THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—White House Border Czar Tom Homan insisted Sunday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will keep conducting vehicle stops. The stops were briefly paused after agents were involved in two fatal shootings. President Donald Trump reversed the directive roughly a day after it was issued, Axios reported. While a broader review of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations is ongoing, vehicle stops will continue now that the agency has implemented oversight changes, Homan told “State of the Union” host Dana Bash. “We always evaluate training,” Homan said. “It’s something law enforcement does all the time. So I wouldn’t say—now that we’re evaluating some additional training—that mistakes were made. We will see. It’s all being reviewed. We will see where it lies.” “Well, we have seen with our own eyes mistakes were made, deadly mistakes were made,” Bash responded, noting there had been “at least five” such incidents. Pressed on how a review could yield results during the roughly one-day pause, Homan said changes had already been made and did not require halting the stops while a review of ICE procedures continues. “The acting director of ICE [David Venturella] did make some immediate changes. Right now, on all vehicles stops, there’s at least one body camera on site to record the entire event,” Homan explained. “Journeymen agents are assigned to each stop. … It’s all under review. The training’s under review. The stops are under review.” “So, the review hasn’t stopped. We just haven’t stopped the vehicle stops because those changes have already been made. So we’re going to continue doing those stops. Changes have been made,” Homan told the CNN host. Bash then asked him to specify the changes, and Homan again pointed to the body-camera requirement, which he said acting ICE leadership had directed. “We’ve got to make sure that on every vehicle stop … [there’s] at least one body camera on those vehicle stops … so whether the officer did something right or did something wrong, whether the alien did something right or wrong, it’s on video,” Homan said. “And I’m a big supporter of video cameras … because I want the American people to see what that officer saw when he took whatever action they took.” Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Remember how the Left said that eliminating USAID would lead to “devastating” consequences? It certainly did, but for their global cultural aspirations, not for our country. The Associated Press published a lengthy report on Thursday—and I can’t believe this is real—highlighting how shutting down USAID in Nepal led to “around 100 LGBTQ+” now-unemployed workers to turn to prostitution. In impoverished Nepal, where a conservative culture leaves openly transgender people with few legal job options, the impact on aid workers’ lives was particularly crushing. Starving and scared, around 100 LGBTQ+ aid workers left jobless by the funding cuts have turned to sex work… pic.twitter.com/yukURpfxle— The Associated Press (@AP) July 23, 2026 “In impoverished Nepal, where a conservative culture leaves openly transgender people with few legal job options, the impact on aid workers’ lives was particularly crushing,” AP reported. “Starving and scared, [Rubi] Lama and around 100 other LGBTQ+ aid workers left jobless by the funding cuts have turned to sex work to survive, walking the streets alongside the very people they once fought so hard to help.” Turning to prostitution is terrible, but why on earth are the American taxpayers expected to fund what is essentially a jobs program for transgender foreigners? I’m going to keep quoting from this piece because it’s hard to believe it isn’t parody. The shuttered USAID offices were apparently primarily dedicated to handing out free condoms, lubricant, and “HIV prevention medication.” No longer. “Just a few minutes down the road, in Lama’s old office, stickers bearing the logo of the U.S. Agency for International Development still cling to laptops that lie unused on barren desks, and to the empty condom distribution containers collecting dust,” the AP reported. Forget the foreign thing, we shouldn’t even be funding these “jobs” here at home. USAID was created via executive order in 1961 with the intent of helping the “underdeveloped world” build their economies and get to the point where they “will no longer have to depend on outside assistance.” It was also meant to create better relations between the U.S. and those nations to deter the threat of communism. In what way does handing out condoms in a country with a “conservative culture” help us accomplish the goal of either strengthening their economy or improving relations between our countries? It doesn’t. Instead, what USAID became was a taxpayer-funded project of a particular kind of socially liberal globalist empire, supported by a constellation of NGOs working toward the same goal. It’s social engineering of a sort that likely creates bad feeling toward the U.S. rather than good will or “soft power.” Last year I interviewed Giorgi Labadze, an American studies professor at the Tbilisi State University in the nation of Georgia. He explained that in his country there was a rising amount of anti-Americanism in part because of the efforts of USAID in his country. “For instance, while most Georgians support freedom of speech and minority rights in principle, programs aggressively promoting inclusivity for non-traditional groups (such as LGBT) have become flashpoints for controversy,” he wrote. “Despite awareness of the sensitivities of the vast majority of Georgia’s churchgoing conservative population, relevant officials and NGO [nongovernmental organization] representatives have failed to adapt their approach or present these initiatives in a more culturally appropriate manner.” Labadze noted that USAID’s cultural programs failed to communicate the best parts of America that could very much have appealed to traditional Georgian culture. If they did, then maybe the effect would be more like what we saw during the World Cup, when Europeans and other people came to America and encountered our broader culture rather than the thin slice of our culturally leftist pseudo-elites. It turns out that part of America is quite appealing. Come back anytime, Freddy. You’ve been a great guest! My offer still stands for you to come west! Cheers. https://t.co/tVtjhZuRg6— Buzz Patterson (@BuzzPatterson) July 24, 2026 But America’s international organizations have been nothing like that. Instead, they’ve been wasting taxpayer money on cultural projects that work counter to American interests. That the media has tried to portray the end of USAID as some kind of catastrophe only shows how much they are invested in this larger cultural project. Even taking their contention at face value that the end of USAID led to “hunger and violence,” it’s still hard to explain why the United States is responsible for what amounts to welfare programs around the world. If USAID programs were really making countries like Nepal more self-sustaining as was originally intended, then why is it that they were in the country for nearly 75 years? At best USAID was creating a kind of permanent international welfare dependency. But it wasn’t just that. Instead, the program had become little more than thinly disguised patronage meant to support like-minded leftists while carrying out the goal of indoctrination around the globe. I’m genuinely thankful Associated Press went through the hard work to bring us this story. It proves that not only was USAID a massive waste of taxpayer money, but it was also actively detrimental. Legacy media has spent a year peddling the lie that USAID funding cuts are responsible for dead kids in Africa.The best the AP could come up with? Transgender prostitutes in Nepal can no longer get U.S. taxpayer funded condoms and lube.We need more DOGE. pic.twitter.com/B1Oo1rSDBw— Kevin Roberts (@KevinRobertsTX) July 24, 2026 Thanks to the Trump administration, the American people are no longer on the hook to support the jobs of people handing out condoms to transgender prostitutes in Nepal or anywhere else.

DUBAI/WASHINGTON, July 26 (Reuters)—Iran will halt its own attacks as long as the United States maintains its latest pause on airstrikes, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Sunday, after President Donald Trump abruptly called off his two-week-old bombing campaign.   After 13 nights of intensifying U.S. airstrikes on Iran, the Pentagon abruptly suspended the campaign late on Friday, with no U.S. attacks reported on either Saturday or Sunday. Iran, which had been following each night of U.S. attacks with its own strikes on neighboring countries that host U.S. bases, has also so far held fire for two days. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, told Fox News on Sunday that Trump had decided to pause U.S. attacks to allow more time for diplomacy. “He’s giving talks some space, he’s giving it a little bit of room,” Waltz said, without providing further details. U.S. media including CNN, the New York Times and Axios reported that Trump called off his campaign of strikes after being advised by top military and civilian aides against further escalating the war he launched alongside Israel in February. The senior Iranian source, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Reuters: “Iran’s position remains ‘attack for attack’: if the attacks stop, Iran will also halt its operations. That message has already been conveyed to the United States.” Asked about the pause, a senior official in ​Trump’s administration said on Saturday that the president “has always been clear that his preference is diplomacy, but he has shown Iran what will happen if they fail to come ​to the table in a serious way.” The senior Iranian source said Tehran did not hold much hope that Trump’s decision to pause strikes represented a major shift in the U.S. negotiating position. “There is more scepticism than optimism about the halt in attacks. The prevailing view is that the pause is tactical rather than genuine. Iran has accumulated enough bitter experience with what it sees as U.S. deception,” the source said. Reports: Trump Advisers Raised Concerns About Missile Defense Stocks For the past two weeks, U.S. forces had been striking Iran nightly in what Washington said was retaliation for Iranian attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran says it aims to retain control of the strait, through which a fifth of global oil flows passed before the war. The renewed U.S. military campaign effectively torpedoed last month’s interim agreement aimed at ending the war. Trump’s decision to pause the strikes followed what several media outlets described as a meeting on Friday where some of his most senior military and political advisers raised concerns. CNN and the New York Times said Pentagon Chief of Staff Dan Caine had pointed to the depletion of stocks of Patriot air defence missiles, which U.S. forces have relied on to defend bases in the Middle East. CNN said Vice President JD Vance had also expressed reservations. News site Axios reported that the overall commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, Admiral Brad Cooper, had advised halting the U.S. bombing campaign because it had reached the limits of its effectiveness. Axios cited two sources with knowledge of Cooper’s position, and said the briefing to Trump represented an acknowledgment by both civilian and military officials that there were limits to what could be achieved through a military campaign, particularly with air power. Inside Iran, residents remain apprehensive. Nader, 49, an import-export business owner in Tehran, said he doubted any pause in strikes would last. “They keep announcing pauses, and then the war starts again. Everyone in the country is stuck in limbo,” he told Reuters by telephone. “Trump is playing games with Iran. He neither ends the war and leaves the region nor strikes decisively. It’s exhausting.” Trump’s decision to pause strikes has come at a turning point in the war, with both sides testing the boundaries of escalation that they set before a ceasefire ended major fighting in April and the interim agreement reopened Hormuz in June. U.S. forces have already struck bridges and tunnels in southern Iran, prompting Iran to strike water desalination plants that nearby Gulf Arab states rely on to make their desert cities habitable. Over the past week, Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen have announced a blockade on Saudi oil in the Red Sea, potentially shutting a second major chokepoint for energy shipping. That pushed the benchmark Brent crude price above $100 for the first time since May. On Saturday, the Houthis fired on Saudi Red Sea oil targets for the first time in years. (Writing by Peter Graff; Editing by Alexander Smith and Ros Russell)

One reason pharmaceuticals cost so much: The Food and Drug Administration’s approval process takes up to 12 years to bring a new drug to market. The Trump administration has launched Operation Trialblazer to shorten that timeline.  It’s one of Trump’s best healthcare proposals so far, one that reduces the government’s footprint in U.S. healthcare. It is a welcome departure from some of the Trump administration’s other prescription drug initiatives that, unfortunately, expand the role of government.  The FDA approval process is divided into three phases. Phase 1 determines if a drug can be used safely in humans and, if so, at what dosage. Completing Phase 1 takes an average of 380 days and, in some cases, can stretch to 700 days.  Other countries are taking advantage of the FDA’s slower pace. China has reduced its Phase 1 process to 60 days while Australia’s is about 70 days. The U.S. has lost its competitive edge as a result. In 2024, the number of drug trials registered in China was over 16,600 versus 9,100 in the U.S., according to the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology—the first time China has exceeded the U.S.  China is seeing a surge of investment capital as a result. Out-licensing is the process by which a pharmaceutical company that develops a drug grants the rights to another company to further develop it. In 2023, pharmaceutical companies made $38 billion worth of out-licensing deals with Chinese firms. In 2024 that rose to nearly $52 billion, and it more than doubled to over $137 billion in 2025.  To shorten Phase 1, Operation Trialblazer is clarifying the requirements for starting drug trials. “The absence of explicit, phase-specific requirements has left sponsors to guess what data is necessary,” according to the FDA. Drug companies often ”err on the side of submitting too much data, conduct[ing] months of unnecessary studies.” Operation Trialblazer is also reducing the amount of animal testing companies must conduct before submitting a drug application.  The administration is reforming later stages too. Under Operation Trialblazer, Phase 3 now requires one clinical trial instead of two.  The potential savings are considerable. Animal testing costs anywhere from $15 to $100 million. Phase 3 clinical trials cost an average of $282 million.   Those are savings that can benefit patients. Lowering the cost of testing drugs makes it easier for new pharmaceutical companies, especially smaller ones, to enter the prescription drug market. Smaller companies account for over 65% of drugs that are in the development stage.   Of the first-in-class cancer drugs approved by the FDA in the previous decade, smaller companies originated 46% of those drugs versus 14% from larger companies. Larger companies tend to focus on making incremental improvements to existing drugs rather than developing new ones. More pharmaceutical companies means more competition, which means lower drug prices.  Economist Tomas Philipson, former acting chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, examines the economic benefits of reducing the FDA approval process in a new Unleash Prosperity Now report. His report estimates that cutting FDA review timelines by one to six years could generate between $4 and $61 trillion in combined value to consumers and drug producers.   Hopefully, Operation Trialblazer represents a rethinking by the Trump administration of its approach toward prescription drug prices.   Regrettably, the administration’s other signature initiative, TrumpRX, has imported drug price controls. To be fair, TrumpRX deserves credit for providing patients with a transparent, direct-to-consumer way to shop for the best cash price on their medications, reducing the confusion that’s long surrounded drug pricing. However, it also employs most-favored-nation drug pricing, which requires drugmakers to charge a price equal to the lowest price among selected high-income countries. Many of those countries are in Europe, where drug prices are lower due to price controls.   Price controls make it harder to make a profit on a drug because governments often impose prices that don’t cover the cost of producing a drug. In the long run, that will mean fewer small companies. Smaller companies sell fewer drugs, and unprofitable drugs can easily put them in the red. That is good for larger drugmakers. They will increase their market share as smaller companies in financial distress either go out of business or are acquired by larger competitors.   When the Trump administration reduces government’s role in drug development, as with Operation Trialblazer, it will produce savings that will reach patients. By contrast, TrumpRX leans on government to set prices rather than to get out of the way and let competition do it. The administration has proven with Trialblazer that it knows how to do the latter. The task now is to apply that same approach across the rest of its healthcare agenda.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Former President Barack Obama recently gave America another reminder of how his presidency—once expected to bring the country together—left us more divided on race. Obama compared America under President Donald Trump to the tumultuous period after the Civil War that gave birth to the Ku Klux Klan. He said the U.S. is “having the same arguments” we did in the 1860s and 1870s, when Union troops occupied the former Confederacy and attempted to secure real freedom for former slaves. “These issues are still here,” Obama told author Malcolm Gladwell in an interview for the podcast “Reconstruction: The Unfinished Promise.” “How are we going to help the freed people who’ve been enslaved?” he asked. “What are we going to give them to allow them to have a go at life? You trace that debate, of ’40 acres and a mule’ and public education, and you can trace it all the way through to debates about welfare, and debates about now DEI, and do we as a society have an obligation to address past injustices that have been institutionalized or left a legacy of poverty? We’re having that argument.” Obama didn’t stop there. “You got a Supreme Court that has systematically weakened the possibilities of enforcing voting rights in our democracy,” he said. “And we have a politics now that, at least one of our major parties has been captured by a politics that is not that subtle about suggesting that ‘we the people’ means a certain kind of people.” He attacked Vice President JD Vance, claiming Vance gave “a speech that is basically a ‘blood and soil’ version of ‘we, the people,’ that it matters who your parents were, how long they’ve been here, despite him being married to the daughter of an immigrant himself.” “That goes back to ideas about who gets to be a citizen, who belongs,” Obama added. Critical Race Theory Beefs with Vance aside, Obama’s remarks echo the claims of critical race theory, the idea that America is systemically racist and requires fundamental change. While no president single-handedly shapes public attitudes on race, Obama entered office with unique moral authority on the issue. His rhetoric and his policies breathed life into the idea of “systemic racism” and set the stage for the mass protests of 2020. The Reconstruction Podcast Obama rightly noted that Americans don’t fully appreciate the history of Reconstruction, but he went too far in suggesting we still face the same issues that led to the rise of the Klan. He recalled the “Lost Cause” mythology, which suggested that the Confederacy had been in the right all along. “It had to do with a very specific cultural project, which was to justify, solidify, rationalize the maintenance of a caste system, and that never fully went away” (emphasis added). Obama said the “really hard questions” coming out of slavery “were never fully processed” or resolved. He called for Americans to wrestle with “not some rosy-eyed sanitized version of American history, but a clear-eyed understanding of, yes, we took land from previous occupants. America was built on violence and subjugation, and chicanery, and confidence men, and shenanigans, and corruption, but it is also this amazing expression of human possibility.” Obama’s Divisive Record Americans hoped for a “post-racial” society under Obama, and ended up with the opposite. In 2010, only 13% of Americans said they worried about race relations “a great deal,” but by 2016, that number had risen to 35%, according to Gallup. A Rasmussen poll in 2016 found that 60% of Americans said “race relations have gotten worse since Obama’s election.” Obama’s Justice Department weaponized race in policy, dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party while condemning Texas’ voter ID law as racist. Yet the president’s rhetoric arguably made a larger impact. The president rushed to condemn racial profiling when Cambridge police arrested Henry Louis Gates in 2009. After the 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin, the president said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” Even after a jury acquitted George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch coordinator who said he’d shot Martin in self-defense, the Justice Department investigated him for three years before concluding there was no evidence he violated Martin’s rights. Responding to the death of Eric Garner at the hands of police in 2014, Obama said racism is “deeply rooted” in America: “I’m pretty explicit about my concern, this is a systemic problem, that black folks aren’t making this up.” Amid the COVID-19 pandemic and following the death of George Floyd, the riots that grew out of Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 reportedly resulted in more than $2 billion in insurance payouts and cost the lives of at least 26 Americans. While Obama deserves some credit for condemning the violence, his rhetoric arguably contributed to the polarization that fueled the protests. Obama is correct that America should reexamine its history on Reconstruction, but the United States today bears little resemblance to the era that gave birth to the Klan—and his own presidency conclusively demonstrates that. Obama is brilliant. He knows how to expertly play the statesman, advancing radical and divisive ideas while appearing to call for unity and patriotism. Unfortunately, racial and cultural divisions seem to be his most lasting legacy.