On Sept. 20, the Daily Wire (DW) released its new movie, “Run, Hide, Fight: Infidels.” DW, a conservative media company based in Nashville, produces a variety of podcasts, television series, and full-length motion pictures. Without a Hollywood budget, DW ventures into waters no other filmmaker dares.   DW podcast host Matt Walsh has made two documentaries, “What is a Woman” in 2022, which revealed the contradictions of gender ideology, and “Am I a Racist” in 2024, where with his signature irony and wit, Walsh gives woke “antiracists” enough rope to hang themselves.   DW also made the film “Lady Ballers,” in which a group of men decide to identify as women for the purposes of winning basketball games—a ridiculous premise now playing out in real life as former NBA players Enis Kanter Freedom and Royce White declare for the WNBA draft.   DW’s first “Run, Hide, Fight,” released in 2020, was about a mass killing in a high school. The 2026 sequel, “Run, Hide, Fight: Infidels,” is about a mass terrorist attack at a fictional college in Virginia. The state is a fitting choice, as the home of an ultra-woke governor, Abigail Spanberger, and prosecutor, Steve Descano, who releases criminals without bail and has dropped charges against illegal immigrants—at least one of whom later allegedly committed murder.  The plot of “Run, Hide, Fight: Infidels” is simple: Islamic terrorists invade a college campus, kill dozens, and take hostages to obtain the release of their leader. He had been captured in Somalia years earlier by a former Delta Force captain, who happens to be speaking on campus that very day about the threat of Islam to the West. The captain, a few plucky students, and a chunky wit of a security guard arm up, form a ragtag A-Team, and save the day.   The film is a sort of 1980s mash-up of a college dorm movie like “Revenge of the Nerds” with a straight-to-video Van Damme action flick. Remember those quotable ’80s lines? “I’ll be back.” “Welcome to the party, pal.” “I ain’t got time to bleed.” The movie’s script is a bit stilted at times, but it has a few of those. When one of the good guys shoots a terrorist in the gym, he says: “Never skip leg day.” When a bystander asks what the mayhem on campus is about, the security guard says: “We have a very active shooter.”   The movie’s characters are cliché but accurate. The blue haired, nose-ring-sporting student activists are much as you would see on any campus today. They wear keffiyehs, put tents on the quad, and snap their fingers instead of applauding. The apparently nonbinary person says it went “no contact” with its parents. Et cetera.   The faculty lounge scene is spot on too, with an assembly of leftist academics, only one of whom, a pregnant woman of color, advocates to shut down the protests on campus so people can get back to teaching and study.  As you would expect, the film has been getting attention for reasons nothing to do with its qualities as a film. Legacy media critics have savaged it. The movie’s Wikipedia page reads like it was written by the Oberlin chapter of Students for Justice for Palestine.   In truth, “Run, Hide Fight: Infidels” is not a fantastic film, but nor is it a terrible one. It’s an entertaining two hours in the shoot-em-up tradition of “The Dirty Dozen” and “Rambo.” Shut down your brain, open a few beers, and enjoy some mayhem.   As you’d expect, there are no major stars, the most famous actors being cancelled Marvel actor Jonathan Majors as the hero soldier and Jason Gray-Stanford from the TV show “Monk” as the spineless dean. A few standout lesser-known actors were Stephen Hailo as the terrorist leader and David Lucas as the security guard.   Overall, the movie cries out for the kinds of production value, writing, and cast that the mainstream U.S. movie industry simply won’t give a project like this. Why is that?   We have tens of thousands of disaster movies, hundreds of movies about the Vietnam War, and thousands about World War II. But there are almost none about Islamist terrorist attacks.  Yet mass-casualty, Islamist-inspired terrorist attacks are a potential mine of dramatic material. In Europe, there were bombings or suicide attacks in Madrid (2004), London (2005, 2017), Paris (2015), Brussels (2016), Nice (2016), Berlin (2016), and Manchester (2017).  In America, Islamist-inspired terrorists killed 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, three in Boston in 2013, five in Chattanooga and 14 in San Bernardino in 2015, and 49 in Orlando in 2016. I can’t find a single movie about any of these events.  As for the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which killed almost 3,000 people, I can find only one drama that deals with the actual terrorists and their acts, “United 93.” There is no movie about American Airlines Flight 11 or United Airlines Flight 175, the two that hit the Twin Towers, or American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon.   The obvious reason is that no one in Hollywood wants to portray Islamist terrorists saying and doing what they really say and do. They can separate Germans from Nazis, and Vietnamese from Viet Cong, but not Muslims from Islamist terrorists. Perhaps because there are no real Nazis or VC out there threatening Hollywood for its depictions of them.   In many serious World War II movies, from the 1965 blockbuster “Battle of the Bulge” to Steven Speilberg’s 1993 “Schindler’s List,” the Germans are portrayed as saying and doing things Germans did and said. Yet from 1962’s “The Longest Day” to 1998’s “Saving Private Ryan,” many have won Oscars.   The careers of actors playing murderous Nazis have only prospered. In “Platoon” and “Full Metal Jacket,” the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Minh guerillas are also portrayed as they were; committed to the communist takeover of Vietnam and to killing American soldiers. Yet their producers, directors, and actors suffered no blowback.  Islamism is different. It’s a no-go zone for the American film industry. I looked up which actors had played Osama bin Laden in films and found only four. Two were Hindi-language movies, one was a 2012 TV movie. The fourth, and the only American feature film, was Katherine Bigelow’s “Zero Dark Thirty.” In it, British-Indian actor Ricky Sekhon played bin Laden. You don’t remember him? Maybe it’s because Sekhon had not one word of dialogue and “gets only a few seconds of screen time, most of it dead on the floor.” Also, as “a creative decision” by the director and writer, “his face is never shown” to the audience.   Many movies show Nazis discussing exterminating Jews and methodically killing Allied soldiers and civilians, although these views are reprehensible to their audience. Yet no movie takes even a few minutes to give bin Laden a chance to expound on his worldview, which led him and al-Qaeda to bomb two U.S. embassies and a U.S. Navy warship and to carry out the 9-11 attacks.   In 2023, some historically illiterate young people seized on bin Laden’s “Letter to America” and found it “eye opening.” Today, our campuses teem with students who believe America is the oppressor and terrorists are victims. Perhaps some more accurate and daring portrayals on our screens of what Islamists actually believe, say, and do in real life would help dispel that myth.   “Run, Hide, Fight: Infidels” may not be “Ben Hur,” but it has the courage to take on that challenge. Let’s hope Hollywood is brave enough to follow one day.  

Since late 2025, federal law enforcement has made 160 election fraud arrests and has 10 times as many investigations in motion, senior Trump administration officials said. “We are investigating several hundred cases that are very much active right now. We are bringing several cases each week,” a Justice Department official told the Daily Signal Tuesday. “But I will say that we have thousands of cases that are in their infancy, where we are receiving public voter files.” The Daily Signal reported Monday that the Justice Department has brought about two dozen voter fraud cases in September so far. Previously, the Daily Signal reported that, as of late August, the second-term Trump Justice Department charged 50 noncitizens for voter fraud in its first one and a half years, compared to 13 such cases brought in the entirety of the Biden administration. The Justice Department is combining its own internal database and tools, and distributing that information to U.S. attorneys’ offices, Homeland Security Investigations field offices, and the FBI. “What you are seeing right now is stuff that has been in the hopper, and we have been working for a while now,” the Justice Department official said. “We think as the weeks progress, we will see those tranches, just in their infancy, start to really build and come to fruition as well.” The administration also plans to release numbers on nonprosecutable cases, noting that more than 100,000 people have illegally registered to vote or voted, but the statute of limitations has expired for prosecution. The uptick in arrests shows federal prosecutors are not just looking the other way on voter fraud, said Chad Ennis, vice president of the Honest Elections Project. “The DOJ is finally putting the manpower into this. A lot of times all you have to do is look,” Ennis told thec Daily Signal. “Most of these prosecutions have been for in-person voting. In years past, most scattered prosecutions were for mail voting, or ballot harvesting operations.” A Public Interest Legal Foundation database shows 1,376 elections ended in a tie since 1992, while another 533 were decided by a single vote in that time. “Are thousands of fraudulent votes happening in one place? No,” Ennis said. “But local elections are more prone to fraud. It’s hard to steal a million votes. It’s not hard to steal 10 votes. Then someone has a city council to steer contracts their way, and it’s a good return on investment.” A Homeland Security Investigations official said the agency is getting leads from across the country, with 1,600 cases in place, and 160 arrests for illegal voting or illegal voter registration. “These are time-consuming cases. They take a lot of agent time, doing interviews, finding people, running down the official records, and determining if they voted and whether they voted in elections,” the HSI official said. The HSI official said the agency works with other agencies, including U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the State Department, and the FBI to collect large amounts of registered voters, filter out noncitizens, determine if they voted, and then turn over that information to federal prosecutors. Prosecutors decide if a case can reach a conviction.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—An Albuquerque social worker is speaking out after suing to block a school district policy, alleging that it violates her First Amendment rights by forcing her to lie to parents about their students’ gender identities. “I’m a social worker. My job is to support … emotional development, mental health, decision-making processes that affect a student’s well-being, but also to support parents, community, and students; and advocate for the health and well-being of the family,” Jeanette Martinez, the plaintiff, told the Daily Signal in an interview Tuesday. Yet Procedural Directive PJ30 directs Albuquerque Public Schools staff to adopt a child’s stated gender identity at school and hide that identity from parents—unless the child gives permission. “When contacting the parent/guardian of a transgender student, school staff shall use the student’s legal name and the pronoun corresponding to the student’s gender assigned at birth unless the student or parent/legal guardian has specified otherwise,” the policy states. In addition to the policy, the lawsuit cites an April 21 training, conducted for the school district by the Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico. “You may be the one safe person at a school who’s using a kid’s pronouns, but if you don’t know whether the parents are cool with it or not, don’t call them that in front of their parents because it may be the only way to protect the safety at school,” the instructor stated. ‘A Wicked Presumption’ Mark Trammell, general counsel at the Center for American Liberty, which is representing Martinez, condemned gender secrecy policies. “It’s a wicked presumption on behalf of schools,” he told the Daily Signal. “The presumption that parents are inherently abusive of their children, but that the state—the school—can do no wrong, and is all-knowing. It is a very socialist, it-takes-a-village type of approach, and it is so contrary to the Constitution.” He said the policy “actually requires this conspiracy to lie to parents, and I think that compelled lie is so clearly unconstitutional.” Martinez repeatedly sought a religious accommodation not to lie to parents. “Never, ever was I told that I could be honest with parents,” she said. “I’m being asked to go against my faith and what I believe is best for families and children,” Martinez said. “The parent should be the one providing the stability, the guidance, and the love.” The social worker said that school officials told her, “If I was face-to-face with the student and the parent, then I was allowed to use the biological name only in front of the parent, so that the parent does not become aware that the student has transitioned.” Martinez’s lawsuit claims that PJ30 violates the social worker’s free speech and religious freedom rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It discriminates against her on the basis of her viewpoint, it compels her to speak in violation of her conscience, and it forces her to violate her religious beliefs. The lawsuit asks a federal judge to declare PJ30 unlawful, and to block it with a preliminary and permanent injunction. “APS does not comment on pending litigation,” Martin Salazar, senior director of communications at the school district, told the Daily Signal. “We will address the allegations in court, using the appropriate process.” The Daily Signal reached out to the Transgender Resource Center of New Mexico, and did not receive a response by publication time. A 10-Year-Old Boy Martinez told the Daily Signal that her concerns grew from an incident involving a 10-year-old boy. She said the boy had previously been committed to a mental hospital and suffered multiple mental-health challenges, but wanted to use the girls’ restroom. She said school officials began treating him like a girl “overnight” and planned a transgender identity presentation for his class. Martinez faulted the school for being “just way too passive.” “They have literally said if a student says they are not a male or a female—opposite of what they are biologically—that it’s not their job to mentally assess a student,” she recalled. “If they say that’s what they are, then that is exactly what they are.” “What if that’s not the answer?” Martinez recalled asking. Trammell, the attorney, cited recent Supreme Court precedent upholding parental rights. In Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026), the Supreme Court upheld an injunction against California’s gender secrecy policy, which mandated that school staff hide a student’s claimed transgender identity from parents unless the student expressly consented to reveal it. The Supreme Court only granted preliminary relief, rather than ruling on the merits, so some states have kept similar policies. “It is really only a matter of time, I think, until the Supreme Court takes up these types of cases on the merits and provides what I think is much needed guidance to all 50 states,” Trammell said. Martinez v albuquerqueDownload

For the fifth consecutive year, the Heritage Foundation has ranked all 50 states’ and the District of Columbia’s election laws and safeguards in place for secure and accurate elections. With a series of new citizenship requirements for voting, Florida continues to rise in the rankings, settling in at #5 for 2026.   The 2026 Election Integrity Scorecard continues to be the blueprint for election integrity practices across the country, highlighting how different states are improving their voting systems for future elections.   The most important policies for the scorecard include verification of citizenship for voter registration, implementing photo ID to confirm identity at the polls, and banning foreign funding on statewide ballot measures.   Florida is one of the best examples of what election integrity reforms can do to improve a state’s elections and the public confidence in the results.   Florida’s rise began from a low point: the 2000 Bush v. Gore election, in which ballot counting was delayed, disjointed, and recounted so many times that the Supreme Court eventually ruled that the lack of uniformity in the ballot counting county standards violated the equal protection rights of citizens.   The state faced national scrutiny. A mere 537 ballots in Florida separated the two candidates vying to be the leader of the free world, and their political legal teams fought over every one.    While embarrassing, the fiasco drew attention to fundamental weaknesses in our electoral system and showed that new accuracy standards in voter registration and voting were necessary. The nation’s response ultimately resulted in the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) and new voluntary standards in voting.   Since then, Florida has charted a new direction and become the gold standard in election administration. Today, the state makes timely and accurate results available to the public immediately after the closing of the polls.   Florida’s impressive turnaround included the implementation of new and innovative audits, strong voter ID laws, and leadership using new state and federal programs to ensure that voter rolls only contain the names of eligible voters.   Florida has made it easy to vote and hard to cheat. For example, Florida provides its citizens with online registration, state verification, and multiple options to vote—including early in-person voting, mail voting with safeguards, and robust Election Day voting. Florida uses paper ballots, having transitioned from electronic machines in 2008, and the Florida Division of Elections individually evaluates each version of voting systems seeking to enter the Florida market for use in counties.   Results were not always timely in Florida. In fact, there were inexplicable delays that negatively impacted voter confidence and raised serious doubts about Florida’s elections. These came to a head when senatorial candidate Rick Scott sued Palm Beach and Broward County in his 2018 race for the delay and extended counting of ballots over several days. The blatant lack of transparency about the number of ballots yet to be counted and the underlying reasons for the delay was never explained. The two supervisors of elections were later suspended for their lack of competence over multiple elections, and they were replaced by future Gov. Ron DeSantis.   Following the delayed reporting of results, Florida enacted new election administration reforms that allowed county election officials to begin processing vote-by-mail ballots before Election Day, with tough deadlines ensuring that unofficial results must be released on election night. Election officials initially opposed these changes, but once the laws and procedures were implemented, the speed and accuracy of election night reporting improved significantly.   As a result, Florida now counts the ballots twice before California has even finished counting the first time. There is a reason that Florida is #5 and California is #50 on the Election Integrity Scorecard.   Florida has become a national leader in finding ways to keep noncitizens off the voter rolls. In 2026, the Florida Legislature passed and DeSantis signed the Florida SAVE Act. This strengthened the citizenship verification process and will require citizenship documentation for all new applicants and 13.5 million existing registered voters, priorities of the Election Integrity Scorecard.   While there is certainly going to be litigation, the new process will give registrants multiple opportunities at different stages of the registration process to provide an identifying number or documentation to confirm citizenship if needed.  Florida also became a national leader in the use of the Systematic Alien Verification of Eligibility (SAVE) program, the only tool available from the federal government that assists states in the confirmation of citizenship and identifies potential noncitizens already on the voter rolls. Florida also successfully sued the Biden administration in 2024 to demand access to the SAVE program, and the state’s leadership was critical to forcing overall improvements to the federal SAVE system that have helped election officials more easily and regularly compare voter registration lists with federal citizenship data.  Laws are only as good as their enforcement, and Heritage will add new priorities to the scorecard in 2027 on the enforcement of existing election integrity laws, including the investigation of election crimes or irregularities. Florida’s Secretary of State Cord Byrd has been managing the Office of Election Crimes and Security (OSCE), which is tasked with conducting preliminary investigations into any irregularities or voter fraud. Similarly, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has taken an aggressive posture to deter election crimes with the prosecution of noncitizens who illegally voted in elections.   Since 2000, Florida has shown that states can renew confidence in elections by adding key security measures, including photo ID and citizenship checks. Turnout has increased accordingly, hitting a high of 78% in the 2024 presidential election.   American elections must remain secure, accurate, and transparent. Florida continues to provide leadership to the nation and is now recognized as one of the top states in adopting strong election measures. Since 2000, Florida has made voting easy, secure, and timely.   State legislators and secretaries of state implementing strong conservative policies across the country are the true heroes of election integrity, and it is our hope that the Heritage Election Integrity Scorecard provides a blueprint for stronger elections in the future.   We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

A political action committee in Texas has long attempted to portray itself as a bipartisan group that talks like a conservative organization, however the PAC’s record reveals a history of backing Texas Democrats.  Texans for Lawsuit Reform is a PAC that has existed since 1994 and states that it works to “elect Texas leaders and lawmakers who understand the importance of maintaining the historic civil justice reforms that are strengthening the Texas economy and ensuring access to health care throughout the state.”  While TLR maintains that it is bipartisan, its campaign finance records show a different story of supporting Democratic candidates and their policies.  Millions Donated to Democrats in Texas  According to the Texas Ethics Commission’s campaign finance records, TLR is the eight-largest donor to Democrats in Texas since 2000, contributing more than $6.3 million to 144 Democratic candidates and committees in the state. Their donations make them the third-largest donor to Democratic candidates for the state legislature.  For instance, TLR has given Democrat state Sen. Carol Alvarado more than $300,000 since 2008, making her the largest recipient from TLR among all Democrats.  Alvarado served on the Houston City Council from 2002 to 2007, before being elected to the Texas House, where she represented District 145 from 2009 to 2018, before moving to the Texas Senate.  In 2021, Alvarado mounted a 15-hour filibuster of a 2021 GOP voting integrity bill, as well as attending a 2018 “Abolish ICE” protest with fellow Democrat state Sen. Sylvia Garcia.  Additionally, TLR contributed $2,500 to Democrat Jasmine Crockett’s 2020 campaign for the Texas House.  The PAC also contributed $2,000 to Democrat state Rep. Jarvis Johnson after he cast the sole vote in the Texas House against HB 2908, the “Police Protection Act” which classified serious attacks against police officers and judges as hate crimes.  In 2022, TLR was the largest donor in the Lone Star State to Democrat Morgan LaMantia’s state Senate campaign, contributing $115,000 to support LaMantia’s campaign against Republican Adam Hinojosa, one of the state’s only competitive state Senate races.   LaMantia won by 659 votes; however, Hinojosa defeated LaMantia in the next race.  Rachel Hooper, the former general counsel for the Republican Party of Texas, told the Daily Signal that the PAC “talks like a conservative group. Its checkbook does not.”  “In the 2022 cycle, TLR put $115,000 into electing democrat Morgan LaMantia in Texas Senate District 27, making it her single largest donor. She beat conservative Republican Adam Hinojosa by 659 votes. Two years later, TLR put $600,000 behind Hinojosa and claimed the flip as its own,” Hooper explained. “TLR spent $824,000 of PAC money trying to beat Ken Paxton in the 2022 Republican primary. Paxton survived. Then came November, and Rochelle Garza. Garza was the lawyer for the teenager at the center of the case that sued the Trump administration for an abortion in federal immigration custody. She ran on abortion. She was one election away from running the office that defends Texas law. TLR found $824,000 to spend against Ken Paxton in the primary.”  ” TLR does not care whether you are conservative. It cares whether you serve its special-interest agenda,” Hooper added.  Supporting Democratic incumbents is not the only issue many have with the PAC, however. TLR has also supported and backed multiple Democrat policies.  TLR Backs Democrat Policies  Dating back to 2011, Lee Parsley, who is now TLR’s president and general counsel, advocated against Texas’ constitutional amendment that would have banned state courts from considering foreign religious or cultural law in their rulings.   In 2017, TLR board members fought the Texas bathroom bill, legislation that sought to require transgender individuals to use bathrooms in public schools and government buildings based on the sex listed on their birth certificate.   Board members Jeff Shellebarger and Marc Watts, then chairman and vice chairmen of the Greater Houston Partnership, signed a letter to Abbott asking him not to sign the bill into law saying that it “risks harming Texas’ reputation and impacting the state’s economic growth.”  In 2021, during the peak of COVID-19, Watts signed an email as chairman of the Greater Houston Partnership’s COVID-19 Task Force that urged local businesses to encourage social distancing, masking, and to considering requiring employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19.   In 2023, TLR signed on to a letter opposing Senate Bill 7, legislation that banned Texas employers from requiring the COVID-19 vaccine.  Additionally, TLR has contributed $375,325 to 35 of 56 Texas House Democrats, 62.5% of whom broke quorum in August 2025 to block a vote on the new congressional map.  TLR Spends Millions to Defeat Paxton  In 2022, the PAC spent more than $3 million backing Eva Guzman, who challenged Paxton for Attorney General.   During Paxton’s impeachment in 2023, it was also alleged that TLR had worked behind the scenes to support the efforts to remove him from office after a message from then TLR-President Dick Trabulsi was sent to Paxton’s deputy-turned-whistleblower, Jeff Mateer.   Before the Senate trial, TLR also urged senators not to acquit Paxton “before the trial even begins and the evidence has been presented.”  Even after Paxton’s failed impeachment, TLR continued to show disdain towards the attorney general by funding judges who ruled against him.   In 2024, TLR gave $15,000 apiece to three incumbent Court of Criminal Appeals justices targeted by a Paxton-aligned PAC for ruling against him.  Despite TLR donating thousands, all three judges lost their primaries after President Donald Trump endorsed their challengers.  Additionally, TLR stood behind Republican Reps. Jill Dutton and Lynn Stucky over Paxton-endorsed challengers Brent Money and Andy Hopper, both of whom beat TLR’s candidates.  After Hopper successfully beat Stucky for the Republican nomination for District 64, Hopper posted: “To Texans for Lawsuit Reform and every dark money interest group in Austin who spent hundreds of thousands lying to our neighbors, District 64 has been returned to the voters.”  Republican State Rep. Brent Money told the Daily Signal that TLR’s consistent feud with Paxton has burned them.  “Texans for Lawsuit Reform once shaped Republican politics in Texas, but over the past few years, they have regularly picked the wrong fights and consistently lost them. Their perplexing feud with Ken Paxton and a series of failed primary endorsements have needlessly burned a lot of well-earned political capital,” Money told the Daily Signal. “With Democrats now closer than they have been in decades to turning Texas blue, every major Republican organization except TLR is heavily engaged, but it seems that TLR remains on the sidelines.”  “I hoped a change in leadership after those losses would produce a change in direction. So far, it has not,” Money added.  A Texas legislator, who asked to remain anonymous, also spoke to the Daily Signal, saying that “TLR’s record speaks louder than its rhetoric.”  “While cultivating a conservative image, TLR has poured millions into Democratic candidates, including lawmakers associated with efforts to abolish ICE, restrict Second Amendment rights and oppose legislation increasing protections for police. It also spent more than $3 million backing Ken Paxton’s 2022 primary opponent, while Paxton and his allies later accused the organization of working behind the scenes during his impeachment, an allegation TLR denies,” the lawmaker said. “Texans should follow the money and decide whether TLR’s political record matches its conservative branding.”  Texans for Lawsuit Reform did not respond to a request for comment by publication.