On Monday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin verbally dismantled purple-haired leftist Connecticut Congresswoman Rose DeLauro during a House Appropriations hearing.
Zeldin used a trio of Supreme Court precedents to leave his opponent gasping for air.
The most telling part of the exchange was the following:
<blockquote>
DeLauro: When climate change is flooding our streets, poisoning our air, driving up health care and disaster costs, how can the EPA justify abandoning that duty to protect Americans, to appease polluters under the false flag of economic growth?
Zeldin: Following the law. Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. Where does this say anything about fighting global climate change? Loper Bright, Supreme Court case. You familiar with it?
DeLauro: No, maybe others are, but not, but let me ask.
Zeldin: But that&#8217;s really important. As a member of Congress, Loper Bright says that we, as an agency, don&#8217;t have the authority to get creative. If Section 202 of the Clean Air Act doesn&#8217;t&#8230;
DeLauro: No, but you don&#8217;t have, excuse me, you do not have the right to say climate change does not exist, that it&#8217;s a hoax, and that&#8217;s where this administration is coming from.
Zeldin: I understand you&#8217;re upset that you don&#8217;t know what Loper Bright is. Do you know what the major policies doctrine is?
DeLauro: I&#8217;m upset because —
Zeldin: Do you know what the major policies doctrine is? You&#8217;re a member of Congress. You should know.
DeLauro: You have moved from someone who defended the environment to all of a sudden&#8230;
Zeldin: You’re being very defensive about not knowing the two biggest landmark Supreme Court cases of the last year with regard to the question.
DeLauro: You are very defensive about changing your policy and your positions with regard to the environment.
Zeldin: You want me to tell you what the two biggest Supreme Court cases are of the last few years?
</blockquote>
He noted the two cases underlying his perspective: &#8220;Michigan versus EPA. West Virginia versus EPA.&#8221;
<blockquote>
DeLauro: You&#8217;re here because you need money from us, so halt for a second and wait for the questions and answer the questions.
Zeldin: Well, I answered your question.
DeLauro: No, you didn&#8217;t.
Zeldin: And you didn&#8217;t like my answer because you don&#8217;t know what Loper Bright is. Because you don&#8217;t know what the Major Policies doctrine is. Because you&#8217;re asking me about Section 202 of the Clean Air Act, and you don&#8217;t read it. You don&#8217;t know what it says.
DeLauro: Listen, and what you want to do is to deny —
Zeldin: No, I actually read the law. I do my homework.
DeLauro:  Really?
Zeldin: You&#8217;re just somebody who likes to have the microphone on. You know what I have to do? I read the law. I read the Supreme Court cases.
DeLauro: I don&#8217;t have to listen to this.
Zeldin: No, what you should do for your constituents is actually read statute.
DeLauro: The budget is at real risk.
Zeldin: Read your Supreme Court.
DeLauro: This is the Appropriations Committee.
Zeldin: You care about science, now you&#8217;re threatening to defund it?
DeLauro: Oh, my God. No, you don&#8217;t fund science.
Zeldin: Because you don&#8217;t know what Loper Bright is. Because you don&#8217;t know what the Major Policies doctrine is. Your message to our folks at the EPA is that you wanted to defund us.
DeLauro: I don&#8217;t have to listen to this BS.
Zeldin: BS? You think I made up these cases?
DeLauro: Yeah, I think you have made up a whole lot of pieces.
Zeldin: I made up Loper Bright? I made up West Virginia versus EPA? I made up Michigan versus EPA?
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Nothing infuriates an uninformed Congressional Dem more than when they realize they voluntarily triggered a debate with someone who actually knows what they are talking about, reads federal statute and adheres to Supreme Court precedent. Today’s self-implosion by <a href="https://twitter.com/rosadelauro?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rosadelauro</a> was… <a href="https://t.co/6HTgVjQCiE">pic.twitter.com/6HTgVjQCiE</a>
&mdash; Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin) <a href="https://twitter.com/epaleezeldin/status/2048895480151593427?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 27, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&nbsp;
Michigan v. EPA (2015) ruled that the EPA acted &#8220;unreasonably&#8221; by failing to consider costs before regulating power plant emissions. It established that &#8220;appropriate and necessary&#8221; regulations must account for the financial burden on the private sector.
West Virginia v. EPA (2022) stripped the EPA of the power to mandate industry-wide shifts between fuel types (like coal to solar). It created a &#8220;speed bump&#8221; requiring Congress to provide specific, clear authorization for any rule with massive economic or political impact.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) overruled the &#8220;Chevron deference&#8221; doctrine. It shifted power from the Executive to the Judiciary, stating that judges must use their own &#8220;independent judgment&#8221; to determine the meaning of laws rather than deferring to an agency&#8217;s interpretation.
At one point, Zeldin told DeLauro that people should not drink or inject glyphosate, the active ingredient in pesticides such as Roundup. She <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epas-zeldin-tangles-with-democrats-over-trumps-budget-request">responded</a> nastily, “Maybe you should try doing that.”

US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-HEARING-ENVIRONMENT-ZELDIN

WATCH: Zeldin Turns Purple-Haired Dem White With Rage As He Demolishes Her

Congress

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Lee Zeldin

Politics

U.S. House of Representatives

Republicans are on the cusp of expelling Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) for pocketing millions in federal disaster relief funds and funneling them into her campaign. The House Ethics Committee has already found her in violation of House rules, and it will meet on Tuesday to determine her punishment. Speaker Mike Johnson has signaled the full House will take up her expulsion soon. That vote, if it passes, would hand Republicans a sufficient margin in the House to do what needs to be done and expel Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL).
The Florida Republican is a walking disaster. In February, police responded to a disturbance at Mills’ D.C. penthouse. His girlfriend was found in the lobby, physically shaking and scared, with fresh bruises on her arm. She later walked back her account and no charges were filed, but the episode exposed more mess: Mills was still married at the time, a fact his own staff didn’t know. Another person who was blindsided was his other girlfriend, former Miss United States Lindsey Langston, who quite reasonably looked at Mills’ conduct and decided to break things off. Mills responded by threatening to release explicit videos of her if she dated anyone else, according to texts reviewed by The Blaze.
But domestic violence and threats to release revenge porn barely scratch the surface of Mills’ scandals; there’s also the matter of stolen valor. Mills has repeatedly told voters he is an Army Ranger. He is not. He has claimed attendance at military sniper school and described being “blown up” twice in Iraq, including in campaign videos. Colleagues who served alongside him in contractor roles told investigators the claims were false. He lacked basic sniper knowledge that any graduate of the sniper school would possess. In one IED incident he cited, he wasn’t even in the vehicle that was hit and suffered no injuries. And when DynCorp, the contractor he worked for, demanded proof of the claims he made on his resume, Mills reportedly left his gear on his bed and walked off the job rather than produce documentation.
Add to that: his marriage (which he treated so cavalierly) was performed by a radical Islamist cleric, and there are serious questions about whether he converted to Islam around the same time. The scandals have piled up for months. Any one of them would be disqualifying for most professions. Together, they paint a picture of a man whose personal conduct makes him a permanent liability.
Mills’ recent votes prove it. Last September, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) brought a censure resolution against Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) after Omar suggested Charlie Kirk brought his own assassination on himself. The resolution should have passed with unanimous Republican support. Omar’s comments were grotesque, and yet the resolution failed. Mills was one of only four GOP members to vote no. He proffered frivolous First Amendment arguments to justify his vote and even implied Charlie himself would have agreed. No one who watched the vote believed that for a second.
The real reason was obvious: Axios reported days earlier that Democrats planned to counter by threatening Mills with his own censure resolution. Mace herself later said Mills texted her threats after the vote. He wasn’t defending free speech; he was protecting his own hide. When the personal risk to Cory Mills went up, the interests of his constituents and his party went out the window.
This is not an isolated lapse. Mills has a pattern of self-dealing with his votes on censure resolutions. Lawyers get disbarred for putting their own interests ahead of their clients’. Members of Congress take an oath to their constituents and the Constitution. When personal scandals create an irreconcilable conflict that distorts their votes, the remedy is the same: removal.
Mills will not resign on his own. He has shown zero interest in an honorable exit. The only path left is for the House to do what it must. Expel him. Let Florida voters choose a replacement who can serve without a cloud of personal scandals dictating every vote. The Republican Party will be better for it.
 * * *
Will Chamberlain is senior counsel at the Article III Project.

Former President Donald Trump’s Hush Money Trial Continues In New York

Cory Mills Has Become A Liability Republicans Can’t Ignore

censure

DW Opinion

Ethics

Expulsion

Florida

Nancy Mace

The following is an excerpt from the new book ​​”<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Poisoned-Ivies-Academic-Americas-Universities/dp/1668087537/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.j306CWFwpsasj544DoZskg.x7d6MxQNY3W7C4_i3nSg1CNXwSThLN55XNmuxbmamSE&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;qid=1776193998&amp;refinements=p_27%3AElise+Stefanik&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1&amp;text=Elise+Stefanik">Poisoned Ivies: The Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America&#8217;s Elite Universities</a>,” by Elise Stefanik (Threshold Editions, April 14, 2026)
* * *
America’s higher education system is in the midst of a historic reckoning. The compact that existed for generations between our republic, the American people, and our institutions of higher learning has irrevocably broken down. Universities once dedicated to the pursuit of truth and academic excellence have become centers of radical political indoctrination—all while being generously subsidized by hardworking American taxpayers.
Americans of both parties, college-educated and non-college-educated, have lost faith in our universities at a staggering pace. A September 2025 Gallup poll revealed an astonishing trend; only about one-third (35 percent) of Americans today think that a college education is “very important.” That’s a rapid drop from 2019, when 53 percent of Americans agreed with that proposition. In 2010, it was 75 percent.
This hasn’t happened in a vacuum. Colleges and universities across the country have actively undermined their standing in the public imagination. They have chosen to embolden the most radical members of their faculty and staff. They have forced the divisive and discriminatory “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) regime as gospel. They have proactively silenced and canceled students and teachers who disagree with the groupthink progressive political agenda.
Just look at the data. Democrat faculty outnumber Republicans by at least eight-to-one at any major university. And political bias isn’t the only troubling issue. More than one-third (34 percent) of college students now say “using violence to stop campus speech” is acceptable. This is an absolutely stunning statistic and even more disturbing after the nation saw the horrific footage of Charlie Kirk’s assassination on a university campus during one of his iconic college tours where the main purpose of the event was to engage in respectful discourse and peaceful debate. Many on the Left, including some Democrat elected officials, viciously celebrated the loss of this young man’s life, saying it was somehow justified and deserved. This is a deeply disturbing and dangerous turning point for our national fabric and political culture.
<div id="attachment_1077721" style="width: 391px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Poisoned-Ivies-Academic-Americas-Universities/dp/1668087537"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1077721" class="size-large wp-image-1077721" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Stefanik-book-381x576.jpg" alt="Cover credit: Threshold Editions" width="381" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Stefanik-book-381x576.jpg 381w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Stefanik-book-199x300.jpg 199w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Stefanik-book-768x1160.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/Stefanik-book.jpg 993w" sizes=" (max-width: 381px) 100vw, 381px" /></a>Cover credit: Threshold Editions</div>
Activism has come at the cost of education. Students are not learning the skills in the classroom that once defined a college graduate. Not only are they showing up academically unprepared, but they are leaving uneducated, unemployable, radicalized, and deeply out of touch with American values. Approximately one-third of college students require remedial classes before they begin earning credits. But once they start taking classes, grade inflation is worse than ever. They know less, but get better grades, than previous generations. More than 60 percent of college students admit to cheating.
Meanwhile, college tuition has increased at a preposterous rate as the value of a degree has declined. The average college student leaves school saddled with $40,000 of debt. A mere 30 percent of 2025 college graduates found entry-level jobs in their chosen field, while nearly half felt unprepared even to apply for entry-level jobs.
The American people are smart. We know that something has gone catastrophically wrong, and we are tired of being asked to foot the exorbitant bill on autopilot for a broken system that morphs students into anti-American zealots.
This didn’t happen overnight. The tremors leading up to this earthquake have offered warning signs for decades. An education system that was the envy of the world is now facing questions of its importance, quality, and meaning. A course correction is long overdue—so overdue, in fact, that the questions are no longer about minor improvements and reform; they have become existential. Questions such as: Are American colleges educating or indoctrinating? Can higher education even be reformed, or do we need to completely rebuild it from scratch? What is being taught in the classrooms, and why? When colleges and universities lose their way, how do we hold them accountable? How much foreign money is funding American higher education? Is a traditional college education even remotely worth the absurdly out-of-reach tuition price tag? Are these “elite” colleges and universities even worth saving? Americans are right to ask these hard questions. And the toughest questions are being posed to the most “elite” schools.
The most prestigious colleges and universities in America make up what is known colloquially as the Ivy League. The Ivy League, nestled in the Northeast and scattered across New England, is made up of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, University of Pennsylvania, Dartmouth, Brown, and Cornell. While each university has its own distinct character with unique qualities, these institutions taken as a group have historically been considered the bellwether and compass of American higher education. They set the standards and norms that other universities aspire to achieve, not just in the United States, but around the world.
Historically, Ivy League colleges were known for their institutional prestige, academic excellence, esteemed faculty, rigorous and extremely selective admissions processes, groundbreaking research, and extraordinarily successful alumni networks. Attending an Ivy League school was supposed to guarantee professional success for graduates. They were the crown jewels of the entire higher education system worldwide. For generations, admission to an Ivy League school meant winning a golden ticket to the American dream.
Today, that once-pristine reputation has been sullied. Most Americans understand the Ivy League schools as something different. Instead of bastions of knowledge and vibrant intellectual life, they are considered hotbeds of radical ideology, groundless elitism, intellectual laziness, and anti-American hatred. The reputation of these schools has declined dramatically. It has been poisoned.
This process of institutional decay, almost entirely self-inflicted, culminated in a once-in-a-generation congressional hearing on antisemitism with university presidents in December 2023. This was the moment Americans decided that enough was enough. Our universities were failing us and our next generation of leaders.
At that hearing, a single line of questioning revealed the depths of the moral and academic rot in higher education. The presidents of Harvard, University of Pennsylvania (UPenn), and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) were asked to testify before Congress on the wave of antisemitism on their campuses after Hamas’s terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. One question went viral and quickly became the most viewed congressional testimony in United States history. It was truly the hearing heard around the world. 
I know because I asked the question. 
“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct on bullying or harassment?” This was not a political question. It was a moral one. I thought it would be the easiest, most straightforward question of the hearing. I assumed their answers would be a resounding yes. But to my shock, the presidents of MIT, UPenn, and Harvard, arguably the most prestigious universities in the world, answered one after another deadpan and nearly verbatim: “It depends on the context.” And the world heard.
<div id="attachment_1077739" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1077739" class="size-large wp-image-1077739" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1825446548-864x576.jpg" alt="Representative Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, during a House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Dec. 5, 2023. Lawmakers on the education committee will grill the leaders of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology about their responses to protests that erupted after the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas. Photographer: Haiyun Jiang/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1825446548-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1825446548-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1825446548-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/GettyImages-1825446548.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Haiyun Jiang/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
Their morally bankrupt answers astonished everyone who heard them, including me. These university presidents were supposed to be some of the most learned, intelligent people in America, if not the entire world. They were the people responsible for teaching the next generation of leaders in every field imaginable. They were the leaders of the most prestigious universities in the world. My immediate reaction was apparent to everyone watching. I couldn’t hide my shock. I questioned them further, asking them to elaborate on what they meant—giving them an opportunity to correct the record and state the obvious. And still, they refused to give a clear statement. They refused to state clearly that calling for the genocide of Jews violated their universities’ codes of conduct.
I knew immediately that this was a significant hearing. I didn’t realize in the moment, however, that it would become a historic earthquake that instantly reshaped the debate on higher education overnight. The hearing changed the trajectory of higher education. In the weeks and months that followed, campuses exploded into riotous antisemitic encampments. Subpoenas poured into campuses as Congress opened multiple investigations. Scandal-plagued university presidents and compromised trustees resigned. Campus chaos shaped a presidential election.
Today, as a result of this hearing, elite campuses are in the midst of a generational upheaval. Governance structures are in question. Faculty and curricula are under scrutiny. Billions of dollars in foreign funding have been exposed. The long-standing relationship between the federal government and universities is being revised. Matriculation trends are shifting. Nothing is the same.
Nor should it be. Our hearing reset the course of American higher education. It was a reset that I firmly believe was long overdue.
This book tells the inside story of what is happening on America’s campuses and why. It goes in depth, with an insider’s view, into the deep moral and intellectual rot in higher education. What began as a question about antisemitism triggered a watershed moment.
In the long term, the hearing lit the match for not only accountability, but a far-reaching educational reform movement that has only just begun. This very dark chapter for American colleges and universities can and must lead to light at the end of the tunnel. Our institutions of higher learning have fundamentally lost their way. They strayed far from their founding missions and grew nearly unrecognizable. But that does not mean that the American people have to settle for this rotted and poisoned status quo.
We can and must fix our higher education system and return our colleges and universities to their founding mission. It is within the American people’s power to correct when these schools fundamentally lose their way. And it is our responsibility to ensure that we are educating and not indoctrinating our next generation of leaders. Our colleges and universities should promote academic excellence, intellectual inquiry, and our nation’s highest ideals, not left-wing indoctrination, heinous antisemitism, and anti-Americanism. That’s why it is important to look at what went wrong in this particular moment in history in painstaking detail. By seeing where and why our most elite schools failed, we can chart a better course for the future.
* * *
This excerpt is taken from ​​”<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Poisoned-Ivies-Academic-Americas-Universities/dp/1668087537/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.j306CWFwpsasj544DoZskg.x7d6MxQNY3W7C4_i3nSg1CNXwSThLN55XNmuxbmamSE&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;qid=1776193998&amp;refinements=p_27%3AElise+Stefanik&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-1&amp;text=Elise+Stefanik">Poisoned Ivies: The Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America&#8217;s Elite Universities</a>,” by Elise Stefanik. Copyright © 2026 by Elise Stefanik. Threshold Editions, an imprint of Simon &amp; Schuster, Inc. Reprinted by permission.

Harvard_Ivy_ES

Elise Stefanik: The Moment The Ivy League Lost The Country

antisemitism

Books

Claudine Gay

Harvard University

Jewish

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

University of Pennsylvania

Mass amnesty would be a slap in the face to the American people — and a betrayal of the mandate voters delivered in 2024. The American people sent Republicans to Washington to secure the border, enforce our laws, and put American workers and families first. Yet some in our own party are attempting to resurrect the deeply flawed <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4393">DIGNIDAD (Dignity) Act</a>.
This bill must die in the cradle. It is not “commonsense reform.” It is mass amnesty dressed up in deceptive language, and it undermines the agenda Americans demanded.
Sponsors of the legislation, led by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, insist the bill is not amnesty. They claim it merely brings people “out of the shadows” with earned legal status while securing the border and protecting American workers. Rep. Mike Lawler, a vocal co-sponsor, has even touted it as a bipartisan fix that codifies tough immigration policies.
Salazar has pushed back against critics of the bill, suggesting opponents simply haven’t read the text. So let’s examine the legislation’s own provisions.
The bill’s Sections 2102-2104 establish a version of the Dream Act that grants conditional lawful permanent resident status to illegal aliens who entered the United States before age 18, have been continuously present since January 1, 2021, meet education, employment, or military service requirements, and pass background checks. DACA recipients receive an accelerated track to conditional green cards.
This is a direct path to citizenship for an estimated 2.5 million “Dreamers” who entered unlawfully as minors, eventually making them eligible for U.S. citizenship and sponsor their lawbreaking parents. The bottom line is the Dignity Act rewards breaking our laws with a clear pathway deeper into the American system.
The bill goes much further, though, in Sections 2301-2305 by creating the Dignity Program, a separate track for the estimated 10.5 million illegal aliens here prior to 2021 who do not qualify for the “Dreamer” provisions. If they pay a simple $1,000 “restitution” fee, submit biometrics, pass a background check, and have no felony convictions, they receive a 7-year renewable “Dignity status” with work and travel authorizations, which they can use existing pathways to adjust to a green card (and therefore a pathway to citizenship).
Sponsors emphasize that there is no path to citizenship and no access to most federal benefits. This is false, and the critical detail they downplay is this: qualifying for the program suspends deportation for anyone who applies and meets the basic criteria, including certain criminals. In practice, this effectively halts mass deportations for the overwhelming majority of the illegal alien population already here. In fact, Section 2204 of the bill explicitly allows illegal aliens deported on or after January 20, 2017 – the day President Trump was first inaugurated – to apply for the bill’s permanent resident status (the “dignity status” outlined above) directly from their home country and, if approved, to return to the United States as lawful permanent residents. This bill seeks to unwind the tremendous successes of President Trump in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws.
Estimates of the unauthorized population have ranged between 12 million and 20 million. The bill’s cutoffs capture nearly all long-term illegal residents, effectively legalizing their presence and shielding them from removal. Proponents call this “earned” status. Conservatives recognize it for what it is: a de facto amnesty that signals to the world that entering illegally carries little permanent consequence once you settle in.
This is unacceptable. American voters did not elect us to rubber-stamp the Biden-era border crisis or to create new legal protections that make large-scale enforcement impossible. Granting work authorization and deferred removal to millions rewards lawbreakers, undercuts wages for American blue-collar workers, and shifts enormous costs onto taxpayers for education, emergency healthcare, housing, and law enforcement. Even if the bill claims “no federal benefits,” indirect costs remain substantial, and local governments bear much of the burden.
Republicans should be expanding detention capacity and streamlining deportations — not creating new protected classes of illegal aliens.
The solution is not to legalize the problem; it is to enforce the law consistently and deter future illegal immigration. The American people understand this. Polling consistently shows strong support for enforcement first, not amnesty-first “compromises.”
As members of the House Freedom Caucus, we stand with the voters who rejected open borders and demanded accountability. We will oppose any legislation that grants mass legal status to illegal aliens, suspends deportations on this scale, or weakens our resolve to restore the rule of law. The DIGNIDAD Act is not a solution — it is a surrender. It must be rejected outright.
No amnesty. No amnesty-lite. No DIGNIDAD Act. That’s our red line.
* * *
Keith Self represents Texas&#8217;s Third Congressional District and serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Andrew Clyde represents Georgia&#8217;s Ninth Congressional District and serves on the House Appropriations and Budget Committees.
Sheri Biggs represents South Carolina’s Third District and serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Randy Fine represents Florida’s Sixth District and serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Bipartisan Lawmakers Launch The Dignity Coalition In Support Of DIGNIDAD

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

amnesty

Donald Trump

illegal immigrants

Latinos

Southern Border

A legislative package that promises to be the largest overhaul of kids&#8217; online safety regulation in decades was advanced last month by the House Energy &amp; Commerce Committee. A good sign of a bill&#8217;s efficacy, however, is how strongly the industry it aims to regulate opposes it.
So far, most of the package — including the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7757/text">Kids Internet and Digital Safety (KIDS) Act</a> and the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/836/text">Children’s Online Privacy Protection</a> (COPPA 2.0) Act — has not drawn serious opposition from Big Tech. What gives?
On balance, Silicon Valley has much to gain if these laws pass as drafted.
For starters, the Senate version of COPPA 2.0 doubles down on the existing age of internet adulthood being 13, thus maintaining the industry-preferred status quo. This ignores the harms social media can cause teens well after 13, such as fueling depression, social isolation, or worse. David Molak, to offer just one heartbreaking example, was <a href="https://www.today.com/parents/cliff-molak-petitions-against-cyberbullies-after-teen-brother-s-suicide-t66591">driven by online cyberbullying</a> to commit suicide at 16 years old. That’s why eminent figures like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/06/well/family/jean-twenge-social-media-screens-teens.html">Jean Twenge</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/ng-interactive/2025/jun/07/jonathan-haidt-anxious-generation-smartphones">Jonathan Haidt</a> call for raising the age of social media eligibility to 16, and others <a href="https://www.cleveland.com/news/2026/01/sen-bernie-moreno-says-social-media-worse-than-cigarettes-for-youths-urges-complete-ban.html">call for 18</a>.
This is bad, but perhaps the legislation’s biggest gift to Big Tech is its numerous provisions to preempt or block a growing crop of state laws designed to hold these companies accountable. A look at the finer details of the legislation reveal that Congress would replace robust state regulation with a far lighter “federal standard,” setting a very low ceiling for kids&#8217; online safety at the state level.
Republican sponsors, of course, frame things differently.
In the Washington Post, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/03/09/congress-tech-online-safefy-social-media/">Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY), E&amp;C Committee Chair</a> and lead sponsor of the KIDS Act, described the package in adversarial terms, as Congress moving to correct Big Tech’s egregious failure to “self-regulate.” Guthrie is doubtless correct about Big Tech’s shortcomings. But this only makes it more noteworthy that the tech industry does not oppose this legislation.
Big Tech hasn’t been silent about every bill in the package. The App Store Accountability Act, which has been enacted in four states (thus far), has received significant pushback. The Apple-backed App Association <a href="https://actonline.org/2026/03/03/the-fly-in-the-ai-package-ointment-why-asaa-doesnt-belong/">decried</a> the bill as a “poison pill” that would stifle “innovation,” explicitly calling it a “fly in the AI package ointment.”
By openly referring to the child safety package as “the AI package,” the App Association gives away the game. Insiders in Washington regularly admit that they are using the child safety package to mollify the concerns of parents and child safety advocates to pave the way for Congress to pass — <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/eliminating-state-law-obstruction-of-national-artificial-intelligence-policy/">what the White House calls</a> — a “minimally burdensome” federal AI standard. In an unguarded interview, Amy Bos, vice president of governmental affairs for industry group NetChoice, <a href="https://rollcall.com/2026/03/03/what-to-watch-from-trumps-national-ai-standard/">speaks of</a> “leveraging, or using, possibly, a kid’s package … to get AI across the finish line.”
Big Tech is only interested in kids’ safety if it comes with a much bigger payoff: a federal law that would stop states from enforcing tougher AI regulations. In fact, with help from Republican leadership, Big Tech has already tried twice — and failed twice — to get Congress to do exactly that.
According to a recent <a href="https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/03/12/congress/cruz-seeks-to-advance-senate-kids-privacy-proposals-in-next-six-weeks-00825098">announcement</a> by Senator Ted Cruz, one of Big Tech’s key Congressional allies, it looks like Silicon Valley is gearing up for a third attempt. And it seems they’ll have the buy-in to try again. As <a href="https://www.politico.com/newsletters/inside-congress/2026/03/12/house-revolt-ahead-for-housing-bill-00824588">Politico recently reported</a>, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said that a federal AI standard is “a ‘big priority’ for the Trump administration, and [he] said a potential bill could be folded into a larger package with other proposals like a kids’ online safety bill.”
But the American people see things differently. Weakening kids&#8217; online safety legislation by tying it to a sweeping “AI package” is a non-starter for American families. Parents nationwide have heard the terrifying story of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/technology/chatgpt-openai-suicide.html">Adam Raine</a>, a 16-year-old boy who was goaded into taking his own life by ChatGPT. They fear that their child might be next. It’s no surprise, then, why, according to a <a href="https://ifstudies.org/blog/americans-want-ai-safeguards-by-a-9-to-1-margin" target="_blank" rel="noopener">national poll</a> by the Institute for Family Studies, American voters want Congress to prioritize kids&#8217; online safety over industry carveouts by a margin of nine to one.
Robust online safety for kids is a winning electoral strategy, but tying it to deregulation of AI is a political loser. As a second <a href="https://ifstudies.org/report-brief/the-artificial-politics-of-artificial-intelligence">national Institute for Family Studies poll found</a>, Republican voters in red states support Congressional candidates who protect children from AI harms and oppose those who push preemption. For a party expected to face serious challenges during midterms, it would seem that Republican leadership would be eager to champion the desires of its voters.
Congress should, like countless state legislatures, side with voters and not protect Big Tech companies from responsibility. We have had enough of that.
Ultimately, Rep. Guthrie is right: American families “deserve more than gestures and idle promises. They deserve laws that work.” That includes his.
* * *
Jared Hayden is a policy analyst at the Institute for Family Studies’ Family First Technology Initiative. 
Michael Toscano is the director of the Family First Technology Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies.

teen capitol hill

Big Tech Is Making Its Play And Your Kids Could Be Caught In The Middle

Artificial Intelligence

Big Tech

Capitol Hill

Children

Safety

Silicon Valley

Social Media

Teenagers

U.S. Senate

In his State of the Union address, President Trump <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7whtgZ2MQI">highlighted</a> the need to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks. He pointed to stopping members like Nancy Pelosi, whose stock portfolio has performed extremely well — imagine that.
To the American citizen working hard, paying the bills, and trying to do the right thing, this is not only suspicious but also extremely frustrating. Trust is already at an all-time low. A recent Pew Research study found that just <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/12/04/public-trust-in-government-1958-2025/">17% of Americans</a> say they trust the government. That is partly because members of Congress, like Nancy Pelosi, are trading stocks.
To show you how big a deal this is, Nancy Pelosi earned an estimated <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/chris-josephs-knows-pelosis-stock-trades-better-than-anyone-he-says-they-should-be-banned">$130 million</a> while in Congress, often purchasing or selling stocks just before legislative announcements affecting the industries in which she had investments. In 2024 alone, her portfolio grew by 70%. Unfortunately, this isn’t just Nancy Pelosi — it’s a problem across Congress.
What happens when Americans believe the system is rigged? They disengage. They stop believing their votes make a difference and that their government is working on their behalf. We need to restore confidence in elected leaders. That will not happen until the line is clearly drawn. Rebuilding trust requires accountability — and that starts with ending practices that put private profit ahead of the public interest. It also requires transparency and rules that apply equally, without exception or delay.
So, to join President Trump’s call to end this loophole that is eroding the trust of the American people, I introduced the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7008">Stop Insider Trading Act.</a> It says that if you are a member of Congress, or you’re married to one, or you’re the child of one, you cannot purchase individual, publicly traded stocks. To do so is wrong. This legislation is clear, enforceable, and leaves no room for loopholes. The bill also requires a seven-day public notice before sales of stocks that members and those closest to them already own can take place.
There have been previous attempts to ban members of Congress from trading individual stocks, but no final ban has passed. Every day, lawmakers are attending committee hearings and briefings, meeting with stakeholders, and writing and voting on legislation that could change the course of an industry. Clearly, there is a conflict of interest. How can the American people be sure their elected officials are making decisions for the public good, and not for private gain? The answer is, they can’t.
That is why there is such strong public support for the Stop Insider Trading Act. In fact, one <a href="https://publicconsultation.org/united-states/stock-trading-by-members-of-congress/#:~:text=A%20survey%20by%20the%20Program%20for%20Public,in%20individual%20companies%20by%20Members%20of%20Congress">poll</a> by the Program for Public Consultation shows that 86% of people support banning stock-trading in individual companies by members of Congress. That includes 87% of Republicans, 88% of Democrats, and 81% of Independents. Clearly, most Americans are on the same page when it comes to this issue. Yet, Congress has done nothing, further fueling public skepticism.
The American people deserve more out of their elected officials, and rightfully so. Considering the overwhelming support for banning members of Congress from trading individual stocks, every single member of Congress should support my Stop Insider Trading Act. If they don’t, it says exactly where their priorities lie.
Elected leadership is about public office, not private profit. We don’t let referees bet on games. Congress should not be any different. My bill makes sure that public service is actually about serving the public, not getting ahead of it.
If you are a lawmaker, you should not be a day trader. That’s a good principle that most people agree on. Now, let’s make it a law.
* * *
Sen. <a href="https://thehill.com/people/bill-cassidy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bill Cassidy,</a> M.D., has represented Louisiana in the U.S. Senate since 2015.

White House Officials Hold All-Members Briefings On Iran Strikes For House And Senate

We Don’t Let Referees Bet On Games. So Why Does Congress Get To?

Insider Trading

Money

Nancy Pelosi

Stock Market

wealth

As early voting rolls along, Virginia Democrats are nervous about their ludicrous gerrymander of the Commonwealth. But they have help from the state election board thanks to a recommendation that prevents voters from even seeing the bizarrely drawn map before they cast their ballots.
According to documents provided to the Daily Wire thanks to a freedom of information act request, a “Redistricting Webinar FAQ,” provided by the General Registrars and Elections Office staff recommends that the proposed map not even be publicly posted by Virginia&#8217;s 133 localities:

<div id="attachment_1065357" style="width: 792px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1065357" class="wp-image-1065357 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election.jpg" alt="Screenshot: Redistricting Webinar FAQ/Virginia Dept. of Elections." width="782" height="147" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election.jpg 782w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election-300x56.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/virginia-election-768x144.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 782px) 100vw, 782px" />Screenshot: Redistricting Webinar FAQ/Virginia Dept. of Elections.</div>
Among the Congress-critters benefiting from the new map is longtime Democrat Rep. Don Beyer, who stands to see a dramatically redrawn district — more than half of voters in it are new to him — and admitted this week that the map looks “unfair.”
“It’s not a done deal by any means,” Beyer told <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/not-done-deal-democrats-start-sweat-virginias-redistricting-referendum-rcna263726">NBC News</a>. “We have to effectively make the case that even though this seems unfair in Virginia, it’s totally fair for America, for those of us who believe that taking back the House is the most significant thing we can do to stop Donald Trump.”
“It’s unfair, sure, but Trump” has been the Democrats’ argument for the absurdly redrawn districts, designed to turn a 6-5 majority delegation into a 10-1 blue slate. The fact that voters will be unable to see how ridiculous it is that five Democratic reps could live in Northern Virginia while representing most of the state is one of the best things they have going for them. They&#8217;re counting on voters to stay ignorant of the truth.

Virginia Marked on Map

Democrat Admits To ‘Unfair’ Map — While Keeping Voters In The Dark

Top Democrat Admits Virginia Gerrymander Is 'Unfair', But Don’t You Dare Let Voters See The Map

Democrats

Elections

gerrymandering

Virginia

Last week, my home state of Michigan witnessed something truly terrifying: a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/police-respond-to-reports-of-active-shooter-as-michigan-synagogue-goes-up-in-smoke">terrorist attack</a> at a house of worship. The attacker drove a vehicle filled with explosives into a synagogue in West Bloomfield, a suburb of Detroit, just a few hours outside of my district.
Thankfully, on-site security personnel quickly intervened — stopping the terrorist and preventing any injury to the innocent children or staff inside. I am grateful to these guardians for responding quickly to safeguard those innocent lives, and I pray for the recovery of those injured in stopping this despicable attack.
This attack, however, isn’t an isolated incident. It is part of a broader and deeply troubling rise in antisemitism that has spread across our country since the October 7, 2023 massacre in Israel.
Nowhere is that rise more evident than on our college campuses.
Students have been whipped into an activist frenzy targeting Israel and the Jewish people.
Rather than stamping out the antisemitic fervor, faculty are fanning the flames. Many campus leaders seem completely unwilling to do anything about it.
<div id="attachment_1062451" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1062451" class="size-large wp-image-1062451" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2154554442-864x576.jpg" alt="TOPSHOT - Pro-Palestinian protesters, some wearing cap and gown, hold signs and chant at a rally in front of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 28, 2024. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2154554442-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2154554442-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2154554442-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2154554442.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images</div>
On campuses across the nation — regardless of size or location — student groups are organizing to harass and intimidate Jewish students. Groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) are the ringleaders, often with the backing of similar faculty organizations.
At Columbia University, antisemitic demonstrators stormed a library, disrupted students, and chanted slogans like “from the river to the sea.” Eden Yadegar, my guest to President Trump’s Joint Address to Congress last year, described it as “disrupting one of the most basic functions of the university.”
All too often, this chaos leads to violence. The House Committee on Education and Workforce — of which I am the <a href="https://edworkforce.house.gov/">chairman</a> — heard from Michael Kaminsky, a student at DePaul University and a first-generation American who was assaulted by masked attackers for his efforts to promote dialogue about Israel and the Jewish faith. He was left with a fractured wrist, and his friend was knocked unconscious.
This is not what college should be. Students should be focused on learning and growing — not fearing harassment or assault because of their identities.
These actions are not happening in a vacuum. They are being encouraged — sometimes openly — by faculty.
At Haverford College, Tarik Aougab — a member of Haverford Faculty for Justice in Palestine (FSJP) — labeled pro-Israel students as “racist genocidaires” while praising the October 7 attacks as “a historic moment.”
At the University of California, Berkeley, a professor posted that he “could have been one of those who broke the siege.”
At MIT, former linguistics professor Michel DeGraff accused a student of having a Zionist “mind infection.”
<div id="attachment_1062465" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1062465" class="size-large wp-image-1062465" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2205276310-864x576.jpg" alt="Michel DeGraff a former professor of linguistics and now faculty at large of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) attends a protest at city hall in Cambridge, Massachusetts on December 9, 2024. The protest calls for the city to intervene and take action against MIT for its role in the Israeli and Palestinian conflict and for MIT to loose its non profit status. (Photo by Joseph Prezioso / AFP) (Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images)" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2205276310-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2205276310-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2205276310-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/GettyImages-2205276310.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images</div>
This kind of rhetoric has consequences.
Let’s be clear: for many Jewish Americans, Israel is central to their identity. When students are targeted under the guise of “anti-Zionism,” the line between activism and antisemitism is not just crossed — it’s erased.
And yet, too many university leaders have failed to meet this moment.
Time and again, university presidents have come before this Committee and refused to take responsibility. They hedge, they equivocate, and they fail to enforce even their own rules.
The result is what we see today: antisemitism that is spreading, intensifying, and, in some cases, turning violent.
My Committee has released a report documenting just how serious this problem has become.
The findings are clear: weak leadership, radical faculty, and emboldened student groups have created an environment where antisemitism festers — and Jewish students are paying the price.
This cannot continue.
* * *
Tim Walberg represents Michigan’s 5th Congressional District and is serving his ninth term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He currently chairs the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Protesters Gather Outside Pro-Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil’s Court Conference In New York

The Profs Aren’t Alright: How Radical Faculty Fuel The Rise Of Campus Antisemitism

The Profs Aren't Alright: How Radical Faculty Fuel The Rise Of Campus Antisemitism

American Universities

College

Columbia University

Education

Hamas

Israel

Jews

October 7

Protestors

Radical Islam

The vast majority of Americans support a federal law requiring age verification for app downloads or access to pornographic content online, according to a <a href="https://act.americanprinciplesproject.org/p/protect-kids-online/results?access=press">poll</a> released on Thursday and shared with The Daily Wire.
The poll, conducted by Cygnal last month, shows that 83% of likely voters support an age verification law for mobile app downloads, and 81% of likely voters support age verification for pornographic sites.
House lawmakers met on Thursday to debate legislation aimed at protecting children from inappropriate online content by requiring Big Tech companies to verify that children cannot gain access to adult apps, websites, or social media platforms without their parents&#8217; consent.
Cygnal&#8217;s poll, which surveyed 1,048 likely 2026 election voters, showed broad approval for the law that also cut across party lines. Nearly 40% of those who responded to the poll described themselves as Republicans, while 35% of the respondents said they are Democrats, and 24% identified themselves as independents.
Terry Schilling, the president of the conservative advocacy group American Principles Project, said the poll shows that parents are united in pushing back against Big Tech&#8217;s reluctance to set up age verification policies for their platforms.
&#8220;Parents are fighting to protect their children, and their enemy isn’t just Big Porn but the Silicon Valley titans that profit from it. They have one advantage in an uphill fight: the American voter,&#8221; said Schilling. &#8220;A supermajority of Americans — from conservatives to independents and even many liberals — are united in their call to rein in Big Tech. For too long, parents have been alone in the fight against exploitive algorithms and apps. It&#8217;s time for Congress to step up and pass commonsense legislation that puts families first.&#8221;
On Thursday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee debated the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1748">Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act</a> and the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1586/text">APP Store Accountability Act</a>. The Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act would require platforms to help prevent children from accessing potentially harmful content, while the APP Store Accountability Act would force app stores to set up parental consent requirements before a child downloads an app.
&#8220;My App Store Accountability Act is simple: kids cannot consent and power belongs to parents, not Big Tech,&#8221; Republican Rep. John James of Michigan <a href="https://x.com/RepJames/status/2029024929127997786">said</a> earlier this week. &#8220;Just as how corner stores are held responsible for keeping adult &amp; addictive materials from minors, my bill holds digital app stores to the same standard.&#8221;
Half of the U.S. states already require age verification for pornography sites. The age verification laws have been enacted by mostly Republican-led states, while deep blue states have taken little to no action to ensure that users who enter pornographic websites are at least 18 years of age. After Louisiana became the first state to enact an age verification law, Pornhub&#8217;s traffic in the state dropped by around 80%, POLITICO <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/08/age-law-online-porn-00110148">reported</a>. After other states, such as Missouri, Virginia, and Utah, followed Louisiana&#8217;s lead, Pornhub decided to completely stop operating its website in states that passed age verification laws.
But protecting children from porn sites isn&#8217;t the only concern for  Americans.
Social media giants — including Meta, YouTube, and Snapchat — have also faced recent scrutiny over how their platforms affect children. Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube are currently on trial in a bellwether social media addiction case before the California Superior Court in Los Angeles County.
The case stems from a 20-year-old woman, referred to as K.G.M., who argues that social media platforms have knowingly designed their platforms to get children and young users addicted and that her mental health struggles began after she became addicted to social media. TikTok and Snapchat were also sued in the case, but settled with the plaintiff before the trial began.
Last month, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in the addiction case and argued that his company has &#8220;navigated this in a reasonable way.&#8221;
In recent years, Meta has rolled out online safety features for children using Instagram. The platform’s “Teen Accounts” keep children’s accounts private, meaning other Instagram users cannot see posts from or contact a Teen Account unless the teenager accepts their follow requests. Instagram also censors content on Teen Accounts, so that children are not shown content that features fighting or cosmetic procedures.
Other countries have recently pursued more severe restrictions on children&#8217;s access to social media. In December, Australia became the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/australias-novel-social-media-ban-for-kids-sparks-debate-as-some-platforms-get-a-free-pass">first country to ban</a> children under 16 from creating accounts on many social media platforms. Malaysia has introduced a similar ban.

Where Americans Stand On Forcing Age Checks For Porn Sites

Americans Overwhelmingly Support Online Age Verification Law, Poll Finds

Poll

Pornography

President Trump is not on the ballot in 2026, and thus his coattails will really not apply to House Republicans or Senate Republicans.
That means an uphill battle for Republicans. The incumbent party in off-year elections tends not to do particularly well. Right now, Republicans are running the barest majority humanly possible in the House of Representatives because of the untimely death of California Republican Representative Doug LaMalfa. His death shrinks the House GOP majority to 218 to 213.
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who wants to run for president herself and seems to be running an anti-Trump campaign, formally resigned from the House in the middle of her term this week. So there are now four empty seats, two in red-leaning districts, two in blue districts. Also, Representative Jim Baird of Indiana was in a car accident, so he is sidelined temporarily.
That means that the GOP is now down to 217 votes. Then you also have people like Thomas Massie, who routinely votes against the president of the United States, and now you&#8217;re down to 216. 
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson always had a very, very tough job. Now that job is becoming nearly impossible.
So the question becomes: How do President Trump and Republicans somehow get something done this year that allows them to claim victory heading into 2026?
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2341-the-ben-shapiro-show?elementPosition=6&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
Foreign policy wins actually do matter. There is this idea that what happens on the foreign policy front doesn&#8217;t help presidents at all, or their parties, but that is eminently untrue. Foreign policy wins can help at the margins. That is particularly true if you are targeting political constituencies that are drifting away from you.
One of the factors about the Trump constituency that is really quite fascinating is that he radically overperformed with Hispanic Americans in 2024. There&#8217;s a case to be made that what he&#8217;s doing in places like Venezuela, and possibly Cuba, is going to have an outsized impact on voter turnout in 2026, particularly in some of the swing states.
Trump also has a booming stock market.
The stakes are very high because if Democrats were to win the House of Representatives, the Trump agenda stops — dead.
President Trump says that if the Republicans do not win the midterms, he will undoubtedly be impeached. He is likely right about this, although I&#8217;m not so sure that President Trump gets impeached the minute that the Democrats take over the House. I think that they will start investigating everybody in Trump&#8217;s orbit. I think they will start ruining lives inside Trump&#8217;s orbit. They did that during Trump’s first term.
One of the things the GOP will not be able to count on is Democrats being totally stupid. They are getting less stupid. They have lost a series of elections. It&#8217;s not been good for them. And now they seem to be jettisoning some of their worst baggage, including the trans issue. You don&#8217;t hear them talking about DEI anymore.
Instead, they are refocusing over and over again on “affordability.” They believe that is their only winning path. They are using the Venezuela issue to say that Trump is ignoring the “affordability” problem at home.
But there is a line of attack here that Republicans are going to have to use — and use often: the amount of fraud, waste, and abuse of the system that is inherent in a bigger government, from Democratic administrations everywhere from Minnesota to New York City.
That is what is going to crush the “affordability” issue.
Another thing that&#8217;s been fascinating to watch is the collapse of Tim Walz in Minnesota, a very blue state. And Tim Walz just had to declare that he would not run for reelection again. He was forced to make that declaration because of the extraordinary amounts of fraud that allegedly exist in his blue state.
When you connect that to the Democrats’ immigration policy, it is a toxic combination. One of the reasons the fraud in Minnesota has captured the minds of so many Americans is because it appears to revolve around members of a community who have been imported into the United States, who have not assimilated into American practices, and bilked the rest of the taxpayers in Minnesota.
When you combine the fraud and immigration issues, it’s a toxic brew for Democrats. It exists across the spectrum. And it’s not just in Minnesota; it’s in New York; it’s in California.
Republicans need to focus extraordinary fire on this particular issue, because it&#8217;s not just enough to unleash DOGE and say waste, fraud, and abuse have to be caught; you have to actually connect it with Democratic policy, and you have to connect it to something that Republicans have been loath to connect it to: the size of government.
When I was growing up, being a conservative meant you were against the expansion of the size and scope of government. Nowadays, it seems in vogue for Republicans to be in favor of that expansion, but at the same time, to want to “cut that waste, fraud and abuse.”
That&#8217;s not a great argument, because inherent in a bigger government is waste, fraud, and abuse. And when you combine that with loose immigration policy, the way Democrats have, you end up with Minnesota.
So here’s my advice for 2026 for Republicans: Focus on “affordability,” but point out what Democrats would do if they gained power: radically expand government, which radically expands fraud, radically expands waste, and radically increases costs.

President Trump Speaks At The House GOP Member Retreat

How The GOP Can Win In 2026

Ben Shapiro

Fraud

Immigration

Minnesota

Opinion

Republicans

Tim Walz

waste fraud abuse

Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-MI) attempted to scold Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Thursday hearing, demanding that she resign — and Noem made it clear that she would not be doing any such thing.
Thanedar, who filed articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump in April and against War Secretary Pete Hegseth just days prior to Thursday&#8217;s hearing, accused Noem of lying — though he was not clear about what — and asked whether she&#8217;d resign in the event that she was not fired from her current post.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Sec_Noem</a> cooks <a href="https://twitter.com/RepShriThanedar?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RepShriThanedar</a>: &#8220;America is very happy that, finally, they have a president in the White House that gets up every day to keep them safe.&#8221;
&#8220;I will consider your asking me to resign as an endorsement of my work.&#8221; 🔥 <a href="https://t.co/uxZpiNvY1Q">pic.twitter.com/uxZpiNvY1Q</a>
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1999154415802998987?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 11, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;I am sick of your lies. The American people are sick of these lies. American people demand truth,&#8221; Thanedar claimed. A poster behind him read, in all capital letters, &#8220;KRISTI NOEM LIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.&#8221;
&#8220;America is very happy that, finally, they have a president in the White House that gets up every day to keep them safe,&#8221; Noem replied.
&#8220;Madam Secretary, your incompetence and your inability to truthfully carry out your duties of Secretary of Homeland Security,&#8221; Thanedar said then, once again leveling his claims without presenting evidence to support them. &#8220;If you&#8217;re not fired, will you resign?&#8221;
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
&#8220;Sir, I will consider your asking me to resign as an endorsement of my work,&#8221; Noem replied, adding as an afterthought, &#8220;Thank you very much.&#8221;
Thanedar&#8217;s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-pulls-trigger-on-trump-impeachment-forcing-house-to-act">attempt to impeach</a> Trump — accusing the president of abuse of power, defiance of the Constitution, and tyranny — was short-lived as leaders within his own party pressured him to hold off after he initially demanded an immediate vote.
His <a href="https://thanedar.house.gov/media/press-releases/12/09/2025/congressman-shri-thanedar-introduces-articles-of-impeachment-against-secretary-of-defense-pete-hegseth">latest attempt</a>, aimed instead at Hegseth, references the recent strikes on narco-terrorists and accuses the War Secretary of &#8220;using the United States military to extrajudicially assassinate people without evidence of any crime.&#8221; A second article of impeachment asserts that Hegseth is guilty of &#8220;reckless and unlawful mishandling of classified information.&#8221;

Kristi Noem

Dem With Impeachment Fantasies Scolds Kristi Noem. She Isn’t Having Any Of That.

Dem With Impeachment Fantasies Scolds Kristi Noem. She Isn't Having Any Of That

Impeachment

Republicans took a victory lap when Matt Van Epps defeated leftist Democrat Aftyn Behn in Tennessee&#8217;s special election this month.
But what, if anything, does Van Epps&#8217;s victory mean for Republican prospects as we head into the 2026 midterm elections?
The Daily Wire asked three Republican strategists to share their key takeaways from this race. All three said that Democrats run the risk of killing any momentum they have if they nominate far-left candidates in primaries for competitive seats.
“For all the handwringing about margin of victory, this was nearly a double digit win. Special elections are special for a reason, and Republicans were wise to leave nothing to chance and sprint through the tape,” South &amp; Hill Strategies co-founder Colin Reed said, calling Van Epps the “type of candidate the GOP needs more of.”
“There are some useful lessons looking forward for both parties: for the GOP, the midterm political climate remains challenging, as it always does for the party in charge, and for the Democrats, they need to nominate less extreme candidates if they want to compete beyond the deep blue bastions of America,” he said.
“That’s a challenge for them because the far Left is where all the energy and enthusiasm resides.”
50% off DailyWire+ annual memberships will not return for another year, so don’t miss this deal! Join now at <a class="c-link" href="http://dailywire.com/cyberweek" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="http://DailyWire.com/cyberweek" data-sk="tooltip_parent">DailyWire.com/cyberweek</a>.
The results of the 2026 midterms will shape the final two years of President Donald Trump’s time in the White House. Currently, there are 220 Republicans and 213 Democrats in the House of Representatives, with two seats that are vacant. The magic number for a majority is 218, which both parties are vying for both on the campaign trail and in mid-decade redistricting battles.
Van Epps won with roughly 54% of the vote, leaving Behn with just over 45%. In 2024, Rep. Mark Green, who resigned earlier this year, won the seat with 59.5% of the vote, with President Donald Trump also winning heavily. Van Epps was sworn in on Thursday.
The race led to surrogates campaigning left and right, from President Donald Trump phoning into a rally with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), to former Vice Presidents Kamala Harris and Al Gore hoping to rally the troops for Behn.
Despite her loss, Behn expressed confidence about the margin by which she lost, as she ran her campaign largely on affordability, but faced a wave of scrutiny for her past far-left comments on abolishing prisons, law enforcement, and abortion.
“Tonight, we did something everyone counted out. We proved to a nation that states like Tennessee are still worth fighting for,” Behn posted to X on Tuesday. “The margin was close, and that can only be attributed to the thousands of volunteers who showed out. This is just the beginning.”
Chris Burger, founder and CEO of the Tennessee-based Rotunda Public Affairs, said that “voters weren’t buying what she’s selling.” Burger pointed out how the Democrat was in a primary with three others: Darden Copeland and state Reps. Bo Mitchell and Vincent Dixie.
“This is what happens when you have four people in a Democratic primary, and they elect by a pretty close margin, the most extreme left-wing person in the race, and then all the far-left activists and the national media complex come together,” he added.
&#8220;They put all their attention and money into it, and they threw the kitchen sink at it. And you know, Aftyn&#8217;s a far-left socialist and she does not represent the Seventh District or Tennessee values at large,&#8221; he said.
A third GOP operative, who spoke with The Daily Wire on background, said that they are “very encouraged” by Tuesday night’s results, and said that “a nine-point margin is really strong compared to what we&#8217;re seeing in other elections this cycle.”
However, the operative cautioned that special elections are just that — special — and that turnout likely looks very different from that during a standard election. The operative also pointed out the major messaging pivot by Democrats between the start of the year and now, which went from focusing highly on Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency to discussing the cost-of-living.
&#8220;Affordability, they call it, was a con job by the Democrats,&#8221; Trump said during his cabinet meeting earlier this week, as he often blames Democrats and the Biden administration for policies that triggered high inflation.
Burger said that the affordability argument from Democrats like Behn falls flat on its merits when people consider the &#8220;policy objective&#8221; the candidates are campaigning for.
&#8220;If you look at what the Democrats want to do: government involvement. And government involvement typically always drives the price up.

Aftyn Behn and Matt Van Epps

Three GOP Strategists Explain Why Aftyn Behn Lost — And What It Means For 2026

Aftyn Behn

Matt Van Epps

Tennessee

Menu