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

Supreme Court Releases Decisions On Final Day Of Term

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

campaign donation

Courts

First Amendment

Free Speech

Republicans

Supreme Court

Tim Scott

U.S.

President Trump Delivers Address To Nation On Iran Military Operation

Trump Bombed Iran. What’s Next?

Conservatives

Democrats

Iran

Iran Nuclear

Israel

JD Vance

Matt Walsh

Middle East

Opinion

President Trump

Trump Administration

Republicans clobbered Democrats for the fifth consecutive year in last night&#8217;s Congressional Baseball Game. Rep. August Pfluger, the Republican Study Committee Chairman, who clinched his second <a href="https://pfluger.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=610" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MVP</a> title, joined Crain &amp; Company before the game to share his thoughts on why the GOP has won every game since 2022.
&#8220;What I&#8217;d say to America is, forget about baseball, take the uniforms off, just stand us side by side: who do you want leading the country? I&#8217;ll leave that up to America to decide. Not that baseball is an indicator of legislating, but it kind of is.&#8221;
&#8220;My district cares that I can represent them legislatively. But they really care if I can play baseball,&#8221; Pfluger added.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/are-republicans-better-athletes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: REP. AUGUST PFLUGER JOINS CRAIN AND COMPANY TO TALK CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL GAME</a>
Pfluger, who was a <a href="https://sanangelolive.com/news/sports/2023-06-14/congressmen-pfluger-pitch-congressional-baseball-game-wednesday" target="_blank" rel="noopener">high school</a> quarterback and catcher, has played for the GOP since 2022, pitching for them in 2023. He noted how seriously he and his teammates take the game, describing intense, early-morning practices.
&#8220;We practice at least 25 times, and by the way, we&#8217;re not practicing at 8:00 a.m. It&#8217;s a 5:45 start time,&#8221; Pfluger said. &#8220;We&#8217;re out there throwing, we come back, we&#8217;re icing the shoulder a little bit, in my case, and then we go to work at 7:30, 8:00.&#8221;
The Congressional Baseball Game has been <a href="https://www.congressionalbaseball.org/history/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">played</a> intermittently since 1909. While Democrats dominated at first, Republicans have won 46 games compared to the Democrats’ 42. Funds from the game go towards various charities. This year’s game <a href="https://www.congressionalbaseball.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">benefited</a> the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington, the Tim Johnson Memorial Scholarship, and Nationals Philanthropies.
&#8220;You&#8217;ve got the Republicans vs. the Democrats, which to me just seems like a bloodbath,&#8221; Crain &amp; Co. co-host Jake Crain told Pfluger. Asked by Crain &amp; Co. co-host David Cone just &#8220;how intense&#8221; the game really is, Pfluger was unequivocal.
&#8220;It is intense&#8230;when we get out there on the field, we&#8217;re trying to win,&#8221; he said. &#8220;This is not bipartisan,&#8221; Pfluger said. &#8220;This is a real baseball game.&#8221;
&#8220;The Dems can&#8217;t get a dub if you handed it to them on a plate right now! Nobody buries them deeper than those guys,&#8221; Jake Crain noted.
Last night&#8217;s game also marked the return to the field of Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL), who made history as one of the few players to get an out-of-the-park home run in the 2021 game. Steube missed the past few Congressional Baseball Games due to an injury.
&#8220;This has been the best interview I&#8217;ve done in five years,&#8221; Pfluger told the Crain &amp; Co. boys. &#8220;Thank you for letting me talk about sports.&#8221;

Congressional Baseball Game 2025

WATCH: Rep. Pfluger Tells Crain & Co. Why The GOP Always Wins The Congressional Baseball Game

Baseball

Congress

Crain and Co

President Donald Trump revoked California&#8217;s electric vehicle mandates, which have been adopted by nearly a dozen other states nationwide.
The president signed three congressional resolutions on Thursday, putting an end to California&#8217;s ban on the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035. The California mandate was adopted by 11 other states, representing one-third of the auto market in the United States.
&#8220;We officially rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating the California electric vehicle mandate once and for all,&#8221; Trump said at the White House. &#8220;They said it couldn&#8217;t be done, but boy, it had us tied up in knots for years. And they passed these crazy rules in California &#8230; the automakers didn&#8217;t know what to do.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;We officially rescue the U.S. auto industry from destruction by terminating the California electric vehicle mandate ONCE AND FOR ALL.&quot; 🔥 <a href="https://t.co/zOVvF5DKyF">pic.twitter.com/zOVvF5DKyF</a>
&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1933185013962404156?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 12, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The move, made possible by Trump signing resolutions of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, was celebrated by a group representing major automakers, including GM, Stellantis, Toyota, Hyundai, and Volkswagen, Reuters <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-sign-resolutions-nixing-californias-ev-rules-sources-2025-06-10/">reported</a>.
&#8220;The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable,&#8221; said Alliance for Automotive Innovation CEO John Bozzella. &#8220;In reality, meeting the mandates would require diverting finite capital from the EV transition to purchase compliance credits from Tesla.&#8221;
U.S. automaker GM added in a statement, “We appreciate the actions taken by President Trump to sign H.J. Res. 88 into law and help align emissions standards with today’s market realities. We have long advocated for one national standard that will allow us to stay competitive, continue to invest in U.S. innovation, and offer customer choice across the broadest lineup of gas-powered and electric vehicles.”
One of the resolutions signed by Trump repeals a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency waiver that was granted under the Biden administration and greenlit California&#8217;s mandate for at least 80% of new vehicles to be electric by 2035, according to Reuters. Trump will sign another resolution approved by the Republican-controlled Congress to rescind a 2023 EPA approval for California to require automakers to produce more zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. The third resolution eliminates the state&#8217;s low-nitrogen oxide regulation targeting heavy-duty trucks and off-road vehicles.
Republicans and auto companies have pushed for the EV regulations to be addressed. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-gears-up-stop-california-2035-gas-vehicle-sales-ban">said</a> last month that the EPA&#8217;s waivers allowed California “to dictate emissions standards for the whole country – effectively imposing a nationwide electric vehicle mandate.” In May, the GOP-led House voted to pass a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval for the EV mandate with the support of 35 Democrats. The Congressional Review Act allowed the Senate to bypass a filibuster to undo the EV regulations, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/senate-votes-undo-biden-era-waiver-california-enabling-gas-car-ban">reported</a>.
In their vote, Senate Republicans were <a href="https://x.com/SenatorSlotkin/status/1925590423944257939">joined</a> by Michigan Democrat Sen. Elissa Slotkin, who said she has &#8220;a special responsibility to stand up for the more than one million Michiganders whose livelihoods depend on the U.S. auto industry.”
Trump signaled his support for ending California&#8217;s EV mandate while on the 2024 campaign trail.
“When I’m president, no state in America will be permitted to ban gas-powered cars or trucks, and I guarantee it,” Trump told his supporters at a rally in Saginaw, Michigan.
California Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta <a href="https://x.com/AGRobBonta/status/1925624592481026347">said</a> his state would sue over Trump&#8217;s move &#8220;to protect California’s longstanding authority to maintain clean vehicle standards.&#8221;
&#8220;President Trump may be playing partisan games with lives and good-paying jobs on the line—but California won’t back down,&#8221; Bonta added.

Donald Trump

Trump Slashes California’s ‘Crazy’ Far-Reaching EV Mandates

California

electric vehicles

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) dismissed Elon Musk&#8217;s argument that President Donald Trump and the Republican Party would have lost to the Democrats in 2024 if not for his contributions on behalf of the GOP.
As the feud between Musk and Trump rages on, Johnson acknowledged in an interview with CNBC&#8217;s &#8220;Squawk Box&#8221; on Friday that Musk had a &#8220;big&#8221; role in the GOP&#8217;s 2024 election success, but added that Trump &#8220;is the one responsible&#8221; for defeating the Democrats.
&#8220;Elon was a big contributor in the last election, but this was a whole team effort,&#8221; Johnson said. &#8220;President Trump is the most consequential political figure of his generation, of modern American history. He is the one responsible for that.&#8221;
The speaker added that he, along with &#8220;all of our House Republicans,&#8221; worked tirelessly to deliver the House for the GOP in 2024.
&#8220;We all worked hard,&#8221; Johnson said, adding, &#8220;I traveled the country nonstop. I did over 360 campaign events in over 250 cities and 40 states, and I logged enough miles last year to circle the globe five-and-a-half times. I mean, I contributed to it as well. All of our House Republicans did.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Watch CNBC&#039;s full interview with House Speaker Mike Johnson" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/_TuaIzFT6oM?start=750&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Johnson said he still respects Musk, calling him a &#8220;friend&#8221; and crediting him for his role in the &#8220;DOGE effort.&#8221; The speaker added that disagreements over policy shouldn&#8217;t become &#8220;personal.&#8221;
&#8220;I don&#8217;t tell my friend Elon, I don&#8217;t argue with him about how to build rockets. I wish he wouldn&#8217;t argue with me about how to craft legislation and pass it,&#8221; Johnson said.
After Trump told reporters on Thursday that he was &#8220;very disappointed&#8221; with Musk over his criticism of the &#8220;Big, Beautiful Bill,&#8221; the president added that he “would have won Pennsylvania regardless of Elon.” Musk quickly shot back on social media, writing, &#8220;Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.&#8221;
“Such ingratitude,” he added.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Musk donated nearly $300 million to Republican causes in the 2024 election and was one of Trump&#8217;s biggest supporters, appearing with him on stage at some of his rallies. Trump rewarded Musk with a senior adviser role in the White House, and Musk spearheaded the effort to cut waste and spending in the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency project. The billionaire entrepreneur became a constant companion of the president, often appearing with him in the Oval Office and traveling with him to sporting events, and in February, Musk <a href="https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1887889037354008729">said</a> he loved Trump &#8220;as much as a straight man can love another man.&#8221;
But on Thursday, after Trump&#8217;s criticism of Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO quickly ratcheted up the tension, firing off numerous social media posts blasting the president and eventually <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-musk-goes-after-trump-over-epstein-files-time-to-drop-the-really-big-bomb">accusing</a> Trump of refusing to release the Epstein Files because he is implicated in them.
Between posts going after Trump, Musk also <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/musk-floats-creating-a-new-political-party-amid-fallout-with-trump?author=Zach+Jewell&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Musk+Floats+Creating+%E2%80%98A+New+Political+Party%E2%80%99+Amid+Fallout+With+Trump">suggested</a> starting a new political party &#8220;that actually represents the 80% in the middle.&#8221; Last month, Musk <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ive-done-enough-musk-says-he-will-spend-a-lot-less-on-future-political-campaigns">said</a> that he was “going to do a lot less in the future” in regards to campaign donations, but left the door open to jump back into the political world if he sees &#8220;a reason to do political spending in the future.&#8221;

Elon Musk/Mike Johnson

Speaker Johnson Dismisses Musk’s Claim That He Won 2024 Election For Trump

CNBC

Elon Musk

Mike Johnson

Politics

The most radical thing Washington can do right now is stop spending. President Trump’s proposed $9.4 billion rescissions package won’t accomplish that on its own, but it at least, finally, moves us in the right direction.
For decades, members of both parties have treated spending growth as a measure of success. The assumption has been that government must grow, and that any program, once funded, must be permanent. That mindset has left us with a bloated federal bureaucracy that has replaced free-market policy and individual freedom with centralized control and pushed the country to <a href="https://www.usdebtclock.org/">nearly $37 trillion in debt</a>.
Still, most sitting lawmakers have never voted to cut a single dollar of federal spending. This package gives them that chance. More than that, it gives them an opening to start restoring the habits of a functioning legislature.
It’s also the first time the Department of Government Efficiency has had its work put into legislative form. Elon Musk built and led DOGE under the simple premise to stop wasting taxpayer money. Musk has since returned to the private sector, but he and the president have made clear that the mission remains. The rescissions package, which would codify spending cuts proposed by DOGE, reflects that mission. It targets corrupt USAID programs, taxpayer subsidies for ideologically biased public broadcasters NPR and PBS, and other programs that fail even a basic test of necessity in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/02/us/trump-budget-2026">$1.7 trillion discretionary budget</a>.
Fiscal conservatives, especially those complaining this package doesn’t go far enough, should not let the perfect be the enemy of the essential. Fiscal discipline, like any discipline, requires a starting point. You don’t run a marathon by starting with 20 miles, you start with one. This bill is that first mile.
Congress should treat it as such: start small, bank the win, and keep cutting wherever the rules allow. That means more rescissions, which require only a simple majority to pass. It also means using the appropriations process and, when necessary, continuing resolutions, to keep pushing the issue. Not every tool requires a supermajority, but even the ones that do are worth using to force the debate. Progress in this fight can come steadily if congressional Republicans stay united and focused.
It also means that if passed, this package should be the first of a longer series of cuts. Each one can go further, targeting programs that stray from constitutional purpose or national interest. Repetition in this case can build momentum and credibility.
It can also build legislative muscle memory. Too many lawmakers now assume the only way forward is through bipartisan overspending. A successful rescission would challenge that assumption. It would remind Congress that not every federal dollar is sacred and that cutting even a fraction of the budget is still possible with political will.
Moreover, follow-through matters just as much as passage. House and Senate Republicans must ensure these cuts aren’t restored elsewhere. Cuts that DOGE has made or proposed shouldn’t be backfilled through continuing resolutions or omnibus bills, especially those that are widely popular across America. What gets cut should stay cut. The goal is a permanent shift in direction.
DOGE’s broader purpose has always been to realign government toward greater efficiency and accountability. That vision reflects a basic expectation of public service – that government should function effectively, that leaders should make responsible decisions rather than defer them, and that taxpayers should have confidence their money is being used with care, not lost to inefficiency or corruption.
Congressional Republicans should also keep in mind that a win here sets the tone for the 2026 midterm elections. It signals that the Trump administration’s second-term agenda, as well as the party’s broader movement, is not just about executive action but real, legislative reform. Therefore, they should view these cuts not as the finish line, but as the starting point.
The stakes are about whether the federal government serves the American people or the other way around; whether Congress retains the capacity to exercise restraint, or whether inertia has become the default; and whether a new generation of lawmakers can relearn the forgotten skill of saying no.
This rescissions bill offers the chance to begin answering those questions. Conservatives should take it, and then keep going.
* * *
Paul Teller is the Executive Vice President of Advancing American Freedom.
John Shelton is a policy director for Advancing American Freedom. 
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

House Republicans

Why The First Spending Cut Is Worth Making

DOGE

National Debt

Spending Bill

Taxes

U.S. House of Representatives

USAID

Angry woman screaming through spiral cables

Democrats Are Gaining Ground With One Key Demographic: The Mentally Ill

Leftists

Liberals

Mental Health

Mental Illness

Nate Silver

Voters

Both the Kansas City Chiefs and Kansas City Royals made their homes in Missouri in the 1960s. The teams won a combined six titles in the decades that followed, making Kansas City one of the most successful “<a href="https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/mlb/smallest-cities-with-mlb-team-bm23/">small</a>” sports cities in the United States.
But there’s an economic fight brewing over the teams, a fight between two cities of the same name: Kansas City, Missouri, and Kansas City, Kansas. 
The historic Kansas City sports franchises currently play in two of the oldest stadiums still used by professional sports teams. The Chiefs’ famed Arrowhead Stadium <a href="https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/oldest-nfl-stadiums">opened</a> in 1972, and the Royals’ Kauffman Stadium <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2025/05/31/oldest-stadiums-mlb-active-baseball/83964425007/">opened</a> a year later. But decades of the Chiefs and Royals playing at Arrowhead and Kauffman and calling Missouri home are at risk of coming to an end as plans have been drawn up for the teams to move just across the Missouri River to Kansas City, Kansas — and Kansas lawmakers are actively seeking to bring the teams across state lines. 
On Monday, what promises to be a heated special session began in the Missouri State Legislature. The special session will, in part, address ways to keep the teams in the state, such as funding for improvements to the Chiefs’ stadium and a potential new ballpark on the Missouri side of the border for the Royals. 
Missouri&#8217;s Republican Governor, Mike Kehoe, is fighting to keep both teams in Missouri, as their neighbors in Kansas have offered big stadium incentives for the Chiefs and Royals to move across the Missouri River.
But the Chiefs and Royals — and the stadiums that they call home — come with an eye-popping cost, a cost that requires help from government handouts. According to the <a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article307476771.html">Kansas City Star</a>, a new stadium for the Royals could cost over $1 billion, while renovations for Arrowhead could come with a pricetag of $800 million. 
The cost is worth it to the governor. According to Kehoe’s office, the Chiefs “contribute $575 million annually in economic value and over 4,500 jobs in Jackson County alone, bringing the State of Missouri nearly $30 million in annual tax revenue,” while a “new Royals ballpark district is expected to support 8,400 jobs and generate $1.2 billion in economic output annually.”  
In a statement to The Daily Wire, a Kehoe spokeswoman said that the governor “has been working for months to develop a competitive package to keep both the Kansas City Royals and Chiefs in Missouri where they belong.”
Conservative Republicans in the Missouri Freedom Caucus, however, don’t buy the governor’s economic estimations and don’t want to use taxpayer dollars for the benefit of billionaire owners. Instead, the Freedom Caucus Republicans argue that the state should focus on helping average Missourians with tax cuts. 
“I hate the thought of billions of taxpayer dollars going to fund bread and circuses, to be honest with you,” Republican State Senator Rick Brattin told The Daily Wire. “And that’s exactly what this is, especially when you see the Royals posting the ‘Pride’ stuff and totally disconnected from reality.” 
Brattin added that the Royals can “move to Kansas for all I care,” saying that the team’s games are “sparsely attended.”  
The state senator said his colleagues are prepared to negotiate with the governor to come to an agreement on tax cuts for all Missourians in exchange for stadium funding. He argued that incentives offered to the billionaire sports owners should be matched with tax cuts for average citizens. 
Some Democrats are also questioning the stadium funding, arguing that more money should be allotted for disaster relief after a major <a href="https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=PNSLSX&amp;e=202505190006">tornado</a> struck St. Louis in May, killing five people and injuring dozens more. 
Paying for major stadium upgrades — or a new stadium — is a major cost for even the billionaire owners of sports franchises. In most cases, cities and states will chip in by offering government subsidies and tax incentives. The return on such a massive investment, however, is minimal for state and city governments, according to John C. Mozena, the president of the Center for Economic Accountability. 
Mozena told The Daily Wire in a phone interview that the economic projections on the stadiums touted by Kehoe’s office are “incredibly flawed.” 
“There is virtually nothing that economists agree on more than the idea that stadiums are terrible investments for governments and terrible economic development tools,” Mozena said. “The reason for that is really simple, it’s that stadiums spend almost their entire lives dark, empty, and silent. Most of the time, there’s nothing going on there.” 
Mozena added that a baseball stadium might draw up to three million people in a good season, which is “about what a single good-sized Walmart Supercenter might do.” 
“These are big facilities with a lot of infrastructure around them that barely ever get used and end up being economic black holes,” said Mozena.  
The stadium funding battle reignites a familiar fight, one that Missouri and Kansas once fought over Applebee&#8217;s. From the 1980s through the early 2000s, Applebee&#8217;s moved its headquarters from Missouri to Kansas and back to Missouri, lured by competing tax incentives. The economic “<a href="https://www.npr.org/transcripts/668790306">border war</a>” over Applebee&#8217;s ended when the restaurant chain moved to Southern California in 2023. 
The governor is positioning the war over the Chiefs and the Royals as another battle to keep jobs in the state. 
“Governor Kehoe views these efforts as important economic development retention projects, and believes Missouri’s proposal must be competitive to keep these major economic engines in the state, while also being a good deal for taxpayers,” his spokeswoman told The Daily Wire. 
Andy Roth, the president of the State Freedom Caucus Network, said the economic argument doesn’t add up.
“What’s particularly nuts about this whole thing is, by the governor’s own admission, they’re worried the Chiefs and the Royals are going to move 10 miles to the west,” Roth told The Daily Wire. “It’s not like they’re going to Seattle or Florida or New York. They’re literally just going across the road.”  
The economic border war over the two franchises likely won&#8217;t come to an end until at least the end of June as Missouri lawmakers seek to work out a deal with the governor. Kansas’ offer for the Chiefs and Royals is also coming off the table at the end of June, according to Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins, the Kansas City Star <a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article307452161.html">reported</a>. 
“If one of them wants to — or both — wants to come to Kansas, we’d love to have them,” Hawkins said. “We have the tools.”

KC-Stadiums

A Tale Of Two Kansas Cities: Chiefs And Royals Spark Political Battle With Potential Stadium Moves

Kansas

Kansas City

Kansas City Chiefs

Missouri

Support among Republicans for gay marriage has plummeted in the last three years, according to a new <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/691139/record-party-divide-years-sex-marriage-ruling.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gallup poll</a>.
Gallup’s poll released on Thursday found 41% of GOP voters support gay marriage, as opposed to 55% in 2021 and 2022. A whopping 88% of Democrats approved of gay marriage in the new poll; the 47-point gap between the two parties is the largest since Gallup first asked the question in 1996. Seventy-six percent of independents approve of gay marriage. In 1996, 16% of Republicans approved; 33% of Democrats and 32% of independents agreed.
86% of Democrats said gay or lesbian relations are morally acceptable; 38% of Republicans agreed, a drop from 2022, when 56% of Republicans agreed. Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, 33% said same-sex marriage was morally acceptable and 24% said gay-lesbian relations were socially acceptable. Gallup polling between 2020-2023 <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/507692/church-attendance-lower-pre-pandemic.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that more Republicans attended weekly religious services than Democrats by 15 percentage points.
When writing a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22067323-dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization-clarence-thomas-concurrence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">concurring opinion</a> in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made the legal case for overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges, the last of which guaranteed the right to gay marriage.
Thomas explained that the three cases relied on substantive due process, which he called “an oxymoron that lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.”
Courts have used substantive due process to protect unenumerated rights not mentioned in the Constitution. The right to privacy and the right to gay marriage have been recognized under substantive due process.  
“On the Due Process Clause, Justice Thomas has long argued (consistent with much academic commentary) that insofar as the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates enumerated rights against the states and protects unenumerated rights, this work is done by the Privileges [and] Immunities Clause, and not the Due Process Clause,” Reason <a href="https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/26/on-justice-thomas-dobbs-precedent-and-substantive-due-process/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">noted</a>.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday&amp;_gl=1*1qdq03s*_gcl_au*MTYyNDg0MTE0OS4xNzQxODk4NTMz*_ga*MTEzOTk1NjkxNi4xNzI2MzI1MDQz*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NDgzNzg2NDgkbzEwMDMkZzEkdDE3NDgzODEwMTckajU4JGwwJGgw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,” Thomas wrote. “Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents, After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”
“Substantive due process exalts judges at the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority,&#8221; he wrote, “Substantive due process distorts other areas of constitutional law. &#8230; Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments. &#8230; The harm caused by this Court’s forays into substantive due process remains immeasurable.”

Group of People Celebrating Gay Pride Parade- Pride Month and Parade-People marching with the rainbow LGBTQ+ flag

Support For Gay Marriage Plummets Among Republicans: Gallup Poll

Clarence Thomas

Gallup

Same-Sex Marriage

On Thursday, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/05-22-2025-Letter-to-Dr.-OConnor.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">letter</a> to former White House physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor, alerting him that he is being investigated for his medical assessments of former President Joe Biden, who has been diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer that has spread to his bones.
“The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating the accuracy, transparency, and credibility of your medical assessments of former President Joe Biden given his recent acknowledgment of an advanced physical condition and a publicly apparent cognitive decline,” Comer wrote, noting that the Committee had first written to O’Connor on July 7, 2024, 10 days after the Trump-Biden debate in which Biden had shown clear signs of a mental decline.
“Biden White House officials stalled all attempts by the Committee to obtain your testimony,” Comer recalled. “In light of mounting evidence that confirms the Committee’s initial observation that President Biden was significantly unwell while serving in office, the Committee seeks information to ensure accurate information was provided to the American people and your health reports were not subject to any improper influence.”
Daily Wire White House Correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan asked White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday if the White House would further scrutinize O&#8217;Connor.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/MaryMargOlohan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MaryMargOlohan</a>: &quot;Is there interest in further scrutiny of Kevin O&#39;Connor, the former president&#39;s physician?&quot;<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a>: &quot;[President Trump] wanted to extend his warmest wishes to the former president &#8230; as for any further action, I&#39;ll let the President speak on that first.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/XTogdSMjSQ">pic.twitter.com/XTogdSMjSQ</a>
&mdash; Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1924461438095016436?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
In early July 2024, White House spokesman Andrew Bates said, “Dr. O’Connor is a world class medical professional” whose “unique expertise is sought across the medical community, in which he is respected for his candor, attention to detail, and work ethic,” The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/06/kevin-oconnor-biden-doctor-cognitive-tests-debate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>.
O’Connor, an osteopathic physician who <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/06/kevin-oconnor-biden-doctor-cognitive-tests-debate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">became</a> Biden’s doctor in 2009, said in February 2024 that Biden was “a healthy, active, robust 81-year-old male, who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the Presidency.”
The committee is also investigating whether O&#8217;Connor&#8217;s “financial relationship with the Biden family affected [his] assessment” of the former president&#8217;s fitness to serve. 
“Given your connections with the Biden family, the Committee seeks to understand if you contributed to an effort to hide former President Biden’s fitness to serve from the American people,” Comer warned, mentioning Special Counsel Robert Hur’s interview with Biden that had depicted Biden as deteriorating mentally.
Looking forward, Comer stated, “The Committee seeks information about your assessment of and relationship with former President Biden to explore whether the time has come for Congress to revisit potential legislation to address the oversight of presidents’ fitness to serve pursuant to its authority under Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth <a href="https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-xxv">Amendment</a>.”
In August 2020, Biden, then 77, was asked whether he had taken a cognitive test. “Why the hell would I take a test?” he answered testily.
“We request you make yourself available for a transcribed interview on June 25, 2025,” Comer concluded.

US-POLITICS-EDUCATION-BIDEN

House GOP Investigating Biden’s Doc, Who Said He Was ‘Fit’ To ‘Execute The Duties Of The Presidency’

House GOP

James Comer

Joe Biden

Kevin O'Connor

Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, a senior adviser to President Donald Trump, said on Tuesday that he will dial back his spending on future political campaigns.
Asked about his plans for political contributions at Bloomberg&#8217;s Qatar Economic Forum, Musk said over video that he&#8217;s &#8220;going to do a lot less in the future.&#8221; Musk <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-277-million-trump-republican-candidates-donations/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spent</a> nearly $240 million through his political action committee, America PAC, helping Trump and Republicans in the 2024 election cycle. His comments on Tuesday, however, indicate that he won&#8217;t be as aggressive in pushing Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections.
&#8220;I think I&#8217;ve done enough,&#8221; Musk said, adding, &#8220;If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I do not currently see a reason.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" title="LIVE: Elon Musk speaks remotely at the Qatar Economic Forum" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iTRY86NEIbg?start=1984&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Along with his major donations to the Republican effort last election cycle, Musk was also a major fixture on the campaign trail, appearing multiple times alongside Trump. After Trump took office in January, Musk led the effort, alongside the Department of Government Efficiency project, to find waste and fraud within the federal government.
After joining Trump in the White House, Musk got behind the conservative candidate in the closely watched Wisconsin Supreme Court election, saying the race could affect the &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/musk-says-wisconsin-supreme-court-election-is-a-vote-for-which-party-controls-the-house" target="_blank" rel="noopener">entire destiny</a>&#8221; of humanity. Musk&#8217;s America PAC spent millions of dollars on race, but conservative candidate Brad Schimel <a href="https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2025/wisconsin/?r=50888" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lost</a> to liberal candidate Susan Crawford by 10 percentage points, and the liberals maintained a majority on the court.
Musk, who was regularly seen with the president during the Trump administration&#8217;s first 100 days, has taken a step back from overseeing Trump&#8217;s DOGE initiative.
“I’ll be allocating far more of my time to Tesla&#8230;&#8221; Musk <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/elon-significantly-cut-back-doge-time?author=Daniel+Chaitin&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Elon+To+%E2%80%98Significantly%E2%80%99+Cut+Back+On+DOGE+Time" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> last month.
The Tesla CEO added in his interview on Tuesday that he is committed to leading the electric car company for at least the next five years, <a href="https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1924835630858543332" target="_blank" rel="noopener">saying</a> that he wants “sufficient voting control” to keep Tesla from falling into the hands of activist investors.
“It’s not a money thing,” Musk said. “It’s a reasonable control thing over the future of the company.”
Musk&#8217;s shift back to focusing on Tesla comes after the company saw a drop in revenue and net income over the first quarter of 2025. Tesla stock dropped from $379 at the beginning of January to $222 at the beginning of April. Since then, however, the stock has climbed back up to $349. After Musk became a senior adviser to Trump and pushed for major government spending cuts, Tesla has been targeted by leftist activists who have set fires to and vandalized vehicles and threatened Tesla dealerships.
&#8220;Firing bullets into showrooms and burning down cars is unacceptable. Those people will go to prison, and the people that funded them and organized them will also go to prison. Don&#8217;t worry, we&#8217;re coming for you,&#8221; Musk said on Tuesday&#8217;s video call to the applause of the crowd.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="LIVE: Elon Musk speaks remotely at the Qatar Economic Forum" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iTRY86NEIbg?start=281&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

‘I’ve Done Enough’: Musk Says He Will Spend ‘A Lot Less’ On Future Political Campaigns

Bloomberg News

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

General

Qatar

Tesla

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton&#8217;s latest dig at Republican women made it clear that she has learned absolutely nothing from the massive wave of backlash that hit her after her 2016 comment referring to President Donald Trump&#8217;s supporters as a &#8220;basket of deplorables.&#8221;
Clinton sat down with Margaret Hoover for an interview in early May, and Hoover used the opportunity to ask the twice-failed Democratic presidential candidate what advice she might have for the first female President of the United States.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨NEW: Hillary Clinton appears to have learned nothing from her 2016 “basket of deplorables” remark — she just smeared nearly *all* Republican women as “HANDMAIDEN[S] TO THE PATRIARCHY”🚨<a href="https://twitter.com/DailyCaller?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@DailyCaller</a> <a href="https://t.co/9rrFjDdO12">pic.twitter.com/9rrFjDdO12</a>
— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1924121589555007755?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 18, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;Well,&#8221; Clinton began, and then there was a long pause before she added, &#8220;First of all, don’t be a handmaiden to the patriarchy, which kind of eliminates every woman on the other side of the aisle, except for very few.&#8221;
She named Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) as one example of a Republican woman who did not fit that particular description. Hoover suggested that former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) would be another.
&#8220;Yep, there&#8217;s a few,&#8221; Clinton continued. &#8220;Look, first we have to get there, and it is, you know, obviously so much harder than it should be. So, you know, if a woman runs who I think would be a good president, as I thought Kamala Harris would be and as I knew I would be, I will support that woman.&#8221;
Lily Tang Williams, Republican candidate for New Hampshire&#8217;s 2nd House District, fired back via X: &#8220;Hillary Clinton called Republican women &#8216;Handmaidens for the patriarchy.&#8217; What does she call her own party which supports men competing with women in women’s sports, hurting women &amp; invading their private spaces? Hypocrites!&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Hillary Clinton called Republican women &#8220;Handmaidens for the patriarchy.&#8221;
What does she call her own party which supports men competing with women in women’s sports, hurting women &amp; invading their private spaces? Hypocrites! 
<a href="https://t.co/RZJTanBHuO">pic.twitter.com/RZJTanBHuO</a>
— Lily Tang Williams (@Lily4Liberty) <a href="https://twitter.com/Lily4Liberty/status/1924525967529136412?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 19, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Says GOP Women Are ‘Handmaidens To The Patriarchy’ — Except Two

Hillary Clinton Says GOP Women Are 'Handmaidens To The Patriarchy' — Except Two

Handmaid's Tale

Media

Patriarchy

Women

Menu