The Supreme Court rejected a mid-decade congressional redistricting map in Missouri amid the continuing gerrymandering wars in the lead-up to the 2026 midterms.

In a setback for Republicans, Missouri will have to use the map drawn in 2022 and used in the 2022 and 2024 elections. The maps could have a major impact on who controls the House of Representatives.

The 2025 map was believed to net Republicans an additional House seat.

The high court issued the order Friday evening. The ruling had no noted dissents, The Associated Press reported.

“At this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos,” an unsigned opinion said. “The District Court and Court of Appeals should not enjoin or otherwise prohibit the use of the 2022 map in the 2026 congressional election in Missouri.”

The ruling demonstrates that different facts and points of law in each state redistricting case can impact the outcome. The high court likewise rejected a Democrat-friendly Virginia congressional map but upheld a Republican-friendly map in Texas and a Democrat-friendly map in California.

In the Missouri case Friday, the justices reversed an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Monday to keep the map for the November elections, which will determine control of Congress. The new district was used in the August primary, and the appeals court determined it would be unconstitutional to switch districts between a primary and general election.

The Supreme Court instead let a Missouri Supreme Court ruling stand. The state’s high court determined that a citizen petition prevents the new map from being used without first being approved in a November referendum.

Black gender and sexuality, Filipino sexuality culture, colonialism, social justice, and white supremacy are all phrases you might hear in a progressive activist meeting, but at California State University, East Bay (CSUEB), these represent ethnic studies courses that are a required part of the curriculum.

An investigation by Defending Education found that students only have the option to pick from eight different courses, all of which uphold a narrow narrative of systemic racism.

Below is a list of the eight course options, all framed through a progressive, social-justice-oriented lens:

For an estimated $30,000 a year, you can take “Culture, Power, and Ecology” and explain how “white supremacy, colonialism, and capitalism affect human labor, cultural autonomy, and human-ecological relations.”

You can also choose a course called “Filipina/x/o American LGBTQ+ Identities and Experiences.” This one describes itself as helping students to “analyze the varied expressions of gender identities and sexualities in Filipina/x/o American communities.”

The full list and course descriptions are available at Defending Education.

Reagan Dugan, director of higher education initiatives at Defending Education, told the Daily Signal that these courses go beyond teaching a different point of view.

“Students at CSUEB can’t graduate without taking one of these eight courses focused on social justice,” he said. “That goes past teaching contested ideas and mandates coursework that starts from one ideological premise.”

Reagan continued, “That may be unsurprising in California, but students there still deserve better than ideological mandates in their gen eds.”

The requirement reaches beyond CSUEB. California now requires all CSU students to complete an ethnic studies course to graduate, meaning students are paying tuition to take courses that are framed through a progressive, social-justice-oriented lens while being offered no alternative.

Dylan Frazin, a senior at Cal State University of Fullerton and conservative student journalist, described having to take these courses as “utterly appalling.”

Frazin shared his personal experience taking a Chicano studies course, thinking he would learn about “Latin history in America.” He soon found out he was very wrong. 

“Our first assignment was having to watch a children’s film, “Zootopia,” and to assign a race to one of the animals and describe why that animal is that race. Within the first two weeks, we were already reading an intro to [critical race theory] by Ibram Kendi and being taught how to be antiracist.”

Frazin also shared a disturbing moment in class where students were forced to watch a gay sex scene.

“We were also forced to watch a movie, ‘La Mission,’ more specifically the gay sex scene contained in the movie, to teach us how parents can demonstrate “toxic masculinity” towards their gay children,” he said.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro on Friday retracted a policy he recently proposed that would have allowed government health officials to access one’s property without a warrant and speak to students directly without parental consent.

The move came after the governor received strong pushback from the state’s residents.

“After our members raised serious concerns about the Shapiro administration’s overreach, and after they received over 6,000 appeals from the public, the PA [Department of Health] has WITHDRAWN their proposed COVID-era regulatory changes,” Pennsylvania House Republicans wrote on X.

Previously, the governor proposed the rule, formally known as Regulation #10-242, amending 28 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 27, which states that the “Department or a local health authority may enter an apartment, a building, a health care facility, a school, college or university, or other location as necessary,” despite it having been rejected by Pennsylvania voters twice in recent years.

Additionally, in 2021, Pennsylvania voters approved a constitutional amendment to limit executive authority following the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Pennsylvanians do not support governing by decree. However, the proposed regulations reinstate and expand these executive powers,” the Commonwealth Foundation said in a press release obtained by the Daily Signal. “Governor Shapiro is asking his own agency to write itself new powers.”

In its statement, the foundation added that the governor’s action was to “cut to the very heart of our freedoms as citizens,” and that this invocation sets “a dangerous precedent” that should “concern” any citizen who believes the government’s job is to answer to its citizens.

Apart from potential executive overreach by Shapiro’s administration, the rule itself raises other grave concerns, the foundation stated.

Not only does it lack adequate cost analysis, the foundation said in its press release, but it raises serious constitutional concerns as state health officials no longer need a warrant or parental consent when addressing Pennsylvanians.

The rule has already been challenged by over 9,000 comments from citizens and organizations. Another 16 legislative comments have come from 110 lawmakers. 

“This absolutely is COVID 2.0, but it’s even worse because Josh Shapiro is trying to circumnavigate or skirt the constitutional provision that we the people in Pennsylvania voted to take that kind of power away from the governor,” state Rep. Russ Diamond, who is leading the charge against the policy changes, told Fox News Digital.

Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel of the Commonwealth Foundation Megan Martin said in a statement shared with the Daily Signal that residents are speaking out because they do not want to “relive the egregious and illegal executive overreach of the COVID-19 lockdown era. Pennsylvanians spoke loud and clear then, as they are doing now.”

“The governor and his administration are not above the law. Pennsylvanians didn’t want this abuse of power in 2021, and they certainly don’t want it now,” Martin continued.

Shapiro’s office did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment.

Dr. Heidi Overton, nominated by President Donald Trump to lead the Food and Drug Administration, appeared before a Senate committee on Thursday and shared an update on the long-awaited abortion pill study.

Overton told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions that if she is confirmed, the updates to the study would be on her desk immediately. She assured the committee of her commitment to oversee the study and provide transparency of the results.

The FDA is currently conducting a safety study on the chemical abortion drug mifepristone. The Biden administration formerly changed the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, or REMS, and removed the in-person prescription requirement, allowing for unregulated use of the abortion pill.

Now pro-life lawmakers are attempting to remove the drug from the market entirely. This starts with the FDA conducting the safety study, which is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

“I’m disappointed that the FDA has removed so many guardrails from this dangerous drug, which carries the strongest black box warning,” said Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., at the hearing. “Can you tell us when that safety study will be completed, and will you commit to accelerating the safety study in the interest of women’s safety?”

“If I have the privilege of being confirmed, this will be something that would immediately be on my desk, as I understand the FDA has an update due to the court on Oct. 7 of the process that it is in, and it is a process update,” Overton answered.

“I’m not currently involved in the details of the study, but if I’m confirmed, I would immediately get briefed and be updated on the process and be able to give better answers on the estimated timelines of when that review will be completed,” she continued. “The commitment would be that that study has to be done in the most durable scientific way possible, and the results communicated transparently.”

Overton said her job would be to make sure the study is well designed, the analysis is “adjusted properly,” and the results are shared transparently.

“All Americans [should] have an opportunity to know what exactly is in those findings,” she concluded.

Overton was initially supported by pro-lifers. Upon Trump’s nomination, she was quickly endorsed by Americans United for Life CEO John Mize.

“Dr. Overton is the right candidate,” he said. “She has the scientific and medical background that will enable her to perform an objective analysis of the dangers chemical abortion poses to women. Americans United for Life supports Dr. Overton as the next commissioner of the FDA.”

Some Pro-Lifers Demand More

However, some pro-lifers say they want more from the nominee.

“Dr. Heidi Overton was disappointing, as she pretended that because the FDA has said ‘there is nothing to see here’ when it comes to chemical abortion pills, it wasn’t worth a clear statement,” Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins wrote on X following the hearing.

“The issue is not just reckless distribution of these pills to sex abusers and the complete lack of REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategy], but the body count of babies, mothers, and even potentially endangered species must be addressed. We know of huge health risks and environmental concerns the reckless deregulation of mifepristone brought on the market through the FDA, even with their original Black Box Medical Warning Label,” Hawkins wrote.

“Her responses today illustrate why we just filed our notice of intent to sue the FDA. If she is confirmed, we expect our notice to be at the top of the pile on her new desk,” she concluded.

Climate change will soon arrive before the U.S. Supreme Court, and with it the progressive Left’s most ambitious effort yet to impose Green New Deal socialism on an unwilling public. 

Dozens of blue states and affluent hippie towns are demanding tens of billions of dollars from U.S. energy companies for alleged climate harms. These audacious lawsuits, dressed up as local disputes, are a concerted effort to weaponize the courts against the companies that produce the fuel Americans depend on every day. 

The Supreme Court will hear argument in one of these cases, Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County, on the first day of its new term in October.  

I anticipate the Court will make quick work of climate tort claims. Our constitutional design makes clear that national problems demand national answers. Local officials in Boulder County have no power to impose Green New Deal-style policies on the entire country.  

The Framers gave Congress authority over questions of national and interstate scope, and global carbon emissions fall squarely within that category. But Boulder’s suit reaches even further, far beyond its borders and into states like Wyoming and Texas. In doing so, it tramples on a founding principle of our republic: that no one state may regulate another. 

But, as I warned in an amicus brief that I filed in Suncor earlier this year, the climate Left has many contingency plans, and the justices should see them clearly. The case now before the justices relates to more traditional tort claims, like nuisance and trespass, which seek to make the energy industry pay for the alleged local effects of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. But climate plaintiffs in other jurisdictions are pursuing alternate routes, including accusing energy companies of misleading the public about climate change. Other left-wing climate lawyers have gone even further, suing these companies for wrongful death or arguing energy executives should be prosecuted for murder. 

Their logic starts with consumer protection laws, which police hidden fees, defective products, and false advertisements that manipulate purchasers. “Does the product work as advertised?” is the nub of the law in this area.  

Gasoline, diesel, and natural gas heat our homes and power our cars. They work as advertised, and the climate plaintiffs don’t seriously argue otherwise. Instead, they argue the companies peddled “misinformation,” pointing to vague corporate slogans about cleaner energy, net-zero ambitions, and donations to trade associations.  

Such aspirational statements cannot form the basis of a deception claim, and they lack the required connection to a specific sale. The debate over fossil fuels has played out in public for decades, and no consumer has ever filled up his tank because of a company’s comments about the climate. Moreover, if local governments can recast past policy debates as fraud, no one who speaks on a contested issue is safe from being sued for it. 

Ultimately, the climate plaintiffs aren’t looking out for regular people. They’re pursuing ideological goals, whatever the cost to your energy bill, the price at the pump, or your standard of living. The alleged knock-on harms that preoccupy the plaintiffs are a strained but familiar attempt to convert a public policy dispute into a consumer fraud issue. Actual consumers, who face higher costs and fewer product options, are absent.  

That brings me to the real risk in Suncor. It’s easy to imagine an opinion from the Supreme Court that tosses climate torts while suggesting the plaintiffs may have other causes of action. Such statements, meant to communicate modesty, are routine in Supreme Court opinions. But here, climate trial lawyers would exploit that language and construe it as official sanction for their fraud cases. 

The Supreme Court must recognize that the climate lawyers behind these cases are policy entrepreneurs, not ordinary litigants. Climate litigators are extremely well-funded, and dragging energy companies into years of expensive litigation will accomplish their goals of driving up the cost of producing energy. And they are already moving beyond their tort and fraud claims to more radical theories. 

In Washington state, trial lawyers workshopped the first ever “climate wrongful death” case. This extraordinary lawsuit alleges a woman was killed by a heat wave traceable to energy production (in fact, the decedent drove hundreds of miles through scorching temperatures in a car with no air conditioning). In July, a state judge allowed that case to move closer to trial. Still, some climate litigators go further and argue energy executives should be prosecuted for murder.  

Whether through tort, fraud, wrongful death, or criminal charges, the climate plaintiffs will stop at nothing to advance their agenda. When the justices write their opinion in Suncor, they should close the door firmly on climate lawfare and leave the activists driving this campaign nothing to pry it back open. 

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. 

Following pushback from a Texas legislator, the University of North Texas has taken down its public-facing LGBTQ Archive page from the university library’s website.

Last week, Republican state Rep. Brian Harrison highlighted that the university had an archive collection documenting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer history on its library website. 

According to the now-removed site, “The Resource Center Collection was the initial acquisition to the LGBTQ Archive and is the largest collection of LGBTQ history in north Texas, with over 600 linear feet of materials.”

The collection included documents about people, organizations, and events in LGBT history, including the first Dallas Pride Parade, the Dallas Buyers Club, and the Dallas Gay Alliance.

Harrison posted about the collection last week, expressing frustration that a taxpayer-funded institution had a collection “promoting transgenderism.”

“My constituents are being taxed out of their homes … and their money is being used to promote TRANSGENDER INDOCTRINATION!!!!” Harrison wrote on X. “Public universities are for education … not leftist indoctrination!”

Hours after Harrison mentioned the site to the public, the university took down the webpage, which now displays a “Page Not Found” message.

Harrison celebrated the removal of the webpage, writing on X that UNT “must end the program, not just a website.”

However, the webpage’s removal was not celebrated by everyone.

On Thursday, Harrison shared an email that he received from a senior lecturer in the university’s Department of Anthropology who called Harrison “fragile” and said he should “be embarrassed” for getting the page taken down.

Harrison redacted the professor’s name but shared portions of her university biography, which showed that she is affiliated with UNT’s Women’s and Gender Studies program and teaches several courses on race and ethnicity, gender and culture, and LGBTQ studies.

In 2023, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 17, legislation that limits diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in taxpayer-funded colleges and universities. The law took effect in 2024 and prohibits public institutions from maintaining DEI offices, requiring certain DEI statements, or mandating certain diversity-related training. It also prohibits certain employment or institutional preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. 

Former Republican state Sen. Brandon Creighton, who authored the bill in 2023 and is now the chancellor of the Texas Tech University System, has taken steps to rid Texas public universities of LGBTQ+ instruction.

In April, Creighton sent a memo to the system’s five universities, ordering them to phase out academic programs, majors, minors, and graduate theses centered on sexual orientation and gender identity. The memo has prompted opposition from multiple groups, including lawsuits challenging the policies.

Harrison told the Daily Signal that he’s “fed up with hard-working Texans having their own money weaponized against them, their children, and their values.”

“I’ve single handedly done more to end taxpayer funded DEI and transgender indoctrination and conduct real legislative oversight than all the rest of the Texas government combined, and this is just the latest conservative victory I’ve forced from agencies and universities,” Harrison said. “UNT’s LGBTQ library archive is further proof Texans are still being taxed out of their homes and forced to fund leftist indoctrination.”

“The purpose of taxpayer-funded higher education in Texas is to train the workforce of tomorrow and strengthen our economy,” he added. “If someone wants to study transgender literature, fine, but do it with your own damn money.”

The University of North Texas did not respond to the Daily Signal’s request for comment by the time of publication.

Top Democrats hate nothing more than President Donald J. Trump, but data centers are a very close second. And yet Democrats and data centers are the best of frenemies.

“We need a federal moratorium on AI data centers,” insists Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. He also said on Sept. 15, “AI is an existential threat to humanity.” Even worse, he told CBS News that day: “The potential danger of AI is probably greater than nuclear weapons.” So, evidently, Nagasaki was a light breeze compared to ChatGPT.

Sanders announced Wednesday that he wants a U.S. Department of Artificial Intelligence to ride herd on AI, or “Super Intelligence,” as Trump rechristened this incredible technology in his address to the United Nations the previous morning.

Sanders’ protégé concurs with her mentor.

“Congress has a moral obligation to stand with the American people and stop the expansion of these data centers until we have a framework to adequately address the existential harm AI poses to our society,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., asserted on June 24.

Far-Left Democratic candidates also have data centers on their hit lists.

“We got to stop data centers from being built if they can’t meet the demands of our communities,” U.S. Senate hopeful James Talarico declared in Texas. His counterpart in Michigan, Abdul E-Sayed, boiled it down to six words: “People really f—ing hate data centers.”

It would be easier to take these and other Democratic foes of data centers more seriously if they did not depend daily on data centers.

At the very top of Sanders’ U.S. Senate website, right beside his photo, he invites visitors to “Follow Me on Facebook” and “Follow me on Twitter.”Sanders’ missives on “greedy billionaires,” Medicare for All, and so much more all sit on computer servers that are housed within data centers. Many are financed by multi-billionaire Mark Zuckerberg and trillionaire Elon Musk. Sanders’ official government website also preaches the proletarian gospel—from deep inside data centers.

Ocasio-Cortez has 4.1 million followers on TikTok. At a quick glance, her account features at least 238 videos on everything from a “Forgiveness Plan” to “Team AOC donates turkeys.” These clips are not roasting inside some oven at 350 degrees. They exist within data centers, waiting for data-center detractors to click onto them.

The campaign website for Talarico for Texas welcomes donations payable via Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover. Those who are not into credit cards may back his race by using Google Pay, PayPal, and Venmo. ActBlue, the Democrats’ dodgy e-bagman, coordinates this for Talarico and other Democratic candidates.

All of the above is possible, thanks to data centers. Without them, Talarico and other candidates would have to open envelopes delivered by the Post Office, extract paper checks, and then hand those funds to bank tellers for manual processing. Ah, the good ol’ days!

Try as he might, Michigan’s El-Sayed cannot shake his previously beloved Hasan Piker.

Comments such as “Zionism is fascism” and “I want Chinese style Communism” keep cascading from this online extremist’s mouth. El-Sayed pretends not to know Piker, but El-Sayed cannot erase the indelible evidence of their now-curdled courtship.

El-Sayed appeared on Piker’s podcast, by Piker’s count, “a hundred times.” These are nestled, and ripe for inspection, within data centers.

“The bitter irony in this debate is that Bernie Sanders, AOC, and their fellow travelers use data centers every day to post anti-data center slop on social media,” James S. Erwin observes. Americans for Tax Reform’s Director of Innovation Policy adds: “Comrade Sanders uses data centers when he invites agents of the Chinese Communist Party onto Zoom calls, so they can lecture Americans on AI safety. Unless they’re using carrier pigeons, all of this anti-data center propaganda depends on America’s vast infrastructure of data centers.”

Top Democrats avail themselves of America’s 5,427 data centers while hammering such facilities.

Tech-savvy heroes? They are tech-hating hypocrites.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

The Department of Health and Human Services is pushing back against the Human Rights Campaign’s condemnation of hospitals that have agreed to stop providing transgender procedures to minors, accusing activists of making “unfounded claims” linking restrictions on the procedures to violence.

“Protecting children from irreversible sex-rejecting procedures is not discrimination, and HHS will not allow unfounded claims linking these protections to violence to distract from the serious medical risks facing vulnerable children,” an HHS spokesperson told the Daily Signal in a statement Friday.

The statement marks the administration’s latest defense of efforts to halt transgender medical interventions for minors as major hospital systems across the country are reaching settlements with the Trump administration.

HRC issued a statement Wednesday condemning at least six hospitals that entered into settlements with the Trump administration and agreed to halt sex-rejecting procedures for minors.

Since May, six hospital systems have agreed to stop providing sex-rejecting procedures to minors. The systems include Texas Children’s Hospital, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Connecticut Children’s Hospital, Mount Sinai Health System, NYU Langone Hospitals, and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

HRC called the trend “a crisis for families and transgender youth,” noting that even in states that passed laws to protect the controversial procedures, hospitals are stopping them. “Our thoughts are with the countless families across the country who feel scared and under siege,” HRC President Kelley Robinson said.

HRC has repeatedly claimed that “anti-transgender” laws lead to violence against transgender people. The statement claimed that the procedures are “best-practice, and potentially life-saving health care.”

Yet HHS released a peer-reviewed review last year finding “extremely weak evidence” for any benefits from “gender-affirming care” for young people.

Last month, HHS released “Wolves in White Coats,” a report focused on how medical professionals used false medical billing codes to prescribe so-called puberty blockers for minors.

HHS and other administration officials have challenged activist claims that restricting transgender medical interventions increases suicide, violence, or other harms. The administration has argued that the evidence supporting “puberty blockers,” cross-sex hormones, and surgeries for minors is weak and that the procedures carry significant risks.

The HHS spokesperson cited the Wolves in White Coats report, stating that “these procedures carry significant risks to children’s physical and mental health, including lifelong consequences.”

“Under President Trump and Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS will continue putting children’s health first and advancing policies grounded in the best available science,” the spokesperson concluded.

Thursday’s episode of “The Tony Kinnett Cast” featured a discussion with Ben Shapiro centered around the upcoming midterms, including as they pertain to a recent film by The Daily Wire.

Shapiro described “Run, Hide, Fight: Infidels” as a film that “makes clear the threat of political Islam and the most radical manifestation” of that. It has been lambasted by the media despite positive audience reaction.

Shapiro connected the film to his concerns with Abdul El-Sayed, the Democrat candidate for Michigan’s U.S. Senate seat.

Shapiro referenced El-Sayed as an example of “putting people in positions of power to cover for the radicalization campaign that’s taken place inside of our borders.”

He took issue with El-Sayed’s response to an attack on a Jewish school in the Detroit suburbs from March, in which El-Sayed said that “hurt people, hurt people” and compared the attack to the Israel Defense Forces killing a member of Hezbollah in Lebanon. “When you put your head in the sand, it’s not as though the problem goes away. It just grows in size and scope,” Shapiro warned.

Kinnett criticized the “very bizarre correlation-causation the Left is trying to run,” saying dissatisfaction with Republicans does not equal enthusiasm for Democrats, a point Shapiro later brought up when discussing “outlier polls.” Kinnett emphasized that he does not see “any excitement for anyone,” calling the 2026 election cycle “the least popular midterms in history.”

Shapiro agreed as he spoke further about Democrats’ motivations. “I think that what you’re seeing from Democrats is excitement to vote against Republicans, which, you know, is worth something. But I don’t think that you’re seeing a lot of enthusiasm for the most radical ideas of El-Sayed, who is “trying to hide the ball” about who he is.

Shapiro also took issue with El-Sayed attempting to distance himself from Hasan Piker, as well as El-Sayed’s non-answer during Wednesday’s event at the University of Michigan, when a young man spoke about the plight his family faced in Iran, only for El-Sayed to offer what Shapiro called “a clear misdirect.”

“The reality is that, again, these candidates are unbelievably radical,” Shapiro said, adding that “Republicans need to keep hammering this home.”

Kinnett and Shapiro also discussed Republicans potentially doing poorly. Shapiro blamed “pseudo-Republicans who have been basically jumping off the train as fast as humanly possible and then casting aspersions.”

While Republicans could underperform due to President Donald Trump’s approval rating or general economic uncertainty, Shapiro said he doesn’t foresee a blue wave. “I think it’s going to be more like a moderate ripple in favor of the Democrats, as opposed to this kind of gigantic tsunami that’s going to eat the entire Republican Party whole,” he added.

A year ago, Sen. John Fetterman’s estrangement from the Democrats seemed like an amusing political sideshow. Now the Pennsylvania Democrat is appearing at a GOP convention and being openly courted by Republican leadership.

Fetterman made a surprise video appearance at the GOP midterm convention in Dallas earlier this month to introduce his Pennsylvania colleague, Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, whom he called a “great American.”

In the video, Fetterman described himself as a “common-sense Democrat,” saying that he rejects socialism and will work with President Donald Trump and McCormick to support Pennsylvania’s steel industry.

When did we fall through the looking glass? Has the tattooed, hoodie-wearing, and famously progressive Fetterman changed parties?

A July Quinnipiac poll found that 77% of Pennsylvania Republicans approved of Fetterman’s job performance, compared with just 19% of Democrats. The same poll indicated that 52% of Pennsylvania voters would like to see Fetterman leave the Democratic Party.

He may find fertile ground with Republicans. In response to an August NYT/Siena poll illustrating Fetterman’s alleged break with his party, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, posted on X, “Please join us, John Fetterman. We’d welcome you in the Senate Republican Conference.” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., agreed, saying he “would welcome the opportunity to have him join the Republican conference.”

This is a remarkable change for a senator who entered Washington as one of the Democratic Party’s most recognizable progressives. Fetterman initially gained some begrudging respect from Republicans, but it has evolved into full-throated support because of his willingness to publicly needle his own party.

But though Fetterman is feted as a voice of reason in a crazed caucus, he’s still as true blue as his Democratic colleagues.

Fetterman regularly clashes with the burgeoning antisemitic wing of his party and maintains staunch support for Israel. He’s backed several Trump nominees, sided with Republicans during last year’s government shutdown, and opposed Democratic efforts to restrict Trump’s prosecution of the war in Iran.

But Fetterman’s Heritage Action scorecard reflects the truth of his political career. The arch-progressive has a whopping  0% score for the 119th Congress and a 4% lifetime score. This session, Fetterman voted against every key vote Heritage Action released.

Beyond scorecards, the most damning reason Fetterman isn’t GOP material is because he himself readily acknowledges he’s not.

“I’m a lifelong Democrat who votes overwhelmingly with my party,” he said following his Republican convention appearance. He assured his Senate colleagues he would still provide the 51st vote if his party won a majority.

Words are wind; meaningless unless backed by matching action.

Fetterman’s record is clear. He is no ally to conservatives and deserves to be treated with deep suspicion. While Republicans may cheer Fetterman for going on FOX to say Democrats have lost the plot, by the numbers he’s worse than many of those same Democrats he mocks.

Conservatives should prefer someone who actually does the right things rather than just criticizing some of the right people.

In Pennsylvania, that distinction has real consequences. Democratic infighting may soon make the seat easier for conservatives to reclaim, but not if we mistake a Democrat for an ally.

Early signs suggest the 2028 Pennsylvania Democratic primary will be a bruiser. Fetterman’s fundraising is in the toilet, and his party seems hellbent on making a difficult Senate map even harder.

For Republicans, Fetterman’s rebellion should not be proof of loyalty to the conservative cause. Praising him for “standing up to the Dems” gives him cover to advance leftism with a veneer of bipartisanship.

A transformation should be judged by what has truly changed, and Fetterman’s voting record hasn’t shifted at all.

Beware a wolf in donkey’s clothing.

Leftist theologians often attempt to reinterpret scripture to justify their political and ideological commitments, but rarely do you get so clear an example as a priest in traditional church robes declaring, “God is trans.”

The Rev. Flourish Klink has recently gone viral online for a sermon he gave at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York back in March, because he reinterprets core Christian doctrine to justify transgender ideology.

In one sermon, Klink manages to claim that “God is trans,” that Mary “assigned” Jesus a gender that was “not quite right,” and that it’s possible Jesus “transitioned” gender somehow when he rose from the dead.

To call these claims outside the plain text of the Bible and Christian tradition would be an egregious understatement, and neither Klink nor the Episcopal Diocese of New York responded to my questions about whether they would defend them.

Klink’s Proof Texts

Klink, who self-describes as “non-binary trans” and serves as an assistant priest at Christ & St. Stephen’s Church in Manhattan, grounds his claims in a few Bible verses and Christian doctrines, but takes them in directions that are far outside the historic teachings of Christianity.

The preacher condemns “proof-texts, those little bits of the Bible that people use to claim that God agrees with their transphobia,” but the way Klink uses certain passages arguably involves “proof-texts.”

Klink cites Isaiah 56 as welcoming “gender-non-conforming folks,” though the passage concerns God’s promise to bless eunuchs—historical victims of castration.

Klink also claims that God is “beyond human categorizations like gender.” That is true, but God nearly uniformly refers to himself in masculine terms.

Claims About Jesus

Having presented proof-texts to suggest this view isn’t out of keeping with the plain text of scripture and Christian tradition, Klink then proceeds to call Jesus trans.

“When God, who is non-binary, was born in human form as our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary said, ‘Oh look! A baby boy!’ But God isn’t a boy,” Klink says. “God was assigned a gender at birth, and later on, it became clear that that gender wasn’t quite right.”

Yet Luke records the angel Gabriel telling Mary she would bear a Son named Jesus, a text difficult to reconcile with the suggestion that Christ’s sex or gender was somehow indeterminate.

Klink can’t point to any text where Jesus says, “I’m not a man.” Instead, the preacher notes that Jesus didn’t marry, that he treated women differently than his contemporaries, and that some disciples initially failed to recognize the resurrected Christ.

“I think Jesus was resurrected as Jesus’s true self, which is beyond male or female,” Klink said. “I think that Jesus was not only transfigured. I think that Jesus transitioned.”

The preacher admits that there is no clear evidence for this claim but attempts to make it seem rational by reframing Christianity as pro-transgender.

Christianity Isn’t Transgender

But Christianity does not teach transgender ideology, and my “proof text” for this isn’t a few cherry-picked verses taken out of context—it’s the entire Bible and 2,000 years of Christian tradition. Klink isn’t offering an unusual interpretation of a few verses, but imposing a framework that requires reinterpreting the entire Christian tradition through the lens of modern transgender ideology.

Christianity teaches that God transcends human limitations. Yet Christians know this only because God revealed Himself through scripture. He revealed Himself as Father, sent His Son into the world as a man, and repeatedly described the relationship between Christ and the church in terms of a wedding between a groom and a bride.

As C.S. Lewis argued, Christians do not project these symbols onto God from human experience. Rather, God’s deeper relationships give human fatherhood and marriage their meaning. The relationship between Christ and the church is not a metaphor borrowed from marriage. Marriage is a dim reflection of that greater reality.

If Christians strain to reinterpret the Bible to remove these clearly gendered themes, we do so at our peril. God delivered these truths to us for a reason, and it is highly presumptuous of us to assume we know better than Him.

For the first time in weeks, longtime Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins is pulling ahead of Democrat opponent Troy Jackson in the November midterm election.

All eyes are on Maine ahead of the election, as it could be the seat that determines which party holds the majority in the 120th Congress.

The poll shows Maine favoring Collins, who is running for her sixth term in the U.S. Senate, at 49% among likely voters; Jackson, who was previously endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America, at 46%; and 5% undecided. However, the race remains close, as the margin of error was 4.9 percentage points which is not uncommon.

“If this November’s general election for U.S. Senate were held today, which candidate would you be more likely to vote for,” The New York Times, the Portland Press Herald, and Siena College Research Institute asked 619 voters from Sept. 15 to Sept. 22.

Pollsters also tracked how many likely voters plan to switch party alignment from how they voted in 2024. The results show that more Democrats plan to vote for Collins than Republicans plan to switch sides and vote for Jackson. Specifically, 12% of 2024 Harris voters polled plan to vote for Collins, while only 3% of 2024 Trump voters plan to vote for Jackson. Given his ties to the Democratic Socialists of America, it is not surprising that some Democrats would vote for the moderate Collins over Jackson.

“In Maine, Susan Collins is up three points over Democratic challenger Troy Jackson in a poll completed prior to new pay-to-play allegations recently reported about Senator Collins,” Siena Research Institute Executive Director Don Levy said.

While the poll was published Thursday, it was completed Tuesday, the day before Collins was accused of involvement in a pay-to-play scheme. A report by ProPublica said that former defense contractor CEO Martin Kao, a convicted fraudster, told the FBI his company gave a Collins super PAC $150,000 through a shell company.

“I’ve got to say, I do not understand how anyone would take the word of a felon who’s been convicted twice—twice, two separate cases—of five counts of money laundering, counts of bank fraud, false submissions to the FEC. He is a convicted liar,” Collins told The Wall Street Journal, denying the claims.

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts says Congress has delivered key policy wins during President Donald Trump’s second term on issues ranging from the economy to border security. 

Roberts joined co-host Larry O’Connor on the latest episode of “The Kevin Roberts Show” to tout conservative legislative accomplishments, which could play a decisive role in Republicans’ quest to keep their congressional majority in the upcoming November midterms.  

In particular, Roberts emphasized how well Congress has aligned with the Trump administration’s legislative agenda. 

“This Congress, this administration,” Roberts said, “are implementing exactly what they said they would in 2024.” 

Policy Accomplishments

Specifically, Roberts pointed to congressional approval of over 700 miles of border wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, substantial immigration security personnel increases, and, most notably, the Laken Riley Act, which passed less than a month after its introduction. 

“It puts real teeth into the enforcement,” Roberts said. “The kind of thing that ought to transcend so much our partisan politics, but there’s no doubt that if a democrat socialist of America Left comes into power in Congress, they’re going to work to chip away at it.” 

On the economy, Roberts said the greatest thing Congress did was pass Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” also known as the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. 

“Had they not passed the One Big, Beautiful Bill,” Roberts said, “there would have been a $4 trillion tax increase on the American people—the bulk of that would have gone to working-class and middle-class American families.”  

The law renewed and permanently established Trump’s 2017 tax cuts as law, including a tax cut, a standard deduction for single and married couples, and a child tax credit.  

“That would not have happened were it not for, not just a conservative majority in Congress,” Roberts said, “but the most conservatives of the conservatives in Congress.”

A Warning for America

Roberts and O’Connor lauded House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., for his role despite a narrow congressional majority—one of the smallest ever for a speaker to manage. 

“The thing he has been emphasizing for the last few weeks,” Roberts said, “the contrast between, not just the aspirations of conservatives on Capitol Hill, but what they’ve actually done with what the Left wants to do.”  

Roberts warned that Democrats, if given power, would almost immediately undo all the progress advanced by conservatives.  

“All the economic benefits, that is going to go away,” Roberts said. “It is the economic policies of the Left that will arrest that trajectory [of growth] and actually reverse it.” 

Fighting for Conservative Policy

The best thing for America, Roberts said, would be even more conservative wins on the border and the economy.  

“We want conservative policymakers in D.C.,” Roberts said. “It’s vital that we maximize the number who are so willing to fight on a good policy that they would take barbs and slings and arrows from the press.” 

While recent polls and history suggest the opposing party will make gains in this year’s midterm elections, Roberts painted his best-case scenario for the next few years should conservatives score an upset victory in November. 

“What if we’ve got a decade to work on this, and grassroots activists and the American people are able to hold our politicians’ feet to the fire, including and especially those on our side?” Roberts proposed. “Man, this might just be the golden age of America.” 

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Department of Homeland Security to continue its citizenship verification program. 

In a 6-3 shadow docket ruling in the case of DHS v. League of Women Voters, the justices allowed the Trump administration to expand the program that allows states to use Social Security records and other information to check voters’ citizenship status. 

“By prohibiting interference with the disclosure of information regarding citizenship status to DHS—’notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law’—Congress necessarily authorized DHS to request and receive that information,” the majority opinion says.

The three liberals, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. 

The majority held that a 1996 federal law banning noncitizen voting likely authorizes DHS to obtain citizenship information from other agencies, including state agencies.

A shadow docket ruling is a Supreme Court order, often issued on an expedited basis without full oral arguments.

“In 1996, Congress, however, separately and expressly authorized DHS to request and receive information relating to citizenship and immigration status from other agencies, including SSA, in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA),” the majority opinion says.

Plaintiffs, led by the League of Women Voters, argued this could violate privacy rights. They also argued that the SAVE database, short for Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, is unreliable and risks purging eligible voters.

In June, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan of the District of Columbia ruled that a portion of President Donald Trump’s March 2025 executive order on election integrity was unlawful. Earlier this month, a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel denied the administration’s motion to stay the district court ruling pending appeal in a 2-1 ruling.

The case centered on a partnership between the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to expand the SAVE database. The expansion allowed agencies to search individuals using Social Security numbers, aggregate large amounts of data, and function as a citizenship verification tool to screen voter eligibility. 

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal senior contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Victor Davis Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes.

Sami Winc: Quickly, on [President] Donald Trump’s speech, I thought some of the more strident things were that he basically was showing we entered a new era. We’re beyond the Cold War paradigm, and we’re into a whole new paradigm, and I think he’s right about it, where our strategic interests are going to play out for us on the world stage. 

And then, yeah, I was wondering about—I thought that was a great speech. 

Victor Davis Hanson: I’m really worried about the midterms, not because of the record, but because they’re not getting the message out. And I know we’re going to talk about the midterms, but it reminds me so much of 1992. George H.W. Bush was running for reelection. The recession, the ’90-’91 recession, kind of caused by a similar thing, the First Gulf War, where there was a disruption. The Kuwaiti oil fields were up in, everybody panicked. It caused a recession. 

And three things happened. Three things happened. They’re all instructive for this year, for the midterms. 

No. 1, the Democrats demagogued the economy. So, Al Gore stormed the country and said, “This is the worst recession since the Great Depression.” James Carville: “It’s economy, stupid.” Bill Clinton: “I just want to say we’re, we’re in depression level.” 

And then you looked at the actual data. The economy in 1992 grew by 3.5%, not two quarters. The recession had been over for a year and a half. 

No. 2, the inflation, despite the oil spikes, was about 3.5%. Unemployment was high, about seven, but it was going down. And the stock market, the Standard & Poor’s and the Dow Jones, had gone up by 10% that year. So, it was recovering. 

The [gross domestic product] in ’92 was higher than it was under the first year of Clinton. 

But you know what? They didn’t reply to it. They did not reply to it. 

You know, there were a couple of reasons why they didn’t reply to it. No. 1, the architect of the ’88 victory, Lee Atwater, who was a crude guy, and he ran the Willie Horton ads, he ran the Boston Harbor ads, and the thing that sunk [Michael] Dukakis, who left the Democratic Convention nomination with a 17-point lead over George H.W. Bush. 

Lee Atwater said, “I’m gonna take the bark off that guy. I’m gonna take the … ” And he did. And they showed that tank ad with that bobblehead helmet. It was so sad. Dukakis was a fine person. I didn’t like what he did, but he won ugly. 

In 1991, when he was getting ready for ’92, he got a brain tumor, and he died at 40 years old. 

And you know what the Republican establishment was? “Woo. We don’t have that embarrassment anymore. We can go back to, we can get back to Jerry Ford and Jimmy Carter, and we’re gonna lose nobly, and that’s what we wanna do. We do not wanna win ugly. We play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules.” 

And so, they didn’t have that guy. 

And then there was a third party, Ross Perot, that sucked off 19% of the vote. So Bill Clinton won by 43%. 

So, what I’m getting at in these midterms, if you don’t get the message out about the economy. And what is the message? We just released, as of Sept. 20, we have the lowest poverty rate in history. It’s down to 10.2. We have the lowest child poverty rate in history. 

The Left said, “If you cut DOGE, if DOGE cuts these things, and you uncover all this fraud, and you, you deport illegal aliens, you’re gonna—I mean, we’re gonna spike the poverty rate.” 

No, it had just the opposite effect. It freed up cash for the people who needed it, and the economy is starting to boom. 

And then second, we had the highest per capita income. It went up over 2.6% so far this year. Eighty-seven thousand five hundred. It’s the highest income in the world if you take away artificial incomes like the Swiss, tax-free foreign investment, or tax havens like Liechtenstein, or the petro, you know, like Saudi or UAE, just major industrial nations. It’s not even close: 8,700. 

And we’re not hearing that. 

And then the Atlanta Federal Reserve just issued its third-quarter, and that would be for July, August, September. September’s not over. 

And guess what they said? We guessed on … Based on the data that we have for 90% of the third quarter ending, we predict when it’s ended, the economy, the GDP, will have grown at an annual rate of 5.1. That is blistering. 

So, my point is, the economy is sound, and we have a little blip, as George H.W. Bush in ’92 did after the ’91 war because of the oil price. Same thing. Oil’s up to about $4.50 a gallon. It was down to almost $3. 

But you’d think that would spike inflation, but the inflation rate is still about 3%. It’s a little high, but you’d think it would go, that shows you that all those tax reductions, all those deregulations, the trillion dollars of foreign investment, the deportation of 500,000 criminals, and the vast reduction in the… well, all of that is synchronistic. 

And what it shows you, even with high oil prices at $100-plus a barrel, the inflation rate didn’t spike. 

And so when this war is over, and I think it’s gonna be over pretty soon because this regime is getting desperate, when it collapses or whatever negotiation follows, you’re gonna have a glut of oil on there, and it’s going to take off. 

But they need to say that. 

And then the other thing about it, very quickly, is what happened in ’92. And this is my example, and I’m doing this by memory, but what happened in ’92 was George Bush had a fantastic foreign record. 

He came in in ’89, and he oversaw the end of the Cold War because [Ronald] Reagan had broken the Soviet Union, but he didn’t get credit for it. The Berlin Wall fell in ’89 during Bush’s first year. 

But he did navigate. There were calls for people to punish the Soviet Union or to put NATO right on the frontier. And he was very careful about that. He got criticized about that, but he navigated very well. 

And everybody said, if you remember the ’91 Gulf War, they said, “Saddam Hussein has 3,000 tanks. He’s taken Kuwait. It’s gone. Just let it go.” 

And Bush himself wavered a little bit. And remember Margaret Thatcher said, “Don’t go wobbly on me, George.” 

But he came around. And that was a brilliant campaign. 

You have to give credit to Colin Powell and Dick Cheney and George H.W. Bush and Norman Schwarzkopf. Very few casualties. They did what they wanted. 

I had criticized him because they left him in power and we had to go back. But the point is, he had a lot of foreign-policy achievements, like [Donald] Trump does, flipping all of Latin America so there’s only five communist countries left, reinstating the Monroe Doctrine, getting Greenland basically in a brilliant move so that Denmark can brag to everybody that it owns Greenland. 

And the Greenlanders are going to say, “Yes, we’re sovereign and independent and we’re Denmark, but we’re also going to be infused with billions of dollars of U.S. bases and trade and everything. And the Russians and the Chinese are going to be out.” 

And it’s all done. 

And the same thing with NATO, boosting NATO. So now it’s spending 2% and 3% GDP, and it wouldn’t do that before. 

And if he wins the Iran war, and I think he will, that whole Middle East will flip. 

But all of that’s going to be disguised and covered and forgotten unless they say there is good economic… 

I know we have a problem with affordability, but it’s temporary. But look at the poverty rate, look at the income rate, look at the stock market, look at GDP. 

And they’re not doing that. 

And if you don’t do that, you get what I call midterm apostates. These are people in purple states that have to be reelected, and they start distancing themselves. 

And to their credit, Mike Rogers, [Lisa] Murkowski, Susan Collins, all those, and most of the House people, they call up the president, no doubt, and they say, “Look, Don, Mr. President, I’m gonna trash you. I’m gonna say the war’s gone on too long. We’ve gotta, we’ve got to get out. I’m gonna say everything I can to distance myself. Then I’m gonna get elected, then I’m gonna vote for you, 95% of the time.” 

That’s what they’re saying. 

Yeah. But we’ll see. 

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

“I was wrong” is one of the rarest sentences in American public life. Standard practice is to double down, spin, or wait for the news cycle to move on.

So it’s worth noticing when Bill Maher said it anyway, on his own show, to his own audience, about a claim he’d made about President Donald Trump.

On a recent episode of “Real Time,” Maher walked back something he’d said the week before: that Trump was “winning almost none” of his primary endorsements. 

Trump, unwilling to let the line go unanswered, texted Maher directly. 

Maher checked the numbers. He found he’d spoken wrongly. The actual record, Maher said, was just nine of the 260 candidates Trump endorsed this cycle have lost—a 97% win rate. Instead of quietly letting this falsehood slide, Maher acknowledged this on the air: “I did overstate it. That wasn’t true. Overstated. There, was that so hard, to not be a d— about everything?” 

He’s right. It shouldn’t be such an act of courage—correcting the record when proven wrong should be standard for anyone with a microphone. But in 2026, an established media figure saying “I was wrong” about a claim involving Trump, without a lawsuit, a legal settlement, or a network’s PR department’s wrath, is exceedingly rare. Most people in Maher’s position would bury the correction in a mumbled aside, or not correct it at all. He didn’t.

This is the same instinct that’s made Maher difficult to pigeonhole for 30 years, verbally punching both Democrats and Republicans alike. I experienced that when I was a guest on his program years ago. 

Yet when the facts didn’t back him up, Maher didn’t protect his side of the argument. He fixed it. That combination—willing to hit hard, and just as willing to correct himself—is what intellectual honesty looks like.

It’s fitting that Maher picked up the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor at the Kennedy Center this summer. Twain’s whole career said the truth is funnier and more useful than comfortable lies. Maher spent his career making the same case, often to the fury of people on every side of the aisle. Maher earned his trophy.

I interviewed Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., who came to support Maher during the red carpet interview line the night of the Mark Twain award ceremony. Fetterman said he was disappointed that fewer than a third of Democrats in national polling said they were proud to be American.

“That’s crazy,” Fetterman told me. “I’m insanely proud to be American, and of America. It’s the best country on the globe, history—you know, without a doubt. If Democrats continue to become more anti-patriotic, then now you’re putting up these terrible candidates that are full-on anti-American.”

Fetterman’s cut from Maher’s cloth. He’s a Democrat willing to break with his own party’s consensus in public, take heat for it from his own side, and say plainly when he thinks his party turns wrong.

Fetterman described himself as “an independent voice in the Democratic Party” who isn’t “going to be afraid of people,” and wrote that “my party cannot simply be the opposite of whatever President Donald Trump says.”

Fetterman made a surprise video appearance at the Republican National Midterm Convention. Calling himself a “commonsense Democrat,” he praised Republican colleague Sen. Dave McCormick, R-Pa., and vowed to work with the president.

Democrats spend enormous resources trying to win back independents and disaffected moderates. Focus groups, expensive messaging consultants, fake rebrand after rebrand. But voters are smart—they can tell the difference between a party that talks about independence and people who actually practice it. 

Maher and Fetterman both are more convincing to skeptical, non-tribal voters in five minutes than a hundred coordinated talking points, precisely because they’re willing to say the inconvenient thing about their own side.

If the Left wants to rebuild trust with voters it’s lost, it could do worse than study what Maher and Fetterman actually do: say what you believe, correct yourself when facts say otherwise, and stop treating party loyalty as a substitute for honesty. It’s not a complicated formula. It’s just a rare one.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal. 

A Democrat House candidate running for the Georgia General Assembly voted in both Nevada and Georgia primaries this year, casting two different votes in two different elections, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

According to records the AJC obtained through a public records request, David Dillie, the Democrat candidate for District 161, voted by absentee ballot in Nevada’s Republican primary election on June 9, roughly 2 1/2 years after he had moved back to Georgia.

District 161 includes a stretch of Savannah’s suburbs. According to AJC, Dillie is an aircraft mechanic at Gulfstream, a jet manufacturer based in Savannah.

Dillie is running against Republican Georgia state Rep. Bill Hitchens in the upcoming midterm election.

In an email to the Daily Signal, Dillie said he “officially left Nevada in 2024.”

“The last time I knowingly voted there was in the February 6, 2024, presidential primary,” he said.

According to Dillie, after he voted in that year’s presidential primary in Nevada, he returned to the Peach State.

“I moved back home to Georgia, where I was born, registered to vote, and have voted since. I believed my Nevada registration had been canceled when I moved and registered in Georgia,” he told the Daily Signal.

The Democrat said Nevada’s law allows for “active registered voters [to be] automatically mailed a ballot” to their “Nevada address for each election, unless they opt out.”

Election Integrity Concerns

Despite Dillie’s explanation denying wrongdoing, the report by the AJC raises questions about election integrity.

Mark Davis, president of Data Productions Inc., commented on the issue of double voting, telling the Daily Signal, “Double voting is a felony under Georgia law, Nevada law, and federal law, so these allegations have to be taken seriously.”

Hitchens, commenting on the news about Dillie specifically, said, “He should be embarrassed to be registered and voting in multiple states. That’s voter fraud and criminal behavior.”

Salleigh Grubbs, a member of Georgia’s State Election Board, also weighed in on the controversy.

“It distresses me that anyone, be it a candidate, an official office holder, or any citizen, would vote multiple times, be it inter- or intra-state. It should be one legal citizen, one legal vote, period.”

Further Investigation Is Necessary

Election integrity is an issue addressed primarily by state government, as overseen by the secretary of state’s office. Georgia’s secretary of state is Brad Raffensperger.

Ultimately, as Hitchens told the Daily Signal, “Elected officials should be absolutely held to the highest standard. … This is about breaking the laws. If he broke the law, there should be consequences.”

According to Davis, what needs to happen next is that both Georgia and Nevada should investigate.

“What needs to happen next is a thorough investigation in both states. If a case has not already been opened with the Georgia and Nevada secretaries of state, that should happen immediately,” Davis said.

Jacquelyn Harn, communications director at Greater Georgia, told the Daily Signal, “Dillie remaining on the ballot would be an insult to election integrity in Georgia.”

Dillie told the Daily Signal that he’s working with the proper election officials to address the situation.

“My Nevada registration has now been properly canceled, and we are working with the appropriate election officials to ensure the records are accurate and the matter is properly resolved,” he said.

New York City’s socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani has carefully plucked away another small but significant element of public order.

According to the New York Post, the mayor’s office issued a directive that the New York Police Department would no longer be responding to calls relating to homeless encampments. Instead, officers will now have to first dispatch social services to deal with such matters before they are allowed to act.

The move is just the latest by the Mamdani administration to peel away public order in the Big Apple in the name of social justice.

The administration had already put up roadblocks to prevent the NYPD from removing homeless encampments, but now it will be further handcuffed.

The New York Post noted that this move represents a radical change and will likely mean that problems at homeless encampments may never be addressed at all.

“This year, the NYPD responded to more than 26,000 of the 36,000 complaints to 311 about encampments,” the Post reported. “Now, [the Department of Homeless Services] will handle triple the calls they previously responded to, with fewer than 2,000 staffers across the entire agency.”

While Mamdani has been careful not to work too directly against the NYPD since he was elected, this is just further demonstration that he’s determined to, over time, entirely undo the kind of policing that made New York dramatically safer under former Mayor Rudy Giuliani. That crime-fighting revolution paid dramatic dividends for decades.

Even though many crimes have dropped to rates below their post-George Floyd riots peak, urban chaos remains a problem and in some cases is getting worse.

Subway and transit violence shot up dramatically after Mamdani was sworn into office. Many of those incidents were committed by unstable and mentally ill repeat offenders who had been living on the street.

And unsanitary homeless encampments filled with drug addicts and people with mental illnesses who belong in an institution are sprouting up all over town.

In fact, according to a report from the mayor’s office, the number of homeless people in the city has reached a five-year high.

And the growing numbers of homeless people are clustering in encampments that are transforming parts of the city, particularly the ones by the Intrepid Museum, Citi Field—where the New York Mets play, and under FDR Drive.

“Local residents and workers are decrying a homeless takeover under the FDR Drive, where mountains of trash, foul smells, and fights are regular occurrences,” amNewYork reported. “According to locals, the parking area under the highway from 17th Street to 23rd Street has become a massive homeless shelter.”

Mamdani did do something about one shantytown. The city swept away an encampment on Wednesday that had built up near the NYU dorms. Oh, it’s in an area likely filled with a high concentration of Mamdani superfans. A coincidence, I’m sure.

Apparently, the former denizens just moved a few blocks away and set up camp again. And why not? Mamdani has made it clear that he intends to let these kinds of encampments fester and is effectively neutering public complaints about them.

Don’t you worry about that filthy, mushrooming fentanyl den on your block, a social worker is on the case.

As a New York Post editorial explained, deploying overstretched social workers to alleviate the problem isn’t going to fix it.

“The vagrants who erect and inhabit these camps are hard-core homeless who’ve already rejected the option of living in a shelter,” the Post editorial noted. “ … Compassionate encouragement won’t dislodge people sleeping on cardboard sidewalk pallets. That’s why the city has always tasked police with handling encampments.”

Unfortunately, these sorts of anti-policing tactics by the Mamdani administration may “work” in a certain sense. The encampment problem will surely grow. But as the situation slowly gets out of hand the administration can better defuse the blame without immediately infuriating the public.

They’ll say that the problem is “affordability,” that the budget is too small, and that systemic racism is causing an epidemic of homelessness.

All of that being nonsense, but by the time the issue is out of control the public may be more accustomed to thinking it’s endemic rather than a consequence of bad policy decisions.

Slow-growing encampments don’t drive headlines the way dramatic increases in murder rates do. Mamdani probably knows that. He may have even learned that lesson following the disaster of the “defund the police” years.

When leftist social goals were rapidly unlocked, the immediate consequences ignited an immediate backlash. He’s clearly trying to avoid that.

Methodically stripping away the enforcement of public order, eroding trust in the police, and making authorities unresponsive to those who want the situation fixed is a cynical but effective way to hide a malignant social revolution.

In that sense, Mamdani is succeeding where other leftist regimes failed, even if the eventual result will be the same miserable failure.

Gov. Greg Abbott’s campaign has released more of Democrat challenger Gina Hinojosa’s record, this time pointing to how she put violent illegal aliens ahead of Texas families. 

A press release sent out by Abbott’s campaign details her record in the Texas House when it came to standing with families who have been victimized by violent criminal illegal aliens. 

The campaign first points to Hinojosa’s failure to appear for the final vote on a constitutional amendment that would have denied bail to violent criminal illegal aliens. The bill was named after 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray, who was sexually assaulted and murdered by two Venezuelan illegal aliens. 

Hinojosa voted against Senate Joint Resolution 1 in an earlier vote on the amendment. 

The campaign also noted her voting record in 2023, which shows Hinojosa voted against legislation to defend Texans from threats at the border. 

Senate Bill 3 appropriated funding for the construction, operation, and maintenance of border barrier infrastructure and border security operations. 

Hinojosa also opposed Senate Bill 4, legislation that created a criminal offense for illegal entry into Texas from a foreign nation.  

Additionally, she opposed multiple measures to hold elected prosecutors accountable for not upholding Texas state laws. Hinojosa opposed Senate Bill 3 and House Bill 17 during the 88th Legislative Session’s fourth special session.

“When it mattered most, Gina Hinojosa failed to be a representative by and for the people of Texas,” Catherine Frazier, communications director for Texans for Greg Abbott, said.

“On May 28, 2025, Jocelyn’s Law—a vital piece of legislation that would have denied bail for illegal immigrants charged with violent crimes—died. Gina was among the Democrats who killed it, failing to appear for the final vote.

“Her inaction is just one example of Gina’s reckless disregard for Texans across the state who have suffered a loss at the hands of dangerous, criminal illegals,” Frazier added.

The Abbott campaign spokeswoman also said Texas residents want leaders who will “unapologetically protect and defend their loved ones,” and that Hinojosa “is not the person for the job.” 

Hinojosa is challenging Gov. Greg Abbott in the gubernatorial race. 

Election Day is Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2026. 

Hinojosa’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

When Northern District of Ohio Judge Solomon Oliver put an Ohio voter registration law on hold last month, it turns out that was not the final ruling.

On Wednesday, a 2-1 ruling from the 6th ​U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Oliver’s ruling, reinstating a law requiring proof of citizenship before registering to vote in person at the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Oliver’s ruling was appealed by Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, who requested a stay that was ultimately granted. He was quick to celebrate Wednesday’s decision on X.

Reporting from Reuters described the appeals court decision as “a boost for allies of President Donald Trump who want tighter voter registration rules.”

On Thursday, Ohio Treasurer Robert Sprague, who is running as the Republican nominee to succeed the term-limited LaRose, chimed in with a quoted repost on X. He referred to the upheld law as “foundational for secure, trustworthy Ohio elections.”

The decision was also celebrated by Honest Elections Project’s Jason Snead, who also spoke to the failings of Oliver’s rulings.

“Ohio is right to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The [National Voter Registration Act] does not prevent states from taking steps to verify voter eligibility, and Ohio’s requirement is a straightforward safeguard to ensure that only citizens are registered to vote,” Snead told the Daily Signal.

“This case is yet another attempt by left-wing litigants to block commonsense election protections and create chaos in the voter registration process. Honest Elections Project applauds the Sixth Circuit for reinstating Ohio’s law and allowing this basic election safeguard to remain in effect.”

His group filed a brief in the case of Red, Wine & Blue v. Frank LaRose, encouraging the appeals court to overturn Oliver’s ruling, which had cited the National Voter Registration Act.

Not only are the midterm elections just over a month away, with Ohio having many “toss-up” races, but early voting begins on Oct. 5.

“In temporarily pausing Oliver’s order, a three-judge ⁠6th ​Circuit panel said advocacy groups that challenged ​the law likely lacked standing, and that the order came too close to the ​election,” the Reuters report noted about the decision.