adhere to rules that keep them within state lines, limiting the competitive pressure that could lower costs. Second, the oft-repeated promise from President Obama — “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” — proved optimistic at best. The law introduced <a href="https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/essential-health-benefits/">10 “essential health benefits”</a> that all compliant plans had to cover, forcing many consumers off less expensive plans that no longer met federal guidelines. As a result, they and many others have found themselves paying more for benefits they did not want or need, in effect <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2018/07/GT-GGLJ180016.pdf">subsidizing coverage for others</a>. The state of California even <a href="https://californiahealthline.org/news/article/covered-california-record-enrollment-aca-obamacare-subsidies-jeopardy/">brags</a> that most of those who are subsidized are provided with “Silver” plans, but doesn’t say how this is on the backs of those who can only afford “Bronze” plans. This is due to how the subsidy thresholds and cross-subsidization mechanisms work, which is grossly unfair.
Third, the entire model of private health insurance negotiation keeps true prices obscured from patients. When a patient asks for the “cash price” for a procedure, providers often cannot answer because what any individual owes depends on secretive agreements negotiated between insurers and healthcare providers. This lack of transparency keeps patients in the dark and undermines genuine market discipline.
So why, after all these years, have costs continued to rise with little improvement in affordability? The answer lies in political paralysis and conflicting priorities. Democrats, many of whom see the ACA as a bridge to “single-payer” or “Medicare for All,” have settled for more federal entanglement in healthcare. They frame healthcare as a universal right; yet, rights in a constitutional sense do not compel one party to render goods or services to another. Insurance, whether for health or property, is fundamentally a contract — a product someone may buy, not an entitlement.
Republicans, for their part, have ardently opposed the ACA for over a decade, but rarely offer comprehensive, workable alternatives. Their efforts have focused on repeal rather than reform, missing opportunities to build consensus around real improvements in price transparency, portability, and increased consumer choice.
What might genuine reform look like? First, Congress should act to preempt state laws that prevent insurers from <a href="https://manhattan.institute/article/reforming-health-insurance-competition-across-state-lines">selling across state lines</a>. This change would foster true competition, broaden risk pools, and, by analogy to auto and home insurance, drive down costs for most consumers. Second, policymakers should require transparent pricing from healthcare providers. Using the negotiated prices that already appear on every patient statement as a baseline, providers could set clear, upfront prices for services, allowing consumers to shop and plan accordingly. Third, the government should remove the “10 essential benefits” coverage requirement, letting consumers tailor plans to individual needs — just as with any other form of insurance — while maintaining the current requirement to cover those with preexisting conditions. High-risk pools, already used effectively in auto insurance for drivers with numerous or serious violations, could support those with extraordinary health risks without distorting the broader market.
In sum, addressing the high cost of American healthcare requires breaking up monopolies, shining a light on real prices, and empowering consumers to choose products that suit their needs, providing health insurance portability, and eventually ending employer-sponsored healthcare. Instead, employers could offer to cover or enhance existing employee policies as a fringe benefit, but the employee’s health insurance would no longer rely on any employer. Only then can Americans enjoy a health insurance marketplace as dynamic — and as affordable — as the ones that already exist for our cars and homes.
* * *
Walter Myers III is a Southern California-based Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
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>.

Democrats Fail To Extend Affordable Care Act Subsidies In Government Funding Deal

It’s Time To Say Goodbye To The Obamacare Failure

Affordable

Federal Government

Health Care

Health Insurance

Obamacare

Opinion

Seattle’s incoming mayor, Katie Wilson, will inherit a homelessness crisis that will define her ability to lead.
Seattle’s homeless population needs more than another round of aspirational promises. They need and deserve an operational reset grounded in compassion, accountability, and the courage to confront realities the city has failed to address for years.
She must replace press releases and ceremonial groundbreakings for housing that may never materialize with programs that support the homeless in reclaiming their lives from the grip of untreated mental illness, addiction, and dangerous encampments that have taken root throughout the city.
The scale of Seattle’s crisis is staggering. HUD’s 2024 Point-in-Time count identified <a href="https://kcrha.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Point-in-Time-Count-2024_King-County_final.pdf">16,868 people struggling with homelessness in King County</a> — 7,058 sheltered and 9,810 unsheltered — yet even this understates the emergency. It omits the thousands of K-12 students and their families couch-surfing or scraping together money for a few nights in a motel. And at the current 23% growth rate, Mayor Wilson will walk into office confronting a humanitarian emergency approaching 22,500 people.
Meanwhile, encampments proliferate, fentanyl deaths continue at historic highs, and families, businesses, and public workers bear the daily trauma of a system that is not working.
For years, Seattle has clung to the comforting illusion that more subsidized housing units alone will solve homelessness. Despite billions in public spending, housing pipelines remain clogged, construction timelines stretch into decades, and operating costs soar.
But for the majority of those living unsheltered — 78% of whom are struggling with serious mental illness or addiction — homelessness is not merely a housing shortage. It is the downstream consequence of untreated disease.
Often further complicating their illnesses is a condition called anosognosia that prevents them from recognizing their own illness. Consequently, they decline help not because they choose the street, but because their minds cannot see another path.
The mayor must change this trajectory.
If she intends to succeed where past administrations have failed, she must look to the <a href="https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2025/11/Local-Jurisdictions-Leverage-Homelessness-Reforms.pdf">Discovery Institute’s new report</a>, which details exactly how cities can harness forthcoming federal reforms to drive real results. 
Her reset must include:
<ol>
<li> Prioritize transitional and treatment-based recovery models</li>
</ol>
Seattle must stop investing disproportionately in permanent supportive housing that takes years to build and rarely addresses root causes. It must instead prioritize transitional recovery housing that is staffed with clinicians, case managers, and vocational supports, and must require engagement in these services as a condition of stay.
<ol start="2">
<li> Partner with high-performing recovery organizations</li>
</ol>
Non-profits such as We Heart Seattle and Union Gospel Mission Rescue Missions have a great track record in helping individuals transition to stability. These organizations know how to walk with people through trauma, detoxification, relapse, and rebuilding. Make these organizations central to the city’s strategy — not an afterthought.
<ol start="3">
<li> Empower and deploy multidisciplinary “CARE+” outreach units</li>
</ol>
Combine mental health professionals, emergency responders, and trained law enforcement to intervene proactively, stabilize crises, and compel psychiatric or addiction evaluations when individuals pose clear risks to themselves or others. Washington’s Involuntary Treatment Act already provides necessary tools, but they must be used more consistently and, of course, humanely.
<ol start="4">
<li> Enforce public health and safety laws to restore order while providing pathways to treatment</li>
</ol>
In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the Supreme Court affirmed that Seattle can ban public camping to restore order and safety for all residents. In tandem with this effort, the city must provide the homeless with restorative programs.
<ol start="5">
<li> Demand performance, not platitudes, at every level of the system</li>
</ol>
Seattle must instill accountability at every level of the homeless system: from the individual, to the non-profit, to the government officials responsible for the homeless system.
It must measure outcomes and provide quarterly dashboards on those outcomes and the spending required to achieve those outcomes. Housing without treatment is a revolving door. Harm reduction without recovery is slow-motion abandonment. But it doesn’t have to stay this way.
Katie, you have the chance to lead Seattle into a future where compassion is not a slogan, but a force that restores people and the city they call home.
This is your moment. History will remember the mayor who chose courage over habit, transformation over stagnation. Seattle’s soul is waiting to be mended. Now is the time to lead the city there.
* * *
Michele Steeb is the founder of Free Up Foundation and author of “Answers Behind the RED DOOR: Battling the Homeless Epidemic,” based on her 13 years as CEO of Northern California’s largest program for homeless women and children. She is a Visiting Fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Fix Homelessness Initiative. Follow them on Twitter: @SteebMichele and @DiscoveryCWP.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
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>.

Seattle Street with Homeless Encampment and Space Needle

‘Humanitarian Emergency’: Seattle’s New Mayor Must Bring An End To The City’s Homelessness Crisis

'Humanitarian Emergency': Seattle's New Mayor Must Bring An End To The City's Homelessness Crisis

Democratic Socialism

Homelessness

Leftists

Mental Illness

Seattle

Washington State

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

First Amendment

Free Speech

Journalism

Media Research Center

President Trump

Social Media Bias

Social Media Censorship

This Thanksgiving, parents across America have much to be thankful for — their children, their health, and the simple gift of gathering around the table with people they love. We’ll share food, laughter, and stories about how quickly the kids have grown. And yet, many parents will also feel a quiet, unspoken worry about the world their children are growing up in.
Today’s kids face a culture that’s louder and more confusing than ever before. From social media to entertainment, they’re bombarded with messages about identity, relationships, and sex that can leave them adrift. They’re told to “follow your feelings” and “do what feels right.” Commitment is treated like a burden, and pornography is always one click away. It’s no wonder parents worry about how their kids will turn out — or whether they’re equipped to guide them through it all.
But amid the noise, Thanksgiving gives us a moment to pause and remember there’s still so much to be grateful for. Because despite the cultural chaos, research continues to show there is a proven path that works, one that’s as practical as it is hopeful.
It’s called the Success Sequence.
Researchers Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill at the Brookings Institution <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/brookings-scholars-ron-haskins-and-isabel-sawhill-make-history-as-the-first-joint-recipients-of-the-daniel-patrick-moynihan-prize/">uncovered</a> this refreshingly simple roadmap to stability. Finish high school. Get a full-time job. Get married. Then have children, in that order. It may sound old-fashioned, but the results are remarkable. Only about 3 to 4% of young adults who follow this path end up in poverty. What once seemed like common sense has become one of the strongest predictors of lifelong success.
And it’s not just about money. Young people who follow this path will have fewer sexual partners, fewer sexually transmitted infections, and more stable families. I’ve seen this to be true throughout my medical career. Decades of experience tell us that children who grow up with both parents in a committed home are more likely to thrive emotionally and physically.
That’s something to be thankful for, not just as researchers or clinicians, but as parents and grandparents who want to see the next generation flourish.
So this Thanksgiving, as we give thanks for food and family, let’s also give thanks for the wisdom that still lights the way forward. Let’s be grateful for the teachers, mentors, and parents who still model responsibility, hard work, and faithfulness. And let’s be grateful that even in a changing world, some truths don’t change.
The future isn’t fixed. Despite what the headlines say, our kids aren’t doomed by the world around them. The choices we encourage and the examples we set can profoundly shape their lives. The Success Sequence isn’t about restriction, it’s about freedom. It gives young people a sense of direction and the structure they need to build meaningful lives, one decision at a time.
That’s what I’m most thankful for this year, the privilege and responsibility of guiding the next generation. As parents and grandparents, we get to be the competing voice our children need. We get to show them that real joy doesn’t come from instant gratification, but from purpose, discipline, and love.
So yes, be thankful for the turkey and the laughter, but most importantly, be thankful for the family gathered around the table. Look at your children and the generations below you and be thankful for truth that still holds, for children who still turn out right, and for the grace that allows us to keep trying.
The world may change. The challenges may look different. But the truth doesn’t change, and that’s something worth celebrating every Thanksgiving.
* * *
Joe S. McIlhaney, Jr., MD, is a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist who resides in Plano, Texas.
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>

Young man and women picking up plates after having Thanksgiving at home

A Thanksgiving Reminder: Our Kids Still Have A Clear Path Forward

Children

family

Gen Z

Parenting

Teenagers

2025 Atlantic Festival

Exposing Every Lie In The New Anti-American Documentary From Ken Burns

American History

American Revolution

Diversity

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Documentaries

Film

Film Reviews

Founding Fathers

George Washington

Matt Walsh

Slavery

Woke Culture

Chicago typical silver colored commuter train moving on elevated tracks to railroad station in between urban city buildings of Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Career Criminal Freed By Radical Pro-Crime Judge Sets Christian Woman On Fire On Subway

Chicago

Criminal Justice

Illinois

Murder

Subway

Train

Violent Crime

California stands at a crossroads. The state must choose: protect the farmers who feed America or surrender its fields to ideology and bureaucratic control. California’s allegiance to bureaucrats recently became clear with the release of the California Agricultural Land Equity Task Force’s <a href="https://sgc.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/20250601-June_2025_Draft_Report.pdf">draft report.</a> The report, released this summer, calls for redistributing farmland based on race. Framed as “equity,” the plan would use state power to favor some Californians over others in determining who can buy, lease, or work farmland. What it really represents is an unprecedented intrusion into private property rights, race-based discrimination, and a direct threat to the foundation of the state’s agricultural economy.
The Task Force says it wants to expand opportunities for minority farmers, but its recommendations rely on racial preferences rather than productivity, stewardship, or need. It proposes below-market leases, zoning changes favoring “priority producers,” and new easement rules that devalue land already owned and managed by families who have farmed it for generations. California would be picking winners and losers not by merit, but by race. The consequences would reach far beyond the Central Valley. California supports a $61-billion farm economy, producing more than 75% of America’s fruits and nuts.
The plan is not only misguided but also likely unconstitutional. Federal courts have already <a href="https://aflegal.org/press-release/major-legal-victory-court-grants-preliminary-injunction-and-class-certification-in-usdas-racially-based-debt-relief-program/">rejected race-based agricultural programs</a>, such as the 2021 post-COVID USDA loan forgiveness initiative for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, because they violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The same flaw runs through these recommendations — characterizing individuals according to membership in race-based groups, and then prioritizing producers on that basis.
By prioritizing one racial group over another without specific evidence of individualized harm, the state risks years of litigation and enormous taxpayer costs. It also opens itself to claims under the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, since new zoning and easement-related rules could strip landowners of value without compensation.
In the unlikely event this plan survived in court, it would still fail in practice. California’s farm base is already shrinking. Between 2017 and 2022, the state lost 7,387 farms — a 10.5% decline — amid water shortages, regulatory burdens, and soaring compliance costs that have risen as much as 1,400% for some growers over two decades. Instead of addressing those pressures, the Task Force proposes a race-based social experiment that would make them worse.
When the government inserts ideology into the market, it distorts supply, raises costs, and destroys confidence. A previous big-government attempt to manage groundwater via the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, passed in 2014 in Sacramento, shows how central planning can wreck entire regions: dry wells, empty fields, and an estimated $7 billion annual loss to the farm economy. If Sacramento cannot allocate water efficiently, it certainly cannot allocate land.
The draft report also ignores what private landowners have already achieved. Two-thirds of endangered species habitat lies on private property, and voluntary conservation programs have produced measurable gains in soil health and biodiversity. Farmers have proven they can balance production with stewardship. Replacing them with politically selected “priority producers” does not guarantee California will be more sustainable, but it certainly guarantees division between Californians.
Why does this plan sound familiar? It is eerily similar to the land redistribution system of South Africa. Under South Africa’s race-based land redistribution program, in effect since 1990, roughly three-quarters of redistributed farms failed, eroding food production and rural stability. California is poised to repeat that mistake under the same so-called moral language of restitution, with the same devastating results.
Supporters of the Task Force’s draft report will say that historic discrimination requires present action. That argument ignores both the clear constitutional limits on government power and the truth that new discrimination cannot fix old wrongs. The Constitution guarantees equality, not “equity,” and efforts to impose equity always result in the advancement of one demographic at the expense of another. Every farmer, regardless of background, faces the same crushing weight of regulation, taxation, and uncertainty. Policies that divide them by race rather than unite them around shared economic survival will deepen inequality instead of curing it.
The California Legislature must reject the recommendations made in this report and any similar proposals once finalized. Refusing the proposal would not deny opportunity; it would protect it. Lawmakers can support aspiring farmers of every background by cutting red tape, expanding credit access, improving water reliability, and safeguarding property rights. Those are fair, race-neutral tools that strengthen agriculture without tearing at its core.
This policy, if accepted, would not just affect California but the entire country. California is the salad bowl of the world and the living ground that feeds families across the country. California’s agricultural lands sustain rural communities and anchor the state’s economy. The choice before Sacramento is simple but profound: protect the farmers who feed America, or surrender their fields to ideology and bureaucratic control. The future of California’s agricultural legacy depends on getting this choice right.
* * *
Kip Tom serves as Vice Chair of Rural Policy at the America First Policy Institute and is a recognized leader in agricultural technology and policy. He previously served as a U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Agencies under President Donald J. Trump.
Mike Garcia serves as Chairman of the America First California chapter. A former U.S. Congressman, Garcia represented California’s 27th District and served on the House Appropriations Committee, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.
T.J. Wilson serves as the Deputy Director of Rural Policy at the America First Policy Institute. He previously served in key staff and executive roles in the USDA’s Farm Production and Conservation Mission Area, the agency’s core division serving farmers and ranchers nationwide.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
* * *
<h3>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>.</h3>

View of country road intersection.

California At A Crossroads: Farmers And The ‘Land Equity’ Task Force

California At A Crossroads: Farmers And The 'Land Equity' Task Force

When it comes to immigration enforcement by the Trump administration, especially for people living in the Midwest, there’s been one decision that’s stood out. And it’s clearly been a deliberate decision, for whatever reason. For the most part, the government has left illegal alien Muslim populations alone, in places like Dearborn, Michigan, and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Admittedly, there’s not much hard data on this. But intuitively, you can tell. You can go online and find hundreds of videos of ICE raids in Los Angeles or Texas. But you won’t find many videos coming from Little Mogadishu, which, by some conservative estimates, is home to tens of thousands of illegal aliens. And there’s another way to tell that immigration enforcement has been soft in these areas: They haven’t been rioting. They haven’t been surrounding ICE agents chanting, “Allahu Akbar,” like they’re re-enacting “Black Hawk Down.” Instead, Muslims in these communities have mostly been targeting white conservative activists and journalists, who dare to venture into the no-go zone that they’ve established. They’re not afraid of immigration enforcement. They’re emboldened, like conquerors.
Whatever the administration’s strategy has been here, it does appear to be changing, at least to an extent. Last week, as you may remember, I called for hate crimes charges to be brought against a man who punched a white conservative activist in Dearborn. Within hours, Harmeet Dhillon, who runs the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, said she would begin an investigation. Then, shortly after that, the president announced a major change — one that we’ve been calling for, again and again, for several months. He ended “temporary protected status” for Somalis in the United States.
This is a designation that’s been in place for more than three decades. It shields Somalis, in many cases, from being deported back to Somalia, on the theory that the country is so dysfunctional that it would be inhumane to send them back. To be clear, in most other cases, “temporary protected status” is awarded after some terrible natural disaster, like a devastating earthquake or mudslide. The idea is that we don’t want to send people back to an unstable environment like that, where everything is flooded or on fire. But in Somalia’s case, there was no devastating earthquake or mudslide or anything like that. There’s just a lot of Somalis attempting to govern themselves. And that’s been such a disaster that, for more than 30 years, it’s been the official policy of the U.S. government that we shouldn’t send Somalis back to their own country. Somali governance is equivalent to a 9.0 earthquake — it’s just as catastrophic. Essentially, we’ve said we can’t send Somalis back to Somalia because there are so many Somalis there. It would be cruel to force Somalis to live with Somalis. So instead, we should force Americans to live with them. 
Of course, the appropriate response in this scenario is to keep Somalis as far away from the United States as possible. We don’t want them establishing an enclave in this country, because inevitably, it will be just as dysfunctional as the country they fled. But for many years now, it’s been the policy of the United States to pretend otherwise — and to give Somalis yet another host country to destroy.
The fact that the Trump administration is changing this policy, after so many years, is a clear signal that they’re thinking about going into Muslim communities (particularly Somali communities) and enforcing immigration law, as well as civil rights law. This is a crackdown that’s long overdue. And it’s more urgent than ever, because at this point, law enforcement is now working on behalf of the foreign criminals in cities like Minneapolis. The leaders of major police departments are now far more worried about offending their Muslim overlords than actually enforcing the law.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1696-the-matt-walsh-show?contentProgram=The%20Matt%20Walsh%20Show&amp;contentType=ShowEpisode&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;location=Home%20Tab&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Home%20Featured%20Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-976065" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Matt-watch-now-1.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Earlier, I covered how conservatives can be physically attacked by Muslims in Dearborn, right in front of the police, and the police will do nothing. But the situation is even worse in Minneapolis, where the chief of police, Brian O’Hara, just apologized to the Somali community for pointing out that they’re committing a lot of crimes. This may be the first documented case of a police chief begging for forgiveness, simply for observing the fact that crime is taking place in his city.
So <a href="https://alphanews.org/mpd-chief-cites-east-african-kids-from-out-of-town-in-ongoing-dinkytown-youth-crime-problems/">here’s what</a> Chief Brian O’Hara said, in an interview with a local radio station. This was the observation that outraged the Somali community, as reported by Alpha News.
&#8220;Chief O’Hara said in the interview, &#8216;Groups of kids, groups of East African kids that are coming from surrounding communities and not just one community, kind of all over the place,” are coming to the area armed and ready for a fight. &#8230; “They aren’t the poor kids from Minneapolis that are our residents, these are kids coming down in mommy’s Mercedes-Benz to Dinkytown.&#8221;
What he’s saying is obviously true. No one disputes that it’s accurate. Somalis, from East Africa, are invading communities in Minneapolis and committing serious crimes.
But Somalis in Minneapolis decided that this statement simply could not stand. That’s because large Somali communities in the United States are effectively a criminal enterprise, like a mafia. There’s widespread awareness in these communities about the fraud and robberies they commit. And they understand that, in order to minimize any undesired attention, they need to band together and shut down any suggestion — from anywhere — that they’re engaging in criminal activity. There’s a code of silence that they obey themselves and enforce on everyone else. After all, the easiest way to conceal a criminal enterprise is to make sure no one is allowed to talk about it.
It’s been known for a long time that Somalis operate like this. And it’s also been widely understood that politicians in Minneapolis are going along with it. The mayor, as we all know, isn’t ashamed to pander to Somalis and BLM, and so on. He’s certainly never critiqued Somalis, nor would he dream of doing so.
That said, even with this background in mind, the police chief just took things to another level. He didn’t simply pander to Somalis or turn a blind eye to their crimes. He actually went on camera and apologized for making a factually accurate statement about criminal activity in Minneapolis. Accompanied by a translator, the police chief apologized for doing his job, for informing the public about criminal activity, and for enforcing the law against Somalis. 
If any video justifies a federal takeover of law enforcement in Minneapolis, it’s this one. 
<h3>Watch:</h3>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: MPD Police Chief O’Hara asks for forgiveness for exposing the reality of Somali criminal activity in Minneapolis <a href="https://t.co/SFkWW2ZSXy">pic.twitter.com/SFkWW2ZSXy</a>
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) <a href="https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/1991678468959129940?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @EndWokeness/X.com
He says we have to be honest about what’s happening. And then in the same breath, he apologizes for being honest about what’s happening. It looks like a hostage video, because that’s exactly what it is.
After seeing this, is there anyone who seriously believes that any law enforcement official in Minnesota, from the attorney general on down, has any interest in arresting and prosecuting Somalis when they commit crimes? The guy looks absolutely petrified. And all he did was make a factually accurate statement. He didn&#8217;t even arrest anyone.
But if somehow you think law and order still exist in Minneapolis, maybe this video will be the wake-up call you need. 
This is a sheriff in Minnesota. 
<h3>Watch:</h3>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
At the 24 second mark he says, “that’s why we are different from foreigners,” referring to native, Minnesotan officers.
Read that again. He refers to the natives as the foreigners. It’s an invasion. <a href="https://t.co/BOy7SqsgfE">https://t.co/BOy7SqsgfE</a>
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) <a href="https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/1992419966575161478?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 23, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Credit: @WallStreetMav/X.com
According to the translation, the Minnesota sheriff refers to white police officers as “foreigners.” He says he’s working for Somalis and understands Somalis better than those foreign officers ever could. (Disclaimer: I have no idea how accurate the translation is. But that&#8217;s not my problem, because every single public official in the state should be speaking English.)
What’s important to understand about clips like this is that, as unacceptable as they obviously are, the actual problem is much, much worse. What these clips signify is that the Somali takeover of Minnesota is now so pervasive that they’re not even pretending to hide it anymore. If sheriffs and the chief of police are willing to pledge their allegiance to Somalia on-camera, then there’s no chance whatsoever that Somalis are actually being prosecuted for committing serious crimes. Maybe the DOJ will catch some fraudsters here and there, but the vast majority of these crimes are going completely unpunished. And everyone knows it.
But just in case there was any doubt, a few days ago, Ryan Thorpe and Chris Rufo <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/minnesota-welfare-fraud-somalia-al-shabaab?utm_source=virtuous&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=cjdaily">published an article</a> in City Journal highlighting the extent of the rampant fraud in Minneapolis. It&#8217;s so over-the-top and brazen that it almost sounds fake.
&#8220;Autism claims to Medicaid in Minnesota have skyrocketed in recent years — from $3 million in 2018 to $54 million in 2019, $77 million in 2020, $183 million 2021, $279 million in 2022, and $399 million in 2023. Meantime, the number of autism providers in the state spiked from 41 to 328 over the same period, with many in the Somali community establishing their own autism treatment centers, citing the need for “culturally appropriate programming.” By the time the fraud scheme was exposed, one in 16 Somali four-year-olds in the state had reportedly been diagnosed with autism — a rate more than triple the state average.&#8221;
Yes, claims for autism treatment in Minnesota — treatment that was mostly administered by Somalis, and which was then reimbursed by federal taxpayers — spiked from $3 million to $399 million, in the span of just five years. And this is just one of their scams. They&#8217;re scamming everything they can get their hands on, from COVID food programs to SNAP to the paycheck protection program. And we all know that, even when the DOJ catches a handful of Somalis who are involved, there&#8217;s no way to actually recover the money. The few Somalis who are eventually sentenced to prison, in all likelihood, won&#8217;t be there for very long.
(By the way, there&#8217;s also a very good, comprehensive analysis of Somali fraud in Minnesota, written by Armin Rosen in the publication &#8220;County Highway.&#8221; It&#8217;s one of the better explanations of how Minnesota officials are concealing all of this fraud.)
But the City Journal article highlights another important dimension of the story, which needs to be addressed — which is that Somalis in Minnesota are sending a lot of this stolen money back home. They&#8217;re taking the money you pay to the IRS, and they&#8217;re shipping it to Somalia. In some cases, they&#8217;re literally putting the cash in suitcases and flying it overseas. These are called &#8220;remittances.&#8221; And, as we discussed last week, millions of dollars in &#8220;remittances&#8221; are apparently <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/minnesota-welfare-fraud-somalia-al-shabaab?utm_source=virtuous&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_campaign=cjdaily">going to</a> Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda.
&#8220;The Somali fraud rings have sent huge sums in remittances, or money transfers, from Minnesota to Somalia. According to reports, an estimated 40 percent of households in Somalia get remittances from abroad. In 2023 alone, the Somali diaspora sent back $1.7 billion — more than the Somali government’s budget for that year. &#8230; Significant funds were being sent from America to Al-Shabaab networks in Somalia. Whether the money was intended for Al-Shabaab or not, they were taking a cut.&#8221;
One obvious step to address this problem — which the Trump administration should take immediately — is to raise the tax on remittances to 10,000%, at least for remittances going to Somalia. Currently, the tax is something like 1%. It&#8217;s absurdly low. And especially since we&#8217;re clearly being robbed, to the tune of billions of dollars, that needs to change. We need an emergency tax on remittances, immediately.
We also need to ramp up deportations and denaturalization proceedings. That&#8217;s going to trigger a legal battle, but it&#8217;s one we need to fight. The attorney general of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, is <a href="https://x.com/keithellison/status/1992301392225038837?s=20">already vowing</a> to take the Trump administration to court in order to keep as many Somalis in this country as possible.
&#8220;Trump’s announcement of termination of Somali TPS holders in Minnesota is legally problematic — while a president does have a lot of authority to designate and revoke TPS, he cannot legally wield that power to discriminate against an ethnic group or to target a state, like MN. This ain’t over.&#8221;
Yes, it&#8217;s &#8220;legally problematic&#8221; to end an extraordinary carve-out, which we&#8217;ve awarded to Somalis for no reason whatsoever, for more than 30 years. This is what always happens when you give any concessions or &#8220;favors&#8221; to anyone, including foreign nations. Instantaneously, it becomes an entitlement. They&#8217;ll sue you if you try to end it. Their lawyers will claim that you&#8217;ve violated the Constitution.
But if you ask Somalis themselves, ironically enough, they&#8217;ll drop the pretense. At this point, Somalis are basically daring us to deport them. This was Ilhan Omar&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/IlhanMN/status/1992056830575435815?s=20">response</a> after Trump terminated Somalia&#8217;s temporary protected status.
&#8220;I am a citizen and so are the majority of Somalis in America. Good luck celebrating a policy change that really doesn’t have much impact on the Somalis you love to hate. We are here to stay.&#8221;
Notice she doesn&#8217;t even refer to her own people as Americans. She admits that they&#8217;re &#8220;Somalis in America.&#8221; They&#8217;re foreign invaders in our country. They&#8217;ve taken over local law enforcement. They&#8217;ve taken over the state attorney general&#8217;s office. They&#8217;re attacking conservatives in the street.
And now, the moment the Trump administration suggests that laws might actually be enforced in Little Mogadishu, they&#8217;re saying &#8220;come get us.&#8221; 
For once, we should give Ilhan Omar and her Somali countrymen exactly what they&#8217;re asking for.

Rally at the capitol to raise awareness of the human rights violations in Somalia

The Somali Takeover Of Minneapolis Is Worse Than We Thought

Corruption

Ilhan Omar

Minneapolis

Minnesota

Muslims

Police

Somalis

Welfare

The fate of the Trump administration — and perhaps Republicans in Congress as well — is tied to American sentiment about the economy.
And right now, nobody knows what the hell is going on or which way is up.
According to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jobs-report-bls-september-stock-market-today-11-20-2025?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqcjgM64-wIPKktYARvEIXFsJzimXcvAC3fpAwUc7i4Gm1zHe0UCBW67Kh-iYj8%3D&amp;gaa_ts=6920c3b1&amp;gaa_sig=UP5t4kf3TCVh2knpn1gTpG9YTqEgZWWHF-Xp5Wk_rcJLrVoWejOhEl7QdCMjnOa0Gcq4dx_e4ZeKV-trUecuzw%3D%3D">The Wall Street Journal</a> on Thursday night:
<blockquote>Stocks surrendered gains and closed sharply lower after a whirlwind day of trading that began after Nvidia <a href="https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/nvidia-earnings-q3-2025-nvda-stock-9c6a40fe">posted strong results</a>. The Nasdaq composite led indexes lower after being up on the day more than 2%. It closed 2.2% lower. Nvidia gave up an even bigger gain and finished the day down 3.2%.</blockquote>
Why did they end up down?
Because investors suspect there is, in fact, an AI bubble.
That suspicion is not unrealistic. Whenever there&#8217;s a transformative technology, people seem to think that just because there is a bubble, that means that the underlying technology is not transformative. If you look back at the history of investment, however, there is always a speculative bubble around brand-new technologies, and it tends to clean out failing companies.
You remember the successful companies. So you remember Henry Ford because Ford ended up being a wildly successful company. But there were dozens of other automobile companies that were startups at the time that ended up crapping out. In fact, Ford had several of them before he actually started the Ford Motor Company.
The same thing was true of the internet.
Everyone remembers that when the Internet bubble burst in 2000, Pets.com was seen as emblematic of the era. 
But what we should remember is that the internet has completely transformed everybody&#8217;s life. We all work on the internet. We all do commerce on the internet; we all interact on the internet.
The stock market bubble of 2000 did not mean the internet wasn&#8217;t important. There are idiots like Paul Krugman who tried to suggest that it wasn&#8217;t important. It was very important.
That&#8217;s also true with regard to AI. People are looking at the current AI boom, and they&#8217;re thinking that at some point here it has to crap out, that some of these companies are not going to be able to develop the kind of margins or gross income that justifies the investment they are currently making. OpenAI is the most obvious example of a company that is not publicly traded, but has so many contracts with publicly traded companies ranging from Oracle to Nvidia that if it craps out, it could take down a bunch of companies with it, or at least severely damage their market capitalization.
According to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/20/technology/ai-stock-boom-nvidia.html#:~:text=Cade%20Metz%20has%20covered%20the,for%20more%20than%2015%20years.&amp;text=It%20would%20not%20be%20a,industry%20as%20a%20historic%20moment.">The New York Times</a>:
<blockquote>It would not be a stretch to describe this period of hyperactive growth in the tech industry as a historic moment. Nvidia, which makes computer chips that are essential to building artificial intelligence, said on Wednesday that its quarterly profit had jumped <a href="https://archive.is/o/5DcUP/https:/www.nytimes.com/2025/11/19/technology/nvidia-earnings.html">to nearly $32 billion</a>, up 65 percent from a year earlier and 245 percent from the year before that. Just three weeks ago, Nvidia became the <a href="https://archive.is/o/5DcUP/https:/www.nytimes.com/2025/10/29/technology/nvidia-value-market-ai.html">first publicly traded company to be worth $5 trillion</a>. </blockquote>
That means Nvidia is now worth more, according to the stock market, than the entire economy of Germany. 
But some industry insiders say there is something ominous lurking behind all this bubble news. They look at the same eye-popping growth and the same stunning wealth creation from Mr. Huang and see a house of cards. And they say it is hard to know what the damage will be if it collapses.
Even Nvidia&#8217;s growth can be explained away because demand for the company&#8217;s chips doesn&#8217;t mean that people want to use AI; it means that companies are building giant AI systems in the hope that somebody will pay to use them eventually.
This is going to be the question: At some point, the productivity generation from AI is going to have to start matching up to the investments that are being made. People are betting on whether there&#8217;s going to be an AI boom that justifies all this or an AI bust. 
We don&#8217;t know which way it&#8217;s going, which is why people are freaking out.
They&#8217;re also freaking out because if it does succeed, there will be some temporary jobs dislocation. There are a lot of jobs that will become obsolete.
The history of job creation is that the economy becomes more productive. You get nicer things for cheaper prices. You work fewer hours; your grandparents worked many more hours than you do, for example.
But it also means that there is — with technological change —  significant job dislocation, people losing the kind of jobs they&#8217;ve historically held, and then having to find new jobs.
We&#8217;ve generated millions and millions of jobs in areas that we didn&#8217;t even know existed. This is just the way the economy tends to work.
That doesn&#8217;t mean that the angst and heartburn about job dislocation are false.
Thus, two things can be true at once: We can be in a transformative, amazing time for the economy, and the uncertainty and the concern can be real.
And it can&#8217;t all be alleviated by the government.

Dow Jumps Over 600 Points As Nvidia Reports Strong Earnings

What The Hell Is Going On With The Economy?

Artificial Intelligence

Ben Shapiro

Dow Jones

Economy

Nvidia

Oracle

Silicon Valley

Stock Market

Wall Street

March mich

Unsettling Footage Out Of Dearborn Shows How Bad The Islamic Takeover Really Is

Dearborn

Islamization

Michigan

Protests

Democrats currently have a massive advantage in Congress for 2026. According to the latest <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/11/19/nx-s1-5611088/poll-democrats-republicans-trump-approval-inflation">NPR/PBS News/Marist poll</a>, this is their largest advantage since 2017 in terms of whom people would vote for on the congressional ballot.
When you actually go to the polling place to cast your vote, you are not voting on a generic member of Congress, you are voting on your congressperson. Thus, it&#8217;s possible that widespread dissatisfaction with the Republican Party doesn&#8217;t necessarily translate into your individual congressperson losing his or her seat.
Democrats, however, currently hold a 14-point advantage in this poll — a very, very large advantage. If that were to stick in the generic congressional ballot, then we’re looking at a Democratic wave in 2026.
President Trump’s approval rating is just 39%, which is his lowest since right after January 6.
A combined 6 in 10 people blamed congressional Republicans or Trump for the government shutdown, which is likely the result of the legacy media spinning a completely Democrat-caused government shutdown into a story about President Trump and Republicans.
Nearly 6 in 10 say that Trump&#8217;s top priority should be lowering prices. No other issue comes close.
So, those are very bad numbers for the Republicans right now. What does that mean for the 2026 election? 
In fall 2022, Democrats had a lead in the generic congressional ballot. They ended up losing nine House seats to the Republicans. In 2018, during Trump&#8217;s first term, the Democrats’ lead was somewhere between 6 and 12 points, and they also ended up winning 40 seats. In 2014, when Obama was president, Republicans had a five-point advantage, and the GOP gained 13 seats. So, the number of actual vulnerable districts has shrunk dramatically.
So, even if Democrats have a gigantic advantage in the generic congressional balloting, the way the districts are stacked up, there are a lot more solid dem districts and a lot more solid Republican districts and fewer swing districts overall. 
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2322-uh-oh-democrats-pull-ahead-in-2026-race?elementPosition=1&amp;row=0&amp;rowHeadline=The+Ben+Shapiro+Show&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Democrats need three seats to take control of the House. So, what is the most likely outcome?
The upper end of disaster for Republicans would be 20 to 25 seats, which would put Democrats pretty solidly in control of the House. Now, it would take a massive Democratic wave for them to take over the Senate. The two most vulnerable seats are in Maine and in North Carolina.
Senator Susan Collins — who is frequently a target for many dyspeptic Republicans who don&#8217;t understand that if you want a Republican to hold the seat in Maine, that Republican is not going to look like Tom Cotton or Rick Scott — is a battler and a survivor up in Maine. She is the only Republican incumbent running in a state won by Kamala Harris in 2024. Collins is facing a radical democratic socialist, Graham Platner, who is a disaster area for a wide variety of reasons.
In North Carolina, the seat is open because Thom Tillis, a frequent target of the president, has decided that he is not going to run for reelection. Perhaps that seat swivels blue.
If the Democrats take both those seats, they still won’t have the upper hand because Republicans hold 53 seats, which means that in order for Democrats to take control of the Senate, they would need to take two more. It’s not totally out of the range of possibility for Democrats to win the Senate, but it would take a lot.
But losing the House would be bad enough; if the GOP loses the House, that&#8217;s the end of major legislation from the Trump administration. It means endless investigations. It means that the House becomes a baton to wield against everything the Trump administration is trying to do on the executive level.
There’s a brand new <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-approval-falls-lowest-his-term-over-prices-epstein-files-reutersipsos-poll-2025-11-18/">Reuters/Ipsos poll</a> that shows similar numbers, with Trump at 38%, which, again, is the lowest rating he has had since he returned to power in January.
Why is President Trump lagging in the polls now? Why is he at 39%-40%?
The reason is not what people think it is. It’s not his foreign policy or that Trump&#8217;s foreign policy is tearing apart the Republican Party. In fact, he only part of his policy right now that is wildly popular, at least by Trumpian standards, is his foreign policy. In fact, his approval ratings on foreign policy are better than any prior president of the modern era at this point in his term, which is extraordinary.
For the amount of crap that he is currently taking in the very online spaces, you guys should get out and touch grass. It turns out many Americans like the stuff that President Trump has been doing on foreign policy,
It isn&#8217;t immigration either. The president&#8217;s net approval ratings on immigration have gone down, but that&#8217;s largely because he has solved the immigration crisis in the United States. He solved the problem of the southern border. If Americans were thinking about the southern border in comparison to Biden, Trump’s approval ratings would be 80%.
The reason Trump’s approval ratings are low are two: The economy and the Epstein files.
He has slid 24 points since February of 2025 on the economy and 59% of Americans do not approve of his handling of the Epstein files.
The reason president Trump’s approval ratings have dropped on the Epstein files is because there are actors trying to use the Epstein files as a club against the president in order to seize control of the MAGA movement. That&#8217;s what&#8217;s happening.
Trump, however, has not done anything radically different from Joe Biden when it comes to Epstein. In fact, he has been significantly more transparent than Joe Biden ever was.
It’s notable that many of the big advocates on the Epstein matters are either directly implicated by the Epstein files, like Steve Bannon, or are people who had no qualms about Epstein and were not talking about Epstein a year and a half ago. There were no major motions from Rep. Thomas Massie, for example, to the Biden administration asking for the release of the Epstein files.
<h3>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>.</h3>
Now there are a bunch of angry critics of the president&#8217;s foreign policy who are attempting to use the Epstein files as a way to undermine him.
That doesn&#8217;t mean people don&#8217;t have open questions; of course, that&#8217;s true. But the people who have elevated this to the top of the issue stack are people who, shall we say, do not like the president&#8217;s foreign policy decisions.
Why do you think Abby Phillip is now massaging Marjorie Taylor Greene? You can tell who&#8217;s getting the strange new respect these days when you&#8217;re on the same side as Abby Phillip.
There are also popular podcasters and voices who continue to malign the president without saying his name because they&#8217;re cowards who continue to say that the administration is covering up the Epstein files, but don’t say Trump&#8217;s name because they don&#8217;t want to offend Trump. They&#8217;re afraid that Trump will reach over like King Kong and crush them.
Instead, they simply imply and imply and imply, without just saying the thing they want to say, out of pure, unbridled cowardice.
It&#8217;s pretty impressive.
But it’s not right.

TOPSHOT-US-POLITICS-GOVERNMENT-SHUTDOWN

Democrats Pull Ahead In 2026 Race

Congress

Democrats

Elections

Polls

Republicans

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Tucker Carlson shocked nearly everyone last week when he implied that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a pastor and one of the most revered heroes of World War II, had to abandon Christianity in order to turn on Adolf Hitler.
Bonhoeffer attempted to assassinate the Nazi leader and was murdered by the Third Reich in 1945. Bonhoeffer’s actions are almost universally regarded as heroic — but not to Carlson, who <a href="https://www.newsmax.com/us/tucker-carlson-dietrich-bonhoeffer-adolf-hitler/2025/11/13/id/1234491/">declared</a> recently that Bonhoeffer had simply &#8220;decided &#8230; Christianity is not enough, we have to kill the guy.”
Carlson held Bonhoeffer up as a warning to conservatives who criticize antisemitism on the Right, saying, &#8220;once you start calling people Nazis, we really have no choice but to start shooting them,&#8221; Carlson said.
So much sloppy thinking, so little time. 
Carlson is right that falsely labeling someone a “Nazi” or a “fascist” today paints a target on that person. It was reckless, for example, for California Governor Gavin Newsom to call White House advisor Stephen Miller <a href="https://stream.org/gavins-gambit-newsom-doubles-down-on-the-fascist-slander/">a fascist</a>, prompting leftists in Miller’s neighborhood to dox him, plastering telephone poles and lampposts with Miller’s home address.
But what does any of this have to do with Dietrich Bonhoeffer? He wasn’t sloppily using “Nazi” as a slur against his political opponents, the literal Nazis. Nobody was falsely claiming that the ordinary enforcement of just laws amounted to genocidal terror. Genocidal terror was written into the laws of a regime which had seized power in a crisis, suspended the constitution, outlawed all opposition, and stripped Jews of citizenship. 
Literal Nazis, who called themselves “Nazis,” were filling concentration camps with non-violent political dissidents, and preparing a war openly designed to conquer, enslave, and exterminate the peoples of neighboring nations. The Nazi blueprint for obtaining “Lebensraum” in Poland and the Soviet Union, <a href="https://wwv.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206247.pdf">Generalplan Ost</a>, envisioned wiping out some 80 million Slavs by either direct murder or slow starvation, to be replaced by German colonists. 
Carlson’s absurd criticism of Bonhoeffer is rooted in a fundamental misrepresentation of Christianity and its teachings. Despite Jesus’ words about turning the other cheek on a personal level, Christianity was never rigidly pacifist.
By the time of St. Augustine, the Church had developed the “Just War” doctrine, narrowly defining occasions when military action by the state was morally good and right. That teaching is widely accepted by most Christian churches, and codified by the Roman Catholic Church in its <a href="https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/war-and-peace/excerpts-from-catechism-of-the-catholic-church-safeguarding-peace-1997">Catechism</a>.
Catholic teaching holds that a Just War is one in which “the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain,” and “all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.” There also “must be serious prospects of success” and “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.”
The language above refers to the actions of the state, not individual citizens. On the surface, it seems only to apply to decisions by nations such as Great Britain and France, whose declarations of war on Germany were obviously just. 
But the Just War analysis doesn’t only apply to states. As I explained in my recent book, “<a href="https://www.calamopress.com/store/no-second-amendment-no-first">No Second Amendment, No First”,</a> during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation religious persecution by intolerant monarchs drove thinkers in both the Jesuit and the Calvinist traditions to ask if those conditions could justify a civil war, a rebellion against a tyrant. Most of them answered “Yes,” and Christian political thinking began for the first time to countenance the overthrow of evil governments by their people. The men who removed King Charles I, and rebelled against French monarchs during the Wars of Religion, cited such arguments. 
So would later rebels, right here in America. Our own Declaration of Independence is actually an eloquent argument that the misgovernment of the 13 colonies by the British parliament and crown amounted to tyranny, and met the Just War requirements, making armed resistance not just permissible but obligatory.
The anti-Nazi resistance to which Dietrich Bonhoeffer belonged was steeped in this same tradition, and saw its efforts to overthrow a wicked tyranny in wartime as perfectly compatible with the broad Christian tradition. Their actions had nothing in common with the violence fostered by irresponsible leftist zealots in our non-tyrannical country in peacetime, which enjoys free elections and a free press.
For the real story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, treat yourself by streaming the recent, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B0DQRBSF6S/ref=atv_dp_amz_c_TS8274d9_1_1?jic=16%7CCgNhbGwSA2FsbA%3D%3D">powerful biopic</a> about the man, or reading Eric Metaxas’s <a href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclicks.aweber.com%2Fy%2Fct%2F%3Fl%3DFqFpc%26m%3D3XCdD_eFuk3cNaF%26b%3DK55f0DFRsI09TrIYGhU2MQ&amp;data=05%7C02%7C%7Cc0c9bf61e6b1422e8efa08de239ce248%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638987353876021137%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=aDTERBtB%2BmLzyO29EYFDyIh%2F8siQ%2B153YsTF2xJeGhA%3D&amp;reserved=0">magisterial book</a> on his inspiring life. And remember to always take with a grain of salt anything claimed by a certain former bow-tie-wearing war hawk with a maniacal laugh.
* * *
John Zmirak is author of many books, including the biography of anti-Nazi exile <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Wilhelm-Ropke-Library-Modern-Thinkers/dp/1882926560/ref=sr_1_1?crid=34MC41KJSEC8Z&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.IFJtRxoqeob52UgE206MCA.1YpaMP-rgHyaWkbhgF5AQT2XVjYRBIJOa9zsKPTGzuQ&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=Wilhelm+Ropke%3A+Swiss+Localist%2C+Global+Economist&amp;qid=1763142650&amp;s=books&amp;sprefix=wilhelm+ropke+swiss+localist%2C+global+economist%2Cstripbooks%2C79&amp;sr=1-1">Wilhelm Röpke</a>, and the recent <a href="https://www.calamopress.com/store/no-second-amendment-no-first">No Second Amendment, No First</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Right now, DailyWire+ annual memberships are 50% off during our Black Friday sale. Join now at <a href="http://dailywire.com/blackfriday">dailywire.com/blackfriday</a>.

Menu