Alysa Liu is living the American dream, and not just because the figure skater won two gold medals for Team USA at the 2026 Winter Olympics. Liu represented the red, white, and blue with pride in Milan, but her father grew up under the hammer and sickle of communist China. Her father, Arthur Liu, was born and raised in China. Arthur was a student during the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. He organized demonstrations, protests, and hunger strikers against the violence of the communist state. He soon learned that he was on the Chinese government’s most-wanted list. After being questioned by authorities, and knowing he would soon be arrested, Arthur fled to the United States.   Arthur came to the United States as a political refugee, settling in the Bay Area of California. In California, Arthur worked his way up from being a busboy at a Chinese restaurant to an attorney after attending law school. Arthur had Alysa start figure skating at just five years old. Alysa’s talent made her a prodigy. In 2019, Alysa became the youngest-ever US women’s champion at just 13 years old. But the Liu’s success in America got the attention of the CCP. Around the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, the Liu family became targets of Chinese government spies, which required protection from the FBI.   Weeks before the 2022 Beijing Olympics, the Liu family was allegedly contacted by Matthew Ziburis. He attempted to get personal information from Arthur by impersonating someone on the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee. Alysa Liu’s father was persecuted by the CCP for the Tiananmen Square protests and fled to America His daughter became a world-class figure skater and refused to skate for the CCP when they tried to recruit herShe just won the gold medal for Team USA ?? pic.twitter.com/heirjoM07b— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) February 19, 2026 While this appeared to be a red flag before Alysa traveled to China for the first time Arthur said, “This is her moment. This is her once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to compete at the Olympic Games.”  At the games in Beijing, Alysa had protection from the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Olympic Committee. Weeks later the U.S. Department of Justice announced they had charged Ziburis and four others as spies targeting U.S. citizens who had spoken up for democracy in China.   CONGRATULATIONS to Alysa Liu, OLYMPIC CHAMPION!! @TeamUSA ??? pic.twitter.com/bLetr2VqSr— House Republicans (@HouseGOP) February 19, 2026 Alysa Following Her Father’s Footsteps  Following her father’s footsteps, Alysa is an advocate for human rights in China as well. After the investigation Arthur said he learned that the Chinese government knew about Alysa’s posts on Instagram calling out the terrible treatment and human rights violations against the Uyghurs.  Alysa called the whole experience “unbelievable” and “a little bit freaky and exciting.” She said she hopes someone makes a movie out of the whole thing.   “They gotta make me look like a super cool hero or something. I can’t just be the kid that got spied on and did nothing about it,” she said, adding “the main focus [should] be my dad’s story because his story is so cool.”  Alysa’s gold medal performance in the women’s individual singles event was the first gold medal for Team USA in Individual Women’s Figure Skating since 2006, calling it “a dream” to compete for Team USA. Taylor Swift introduces Amber Glenn, Alysa Liu, and Isabeau Levito: The Blade Angels! ?: NBC pic.twitter.com/pl2LgKozjK— Amber Glenn Updates (@AmberGlennDaily) February 16, 2026 The post At Olympics, Alysa Liu’s American Dream Comes True Against Wishes of CCP appeared first on The Daily Signal.

One of the largest proposed mergers in business history will have to wait a little longer. Netflix, which is trying to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery recently granted WBD a seven-day pause so it can explore another offer from Paramount Skydance.  Cue a sigh of relief from many who are worried that purchasing Warner Bros. would make Netflix—the nation’s top streaming service—too big. The proposed deal is worth about $83 billion and would see Netflix, already a streaming giant, take ownership of everything from Batman to “Game of Thrones” to fellow streamer Max.  The proposed Netflix-WBD acquisition has sent shockwaves through Hollywood. Most mega-mergers have involved content producers combining forces, such as when Warner Bros. and Discovery joined up in 2022. But Netflix, though it has some of its own content—think “House of Cards” and “Stranger Things”—is primarily relied upon as a streaming platform, with more than 88 million subscribers in the U.S., ahead of Amazon Prime, Hulu, and other contenders.  Warner Bros., meanwhile, is one of the top entertainment production companies in the world, ranking up there with Disney. Merging it with Netflix wouldn’t just make the latter company huge; it would stack both the production and streaming of so much media in the same place, making everyone answer to the same set of executives and shareholders.  When monopolistic behavior sees one company gain a corner in the marketplace, competition gets squashed and the average American suffers most. We have seen this with everything from life-saving drugs to airlines to internet providers. The results are too often higher prices and inferior services thanks to one corporation with few to no competitors holding all the cards.   It’s happened in the world of entertainment too. As small, independent film producers scratch out an existence with crowd-funded productions and shoe-leather marketing techniques, megamerger after megamerger continues to shrink content choices, restricting them to those with the most mass appeal and in the biggest demand.   So, it shouldn’t be surprising that some are balking at the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger. When the deal was first announced, President Donald Trump said it “could be a problem” because it would create an enormous market share for Netflix. Later, the president said he would be watching to “see what percentage of market they have.”  Sen. Chuck Grassley,  R-Iowa, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned, “Control of both a large platform and a deep library of films and shows can affect the bargaining power across the industry… I encourage our antitrust regulators to carefully scrutinize this transaction to ensure that competition is not undermined and to make sure that consumers are protected.”  Many Democrats are skeptical too, with one Democrat senator releasing a statement calling the Netflix-Warner Bros. deal an “anti-monopoly nightmare” and asking the Justice Department to “enforce our nation’s anti-monopoly laws fairly and transparently.”  Some Warner Bros. shareholders have also wondered whether the deal is in their best interest, with one cautioning that “the WBD Board opted to rush into a flawed deal with Netflix rather than earnestly pursue a superior offer from Paramount—in line with the directors’ fiduciary duties.”   A recent Reuters headline hints that this division runs deep: “Some of Warner Bros’ biggest investors are split on Paramount offer.” Such shareholder skepticism is reportedly why Warner Bros. decided to entertain a bid from Paramount-Skydance in the first place, according to CNBC.   When this much of the universe is lining up against you, it would be wise to ask why. Warner Bros. owes its customers this much as they now deliberate over which corporation to join up with.  We live in a changing world, including when it comes to how we watch movies and TV. The good, old-fashioned movie theater is shutting its doors as more and more of us stream content from home.  Yet whether you like or dislike these changes, most of us agree that concentrating too much of this new economic power under a single corporate entity isn’t a good idea. We’ve seen that happen before and it never turns out well.  Warner Bros. should consider this during its weeklong pause. The company’s many iconic entertainment properties deserve to end up in good hands. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.  The post Netflix-Warner Bros. Deal Falters Under Growing Political and Legal Fire appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled Friday that President Donald Trump’s attempt to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA, lacked constitutional footing because the statute does not clearly authorize tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. However, that does not mean that the presidency has been stripped of all trade policy tools. Justice Brett Kavanaugh rightly points out in his dissent that “numerous other federal statutes authorize the President to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case—albeit perhaps with a few additional procedural steps.” But there are several legitimate delegated, and often used, presidential authorities to address trade concerns. For example, Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 addresses issues like unfair practices, forced technology transfer, and intellectual property abuses. Additionally, Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows for tariffs pursuant to Commerce Department investigations on national security concerns. To address balance of payments issues (which were the crux of the Liberation Day tariffs), Trump has announced that he will use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to implement a 10% universal tariff. However, this tariff, if upheld, can only last for 150 days unless Congress reauthorizes it. Now, this is not to advocate for or against any of these tariffs; merely, that these are the options that the public should be aware of. This constitutionally legal toolset, even with IEEPA removed, is still useful to hold bad actors like China to account considering that they spend more than $400 billion in industrial subsidies, operate roughly half a million state-owned enterprises, and steal $600 billion in American intellectual property annually. Worryingly, China has also used its “government guidance funds” to keep almost a third of deeply unprofitable Chinese manufacturers alive from their market manipulation on key sectors like critical minerals. Rather than engage in a pyrrhic subsidy war like the Biden administration, it is more prudent to use properly calibrated tariffs to realign supply chains away from adversaries. However, while tariffs may be strategically necessary, they are still a blunt tool. For example, tariffs can “stack” by adding compounding costs on intermediate goods as they cross borders multiple times. As tariffs can hit this same value chain repeatedly, either foreign companies, import-exporters, domestic companies, or the consumer will end up paying for these taxes in ways that policymakers often do not intend and economists struggle to estimate in real time. Given that the Section 122 tariff, if upheld, will need continual reauthorization and still suffers from the stacking issue, The Heritage Foundation has advocated for a more balanced tool to adjudicate trade issues adroitly and fairly with limited market distortions. In fact, such a tool was remarked upon positively by Peter Navarro, current presidential senior counselor for trade and manufacturing, in his Project 2025 Trade Chapter and by Bob Lighthizer, former U.S. trade representative from 2017-2021 in Chapter 17 of his book “No Trade Is Free.” A congressionally passed Border Adjustment Tax, BAT, which taxes imports (like tariffs) but credits exports could reindustrialize America by addressing a key issue. Consider a grossly simplified example. Sweden applies a value added tax (similar to a sales tax) at the point of consumption, so an imported American Ford F-150 faces the VAT just like a locally sold vehicle. Now compare that to how VAT countries treat their own exporters. When Germany exports a Volkswagen to Sweden, Germany’s VAT is rebated at the border, and Sweden applies its VAT on import. This is called destination-based taxation where consumption is taxed where it occurs and zero rates exports. The United States with its origin-based system does not have a comparable border adjustment built into its tax system. Therefore, a BAT would move us closer to the model most of the world uses as it would tax imports, credit exports, and would do so through Congress rather than through emergency tariff authorization. If Congress is serious about addressing trade deficits and creating a low but broad tax on external consumption, then a BAT is the least damaging way to address these concerns. It can raise revenue in a predictable way that international businesses are more familiar with, and the resulting revenue can be paired with reforms like permanent full and immediate expensing for structures that rebuild industrial capacity, rather than simply punishing imports. If we want a Golden Age of American industry, trade enforcement must be married to domestic competitiveness. That means tax and regulatory reforms that make it easier to build, invest, and scale. As China’s statist model is not going away, the U.S. cannot afford legal ambiguity, whiplash policy, or temporary fixes. Make no mistake; the Supreme Court did not change the principle, simply the set of tools. Now Congress should do its job and build a trade and tax framework that lasts. The post SCOTUS Removes IEEPA Tariffs From Toolbox, Now Is Time for the BAT appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Virginia Democrats this week shelved legislation that would have raised costs on consumers to fund a solar energy promotion program. The decision to table HB 935 means that Virginians won’t be hit with an added fee on their electricity bills—at least for now. Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger promised to make affordability the centerpiece of her agenda, even though her fellow Democrats have proposed more than 50 tax hikes. The “clean energy” legislation would have imposed a fee of 2 cents per watt on solar energy and battery storage projects statewide. Even though developers would pay the charge upfront, industry experts predicted the costs would ultimately be passed on to ratepayers through higher electricity bills. Revenue generated from the legislation would create the Virginia Clean Energy and Battery Storage Promotion Program, which, according to the bill, would “promote the adoption, deployment, and understanding of solar energy and battery storage technologies.”  Similar measures are pending in other Democrat-led states, including California, Illinois, and Maryland. Politically Active Program Funded by Energy Fees  The proposed fee would fund a program explicitly authorized to engage in lobbying, political advocacy, and coordination with national organizations.  Jack Spencer, senior research fellow in the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at The Heritage Foundation, said the bill would put the government in a position of making energy decisions that should ultimately reside with consumers.   “The Virginia Clean Energy and Battery Storage Promotion Program is another attempt by government officials to use taxpayer money to decide how citizens should live their lives that will most assuredly wind up being another costly boondoggle,” Spencer told The Daily Signal. “The idea that a government board and a bureaucrat have the knowledge to develop markets and reduce prices flies in the face of every economic lesson learned over the past century.”  Spencer’s solution “is to allow battery firms to compete for the dollars of Virginians in a system of free enterprise. Such a system ensures that Virginians get the products they want at prices they are willing to pay.”  The Daily Signal spoke with another energy industry expert, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the bill.  “What’s surprising is how open-ended the program is, with no clear direction on how the money would be used or who would ultimately benefit,” the industry expert said.  The bill does not specify how funds would be allocated among marketing, lobbying, or political activity, nor does it identify the national organization that would receive a portion of the revenue.  This is what led the expert to raise the question, “Who are the individuals that are behind it and pushing this?”  How the Solar Fee Would Affect Ratepayers   The proposed fee on all solar and battery installations would apply across Virginia and cover both local and out-of-state manufacturers. Developers are responsible for paying the charge at the point of purchase, but the cost is typically passed to ratepayers, raising electricity bills for households and businesses.  One example is Dominion Energy’s four solar projects, which are set to be completed this year. The projects total 329 MW, and at 2 cents per watt, would cost electric customers $6.48 million.  “If there’s a tax added to solar panels, that would get passed along to the installer and to the homeowner,” the energy industry expert said. “For a big utility-scale project, that’s adding millions of dollars to the cost [and] all ratepayers would have to incur those costs.”  How the Program Would Operate   The program would be overseen by a board appointed by the governor. Structured as a 501(c)(6) trade association, it could have the authority to promote solar and battery storage while also lobbying, contributing to PACs, and coordinating with national organizations.  The industry expert explained the program’s structure and use of funds, warning that it appeared driven more by ideology than consumer needs.  “Half of the funds would be utilized and spent in some manner, either marketing, lobbying, what have you; that’s still pretty vague,” the expert said. “In Virginia, the other half would go to a national entity, again, to be named later, of some sort of organization that would then do national marketing on clean energy.”  The legislation is sponsored by Delegate Alfonso Lopez, who represents parts of Arlington and Alexandria. After advancing in the House Labor and Commerce Committee, lawmakers decided Tuesday to table it until 2027.  Similar legislation in California, Illinois, and Maryland could still advance this year. Those Democrat-led states may be more likely to move forward with clean energy initiatives despite concerns about rising utility costs.  The post Virginia Democrats Shelve Solar Fee That Would Have Raised Electric Bills appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of a segment from today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to Hanson’s own YouTube channel to watch past episodes. Jack Fowler: Why would Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez be invited to an international security conference? It boggles the mind. What gravitas she has. Victor Davis Hanson: Because she’s gonna run against Chuck Schumer for Senate, and she thinks she’s going to win, and then she thinks she’s going to, either in 2028 or in, I don’t know, 2030, 2032, she thinks she’s going to run for president. And moreover, she thinks that the Europeans, after the Greenland incident, are angry at President Donald Trump and therefore, they’re gonna be very receptive to someone like her who’s gonna come in and, like Hillary Clinton did there, and trash him. But the problem she has is twofold. She knows nothing. Nothing. She doesn’t know anything. She was a barista that was kind of cute and glib, and she got elected in a surprise win where nobody really took her seriously. And then she went into the Latina DEI and “the squad,” and she never did any homework. She doesn’t know anything. So, when they ask her a question about the defense of Taiwan—how long will we have an audience if you asked me just now about AOC and I act and I answer you like AOC did? I would say, “Jack. Um, well, uh, of course, as you know, it’s a very important question you asked. Uh, you know, uh, Jack, uh, and I’ve been thinking about the, the, the, the conference, and it’s important, and we worry about it. And it’s something, um, you know, you know, that, uh, um, that I, um, I’ve thought a lot about.” Fowler: Right. Davis Hanson: Well, we wouldn’t have an audience, and we shouldn’t have an audience in about 24 hours. Well, that’s what she did. She didn’t know anything about Taiwan. She knows nothing of the history of Taiwan. She doesn’t know the history of the Korean War. She doesn’t know the Nixon administration’s crisis with the islands off—she didn’t know anything about that. And so, she thought she was gonna have a presence, and she kind of, it kind of boomeranged. The other problem she had, the twofold, the second was, the Europeans are foxy, cagey. They’re not stupid people. They’re some of the smartest, most skilled, self-interested people in the world. Every time I talk to—you know, I think I’ve been to Europe almost every summer for 40 years. Every time I talk to a European, I always say to myself, this guy or this woman is the most, I don’t mean sneaky, but the most sophisticated, complex, careful, 500 alternate agendas, subtext. Why aren’t these people running the world like they used to? Because they’re very educated. You know what I mean? But the point I’m making is, their boilerplate about Trump is not the same about their subtext about Trump because they know deep down inside that Trump was right. That they, as former President Barack Obama called it, they leech off us. He said they were freeloaders, to be specific. And they have more people than we do. They have about 150 or more million people than does the United States. And yet they have no armament. And this was the embryo of the Western military tradition. And you know, they destroyed Europe twice. And when a Western army fights a Western army, it’s horrific, as they reminded us. So, they understand that they need deterrents. They understand that what former German Chancellor Angela Merkel did in Germany ruined the continent almost. They understand that Islamic populations are not acculturating, assimilating, integrating. They know all that. They know that you don’t really base an economy on Germany, in Germany, on solar power. Every time I’m there, I clap my hands when I see the sun, you know, for five minutes. So, my point is that when she went over there and schmoozed with everybody and thought she was gonna get—all she appealed to was the far left and maybe some opportunistic Europeans that would like to use her. But deep down inside, the idea that Trump is creating this huge economy, that he is gonna build up the military, that he’s gonna confront China, and that for all of his talk about backing out of Ukraine, he’s still there, they understand that. And what he did with Iran, they approve. And if he takes out that theocracy, they will talk about imperialism and undeclared wars and, you know, brinkmanship. But they will like it. And she doesn’t understand that. Well, Hillary too, Hillary was there, remember? And she attacked, she attacked a Czech diplomat, kind of, and said that— Fowler: He got into it with her. Yeah. Davis Hanson: And he said, you don’t like Trump. He said, no, I don’t. And then he was really good. And he was an illustration of what I’m talking about, it was much more nuanced. He understood that Trump—there was a reason why the head of NATO called Trump “daddy.” Fowler: Well, we saw again why she was unelectable also. Davis Hanson: Unelectable. Fowler: What a harpy. Davis Hanson: That’s a euphemism. Well, a harpy. You know, harpies were mythological creatures, you know, at Lake Stymphalus. Fowler: I’m sorry to detract the Stymphalian birds by comparing them to her. Davis Hanson: Yeah, that’s what I meant. I’ve been to Lake Stymphalus and the Stymphalian birds were, remember, one of the laborers of Hercules, and you see them on red and black figure, contemporary pottery of the fifth century. And they’re grotesque figures. But I would say that it’s unfair to them to compare them with Hillary. Fowler: My apologies. Davis Hanson: Medusa’s a better mythological. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Glib Barista AOC’s Ignorance Front and Center at Munich Security Conference appeared first on The Daily Signal.