With November’s stinging election results not even a month behind the Virginia GOP, their chairman, state Sen. Mark Peake, announced that he will be stepping down. Peake told The Daily Signal that he’s leaving his post at the end of December because he wanted to make sure he could devote his full effort in the Virginia Senate to defeating the redistricting referendum before it needs a special election. He also said that the state’s Republican Party requires a chairman who can devote a similar amount of energy to getting out the vote should it make it to a Spring special election, and beyond that, helping win whatever districts there will be come November’s midterms. Peake stepped in after longtime chair Rich Anderson earned a post as assistant secretary of the Air Force. Cameron Hamilton has announced that he wants the State Central Committee to consider him. Hamilton mounted a challenge for the GOP nomination in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District in 2024 and his wife Karen was just elected to Virginia’s House of Delegates from the 62nd District, succeeding the retired Nick Freitas. Some other frontrunners for the chairmanship include current chairs of Virginia’s 1st, 5th, and 6th congressional districts. They are Jeff Ryer, Rick Buchanan, and John Massoud respectively. Ryer has helped Rep. Rob Wittman win reelection in a very competitive district while even outperforming statewide and national Republicans. Buchanan led the 5th District through the tumultuous (and expensive) primary battle between challenger John McGuire and incumbent Rep. Bob Good. Buchanan also pulled the district together to deliver a 15% victory for McGuire in the general election. Massoud helped Rep. Ben Cline build a strong base that supports him at a better-than-60% clip and has also managed to withstand out-of-state money attempting to flip Virginia House 34th District where incumbent Tony Wilt survived the 2025 “blue wave.” Would Loudoun County GOP Chairman Scott Pio try again for the chairman position? He has been vocal on social media about the need for a change and called for Peake to step down in the wake of the Democrat sweep of the statewide races and a 14-seat “flip” in the house. He was a candidate for the position when Anderson departed and lost to Peake at the State Central Committee vote. The post Virginia GOP Chairman Announces He Will Step Down appeared first on The Daily Signal.

House Republican leadership committed to addressing affordability and national security issues at the Republican National Committee on Tuesday.  House Republican Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain, R-Mich., who started the press conference by offering her prayers and condolences to the families of the two National Guard members shot in the nation’s capital, promised legislative work on lowering the burden of regulations. “House Republicans are acting on our affordability agenda. Will move forward with the Dump Red Tape Act and the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act. These are real reforms to roll back Washington’s overreach and put power back where it belongs. The power needs to be with the workers, with the families and with the job creators, not with the government,” McClain said. Other Republicans at Tuesday’s press conference pointed to government waste and unaccountability as driving forces of the affordability crisis, both on the state and federal level. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., addressed recent reports of millions of dollars worth of fraud crushing his home state’s social services. “One billion—that’s how much money has been stolen from the hard working taxpayers in my home state of Minnesota,” Emmer told reporters. “And if that’s not egregious enough, some of these taxpayer dollars have allegedly been diverted to Al-Shabaab terrorists.” “Under the failed leadership of [Gov.] Tim Walz, Minnesota has become a hotbed for fraud,” Emmer added. Emmer emphasized the importance of discussing the massive fraud perpetuated on taxpayers without fear.  “Let me be clear, it is not racist to call out criminal behavior, and we’re going to not cower to baseless labels, while Minnesotans, including law abiding Somali Americans, get robbed blind,” the Minnesota congressman said. He also thanked President Donald Trump for raising awareness about the systemic defrauding, which he said had been under covered despite awareness of the existence of criminal behavior for years.  Walz, a Democrat, said, “You commit fraud in Minnesota, you’re going to prison. I don’t care what color you are, what religion you are.” “But sitting on the sidelines and throwing out accusations, and let’s be very clear, demonizing an entire population and lying to people about the safety and security of this state, is beneath that,” he added, according to a Minneapolis-St. Paul Fox affiliate. When asked about the president’s description of Walz as “retarded,” Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., said, “that’s not the word that I would choose.” Meanwhile, a growing contingent on Capitol Hill is looking to perform more oversight of the Trump administrations strikes on Venezuelan drug boats. Johnson was asked about these strikes on Tuesday, but wanted to avoid getting ahead of the relevant committees. “I’m not going to prejudge any of that,” Johnson said of the strikes. “As you know, both of the Armed Services Committees in the Senate and the House will be having hearings on this to review, and that’s their role.” “I don’t know how much of the tape should be released, because I’m not sure how much is sensitive with regard to national security and all that. I haven’t had a chance to review it, so I’m not going to prejudge it. But I will say that, you know, it’s not an unprecedented thing,” Johnson said. The speaker then noted the precedent set by previous administrations. “One of the things I was reminded of this morning is that under Barack Obama, President Obama, he had, I think there were 550 drone strikes on people who were targeted as enemies of the country, and nobody ever questioned it okay? And second secondary strikes are not unusual. It has to happen if a mission is going to be completed,” the speaker explained. Republican leadership also promised to address concerns over Chinese Communist Party influence operations in the United States. Rep. Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, noted that Congress would be considering legislation this week designed to combat the influence of the Chinese Communist Party on American youth. He explained how a Des Moines public school group had been taken on an all-expenses-paid-for trip to China where they were surveilled and propagandized.  “I’ve had parents across Iowa say, ‘How is this allowed to happen?’ And the simple truth is, there’s no law preventing it,” Nunn explained, adding that, “The Chinese government is creating a series of shell organizations to recruit kids to come to China and then exploit them the moment they sit down in soil inside Beijing.” The post House GOP Pushing Affordability Heading Into Election Year appeared first on The Daily Signal.

When the American Civil Liberties Union agrees with pro-life, gun rights, and business groups in the Supreme Court, there must be a pretty clear and important principle at stake. The case is First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, and the Court heard arguments on Dec. 2. The important principle is whether the First Amendment allows a state to pry into private organizations’ internal communications and uncover donor lists, supposedly in the name of the “public interest,” even when those organizations have not been accused of violating any law. Every organization across the ideological spectrum will be affected by the Court’s decision. The Case First Choice is a group of faith-based organizations in New Jersey that has been helping women with unplanned pregnancies for 40 years, providing counseling, medical services, and practical support. In November 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin issued a subpoena to First Choice demanding a breathtaking range of inside information. This included everything from videos shown to clients; internal guidance to personnel regarding interactions with clients; 10 years of documents supporting claims about abortion complications, effects, and costs; “documents concerning the development of content for [First Choice’s] website”; and documents that “identify donations made to [First Choice].” What on earth could this service organization have done for the state to pounce like this? Like other states, New Jersey has laws that prohibit deceptive practices by companies or charitable organizations. If a targeted organization refuses to comply with a subpoena, the attorney general may seek a state court order compelling compliance. In this case, Platkin claimed to be enforcing those laws even though he had not accused First Choice of violating any of them. There’s little doubt what Platkin is really up to. Government officials, especially in liberal states like New Jersey, have zeroed in on pregnancy centers for negative treatment. They have looked the other way as pregnancy centers have been bombed, blockaded, and vandalized. In July 2022, Platkin formed a “strike force” to promote abortion access, including a statewide campaign to disparage pregnancy centers and dissuade anyone from seeking their help, using as the excuse the fact that pregnancy centers do not provide abortions. The truth is that this heavy-handed treatment—and especially the demand for names, phone numbers, and addresses of donors—appears intended to make pregnancy centers seem controversial and, therefore, to suppress donations and other support. Represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, First Choice sued under a federal statute for redressing a violation of constitutional rights. They allege that the subpoena, with its threats of contempt and possible loss of operating licenses, violated the First Amendment’s protection for free speech and association. The U.S. District Court first said that First Choice would have to wait until the state actually attempted to enforce the subpoena through a court order. Then, when such an order was issued, the district court said First Choice would still have to wait because that order had not specifically threatened contempt for non-compliance. Even Platkin no longer defended this goal-shifting approach. Instead, in the Supreme Court, he argued that the threat of enforcement was not sufficiently “imminent” to justify the courts stepping in and preventing him from seeking information from First Choice. The Arguments This issue dominated the Supreme Court argument, with both conservative and liberal justices probing in different ways whether the language of the subpoena created a “credible threat of enforcement” that could chill the speech or association of First Choice or its donors. Several justices, for example, asked whether similar language in a letter simply requesting the information, rather than a formal subpoena, would have created such a threat. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch also asked whether the fact that the subpoena was not “self-executing,” that is, required an additional court order to enforce it, made any difference. Barrett suggested that the language threatening consequences, rather than how language was communicated, was the most important factor. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked whether the Court should look only at the language of the subpoena when it was issued or also consider whether courts were likely to ultimately support the state’s effort at enforcement. Justice Clarence Thomas’ questions highlighted that no complaints had been lodged against First Choice, again raising the question of Platkin’s real purpose in launching this probe. These technical questions were important for three reasons. First, the Court was trying to figure out how this case fit into its own past decisions. Second, as the broad interest by many different groups outside the litigation attests, how the Court decides this case will potentially affect every state’s investigative efforts and the rights of all private groups to resist them. The New Jersey statute Platkin used here allowed him to issue broad subpoenas whenever he thinks doing so might be in “public interest.” The New Jersey Supreme Court has described this as literally “the power of inquisition.” It takes no imagination to see how a hostile attorney general could use this power (no doubt in the name of the public interest) to harass and even suppress groups and activities that he politically opposes. Third, at issue too is whether federal courts and statutes are actually available when federal constitutional rights are allegedly violated. Making that contingent on whether and how state courts decide certain issues would compromise a critical way that citizens can defend against an aggressive and ideological government campaign. First Choice Likely to Win The fact that both liberal and conservative justices asked similar kinds of questions, and the Court’s own precedents protecting similar information from government-forced disclosure, suggest that First Choice is likely to win here. The dozens of groups filing briefs as interested parties suggests that the real question is how such a win will affect all of them. The post Supreme Court Skeptical of New Jersey’s Intrusive Probe of Pregnancy Center appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A large majority of Americans no longer think it’s affordable to raise children. According to data from the 2025 American Family Survey, 71% of participants said it’s not affordable for most people to raise children. This is a 13-percentage point increase from 2024 and a 20-percentage point increase from 2015. Along similar lines, the most common barrier to having children cited by the survey’s participants was insufficient money (43% chose this as at least one of the barriers among a list of options presented). Adults ages 18 to 29 and those ages 30 to 44 were most likely to cite this as a reason for limiting the number of children they have or plan to have.   It’s not surprising Americans’ concerns about the costs of raising children have climbed recently. Inflation has been at historic highs for several years now, and despite declining from its peak in 2022 inflation remains well above pre-pandemic levels. And housing prices are off the charts, hitting an all-time high in 2023 and not declining much since then.    On a more upbeat note, perspectives about the cost of raising a family were more positive when American Family Survey participants were asked specifically about their own family situation, compared to perceptions about families in general. While 49% of respondents said the cost associated with raising a family ranked in the top three concerns for families in general, only 25% said it ranked as a top three concern for their own family. Although 25% is still a significant share of people, survey participants seemed to have a more negative view of family affordability conceptually than what is happening on the ground for them.   It’s also notable that while people commonly cite affordability as a barrier to having children—and not only in the American Family Survey—U.S. birth rates were declining even before inflation and housing prices were soaring. Even in strong economic times during the last decade, birth rates continued to fall. The American Family Survey also shows that the share of people reporting that not having enough money was a reason for limiting the number of children they have or plan to have doesn’t vary much across income levels. Forty-seven percent of people with incomes under $40,000 cited insufficient funds as a barrier to having children, not much different from the 43% of participants with $40,000 to $80,000 and the 42% with incomes above $80,000 per year that said the same thing.   Median household income in the United States has increased steadily for several decades as well, even in the last few years, despite dropping some during the pandemic. Median incomes among men ages 25-29 and ages 30-35 specifically (since men are most likely to be the primary breadwinner in the home) have also trended upward in the last few years. So, while high housing costs and inflation could explain recent declines in births, they probably aren’t a particularly good explanation for the longer-term trends of declining birth rates.   Other factors besides hard numbers are likely driving concerns about the costs associated with raising children though. Expectations about what is required to raise a child have increased over time. Parents feel more pressure to invest greater time and resources into their children than past generations of parents did. Another factor is that opportunity costs associated with having children have also grown. During the past several decades educational and career opportunities have increased, particularly for women. And the greater economic well-being the country has experienced over time increases the freedom people have to do things like travel, pursue personal goals, and invest in self-improvement. While the economy is certainly part of the story when it comes to adults feeling concerned about raising children, it will likely require more than just economic reforms to change perspectives and behaviors surrounding family formation. Cultural norms and infrastructures that make it easier to raise children will likely also be necessary. For example, workplace norms that support employees in being able to spend time with their families, more realistic material expectations about what is needed to start and raise a family, laws and cultural norms that give parents more freedom in how they raise their children (e.g., Free-Range Kids laws), educational choice options for families, and communities that provide places for families to gather easily and affordably are also necessary components. The last few years especially have increased economic pressure on families. Smart economic policies that drive down pressure on the housing market and help reduce inflation are crucial for families. Such economic reforms must be coupled with cultural reforms though if we hope to see change in perspectives and behaviors surrounding bearing and raising children.    The post New Survey Shows Increased Concerns About the Cost of Raising Children appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is recommending the U.S. implement new travel bans.   “I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that’s been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies,” Noem wrote on X Monday night.   “Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign invaders to slaughter our heroes, suck dry our hard-earned tax dollars, or snatch the benefits owed to AMERICANS,” the DHS secretary added.   I just met with the President. I am recommending a full travel ban on every damn country that's been flooding our nation with killers, leeches, and entitlement junkies. Our forefathers built this nation on blood, sweat, and the unyielding love of freedom—not for foreign…— Secretary Kristi Noem (@Sec_Noem) December 1, 2025 Noem’s post followed a meeting she had with President Donald Trump only days after an Afghan national shot two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died after the Wednesday shooting, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe is still in the hospital but is showing positive signs of recovery, according to West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey. Both Beckstrom and Wolfe were West Virginia National Guard members.   Following the shooting, Trump directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to pause all asylum decisions. When asked about the move, Trump told reporters he thought the administration would maintain the pause for a “long time.”   “We don’t want those people. We have enough problems,” Trump said Sunday, adding, “Many of them are no good and they shouldn’t be in our country.”  Trump named the African country of Somalia as a nation whose citizens he does not want to enter the U.S.  "How long does your Administration plan to pause asylum?"@POTUS: "A long time. We don't want those people. We have enough problems… You know why we don't want them? Because many of them are NO GOOD and they should NOT be in our country." ? pic.twitter.com/X5zxtbFzSC— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) November 30, 2025 Two days after the attack on the National Guard members, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the U.S. had paused the issuance of all visas to Afghans.   “The United States has no higher priority than protecting our nation and our people,” Rubio said.   Thousands of Afghans came to the U.S. after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban in 2021, many of whom worked alongside U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and feared for their safety under terrorist rule.  Trump shared a photo on Truth Social of hundreds of Afghans packed into a large plane headed to the U.S. during the fall of Kabul.   “This is part of the horrendous airlift from Afghanistan,” Trump wrote above the image on Thanksgiving Day. “Hundreds of thousands of people poured into our Country totally unvetted and unchecked. We will fix it, but will never forget what Crooked Joe Biden and his Thugs did to our Country!”   Trump continued in a second post, pledging to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries to allow the U.S. system to fully recover, terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions, including those signed by Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen, and remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country.”   Trump also pledged to “end all Federal benefits and subsidies to noncitizens of our Country, denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any Foreign National who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization.”   Since taking office, Trump has prioritized securing America’s borders and stopping the flow of illegal immigration into the U.S. after over 10 million illegal immigrants entered the U.S. under the four years of the Biden administration.   In September, DHS announced that over two million illegal aliens had either chosen to self-deport or had been removed from the U.S. since the start of the Trump administration in January.    This is a developing story and may be updated.   The post Noem Recommends Travel Ban on Nations Sending ‘Killers’ to US  appeared first on The Daily Signal.