As America approaches her 250th birthday, we will look back to Philadelphia; to the signing of the Declaration of Independence; and to the courage of the men who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of liberty. The declaration was not written merely in rejection of England’s rule. It was rooted in the belief that there are certain freedoms no government can take away. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the declaration begins, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Those words changed the course of human history. They declared that rights do not come from kings, courts, legislatures, or presidents. They come from God. From the beginning, America’s founding promise has meant that we are not subjects of a ruler. We are made in the image of God, entrusted with the responsibility of self-government, and protected by a system designed to secure the freedoms God has given.Our Founders understood that a republic could not survive by structure alone. Our Constitution, laws, elections, and courts are essential, but they cannot preserve liberty if the people lose the moral foundation that freedom requires. George Washington carried that belief into the life of the new republic. He led the Continental Army through the Revolutionary War, watched a fragile nation take shape, and later became our first president. In his 1796 Farewell Address, Washington warned that “religion and morality” are “indispensable supports” of political prosperity. He understood that America’s future would depend on more than words on paper. A republic can have the best Constitution in the world, but if its people lose the ability to tell right from wrong, liberty will not hold. Laws can order a nation, but only conscience and character sustain it. That is why faith has been woven so deeply into the American story—and why it mattered most when America was tested. When Abraham Lincoln stood at Gettysburg in the midst of a Civil War that had torn the nation apart, he called Americans to the hope that this nation, “under God,” would have a new birth of freedom. Lincoln understood that America’s answer to its failures was not to turn away from the declaration, but to live more faithfully by it.  That does not mean America has always measured up to that calling. We have not. No nation made up of imperfect people ever will. Our history includes sin and division, and every generation has had to decide whether we would live according to what we claim to believe.  Across our country, many Americans feel the ground beneath them shifting. Parents are trying to raise their children in the Word of God in a culture that often pulls them in the other direction. Too many people are lonely, anxious, and searching for meaning in places that cannot satisfy. Churches that have long served as anchors in their communities are too often treated as afterthoughts, as though faith belongs on the sidelines of American life.  At the same time, the government is increasingly asked to fill roles it was never designed to fill. But Washington cannot replace the family or the church. It cannot form the conscience of a child, heal a broken home, or teach people to love their neighbors.  In this moment, America does not need less faith. We need a renewal of faith. Before I ever came to Congress, God called me to be a pastor. That calling still shapes the way I see this country, this office, and the people I serve. My faith is not something I leave at the church door or outside the Capitol. It keeps me grounded, humble, and accountable in a place like Washington, where it is easy to lose sight of the people you came to serve. It also reminds me that the strength of America is not found first in the halls of Congress. It is found in the homes where parents pray over their children, in the churches that serve their communities, in the farms and small businesses where people work hard without asking for much in return, and in the neighbors who show up when someone is in need.  That is the America I know best. And that is the America we must preserve. As we celebrate 250 years of American independence, we should give thanks for the Founders who risked everything, for the generations who defended liberty, and for the communities that carried faith from one generation to the next.  But gratitude alone is not enough. America’s future will not be secured by mere memory. If America is to endure for another 250 years, we Americans must remain united around what made her worth founding. Our rights come from God, our Constitution protects them, and faith helps form the people who can keep a republic free. That is what makes us truly one nation under God.  The Founders gave us a republic. Generations before us preserved it. Now it is our turn to pass it on. May we be found faithful. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

President Donald Trump met with the three top scorers for the Presidential 1776 Award competition Wednesday in the Oval Office and gave them each a Presidential Challenge Coin. According to a U.S. Department of Education press release, the “Ultimate Civics Showdown” is a “nationwide civics challenge created to celebrate America’s top high school students and their knowledge of our nation’s founding principles.” “Tonight, we have the privilege of celebrating some of America’s most exceptional young minds as they take the national stage in the Presidential 1776 Award Finals,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. On June 30, eight students advanced to the national finals. This followed three rigorous qualifying rounds, in which over 8,000 students across all 50 states and territories competed. The three winners were Miriam Washut, a homeschooler from Wyoming; Summer Brondstetter from Washington; and Rowan Kozminski from Michigan. WATCH: @POTUS invites the 3 Presidential 1776 Award finalists into the Oval Office, where he gifts them each a Presidential Challenge Coin pic.twitter.com/Ohb3b5DIKa— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 1, 2026 Trump and McMahon met with the top three scorers in the Oval Office and awarded each student with a Presidential Challenge Coin and a total of $250,000 in scholarship prizes between them. “Created as part of our nation’s Semiquincentennial celebrations, this award recognizes students who have demonstrated a deep understanding of America’s founding principles and enthusiasm for learning America’s story,” McMahon said. “What better way to celebrate 250 years of this great nation than by honoring those who will carry us into the next 250!”  In 2024, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation published an alarming study finding that more than 70% of Americans fail a basic civic literacy quiz on simple topics “like the three branches of government.” The Presidential 1776 Award competition is an attempt to counter decreasing civic knowledge so students can understand the political world they are stepping into.

FIRST ON THE DAILY SIGNAL—Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., is set to introduce a bill to repeal a federal rule skewing higher education funding. Currently, career and technical schools are being singled out while traditional public and nonprofit colleges and universities are exempt. “Washington should not pick winners and losers in higher education,” Harris told the Daily Signal. “Career schools give students the opportunity to gain practical skills, pursue in-demand jobs, and choose the education path that best fits their goals,” he continued. The Promoting Access and Revenue Integrity Through Institutional Transparency (PARITY) Act would repeal the 90/10 rule in the Higher Education Act. The federal rule only applies to proprietary, or for-profit, colleges and career-training institutions. Joe Biden’s 90/10 rule singles out technical schools, while holding more expensive universities to a laxer standard. My bill revokes the Biden rule and let more of America’s veterans spend their financial aid on vocational training. https://t.co/AHsts9ozXf— Senator Jim Banks (@SenatorBanks) April 23, 2026 Currently, they are required to receive at least 10 percent of their revenue from nonfederal sources, while the other 90 percent can come from federal student aid programs. Large universities and colleges such as the University of North Carolina, the College of Charleston, and Liberty University do not have to limit where their funding comes from. “In North Carolina and across the country, these workforce-focused institutions help prepare students for the jobs our communities depend on. By repealing the outdated 90/10 rule, the PARITY Act ends a double standard that singles out career schools and ensures every institution is treated fairly,” Harris said. According to Harris, a member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, this bill will modernize policy, ensure fairness, and support students. “Education is not a one-size-fits-all model,” Sen. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said in support. Harris’ PARITY Act is a House companion bill to Banks’ legislation, which was introduced in April. The 90/10 rule punishes veterans and holds 4 year universities to a laxer standard than trade schools. The Senate should pass my bill to repeal it. Read my oped in the @dcexaminer https://t.co/vEKQbGNKh5— Senator Jim Banks (@SenatorBanks) May 15, 2026 “Currently, the 90/10 rule singles out vocational and career schools, while letting other colleges play by a different set of standards. This is wrong, and it’s time to level the playing field. Thank you to Rep. Harris for joining me in this bicameral effort,” Banks continued. The rule repeal comes after Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill, which established a universal earnings and return-on-investment framework tied to Title IV eligibility by applying accountability standards across school types. According to Harris and Banks, this made the 90/10 rule redundant, outdated, and out of step with where policy now sits. The House-passed version of the One Big Beautiful Bill even included a full repeal of the 90/10 rule, but it was later stripped out in the Senate version that became law. Through the PARITY Act, schools would be judged by students’ success after graduation rather than the percentage of revenue that comes from federal aid.

Critics of President Donald Trump’s recently signed memorandum with Iran worry about future Iranian cheating, particularly after Trump leaves office.   As a hedge against cheating, the president has kept a formidable array of naval and air power nearby—a force clearly capable of retaliating against Iranian missile launches or other violations of current or future agreements. But there’s another, more preventative enforcement mechanism he might consider.   As part of his Golden Dome initiative, President Trump should commission the rapid fielding of an innovative missile defense system—one using new technology that can prevent ballistic missiles from ever exiting Iranian airspace.   To appreciate the significance of this capability, it’s important to understand the limits of current U.S. and allied missile defenses.   U.S. and Israeli missile defenses rely exclusively on ground- or sea-launched interceptors. Consequently, they must rise to meet descending missiles when those missiles are moving extremely fast and are most difficult to hit.  Although these surface-based systems have been effective against Iran’s relatively unsophisticated ballistic missiles—destroying roughly 90% of incoming missiles since February 28—some have slipped through even the multilayered Israeli ground-based missile shield.   Moreover, the missiles that have evaded interception in attacks on Gulf states and Israel have typically been equipped with more advanced maneuverable re-entry vehicles. These missiles are programmed to make evasive and targeted maneuvers in the descending phases of flight. Consequently, they are much more difficult to intercept. For example, in March a maneuverable Iranian missile avoided interception by a Patriot battery in Qatar, causing extensive damage to its Ras Laffan gas complex.   While estimates vary about how much of Iran’s pre-war stockpile remains, all agree that Iran has hundreds of missiles still stored in underground “missile cities.” These stockpiles likely include a disproportionate number of Iran’s most advanced maneuverable Qiam and Fattah missiles.    This suggests that reliance on surface-based missile defenses—or retaliation after the fact—will not suffice to protect U.S. bases and allies.  Fortunately, the U.S. can now add another layer of missile defense to neutralize the Iranian missile threat. This concept of operation, known as “airborne” missile defense, was conceived by Dean Wilkening, Leonard Caveny, and Gregory Canavan, three leading Ph.D. missile scientists who worked on President Ronald Reagan’s original Strategic Defense Initiative.  As a step toward developing a comprehensive space-based missile shield, they envisioned placing anti-missile interceptors on large high-flying drones or fighter aircraft.   They realized that firing interceptors from such airborne “platforms” could have many advantages. Unlike interceptors fired from surface-based systems that must destroy enemy missiles as they are descending, intercepts launched from airborne platforms could in theory catch ballistic missiles as they are rising—when they are slowest, easiest to detect, and incapable of maneuvering.  Recent advances in technology making possible much faster, longer-range anti-missile interceptors can now make this vision a reality.   Indeed, the hypersonic velocities now possible in next generation interceptors would enable them to reach missiles rising from many locations before those missiles can escape to the upper atmosphere—ensuring that debris from a “kill” will land on the territory of the perpetrator.  Consider what such a defensive layer could do to contain future Iranian missile launches.   During the current conflict, the U.S. and Israel have flown over Iran with near impunity. Yet even without exercising overflight, hypersonic interceptors fired from U.S. drones loitering along the margin of Iranian airspace could reach any missile rising from a wide corridor of western and southern Iran. Fighter aircraft using the same interceptors could—upon detection of a first missile launch—fly deep enough into Iranian territory to destroy any subsequent missiles launched from anywhere else in the country.   A forward-deployed, airborne missile defense system would not only complement Israeli and U.S. surface-based defenses, it could also help enforce any future agreements limiting Iran’s use of ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons. Indeed, airborne missile defense can enforce the crucial objective of the current negotiations, namely, preventing missiles—whether nuclear-tipped or otherwise—from leaving Iran. And it can do so without relying on either trust or verification.    Airborne boost phase missile defense can also provide protection against North Korea’s growing arsenal of nuclear ICBMs, and a coastal shield against Russian submarine-launched cruise missiles.  Since drones for hosting interceptors are already used for surveillance and reconnaissance, engineers familiar with the necessary technology estimate that an airborne system could be built for about $250 million and within 18 months—well before Trump leaves office and likely before Iran could reconstitute a robust nuclear enrichment program. As Dr. Caveny has recently emphasized, “the system is affordable, adaptable, and readily available.”   President Trump has staked much of his legacy on a conflict with Iran that he initiated militarily but intends to end diplomatically. For this to work, he must maintain leverage over the Iranian regime to ensure compliance with any future agreements.   An additional layer of missile defense will ensure that the president can maintain that leverage whether Iran decides to cheat or not.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of the Daily Signal.

The skies as we celebrate America’s 250th birthday will be filled not only with fireworks, but song. Those great patriotic tunes we all know by heart, even when we can’t hit all the notes. Though the songs may be as familiar as the red, white, and blue, the stories behind them often are not. In Part One, we saw how the song that became “This Land Is Your Land” was originally written in protest of “God Bless America.” Today, three patriotic favorites we Americans … um … borrowed from the Brits. Spoils of War or Just Borrowing From Our Relatives? One classic patriotic song is so special it’s known by two names, played a part in two historic events at the Lincoln Memorial, and its key opening line found its way into a modern American anthem. (Can you name which one?) The lyrics for “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee”—otherwise known as simply “America”—were penned in 1831 by Samuel Francis Smith. You know the opening. My country, ’tis of thee,sweet land of liberty,of thee I sing:land where my fathers died,land of the pilgrims’ pride,from every mountainsidelet freedom ring! The melody? A direct and deliberate rip-off of Britain’s “God Save the King/Queen,” the intent being to turn a song saluting the monarchy into a tribute to democracy. Jump forward to the 20th century. In 1939, after being banned from performing at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington because of the color of her skin, opera singer Marian Anderson performed “America” on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Props to first lady Eleanor Roosevelt for twisting arms to make that happen. Twenty-four years later, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. stood on those same steps, and in his immortal “I Have a Dream” speech quoted “My Country, ’Tis of Thee,” while adapting its “Let freedom ring” for his rousing conclusion. In 1980, Neil Diamond would also dramatically utilize the opening line from “America” at the end of his own song “America.” ‘Yankee Doodle’: A Dig Turned Into a Dance The origins of “Yankee Doodle” are murky. Did it come from a 16th-century Dutch harvest song? A 17th-century British jingle deriding Oliver Cromwell? Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that “doodle” at the time meant a “sorry, trifling fellow.” The story is a British surgeon named Richard Shuckburgh wrote the earliest version of “Yankee Doodle” to mock the ragged American colonial soldiers he encountered during the French and Indian War. The joke was on Doc Shuckburgh because only a few decades later, during the American Revolution, those pesky colonials flipped the song into a favorite patriotic tune, kind of like how Hillary Clinton’s “Deplorables” insult was embraced by Trump supporters in 2016. While “Yankee Doodle’s” heritage may be murky, its progeny is clear. The great songsmith George M. Cohan reworked the song for the classic 1942 musical “Yankee Doodle Dandy” about his life. As you can see in this clip, star James Cagney does a song-and-dance bit playing off “Yankee Doodle” before kicking into the original. And yes, that is James Cagney. How appropriate for an actor better known for playing gangsters to sing a song “stolen” from the Brits. ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’: A Tale of 2 Wars … and a Drinking Song September 1814, the War of 1812 rages on. Fresh off torching Washington, D.C., like a s’more, the British military moved on to Baltimore. Its navy relentlessly bombarded Fort McHenry in Baltimore Harbor, but the folks of “Balmer” were made of tougher stuff than the forces who were supposed to have protected the nation’s capital. They refused to submit despite the barrage. Round after round after round came down on the fort. A lawyer by the name of Francis Scott Key happened to be on a ship in the harbor watching the onslaught into the night, the “rocket’s red glare.” The bombs bursting in air. Would the U.S. troops be holding the fort come sunrise? To his surprise, through the smoke and morning fog he could see “the flag was still there.” He immediately set out to write a poem about seeing that “star-spangled banner.” Verses came pouring out of him. But what he had was a poem, “Defence of Fort M’Henry,” not a song. When someone decided to put Key’s poem to music, they chose—of all the songs to choose from—a British drinking song known as “To Anacreon in Heaven.” Let’s have a taste. Of the song, not alcohol. “The myrtle of Venus, with bacchus’s vine”? Sometimes it feels like you need to have some wine in you to hit the higher notes—or to not care. Or you could have a great voice. Which brings us to another U.S. war. This time with Britain as our dearest ally. The date is Jan. 27, 1991. Super Bowl XXV. Just 10 days before, the U.S. had launched the Gulf War against Iraq. Up to the microphone stepped superstar Whitney Houston to sing “The Star-Spangled Banner,” America’s official national anthem since 1931. What happened next will not be forgotten by any of the hundreds of millions who witnessed it live. If Francis Scott Key had been watching, he may well have found himself writing another poem.