Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is bringing the full weight of her political influence to bear in an increasingly bitter fight over who will succeed her in Congress.
Pelosi, who has represented San Francisco in Congress for nearly four decades, is throwing her support behind San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan as she works to defeat state Sen. Scott Wiener, and to do it, the retiring congresswoman has spent weeks mobilizing her network on Chan’s behalf. She has hosted major fundraisers for the supervisor, secured endorsements from congressional allies, and even loaned a top adviser to Chan’s campaign.
“Nancy has basically taken over Connie’s campaign,” Wiener told <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/10/pelosi-wages-war-over-her-succession-01030149">Politico</a>, contrasting Chan&#8217;s operation with his own campaign, which he said has “enormous grassroots support.”
Pelosi has made clear that she intends to see Chan elected. “I know and love this district, I know the Congress, and I know Connie. I’m proud to endorse Democrat Connie Chan and ask you to join me in electing her to Congress,” Pelosi said when she endorsed Chan.
Pelosi’s intervention is particularly notable because Wiener was once considered an ally. The two have known each other for decades, and Pelosi previously supported Wiener in his campaigns for local office. But their relationship deteriorated as Wiener positioned himself to succeed Pelosi. Wiener announced his congressional campaign in October 2025, before Pelosi publicly announced that she would not seek another term.
The timing of Wiener&#8217;s announcement has remained a point of contention among Pelosi&#8217;s allies. Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, a longtime Pelosi ally who now supports Chan, told Politico that Wiener had assured him he would not announce a congressional bid before Pelosi made her own plans public. Wiener disputes that account, calling it “fabrication” and saying he never made such a commitment.
Several of Pelosi’s longtime political allies and constituencies have followed her in backing Chan, including organized labor. Chan is also supported by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the California Working Families Party and Our Revolution. Wiener, meanwhile, has endorsements from the California and San Francisco Democratic parties, along with several major labor unions and a majority of San Francisco’s moderate-leaning Board of Supervisors.
The latest escalation in the intraparty feud came over an AI-powered campaign chatbot created by Wiener’s campaign to attack Chan. The website, ConnieChan.ai, portrayed Chan as someone who says “no” to proposals involving housing and public transportation. Pelosi and a coalition of Democratic lawmakers and San Francisco political organizations condemned the chatbot, arguing that it could reinforce sexist and racist stereotypes.
“Women have spent generations fighting to have our own voices heard in the halls of power,” Pelosi and her allies said in a <a href="https://x.com/TeamPelosi/status/2085488807152136474">joint statement</a>. “We should not have to fight against artificial intelligence putting words in our mouths.” Wiener later apologized and announced that he would remove both the chatbot and the billboards advertising it.
The controversy has nevertheless given Pelosi another opportunity to draw a sharp contrast between her preferred successor and Wiener. Pelosi’s political intervention comes after the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pelosis-pick-stumbles-as-pro-trans-radical-moves-one-step-closer-to-congress?author=Jacob+Wheeler&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=undefined&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Pelosi%E2%80%99s+Pick+Stumbles+As+Pro-Trans+Radical+Moves+One+Step+Closer+To+Congress">June primary</a> demonstrated that her endorsement alone may not be enough to determine the outcome. Wiener finished first with roughly 41% of the vote, while Chan received about 29%, sending the two into the November general election under California’s top-two primary system.
Pelosi has said her support for Chan is motivated in part by concerns over female representation in the Bay Area’s congressional delegation. Several prominent women who once represented the region, including former Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Vice President Kamala Harris, former Rep. Jackie Speier and former Rep. Anna Eshoo, have all been succeeded by men.
With Pelosi deploying her fundraising network, congressional relationships and longtime San Francisco allies on Chan’s behalf, the November contest is shaping up as more than a race between two Democrats. It is also a test of whether one of the most powerful political figures in San Francisco history can determine who inherits the seat and influence she spent nearly 40 years building.

US Congressional Candidate Connie Chan Campaigns Ahead Of Primary Election

Nancy Pelosi Flexes Political Muscle In Fight To Pick Her Successor

2026 election

2026 elections

2026 midterm

2026 Midterms

California

California Elections

Democrat

Democratic establishment

Democratic Party

Democrats

Election

House Democrats

House of Representatives

midterm

Midterms

Nancy Pelosi

San Francisco

Scott Wiener

U.S. House of Representatives

Maryland Democrats voted this week to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would pave the way for eliminating the state&#8217;s lone Republican-held congressional district before the 2028 election.
The measure passed largely along party lines, clearing the House of Delegates 96-38 and the Senate 32-13 before being signed by Democratic Governor Wes Moore.
If voters approve the amendment this November, lawmakers would gain significantly broader authority to redraw Maryland&#8217;s congressional map ahead of the 2028 elections, allowing Democrats to target the state&#8217;s only Republican-held House seat, represented by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus. Maryland Democrats currently hold seven of the state&#8217;s eight congressional seats.
The proposal would not immediately redraw district lines and would not affect the 2026 elections. Instead, it would remove state constitutional requirements that congressional districts be compact and respect natural boundaries and political subdivisions, leaving future maps subject primarily to federal legal standards.
Democrats argue the amendment is necessary to respond to Republican redistricting efforts across the country. 
&#8220;I continue to believe that our country needs national redistricting reform. But until that happens, inaction is not an option,&#8221; Moore said in a <a href="https://southernmarylandchronicle.com/2026/08/06/redistricting-question-heads-to-maryland-voters/">statement</a>. &#8220;Maryland will not be caught flat-footed while Republicans engage in political redlining that guts decades of progress that the generations before us fought for.&#8221;
Maryland House Speaker Joseline Peña-Melnyk <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/democrats-put-redistricting-amendment-marylands-midterm-ballot-rcna590550">added</a>, &#8220;Maryland cannot remain on the sidelines because of uncertainty in our own constitutional language.”
The amendment marks a significant shift for Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson, who earlier this year resisted calls from fellow Democrats to redraw congressional districts before the 2026 midterms. Ferguson had warned that aggressively redrawing the map could backfire in court after a Maryland judge rejected Democrats&#8217; 2021 congressional map, finding it violated the state constitution by excessively favoring one political party.
His position changed after the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year struck portions of the Voting Rights Act, a decision Ferguson said opened the door for additional Republican redistricting efforts in Southern states and changed the legal landscape surrounding congressional maps.
If approved, the amendment would remove the constitutional provisions that complicated Democrats&#8217; earlier map, making it substantially more difficult to challenge future congressional districts under Maryland law.
Republicans blasted the proposal as an openly partisan attempt to eliminate the state&#8217;s lone GOP congressional district. &#8220;Just because we can go ultra-partisan doesn&#8217;t mean we should go ultra-partisan,&#8221; Republican Delegate Kevin Hornberger said during floor debate.
Rep. Harris, whose Eastern Shore-based district is widely expected to become the primary target of any future redraw, said the amendment would fracture rural communities by combining them with heavily Democratic suburban and urban areas. He also predicted any new congressional map would face another court challenge if voters approve the amendment.
The constitutional amendment will appear on Maryland ballots during the November midterm election, with voters ultimately deciding whether the legislature should receive expanded authority to redraw the state&#8217;s congressional districts before the 2030 census.

Wes Moore

Dems Put State’s Lone GOP House Seat In Crosshairs With Redistricting Ballot Measure

2028 Elections

Congress

Freedom Caucus

gerrymandering

Maryland

Politics

Redistricting

U.S.

A Democratic congressional candidate competing Tuesday in a closely watched Michigan primary has repeatedly criticized what he calls America&#8217;s &#8220;cult of hard work,&#8221; urged the election of more socialist members to Congress, and accused Republicans of being an alliance between &#8220;fossil fuel billionaires&#8221; and &#8220;white supremacists.&#8221;
William Lawrence, a Democratic Socialists of America member, co-founder of the <a href="https://x.com/sunrisemvmt/status/2084685088919335135">Sunrise Movement</a>, and Democratic candidate in Michigan&#8217;s 7th Congressional District, made the remarks across multiple appearances on left-wing podcasts and radio programs uncovered by The Daily Wire.
Lawrence is competing in Tuesday&#8217;s Democratic primary against former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bridget Brink and former Navy SEAL Matt Maasdam for the chance to challenge Rep. Tom Barrett (R-MI) in November. The district is rated a &#8220;Toss-Up&#8221; by the <a href="https://www.cookpolitical.com/house/race/483311">Cook Political Report</a> and is expected to be one of the country&#8217;s most competitive House races.
In one episode of his podcast “Hegemonicon,” Lawrence described what he sees as uniquely American problems facing the political Left. &#8220;You mentioned U.S. exceptionalism, the cult of hard work,&#8221; Lawrence said of American politics and culture.
In the same discussion, Lawrence argued that the Left needs to elect more openly socialist lawmakers and specifically called for additional Democratic Socialists of America members in Congress. &#8220;I think sometimes we want to talk about accountability, as if it&#8217;s simply a moral calculation, where we need more accountable working class and progressive or Left legislator[s] — we need more accountable DSA members in Congress,&#8221; Lawrence said.
Lawrence argued that socialist lawmakers should be supported by an organized political movement capable of protecting them after taking controversial votes against the political establishment. &#8220;But to become an outsider to that is, you know, we need a lot of reinforcements,&#8221; he said.
In a separate 2018 appearance on the left-wing radio program Rising Up With Sonali, Lawrence attacked the Republican Party in sweeping terms. &#8220;I said it before. The Republican Party is an organized alliance between fossil fuel billionaires like the Koch brothers and white supremacists like Steve Bannon and Ron DeSantis,&#8221; Lawrence said. &#8220;They do not care one bit for the idea of democracy, and they are actively dismantling every piece of our civil liberties and our freedoms that we have fought and people have died for over the course of this country&#8217;s history.&#8221;
Lawrence has built his political career through left-wing activist organizations. He helped found the Sunrise Movement, the youth climate organization that became one of the driving forces behind the Green New Deal, and has campaigned unapologetically on the far-left despite running in one of the nation&#8217;s most competitive congressional districts.
His candidacy has highlighted an ongoing divide within the Democratic Party between its far-left and establishment wings. Lawrence has received the backing of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and has both <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/progressives-michigan-join-forces-key-house-battleground-crucial-senat-rcna353212">endorsed and been endorsed</a> by Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, another left-wing darling in Michigan. More moderate Democrats have lined up behind his primary opponents, with Brink endorsed by former Governor Jennifer Granholm and Maasdam backed by Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).
Some Democratic strategists <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/6002980-michigan-democrats-senate-house-el-sayed-lawrence/">have warned</a> that nominating Lawrence could make it harder for the party to flip the district in November, arguing his far-left positions may be a difficult fit in a swing seat that President Donald Trump carried by just over one percentage point in 2024. Lawrence has dismissed those concerns, arguing voters are &#8220;tired of the status quo&#8221; and &#8220;tired of corporate-funded&#8221; candidates.
The winner of Tuesday&#8217;s Democratic primary will face Barrett in one of the House races expected to play a key role in determining control of Congress.
Republicans have already begun highlighting Lawrence&#8217;s comments. &#8220;William Lawrence is a Champagne Socialist who attacks American competition and demonizes hard work,&#8221; Republican National Committee spokesman Hunter Lovell said in a statement provided to The Daily Wire. &#8220;Lawrence hates the American way of life, and he is on a terror path to destroy our country as we know it.&#8221;

NYC-DSA holds a rally to tax the rich

Dem Socialist Candidate Rails Against American ‘Cult Of Hard Work’

Democratic Socialism

Democratic Socialists Of America

Elections

Leftism

Leftist Ideology

Leftists

Michigan

Michigan Primary

Former Rep. Cori Bush is attempting a political comeback in the 2026 midterms, hoping to reclaim Missouri&#8217;s deep-blue 1st Congressional District from the Democrat who unseated her two years ago.
Bush, a former member of the far-left Squad, is challenging Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO) in a rematch of the expensive 2024 Democratic primary. Because the St. Louis-area district is overwhelmingly Democratic, the winner of Tuesday&#8217;s primary is heavily favored to return to Washington in January.
The race has become yet another test of whether the Democratic Party&#8217;s recent leftward shift — fueled by victories from left-wing and Democratic-Socialist candidates in cities like New York, Philadelphia, and Denver — extends towards one of the movement&#8217;s most recognizable national figures.
Bush&#8217;s campaign also revives one of the Democratic Party&#8217;s most contentious internal divides: support for Israel.
When <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/wesley-bell-backed-by-aipac-defeats-squad-member-cori-bush-in-st-louis-distrct-primary">Bell defeated Bush in 2024</a>, the race became one of the most expensive House primaries in American history after pro-Israel groups, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee&#8217;s United Democracy Project, poured $9.3 million into the contest. Bush had become one of Congress&#8217; most outspoken critics of Israel after introducing one of the first congressional resolutions calling for a ceasefire following Hamas&#8217; October 7, 2023 terrorist attack.
Bell has continued backing military assistance for Israel while arguing the United States must support allies confronting hostile regimes. &#8220;I think we have to support our allies not only in Israel, but in Taiwan and in Ukraine,&#8221; Bell said during a recent <a href="https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2026-07-29/missouri-primary-bush-bell-democrat-litmus">joint appearance</a> with Bush. &#8220;They are on the front lines of our sworn enemies.&#8221;
Over the past year, several insurgent Democratic candidates who criticized party leadership and took hard-line positions against U.S. support for Israel have won competitive primaries, leading progressives to argue that voters are increasingly rewarding candidates willing to challenge the Democratic establishment.
For their part, establishment Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) have endorsed Bell&#8217;s reelection. Bell has argued that his first term demonstrates he can effectively work within Congress while delivering results for the district, particularly following the devastating tornado that struck St. Louis in 2025.
Bush has countered that Bell has failed to provide the aggressive leadership voters expected, criticizing what she characterizes as an inadequate response to the tornado recovery effort and arguing the district needs a more confrontational representative willing to challenge both Republicans and Democratic leadership.
&#8220;The fight does not end because I got my feelings hurt,&#8221; Bush <a href="https://19thnews.org/2026/07/cori-bush-missouri-primaries/">told supporters</a>. &#8220;If you&#8217;re a true fighter, you get knocked down, and I got back up.&#8221;
Bush first rose to national prominence as an activist during the 2014 Ferguson protests following the police shooting of Michael Brown before defeating longtime Democratic Rep. William Lacy Clay in 2020. During her two terms in Congress, she became one of the most recognizable members of the Squad alongside Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
Her tenure frequently put her at odds with Democratic leadership. Bush opposed former President Joe Biden&#8217;s bipartisan infrastructure package, advocated defunding police departments, slept on the Capitol steps to protest the expiration of the federal eviction moratorium, and became one of Congress&#8217; earliest and loudest critics of Israel.
Bell continues to support military assistance for Israel while Bush remains committed to cutting it off, making the issue one of the few major policy differences separating the candidates, who agree on many domestic issues.
For the left, a Bush victory would mark the return of one of the movement&#8217;s original national standard-bearers and suggest the Democratic Party&#8217;s activist base continues moving leftward after several high-profile primary victories around the country.
For Democratic leadership, another Bell victory would reinforce the coalition that removed Bush from office in 2024 and demonstrate that establishment-backed incumbents can still withstand challenges from the party&#8217;s activist wing.
The Missouri primaries are scheduled for Tuesday, August 4.

House-Oversight-Democrats-Hold-Discussion-On-Supreme-Court-Ethic

The Cori Bush Comeback? Ex-Squad Member Hopes To Ride Left-Wing Wave Back To Congress

anti-Israel

Cori Bush

Israel

Palestine

Pro-Palestinian

Radical Left

The Squad

House Speaker Mike Johnson&#8217;s (R-LA) successful fundraising going into the midterm elections has handed House Republicans a massive war chest to fight back against radical leftist policies — but they are still staring down a brutal historical buzzsaw.
The Louisiana Republican just announced a powerhouse second-quarter haul of $19.1 million, surging his hard-dollar total for the year past $53 million. Over the course of this election cycle, the speaker has raked in a jaw-dropping $135 million. It is a historic, record-shattering high-water mark for any Republican leader in congressional history. And that’s to say nothing of the hundreds of millions more sitting in his endorsed Super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund.
Since taking the gavel over two and a half years ago, Johnson has generated a mind-boggling $200 million-plus to protect the thin line of defense holding the House.
&#8220;While Democrats lunge further into disarray and to the far-left, House Republicans are united, well-funded, and on offense to win the midterms,&#8221; Johnson said, drawing a stark line between Republican common sense and the Democrats&#8217; &#8220;embrace of crazy and Communism.&#8221;
He is putting his money where his mouth is, distributing $80 million across the party, including $38 million to the National Republican Congressional Committee, $21 million to protect battle-tested incumbents, and $3.9 million to fire up red-wave challengers.
Despite Johnson’s historic financial muscle, the GOP is up against a deeply entrenched Washington landscape.
The battlefield math is incredibly tight. Republicans hold a narrow 218–212 majority with four vacancies, meaning Democrats only need to claw back a few net seats to reclaim the speaker&#8217;s gavel and resume their far-Left agenda.
History is also a major hurdle. The party holding the White House has lost House seats in 90% of midterms since 1946. Liberal forecasters and mathematical models are already gleefully predicting a standard &#8220;referendum&#8221; backlash that could cost the incumbent party roughly 28 seats.
Compounding the challenge is a wave of early exits from Capitol Hill.
Congress is experiencing a near-record exodus, with 68 lawmakers <a href="https://www.quorum.us/blog/2026-midterm-tracker-key-retirements-and-open-seats/#:~:text=Republicans%20currently%20hold%20a%20220%E2%80%93215%20majority%20(with,favored%20to%20do%20so.%20The%20Toss%2DUp%20Battleground.">calling it quits</a> — the second-highest number since 1992. Crucially, the departures are lopsided: 36 House Republicans are stepping down compared to just 22 Democrats. This breaks the previous single-party retirement record set by the GOP back in 2018, right before a punishing midterm cycle. Defending these newly opened seats without the advantage of an active incumbent is a statistically steeper climb.
With <a href="https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls/2026">recent generic congressional</a> polls showing Democrats clinging to a 2-to-6 point edge in surveys from Echelon, YouGov, and Morning Consult, the stakes couldn&#8217;t be higher.
Mike Johnson has successfully built an unprecedented financial fortress. The real test this November is whether that historic mountain of green can permanently break the iron law of midterm history.

Trump’s Weaponization Fund Hits Republican Backlash In Senate

Can Mike Johnson’s Record Fundraising Smash The Midterm Curse?

fundraising

Mike Johnson

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) announced Friday that he is suspending his reelection campaign, ending a nearly two-decade run in Congress after Tennessee Republicans redrew his Memphis-based district into a seat that now heavily favors the GOP.
Cohen, who has represented Tennessee’s 9th Congressional District since 2007, said he signed paperwork requesting that his name not appear on the ballot for the August 6 Democratic primary. The 76-year-old congressman said the newly redrawn district is “nothing like the 9th district that I’ve represented,” signaling that the GOP’s recent redistricting push had effectively ended his path to reelection.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BREAKING: Democrat Rep Steve Cohen ends reelection bid following the passing of Tennessee’s new Congressional map which eliminated his district <a href="https://t.co/9ZVAsPoB73">pic.twitter.com/9ZVAsPoB73</a>
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) <a href="https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/2055314998759694738?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 15, 2026</a></blockquote>
The Tennessee legislature, controlled by Republicans, approved a new congressional map last week that dramatically altered the longtime Democratic stronghold centered in Memphis. The new 9th District stretches beyond Memphis into more rural areas of southern Tennessee, and transforms what had been a majority-black Democratic seat into one that is expected to go to the Republicans in November. The new district would&#8217;ve been a <a href="https://x.com/VoteHub/status/2055308184873480499">Trump +21</a> in the 2024 election.
Cohen, Tennessee’s only Democrat in Congress, called the decision the most difficult moment of his political career. He said he considered running in one of the new districts but ultimately decided against it, arguing that the redrawn lines erased the constituency he had represented for nearly 20 years. A fourth-generation Memphis resident, Cohen had long been a fixture in city politics before coming to Congress, and his exit marks a major generational shift for Democrats in west Tennessee, who now face an uphill battle to hold a seat that was once considered safely theirs.
His departure opens up a crowded Democratic primary. Still running for the nomination are Justin Pearson, the left-wing state lawmaker who rose to national prominence after his expulsion and reinstatement fight in the state House; M. LaTroy Alexandria-Williams; and community organizer DeVante Hill, who has been associated with Black Lives Matter organizing efforts in Memphis.
On the Republican side, Charlotte Bergmann and Kevin Young are competing in the GOP primary as Republicans eye a rare pickup opportunity in a district Democrats have held for decades. The reshaped district could become one of the clearest examples yet of how aggressive mid-decade redistricting is already reshuffling the 2026 House map, particularly in states where lawmakers moved quickly after recent court rulings opened the door to redrawing seats previously protected under Voting Rights Act precedent.
Friday is the final day for candidates to file for the race, with the deadline extended due to the redistricting overhaul.

US Representative Steve Cohen

10-Term Dem Incumbent Won’t Even Run For Office After Redistricting

Republicans

Steve Cohen

Tennessee

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

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Lee Zeldin

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

Menu