As Iranians take to the streets amid persistent inflation and a regime crackdown, President Donald Trump told protesters that “help is on its way“—but he has already given the poor people oppressed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei critical aid by enabling the conditions for their revolt. Protesters took to the streets amid extremely high inflation on Dec. 28, and by this past Saturday, the rallies had grown to 574 locations in 185 cities across all 31 provinces, according to CNN. The regime has responded with its customary ruthlessness, shutting down the internet and killing an estimated 12,000 protesters. The regime has successfully quelled protests in previous years, from the 2009 Green Movement (sparked by a disputed presidential election) to the 2019-2020 protests (also triggered by economic conditions) to the 2022-2023 protests after Mahsa Amini died in morality police custody after she refused to wear a hijab. What’s different this time? The economic conditions are even worse, and the regime has lost its moral and military credibility. Iran’s currency—the rial—lost nearly all its value. Last week, one U.S. dollar traded for 1.47 million rials. The economic crisis comes after President Trump re-imposed maximum pressure on Iran last February, after he announced an all-of-the-above energy strategy that does not move away from oil, and after a series of devastating military defeats for the Mullahs. Iran’s theocratic regime rests its legitimacy on its ability to fight the “little Satan,” Israel, and the “great Satan,” the United States of America. The Islamic Republic came to power after the revolution ousted the U.S.-backed shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Iran has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the map. Its harsh enforcement of the Shia version of Sharia law is only possible because the regime unites its people against common enemies. Trump’s Role Former President Barack Obama thought the regime would soften if he offered compromise, and he hoped to create regional stability in the Middle East by pitting a stronger, more moderate Iran against Saudi Arabia. President Trump rightly threw out this flaccid approach, using maximum pressure sanctions in his first term and showing an even more aggressive support for Israel in his second. Former President Joe Biden loosened the sanctions on Iran, leading the regime to gain approximately $71.02 billion more than it otherwise would have ahead of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel. This extra cash likely enabled Iran to provide more support to its proxies in the region, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthi rebels in Yemen, and Iran-backed militias in Iraq. Iran uses these proxies, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, to project power against Israel and America outside its borders. Yet Oct. 7 set in motion a chain of events that crippled Iran’s power in the Middle East. Israel responded with force, dismantling Hamas. In September 2024, Israel effectively eviscerated Hezbollah by rigging the terrorist group’s pagers to explode. President Biden pledged to support Israel, but his support proved tepid at best. By contrast, Trump stood by America’s ally, providing the cover Israel needed to carry out its mission. Trump also bombed the Houthis in Yemen last year after the Iranian proxy repeatedly attacked international shipping. Last June, Israel directly attacked Iranian nuclear sites, and U.S. forces under Trump provided crucial assistance in destroying the key nuclear sites of Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. Rather than engage in regime change or a protracted war, President Trump urged Iran to make peace, ending the Twelve Day War with a massive victory for America and Israel. In a masterstroke, Israel and the U.S. had dismantled Iran’s proxies and the rogue regime’s nuclear program—the Mullahs’ greatest hope for a decisive victory against Israel. Yes, the Protests Really Are Different This Time Iran’s crippled role in the Middle East doesn’t just make Israel and America’s allies in the region safer—it also undermines the Islamic Republic’s reason for existence. Whatever Iran’s troops believe, the clerical authorities aim to spread their version of Islam across the globe, and if they can’t fight the two regimes they consider the most evil—America and Israel—they lose their key justification for rule. The protests may not succeed, and even if they do, it is possible the resulting regime will not represent much of an improvement. However, Trump and Israel have done the people of Iran a great service by eviscerating the Mullahs’ military might, and it just might be enough to end the Islamic Republic’s despotic rule, once and for all. Even if it survives, the crippled regime will remain a pale shadow of its former self. As an admirer of ancient Persia, I can’t help but hope that Iran’s best days are ahead—and if they are, the Persian people will have Trump to thank for it. The post Why Is the Iran Regime on the Verge of Collapse? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The following is a preview of Daily Signal Politics Editor Bradley Devlin’s interview with Oversight Project President Mike Howell on “The Signal Sitdown.” The full interview premieres on The Daily Signal’s YouTube page at 6:30 a.m. Eastern on Jan. 15. Oversight Project President Mike Howell joined “The Signal Sitdown” this week to discuss a new force analysis conducted by The Oversight Project into the ICE-involved shooting of a woman in Minnesota. “Our team of career law enforcement has carefully reviewed all available evidence and has cleared the officer,” the force analysis reads from the Oversight Project, which has more than 60 years of law enforcement experience on its team. “The ICE officer in question is not only innocent, but was entirely justified in his actions.  We pray that the far-left comes to their senses and ends this violence.” Renne Good, 37, was shot last week by an ICE officer after allegedly attempting to run him over in Minneapolis. Within hours, thousands of protestors gathered, and local lawmakers called for ICE to leave the city. “Immediately after that event, every anti-American liberal wacko became a ‘use of force’ expert, right? You have a lot like Omar [Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.] and others saying this is murder and all the Democrats saying this is murder,” Howell said. “It’s just incredibly frustrating to watch that because of the effect it has on a population.” Through these claims’ lawmakers, like Omar, have made, they have convinced this “mentally ill and unhinged population” that you can attempt to block a federal officer from doing their job. Omar did not respond to a request for comment from The Daily Signal. “They’ve called for the violence against the ice officers,” Howell said. “And now they’re use of force experts too.” “This isn’t going to fly with us. The Oversight Project is unique amongst organizations in that we have over 60 years of very sensitive and senior law enforcement experience from the FBI intelligence community to elsewhere,” continued Howell. Howell explained they have a team who have “wielded weapons for a living and been in law enforcement for a long time at the highest levels.” “It’s indisputable that he was acting within his rights,” Howell claimed of the ICE officer. “He was justified not only legally, but in everything beneath that,” Howell answered. The Daily Signal reached out to DHS but did not receive comment. The post ‘Indisputable’: ICE Officer Involved in MN Shooting Was Within His Rights, Watchdog Group Concludes appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The Supreme Court held in a 7-2 ruling on Wednesday that candidates for office have standing to sue over ballot concerns.  Rep. Mike Bost, R-Ill., and two of the state’s presidential electors had challenged a state law that allows mail ballots arriving 14 days after Election Day to be counted.   The high court heard the case only on the question of Bost’s standing to sue, not on the merits of the voting law. Two lower courts had dismissed the challenge based on standing.  Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal justice, joined the court’s six conservative-leaning justices for the majority. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.  “Candidates have a concrete and particularized interest in the rules that govern the counting of votes in their elections, regardless of whether those rules harm their electoral prospects or increase the cost of their campaigns,” Roberts wrote.  Judicial Watch represented the plaintiffs in the case.  “This is the most important Supreme Court election law ruling in a generation,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a public statement. “Too many courts have denied candidates the standing to challenge unlawful election rules such as the outrageous ballots that arrive after Election Day. American citizens concerned about election integrity should celebrate this Supreme Court victory.” To make his case, Bost argued that federal law established Election Day, but Illinois allows votes to come in two weeks longer than federal law allows. This would make such ballots effectively unlawful, he argued, allowing the possibility of unlawful ballots costing him the election or reducing his margin for victory.  The plaintiffs also argued the Bost campaign is further injured because it has to pay staff for an additional two weeks after the election.  Federal law 2 U.S. Code Section 7 states Election Day for federal offices is the Tuesday after the first Monday of November in even-numbered years.  Illinois argued that mail-in ballots must be postmarked by Election Day, but can arrive to be counted up to two weeks later.  A district court and a 2-1 majority of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the state law, or in other words, were not actually harmed by it.  The Illinois attorney general’s office, which defended this case, did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal for this story.  The case will now go back to the lower courts to be heard on the merits. The post Supreme Court Upholds Candidate Standing in Ballot Counting Case appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A new poll reveals the 2026 Senate race in Michigan will likely be a fiercely contested battle, with Republican Mike Rogers holding narrow leads in hypothetical matchups against Democratic candidates. The poll, “conducted Jan. 2-6 for The Detroit News and WDIV-TV,” matches up Republican former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers against three leading Democrat candidates in a bid for the seat of Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich, who is not seeking another term. The Rogers campaign declared the poll a win, as spokeswoman Alyssa Brouillet wrote in a statement, “poll after poll continues to show that working families are rallying behind Mike Rogers.” Rogers lost to now-Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., by fewer than 20,000 votes in 2024. At the head of the Democratic candidates is Rep. Haley Stevens, D-Mich., who trails with 43.7% support against Rogers’ 44.1% in a hypothetical matchup—well within the poll’s four percent margin of error.  Stevens celebrated the result in a post on X, writing, “Polls show I’m the strongest candidate to beat Mike Rogers and stop the MAGA agenda from continuing to shrink our economy, destroy our manufacturing industry, and keep jacking up costs.” Arik Wolk, a spokesperson for Haley’s campaign, told The Daily Signal in a statement,“yet another poll shows that Haley Stevens is the only Democrat who can defeat Mike Rogers with her unique magic with independent voters–a group that will be the deciding factor this election.” This November is about winning for Michigan.Polls show I'm the strongest candidate to beat Mike Rogers and stop the MAGA agenda from continuing to shrink our economy, destroy our manufacturing industry, and keep jacking up costs.https://t.co/x7j5LVCLYA— Haley Stevens (@HaleyforMI) January 14, 2026 Trailing Stevens is State Sen. Mallory McMorrow. McMorrow receives 42.4% support in her hypothetical matchup, compared to Rogers’ 45.7% support.  In third place is former Wayne County health director Abdul El-Sayed. El-Sayed’s disadvantage is outside the margin of error, receiving 41.6% support against Rogers’ 48%.  El-Sayed previously ran for the Democrat gubernatorial nomination in Michigan, receiving the endorsements of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and activist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who was not yet a member of Congress. Both El-Sayed and McMorrow have accused the government of Israel of committing “genocide” in contrast with Stevens, and both are highly active on social media. Like me or not, understand something: I REALLY want you to have healthcare. pic.twitter.com/ceGhXueLEN— Dr. Abdul El-Sayed (@AbdulElSayed) December 29, 2025 The Michigan Senate primaries will be held on Aug. 4. Rogers has already received endorsements from President Donald Trump, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.; and Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., who chairs the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The survey also indicated name recognition advantages for Rogers, with 71% name recognition among voters. Among Democrats, El-Sayed tops the list in name recognition ay 47%, followed by Stevens at 41.7% and McMorrow at 24.3%. Michiganders are choosing common sense over radical agendas. Let’s get to work! ?? pic.twitter.com/pP1lwUhiMA— Mike Rogers (@MikeRogersForMI) January 14, 2026 The Rogers campaign declared the poll a win, saying in a statement, “poll after poll continues to show that working families are rallying behind Mike Rogers.” The race is important for determining the balance of the Senate, in which Republicans currently hold a narrow majority of 53-47.  Michigan is one of two Democrat-held seats labeled a ‘toss-up” for 2026 by The Cook Political Report, with Sen. Jon Ossoff, D-Ga., holding the other seat.  Conversely, The Cook Political Report also labels seats held by Republican Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Susan Collins as “toss-ups”. The El-Sayed and McMorrow campaigns did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the poll. The post Michigan Senate Race a Nail-Biter, New Poll Shows appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Free speech is dying in much of Europe and in the so-called “free world.” The United Kingdom recently announced its intentions to fine or even ban X, the social media platform, over deepfakes, a sign that things may get worse before they get better. Fox News reported on Monday that U.K “ministers confirmed a possible ban on Elon Musk’s social media platform X amid a widening probe and with the company potentially incurring hefty fines.” This move, according to Fox News, “follows the launch of a formal investigation by Ofcom, the U.K. communications regulator, into whether X breached its legal duties under the U.K.’s Online Safety Act and came after reports that the platform’s built-in AI chatbot, Grok, was used to generate and share sexualized deepfake images of women and children.” The U.K.’s Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said in the House of Commons Monday that the move against X and its “Grok” AI “is not, as some would claim, about restricting freedom of speech” and that a potential ban is all just about “upholding basic British values of decency and respect, and ensuring that the standards that we expect offline are upheld online.” Sorry, that’s a little tough to believe. The Wall Street Journal criticized the U.K.’s move against X in a recent editorial. While the Grok feature to “create AI smut is gross,” the Journal noted, that “…doesn’t mean British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is right to pick this fight, which smacks of selective censorship.” Musk insists that Grok prevents inappropriate underage images and that the only exception is the “adversarial hacking of Grok,” which would be fixed immediately. I not aware of any naked underage images generated by Grok. Literally zero.Obviously, Grok does not spontaneously generate images, it does so only according to user requests. When asked to generate images, it will refuse to produce anything illegal, as the operating principle… https://t.co/YBoqo7ZmEj— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 14, 2026 Other AI programs, the Journal explained, allow similar image changes and manipulation to Grok. It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that “Mr. Starmer is targeting X because Mr. Musk has taken an unflattering interest in Mr. Starmer’s leadership.” And the U.K. has certainly racked up a notorious record on speech in recent years as Musk has been eager to point out. Real fascism is arresting thousands of people for social media posts https://t.co/lfkQF8MHnk— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 12, 2026 That staggering stat of speech-related arrests in the U.K comes from a freedom of information request from The Times, which reported in April that 12,183 people were arrested under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 in 2023. So, about 30 arrests a day. The total arrests number was actually down slightly from 2022. Now, not all—or even most—of these arrests led to imprisonment. However, it’s clear that to even comment on what could be considered “controversial” (immigration or transgenderism) invites the possibility of arrest, even if the comments were made outside the country. One retired police officer was arrested for denouncing antisemitism. While he was being detained the officers pointed out that his bookshelves contained “very Brexit-y things.” Funny, because Brexit is the law of the land. Given that dubious record, it’s hard to take at face value that the Starmer government’s turn against X is only about photo manipulation or protecting women and children. So, let’s cut to the chase of what this is all about. The U.K.’s crackdown on X is not about protecting their people from deepfakes, and it’s certainly not about “democracy.” It’s about controlling speech. It’s about ensuring that the government’s established narrative about immigration and many other issues is ultimately controlled by the state. This is why they continue to mass import immigrants from countries with significant ties to terrorism, yet block immigration critics on the Right from entering the country. On Wednesday, Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a Dutch political commentator who warns about the dangers of unlimited immigration, announced on X that she had been prohibited from entering the U.K. She wasn’t even given the chance to appeal because her presence was not considered to be “conducive to the public good.” Just days earlier she had criticized Starmer on, you guessed it, X. Holy sh*t.I’ve been banned from traveling to the UK. They revoked my ETA. "Your presence in the UK is not considered to be conductive to the public good."3 days after posting this about Starmer. https://t.co/NqWBtaTkZe pic.twitter.com/lm5lZgL2i7— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) January 14, 2026 “Keir Starmer wants to crack down on X under the pretence [sic] of ‘women’s safety’, whilst he’s the one allowing the ongoing rape and killing of British girls by migrant rape gangs. Evil, despicable man,” she wrote on Friday. She was referring to the Pakistani “groomer gang” scandal that has been downplayed by the U.K.’s Labour Party. The Trump administration has certainly taken note of the U.K.’s censorious turn. U.S. Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers blasted the U.K.’s decision to block the entrance of immigration critics into their country. Countries have been banning and restricting visas on opaque, frivolous viewpoint bases for a long time — Lauren Southern was banned from the UK in ~2018 for blaspheming Allah as “gay” and “trans.”Media and commentators who were silent or approving of these decisions now fault… https://t.co/0CrMc5K3uP— Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers (@UnderSecPD) January 14, 2026 Rogers has said in an interview with the U.K-based GB News that the U.S. is prepared to use its “full range of tools” against “authoritarian, closed societies where the Government bans [X].” That would potentially include the current government of the U.K. As I’ve written before, it is important to put pressure on allies looking to closely cooperate with the U.S. but appear to be going in the direction of our authoritarian rivals. Our “special relationship” with the U.K. and deep connection we have to Western, European nations won’t long survive if their speech policies become like Iran or China’s. Banning X, as China has, would be a serious abridgement of free speech and would be considered a serious shot at the U.S. The Trump administration’s National Security Strategy document published in December even mentioned that the U.S. “will oppose elite-driven, anti-democratic restrictions on core liberties in Europe, the Anglosphere, and the rest of the democratic world, especially among our allies.” Hopefully Starmer and company will see the light and back away from what would ultimately be a disastrous attempt to ban X. At the very least, President Donald Trump and his administration won’t stay quiet about it. The post The UK’s War on X and Free Speech appeared first on The Daily Signal.