Children of married parents with high education levels are more likely to be healthy and succeed in school and life than their peers. Children from these families are also more likely to live above the poverty line and benefit from extracurricular activities such as music lessons, sports, and summer camp. These activities offer students prized background knowledge. Students from families with lower education levels must rely more on schools to provide information. Poor reading and math scores nationwide do not give confidence that schools in low-income areas are bridging the gap. Many schools have reduced time spent on history, science, geography, literature, and civics in favor of generic reading strategies, so-called social-emotional learning, and “gender” studies. Schools often cut the very subjects that help students. Differences in background knowledge have enormous implications for teaching reading. Two students can read the same paragraph and perform differently on the test, not because one is more intelligent, but because he knows the topic better. For decades, researcher and former professor E.D. Hirsch argued that literacy is connected to content and vocabulary. Hirsch has argued that “broad general knowledge” is essential for reading comprehension because students need prior knowledge to understand what they read.  Likewise, professor of cognitive psychology Daniel T. Willingham, who researches reading comprehension, has also found that background information is important for students to understand text. The evidence behind this approach is compelling. A 2024 report in Education Next observed long-term reading gains among students attending schools using knowledge-rich curricula. Researchers at the University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development similarly found that elementary students who learned under the Core Knowledge curriculum—which was developed by Hirsch—improved their reading abilities. While much of the education establishment doubles down on skills and spends less time on content, some educators are bucking the trend by reemphasizing rigor and factual memorization. Liberty Common School in Fort Collins, Colorado, has used the Core Knowledge curriculum since 1997. The curriculum gives students a foundation in a range of subjects, including history, geography, literature, science, music, and the arts. School officials report their 2025 graduating class had Colorado’s highest composite SAT score. The Great Hearts network of schools also uses a classical liberal arts curriculum focusing on great books. The Great Hearts network started in Arizona, but parent demand helped expand the academies to Louisiana and Texas. Instead of narrowing instruction, these schools immerse students in primary sources and maintain high academic expectations. Students cannot analyze history they do not know, evaluate scientific claims they do not understand, or engage in civic debate without any understanding of civilization. Knowledge is a prerequisite for any critical thinking. Yet state lawmakers in California, New Jersey and Vermont have ethnic studies standards or requirements that emphasize activism, identity politics, and “lived experiences” with no civics requirements. Encouraging schools to adopt knowledge-rich curricula is a proven approach to closing the achievement gap. It is one of the few education reforms that should attract support across ideological lines. America does not suffer from a shortage of taxpayer spending. It has a knowledge problem. Schools cannot continue stripping content out of classrooms while expecting literacy rates and civic understanding to improve. If policymakers genuinely want to close the achievement gap, they should start by recognizing what that gap represents: unequal access to knowledge.

It was both a spiritual and strategic move when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed a bill adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. “From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty,” the president said upon signing the bill on Flag Day, June 14, 1954. “To anyone who truly loves America, nothing could be more inspiring than to contemplate this rededication of our youth, on each school morning, to our country’s true meaning,” he continued. “The Soul of an American President: The Untold Story of Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Faith,” written by Alliance Defending Freedom founder and former President Alan Sears and two co-authors, Craig Osten and Ryan Cole, details how faith was important to the 34th president well before he entered the White House. “In World War II, he saw the concentration camps and it shook him to his core,” Osten told the Daily Signal. “He was convinced this is where a godless society ends up. He also looked at what was happening in the Soviet Union and the destruction of their churches.” During the bill-signing remarks, Eisenhower made a subtle reference to the Cold War. “In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future. In this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons, which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war,” Eisenhower said. Critics of the bill have dismissed it as a geostrategic move to claim the moral high ground against the Soviets. Osten stressed it was much more than that for Eisenhower. “He looked at what was different about America. He believed the Soviet Union’s weak link was that it was an atheistic society,” Osten said. “It’s not that he was using religion as a weapon, but he did want to remind America of its spiritual roots.” Osten added the president “wanted to make sure America didn’t drift the way Russia and Germany did.” After the bill-signing ceremony, the former Supreme Allied commander met with an American Legion gathering at the Capitol, where he and the others recited the pledge with the newly added words “under God.” As for the pledge itself, it had quite a journey before Eisenhower’s monumental act. The first version of the pledge, which skipped from “ … one nation indivisible … ,” was interestingly enough written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892 to mark the 400th anniversary of the discovery of North America by Christopher Columbus. It caught on that year, and schools and civic organizations began reciting it in the following decades. It was during World War II, on June 22, 1942, that President Franklin D. Roosevelt officially recognized the pledge in signing the U.S. Flag Code. It was well after the war, in 1951, that the Catholic group Knights of Columbus resolved to call on Congress to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance. Rep. Louis Rabaut, D-Mich., introduced legislation adding the words to the pledge; the measure then passed both the House and Senate. Though Catholics initiated the effort, Protestants weren’t far behind. The measure gained significant momentum after Eisenhower listened to a sermon in February 1954 by the Rev. George Docherty at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., a church frequented by former President Abraham Lincoln. “To omit the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is to omit the definitive factor in the American way of life,” Docherty preached. The pastor said “under God” would include all faiths, such as Jews and Muslims. However, he added, “An atheistic American is a contradiction in terms. If you deny the Christian ethic, you fall short of the American ideal of life.” That sermon convinced Eisenhower, according to The Washington Post. Almost two months after the Flag Day bill signing, Eisenhower wrote a letter of gratitude to the Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. “And this year we are particularly thankful to you for your part in the movement to have the words ‘under God’ added to our Pledge of Allegiance,” Eisenhower wrote in the Aug. 6, 1954, letter. “These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.”

For years, most Americans’ retirement savings plans have been locked out of certain investment choices, including some of the market’s best-performing assets. That makes it harder to save for retirement. Fortunately, though, this is about to change, giving savers new—and better—options for their investments. At issue are not only the many rules and regulations surrounding what can go into 401(k)s and similar savings plans, but also the flimsy legal framework governing fiduciaries—the ones who manage your money. Many investment options are excluded, either by law or by common practice, as fiduciaries try to avoid both legitimate and frivolous lawsuits. Asset classes like private equity, digital assets, and real estate effectively became the purview of “accredited investors” with very high net wealth and government workers with public pensions. Most Americans—those private-sector workers on Main Street—were left out. For folks with a typical 401(k) retirement plan, this meant lower returns on their investments. U.S. private equity has delivered the highest long-term returns compared to public equities and other asset classes—even after fees—averaging 3 percentage points (about 20%) better annual growth than the S&P 500. The disparity has been exacerbated in recent years because of volatile inflation and interest rates, which have crushed bonds. The Biden administration oversaw the bond market’s worst four-year run in a century. The traditional 401(k) allocation, which is heavy in fixed-income assets, performed very poorly, especially compared to private equity. The groundwork for a sea change was laid last August, with President Donald Trump’s executive order that directed agencies to clean up the rules around investment savings and provide a more robust legal framework for fiduciaries. The Department of Labor has now responded with historic reforms that will empower savers and keep the trial lawyers at bay. The reforms make it easier for retirement plans to consider private-market exposure, while clearly outlining how fiduciaries still must prioritize prudence within their clients’ portfolios. It’s a healthy balance to help achieve the highest risk-adjusted rate of return. The move has bipartisan support, with 57% of voters favoring expanding retirement investment options, and 61% supporting private equity access, specifically. Put simply, Main Street wants access to Wall Street, and that access has become increasingly difficult under the current regulatory morass. Restricting the average American to investing in publicly traded companies has been increasingly stifling. From 1997 to 2024, the number of publicly traded companies was cut by more than half, from about 8,800 to less than 4,000. Consequently, it has become more difficult for savers to diversify and protect their investments. Additionally, the S&P 500’s gains in 2024—and more recently—were driven in substantial part by just seven large-capitalization technology companies, further underscoring the need for alternative investments in retirement portfolios. Retirement planning should change as the economy does. With companies taking longer to go public, private firms now represent about 87% of all U.S. companies, up from 62% in 2002. This regulatory reform creates a level playing field with an asset-neutral framework, meaning no asset class is inherently prudent or imprudent. That’s important for savers because not all bonds, stocks, or private equity are created equal. To treat every mutual fund or bond fund as if it’s a prudent investment based solely on their asset class is absurd. It’s like saying Spirit Airlines—which went out of business—and American Airlines—which remains profitable—were equally prudent investments. Despite this proposed rule change being both popular and sensible, people like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., are decrying the change as a Wall Street ploy. Ironically, her own state’s public pension fund has greatly benefited from investing in private equity, earning almost 17% annual returns for the last decade, the fourth best among 200 U.S. public pension funds. Better returns on investment shouldn’t be confined to government workers or Wall Street elites. It’s long past time for the average American to have access to these savings options, and fiduciaries shouldn’t fear frivolous lawsuits when doing their best for their clients. More regulatory reform is needed, such as avoiding overly burdensome liquidity requirements that might still effectively ban certain assets or investment trusts, but the current change from the Department of Labor is a huge step in the right direction for the average American. Originally Published by TheDerrick.com.

Three relatively recent events arguably serve as the most prominent landmarks for the dramatic shift in corporate governance we are currently witnessing. First, after roughly 100 years of essentially unchallenged dominance, Delaware’s role as the undisputed home of corporate charters ran into an iceberg in the form of Elon Musk. On Jan. 30, 2024, a Delaware court struck down Musk’s executive compensation package despite it having been approved by shareholders. This was arguably one of the factors leading to a “Dexit” movement that continues to reverberate loudly more than two years later. Second, after roughly 90 years of responding to inquiries from corporations regarding their plans to exclude otherwise statutorily authorized shareholder proposals from company proxy statements, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced on Nov. 17, 2025, that it was no longer providing such guidance, though it also said that it would not object to any exclusion grounded on as little as a corporation’s bald claim of a reasonable basis. Third, after at least 50 years of a leftist one-way ratchet that started as corporate social responsibility and progressed into ESG and DEI turned corporations into the equivalent of campaign posters for Democrats, executive orders from President Donald Trump (along with anti-ESG laws from several states) have significantly undercut the ESG and DEI industrial complex (made up of asset managers, proxy advisors, and CEOs pining for affection at the World Economic Forum). There is certainly more than one way of framing this shift, but to the extent it can be loosely organized around freeing corporations from activist pressures, one obvious question is whether the correction has spilled into overcorrection. Specific questions related to issues on that front might include these four: Does Texas’ offering corporations incorporating there the options to limit shareholder derivative lawsuits to holders of 3% of the corporation’s stock, and to limit shareholder proposals to holders of 3% or $1 million of the corporation’s stock, insulate management and controlling shareholders too much? Is limiting shareholder voice via proposal or lawsuit at this time precisely the opposite of what anyone wanting to walk corporations back from the leftist ledge they were standing on should want—given that conservative shareholders were just beginning to make effective inroads to arguably entrenched leftist corporate bureaucracies? Do apparent wins on the part of the anti-ESG movement to insulate corporate management from activists signal an end to any meaningful role for corporate values beyond maximizing the bottom line? If not, how should values beyond profit maximization be balanced against concerns of activist overreach going forward? As the culture war that divides our nation shows no signs of abating, does the recent corporate governance realignment increase or decrease the likelihood that corporations may serve some type of unifying role by seeking to find ways to connect with the broadest customer base while engaging a broad swath of stakeholders without the pressure of activists imposing mob rule? One place where we might find some answers to these questions is The Heritage Foundation’s upcoming panel discussion taking place on June 25, 2026, titled “Back to Business: Refocusing Corporations on ROI.” Panelists include Justin Danhof, director of policy, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor; James R. Copland, senior fellow and director of legal policy, Manhattan Institute; and Lawrence A. Cunningham, presiding director, John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance, University of Delaware. Panelists will have an opportunity to discuss the issues flagged above and as set forth on the event page. More generally, they will discuss “the evolving role of shareholder engagement in modern corporate governance,” including “fiduciary duty, shareholder rights, corporate neutrality, and long-term value creation.” Regardless, one thing seems certain: Neither proponents nor opponents of ESG and DEI and their various offshoots have any intention of conceding to the other side, and any claims of victory by either side are likely premature. Whether the recent and on-going corporate governance realignment will reduce tensions and improve outcomes remains to be seen. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

Democrats of 2026 bear an uncanny resemblance to Democrats of 1861 when it comes to seeking to nullify federal law. In 1861, Democrats led efforts to “secede” from the Union to oppose Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who opposed the expansion of slavery into the Northern Territories, an expansion expressly forbidden by Congress in the Missouri Compromise. In 2026, Democrats are again trying to nullify federal law to prevent another Republican from enforcing immigration laws duly enacted by Congress. This week, the Justice Department filed an important lawsuit against Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger and the state’s infamous attorney general, Jay Jones. The lawsuit explains how two laws that Spanberger signed directly conflict with the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause. In an echo of the nullification battles preceding the Confederacy, Virginia had sought to dictate exactly how the federal government would enforce the law. The Virginia Lawsuit The lawsuit describes Virginia’s laws as “blatantly unconstitutional” because they violate “the principles of intergovernmental immunity that flow from the Supremacy Clause.” One law seeks to dictate exactly what federal immigration officers wear—or do not wear, in the case of face coverings. The other law seeks to void all federal immigration contracts with state and local law enforcement, unless the federal government meets certain requirements. In both cases, Virginia is dictating how the federal government enforces immigration law, a direct inversion of the Constitution. The lawsuit lays out five different ways these laws violate the supremacy clause, and asks the court to block their enforcement. The “moderate” Democrat Abigail Spanberger is far from alone, however. The lawsuit notes that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recently struck down a California law requiring federal immigration officials to display identification. How Did We Get Here? President Joe Biden’s policies enabled millions of illegal aliens to enter the country, and Donald Trump won reelection in large part due to this immigration crisis. Yet Democrats have demonized Trump’s efforts to deport some of the illegal aliens who entered in the Biden years, and the Department of Homeland Security has reported that federal agents face increased threats from this demonization. Between Jan. 20 and Dec. 31, 2025, Homeland Security officials reported 275 assaults against agents compared with 19 during the same period in 2024, for an increase of 1,347%. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents reportedly experienced 66 vehicular attacks in that same period, a 3,200% increase from the two in 2024. In response to these threats, ICE agents have taken to wearing masks to protect their identities, and Democrats have continued to ratchet up the rhetoric. The governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the gestapo, Adolf Hitler’s secret police. Others have echoed that rhetoric, describing Trump’s efforts as authoritarian or “fascist.” After ICE surged in Minneapolis, agitators began swarming ICE agents. Two anti-ICE agitators lost their lives at the hands of immigration enforcement, emboldening activists further. On Jan. 18, anti-ICE agitators even invaded a church during a service. At one point, they chanted, “Who shut this down? We shut this down!” The agitators face federal charges, but Democrats and a local prosecutor have defended many of them, claiming they had a right to protest. Neo-Confederate Rhetoric Comparing ICE to the gestapo is bad enough, but many Democrat politicians have taken this opposition a step further. Walz, the Democrat governor of Minnesota, threatened to deploy his state’s National Guard troops against federal agents, in what would have been a direct military confrontation against the federal government. When a reporter asked about the prospect of state troops facing federal agents, Walz gave this response: “We’ve never been at war with our federal government.” His statement suggested he meant “we’ve never been at war” with the administration before. Of course, Walz was far from alone in opposing immigration law. Governors like JB Pritzker of Illinois, or Gavin Newsom of California, or Tina Kotek of Oregon, openly say that immigration law should not be enforced in their jurisdictions. Even Virginia’s so-called moderate governor has joined this neo-Confederate effort to oppose the enforcement of immigration law. While Virginia’s nullification laws, like those of California, are not likely to survive in court, it is quite revealing how far Democrats are willing to go. Trump won reelection in 2024 in part because Biden opened the border. Now, Democrats are engaging in the same nullification tactics they did before the Civil War—just to stop Trump from deporting a fraction of the Biden-era illegals. I urge the American people not to buy the Democrats’ rhetoric. They’re no longer getting their way, and they’re throwing a tantrum. Unfortunately, this kind of tantrum can have serious consequences.