FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., has introduced a bill to ensure homeschoolers aren’t discriminated against in college admissions. “No student should ever face discrimination or disadvantage during the college admissions process simply because they were homeschooled,” Harris said. “Yet, many universities still treat homeschoolers as second-class applicants by requiring excessive documentation and additional testing.” The Higher Education Act currently defines an “institution of higher education” as one that admits students with a high school diploma or its recognized equivalent. However, the law refers to homeschoolers as “Students Who Are Not High School Graduates.” This has caused some colleges and universities to require homeschoolers to take the GED despite having legally graduated. Harris’ bill, called The Home School Graduation Recognition Act, replaces the heading “Students Who Are Not High School Graduates” with the title “Students From Non-Traditional Settings.” Harris says this creates a clear, uniform federal definition affirming homeschool graduates as high school graduates. “With nearly three million homeschooled students across America, it’s long past time to end this discrimination and guarantee every student a fair shot at higher education,” Harris said. The House Education and Workforce Committee, of which Harris is a member, supports the bill. The Home School Legal Defense Association also endorses Harris’ effort. “The Home School Graduation Recognition Act will eliminate ambiguity, prevent ongoing misinterpretation, and ensure equal treatment for homeschool graduates by clarifying that homeschool graduates meet the definition of high school graduates for federal student aid purposes,” HSLDA president James R. Mason said. The post EXCLUSIVE: Rep. Harris Introduces Bill to Stop Discrimination Against Homeschoolers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Democrats have spent the better part of two decades branding themselves as protectors of working Americans. But when you examine their actual policy choices rather than their press releases, a consistent pattern emerges: Their interventions routinely raise costs, distort markets, and ultimately hurt the very people they claim to champion. Their latest foray into student lending and consumer credit is a case study in that contradiction.A chorus of congressional progressives—led, predictably, by Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders—is now demanding that President Donald Trump halt his administration’s effort to sell off portions of the federal student loan portfolio. Their reasoning is as political as it is transparent: They want to keep these loans on the government’s books so they can one day engineer a mass “forgiveness” program. Lost in this rhetoric is the structural reality that Washington’s heavy-handed role in student lending is one of the primary drivers of soaring tuition. When the federal government guarantees easy credit, institutions raise prices accordingly. The Warren-Sanders model—limitless federal lending paired with periodic political promises of forgiveness—gives colleges every incentive to hike tuition further, secure in the knowledge that taxpayers will absorb the fallout.Trump’s policy moves in the opposite direction. Transferring significant portions of the loan portfolio to private entities reduces federal exposure, reins in a program plagued by delinquency, and returns loan management to organizations equipped to handle it. For decades, Democrats warned about runaway deficits; yet when confronted with an opportunity to reduce a structurally unsound federal liability, these same voices insist taxpayers should shoulder even more risk. The inconsistency is striking—but it’s also revealing.Because even as they fight to prevent a modest correction in the Student Loan Program, Democrats are simultaneously pushing for a national 10% cap on credit card interest rates. As economist Stephen Moore has shown in his analysis of credit markets, such a cap would instantly make millions of at-risk borrowers unprofitable to serve, drying up access to mainstream credit almost overnight. The data is clear: Unsecured lending only functions when lenders can price for risk. Eliminate that price signal and lenders retreat.That retreat hits hardest among the populations Democrats claim to champion. Higher-risk borrowers—young adults, gig workers, families with limited savings, individuals recovering from financial setbacks—rely on access to revolving credit to manage unexpected expenses, smooth income volatility, or simply build a credit history. If Washington dictates that lenders may not charge more than 10% interest on unsecured credit, banks will respond exactly as any rational actor would: They will stop offering credit to borrowers whose risk profile exceeds the artificial ceiling.And here is the deeper irony. In higher education policy, Warren and Sanders insist on maintaining federally subsidized lending structures that inflate tuition and embed perverse incentives throughout the system. Colleges raise prices because Washington promises unlimited credit and then flirts with broad forgiveness. In consumer credit policy, those same lawmakers champion restrictions that will make legal credit scarce precisely when vulnerable households most need it. The result is a double blow: escalating education costs on the front end and shrinking credit availability on the back end.This creates a perverse policy loop. Federal interventions make college more expensive. Families borrow more to keep up. Tuition continues to rise. Then, when those same families need access to credit to manage expenses, progressive policymakers seek to cap rates at levels that make offering that credit impossible. What starts as misguided paternalism ends as a direct assault on household financial stability.A responsible government would reverse both trends. It would acknowledge that federal overreach in student lending has driven tuition inflation for years and welcome efforts to reduce taxpayer risk. And it would recognize that capping interest rates on unsecured credit below market-clearing levels doesn’t protect consumers—it excludes them.Yet Democrats want it both ways: unlimited government risk when it fuels their preferred political narratives, and heavy-handed restrictions on private credit markets when it yields a populist talking point. Trump’s approach—restoring fiscal discipline in student lending while letting market forces allocate credit—is the only one grounded in economic reality. More importantly, it is the only approach that actually protects working Americans from the long-term consequences of distorted credit markets and runaway tuition. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Democrats Want It Both Ways on Debt—and Working Americans Will Pay the Price appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If the races were reversed, Bethany MaGee would be as well-known as George Floyd. MaGee, 26, was recently riding on the L train in Chicago. As she was sitting there, police believe Lawrence Reed, 50, came up behind her and dumped gasoline on her. Despite her attempt to flee, Reed set her on fire. She rolled on the ground in a vain attempt to put out the flames. When the train arrived at the station, she left the car while still being burned alive. Two good Samaritans came to her aid, putting out the fire. She survived but suffered severe burns. She faces a long and daunting recovery. Somehow, this crime gets even more outrageous. Reed had already been arrested 72 times. Yes, you read that correctly. Since 2016, he has been arrested more than 20 times. He previously pleaded guilty to nine felonies. Just three months before this attack, Reed was in custody. At an August hearing, Assistant State’s Attorney Jerrilyn Gumila urged Cook County Judge Teresa Molina-Gonzalez to keep Reed behind bars. Gumila laid out how, three days before the hearing, Reed had knocked a social worker unconscious. Electronic monitoring “could not protect the victim or the community from another vicious, random, and spontaneous attack,” the prosecutor said. “I understand your position, but I can’t keep everybody in jail because the State’s Attorney wants me to,” Molina-Gonzalez said. She released Reed with electronic monitoring. It didn’t stop him from allegedly setting MaGee on fire. This should be a major national story for at least three reasons. First, the details of the crime are shocking and appalling. The victim is even an attractive young woman, which the propaganda press usually craves. Second, there’s a major scandal here. Police had a career criminal in custody. A judge let him go, despite a prosecutor’s warning that he was a danger. Third, President Donald Trump has been sparring with Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson over the city’s safety. In October, Trump even sent the National Guard to Chicago. A search of The New York Times website for “Bethany MaGee,” however, yielded zero results, as of this writing. The Washington Post didn’t have any either. Days after it occurred, NBC Nightly News finally mentioned it, but used the attack to take a swipe at Trump. They’re silent because this crime doesn’t fit the Left’s narrative. It wants you to believe that the criminal justice system is systemically racist against African Americans. What matters is someone’s group identity, not individual actions. White Americans have special privilege. This one case shows how laughable those claims are. Reed wasn’t jailed for being black. He was coddled by the justice system despite dozens of arrests. Critical race theory proponents lump people into groups based on their skin tone. They claim that black people are the victims, while white people are the oppressors. Yes, their worldview requires believing that the woman who was set on fire was the oppressor. It’s easier to ignore this story than explain that absurdity. MaGee’s skin color didn’t give her any special advantages on that train car. It didn’t protect Ukrainian immigrant Iryna Zarutska when Decarlos Brown Jr. allegedly stabbed her, either. She didn’t have much privilege when most of her fellow passengers ignored her as she bled to death. America’s criminal justice system has a systemic problem, but it isn’t white supremacy. It’s the judges and prosecutors who protect criminals, instead of the public. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post When a Crime Burns Up the Narrative appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Hamas has a history of infiltrating nongovernmental organizations working in Gaza, according to a new report.   Documents removed from Gaza by the Israel Defense Forces and obtained by NGO Monitor reveal “the terrorist group’s systemic control of foreign NGOs operating in Gaza.”   The 48-page report from NGO Monitor, a research and oversight organization based in Israel, details strategies Hamas has used to hold sway over organizations conducting humanitarian work in Gaza.   The report describes the way Hamas has monitored NGOs and even sought to manipulate them, but the “most invasive and egregious mechanism” of influence, according to NGO Monitor, is the “guarantor” system.  Through what NGO Monitor calls the “guarantor system,” a document from 2022 reveals that Hamas required “formal liaisons between its internal security apparatus and the international NGOs.”   “Hamas views ‘guarantors’ as potential high-value intelligence assets to gain access to the NGOs’ internal information and operations,” according to the report released Wednesday.  A 35-page document dated Dec. 14, 2022, from the State of Palestine Ministry of Interior and National Security Interior Security names more than 40 foreign NGOs operating in Gaza and details the “guarantor” Hamas has identified in each organization.  Since 2007, Hamas has controlled internal security in Gaza under the Ministry of Interior. Following two years of war with Israel, Hamas has been significantly weakened but not destroyed. Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire in October that is based on President Donald Trump’s 20-point peace plan. It remains unclear who will take over leadership of Gaza once a formal end to the war is agreed upon. Some of the “guarantors” listed in the Ministry of the Interior document are noted to have direct ties to Hamas.   The document, which NGO Monitor translated, begins by explaining that the list of “guarantors” have been identified as individuals who are allowed to submit requests for a foreign visitor.   “These [guarantors] can be exploited for security purposes, in order to infiltrate foreign associations, their foreign senior staff and their movements on the field inside the Gaza Strip,” the formal document retrieved from Gaza states.   The list of named “guarantors” is the “linking element between the association and the Ministry of Interior,” according to the document.   NGO Monitor redacted the specific names of “guarantors” for security and privacy, but NGOs working in Gaza in 2022, in which Hamas had identified a “guarantor,” are named, along with specific notes about each individual and the level of cooperation with the “Internal Security Mechanism,” or Hamas.   Puppet Regime – Hamas’ Coercive Grip on Aid and NGO Operations in GazaDownload For example, Medical Aid for Palestinians—U.K. is listed as “neutral” in cooperation. Bullet points under the name of the group’s “guarantor” identify him as a director of the association and state that he is “affiliated with the Hamas movement and has allegiance [to its rule].” It is also noted that his “circle of friends is from the Hamas movement.”  Several pages down, Islamic Relief UK is identified as “cooperating” with the Ministry of Interior. The “guarantor” for the group is identified as a director and his travel and financial habits are also described.   Rahma Worldwide, a humanitarian organization headquartered in Michigan with operations around the globe, is listed as “cooperating.” The “guarantor” is identified as having “formerly affiliated with the Salafi movement, and is now affiliated with the Hamas movement.” His occupation, travel and financial habits, and “low” religious observance are also noted.   Save the Children, a large charity organization operating around the world, is labeled as “not cooperating” with Hamas. The “guarantor” is recorded to have a “very limited” circle of friends and be from a “religiously observant and committed family.”   Doctors Without Borders Spain is listed as being “neutral” in cooperation with ruling authorities in Gaza, but Doctors Without Borders Belgium and France are recorded as “not cooperating.”   The aid group Catholic Relief Services is labeled as “not cooperating,” and the “guarantor” is noted as being “affiliated with the Popular Front [for the Liberation of Palestine],” a group the U.S. designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 1997.   The Daily Signal has contacted the humanitarian organizations specifically named in this report and is awaiting responses.   “The evidence confirms that NGOs in Gaza do not operate independently or neutrally,” according to NGO Monitor. “Rather, they are embedded in an institutionalized framework of coercion, intimidation, and surveillance that serves Hamas’ terror objectives.”   The post New Report Exposes Hamas Strategy to Infiltrate, Control NGOs in Gaza   appeared first on The Daily Signal.

What will it take to get crime under control in our subways and public transit systems? On Monday, news broke of another passenger set on fire in New York City’s subway—though this story wasn’t all it seemed. The homeless man who at first said he was the victim of an attack turned tight-lipped when police pressed him about what happened. Had he set his own clothes ablaze to attract attention? In the wild environment our subways have become, a malicious attack or a madman’s self-inflicted injury are both all too believable. Most trips on the New York subway or Washington, D.C.’s metro system don’t resemble a clip from “Mad Max,” but sooner or later, anyone who rides the rails of our cities regularly encounters insanity, aggression, and the prospect of violence—or actual violence, including the murderous kind. The life-changing and very nearly life-ending attack on Bethany MaGee, the woman set aflame on a Chicago Blue Line train last month, was no hoax. Nor was the assault that killed Iryna Zarutska on a commuter train in Charlotte, North Carolina, this summer. Nor was the burning alive of Debrina Kawam on the New York subway last December. None of those women had any reason to fear for her life, yet a commute turned into unspeakable terror. And it was predictable—not because these victims had anything special to fear but because everyone knows what’s allowed to happen in the tunnels and on the trains. If a thug with 72 arrests to his name, like the man who tried to immolate the 26-year-old MaGee in Chicago—or with “just” 14 arrests, like Iryna’s murderer—decides this is the day to take an unsuspecting victim, what chance does she have? Her fate was already decided by judges who chose not to lock up men who were a demonstrated threat to the public. The killers and would-be killers are only half the problem. The other half are the judges and lawmakers who put them on the streets in the first place, leaving them free to ambush unsuspecting victims on train cars, where they can’t escape. (MaGee did try running, but her attacker caught up and torched her.) Legislators in North Carolina, at least, are trying to stop this murderous chain of events before it begins, by putting men with criminal records like those of Iryna’s killer in prison or mental institutions as soon as they start breaking the law. “Iryna’s Law” restricts cashless bail, requires judges to order more mental evaluations, and makes it easier to involuntarily commit offenders found to be disturbed. It also attempts to restore the death penalty in North Carolina, which has been blocked for nearly 20 years by legal challenges. The law is a good start, and other states need similar reforms to incarcerate and institutionalize more of the people who commit horrors like the subway attacks of recent months. There’s a federal role in this, too, including rigorous enforcement of immigration law: Sebastian Zapeta-Calil, the man charged with burning Kawam to death, is an illegal immigrant who should never have been in this country to begin with. Yet more is needed: Not only zero tolerance toward violent and repeat offenders but zero tolerance in the political process for judges who go easy on them. Some states elect judges, and voters in those places can make known just how they feel about judges’ culpability for crimes committed by the lawbreakers they set loose. And states have provisions for impeaching judges, just as the federal government does. Where judges egregiously endanger the public with their leniency toward criminals, they should be impeached and removed from office. It wouldn’t take many examples before soft-on-crime judges got the message. Of course, judges themselves, where they aren’t elected by the public, are appointed by politicians who have to answer to voters—and those pols should feel the heat, too. Five years ago, progressives were pushing, in all seriousness, to “defund the police” and “abolish bail,” meaning, in the latter instance, simply releasing a wider array of arrestees. In most of the country, those slogans were not political winners, but advocates for these policies count more on elite sympathy, especially within the legal profession, than they do on ballot-box victories. Their gamble is that most Americans pay no mind to the inner workings of state courts and legislatures, so what loses in an election can still win where laws and legal precedents are actually made. This populist moment in national politics arises from the distrust our leaders have engendered among the public. But leaders in states and cities have betrayed Americans’ trust, too, and their betrayal turns public transportation into scenes of public execution for innocents like Iryna Zarutska. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post ‘Iryna’s Law’ and the Bad Judges Who Make It Necessary appeared first on The Daily Signal.